# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Mother kicked out of water park for wearing string bikini

## Carlybee

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...i-wearing-mom/

----------


## oyarde

No problem , one of the fellas here will open a string bikini water park.

----------


## torchbearer

string bikini and people of walmart water/rv park

----------


## Carlybee

Well...granted some people don't look that great in a string bikini.  BUT the woman had just lost 100 lbs and was excited to be able to wear one.  But the issue here is infringement on her freedom to wear one.  It was okay for teenagers to wear them but because her boobies were large she got the boot.

----------


## Nobexliberty

What is wrong with demanding people to cover up, the only thing the water park did wrong was allow other people to wear bikinis without being thrown out. Prostitutes in the 19th century dressed more modestly then modern high school girls, modern female clothing is a disgrace!

----------


## Carlybee

> What is wrong with demanding people to cover up, the only thing the water park did wrong was allow other people to wear bikinis without being thrown out. Prostitutes in the 19th century dressed more modestly then modern high school girls, modern female clothing is a disgrace!



Do you think it's okay for men to wear speedos?

----------


## torchbearer

> Well...granted some people don't look that great in a string bikini.  BUT the woman had just lost 100 lbs and was excited to be able to wear one.  But the issue here is infringement on her freedom to wear one.  It was okay for teenagers to wear them but because her boobies were large she got the boot.


the owner and his wards decide on his property. otherwise, its not his.

----------


## Carlybee

> the owner and his wards decide on his property. otherwise, its not his.


I don't disagree but he did single this woman out based on how she looked since there were other people wearing the same attire.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Do you think it's okay for men to wear speedos?


 No it is not in anyway ok.

----------


## Acala

> Well...granted some people don't look that great in a string bikini.  BUT the woman had just lost 100 lbs and was excited to be able to wear one.  But the issue here is infringement on her freedom to wear one.  It was okay for teenagers to wear them but because her boobies were large she got the boot.


Private property owner should be free to include or exclude anyone for any reason.  And we should be free to think he is an hysterical prude or superficial jerk and take our business elsewhere.

----------


## Carlybee

> No it is not in anyway ok.



So what type of attire do you think people should wear to a swimming pool?

----------


## Carlybee

> Private property owner should be free to include or exclude anyone for any reason.  And we should be free to think he is an hysterical prude or superficial jerk and take our business elsewhere.


I'm sure she will.

----------


## Qdog

She is one hot mama!

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't disagree but he did single this woman out based on how she looked since there were other people wearing the same attire.


if he singled her out, for whatever reason, to where a funny hat in order to be on his property. she'd either have to wear the funny hat or leave.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> So what type of attire do you think people should wear to a swimming pool?


Something that covers most of the thigh and upper body for women. For Men it must cover the atleast half of the thigh and the upper body.
Boy am I prude.

----------


## limequat

As far as bikinis go...that one wasn't even very revealing.

----------


## dannno

> What is wrong with demanding people to cover up, the only thing the water park did wrong was allow other people to wear bikinis without being thrown out. Prostitutes in the 19th century dressed more modestly then modern high school girls, modern female clothing is a disgrace!


A disgrace compared to what? We're like the only animal on the planet that covers up ANYTHING AT ALL and you'd probably be complaining that people don't cover up their ankles.

People should wear as much clothes as makes them feel comfortable, if you don't like it don't look.

----------


## Carlybee

> if he singled her out, for whatever reason, to where a funny hat in order to be on his property. she'd either have to wear the funny hat or leave.


I'm well aware of the free market scenario.  Doesn't mean I can't think the guy was a douchebag.

----------


## Carlybee

> Something that covers most of the thigh and upper body for women. For Men it must cover the atleast half of the thigh and the upper body.
> Boy am I prude.


Most of the thigh?  You do realize that means it would go down to her knees right?

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm well aware of the free market scenario.  Doesn't mean I can't think the guy was a douchebag.


true, it is even in your right, to use your time and resources to tell people what you think about the guys crummy water park.
just be truthful.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> A disgrace compared to what? We're like the only animal on the planet that covers up ANYTHING AT ALL and you'd probably be complaining that people don't cover up their ankles.
> 
> People should wear as much clothes as makes them feel comfortable, if you don't like it don't look.


 Humans do not live in isolation, how can I make sure my view on what is ok and what's not so my great-grandkids live in a society as I want? I can help change society and its morals too what I see fit for my great-greatkids.

----------


## Carlybee

> true, it is even in your right, to use your time and resources to tell people what you think about the guys crummy water park.
> just be truthful.


What's your problem?  I think she is within her rights to speak out.  I didn't say she should file a discrimination suit.

----------


## pcosmar

> the owner and his wards decide on his property. otherwise, its not his.


Owned by the city. NOT private property.

but I was expecting that from someone.

----------


## juleswin

> the owner and his wards decide on his property. otherwise, its not his.


The owner is the state and they let other people (read younger girls) to stay in the park with more revealing bikinis. I would understand if it was a private park but her tax money pays for their stinking wages. Btw she wasn't wearing a string bikini and if you are uncomfortable seeing women in bikinis, maybe you shouldn't be going to the water park in the first place.

As far as am concerned, the state shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion.

----------


## Carlybee

> Humans do not live in isolation, how can I make sure my view on what is ok and what's not so my great-grandkids live in a society as I want? I can help change society and its morals too what I see fit for my great-greatkids.



So you think that morals should be policed?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Most of the thigh?  You do realize that means it would go down to her knees right?


 Yes, that is why am i most people's eyes a christian fundamentalist despite my knowledge of the bible is questionable.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well...granted some people don't look that great in a string bikini.  BUT the woman had just lost 100 lbs and was excited to be able to wear one.  But the issue here is infringement on her freedom to wear one.  It was okay for teenagers to wear them but because her boobies were large she got the boot.


I don't think this is an infringement on freedom since its his property.




> the owner and his wards decide on his property. otherwise, its not his.





> I don't disagree but he did single this woman out based on how she looked since there were other people wearing the same attire.


If this were a modesty issue, it would be enforced on all.  So I'm with you, this is discrimination.  And I'm not really a fan of that.  But it should still be legal, as far as I see it.

Mind you, if she wasn't given a refund, she'd have a right to sue, but that doesn't mean she had a right to be there.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> So you think that morals should be policed?


 Morals should be policed not by the goverment but by the communties according to the bible, or atlest most of it.

----------


## juleswin

> What's your problem?  I think she is within her rights to speak out.  I didn't say she should file a discrimination suit.


Oh yea, she should file one immediately and shut those guys down. The state shouldn't be in the business of running water parks

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't think this is an infringement on freedom since its his property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were a modesty issue, it would be enforced on all.  So I'm with you, this is discrimination.  And I'm not really a fan of that.  But it should still be legal, as far as I see it.
> 
> Mind you, if she wasn't given a refund, she'd have a right to sue, but that doesn't mean she had a right to be there.


Apparently it wasnt private property.

----------


## pcosmar

> Humans do not live in isolation, how can I make sure my view on what is ok and what's not so my great-grandkids live in a society as I want? I can help change society and its morals too what I see fit for my great-greatkids.


Naked you are born and naked you will leave.

It has nothing to do with morals.. In fact,,a Moral man can look at and appreciate Gods handiwork without corrupt thought (or action)

or do you advocate Burkas for all?

----------


## Carlybee

> Morals should be policed not by the goverment but by the communties according to the bible, or atlest most of it.


Well I hope I never move to a community where it is expected women have to wear bloomers down to their knees as swimsuits.

----------


## torchbearer

> What's your problem?  I think she is within her rights to speak out.  I didn't say she should file a discrimination suit.


how is making points of fact a problem?

----------


## Carlybee

> Oh yea, she should file one immediately and shut those guys down. The state shouldn't be in the business of running water parks



I disagree because I think it would be a frivolous lawsuit and end up costing the taxpayer, but I do think she has to right to bring light to it.

----------


## Carlybee

> how is making points of fact a problem?



You are tilting at windmills.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Carlybee- I just realized it was a state park, which does change my position.  

That said, enforcing morality on PRIVATE property isn't necessarily wrong, IMO.




> Humans do not live in isolation, how can I make sure my view on what is ok and what's not so my great-grandkids live in a society as I want? I can help change society and its morals too what I see fit for my great-greatkids.


Private property, and allowing property owners to do what they like.  Then you can associate with like minded people.

And yeah, I'm probably a "fundamentalist" to some, a Baptist, specifically, although also a libertarian.



> The owner is the state and they let other people (read younger girls) to stay in the park with more revealing bikinis. I would understand if it was a private park but her tax money pays for their stinking wages. Btw she wasn't wearing a string bikini and if you are uncomfortable seeing women in bikinis, maybe you shouldn't be going to the water park in the first place.
> 
> As far as am concerned, the state shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion.


I'd agree with you except when there's a good reason to do so.  Which isn't the case here.

I do think there are good reasons to keep women out of combat.  Honestly I don't really care right now, since I kind of want "our military" to fail at its mission, but in general I'm with Walter Williams that the whole point of the military is to be an effective fighting force, not to promote opportunity.




> Yes, that is why am i most people's eyes a christian fundamentalist despite my knowledge of the bible is questionable.


 I'm probably a "fundamentalist" to some, a Baptist, specifically, although also a libertarian.

----------


## torchbearer

> Owned by the city. NOT private property.
> 
> but I was expecting that from someone.


all property is owned. the ones they call "public" are owned by the local authoritarians/mafia.
at least, the whole pretense that they can tell you what to do on them, means they own it- and not you.

----------


## dannno

> Humans do not live in isolation, how can I make sure my view on what is ok and what's not so my great-grandkids live in a society as I want? I can help change society and its morals too what I see fit for my great-greatkids.


Teach your kids and your great grand kids what you think is acceptable. They might agree with you or they might not. If they do, they will dress more modestly, if they feel more like expressing themselves and displaying their inner and outer beauty then there probably isn't much you can do about it.

----------


## torchbearer

> You are tilting at windmills.


explain in detail.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Humans do not live in isolation,* how can I make sure my view on what is ok and what's not so my great-grandkids live in a society as I want?* I can help change society and its morals too what I see fit for my great-greatkids.


Learn the art of persuasion without violence or government force.   Simple as that.

----------


## Carlybee

> explain in detail.


Google it.  Not arguing with you over trivialities.  It's taxpayer funded.  He made an exception for her only and not others and she has the right to speak out against it. As I said I am not advocating litigation.

----------


## torchbearer

> Learn the art of persuasion without violence or government force.   Simple as that.


I noticed netflix created a netflix for children, so kids can surf it without seeing mature content.
it didn't even require a government law, with goon squads to enforce.
like an invisible hand that filled a need.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Naked you are born and naked you will leave.
> 
> It has nothing to do with morals.. In fact,,a Moral man can look at and appreciate Gods handiwork without corrupt thought (or action)
> 
> or do you advocate Burkas for all?


 I did not mean head to toe clothing. Just a lower knee-ankle high skirt or dress and some headgear.




> Well I hope I never move to a community where it is expected women have to wear bloomers down to their knees as swimsuits.


 That is the great thing about liberty, I will find my über conservative community amongst the 350 million americans.

----------


## Anti Federalist

This thread is Fail without pictures:

----------


## torchbearer

> Google it.  Not arguing with you over trivialities.  It's taxpayer funded.  He made an exception for her only and not others and she has the right to speak out against it. As I said I am not advocating litigation.


you make an ambiguous statement. then when pressed for details, you have no time to argue trivialities.
All i posted were statements of fact.

----------


## Carlybee

> I did not mean head to toe clothing. Just a lower knee-ankle high skirt or dress and some headgear.
> 
>  That is the great thing about liberty, I will find my über conservative community amongst the 350 million americans.



Headgear?   Are you Amish perhaps?

----------


## Carlybee

> you make an ambiguous statement. then when pressed for details, you have no time to argue trivialities.
> All i posted were statements of fact.



Got it.

----------


## torchbearer

> This thread is Fail without pictures:


Amish shunning?

----------


## juleswin

> I disagree because I think it would be a frivolous lawsuit and end up costing the taxpayer, but I do think she has to right to bring light to it.


