“Too hot to fly” not too hot to pose for Playboy

posted at 9:40 am on November 16, 2007 by Allahpundit

Mission accomplished.

A 23-year-old college student who was told by a Southwest Airlines employee that her outfit was too revealing to fly is wearing even less on Playboy’s Web site.

Kyla Ebbert appears in a series of pictures — some in lingerie, some nude…

“They’re very tastefully done,” Ebbert told The Associated Press on Thursday. “I don’t see anything wrong with the female body.”…

Ebbert worked at a Hooters in San Diego but said wants to become an attorney, and doesn’t think posing nude should get in the way of her professional aspirations.

“This was beautiful and classy. I don’t see why it would affect a professional position,” she said.

She’s not saying what they paid her except that it’s “less than six figures,” which is what happens when you try to cash in on your 15 minutes at 14:59. The name of this very tasteful, very beautiful and classy photo spread? “Legs in the Air.”

Photo at the link of Richard Branson enjoying himself while dressed in what appears to be a cassock and crucifix. Stay tuned next week for a very special “Policing the ‘Net” segment in which O’Reilly and MK break from their all-Internet motif to explain why it’s a bad idea for people with professional aspirations to pose in spank magazines.

Update: Diligent research reveals that some of the photos are already posted on Playboy’s website.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Did anybody NOT see this coming?

Tony737 on November 16, 2007 at 9:44 AM

spank magazines

? But but, playboy isn’t porn it’s ““They’re very tastefully done,” Ebbert told The Associated Press on Thursday. “I don’t see anything wrong with the female body.”…”

I’m telling you back in the day they used lines like this on dim wits to get them to strip for oil paintings.

“No baby, it’s art.”

– The Cat

MirCat on November 16, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Naturally. And by the way if I ever need an attorney in SD, she’s my girl.

ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 9:52 AM

My prediction was 100% correct.

Earth girls are easy.

locomotivebreath1901 on November 16, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Stay tuned next week for a very special “Policing the ‘Net” segment in which O’Reilly and MK break from their all-Internet motif to explain why it’s a bad idea for people with professional aspirations to pose in spank magazines.

Playboy a spank magazine? In 2007? Whatever, grandpa. Playboy’s basically a fashion-lifestyle-literary magazine with occasional boring photos of nude women. Does posing nude for a dinosaur publication like Playboy really hurt a woman’s career these days? It’s not like it’s Girls Gone Wild. I’m skeptical.

On the other hand, if any female HA commenters have had their professional endeavors torpedoed by a Playboy spread, please share your stories below.

Enrique on November 16, 2007 at 9:53 AM

I never saw her picture before, are we sure she wasn’t booted off for being B*tt ugly?

srhoades on November 16, 2007 at 9:55 AM

She shore has nice teeth…..

bbz123 on November 16, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Does posing nude for a dinosaur publication like Playboy really hurt a woman’s career these days?

It’s not going to stop her from getting hired but she’ll live with the whispers forever. “Oh, that’s the woman who posed for Playboy.” You think she’ll be taken as seriously as a woman lawyer who hasn’t posed?

I never saw her picture before, are we sure she wasn’t booted off for being B*tt ugly?

You’ve got some mighty high standards, man.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Will she be in the December issue? Mery Christmas ho ho ho…

Wade on November 16, 2007 at 10:01 AM

I never saw her picture before, are we sure she wasn’t booted off for being B*tt ugly?

srhoades on November 16, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Amen

Wade on November 16, 2007 at 10:02 AM

I saw this coming back when this first surfaced.

Why, oh why, am I not surprised?

Kimmer on November 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Why is this tool wearing a cassock? Branson annoys the hell out of me.

Ebbert’s hot in that Jersey/Long Island sort of way…

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Allah – doing the reporting the MSM refuses to do.

p.s. This thread is useless without pictures.

Hoodlumman on November 16, 2007 at 10:14 AM

p.s. This thread is useless without pictures.

I just work here, buddy.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM

I’m sure the photoshop guys at Playboy will have their work cut out for them . . .

Kimmer on November 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Sigh.

Don’t get me wrong. I like a little T&A as much as the next guy, and a prude I ain’t. I’ll probably even check out the pictures. Satan will make me, of course.

But I really defended this woman when this happened. I gave her the benefit of the doubt, argued that it was warm in Vegas and that she wasn’t all that … you know, slutty.

