The bottom is not a thong at all. It had more than adequate coverage in the back. Look at the links upthread and you can see for yourself. Also notice that even though the swimsuit is shown, she is always obscuring her lower right abdomen. I would bet money she has an offensive tattoo there.
There is also a good chance that, while the bottom gives full coverage when she is standing still, it exposes a lot when she moves. The top is pretty clearly not made for somebody with her attributes, which makes me believe that the bottom might be the same.
I just don’t buy that it was about her being full figured. Her extra weight is evenly distributed, and except for her buying a bikini top with absolutely no support, she looks better than many people I have seen at similar venues, also wearing bikinis.
Anybody else bothered about how she keeps referring to the “other girls”. Woman, you are 42 years old. Don’t compare yourself to a teenager.
I would bet money that she has surgical scars there from when she lost 100 pounds and would have needed the excess skin removed. I’d also consider a side bet that the purpose of the tattoos were in an effort to cover up said surgical scars.
All of that might be true- but why cover the tattoos in the news photos/video if they’re completely inoffensive and if she didn’t want to hide them the rest of the time? Whether it’s scars, birthmarks,stretch marks, varicose veins or tattoos , if you want something to be covered up all the time you don’t wear a bathing suit or any other clothing that exposes it. You cover something up with your hand or a towel because you don’t it want to be seen in that particular situation. I don’t believe for one moment that she walked around the waterpark with a hand or a towel always obscuring that area so whatever she’s covering is something that she generally doesn’t mind being seen , but either she or the media didn’t want it in the photos/videos.
Terrible guess.
It seems to me that if it was a scandalous tattoo, the media would be all over that, not helping her hide it.
Agreed. It would also seem to me that if the issue *were *a scandalous tattoo, that the water park staff would have just cited *that *instead of the much more subjective and potentially controversial matter of appropriate bathing suit coverage.
Some people are taking the “scandalous tattoo” WAG and running way too far with it.
Her swim top is at least three sizes too small. Her boobs are completely falling out on both sides.
Why is that supposed to be acceptable at a family water park?
Did you notice her tan lines? She’s worn a correctly fitting swimsuit very recently and tanned while wearing it. That lily white side boob indicates she suddenly decides to show it all at a family water park? She’s showing a lot more skin (based on the tan lines). She needs to wear the swimsuit that actually fits her.
Seems like someone begging for attention from the press.
Then go watch Spongebob! 
Runs away to hide!
Or they might not have noticed that she was hiding something , or they might just be more interested in reporting about the evil waterpark than the full story (like some consumer reporters I’ve seen) or the tattoo might not be anything actually scandalous - just something that she doesn’t Mom and Aunt Tillie to see when they watch the news - and the reporter therefore didn’t even notice it was being hidden. Which is why I used “completely inoffensive” rather than “scandalous”. It seems to me that if it were a simple rose, Mom, or American flag, she wouldn’t have put so much effort into covering it up. It’s got to be something she knows will offend some people in the context of a family water park, even if it wouldn’t offend most people in other contexts.
And since the park doesn't seem to have made any comment, we only have her word for skimpiness being the issue. Somehow, I don't think she would be forthcoming if they told her to put shorts on because her tattoo was offensive. I mean , let's just say they told her "Listen, you need to put on shorts. Your tattoo is offending our other customers" and that's what she told the media. Would she be getting the same reaction she's getting now, when she portrays it to be about her age and her size? At the very least, the reporter would have questions about the tattoo and a certain number of people who now take the position that she is being discriminated against because of her age or her size might instead take the position that if the park can prohibit offensive words and graphics on clothing and eject people using profanity or offensive gestures from the park without refund ( those are very common policies at theme parks of all kinds), then they are within their rights to ask people to cover up offensive tattoos.
There are some other pics of her with a somewhat better view of her tummy. No obvious tattoos, but there is probably some loose skin from weight loss. I suspect that the problem was that, as said earlier, the top was too small and too loos, and the front of the bottom might not have covered up enough.
Did anyone watch the TV report linked in the OP? It’s clear the woman has a tattoo. (It appears to be a large floral tattoo on her lower stomach.) That said, there was no mention if her tattoo is what was offending the park people.
Is there a tattoo so offensive you cannot show it in public? I know a guy (asshole, actually) who has a tat of a jaguar with “EAT PUSSY” under it. Nobody has ever mentioned it to him. Anybody here know someone that’s been asked to leave somewhere over a tattoo?
Yeah, I’ll take your bet. $20 cool?
I have no idea if anyone has ever been asked to leave a place over an offensive tattoo, but there most certainly are tattoos out thre where I would not be surprised if that happened. I’ve seen (on tattoo websites) tattoos of hardcore explicit x-rated porn, photorealistic penises ejaculating, dismembered bodies, torture scenes, etc. Curse words and profanity in big black letters. And of course your basic racist images/symbols.
So yeah, there are definitely tattoos that are offensive to show in public.
No, they don’t. That woman’s breast size is larger than this. Again, I speak from experience.
Her breasts are larger than a GG? I don’t believe that one bit, but even if it were true, they sell bigger swim tops than even the ones I linked to. Here’s one that comes all the way up to JJ, for the record. Seriously, her boobs are big, but part of what is making them look so enormous is that they are so droopy due probably to her weight loss and ill fitting swim suit. Here’s a link to a blog from a girl who wears a 36 GG and her breasts are much larger than the lady in the OP, they just look much more compact and higher because she’s actually wearing proper foundation garments. Cola TV - Trực tiếp bóng đá miễn phí, xem ColaTV TTBD HD
And furthermore, what do you mean you speak from experience? You’ve fondled the breasts of bad tattoo, too small swimsuit lady? Do tell then what her bra size is, friend.
Why are her breasts even being discussed? They were not part of the “news story” were they?
Your camel toe must be smaller than this > < to ride this ride.
It depends. One story said they asked her to put on shorts, the other said they asked her to put on shorts and then a shirt too. You know how hard it is to get good details from the news much of the tims. But if it was about tattoos the park staff might have been picturing her wearing shorts low on her hips and then added that she needed a shirt too. Speculation but if you watch the news stories you will see she keeps her right abdomen covered with a towel.
Shhhhhh. After the Gynocaust, we don’t get that many chances!