That is the whole idea, get em to close up. The state shouldn't be in the business anyway and there's no better way to chase em out by filling a massive discrimination lawsuit. That or announce to every tax payer about their practices and give people the opportunity to opt out from paying for the park

Go get em girl, I support u all the way

----------


## torchbearer

> That is the whole idea, get em to close up. The state shouldn't be in the business anyway and there's no better way to chase em out by filling a massive discrimination lawsuit. That or announce to every tax payer about their practices and give people the opportunity to opt out from paying for the park
> 
> Go get em girl, I support u all the way



these types of services are insured against lawsuit. the state won't be hit by it.
the insurance fund will cover it.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Headgear?   Are you Amish perhaps?


 Not amish, just a fanatic.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Headgear?   Are you Amish perhaps?


Maybe he believe first century middle eastern customs should be carried on into the 21st century.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I don't disagree but he did single this woman out based on how she looked since there were other people wearing the same attire.



So protest his business. Convince others to do the same. Don't get the government involved.

Also I smell b.s. The only evidence that she was ejected for her size is her subjective response and the news report telling you to feel bad for her. She could have an entire victimization complex going on, many people who are large and uncomfortable with their form develop one as a self-defense. It is quite possible she did have a super small bikini on, smaller than anyone else, which didn't cover much over her larger size thus violating pool rules.

----------


## Carlybee

> That is the whole idea, get em to close up. The state shouldn't be in the business anyway and there's no better way to chase em out by filling a massive discrimination lawsuit. That or announce to every tax payer about their practices and give people the opportunity to opt out from paying for the park
> 
> Go get em girl, I support u all the way


Well I hardly think it's a big enough deal over a swimsuit but she is within her rights to do whatever she thinks is necessary to bring attention to it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This thread is Fail without pictures:



LOLZ

----------


## Christian Liberty

My morals are a little more conservative, and I'm not a big fan of certain revealing swimsuits.  "Shorts" is pushing it but I'd have no problem with a private water park saying that thongs or similar things aren't wanted.

Although, if you don't apply that across the board, that is discriminatory.  Which shouldn't be illegal but I don't particularly like it.

I don't really have much of an opinion on how "Public" property should be run so much as I just want it privatized.

----------


## Carlybee

> So protest his business. Convince others to do the same. Don't get the government involved.
> 
> Also I smell b.s. The only evidence that she was ejected for her size is her subjective response and the news report telling you to feel bad for her. She could have an entire victimization complex going on, many people who are large and uncomfortable with their form develop one as a self-defense. It is quite possible she did have a super small bikini on, smaller than anyone else, which didn't cover much over her larger size thus violating pool rules.



It's a public pool. Not privately owned. Her tax dollars help pay for it...assuming she isn't a welfare mom and she stated others were wearing the same type swimsuits.

----------


## Carlybee

> Not amish, just a fanatic.



Best of luck to you in your future endeavours.

----------


## WM_in_MO

If it were a private pool it would be up to them, but the CITY OWNS THE POOL.

Ban city owned anything.

----------


## juleswin

> So protest his business. Convince others to do the same. Don't get the government involved.
> 
> Also I smell b.s. The only evidence that she was ejected for her size is her subjective response and the news report telling you to feel bad for her. She could have an entire victimization complex going on, many people who are large and uncomfortable with their form develop one as a self-defense. It is quite possible she did have a super small bikini on, smaller than anyone else, which didn't cover much over her larger size thus violating pool rules.



Its a state run park, the govt is already involved and as long as her tax money helps keep the lights on, she is within her right to complain

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Maybe he believe first century middle eastern customs should be carried on into the 21st century.


No I belive 19th century swedish clothing is the best and will convince people that I am right without violence.

----------


## Carlybee

For the record I think she is way too endowed to be wearing a string bikini in public but that is my personal observation.  I personally wouldn't be caught dead wearing that in public but it is the principle of the matter.  Plus I don't like the morality police and the thought police. Sue Me.

----------


## pcosmar

> Maybe he believe first century middle eastern customs should be carried on into the 21st century.


Perhaps we should cover the legs of tables and chairs as well. so that no one is "offended".

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Perhaps we should cover the legs of tables and chairs as well. so that no one is "offended".


 That made me laugh so hard, +rep.

----------


## torchbearer

> If it were a private pool it would be up to them, but the CITY OWNS THE POOL.
> 
> Ban city owned anything.



the ruling members of the local mafia own the pool.
it is evidence by the fact that only the property owners have the authority to make rules for it.
all other people on that property has privileges granted by the property owner.
with "public" land, you have a few local oligarchs who end up with ownership, they make the rules- you have to follow on anything they stamp "public".
then they feed you some crap about everybody "owning" it, which isn't true. just try making a new rule or removing a rule governing the property.

----------


## Carlybee

> No I belive 19th century swedish clothing is the best and will convince people that I am right without violence.

----------


## torchbearer

> For the record I think she is way too endowed to be wearing a string bikini in public but that is my personal observation.  I personally wouldn't be caught dead wearing that in public but it is the principle of the matter.  Plus I don't like the morality police and the thought police. Sue Me.


those things could knock out my cell signal.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I noticed netflix created a netflix for children, so kids can surf it without seeing mature content.
> it didn't even require a government law, with goon squads to enforce.
> like an invisible hand that filled a need.


The ancient Greeks learned rhetoric and persuasive speech as a matter of course.  This allowed them to defend themselves in court and persuade other citizens to do things.  Western civilization has devolved in a great many ways.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> 


That is not Swedish, that is whatever muslim women wear. Swedes can not wear that much clothing because that made it easier for us to kick their ass in the crusades!

----------


## Qdog

I can understand wanting ugly people to cover up... but that lady is sexy and has great boobs!  Why would anyone want her to cover up?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> the ruling members of the local mafia own the pool.
> it is evidence by the fact that only the property owners have the authority to make rules for it.
> all other people on that property has privileges granted by the property owner.
> with "public" land, you have a few local oligarchs who end up with ownership, they make the rules- you have to follow on anything they stamp "public".
> then they feed you some crap about everybody "owning" it, which isn't true. just try making a new rule or removing a rule governing the property.


You ought to head into one of the threads around here about LVT  or "common property".  You would make some good contributions.

----------


## juleswin

> 


I see nipple @ 3rd row, 2nd from the left

----------


## juleswin

> That is not Swedish, that is whatever muslim women wear. Swedes can not wear that much clothing because that made it easier for us to kick their ass in the crusades!


This is America, nobody gives a $#@! about Sweden.

----------


## Carlybee

> I can understand wanting ugly people to cover up..



Okay I see where this thread is headed.  When you guys unkink the hoses in your douchebags let me know.  Mmmmkay?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Perhaps we should cover the legs of tables and chairs as well. so that no one is "offended".


That's the problem, there is no right to be not offended.

Edit:

If there was, we wouldn't be able to do anything, because there would be some slob that would be offended by just about everything.

----------


## torchbearer

> That's the problem, there is no right to be not offended.


or ,better said- your values and opinions are only enforceable,morally, on your own property.
you have a right to not be offended by someone on your property.
you can ask them to leave, and if they refuse to- remove them with force. 
don't go to a man's house and insult him unless you have at least the illusion of superior fire power.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> This is America, nobody gives a $#@! about Sweden.


 Sweden was the first nation not engaged in the american revolution to recognize the US, Sweden also spied for the US in the cold war. Sweden also fought alongside Americans in the Barbary wars, Sweden has done alot for America. And you live in the midwest so you may likely have Swedish ancestors too. And lets not forget the cold war protection and nice treatment of Swedish immigrants by America.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's the problem,* there is no right to be not offended.*


AH,, 

That is the truth.

And I lived in the Florida keys for many years. Most of the time my work attire was cut offs and sandals.
as little clothing as possible was common for all,, male/female, attractive or not.

On occasion, artistically applied paint is all that is worn.

I am not easily offended,, nor necessarily aroused by the human form.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sweden was the first nation not engaged in the american revolution to recognize the US, Sweden also spied for the US in the cold war. Sweden also fought alongside Americans in the Barbary wars, Sweden has done alot for America. And you live in the midwest so you may likely have Swedish ancestors too. And lets not forget the cold war protection and nice treatment of Swedish immigrants by America.


My farm was built by a Finnish family.. Still has the Family sauna.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Do you think it's okay for men to wear speedos?


Capital offense in some cases.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> My farm was built by a Finnish family.. Still has the Family sauna.


 Swedes and Finns are brother peoples!

----------


## pcosmar

> Swedes and Finns are brother peoples!


I have never had a problem with naked Finns,,  Though that jump in the snow part was shocking.
The ones I knew were nice folks,, not particularly prudish.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I have never had a problem with naked Finns,,  Though that jump in the snow part was shocking.
> The ones I knew were nice folks,, not particularly prudish.


 We Swedes love snow so much we invaded Russia in the Winter. Dipping in snow was shared between Swedes and Finns since the 12th century. Even überprudish people like me see it as ok.

----------


## Acala

> Google it.  Not arguing with you over trivialities.  It's taxpayer funded.  He made an exception for her only and not others and she has the right to speak out against it. As I said I am not advocating litigation.


I should have read the article instead of watching the video.  I assumed a water park would be privately owned.  Government should not be in the water park business.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I should have read the article instead of watching the video.  I assumed a water park would be privately owned.  Government should not be in the water park business.


Agree, I think public land parks and city roads should draw the line for what's public property.

----------


## oyarde

> If it were a private pool it would be up to them, but the CITY OWNS THE POOL.
> 
> Ban city owned anything.


I see that as a problem , if it is city and tax funded , they are way out of line .....

----------


## pcosmar

> Swedes and Finns are brother peoples!


sister people as well,




.

----------


## I<3Liberty

As a self-proclaimed fashionista, I will say that this bikini top was a no-no. Yes, the pool should not have singled her out, but I will go all fashion police in this post.

Bikinis, leggings, skinny jeans, and the alike are often given a bad rep. There's nothing wrong with wearing them you just have to know 1) how to wear them and 2) which cut and style is best for your shape. She (and many others) can totally pull them off as long as they get two steps down. Swimwear comes in so many varieties for a reason! This has nothing to do with her age -- the top she was wearing is just intended for super flat-chested (AA and A cup) women. I'd recommend a Freya or Panache bikini for her since they're much more supportive.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> sister people as well,


I should become king of Sweden and reunite the Swedish Empire for the peoples of:Norway,Germany,baltic nations, denmark , finland and of course Karelia. And why are they not wearing proper swimwear?!?

----------


## Carlybee

> As a self-proclaimed fashionista, I will say that this bikini top was a no-no. Yes, the pool should not have singled her out, but I will go all fashion police in this post.
> 
> Bikinis, leggings, skinny jeans, and the alike are often given a bad rep. There's nothing wrong with wearing them you just have to know 1) how to wear them and 2) which cut and style is best for your shape. She (and many others) can totally pull them off as long as they get two steps down. Swimwear comes in so many varieties for a reason! This has nothing to do with her age -- the top she was wearing is just intended for super flat-chested (AA and A cup) women. I'd recommend a Freya or Panache bikini for her since they're much more supportive.


Thank you. Good to know that one of the leading liberty websites on the internet has our own fashion police. You may go sit with the morality police and the thought police.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Thank you. Good to know that one of the leading liberty websites on the internet has our own fashion police. You may go sit with the morality police and the thought police.


 It is better to police about morals then to be policed about morals!

----------


## I<3Liberty

> I should become king of Sweden and reunite the Swedish Empire for the peoples of:Norway,Germany,baltic nations, denmark , finland and of course Karelia. And why are they not wearing proper swimwear?!?


Proper swimwear? I highly doubt you know a thing about women's swimwear.  I know male fashionistas exist and that the fashion industry is chock full of men -- I just don't picture you among them.




> Thank you. Good to know that one of the leading liberty websites on the internet has our own fashion police. You may go sit with the morality police and the thought police.


Okay, so maybe "police" isn't the best word. Let's put it this way -- I'm don't get pushy with unsolicited fashion advice, but I am happy to share it when asked.

----------


## idiom

If it was only a polyester swimsuit that's fine. If the fabric was blended then by Moses she should be stoned.

I am pretty sure it doesn't meet the guidelines on tassels either.

(Deut 22)

Very few people really want to legislate morality. As always they are simply seeking to make other people live up to their personal ideals.

Which if they are based on hiding one of God's greatest creations are probably based on a pretty damaged psychology and not on any sort of real moral framework.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Proper swimwear? I highly doubt you know a thing about women's swimwear.  I know male fashionistas exist and that the fashion industry is chock full of men -- I just don't picture you among them.


