A Beckham $1.8 million Diamond-Encrusted Sex Toy? OVERSHARE!!!!!!!

By: Laurie | July 9th, 2007

I knew this day would come sooner or later, and it has.

Beckham overload!! Posh and Becks OVERSHARE! TOO MUCH EFFING INFORMATION!!!!!!!

What pushed me over the edge? A teensy little paragraph in Grahame Jones’ three-page ode to Brand Beckham’s lavish life of conspicuous consumption:

On another occasion, while Victoria was expecting their third child, Beckham spent $1.8 million for a diamond-encrusted sex toy with matching 16-carat diamond necklace.

Oh, ick.

And it’s not just that. Is anybody else shuddering at the combination of the words “sex toy” and “encrusted”?

ACK! ACK!! I’m feeling like I need to cough up a hairball.

MLS Forums

LA Galaxy Results

Category: BeckhamWatch, LA Wags

Tags: Beckham, BeckhamWatch, David Beckham, LA Wags, Victoria Beckham

« That Second Wizards Goal. Ouch. | Home | Pressure ESPN to Run the US U-20 Games »

Subscribe   The Offside RSS Feeds

Print

Share

Comments  

• Rasheed |  July 9th, 2007 at 5:20 am

  
  
  

  Diamonds on a sex toy seem more painful than lavish.

  Posted from Canada

  

• Diane |  July 9th, 2007 at 5:45 am

  
  
  

  Well I guess if we can give up yams we can give up bejewelled penises. Oops, did I just admit that I’d read about the alleged gift in past or did the article specify? Maybe he was sending a sparkly sculpture of himself…they do say he’s into art…

  I have become SUCH a geek, plaything went right over my head in that article and this was the teensy little paragraph that caught my eye instead:

  “Who is this guy?
  Leaving soccer and Beckham’s many accomplishments on the field with Manchester United, Real Madrid and in three World Cups with England out of it altogether…”

  I wondered what a sportswriter would therefore leave IN and, as always, LA Galaxy Offside is here with the answer! Thank GAWD.

  Posted from United States

  

• Laurie |  July 9th, 2007 at 6:02 am

  
  
  

  Rasheed, I wasn’t going to say it.

  Diane, who’s here for you, sweetheart? You can always count on me to go for the lowest common denominator.

  Posted from United States

  

• Diane |  July 9th, 2007 at 6:58 am

  
  
  

  Bless.

  Posted from United States

  

• Dan |  July 9th, 2007 at 9:20 am

  
  
  

  … matching necklace …

  Posted from United States

  

• Laurie |  July 9th, 2007 at 11:38 am

  
  
  

  Dan, yes. Is this the paragraph o’ gold or what?

  Posted from United States

  

• Nathanhj |  July 9th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

  
  
  

  Laurie,

  I’d just like to point out that diamonds are the, umm, hardest naturally occurring substance in the world.

  Posted from United States

  

• Laurie |  July 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

  
  
  

  So Nathan, are you saying there’s perhaps some…um…compensation going on?

  Posted from United States

  

• Nathanhj |  July 9th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

  
  
  

  No, no, just that, I mean, if you want the best a grrl can get, then, well, you know, diamonds are a grrl’s best friend.

  I’m sure that Posh finds DB to be satisfying as well in the flesh, as it were.

  Posted from United States

  

• Laurie |  July 9th, 2007 at 4:17 pm

  
  
  

  Nathan, since both you and Bob have mentioned that song, I thought I’d pull from the lyrics to see what might apply in this situation. How about:

  “Men grow cold as girls grow old
  And we all lose our charms in the end
  But square cut or pear shaped
  These rocks don’t lose their shape
  Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”

  Or:

  “He’s your guy when stocks are high
  But beware when they start to descend
  It’s then that those louses go back to their spouses
  Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”

  Hey, don’t look at me. I’m not the one who wrote it.

  Posted from United States

  

• Gray |  July 9th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

  
  
  

  The more I think about this, the more I hope something like this would happen ..:)
  http://theoutsidescoop.com/kobe-demands-trade-to-manchester-united/

  Posted from United States

  

• Laurie |  July 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm

  
  
  

  Gray, my problem with this is I’m having trouble figuring out what the Lakers would get from having rights to Posh…

  Posted from United States

  

Comments are closed