Sigh. I feel silly and sheepish. Baaaa.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:16 AM

“I don’t see anything wrong with the female body”
Obviously has not looked at Rosie…

right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 10:16 AM

…so the airline thing was a publicity stunt!!

A quick way to put a stop to this is to have a day or two where everybody deliberately dresses inappropriately: this would provoke a societal “gag reaction” and a quick end to this foolishness.

landlines on November 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Sigh.

Don’t get me wrong. I like a little T&A as much as the next guy, and a prude I ain’t. I’ll probably even check out the pictures. Satan will make me, of course.

But I really defended this woman when this happened. I gave her the benefit of the doubt, argued that it was warm in Vegas and that she wasn’t all that … you know, slutty.

Sigh. I feel silly and sheepish. Baaaa.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:16 AM

I saw it coming.

Also, take a little responsiblity for yourself. You’ll chose to look at those photos. Do you think God is going to buy that excuse when Stalin says, “Satan made me do it?”

Didn’t think so.

Tim Burton on November 16, 2007 at 10:25 AM

It’s not going to stop her from getting hired but she’ll live with the whispers forever. “Oh, that’s the woman who posed for Playboy.” You think she’ll be taken as seriously as a woman lawyer who hasn’t posed?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Taken seriously? To paraphrase Woody Allen, she’d cause cardiac arrest in at least half the justices of the Supreme Court. Would be a good way to open up some vacancies.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 16, 2007 at 10:26 AM

You’ve got some mighty high standards, man.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Not really, the enormous fake jugs under skin pulled tighter than a drumhead look never did it for me. I’d take an average girl who’s not surgically enhanced over her.

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 10:28 AM

not hot

redshirt on November 16, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Oh, anf if anyone didn’t see this coming, they need to have their eyes checked.

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Playboy a spank magazine? In 2007? Whatever, grandpa.

Enrique on November 16, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Denial much? Off the top of your head, estimate what percentage of folks pick-up a Playboy magazine NOT intending to choke the chicken …?

Yeah. That’s what I thought. Or are you still sticking with the classic “I read the articles” shtick?

Playboy’s basically a fashion-lifestyle-literary magazine with occasional boring photos of nude women.

Enrique on November 16, 2007 at 9:53 AM

I’m with you in spirit at least. I’ve been arguing this for decades – since Playboy is, in fact, one of the last places to find really good short fiction. The short story is a dying art, and Playboy is one of the few mainstream mags that still publish them, from the best authors.

But that doesn’t mean that 99% of people buying Playboy don’t buy it for one main reason. Yeah, that reason. C’mon.

Does posing nude for a dinosaur publication like Playboy really hurt a woman’s career these days?

Enrique on November 16, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Not sure what field you work in, but I can promise you it will seriously hamper any woman who’d like to be taken seriously in the legal profession. Large law firms are very conservative – most wouldn’t even give her an interview if they knew. They have their clients reputation to think about.

You really think a corporate client would even accept a small risk that in the middle of important litigation, nude pics of their counsel would surface?

Not a chance. Not even a remote chance.

And for the record, it ain’t exclusive to women, either. If you really want to be taken seriously in law or medicine or big business, I’d suggest you avoid cameras when your clothes are off, even if you’re a dude.

On the other hand, if you’re in academia (depending on the field) or in show business … go nuts. Slut it up, baby. It’ll probably help your career.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:31 AM

“I don’t see anything wrong with the female body”
Obviously has not looked at Rosie…

right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 10:16 AM

He said female.

And damn you for that visual.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Also, take a little responsiblity for yourself. You’ll chose to look at those photos. Do you think God is going to buy that excuse when Stalin says, “Satan made me do it?”

Didn’t think so.

Tim Burton on November 16, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Your sense of humor called. It misses you.

Run – don’t walk – to Google, and type in “tongue in cheek.”

Be careful where you click, though. That search might bring up some interesting pictures. Which Satan will make you look at. That bastard.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Look at these things, they’re about to pop!

Denial much? Off the top of your head, estimate what percentage of folks pick-up a Playboy magazine NOT intending to choke the chicken …?

Yeah. That’s what I thought. Or are you still sticking with the classic “I read the articles” shtick?

I think he’s saying why buy it when there’s tons more pr0n for free on the internets.

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 10:38 AM

I called this as a publicity stunt on day one. I figured she was hired by southwest for free publicity, though. Just slightly off.

lorien1973 on November 16, 2007 at 10:44 AM

You’ve got some mighty high standards, man.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 9:59 AM

I have to agree with the previous poster. She’s a butter face. And those new fake boobs look awful.

lorien1973 on November 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM

She’s a butter face.