I know one thing about female swimwear, too little skin is covered by them.




> If it was only a polyester swimsuit that's fine. If the fabric was blended then by Moses she should be stoned.
> 
> I am pretty sure it doesn't meet the guidelines on tassels either.
> 
> (Deut 22)


 I remember reading it a year ago, I am not the biggest literalist really.

----------


## Carlybee

> Proper swimwear? I highly doubt you know a thing about women's swimwear.  I know male fashionistas exist and that the fashion industry is chock full of men -- I just don't picture you among them.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so maybe "police" isn't the best word. Let's put it this way -- I'm don't get pushy with unsolicited fashion advice, but I am happy to share it when asked.


Duly noted

----------


## Carlybee

> I know one thing about female swimwear, too little skin is covered by them.


Adam and Eve were only covered by fig leaves.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Adam and Eve were only covered by fig leaves.


 They had nothing, then they ate the fruit and became you know ashamed for a lack of a better word. And they did not freaking exist!

----------


## Generalissimo

> As far as bikinis go...that one wasn't even very revealing.


When I read string bikini I was expecting something like this:

----------


## idiom

> I know one thing about female swimwear, too little skin is covered by them.
> 
>  I remember reading it a year ago, I am not the biggest literalist really.


Countries that actually legislate morality are often literalists.

Billions of people go without pork,ham, bacon, beef, shellfish and other odds and ends. Some countries carry serious penalities for not being covered head to toe.

Is that what you want? Because those religions are largely Abrahamic.

----------


## Dr.3D

> When I read string bikini I was expecting something like this:


I guess that pretty much covers it.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Countries that actually legislate morality are often literalists.
> 
> Billions of people go without pork,ham, bacon, beef, shellfish and other odds and ends. Some countries carry serious penalities for not being covered head to toe.
> 
> Is that what you want? Because those religions are largely Abrahamic.


 What makes you think I want to legislate morality, I just want to show it down their throats in another way. But I would never wan't morals leglistated, I would fight against it.

----------


## idiom

There are entire communities in America who dress conservatively on a voluntary basis.

While we are here, the not even the ten commandments apply to gentile Christians. According to Acts 15, they only have 4 rules:

abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 

If its more than that, its not in the Bible its just some yokel preacher projecting their vision of manners.

----------


## 69360

She's a little big of a woman for that size suit, but everything is covered. I think it's fine.

City owned, so she has a leg to stand on if they don't have a posted policy.

----------


## juleswin

> She's a little big of a woman for that size suit, but everything is covered. I think it's fine.
> 
> City owned, so she has a leg to stand on if they don't have a posted policy.


The complaint is about being singled out. Shes ok with following the rules as long as it applies to the young ones too

----------


## I<3Liberty

> I know one thing about female swimwear, too little skin is covered by them.


I'm not disagreeing that her bikini top wasn't the best type for her. I am however, disagreeing with the idea that bikinis themselves are morally wrong. You jumped to this conclusion because you haven't a clue about bikini cuts, sizing, or brands. If you did, you'd recommend Panache or Freya since they offer so many more sizes than most stores. Her biggest problem isn't the fact that she's wearing a bikini, it's that the cut is not for her -- it lacks sufficient support and the cups are both too widely spaced and too small.

----------


## Generalissimo

> I'm not disagreeing that her bikini top wasn't the best type for her. I am however, disagreeing with the idea that bikinis themselves are morally wrong. You jumped to this conclusion because you haven't a clue about bikini cuts, sizing, or brands. If you did, you'd recommend Panache or Freya since they offer so many more sizes than most stores. Her biggest problem isn't the fact that she's wearing a bikini, it's that the cut is not for her -- it lacks sufficient support and the cups are both too widely spaced and too small.


Bikinis are morally wrong. They're the antithesis of modest dress. I woman should only wear a bikini in the presence of her husband, and no one else.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> There are entire communities in America who dress conservatively on a voluntary basis.


 That is why I love America, try finding christians who dress modestly in Sweden then you have to look far.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Wonder what she looked like at 22 or 32. Not bad at all for 42 and having lost 100 pounds. I was honestly expecting an eyesore.

Anyway, prudes gonna prude.

----------


## Carlybee



----------


## Occam's Banana

> Perhaps we should cover the legs of tables and chairs as well. so that no one is "offended".


I wouldn't be surprised if that's already happened at some time in the past. I've heard they actually did that kind of thing with piano legs once upon a time, though I am not certain of the veracity of the claim.

In the ante-bellum South, it was _verboten_ in "decent" society to refer to women's legs as "legs" (the proper term was "limbs").

----------


## pcosmar

> The complaint is about being singled out. Shes ok with following the rules as long as it applies to the young ones too


Showed my wife the thread.. She tends to be a bit more "conservative" than me,, and wears a One Piece suit when (rarely) we go swimming.

She said that she would be owning that park. It was clearly discrimination.

I like that girl.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Bikinis are morally wrong. They're the antithesis of modest dress. I woman should only wear a bikini in the presence of her husband, and no one else.


Face palm... they are not. You guys haven't a clue about bikinis, so I highly recommend you stop trying to argue over something you do not know enough about. 

Once again, it's not that she's wearing a bikini, it's that the bikini is not the best fit for her. She needs a molded or under wire cup from a company like Freya or Panache that sizes their swimwear by cup and band size.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Wonder what she looked like at 22 or 32. Not bad at all for 42 and having lost 100 pounds. I was honestly expecting an eyesore.
> 
> Anyway, prudes gonna prude.


 Prudes rule!




> 


That is a modest dress

----------


## Carlybee

Yes and in the antebellum south it was required that decent women wear a corset, bloomers, a petticoat, and be buttoned up from stem to stern.  All of it an offshoot from Victorian England.

----------


## Danan

> Well I hope I never move to a community where it is expected women have to wear bloomers down to their knees as swimsuits.


I'm of the opinion that this would be even more cruel to the man in that community!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bikinis are morally wrong. They're the antithesis of modest dress. I woman should only wear a bikini in the presence of her husband, and no one else.


Is that why you posted so many pics of bikini clad young ladies on revbox several months ago?

----------


## Danan

> That is why I love America, try finding christians who dress modestly in Sweden then you have to look far.


Go to a nunnery if that's what turns you on.

----------


## Danan

> Is that why you posted so many pics of bikini clad young ladies on revbox several months ago?


Are you saying that naked women on the internet are real people?!

----------


## Carlybee

> Prudes rule!
> 
> 
> 
> That is a modest dress


 
That is a drawing inspired by the book "The Handmaid's Tale"...a futuristic story about a dystopian society set in a totalitarian Christian theocracy where women were treated as chattel.

----------


## TruckinMike

> So what type of attire do you think people should wear to a swimming pool?


Perfect! 

TMike's general rule of choosing a women:  There is something to say for a modest woman. --> The odds of staying married and having healthy successful children are great. Go with a the _easy_ woman _who cares nothing for herself_ ---> and she'll care nothing for you, your children, or your marriage. Her concerns will be for the immediate self. 

Women wearing sexually provocative clothing are only feeding themselves -- feeding their sense of self importance.




> "If you tell me how you get your feeling of importance, I'll tell you what you are. That determines your character. That is the most significant thing about you."
> Dale Carnegie

----------


## Nobexliberty

> That is a drawing inspired by the book "The Handmaid's Tale"...a futuristic story about a dystopian society set in a totalitarian Christian theocracy where women were treated as chattel.


 Nice Trick painting, but I like women in modest clothing.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Face palm... they are not. You guys haven't a clue about bikinis, so I highly recommend you stop trying to argue over something you do not know enough about. 
> 
> Once again, it's not that she's wearing a bikini, it's that the bikini is not the best fit for her. She needs a molded or under wire cup from a company like Freya or Panache that sizes their swimwear by cup and band size.


Wearing a bikini is not dressing modestly. Does matter if it fits or not.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Go to a nunnery if that's what turns you on.


 It is a SIN to have look upon a women with lust! I think , not sure because I have not read the bible in over a year.

----------


## pcosmar

> Are you saying that naked women on the internet are real people?!


I have danced the streets of Key West during Fantasy Fest,, from sundown to sun up. Several times.

I can assure you,, they are real.

Just google "Fantasy Fest" (NSFW)..It is quite a party.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Wearing a bikini is not dressing modestly. Does matter if it fits or not.


Soooo... do you wear a shirt when you swim and expect other guys to?

----------


## Generalissimo

> Perfect! 
> 
> TMike's general rule of choosing a women:  There is something to say for a modest woman. --> The odds of staying married and having healthy successful children are great. Go with a the _easy_ woman _who cares nothing for herself_ ---> and she'll care nothing for you, your children, or your marriage. Her concerns will be for the immediate self. 
> 
> Women wearing sexually provocative clothing are only feeding themselves -- feeding their sense of self importance.


+rep

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you saying that naked women on the internet are real people?!


Some are.  Others are photo realistic digital art.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Soooo... do you wear a shirt when you swim and expect other guys to.


Men and women dress differently. Get over your "egalitarian" bull$#@!. A woman exposing 90% of her breasts in a bikini is not the same as man showing his chest.

----------


## Generalissimo

> It is a SIN to have look upon a women with lust! I think , not sure because I have not read the bible in over a year.


It is also sinful to dress in a way that evokes lustful thoughts.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> It is also sinful to dress in a way that evokes lustful thoughts.


 Yes!!!

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Men and women dress differently. Get over your "egalitarian" bull$#@!. A woman exposing 90% of her breasts in a bikini is not the same as man showing his chest.


Not all bikinis are skimpy. If a guy can go shirtless, I see no reason why a girl can't wear this...




I do.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Not all bikinis are skimpy. If a guy can go shirtless, I see no reason why a girl can't wear this...


Because that is a sin.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Because that is a sin.


Uhmm, no. She's covered up more than a shirtless guy.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It is also sinful to dress in a way that evokes lustful thoughts.


I've seen news stories where some dolt shoved a pop bottle up his ass for sexual pleasure. Was this a derivative of the fact that maybe someone was wearing one of those have a coke and a smile tee shirts and it set the feller off in a lustful rage? I don't get it with the religious moral quackery. I never have.

Maybe the person who wanted her thrown out just had their own personal issues with self contol. Ever think about that? Or is there no scripture for that sitiation?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Uhmm, no. She's covered up more than a shirtless guy.


 There is a big difference between a shirtless Man and female.

----------


## Carlybee

Omg. Generalissimo posts a pic of a woman with her vagina hanging out then goes on to preach about modest dress. Y'all are too much. Really. Hope you enjoy pleasuring yourselves when you choose women who only dress in such a way so as not to inspire lustful thoughts. If you were as moral as you pretend...you shouldn't be having lustful thoughts regardless.

----------


## Generalissimo

> There is a big difference between a shirtless Man and female.


Don't be sexist! Men and women are exactly the same! Blah blah blah egalitarian feminist bull$#@!.

----------


## I<3Liberty

I'm just leaving this thread. Generalissimo can dislike bikinis, but he should not be negative repping other folks based on their opinions nor should they use flawed logic and double standards.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Omg. Generalissimo posts a pic of a woman with her vagina hanging out then goes on to preach about modest dress. Y'all are too much. Really. Hope you enjoy pleasuring yourselves when you choose women who only dress in such a way so as not to inspire lustful thoughts. If you were as moral as you pretend...you shouldn't be having lustful thoughts regardless.


I posted that that was what I expected her to have been wearing to be thrown out of a water park. I would have thrown her out too if I was the manager. As inappropriate as all bikinis are in public, today's immoral standards accept them, except when they are extremely revealing (which really isn't that much more revealing than the bikini picture I3Liberty posted).

----------


## dannno

> No I belive 19th century swedish clothing is the best and will convince people that I am right without violence.


You think people living on the equator should be wearing 19th century Swedish clothing??

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm just leaving this thread. Generalissimo can dislike bikinis, but he should not be negative repping other folks based on their opinions nor should they use flawed logic and double standards.


Meh. You'll probably get a few more good reps to cover it.

----------


## Generalissimo

> I'm just leaving this thread. Generalissimo can dislike bikinis, but he should not be negative repping other folks based on their opinions nor should they use flawed logic and double standards.


