The moron media is celebrating the saucy skank, who stood up to Southwest Airlines in her skimpy ensemble. Kyla Ebbert is being dragged onto every cable network set to parade the porn get-up in which she boarded the airline, only to be asked to cover up, or purchase more appropriate attire in which to travel.
Ebbert’s offending skirt is so short that hot pans would have been more modest. She sports one of those cropped wrap-around tops on top of a tank top, the purpose of which is to obscenely emphasize her huge bosom, so obviously augmented.
Mother was there to support her vacuous offspring’s “rights” and perfectly appropriate dress code. What amazes is how the tele-twits interviewing this woman (one was Matt Lauer, but women stood up for Ebbert too) kept gushing, “Wow, I can’t believe they did this to you; this outfit is just great.” Had she uncrossed her tightly wound legs, as she sat opposite her interviewers, Ebbert’s undies would be plain for all to see.
One “argument” made in support of the porn apparel (besides the heat) was that all young people Ebbert’s age dress like that. Need I dignify that?
Southwest Airlines personnel are in their right, of course, to enforce minimal dress codes on their airline, if they so wish.
That this has been developed into a news story is more revealing than the outfit.
Update: A comment below indicates how deeply misunderstood property rights are in contemporary America, a country founded on private property rights. Who owns the property onto which the Skank Ebbert set foot? The airline does!! The comment writer below has no right to deliver a speech—i.e., exercise her free-speech rights—in my living room without my permission, because, guess what? My living room is MINE.
Similarly, the airline owns the plane (although, nominally, due to government regulation). On their property, the airline owners have the right to determine how they wish people to behave and dress. I’ve explained this vis-à-vis airline security in “Who’s Property Is It Anyway?” The writer can read this column (and this one) to familiarize herself with what private property rights mean—and this does not pertain to libertarianism only. The definition of property isn’t changeable or negotiable. What’s yours is yours to do with what you may.
The writer also complained about my stooping to dignify the topic. Once again, she evinces yet another misunderstanding as to what my mandate is. In case anyone has failed to notice, I’m a commentator. I comment on the Zeitgeist. This vignette, in particular, is meta-commentary: commentary about commentary. The commentary that cuts it these days as commentary is, in itself, an important area for analysis for what it reveals about the culture we inhabit. I offer insights about the culture.
Finally, aesthetics. I understand that what I’ve termed the “porn aesthetic” is appealing to men. I don’t blame them; I blame women, who generally tend to be far more narcissistic and exhibitionist than males. A woman, moreover, can dress both provocatively and attractively. Provocative dress is more appropriate for evening wear than for daytime travel or work. That women constantly ho-up for travel and work gives us a glimpse into the “Silly Sex.”
Furthermore, there is sexy and there is skanky. Ebbert is skanky. With her genitals and mammary glands threatening to pop out of her stretched-to-the-limits garments, Ebbert’s entire demeanor screams, “Do me!”