'Kristen' gone wild!

Allahpundit describes the video as "a young, tanned 'Kristen' does the squat-and-grind with a pair of nubile pals," as captured by the "Girls Gone Wild" crew. Bill O'Reilly and an obviously embarrassed Mary Katharine Ham discuss:

Link: sevenload.com

Now, compare the 1817-year-old "Kristen" dancing in that video -- B-cups at best -- with this more recent bikini photo of "Kristen" (Ashley Youmans, a/k/a Ashley Alexandra Dupre). You can click the photo to enlarge it and, speaking of enlarging things, it's obvious from the new C-cups that "Kristen" displays in the bikini photo that some surgical augmentation transpired between the time the video was recorded and the time this photo was taken.

This proves my point: Boob jobs are for whores.

Just like tattoos and pierced navels.

Speaking of whores, O'Reilly had no legitimate reason to broadcast that video, as Allahpundit notes:

What exactly is the 'policing the Internet' angle here? As MKH says, it sounds like Girls Gone Wild is in the clear legally. O'R himself expresses no opinion aside from a bemused chuckle. Am I being cynical to think the whole thing is just an excuse to show the footage?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! So O'Reilly engages in cheap exploitation, whereas I am engaged in investigative journalism, exposing how breast implants turn women into whores.

UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that this video was shot in Miami in March 2003, meaning that Ashley Youmans (d.o.b. 4/30/85) was only 17 at the time:



Ashley/"Kristen" got nude in the "Girls Gone Wild" video, but apparently there is some kind of loophole in Florida law where 17-year-olds are fair game for nude videos.

Final thoughts?

• Ashley was a slut before she was a whore.
• She's definitely had a boob job since 2003.
• Perhaps some blogger will pay the $30 to download the actual uncensored "Girls Gone Wild" video and then upload a few choice segments. Of course, that would be unethical -- copyright infringement is an immoral violation of property rights -- but it would (a) undoubtedly be a traffic magnet, and (b) probably be a tax-deductible business expense.

Somebody check with the IRS; I'll ask Ace to convene the Blogger Ethics Panel.

UPDATE II: Linked by Rusty at Jawa Report, who shares my disappointment in discovering that "what the American public wants are salacious stories to satisfy their prurient interests," while also mentioning that there was "some hot lesbian action" in that video. I will merely observe that (a) he did link me, after all, and (b) using the phrase "hot lesbian action" is probably good for 30 or 40 Google-generated hits a week.

Of course, it's not real "lesbian action," it's the kind of fake "lesbian action" that college coeds simulate when they get drunk in front of "Girls Gone Wild" cameras. I'm pretty sure that real "lesbian action" is not nearly as photogenic, if only because the average lesbian is not a 19-year-old Brazilian-waxed hottie. Add 20 years and about 40 pounds, and the "Girls Gone Wild" factor fades pretty quick.