It's not double standards. It's completely different standards which should be applied completely differently. Men and women are different, they have different bodies, minds, abilities, and roles and should be judged accordingly. A shirtless man is completely different from a shirtless woman. A woman's attire is completely different from that of a man.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well...granted some people don't look that great in a string bikini.  BUT the woman had just lost 100 lbs and was excited to be able to wear one.  But the issue here is infringement on her freedom to wear one.  It was okay for teenagers to wear them but because her boobies were large she got the boot.


What infringement of freedom?  It was PRIVATE PROPERTY and they can set whatever rules they want to if people want to come onto it.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Don't be sexist! Men and women are exactly the same! Blah blah blah egalitarian feminist bull$#@!.


 In school i was tought Women and Men are exactly the same and have the same body parts and only the size of them makes men and women unequal




> You think people living on the equator should be wearing 19th century Swedish clothing??


 If it is too hot let them have some cooler modest clothing.

----------


## dannno

> Because that is a sin.


Looks like heaven to me.

----------


## Generalissimo

> You think people living on the equator should be wearing 19th century Swedish clothing??


I didn't see him say that. He didn't even say people should be dressed exactly the same as in the 19th century. You can dress in a modern way while still dressing modestly. You can live in a hot climate without the need to expose your entire body.

----------


## Carlybee

> I posted that that was what I expected her to have been wearing to be thrown out of a water park. I would have thrown her out too if I was the manager. As inappropriate as all bikinis are in public, today's immoral standards accept them, except when they are extremely revealing (which really isn't that much more revealing than the bikini picture I3Liberty posted).



You know what's revealing?  This thread.

----------


## Carlybee

> What infringement of freedom?  It was PRIVATE PROPERTY and they can set whatever rules they want to if people want to come onto it.



No LE...it wasn't private property.  It was a waterpark owned by the city.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> You know what's revealing?  This thread.


 True, unless I misunderstood you.

----------


## pcosmar

> What infringement of freedom?  It was PRIVATE PROPERTY and they can set whatever rules they want to if people want to come onto it.


NO, it was not.
It is not a private property issue. It is city owned. and a "dress code" should apply to all or none.

Not just a random or discriminatory decision by some flunky.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This thread is Fail without pictures:


Problem is, her bikini top is about 2-3 sizes too small.

----------


## Generalissimo

> You know what's revealing?  This thread.


Yeah, how shocking, I'm a Catholic social conservative and I don't approve of dressing in a way that evoke lustful thoughts in others! No one on this forum knew that!

----------


## Carlybee

> Yeah, how shocking, I'm a Catholic social conservative and I don't approve of dressing in a way that evoke lustful thoughts in others! No one on this forum knew that!

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Problem is, her bikini top is about 2-3 sizes too small.


Exactly. A more supportive and covering top would solve the problem. Some of the guys on this thread have turned this into a bikini bashing thread, but they're apparently okay with guys going completely topless.

----------


## pcosmar

> Problem is, her bikini top is about 2-3 sizes too small.


Translation..
Her breasts are too big.

It was my wife's first reaction too.

----------


## Carlybee

I think we are all aware her top was too small.  What if she was an A cup and her little bittie titties were falling out of her too loose top?  Would that person have been kicked out as well?  Or was the guy just so offended by a set of big boobs that he felt all the little children were going to be damned to Hell for viewing them?  WTF?

----------


## Generalissimo

> Exactly. A more supportive and covering top would solve the problem. Some of the guys on this thread have turned this into a bikini bashing thread, but they're apparently okay with guys going completely topless.


Yes, I'm completely ok with a man going topless because a man's breasts so no elicit lust in the same a woman's does.
*​Men and women are different.*

----------


## I<3Liberty

> It's not double standards. It's completely different standards which should be applied completely differently. Men and women are different, they have different bodies, minds, abilities, and roles and should be judged accordingly. A shirtless man is completely different from a shirtless woman. A woman's attire is completely different from that of a man.


I highly disagree with you, but based on your logic a man with man boobs would have to wear a top while a women that had a mastectomy would be exempt from wearing a top?

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes, I'm completely ok with a man going topless because a man's breasts so no elicit lust in the same a woman's does.
> *​Men and women are different.*


How do you know?  I guarantee you that Gerard Butler with no shirt on would probably inspire a lustful thought or two.  Should he wrap it up?

----------


## Philhelm

> Do you think it's okay for men to wear speedos?


No!  Liberty be damned.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, how shocking, I'm a Catholic social conservative and I don't approve of dressing in a way that evoke lustful thoughts in others! No one on this forum knew that!


Dude,, I went to a Catholic School as a kid.. I dated Catholic School Girls.

apparently your fantasy life is a lot richer than mine.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> How do you know?  I guarantee you that Gerard Butler with no shirt on would probably inspire a lustful thought or two.  Should he wrap it up?


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carlybee again."

----------


## pcosmar

> No!  Liberty be damned.


Then you really wouldn't like my G-string. (it's purple,, my wife's favorite color)

----------


## Generalissimo

> Dude,, I went to a Catholic School as a kid.. I dated Catholic School Girls.
> 
> apparently your fantasy life is a lot richer than mine.


What does that have to do with anything in this thread?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No!  Liberty be damned.


What does that have to do with liberty? If so then America is more free now then in 1900.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I am continually amazed at the pervasiveness of prudeness. There is nothing wrong with the human body. Only in your mind is there something wrong and indecent about nature and beauty. I thought Christians believed we were made in His image. Are Christians saying His image is indecent, blasphemous, and needs to be covered? Sure, the owner has the right to demand certain attire from those on his property, and I am in my right to call him a freedom-stomping prude. It's a freaking water park, not like it was a high-end restaurant where Frank Sinatra is singing...sheesh.

----------


## pcosmar

> What does that have to do with anything in this thread?


The separation between your fantasy of morality and real life.

----------


## Generalissimo

> I am continually amazed at the pervasiveness of prudeness. There is nothing wrong with the human body. Only in your mind is there something wrong and indecent about nature and beauty. I thought Christians believed we were made in His image. Are Christians saying His image is indecent, blasphemous, and needs to be covered? Sure, the owner has the right to demand certain attire from those on his property, and I am in my right to call him a freedom-stomping prude. It's a freaking water park, not like it was a high-end restaurant where Frank Sinatra is singing...sheesh.


You completely misunderstand why a Christian should not wear a bikini.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> I am continually amazed at the pervasiveness of prudeness. There is nothing wrong with the human body. Only in your mind is there something wrong and indecent about nature and beauty. I thought Christians believed we were made in His image. Are Christians His image is indecent, blasphemous, and needs to be covered? Sure, the owner has the right to demand certain attire from those on his property, and I am in my right to call him a freedom-stomping prude. It's a freaking water park, not like it was a high-end restaurant where Frank Sinatra is singing...sheesh.


Because the word of God and his Son is that humans shall not provoke lustfull feelings or have them, atleast what I believe. Anyway good night my fellow libertarians.

----------


## Generalissimo

> The separation between your fantasy of morality and real life.


It's not my fantasy. It's the objective morality spelled out in Scripture and passed down over 2000 years by Holy Tradition and the living Magisterium. 

Sadly, we are sinful people which means we often reject God.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> You completely misunderstand why a Christian should not wear a bikini.


I'm Christian and I wear a bikini. No, I don't wear super sleezy swimwear or anything of the alike, yet I do wear a bikini. For the ten millionth time -- they are not all sleezy. There are some bikinis that cover more than some one-piece swim suits.

If you are so disturbed by bikinis, I think it's time for therapy. Seriously.

----------


## Carlybee

Lol..neg repped by the Generalissimo......and people question that the liberty movement has been co-opted.
Seek help dear.

----------


## MelissaWV

I don't wear a bikini because it's a pain in the ass to swim in.  I don't wear weird bloomers that go down to my knees for the same reason.  I'm sure you would disapprove of wet suits, too, since they cover everything... but are too tight!  So basically you are left swimming in street clothing, but only while wearing a supportive and padded bra.  That is going to be really fun to go scalloping in.

Strangely, if you think back to Adam & Eve, it wasn't the nudity God took issue with.

Oh and if you have lustful thoughts provoked by a flash of thigh-above-the-knee or arm-above-the-elbow or nape-of-the-neck then those are kind of your problem.



Oh noes!  The lustfulness of a bikini!



God save us all!  There is no way to resist!

----------


## pcosmar

> Strangely, if you think back to Adam & Eve, it wasn't the nudity God took issue with.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Lol..neg repped by the Generalissimo......and people question that the liberty movement has been co-opted.
> Seek help dear.


I nagged rep your post with the "crazy train" picture in response to me saying I'm a social conservative. 

The liberty movement surely has been co-opted by libertines

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Because the word of God and his Son is that humans shall not provoke lustfull feelings or have them, atleast what I believe. Anyway good night my fellow libertarians.


That is so broad and vague as to render it entirely useless. By the very virtue of being born handsome, or beautiful you have provoked such thoughts, and thus, since you were made in His image, then it is God himself endowing you these features that create this provocation of lust. Should women who have beautiful faces where covers like Burqa's? Ever heard of DSL? You're as bad as the Islamist fundies who make women cover up their entire bodies from head to toe. It's embarassingly juvenile and tyrannical. 

I think it is you two who have a logical disconnect. Also, if you aren't to have 'lustful' feelings (which aren't too different from love), then how on Earth is your marriage supposed to last? Sex by its very nature is a very lust-oriented action. You get home and see your beautiful wife and you get aroused and lust for her touch at that moment - that's endowed by nature. It isn't a thing to be shunned, cast-aside, and mocked as sin. That's $#@!ing stupid and doesn't even comport to basic logical Christianity imho. How can you say God made us in His image and then say such stupid $#@!? Honestly.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Strangely, if you think back to Adam & Eve, it wasn't the nudity God took issue with.


When Adam and Eve were naked there was no sin in the world. They were not lusting after each other. And they were married.

----------


## QuickZ06

Whew, good thing Adam and Eve are not around anymore. I guess they would be screwed at this park. And I have been to a good amount of beaches around the world and this lady has got nothing on them. Meanwhile TSA is fondling my genitals and my grandma while everyone is in an uproar over a woman excited about finally being able to wear said swimsuit. But don't worry, this is obviously why kids are the way they are these days, seeing a mature woman with a full figure at the pool once in a while. 

Never mind the fact they sit glued to the TV watching god knows what and getting taught right and wrong from the government. Oh, the horror. Nipples covered, check. Vagina covered, check. Nothing to see here folks move along. And this thread is 16 pages, lordy.

----------


## MelissaWV

> When Adam and Eve were naked there was no sin in the world. They were not lusting after each other. And they were married.


Who performed a marriage?  I don't see anything about a wedding.  I see mention about making someone a mate or partner.  

This is also rather backwards, if you think about it.  They were naked and there was no sin in the world.  Being naked is a sin.  But there was no sin in the world when they were naked.  But... being naked is a sin.

----------


## Generalissimo

> 


This is much more appropriate than what that woman was wearing.

----------


## MelissaWV

> This is much more appropriate than what that woman was wearing.


It is a bikini and it shows her thighs above the knees, and it is cinched under her bosom.  Obviously lustful.  Shame on you, sinner.

----------


## mac_hine

> Bikinis are morally wrong. They're the antithesis of modest dress. I woman should only wear a bikini in the presence of her husband, and no one else.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I nagged rep your post with the "crazy train" picture in response to me saying I'm a social conservative. 
> 
> The liberty movement surely has been co-opted by libertines


lol, I wish.  It's been co-opted by conservatives IMO. :P

----------


## QuickZ06

//

----------


## Generalissimo

> Who performed the marriage?  I don't see anything about a wedding.  I see mention about making someone a mate or partner.


Marriage does not require anyone except the bride, groom, and God. Even in the Catholic Church it is the bride and groom who are the ministers of the Sacrament, not the priest, who is there as a witness of God's Church. 

God created Adam and Eve to be together. His purpose for them was unity and to multiply. There is no doubt in anyone who reads and understands Genesis that the were married. 




> This is also rather backwards, if you think about it.  They were naked and there was no sin in the world.  *Being naked is a sin.*  But there was no sin in the world when they were naked.  But... being naked is a sin.


Being naked is not a sin. It is not a sin to take a shower or a bath. It is not a sin to be naked with one's spouse. It is not a sin for a baby to run around the house naked. It is not a sin to be naked while being examined by a doctor. 