And?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Hey, she’s livin’ the dream. I feel sorry for her when she wakes up, though. Some things, once lost, can’t be retrieved.

Allah, if this slut meets your high standard, I can’t imagine what your low is. Seriously, you don’t actually place that much value on appearance alone, do you? Have you ever had a relationship that lasted longer than a week? Do you ever hope to? I’m not being snarky; you’re a very sharp guy, but it appears you haven’t yet learned that a gal who acts like a slut is a slut inside. You couldn’t ever be satisfied with her, no matter how much you like her looks. I’m guessing that deep down, you know that.

Splashman on November 16, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Allah, if this slut meets your high standard, I can’t imagine what your low is.

Wow.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Very tastefully done? Surprise, surprise!

Catie96706 on November 16, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Look at these things, they’re about to pop!

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Oh. Lord. That woman really ain’t all that hawt .. is she? And that has to be one of the worst boob jobs ever. Yikes.

Usually I thank people who post links to nice cleavage. In this case, you get no thanks. Just a bill from my eye doctor. Ouch.

The air-brushing guy at Playboy is going to have his work cut out for him.

Ladies (let’s pretend some ladies actually read here) … please, in the name of all that is holy, don’t disfigure your body like that. God or evolution or Darwin or the aliens from Sector 47, whoever was responsible, made your bodies just fine.

Don’t do what this dumb broad did. Please. I’m begging.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 10:57 AM

See what I mean Allah? This isn’t internet standards, where everyone goes to bed with three supermodels every and drives a Bentley, she ain’t that great looking, and its because she disfigured herself with those ridiculous implants…not to mention in half those pics she looks like she’s frying herself in tanning beds…she’ll probably look like a walking football in a few years.

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM

And passed around at parties about as often too.

lorien1973 on November 16, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Yawn…. boring! Once again, a body with no intellect… this is getting old dontcha think?

MNDavenotPC on November 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Who cares

mr.ede on November 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Butter face? Or, Butter Head.

Because there’s a difference.

nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM

playboy is like the weed of porn…..

JVelez on November 16, 2007 at 11:31 AM

playboy is like the weed of porn…..

JVelez on November 16, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Except in this case, somebody sold you a bag of oregano instead. Artificially enhanced oregano.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM

not even oregano….more like lawn mower clippings

JVelez on November 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Allah, don’t you know?

All the guys degrading Ms. 14:59 here have girlfriends and wives that are orders of magnitude hotter. All of them.

And the women commenting here? All supermodels. They make Marisa Miller look like Whoopi Goldberg.

Hope this helps…

Hoodlumman on November 16, 2007 at 11:36 AM

All the guys degrading Ms. 14:59 here have girlfriends and wives that are orders of magnitude hotter. All of them.

Yeah, but they’re all hot on “the inside.” Because that’s the hotness that counts.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Doing the journalistic work you schmucks behind firewalls can’t — more analysis of the Playboy pics.

Cuffy Meigs on November 16, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Okay, so she’s not a 10. But it’s not like you’d be annoyed if you had to spend a few hours playing 34E to her 34F. (Seat numbers, people… she’s stuck between you and the window.)

Mark Jaquith on November 16, 2007 at 11:40 AM

First, I didn’t know Playboy had articles. May need to fact check that.

Second, this chick will do fine by displaying her assets in Playboy. Chicks like this know that there are plenty of well-off but trashy guys who use Playboy like a catalog, picking their dates. She’ll be partying at the Playboy mansion trying to snare a rock star. And it could happen. That’s the game being played here. Sometimes the trash-strewn low road in America leads to trashy happiness.

Tantor on November 16, 2007 at 11:50 AM

All the guys degrading Ms. 14:59 here have girlfriends and wives that are orders of magnitude hotter. All of them.

Hoodlumman on November 16, 2007 at 11:36 AM

First – it’s a little hard to “degrade” her, don’t you think? Again, I refer you to Bad Candy’s picture. Look carefully. Decide who is “degrading” whom. She reports, you decide.

Second – not to brag (well, a little), but I am absolutely confident that if I put a picture of my fiance next to that picture (see Bad Candy’s post again @ 10:38), you would cheerfully and unhesitatingly agree that my lady is, in fact, “orders of magnitude hotter.” Several orders. No plastic surgery or tanning booth abuse required, either.

It’s tough being me.

