Yes it would be kind of weird if Uma Thurman posed - I guessed she doen't want to have any relations what so ever with Playboy.

"Desperate Housewives"? Most of those women couldn't get 2 $ for posing nude before show started, much less 2 mil $, so they could seize the opportunity.

SATC? Cynthia Nixon would hardly sell any issues, Kristin Davis was approached but declined beacause her mother disapproved. Was Kim Catrall ignored since she was nude on the show all the time?

No disrespect. But this sounds very creative and not factual. First off, with Torrie Wilson doing several full nudity spreads in Playboy, the comment about her only doing topless now seems stupid. Also, on my website back in the middle of November, we wrote about how the rumors were going on. But there were three in particular who were 100% definitely not doing a pictoral. Finally, I spoke to someone I have close ties with in CT and she said:

"There is no way that WWE would have every female pose in Playboy. There is a reason why only 3 have done in in the last 5 years."

As I said no disrespect. But especially since anyone can post as a guest, I can't take this information with anything more than a grain of salt.

Anthony DeBlasi
Wrestling-News.com

CLICK HERE for my original article from November 16, 2004 about WWE and Playboy rumors for 2005.

Anthony DeBlasi: Your website sucks, you either make up news or steal it from sites like PWInsider.com.

I'm sorry, does anyone have a link to these supposed Jennifer Aniston pics? Clear pics that is . . . The only ones I could find were really crappy.

wow Ben the troll Johnson even has to disrespect people here. Why are all Johnson's in wrestling nothing but trolls?

Plus Playboy would never publishes that many "women of note" so to speak in one issue much less 10 pages. First it would cost a fourtune to secure THAT many women, second the only time Playboy features that many women in a themed pictorial is the college girls issue or something like the "Women of Enron, Starbucks, Worldcom issues" they don't have to pay that much to get women who aren't celebs or in the media to pose.

Nora "Molly Holly" Greenwald said she would NEVER appear in playboy,no matter how much they pay her,she's a very religious person,she very rarely dresses in a sexy way,and even when she does it's very subtle,she doesn't even feel comfortable doing WWE Diva photshoots,and now suddenly she's gonna go topless? even covering her breasts with her hands is still not something she would ever do,she is a devout christian for heaven's sake,she said she would never appear in playboy,and someone saying that she will is full of crap,religious women don't do topless shoots,even if they do cover their breats with their hands,especially not religious women who have stated many times that they will never appear in playboy.

First of all, I dont care who disrespects me on this site.
I am a Photographer for Maxim Magazine with very strong ties to playboy magazine.

let me make some points here, The Women of the WWE issue is not 100% complete. Just because all of the women mentioned would pose, does not secure them actuall appearing in the issue. The women of enron actually had about twenty diffrent Ex-Employees pose, same with the Women of Home depot, but only about six to eight made the cut. the same thing will happen with the women of the WWE. i dont watch wrestling. I honestly cannot stand it. I am giving you information that was given to me by employees of Playboy, including two of my close friends who will be doing the WWE shoot.

As for as Nora aka Molly Holly. Plenty of Christian or Religious Women have posed in playboy before. Tiffany, Christy Swanson, and Robin givens are all Roman Catholic who attend church. But they still posed.

Most of the information i gave you is what is rumored. there may be a chance Molly does not actually do the shoot. I mean Stacey Keibler is also not really into doing the shoot. but she said its fine as long as its just her back/ass/legs in the shot.

I dont mind you coming on this board for information. But do not Slander anyone who is just trying to help out. if you read the topic its says Playboy news and RUMORS....

so until the issue comes out, its just a rumor


thank you

Hey photographer ... any more info on the WWE issue? Do you know if Trish Stratus or Stephanie McMahon - what poses they will do?

so let me get this streight,Molly who said she WILL NEVER POSE FOR PLAYBOY!!! (i know this because i am a fan of hers) will suddenly go topless?
Nora is not Tiffany, Christy Swanson or Robin Givens,she actually said she will never pose for playboy.
and what about Torrie Wilson?
she posed fully nude twice for the magazine,and now suddenly she is shy and will just do a topless shoot?
Amy Weber said she has no intrest in doing playboy but you say she's doing a full frontal pictorial?
you say that Stephanie Mcmahon might pose but has not agreed yet,and immediatly you put her in the list of poses?
come on man,be consistant,Molly said she will never pose,and suddenly she will?
can you tell me,100% certanty that Molly Holly has agreed to do this?

Photographer, could you just post some proof you work for Maxim? A check with Maxim on it, an employee ID, blurring your name - anything? Honestly that would make you much more believable.

Chances are she said that when it wasn't being offered to her, though. Having actual money on the line will change people's tunes in a hurry.

As for the notion that the WWE wouldn't have so many girls in Playboy at once, the most popular girls (Stratus, Keibler) seem to be the ones who aren't willing to pose nude. Beyond them, who does the WWE have today that would come close to matching the success of previous layouts they've sponsored, like Sable, Torrie Wilson, and (ugh) Chyna? From my limited knowledge I would say perhaps Lita, but that seems to be about it. I don't think they would get very much mileage out of, for example, a "Miss Jackie" issue compared to the ones they've done in the past.

Combining all the lesser-name girls into one special issue would guarantee big sales, and the option of no nudity might lure in the more established stars in the WWE who don't want to go that route. That way, they can advertise that a girl like Trish Stratus is at least in the magazine, even if she's not nude.

For the WWE to wait and do another issue with only one girl (and they would surely want it to be a big seller), it seems to me that they would either need to convince one of the bigger stars to agree to pose nude, or they would need to wait until another willing girl rises to the popularity that someone like Sable had when her first layout was published.

That said, though, why WWE would want to "shoot their entire wad" in one issue is a good question to raise. As is the one about the girl Molly apparently saying that she wouldn't pose for the magazine. And also the one about Torrie Wilson only doing topless shots, when Playboy has shot her below the waist from the front and back for two straight years now.

I can see why people would be taking this news with a grain of salt (or a spoonful as the case may be). Hopefully the source can provide more information.

damn leave the guy alone...he did just say that this is all RUMOR. Take it with a grain of salt, and if you don't believe him then don't believe him. I follow wrestling a bit and know some people and theres a reason the WWE hired all of these women recently who are not in ring performers and thats for playboy. So if you want to believe it then believe it...if not then dont.

actually,Molly said she would never pose for playboy because she's a religious person,she even refused when the WWE asked her to dress sexier to the ring,she doesn't dress in anything very sexy in real life,in the diva photoshoots,her pictures are the most modest of all the girls,bottom line is that she will never do it.