Dressing in a way that elicits lustful thoughts in others is sinful.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Something tells me Generalissomo and Noexliberty would be more at home in Saudia Arabia where their view on the body and women is carried out by fundie Islamists. Seems they have more in common than they'd otherwise admit!

----------


## Generalissimo

> It is a bikini and it shows her thighs above the knees, and it is cinched under her bosom.  Obviously lustful.


Not every man's thoughts automatically go to lust when he sees a woman's thighs. What she is wearing is appropriate because it does not expose her breasts or the majority of her body. It certainly is an acceptable alternative to a "string bikini."




> Shame on you, sinner.


I am ashamed of all my sins, as should you be of yours.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Who performed a marriage?  I don't see anything about a wedding.  I see mention about making someone a mate or partner.  
> 
> This is also rather backwards, if you think about it.  *They were naked and there was no sin in the world.  Being naked is a sin.  But there was no sin in the world when they were naked.  But... being naked is a sin*.


The standard answer for that is that since they lacked knowledge of good/evil, they did not even understand their nakedness.  So, being naked in itself is not a sin, but being naked in a manner displeasing to Yahweh is sin.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Marriage does not require anyone except the bride, groom, and God. Even in the Catholic Church it is the bride and groom who are the ministers of the Sacrament, not the priest, who is there as a witness of God's Church.


Excellent   So people who are "living together in sin" really aren't, as they may have promised before God but just haven't drawn it all up and gone to Church.  Glad we resolved that here.

You do realize the bikinis I posted do far less to elicit lustful thoughts in others than some clothing that covers one from head to toe?  That in some countries (I wasn't making it up) it is the nape of the neck that is considered the height of sensuality, or the hands, or the curve of the waist, or the arch of the eyebrows?  I mean really, at what point does it stop?

When you say so?

----------


## Generalissimo

> Something tells me Generalissomo and Noexliberty would be more at home in Saudia Arabia where their view on the body and women is carried out by fundie Islamists. Seems they have more in common than they'd otherwise admit!


Not at all. Islam is a false religion and is based on violence instead of preaching love of others (which is one reason you should dress modestly, to not tempt other into sin) and forgiveness for sins.

----------


## MelissaWV

Proper compromise.

----------


## mac_hine

> Yeah, how shocking, I'm a Catholic social conservative and I don't approve of dressing in a way that evoke lustful thoughts in others! No one on this forum knew that!



Maybe you're brand of Catholic social conservatism is one of the reasons why you're religion is plagued by pederasts.

----------


## QuickZ06

Is that you Melissa?

----------


## MelissaWV

Incidentally, Ed, I am pretty sure the photos I posted inspired lustful thoughts.  Even if you say it's appropriate, I am betting that they were deemed sexy by at least a few on the forums.



What is "scandalous" has evolved greatly.  Yes, there are some invitations that are universally interpreted, and an owner has every right to dismiss someone for any reason he or she sees fit imo, but you will just not convince me that wearing a bikini for swimming is some sort of awful, mortal, evil thing because YOU can see parts that set you aquiver.

----------


## Carlybee

> I nagged rep your post with the "crazy train" picture in response to me saying I'm a social conservative.


If the "choo" fits

----------


## Generalissimo

> Excellent   So people who are "living together in sin" really aren't, as they may have promised before God but just haven't drawn it all up and gone to Church.  Glad we resolved that here.


That isn't remotely close to what I said. The Sacrament of marriage is administered by the bride and groom onto each other, but that does not mean you do not need the Church as a witness for the Sacrament to be licitly performed. Two people living together without having been married in a Church are in sin. You cannot be married without the Church, even though it is not a priest who administers the Sacrament of Marriage. 




> You do realize the bikinis I posted do far less to elicit lustful thoughts in others than some clothing that covers one from head to toe?  That in some countries (I wasn't making it up) it is the nape of the neck that is considered the height of sensuality, or the hands, or the curve of the waist, or the arch of the eyebrows?  I mean really, at what point does it stop?
> 
> When you say so?


I agree that the two outfits you posted are not as bad as others, especially what the woman who was thrown out of the water park for wearing. The first one, however, still shows too much cleavage. 

In countries or cultures in which different body parts elicit lustful desires then those are the body parts that should be covered of dressed in a way that mitigates that effect. While modesty is a universal concept, the exact form in which it is practiced varies.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Is that you Melissa?


In the foreground?  No that is some hussy.  Like I would shoe my toes!  What kind of skank do you think I am!?!?!?

I am wearing the much denser foliage in the background to keep myself properly covered.

----------


## dannno

> I didn't see him say that. He didn't even say people should be dressed exactly the same as in the 19th century. You can dress in a modern way while still dressing modestly. You can live in a hot climate without the need to expose your entire body.


They said their preference was to 19th century Swedish clothing.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Marriage does not require anyone except the bride, groom, and God. Even in the Catholic Church it is the bride and groom who are the ministers of the Sacrament, not the priest, who is there as a witness of God's Church. 
> 
> God created Adam and Eve to be together. His purpose for them was unity and to multiply. There is no doubt in anyone who reads and understands Genesis that the were married. 
> 
> 
> 
> Being naked is not a sin. It is not a sin to take a shower or a bath. It is not a sin to be naked with one's spouse. It is not a sin for a baby to run around the house naked. It is not a sin to be naked while being examined by a doctor. 
> 
> Dressing in a way that elicits lustful thoughts in others is sinful.


This 'seven deadly sins' BS is not even a part of the Bible. It is made up by some freaking 4th Century Monk. In proverbs it says:


    A proud look
    A lying tongue
    Hands that shed innocent blood
    A heart that devises wicked plots
    Feet that are swift to run into mischief
    A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
    Him that soweth discord among brethren

Are the 'sins'. I don't see where eliciting lustful thoughts in others is sinful. And if we take Galatians (sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery), it is read as adultery. Nothing here either about eliciting lustful thoughts in others as sin. This very idea is absent Christian because He made us in His image, and saying that His image is sinful is quite frankly beyond dumb for a Christian to do. 

Genesis 1:27

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Maybe you're brand of Catholic social conservatism is one of the reasons why you're religion is plagued by pederasts.


Or it could be the fact that the spike in sexual abuse in the Church was right after the Church "modernized" and turned its back on God in so many ways.

----------


## Carlybee

> Incidentally, Ed, I am pretty sure the photos I posted inspired lustful thoughts.  Even if you say it's appropriate, I am betting that they were deemed sexy by at least a few on the forums.
> 
> 
> 
> What is "scandalous" has evolved greatly.  Yes, there are some invitations that are universally interpreted, and an owner has every right to dismiss someone for any reason he or she sees fit imo, but you will just not convince me that wearing a bikini for swimming is some sort of awful, mortal, evil thing because YOU can see parts that set you aquiver.


Exactly...it's the same type of thought process that has forced women into burkas.  Because the men have no control over themselves they have to blind themselves.

----------


## mac_hine

> I think we are all aware her top was too small.  What if she was an A cup and her little bittie titties were falling out of her too loose top?  Would that person have been kicked out as well?  Or was the guy just so offended by a set of big boobs that he felt all the little children were going to be damned to Hell for viewing them?  WTF?



This baby is a future degenerate.

----------


## Generalissimo

> This 'seven deadly sins' BS is not even a part of the Bible. It is made up by some freaking 4th Century Monk.


Modesty certainly is in the Bible:

1 Timothy 2:9 
Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire

Anyway, the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation. Holy Tradition and the living Magisterium are as well.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Exactly...it's the same type of thought process that has forced women into burkas.  Because the men have no control over themselves they have to blind themselves.


Oh my God!  You have it!  It would make more sense to just issue the guys blindfolds!!!  You, ma'am, are a genius.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Modesty certainly is in the Bible:
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 
> Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire
> 
> Anyway, the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation. Holy Tradition and the living Magisterium are as well.


I am so $#@!ed.  I braid my hair after swimming to keep it out of my way

----------


## Generalissimo

> This baby is a future degenerate.


Or perhaps the child is just hungry. But yes, that child was born a sinner and will be a sinner his entire life.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Islam is a false religion and is based on violence instead of preaching love of others and forgiveness for sins.


Ah, yes. I remember now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mil...ory?id=9575794

----------


## Carlybee

> Modesty certainly is in the Bible:
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 
> Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire
> 
> Anyway, the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation. Holy Tradition and the living Magisterium are as well.


Maybe if the men had some self control it wouldnt have been necessary to issue that edict.  And it doesn't say $#@! about bikinis in the 21st century.

----------


## QuickZ06

> In the foreground?  No that is some hussy.  Like I would shoe my toes!  What kind of skank do you think I am!?!?!?
> 
> I am wearing the much denser foliage in the background to keep myself properly covered.


OMFG, funny!

----------


## Generalissimo

> Maybe if the men had some self control it wouldnt have been necessary to issue that edict.  And it doesn't say $#@! about bikinis in the 21st century.


Men should have self control, obviously. But that does not mean women should be dressing in ways they know will tempt men. 

And the Bible doesn't need to say anything about bikinis, the concept of modesty is enough. The Bible doesn't need to list out every last sin or circumstance which may be sinful. That would be a never ending book.

----------


## QuickZ06

//

----------


## dannno

> Modesty certainly is in the Bible:
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 
> Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire
> 
> Anyway, the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation. Holy Tradition and the living Magisterium are as well.


Hah, no braided hair eh?!

----------


## MelissaWV

> Hah, no braided hair eh?!


This guy was totally SOL:



(Last pic, I swear.  He's just so awesomely yummy and happens to be relevant for once.)

----------


## Generalissimo

> Hah, no braided hair eh?!


I'm assuming that at that time braided hair was something immodest. That doesn't mean it is now, but the concept of modesty remains.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Not at all. Islam is a false religion and is based on violence instead of preaching love of others (which is one reason you should dress modestly, to not tempt other into sin) and forgiveness for sins.


Telling women that the way they dress causes them to get raped (you all but outright said it), that they should cover up large swaths of their body lest they be purged to Hell, and that absent any same connection to men is made. Simply put, your beyond biased and are trying to use Christianity as justification for beliefs otherwise that have no justification. There are certainly appropriate attire for specific occassions, but it does not follow that the body itself is abhorrent and needs to be covered lest we provoke those awful deviant urges which God has endowed us with. Besides, you still haven't answered the question about handsome men and beautiful women. I take one look at Penelope Cruz's beautiful face...and woo, I'm lusting. Do beautiful people need to wear Burqa like garments to prevent them from sinning?

----------


## MelissaWV

> I'm assuming that at that time braided hair was something immodest. That doesn't mean it is now, but the concept of modesty remains.


It is infinitely more likely that women of a certain class and heritage were able to have their hair braided and washed regularly, hence the inclusion of gold and pearls.  It talks about modesty in a monetary sense more than a carnal one.  Extending that, as long as the bikini was on sale she's okay.

----------


## Generalissimo

> Telling women that the way they dress causes them to get raped (you all but outright said it),


I never said or even insinuated that. Don't put words in my mouth.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, *but with what is proper for women who profess godlinesswith good works.*


Strange that parts of things get left out...

Of course, we're already screwed:




> A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.


You know that time you put on your boyfriend or husband's tee shirt?  Yep.  Abomination.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Modesty certainly is in the Bible:
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:9 
> Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire
> 
> Anyway, the Bible is not the only source of Divine Revelation. Holy Tradition and the living Magisterium are as well.


That's talking about not wearing fancy and expensive clothing, not about midriff's and exposing certain %'s of your skin. You take everything and skew it to fit your preconceived ideas of 'right and wrong' instead of reading what it actually says. You're beyond hopeless, and thank God you're in the vast vast minority.

At least you tacitly admitted there is no such thing as provoking others to lustful thoughts as sin.

----------


## Generalissimo

> It is infinitely more likely that women of a certain class and heritage were able to have their hair braided and washed regularly, hence the inclusion of gold and pearls.  It talks about modesty in a monetary sense more than a carnal one.


You're right and in my post I never made any reference to carnal modesty. 




> Extending that, as long as the bikini was on sale she's okay.


It's sad that you make a really good post and usually are very intelligent in your arguments, though we more often than not disagree, and then have to end your post with such a dumb comment.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Men should have self control, obviously. But that does not mean women should be dressing in ways they know will tempt men. 
> 
> And the Bible doesn't need to say anything about bikinis, the concept of modesty is enough. The Bible doesn't need to list out every last sin or circumstance which may be sinful. That would be a never ending book.