Third – did I mention the picture? (see Bad Candy’s post again @ 10:38) Go look again – are you telling us, objectively, that you do think she’s an attractive, completely non-self-degrading hawtie? Really?

Hey, whatever your floats boat. And she can definitely float your boat.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Yeah…I was all good with non-judgmentally leaving it that she’s an ethically challenged, financially opportunistic (aren’t we all?), surgically enhanced head turner.

And then I saw this.

Now, even “cheesy slut” doesn’t quite cover it.

Jaibones on November 16, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Okay, so she’s not a 10. But it’s not like you’d be annoyed if you had to spend a few hours playing 34E to her 34F. (Seat numbers, people… she’s stuck between you and the window.)

Mark Jaquith on November 16, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Whatever. As long as she’s not in the seat behind me. I need leg room and I like to recline a bit.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 11:55 AM

And she can definitely float your boat.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 11:54 AM

She could float San Diego.

Jaibones on November 16, 2007 at 11:55 AM

And then I saw this.

Now, even “cheesy slut” doesn’t quite cover it.

Jaibones on November 16, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Yeah, that picture really makes me curious about something – but I guess I could only get an answer from a woman who has enormously enhanced, overstuffed, badly done mammaries. But maybe we have somebody like that here?

In case we do, here’s my question: doesn’t that freaking hurt?

You’d think having your skin stretch to the bursting point all day long would be painful as hell.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM

If ya got it, flaunt it
Use it before you lose it

I would think you all would appreciate the cash side of the deal.
I mean, someone gatta pay for the girls.

Kini on November 16, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Professor:

Second – not to brag (well, a little), but I am absolutely confident that if I put a picture of my fiance next to that picture (see Bad Candy’s post again @ 10:38), you would cheerfully and unhesitatingly agree that my lady is, in fact, “orders of magnitude hotter.” Several orders. No plastic surgery or tanning booth abuse required, either.

It’s tough being me.

As a fan of analytical analysis, I think you should do what you suggest, maybe black box the eyes to protect identities and what not so we can make our own judgments. I think my fiancee is smokin’ too but there’s a whole lotta berating of someone that, in my highschool, college and single years I’d jump all over.

I might bounce quite high if I did so but rest assured, I’d recover quickly.

Hoodlumman on November 16, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Yeah, but they’re all hot on “the inside.” Because that’s the hotness that counts.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Allah, I’m still trying to figure out whether you’re seriously stuck on appearance, or just provoking those of us who know better.

I don’t think any guy (least of all me) would pretend that appearance doesn’t matter. Of course it does; guys are wired to appreciate beauty, and I’m wired just fine, thank you. But as anyone with experience can testify, beauty is only part of the package, and if the rest of the package is missing, beauty won’t satisfy for more than about 5 minutes. Allah, I know you’d probably respond breezily that 5 minutes is enough, but deep down, you know better.

What is the rest of the package? How about . . .

1) Commitment. I don’t ever have to worry, even when there’s tension, that my wife won’t be there when I get home. That’s security, and it does wonders for a man’s self-confidence, self-worth, and overall happiness. If along with that “hotness” comes the ever-present worry that tomorrow you’ll be out looking for the next hottie, I’d say it’s a bad deal.

2) Faithfulness. How do you feel about being given a gift that has been previously given to ten other people? How differently would you feel about the gift if you knew — knew! — that you were the only one in the whole world who would ever even be privileged to see that gift? How much more valuable and meaningful would that gift be? I know that no other man will enjoy what I enjoy — not because of anything I am or do, but because my wife has chosen to give herself only to me. Just typing those words makes me warm inside.

3) Gratefulness. I’m nothing special; my wife outclasses me in just about every way. But she frequently expresses her gratefulness for being chosen to share my life. She expresses this not only to me, but to other people as well! Three guesses how that makes me feel.

I could go on and on — respect, admiration, confidentiality, partner in creating and training new life — but you get the idea. Even by Allah’s standards, my wife ain’t no slouch in the beauty department, but there is so much more to a satisfying relationship. And if the relationship doesn’t satisfy any longer than it takes to blow your load, you have very low standards indeed.

Splashman on November 16, 2007 at 12:30 PM

BTW, Allah, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: You’re the best headline/subhead writer on the net.

