back to article Bo Peep insures jubs for $1m

Holly Madison, the US "reality TV star and model", has insured her D-cup jubs for $1m, lest they suffer a mishap during her Las Vegas extravaganza Peepshow. According to Reuters, the highly talented 31-year-old explained: "If anything happened to my boobs, I'd be out for a few months and I'd probably be out a million dollars. …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Darryl

    Business opportunity?

    Spend ten thousand on a pair of rubber boobs, insure them for a million, have an 'accident' and collect the windfall.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      I insured my nads for a grand, had an "accident", when I went to claim they called me nuts!

      1. Aaron Em

        Did they ring?

        Should've answered them. They were probably calling to tell you they'd accepted your claim and find out where to send the check.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blah PETA ad

    I think I honestly would rather wear fur than go naked. As a public service to all onlookers, really.

    And nevermind that PETA also handily killed the possum fur trade, cutting off a profitable way to control the pests in NZ. Or for that matter the excess of rabbits in aussieland. That's animal welfare fundie extremism for you. It drives me to admit I really don't look at their ads for the interviews, no.

  3. b0llchit Silver badge


    How can such an article be classified as NSFW? This type of imagery is mandatory inventory of many workshops.

    Are you trying to moralize us into something?

    1. Aaron Em

      What workshops would those be?

      Believe it or not, there's lots of people who don't work for non-profit organizations, and for those of us who aren't privileged to participate in the implementation of governance it's considered "not on" to be looking at titties on chargeable time. Thus, NSFW.

      tl;dr: Quit whining about "moralizing", you jerkoff! Those of us who have to work for a living appreciate the heads-up.

      1. steogede

        >> Chargeable time

        >> it's considered "not on" to be looking at titties on chargeable time.

        But it's okay to read nonsense redtop websites (no offence to El Reg) on chargeable time, because no-one will notice?

        1. Aaron Em

          In short: yes

          It's one thing to have a job with some slack in it. It's quite another to be (seen as) looking at porn on work time. The latter, even in many places where the former isn't a problem, could be a trip to HR, quite possibly of the sort where, instead of going back to your desk afterward, you're escorted by security to the lobby where you wait to receive a carton of your personal items and then depart the premises for good on pain of being arrested for trespassing.

          (And look at it this way: if "no-one will notice", why would I be worried in the first place about whether the next link I click is going to have bare tits at the other end of it? The privilege of "no-one will notice" is reserved for officers at the VP level and above, that is, people who have office doors that close and office walls that aren't made out of glass.)

    2. Aaron Em

      Of course

      by 'workshop' it may be that you mean mechanic's shop, HVAC shop, &c., which have a rather more robust tradition of pin-ups and girlie calendars than many workplaces do. In that case, I've no argument at all, especially considering the degree to which intrusive, moralistic regulation has made that sort of thing impermissible in modern times.

      So, you know, it goes either way depending on what point you were actually making. In order to salve my embarrassment, I'm just going to assume that my first response was merited and I'm giving you too much credit in hindsight, rather than that you had an excellent point which I misread and responded to in such a way as to make a complete fool of myself.

  4. Disco-Legend-Zeke

    She Is Not Topless...

    ...her breasts are covered. By Lloyd's of London.

    Now you know why i choose to live in Vegas.

  5. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Anything more than you can hold in your hands is a waste.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Will Godfrey

      More than a mouthful's a blessing.

      1. Aaron Em


        Didn't you used to write Ratliff fanfic? I *wondered* where I'd heard that name before!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I got big hands

    3. Nerf Herder
      Thumb Up

      One word ...


  6. Hatless Pemberty

    Kids these days!

    Bah, hambug!

    Cyd Charisse had her legs insured for $5m back in the 1950s.

    For those unfortunate enough not to know who she was, this

    The lady had talent. And nice legs. And she was a lady.

    1. Eddy Ito

      No worries

      The $1m is certainly due to eh... inflation, what with today's dollar not being worth what it was in the '50s. The $5m for Cyd's legs was probably a conservative estimate unless of course it was $5m each.

      1. Daniel Evans


        $5 million in 1950 is edging up to $50 million today - so these jubs apparently have 1/50th the value of those legs.

  7. J 3
    Paris Hilton

    Cover assets?

    Er... the assets are on your other side, milady!

  8. Richard Jukes

    Those are some nice partybags.

  9. steogede

    Seems a little short sighted (couldn't think of a good pun)

    She's insured her breasts against any injury/malfunction which prevents her from working? Isn't that a bit like insuring your car tyres, incase you have a tyre related problem which causes you to have an accident or prevents you from getting to work?

    Wouldn't it make sense to have a more rounded policy that offered broader protection incase of lose of earnings? Surely an injury to her leg or back etc. would result in the same loss of earning. Or do her breasts require an additional coverage because they aren't original equipment?

    1. Mark 65

      The items concerned warrant a separate policy as the story will carry a picture of them and hence generate required publicity.

  10. Ian Johnston Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Truth in advertising

    Can you avoid the coy euphemism "burlesque performer", please, and stick to the simple and accurate "fat stripper"?

    1. Aaron Em


      You've made it clear that your taste in women is execrable. Well done. You're not going to succeed in dragging the rest of us down to your rather gauche level, though, so you may as well quit trying.

      1. Ian Johnston Silver badge


        My taste is women is irrelevant: this is a simple matter of accurate language. "Burlesque performers" are by definition strippers and invariably (GIS is your friend) fat, so "fat stripper" has the merits both of accuracy and brevity.

        That red herring aside, it's sad to see such value placed on a pair of plastic bolt-ons. Cyd Charisse's legs were (a) things of beauty (b) natural and (c) irreplaceable. If Miss Charisse had seriously damaged them in an accident her career would have been seriously affected so, publicity aside, the insurance made sense.

        In this case, though any damage can be repaired by the technician who installed the fun/air bags, so anything in excess of standard medical insurance seems a tad excessive.

        Yours for natural bodies, sex and BMI irrelevant.

  11. Graham Bartlett

    Bo Peep

    No worries about the story. But I'm a bit worried about a sexed-up version of Bo Peep, since sheep figure fairly prominently in the nursery rhyme...

    1. Aaron Em

      Odd that

      Shearing time excepted, one doesn't usually find the farmer's *daughter* chasing after the sheep, does one?

  12. Mark 65


    Wasn't she one of Hef's playthings on that playboy mansion TV show?

  13. kain preacher

    @Ian Johnston

    You consider Bo Peep Fat ?

  14. Alan Ferris

    That's unanimous, then

    We'd ALL rather she went naked...

This topic is closed for new posts.