Sexual offenders (both rapists and pedophiles) are truly sick people. When they make claims like "the baby/kid was too cute" or "the girl/lady was too hot" it just shows how messed up they truly are.

----------


## mac_hine

> I am continually amazed at the pervasiveness of prudeness. There is nothing wrong with the human body. Only in your mind is there something wrong and indecent about nature and beauty. I thought Christians believed we were made in His image. Are Christians saying His image is indecent, blasphemous, and needs to be covered? Sure, the owner has the right to demand certain attire from those on his property, and I am in my right to call him a freedom-stomping prude. It's a freaking water park, not like it was a high-end restaurant where Frank Sinatra is singing...sheesh.


When dealing with most religious types, it's wise to expect copious amounts of mind boggling hypocrisy.

----------


## Carlybee

Intermission

----------


## MelissaWV

> Intermission


See and that does nothing for me.  His best features to me are on his face, anyhow, and without a color photo you can't even appreciate his eyes 

Obviously he needs to wear a Guy Fawkes mask around me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Regarding the whole modesty thing...

Men have nobody to blame but themselves for their sin.  Women have nobody to blame but themselves for their sin.  Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own sin. 

Nonetheless, that we are responsible for our sin doesn't change the fact that people still tempt other people.  A temptation makes it easier to sin but does not excuse sin.

Now, regarding modesty, the body was indeed made in God's image.  Before the Fall, it was completely appropriate, and shameless, to be naked.  It was only after the Fall that it was ordained that man should wear clothing.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No LE...it wasn't private property.  It was a waterpark owned by the city.


Yes, you are right about it not being private property.  But, there are things like local public indecency laws.  If she wasn't hanging out of her bathing suit, I doubt there would have been an issue.  Her claim that she was wearing the same size bathing suit as the "girls" at the park is ludicrous and not germane at all, because she was attempting to stuff a larger body into a size that did not fit her.

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes, you are right about it not being private property.  But, there are things like local public indecency laws.  If she wasn't hanging out of her bathing suit, I doubt there would have been an issue.


But we don't know that this place had such laws. And there were others wearing the same type suits so she was being singled out because she had large breasts. Please show me where there are laws stating that big boobs hanging out of a bikini top is against the law. She wasn't naked.  It was a decision made by the manager of the park and if you look at the pic, while she might have made a better choice from an esoteric standpoint, it wasn't as bad as things they show on TV during prime time.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Yes, you are right about it not being private property.  But, there are things like local public indecency laws.  If she wasn't hanging out of her bathing suit, I doubt there would have been an issue.  Her claim that she was wearing the same size bathing suit as the "girls" at the park is ludicrous and not germane at all, because she was attempting to stuff a larger body into a size that did not fit her.


Seems like it fit her just fine. Also people calling what she wore as a 'string bikini' lol...This is a string bikini!



Also public indecency laws are ridiculous and need to be repealed and abolished. Since when do other people have the right to incarcerate and or fine you if you happen to offend their sensibilities? That's ridiculous, and don't give me 'for the children' BS. Most of the world's children population grows up around naked people and they aren't messed up in the head. Can't say the same for many growing up in the stigmatized West though....

----------


## pcosmar

> If she wasn't hanging out of her bathing suit, I doubt there would have been an issue.  Her claim that she was wearing the same size bathing suit as the "girls" at the park is ludicrous and not germane at all, because she was attempting to stuff a larger body into a size that did not fit her.




Had nothing to do with indecency laws.
It was a water park,  People wear bathing suits.

----------


## devil21

> I did not mean head to toe clothing. Just a lower knee-ankle high skirt or dress and some headgear.
> 
>  That is the great thing about liberty, I will find my über conservative community amongst the 350 million americans.


Enjoy your empty water park.  Ain't the free market grand?  You'll be out of business before you even open your pool if you institute a dress code like that.

And, as usual, South Park already hit the nail on the head on this issue.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full...06-cartmanland

----------


## MelissaWV

I lied about being done with pictures.

Anyone want to take a stab at where this was taken?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Seems like it fit her just fine. Also people calling what she wore as a 'string bikini' lol...This is a string bikini!


The breasts of the woman who was asked to cover up, were all but falling out of the bikini top.  She was wearing a much too small size.




> Also public indecency laws are ridiculous and need to be repealed and abolished. Since when do other people have the right to incarcerate and or fine you if you happen to offend their sensibilities? That's ridiculous, and don't give me 'for the children' BS. Most of the world's children population grows up around naked people and they aren't messed up in the head. Can't say the same for many growing up in the stigmatized West though....


You see, that's the great thing about liberty.  You have the liberty to move somewhere that has the local laws/ordinances that you prefer.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> But we don't know that this place had such laws. And there were others wearing the same type suits so she was being singled out because she had large breasts. Please show me where there are laws stating that big boobs hanging out of a bikini top is against the law. She wasn't naked.  It was a decision made by the manager of the park and if you look at the pic, while she might have made a better choice from an esoteric standpoint, it wasn't as bad as things they show on TV during prime time.


Most cities have public indecency laws/ordinances.  Her top was too small for her size breasts.  It was clear as day.  That was her problem.

----------


## Czolgosz

> When I read string bikini I was expecting something like this:





> I guess that pretty much covers it.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Hey look... I am adding an Alice Cooper video for no reason at all

----------


## Carlybee

> Men should have self control, obviously. But that does not mean women should be dressing in ways they know will tempt men. 
> 
> And the Bible doesn't need to say anything about bikinis, the concept of modesty is enough. The Bible doesn't need to list out every last sin or circumstance which may be sinful. That would be a never ending book.



Well so happy that we have you here to translate and interpret biblical scripture for us.

----------


## Carlybee

> Most cities have public indecency laws/ordinances.  Her top was too small for her size breasts.  It was clear as day.  That was her problem.



Well get the rope!!!

----------


## pcosmar

> The breasts of the woman who was asked to cover up, were all but falling out of the bikini top.


Bull$#@!.

https://www.facebook.com/katctv3/pos...51583162276969

Two teenage girls were intimidated by a real woman. 
Nothing more,,nothing less.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Bikinis are morally wrong. They're the antithesis of modest dress. I woman should only wear a bikini in the presence of her husband, and no one else.


You should be ex-communicated from the Church and shunned from Society for the Immoral and Sinful Act of pre-Marital Sex and Fathering a Child out of Wedlock.

----------


## Carlybee

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/katctv3/pos...51583162276969
> 
> Two teenage girls were intimidated by a real woman. 
> Nothing more,,nothing less.



Not to mention that indecent exposure means the willful and intentional exposure of private body parts.  I think they would have a hard time proving that some excess cleavage constitutes that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The breasts of the woman who was asked to cover up, were all but falling out of the bikini top.  She was wearing a much too small size.
> 
> 
> *
> You see, that's the great thing about liberty.  You have the liberty to move somewhere that has the local laws/ordinances that you prefer*.


A variation of the "love it or leave it" fallacy.  I'm surprised to see a RP supporter use it.   This reasoning justifies "democracy" (mob rule).

----------


## Qdog

> Omg. Generalissimo posts a pic of a woman with her vagina hanging out then goes on to preach about modest dress. Y'all are too much. Really. Hope you enjoy pleasuring yourselves when you choose women who only dress in such a way so as not to inspire lustful thoughts. If you were as moral as you pretend...you shouldn't be having lustful thoughts regardless.


What kind of bull$#@! is this?  Since when is it a sin for human beings to act according to their nature?  We are hard wired to like sex, and to be attracted to healthy looking women.  It is a good thing too, the survival of the human race depends on us having sex with attractive women! (they theoretically have better genes, and will help ensure the survival of offspring).

Instead of trying to pretend that "lustful thoughts" are unnatural, or sinful, or bad or whatever, like some sort of backwards victorian era nun... how about we just embrace the creatures that we are... the way nature made us.

----------


## MelissaWV

> A variation of the "love it or leave it" fallacy.  I'm surprised to see a RP supporter use it.   This reasoning justifies "democracy" (mob rule).


It is not a fallacy so long as there's really a choice.  Of course one of those choices is to work to change things right where you are.

In this case, though, when it's all said and done a new-ish water park got a lot of publicity (any press is good press, and a lot of people will applaud this decision anyhow), and a lady who lost 100 pounds and wanted to flaunt it... is now getting to do so nationally.

----------


## MelissaWV

> You're right and in my post I never made any reference to carnal modesty. 
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad that you make a really good post and usually are very intelligent in your arguments, though we more often than not disagree, and then have to end your post with such a dumb comment.


Except that it isn't.  The quote you posted (or rather the part of a quote) out of the Bible is about not lavishing money on your clothing and other adornments.  In other words, it has very little to do with the situation in the OP unless she paid a great deal of money for the bikini, or if she paid to have surgery related to the weight loss.

More to the point, I was discussing how ridiculous it is to take a tiny snippet of the Bible literally to the exclusion of all else --- including the sense God gave us all.  Having said that, I braided my hair when I got out of the shower, and I am wearing a gold chain with a pearl on it, so you probably should not listen to me.

----------


## Qdog

Ill be honest with you guys.  Deep down, I am a nudist.  I kind of resent the fact that society forces us to cover up what God gave us.  Adam and Eve were naked after all.
I understand that clothes can be useful for protection from the elements, pockets, etc.  But the idea of swimsuits for modesty is pretty darn stupid, and impractical.

I dont have any weird exhibitionist fetishes or anything.  I just happen to fancy the idea of the freedom to not have to wear any clothes.

----------


## Carlybee

Turns out teenagers run the park and it was them who told her to cover up or leave.  When she refused, they called the police.  The police told her they agreed with her but had to do their job since it was a city run park and she had been asked my management to leave.  Part of her argument is that she was discriminated against for looking too good in a bikini, which I would argue is debatable depending upon what one's idea of what looks good in a bikini is, however I still don't think indecent exposure laws are going to apply here.   People on here who claim she should have been kicked out because it is immoral to wear a bikini...well I have to wonder if you work for Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Ill be honest with you guys.  Deep down, I am a nudist.  I kind of resent the fact that society forces us to cover up what God gave us.  Adam and Eve were naked after all.
> I understand that clothes can be useful *for protection from the elements, pockets, etc*.  But the idea of swimsuits for modesty is pretty darn stupid, and impractical.
> 
> I dont have any weird exhibitionist fetishes or anything.  I just happen to fancy the idea of the freedom to not have to wear any clothes.


And sanitation.

----------


## Origanalist

> Then you really wouldn't like my G-string. (it's purple,, my wife's favorite color)


I probably wouldn't either.

----------


## Qdog

> Yes, I'm completely ok with a man going topless because a man's breasts so no elicit lust in the same a woman's does.
> *​Men and women are different.*


Dude, you sound like some kind of idiotic Muslim Shahman, that says women should have to cover up their faces so as not to "elicit lust"

From where does this idiotic thinking stem?

----------


## pcosmar

> I probably wouldn't either.


It was for beaches where I couldn't swim nude.

----------


## pcosmar

> From where does this idiotic thinking stem?


Sexual repression.
Same place most sexual deviance comes from.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Sexual repression.
> Same place most sexual deviance comes from.


It puts the lotion on its skin...

----------


## oyarde

This thread is pathetic and full of fail . It is a place to wear swim wear , it is funded by taxpayers .Yet  a taxpayer cannot wear swim wear there and others can.Fail.

----------


## Origanalist

> It was for beaches where I couldn't swim nude.


Actually, I would prefer nudity to a speedo.

----------


## Origanalist

So, am I right to understand the two employees that wanted her to cover up were young females?

So this was a edict passed down by the itty bitty titty committee? (sorry, I couldn't resist)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You should be ex-communicated from the Church and shunned from Society for the Immoral and Sinful Act of pre-Marital Sex and Fathering a Child out of Wedlock.

----------


## madengr

Water park in Independance, MO?  White trash riviera.  Why am I not surprised.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I find it odd how women have to wear a top, but men don't...to say that one upper body elicit's lust and the other doesn't is quite odd. I imagine Brad Pitt without a shirt elicit's quite a lustful sensation for a lot of women. I bet if you had Mike O' Hearn walking around that no women would be eliciting lust, just like if Jennifer Love Hewitt was walking around without a top that no men would be eliciting lust...let me just give a big fat roll of the eyes.

This is legal:



This is not:

Women with 'exposed' breasts. 

Makes a whole lot of sense....

