Why Is Kim Kardashian Carrying a Small Child in Her Purse?
Kim Kardashian appears to be carrying a small child in her purse. This is weird, right?
Um, Kim? What’s going on here? Is that… is that a CHILD in your purse?!
Why yes, it appears it is. This… is strange. Oh, but wait, Kim offered the following explanation on her Celebuzz blog to go along with this perplexing photograph: “Mason was playing by my feet at dinner in Bora Bora and crawled into the back of my bag, so I took him over to show Kourt! How funny!?” Ah, okay– so at least she KNOWS the child: It’s Mason Dash Disick, the not-quite-two-year-old son of Kim’s sister Kourtney and her boyfriend Scott Disick. That’s a relief; for a moment there, I was worried that Kim had taken to kidnapping the children of strangers and spiriting them away in her insanely large purse.
But Kim, you sound a little confused as to whether or not carrying a small child around in a bag is humorous; your usage of the question-mark implies uncertainty. In some capacity, perhaps this incident is, in fact, funny. But Kim, dear? I have news for you: A small child is not a dog. You cannot carry a small child around in a bag like a dog, not even if the child chooses to crawl in there in the first place. It’s questionable. Come to think of it, carrying a dog around in a bag is questionable in and of itself. What to do about this unfortunate conundrum?
I know! Perhaps we should simply cease and desist the carrying of small, living creatures around in bags all together! Doesn’t that sound like a marvelous idea? Yes, I think so too. Let’s try it at once.
Lucia Peters is BettyConfidential’s associate editor.