Splashman on November 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM

It is not important whether the SW Airlines/Playboy girl is the equal of Beyonce of Charlize Therrion. When you are at the airport waiting countless hours to board a flight and you’ve already been to every lousy Chinese take out place and every lousy burger joint and every lousy bar with the television loudly playing CNN, believe me, you need a little entertainment and I doubt anybody would mind if the SW/Playboy girl sat next to him (notice I didn’t say him or her) in the gate while waiting for the airplane to arrive. I sat through 16 hours at the Dallas airport on June 1 waiting for a flight to San Diego. Other than talking to 3 really great Mexician American soldiers just back from Afghanistan and waiting like the rest of us to get home, I had nothing to do for all those awful hours. And sitting in the gate next a lady who kept calling her husband a “clutz” because he spilled a can of coca cola, I would have welcomed some eye candy with open arms!

Larraby on November 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM

And sitting in the gate next a lady who kept calling her husband a “clutz” because he spilled a can of coca cola, I would have welcomed some eye candy with open arms!

Larraby on November 16, 2007 at 12:39 PM

That was no lady.

As for the person in question, it was predictable that she would go this route when she claimed to be 23.

baldilocks on November 16, 2007 at 12:46 PM

You’d think having your skin stretch to the bursting point all day long would be painful as hell.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Makes it difficult to blink the eyes.

Wade on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I guess I’m the only one here with a weakness for young, hardbodied, pneumatic blondes.

I’ve always been a little strange.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

No – not the only one.

The strange part, however…

nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 1:34 PM

I guess I’m the only one here with a weakness for young, hardbodied, pneumatic blondes.

I’ve always been a little strange.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

The instinctive attraction is entirely normal. As I noted here, humans have been given the ability to control themselves, if they so choose. I have a sweet tooth, but because I truly believe that eating 10 pounds of candy will result in bazooka-barfing, I can control the impulse to keep eating, and stop at 4 pounds (heh).

While I am instinctively attracted to hot, young, shapely female bodies, I am able (though not 100% successful) to resist the impulse to ogle women or porn, because I truly believe it will be harmful to me. If it harms me, it harms others, because it’s impossible to live without affecting others.

BTW, I’m not posting all this to bolster my own ego. My only goal is to counter some of the destructive BS that is routinely posted. And I hope to convince a few that it is, in fact, possible to avoid the mistakes so many make, as well as their inevitable consequences.

Splashman on November 16, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I guess that leaves me out. I’m not blonde. But then again, beggars can’t be choosers.

Exit Question for the guys on AP’s case: Have you EVER seen a picture of Allahpundit?

Sultry Beauty on November 16, 2007 at 1:35 PM

I defended this girl at the time, but I don’t see any need to apologize; such as it was, my defense was if you were offended by seeing her underwear, stop staring at her crotch.
As to her posing, she’s the one that has to live with it. My old company had several young college graduates who gave themselves away (assumed the position, if you will) in order to get promoted by a director of a certain group. All four ‘dated’ him for 2-3 months, and all four were promoted. This I think, is not very uncommon in our culture today. Those of you shocked that the woman above would pose nude in order to capitalize on the only fame she’ll ever have, really do need to get out more. It’s an ugly world, and silly little blondes with bad fashion sense, and worse judgment aren’t the only people doing bad things.

austinnelly on November 16, 2007 at 1:37 PM

I guess I’m the only one here with a weakness for young, hardbodied, pneumatic blondes.

No quarrel with you on that point, though Kim Kardashian in the current issue might be little bit tastier, if one likes natural curves.

dedalus on November 16, 2007 at 1:39 PM

The real point here is that the MOONBATS went nuts on their little web sites because the “fundies” were trying to run everyones life. How dare they try and impose their “family values” on me? Of course they didn’t see a setup when it smacked them in the face.

beefeater on November 16, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I guess I’m the only one here with a weakness for young, hardbodied, pneumatic blondes.

I’ve always been a little strange.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I’m with you A/P… I’m with you…

liquidflorian on November 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Those of you shocked that the woman above would pose nude in order to capitalize on the only fame she’ll ever have, really do need to get out more. It’s an ugly world, and silly little blondes with bad fashion sense, and worse judgment aren’t the only people doing bad things.

austinnelly on November 16, 2007 at 1:37 PM

I’m not shocked, and I don’t believe the other commenters are, either. The human race has been doing a lot of disgusting stuff ever since human existence began. But if ubiquity were a valid reason not to object, we’d have no reason to object to slavery, child abuse, or “The View” posts on HotAir.

What you are really arguing is that people shouldn’t object to things they consider objectionable. Good luck with that.