----------


## Dr.3D

> And sanitation.


As if perspiration doesn't pass through most fabrics.   Thus the perspiration would carry just about anything else on the skin along with it and deposit it where the person had been sitting.   Clothing really doesn't change much in the way of sanitation.

----------


## MelissaWV

> As if perspiration doesn't pass through most fabrics.   Thus the perspiration would carry just about anything else on the skin along with it and deposit it where the person had been sitting.   Clothing really doesn't change much in the way of sanitation.


Erm for some reason you and Qdog have the same dirty mind lol  You can solve most of the "sitting down" aspect by tossing down towels, which you should be doing in a swimsuit or high-sweat situation anyhow.  

The discussion was about clothing and coverings in general.  I was thinking more along the lines of scrubs, surgical gloves, hair coverings (scarves, hats, hairnets), underwear (particularly for women), and so on.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am continually amazed at the pervasiveness of prudeness. There is nothing wrong with the human body. Only in your mind is there something wrong and indecent about nature and beauty. I thought Christians believed we were made in His image. Are Christians saying His image is indecent, blasphemous, and needs to be covered? Sure, the owner has the right to demand certain attire from those on his property, and I am in my right to call him a freedom-stomping prude. It's a freaking water park, not like it was a high-end restaurant where Frank Sinatra is singing...sheesh.


Most people look better with clothes on.

----------


## juleswin

> When Adam and Eve were naked there was no sin in the world. They were not lusting after each other. And they were married.


Damn, I cant -rep the troll. And yes he and the other one have been trolling this thread since page one. I hate bans and stuff but a few days of suspension may straighten em out.

----------


## Carlybee

> Most people look better with clothes on.



True that but it's not a crime to look bad. (that I know of)

----------


## Carlybee

> Damn, I cant -rep the troll. And yes he and the other one have been trolling this thread since page one. I hate bans and stuff but a few days of suspension may straighten em out.


He's already back with one of his other sock puppets.

----------


## Origanalist

> He's already back with one of his other sock puppets.

----------


## Nobexliberty

Generalissimo 

Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


Why?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Generalissimo 
> 
> Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
> 
> 
> Why?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...o-banned-again

----------


## oyarde

> Generalissimo 
> 
> Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
> 
> 
> Why?


photo shop of obummer in the wrong place

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/katctv3/pos...51583162276969
> 
> Two teenage girls were intimidated by a real woman. 
> Nothing more,,nothing less.


Wonder what they would do if it was a younger person with the same dimensions and bathing suit? Until proven otherwise, I call age discrimination.




> And sanitation.


Now that's the real issue.

Children. Water. Enough said. 

(South Park and Tosh.0 fans can imagine the appropriate clip here.)

----------


## susano

> Not amish, just a fanatic.


And taking the piss, so to speak? You surely cannot be serious.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> And taking the piss, so to speak? You surely cannot be serious.


 I am a fanatic at every level.

----------


## susano

> I can understand wanting ugly people to cover up... but that lady is sexy and has great boobs!  Why would anyone want her to cover up?


Who works at water parks? Kids. It was probably a kid who thought she was too old and fat to be in a two piece. His manager was probably also a kid. When I first saw this story the old bumper sticker "No fat chicks" came mind.

I hope she sues the $#@! out of them. Actually, I'd like it better if she sent some goons to stab the employee and the manager but I doubt that will happen.

----------


## Natural Citizen

How come we can't get this lucky with the dolts walking around with their pants around their knees? It's not like having to see some idiots rear end and boxers is the highlight of my day. I suppose that this is accepted because it's trending? Maybe they folks behind the counter are dressed the same way?

----------


## susano

> I am a fanatic at every level.


lol

You make me think of the characters in some dark Ingmar Bergman film.

----------


## Origanalist

> Who works at water parks? Kids. It was probably a kid who thought she was too old and fat to be in a two piece. His manager was probably also a kid. When I first saw this story the old bumper sticker "No fat chicks" came mind.
> 
> I hope she sues the $#@! out of them. Actually, I'd like it better if she sent some goons to stab the employee and the manager but I doubt that will happen.


That woman has every reason to be proud, and she just lost 100 lbs.?

----------


## susano

> That woman has every reason to be proud, and she just lost 100 lbs.?


I thought she looked damn good, especially after such a massive weight loss. Some 18 year old kid probably would think she was disgusting. You KNOW there were young girls/women there in skimpy suits so it's clear this is about age and body discrimination.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> lol
> 
> You make me think of the characters in some dark Ingmar Bergman film.


 I love being a fanatic, it makes who wants to fight me suicidal.

----------


## Carlybee

> I love being a fanatic, it makes who wants to fight me suicidal.



Aren't you like 15?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Aren't you like 15?


 13, had my first fight when I was 8 and the poor guy who messed with me never touched me again. Nobody ever touched me after that. Too much of a Gentleman I guess.

----------


## Carlybee

> 13, had my first fight when I was 8 and the poor guy who messed with me never touched me again.


Okay well you're not a fanatic, you are just a teenager. It's good that you can defend yourself but even better that you learn self discipline.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Okay well you're not a fanatic, you are just a teenager. It's good that you can defend yourself but even better that you learn self discipline.


 But I am Christian so I am officaly a fanatic in Sweden. And that was my only fight ever so self dicipline is my strenght.

----------


## Origanalist

//

----------


## Nobexliberty

> //


I have always wondered what that means.

----------


## oyarde

> I have always wondered what that means.


Secret code

----------


## Origanalist

> I have always wondered what that means.


It means I didn't read the thread close enough and my comment was meaningless.

----------


## Scrapmo



----------


## Nobexliberty

> 


Lets go back to topic.  I believe bikinis are not modest enough and must be replaced by more modest swimwear.

----------


## susano

> But I am Christian so I am officaly a fanatic in Sweden. And that was my only fight ever so self dicipline is my strenght.


Are you really a teenager or is that just your shtick?

BTW, how do you feel about Anders Brevik (not sure I got the name right but you know who I mean)?

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Are you really a teenager or is that just your shtick?
> 
> BTW, how do you feel about Anders Brevik (not sure I got the name right but you know who I mean)?


Breivik is being treated to nicely. He gets 3 months per murder. That is weakness by Norway, they should never have been allowed independance!

----------


## Carlybee

> Lets go back to topic.  I believe bikinis are not modest enough and must be replaced by more modest swimwear.


No offense but I'm not going to debate what is and what isn't appropriate swimwear with a 13 year old. I have swimwear older than you x 2.

----------


## Origanalist

> No offense but I'm not going to debate what is and what isn't appropriate swimwear with a 13 year old. I have swimwear older than you x 2.


When I was 13 it didn't matter what swimwear I wore.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> No offense but I'm not going to debate what is and what isn't appropriate swimwear with a 13 year old. I have swimwear older than you x 2.


Why not, it is easier to make a naive young mind like mine to change opinions then adults.




> When I was 13 it didn't matter what swimwear I wore.


I have always been "different".

----------


## LibertyEagle

> A variation of the "love it or leave it" fallacy.  I'm surprised to see a RP supporter use it.   This reasoning justifies "democracy" (mob rule).


^^ Total BS.

ROFL.  What I said is no different than RP has espoused on numerous occasions.  The idea of 50 republics.  Not a one-size-fits all.  If you don't like the laws in one, use your feet to vote.

----------


## susano

> No offense but I'm not going to debate what is and what isn't appropriate swimwear with a 13 year old. I have swimwear older than you x 2.



lol

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I find it odd how women have to wear a top, but men don't...to say that one upper body elicit's lust and the other doesn't is quite odd. I imagine Brad Pitt without a shirt elicit's quite a lustful sensation for a lot of women. I bet if you had Mike O' Hearn walking around that no women would be eliciting lust, just like if Jennifer Love Hewitt was walking around without a top that no men would be eliciting lust...let me just give a big fat roll of the eyes.


Probably because women's breasts are considered part of the reproductive system.  Men's breasts are not.

----------


## Roxi

By covering our bodies we make what's underneath mysterious, and therefore susceptible to the curious. By leaving it all exposed, we leave nothing to the imagination to tempt the curious. 

I think things would be a lot less complicated all around if it were legal and acceptable to walk around naked if one so chose.

----------


## Origanalist

> By covering our bodies we make what's underneath mysterious, and therefore susceptible to the curious. By leaving it all exposed, we leave nothing to the imagination to tempt the curious. 
> 
> I think things would be a lot less complicated all around if it were legal and acceptable to walk around naked if one so chose.


I actually find both equally acceptable. People should be able to choose.

----------


## Danan

> No offense but I'm not going to debate what is and what isn't appropriate swimwear with a 13 year old. I have swimwear older than you x 2.


Maybe he's going to change his opinion on bikinis once puberty really kicks in.

----------


## Todd

> Do you think it's okay for men to wear speedos?


Sure.

----------


## pcosmar

> I thought she looked damn good, especially after such a massive weight loss. Some 18 year old kid probably would think she was disgusting. You KNOW there were young girls/women there in skimpy suits so it's clear this is about age and body discrimination.


My wife's first reaction was catty,, but after listening to the story, it was "I would be owning that park, she should sue".

The park "employees" were a couple of teenage girls.. (high school summer job?)

----------


## pcosmar

> Probably because women's breasts are considered part of the reproductive system.




considered by who?  How?
What???

----------


## cajuncocoa

So this is a city owned water park.  Where is the same outrage we see when public schools demand that a student remove his/her NRA or Ron Paul t-shirt because it's offensive to someone?

----------


## asurfaholic

It's not indecent exposure to breast feed your baby. So why should it be indecent any other time?

----------


## asurfaholic

> So this is a city owned water park.  Where is the same outrage we see when public schools demand that a student remove his/her NRA or Ron Paul t-shirt because it's offensive to someone?


Not much outrage here, I bet at least 40% of the posts here are from the same 2 or so people.

The woman shouldn't really wear that small of a top, but the pool was wrong to single her out. She should be compensated the 1.50$ or whatever the tax value of 1 day is for access to the pool.

----------


## chudrockz

There really are 300+ posts on this topic? Holy sheep$#@!.

I briefly watched the news video. I didn't think her swimsuit was that revealing. Or out-of-line.

Damnit.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

I work at a waterpark; therefore a bikini expert. Her attire is appropriate, the actions of these employees dumb.

----------


## phill4paul

> This thread is Fail without pictures:


  THIS is what this whole brouhaha is over? SMFH.

----------


## MelissaWV

> THIS is what this whole brouhaha is over? SMFH.


Technically, the reason the thread is so long is that a couple of folks chimed in that women have lost all modesty and should be wearing suits that cover most of the thigh, all of the breasts, show no cleavage, and tempt no one.  That went on for several pages.

The to-do in the MSM is largely about the discriminatory nature of the whole thing, but it doesn't really seem like she was cited for anything.  In the end she gets to show everyone that she looks damned good now, the park gets publicity, and RPFs gets another debate about how women are dressing like tramps --- led largely by the same guy who often posts trampy photos.




> I thought she looked damn good, especially after such a massive weight loss. Some 18 year old kid probably would think she was disgusting. You KNOW there were young girls/women there in skimpy suits so it's clear this is about age and body discrimination.


I posted a photo from the same water park earlier, showing a much skinnier mommy in a teeny bikini.  It does not appear she was told to leave.

* * * 

As a last, absolutely definitive note on the whole "if she covered up fully she wouldn't be a sex object" thing, I submit the following, and ask you to consider what many guys would think (despite her wearing pants and a tee shirt):




Hint: if you are having trouble following me, read the comments under the video.

----------


## Czolgosz

ohhhh, teh asian womenz.

----------


## phill4paul

> Technically, the reason the thread is so long is that a couple of folks chimed in that women have lost all modesty and should be wearing suits that cover most of the thigh, all of the breasts, show no cleavage, and tempt no one.  That went on for several pages.
> 
> The to-do in the MSM is largely about the discriminatory nature of the whole thing, but it doesn't really seem like she was cited for anything.  In the end she gets to show everyone that she looks damned good now, the park gets publicity, and RPFs gets another debate about how women are dressing like tramps --- led largely by the same guy who often posts trampy photos.


  Thanks for saving me a 300+ post time sink.

----------


## Nobexliberty

> Technically, the reason the thread is so long is that a couple of folks chimed in that women have lost all modesty and should be wearing suits that cover most of the thigh, all of the breasts, show no cleavage, and tempt no one.  That went on for several pages.
> 
> The to-do in the MSM is largely about the discriminatory nature of the whole thing, but it doesn't really seem like she was cited for anything.  In the end she gets to show everyone that she looks damned good now, the park gets publicity, and RPFs gets another debate about how women are dressing like tramps --- led largely by the same guy who often posts trampy photos.


I have posted no trampy photos.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Purely by coincidence, before this controversy, on the radio they were talking about going to water parks to beat the heat, and they made sure to point out that thong bikinis are not allowed at water parks.

Apparently "string" bikini is not very descriptive, as it covers everything from the smallest thong, to the largest granny bikini. The common thread seems to be that it has ties on the sides...

----------


## Dr.3D

> Erm for some reason you and Qdog have the same dirty mind lol  You can solve most of the "sitting down" aspect by tossing down towels, which you should be doing in a swimsuit or high-sweat situation anyhow.  
> 
> The discussion was about clothing and coverings in general.  I was thinking more along the lines of scrubs, surgical gloves, hair coverings (scarves, hats, hairnets), underwear (particularly for women), and so on.


So you think I have a dirty mind?

I'm one of those people who would have clothing optional everywhere.   Those who see the nude human body as dirty are the ones with a dirty mind.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There really are 300+ posts on this topic? Holy sheep$#@!.
> 
> I briefly watched the news video. I didn't think her swimsuit was that revealing. Or out-of-line.
> 
> Damnit.


RPFs-where even relatively boring subjects can be discussed for 13-20 pages.   lolz

----------


## MelissaWV

> So you think I have a dirty mind?
> 
> I'm one of those people who would have clothing optional everywhere.   Those who see the nude human body as dirty are the ones with a dirty mind.


I don't see the human body as dirty (in a carnal sense), sheesh.  Clothing optional heart surgery... hmm... I will totally pass.  

* * * 




> I have posted no trampy photos.


You were also not the one, imo, leading that portion of the discussion, so I did not say that you had.

----------


## QuickZ06

//

----------


## amy31416

> So you think I have a dirty mind?
> 
> I'm one of those people who would have clothing optional everywhere.   Those who see the nude human body as dirty are the ones with a dirty mind.


Yeah. The first time a woman runs around naked while on her period will have the majority of nudists shrieking for a clothing law.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah. The first time a woman runs around naked while on her period will have the majority of nudists shrieking for a clothing law.


  Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Best belly chuckle of the day. +rep.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Yeah. The first time a woman runs around naked while on her period will have the majority of nudists shrieking for a clothing law.


ty for  having the guts to go there lol  I delicately tap-danced around it by saying "underwear - especially women"

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> What is wrong with demanding people to cover up,...


Where the right to force others to cover up comes from?

Right to cover oneself up is evident but each person should not be master of her own destiny?

If we don't have freedom at home, how are we going to spread it around the world.

Too many questions, too few answers.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah. The first time a woman runs around naked while on her period will have the majority of nudists shrieking for a clothing law.


Not really, the only clue is usually just a small string.

----------


## amy31416

> ty for  having the guts to go there lol  I delicately tap-danced around it by saying "underwear - especially women"


Yeah, I picked up on it, but I doubt many of the guys did. 

Trust me fellas, underwear are a necessity during certain times, I have no idea what sort of insanity went on in pre-underwear times.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Not really, the only clue is usually just a small string.


I'm not going to get into details, but there is a certain degree of... failure.  You also don't necessarily know the very second it's going to start.  Would certainly make for an embarrassing subway ride.

----------


## amy31416

> Not really, the only clue is usually just a small string.


Trust me Pete, that ain't always the case, during menstruation--even the most meticulous person won't simply be showing string. And it's not like that string leads to a rubber stopper that keeps everything in, and many women don't like tampons--they can be uncomfortable or painful, especially for virgins. 

If you want to disagree, I'll just keep giving more details.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Trust me Pete, that ain't always the case, during menstruation--even the most meticulous person won't simply be showing string. And it's not like that string leads to a rubber stopper that keeps everything in, and many women don't like tampons--they can be uncomfortable or painful, especially for virgins. 
> 
> If you want to disagree, I'll just keep giving more details.


Careful, there-you're going to tempt danno into this thread, and it's going to go places you just don't want.

----------


## phill4paul

> Careful, there-you're going to tempt danno into this thread, and it's going to go places you just don't want.


 The belly chuckles just keep coming.

----------


## amy31416

> Careful, there-you're going to tempt danno into this thread, and it's going to go places you just don't want.


I can't wait, I'm sure he knows more about it than I do and I can learn a thing or two.

----------


## phill4paul

> I can't wait, I'm sure he knows more about it than I do and I can learn a thing or two.


  I got in on this thread at just the right time.

  Paging Doctor danno....Doctor danno please come to the E.R.

----------


## pcosmar

> If you want to disagree, I'll just keep giving more details.


No disagreement. 
I have just noticed the strings on a few dancers I have known.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I can't wait, I'm sure he knows more about it than I do and I can learn a thing or two.


How could you possibly know more about your lady parts than danno?   You will indeed be wise to pay heed to his teachings.  He'll no doubt run rings around you WRT all things vagina.

----------


## Carlybee

I think we've strung this one along for a while now

----------


## Nobexliberty

This one is going for 50 pages!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This one is going for 50 pages!


w00t!

----------


## Roxi

> I think we've strung this one along for a while now



Now that's just funny. Period. End of story.

----------


## thoughtomator

Final answer: If you couldn't bear to see Andrea Merkel wearing it, it's not appropriate in public.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Not really, the only clue is usually just a small string.


Would that qualify as a "string" bikini?

----------


## Origanalist

> Would that qualify as a "string" bikini?


Does this have anything to do with string theory?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Would that qualify as a "string" bikini?





> Does this have anything to do with string theory?

----------


## Danan

> Does this have anything to do with string theory?


Lol. I'm out of rep, sadly.

----------


## Carlybee

> 



What?  No string instruments?

----------


## Carlybee

> Final answer: If you couldn't bear to see Andrea Merkel wearing it, it's not appropriate in public.

----------


## Origanalist

> What?  No string instruments?



How about a flute?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What?  No string instruments?


It only takes a drummer to play a rimshot, silly.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Now that's just funny. Period. End of story.


I see what you did there.

----------


## amy31416

I'm just shocked that more of you fellas don't want to know more about menstruation. Shocked, I say.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I'm just shocked that more of you fellas don't want to know more about menstruation. Shocked, I say.


Careful.  That can get toxic.

----------


## Danan

> I'm just shocked that more of you fellas don't want to know more about menstruation. Shocked, I say.


I'm also not too interested in the leakage comming from other bodily orifices, so don't make this about sexism!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Careful.  That can get toxic.


Then it would be toxic shock.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Then it would be toxic shock.


My joke... you beat it to death

----------


## Dr.3D

> My joke... you beat it to death


Sorry...

----------


## amy31416

> I'm also not too interested in the leakage comming from other bodily orifices, so don't make this about sexism!


If you want female people running around naked, you gotta deal with the natural leakage and get over it, unless you only feature pregnant women at your resorts. Even that isn't guaranteed.




> Then it would be toxic shock.


A guy got that? Impressive!




> My joke... you beat it to death


Definitely your joke, but give him credit for getting it.

----------


## Danan

> *If you want* female *people running around naked,*


Would that make a libertarian?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Would that make a libertarian?


No, they also have to smoke pot

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, they also have to smoke pot


I guess I'm not a libertarian, as I don't condone  running around naked and smoking pot

(I kid!  I  kid!)

----------


## Danan

> No, they also have to smoke pot


I see.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> if he singled her out, for whatever reason, to where a funny hat in order to be on his property. she'd either have to wear the funny hat or leave.


She should probably get a refund, though, since she paid money to come into the park and this rule was far from clear.  Both the funny hat thing and the swimsuit thing.  I didn't read the article, but if it was just a typical bikini, that is generally assumed to be fine at a waterpark.  That is standard attire (for better or worse).  If your waterpark is different, then you should maybe have a sign out in front explaining that.

----------


## phill4paul

After leaving the interwebz to attend a friends wife's b-day get together I can only say....I am not disappoint on return.

----------


## KEEF

> Yeah, I picked up on it, but I doubt many of the guys did. 
> 
> Trust me fellas, underwear are a necessity during certain times, *I have no idea what sort of insanity went on in pre-underwear times*.


A lot of zipper accidents...OUCH!

----------


## fr33

Tbh from my travels in the south east, this story doesn't really surprise me. I'd be shocked if it happened around here though.

----------


## Carlybee

> A lot of zipper accidents...OUCH!



Nah if it was pre-underwear times, it was pre-zipper times too.  Probably a lot of codpiece incidents.

----------


## Carlybee

> Tbh from my travels in the south east, this story doesn't really surprise me. I'd be shocked if it happened around here though.



It was Missouri....the "Show Me" state.

----------


## Roxi

> It was Missouri....the "Show Me" state.



Every time I've ever tested that out it turned out bad.

----------


## Origanalist

> Every time I've ever tested that out it turned out bad.


Do tell. I'm dying to hear.....

----------


## dillo

She has my sympathies but she only would have a legal case in my mind if it was a government owned waterpark

----------


## Carlybee

> Every time I've ever tested that out it turned out bad.




Apparently there are some things they don't want you to show them.

----------


## Origanalist

> Apparently there are some things they don't want you to show them.


They need to make up their minds.

----------


## QuickZ06

GOOOOO CARDS!!!!!

----------


## Nobexliberty

> GOOOOO CARDS!!!!!


 The Twins will kick your ass in the world series this year!

----------


## asurfaholic

So I went to the city pool yesterday trying to find bikinis that were too revealing...   So I could.. be offended... It's for the kids.

 I left the pool very offended

Gonna try the beach this morning.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm just shocked that more of you fellas don't want to know more about menstruation. Shocked, I say.


I am an old guy. I have had girlfriends and a wife.. and a stepdaughter. As well as female house quests.

I have also cleared the household plumbing several times over the years. (white mice)

I have also lived in areas where nudity was common. I think I am fairly aware of the human form and functions.
I'm just not offended nor intimidated by Gods creation. It is my nature to find females attractive,, though I don't generally drool or grope uncontrollably.

I find prudishness just silly.

----------


## amy31416

> I am an old guy. I have had girlfriends and a wife.. and a stepdaughter. As well as female house quests.
> 
> I have also cleared the household plumbing several times over the years. (white mice)
> 
> I have also lived in areas where nudity was common. I think I am fairly aware of the human form and functions.
> I'm just not offended nor intimidated by Gods creation. It is my nature to find females attractive,, though I don't generally drool or grope uncontrollably.
> 
> I find prudishness just silly.


It is silly in many ways, but when it comes to certain things--that's my business and nobody elses. And sometimes the "anti-prudes" are just as pushy and judgmental as the prudes.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> 


Haha, yes! It has also gone on some really weird tangents. </Thread> ?




> No offense but I'm not going to debate what is and what isn't appropriate swimwear with a 13 year old. I have swimwear older than you x 2.


Haha! Boom roasted! This is like the best response on this thread.

----------


## pcosmar

> It is silly in many ways, but when it comes to certain things--that's my business and nobody elses.


Not silly at all.. Your styles are your choice..Button up toe to neck,, or wear a burka if you choose. Or a tank top and Daisy dukes if you like.
As long as it is your choice and not something imposed.

It is the idea of dictating styles to others that I am opposed to.

----------


## TheTexan

> This thread is Fail without pictures:


Shrug.  I think she looks fine.  Kind of a weird figure, probably because she had just lost 100 pounds.  Kind of like a "I'm not fat, I'm big boned" kind of thing lol.

Oh well.  Private property and all that.  (cue AF's speech on private tyranny, it's probably hidden in the depths of this thread somewhere)

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Oh look - I just posted Queensryche for no reason at all.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oh well.  Private property and all that.


What private property??? Public property/City Owned

This is over nothing more than Authoritarianism. A couple of teenage wannabe Dictators with a summer job.
And the city backing them up (which is even more stupid)

----------


## TheTexan

> What private property??? Public property/City Owned
> 
> This is over nothing more than Authoritarianism. A couple of teenage wannabe Dictators with a summer job.
> And the city backing them up (which is even more stupid)


Oh the park is publically owned?  Nevermind, then.  Why $#@! does city own a water park?  Sigh

----------

