Yeah, without seeing what the bikini bottoms look like, it’s hard to know what to think.
Of course, that should read “this isn’t”.
Anyhow, I mean, I don’t expect the crack reporting team to be dispatched for this story, but even the most basic of reporters know that a story generally requires more than one source. I’m not even going to argue the newsworthy angle.
On the contrary – a story about revealing bikini bottoms is the quintessence of crack reporting!
All of this is 100% correct and I feel silly for accepting the story so unquestioningly.
(Sigh)… I really need a hobby.
True enough. I’m thinking that it’s probably a matter of what was being exposed with the bottom half. If pubic hair or genitalia was obvious, then the suit is too small for her, or she needs to clean things up when around children not her own. It’s common for people who have lost weight to think they can wear clothing that is still much too tight. In most cases it’s not a problem, but I can see where this could be.
This. I didn’t see anything wrong at all with her suit, and unless there’s more to this story than is being presented, I think she has a legitimate gripe against the park. If it were me, I’d go back again dressed the same way just to get another rise out of them and see what happens.
By the way, just because the park said that the problem was with her bottom half doesn’t necessarily make it so. It could have been an excuse they came up so they didn’t have to say “we want you and your big floppy titties out of here.”
The report I saw on TV (I haven’t been able to find the same reference online) said that complaints were made about inappropriate tattoo’s that were revealed by her suit bottom.
None of the videos showed her suit bottom or tattoo’s clearly enough to judge if it was stepford mothers complaining about nothing or actually a valid complaint but it’s a business and kids are clearly their target market so I rate this internet outrage a meh.
This is a US thing, IME. On a Caribbean beach where extreme suits or lack thereof is commonplace, if somebody is gawking or making a big deal of it, the offenderati will be American.
They showed the front of the bottom this morning on the Today Show. It was a small solid black bottom, but not exceedingly small. Not sure what the back looked like. She did have a bunch of tattoos along the top of her bikini bottom, it almost looks like you’re seeing hair or something you’re not supposed to be seeing.
Overall she is very stacked but I don’t know what there is to be offended over.
My guess is that she didn’t really have a nice enough ass for however much cheek was showing, and they tried to play fashion police.
Probably the guy who worked there was constantly having his friends tell him “Dude, you’re so lucky, you get to see MILFs in their bikinis all day! You have the best job!” And he’d shake his head and say, “Yeah, you’d think so, but LOOK WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH!” and show his cell phone pics of middle-aged fat dimpled varicose-veined ham-hocks spilling out of nanotube string bikinis the wearer bought in the 1980s.
Finally, on the day this poor woman showed up, he had enough.
I wish I could say that was intentional, but I have this apparent problem where my subconscious puns on me without me even noticing. Seriously, like all the time.
Well, I thought of that, but that doesn’t make any sense to me. Presumably, if she were to put on shorts as asked to, the management would have left it at that. I can’t see the management returning and saying, actually, we really were talking about the tits.
I’d be curious to hear more about Moonlitherial’s report that the tats were the problem. That’s what makes the most sense to me at this point. Now, it could very well be a case of “you’re too old/flabby/ugly” to wear this swimsuit, but I’m holding out judgment due to the terrible reporting all around.
Slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Newz day.
won’t somebody please think of the children.
Oh, come on. Surely you know how damaging it can be to a child for him/her to see an extra bit of butt cheek or side boob. It’s not like they ever see it on TV or in advertisements or anything.
/sarcasm 
I don’t disagree, but the talking head back in the studio did say city officials responded that it was up to pool management to decide, so there was at least a modicum of second-source material.
I think she looks fine, and kudos to her for feeling good in her skin. Some other poster mentioned an inappropriate tattoo, or I wonder if maybe there was a little bit of ladypart slippage or camel toe. I could see asking someone to put shorts on for that. I have definitely had suits where the crotch part is too narrow for my comfort. And if she sat straddling a lounge chair, look out! I’d FAR rather say “put on shorts” than “close your legs” to a woman who appears to be a little combative.
Count me as another who finds it extremely suspicious that the news story about her bikini bottom refused to show said bikini bottom and allowed her to carefully keep other areas covered.
From the quick shots they had of the top piece, I’d have to say that she was wearing a suit that was a size or two too small.
I’m betting that she was either hanging way too much out of that too-small suit or she had offensive tatts.