Splashman on November 16, 2007 at 2:18 PM

What you are really arguing is that people shouldn’t object to things they consider objectionable. Good luck with that.

She wants to be looked at, people want to look, Hef gets a cut. Maybe it will help PLA on the NYSE.

dedalus on November 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM

But I really defended this woman when this happened.

Let me see…. Hooters girl dresses like this and flies to Las Vegas in the afternoon and then takes the red eye home the next morning. Hmmmmmm?

Innocent college student? I think not.

peacenprosperity on November 16, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Update: Diligent research reveals that some of the photos are already posted on Playboy’s website.

I’ll likely use google blogsearch for my diligent research, but I have to say, I’m terrified at what I might find… this broad is ass ugly… they must have fixed her up somehow for playboy.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM

To Allah Pundit: You are not alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larraby on November 16, 2007 at 2:47 PM

I guess I’m the only one here with a weakness for young, hardbodied, pneumatic blondes.

I’ve always been a little strange.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Young? She looks 45. That pic of Ann Curry (who’s in her 50s?) the other day looked younger.

Too much tanning and plastic surgery will do that.

The hard body is likely from an eating disorder, and if you think she’s blond, I have a this shiny bridge to sell you.

The pneumatic part? Yeah. Check.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Those of you shocked that the woman above would pose nude in order to capitalize on the only fame she’ll ever have, really do need to get out more. It’s an ugly world, and silly little blondes with bad fashion sense, and worse judgment aren’t the only people doing bad things.

austinnelly on November 16, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Is someone here shocked?

It was all completely, depressingly predictable. Who could be shocked?

At most I was a bit disappointed, since I did defend her initially. If she wants to flaunt the bionic girls, fine by me. But next time somebody tells you you’re too skanky to fly their plane … admit it and get off the plane. Don’t hire a lawyer and go on TV and act the innocent.

Mostly I’m just mad at her for completely destroying what were undoubtedly perfectly fine breasts at one time or another.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

this broad is ass ugly… they must have fixed her up somehow for playboy.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Yup. And girls like this have completely destroyed Playboy for me. The air-brush guy and the make-up artist can make anybody look hawt.*

Now I know its all smoke and mirrors. And silicon. I miss my innocence.

* “Anybody” may not include Rosie O’Donnell, Hillary Clinton, or Madalyn Albright.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 PM

if you think she’s blond, I have a this shiny bridge to sell you.

Professor Blather on November 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Bing. My Lab is a blond; this is not a blond.

As for the pneumatics, I believe what we have here is a bizarre demonstration of the current state of brazier technology.

You guys like cartoons?

Jaibones on November 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM

After looking at that link with the photo of the wildly surgically-enhanced Kyla Ebbert I have to admit that though beauty is only part of the package, LOOK AT THOSE PACKAGES ON KYLA! I’m wondering if when she turns suddenly if those bowling balls of hers don’t knock people over. And how does that girl get back up after she sits down? Given all that, I am shocked, shocked that a girl who blows her boobs up to the size of Jupiter would pose nude in Playboy. I would have expected her to be working on her thesis for her PhD.

Seriously, ladies, the only goofballs who find elephantiasis of the mammaries attractive would be long haul truckers and light house keepers and sailors far out at sea. If you think you need to pump yourself up to get a man, you’re looking for the wrong kind of man. Think of all the opportunities breast enhancement opened up for Nicole Simpson.

Tantor on November 16, 2007 at 5:31 PM

“She’s a butter face.”

Face?….?…. OHH!

ronsfi on November 16, 2007 at 10:01 PM

Good golly, I haven’t seen such a haggard 23 year old in my entire life.

Plus, those mags are 90% airbrush these days. It’s like, er, working it to a cartoon. Sailor Moon much?

VolMagic on November 16, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Let me see…. Hooters girl dresses like this and flies to Las Vegas in the afternoon and then takes the red eye home the next morning. Hmmmmmm?

I guess no one gets the obvious, SHE’S A HOOKER, people. She was already taking her clothes off for a living so playboy was a step up.

peacenprosperity on November 17, 2007 at 6:33 AM

Paris envy?

Speakup on November 17, 2007 at 9:27 AM

peacenprosperity,

You might be on to something. Who goes to Vegas for a day? Especially a chick in a low-paying job. I have read that during big sporting events, a lot of amateurs flock to Vegas to make some quick bucks on their backs: college girls, waitresses, teachers, bank tellers, etc. It could be true.

Tantor on November 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM