Mum of three boys says ban g-string bikinis at the pool

Forums › Off topic › Mum of three boys says ban g-string bikinis at the pool

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3258715 12-Jul-2024 11:19

cruxis:

Well if they don't mind wearing a bikini in public. I guess they won't mind being in the background of boys taking selfies right?

Or a guy just giving lewd gestures and stares?

When is the unwritten line crossed in public anyways.

Good victim blaming there.

What about the guy learning not to objectify other humans?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#3258719 12-Jul-2024 11:30

Rikkitic:

I don't have a problem with 'woke' but I have a real problem with 'drop'. What the hell does it mean? That something is no longer included or that something has fallen from the sky?

See David Seymour/sushi and certain sections of the internet whenever a movie or TV show with a female lead drops.

From this context I would say drops = comes out/released.

However drop can also mean cancelled/let go. i.e. The show was dropped from the line out, or the actor was dropped from the cast.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16310

Lifetime subscriber

#3258782 12-Jul-2024 11:59

blackjack17:

Rikkitic:

I don't have a problem with 'woke' but I have a real problem with 'drop'. What the hell does it mean? That something is no longer included or that something has fallen from the sky?

See David Seymour/sushi and certain sections of the internet whenever a movie or TV show with a female lead drops.

From this context I would say drops = comes out/released.

However drop can also mean cancelled/let go. i.e. The show was dropped from the line out, or the actor was dropped from the cast.

The way the term is being used by today's children is confusing and imprecise. They need to find another buzzword.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#3258811 12-Jul-2024 14:17

Rikkitic:

The way the term is being used by today's children is confusing and imprecise. They need to find another buzzword.

🤪 OK Boomer! 🤪

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16310

Lifetime subscriber

#3258813 12-Jul-2024 14:21

evilengineer:

🤪 OK Boomer! 🤪

Aw, how did you know?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#3258820 12-Jul-2024 14:41

wellygary:

MikeAqua:

Legally, women could probably choose to go topless at public pools in NZ. The pool would have to either allow it or make women and men wear a top in the pool.

Topless is not indecent, - This was confirmed by the Police years ago during the "Boobs on bikes" parades in Auckland....

https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/4234

It is possible for it to be "disorderly" under the summary offences act depending on the location and event ....

IANAL but IIRC this was also tested in court and the court found that women could be topless in public.

Mike

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#3258823 12-Jul-2024 14:44

cruxis:

Well if they don't mind wearing a bikini in public. I guess they won't mind being in the background of boys taking selfies right?

Or a guy just giving lewd gestures and stares?

When is the unwritten line crossed in public anyways.

If we're specifically talking about public pools then many (Most?) have policies banning people taking photos if another person is in the background. I know that's the policy at the pool and gym I frequent.

Also, lewd gestures and stares is just rude. It's like looking at the sun: You can glance but don't let your gaze linger.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16310

Lifetime subscriber

#3258830 12-Jul-2024 14:55

Judy said a thing most silly
When she saw young Johnny’s willie,
“lucky you it’s in that place
“just think if it was on your face!”

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

wellygary

8811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5288

#3258835 12-Jul-2024 15:04

MikeAqua:

IANAL but IIRC this was also tested in court and the court found that women could be topless in public.

Courts don't work that way,

The 2008 "boobs on bikes" case found that it was not "offensive" thus declaring the Auckland Council's bylaw invalid....

But there was no official ruling that it always not "disorderly"- A woman walking topless along a sparsely populated beach is unlikely to be disorderly,

Doing it in a public library at story time , less so

https://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZDC/2008/14198.html

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#3258913 12-Jul-2024 18:38

cruxis: Well if they don't mind wearing a bikini in public. I guess they won't mind being in the background of boys taking selfies right?

Pool rules don't allow that kind of behaviour.

Or a guy just giving lewd gestures and stares?

See above and.. I know that you already know that's wrong anyway.

When is the unwritten line crossed in public anyways.

See above. Also these kinds of unwritten rules are increasingly codified as written laws where possible because they have been found necessary to allow prosecution of particularly bad or persistent behaviour.

pdh

442 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 290

#3259035 13-Jul-2024 00:01

A maxim with a grain of truth:

When mores are sufficient, Laws are unnecessary.
When mores are insufficient, Laws are unenforceable.
[Emile Durkheim 1858-1917]

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Eva888

2762 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2427

Lifetime subscriber

#3259094 13-Jul-2024 09:26

My take on the matter is there’s a time and a place. If it’s at the beach or pool it’s expected and acceptable to see more skin and while it may be repugnant to view some choices, you have to grin and bear it.

If it’s on the bus or a plane or going to a ball then it’s not socially acceptable and most parents would be teaching their kids what is socially acceptable and the unwritten rules from a young age. Lawful doesn’t make for widely acceptable.

In the case of a plane you could be booted off for over revealing clothing and it does happen depending on the airline.

Maybe the woman in question had been privy to her partner's persistent viewing of the terrain and jealousy made it easier to cover her own anxieties and pretend the child would be harmed by the exposure.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3259100 13-Jul-2024 09:59

"Think of the children!" is a rally cry for conservatives.

Eva888:

Maybe the woman in question had been privy to her partner's persistent viewing of the terrain...

This is the funniest take. And quite likely possible.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

thermonuclear

744 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 599

#3259104 13-Jul-2024 10:50

I remember reading an online article not so long ago in which the columnist was bemoaning the fact that she wanted to buy a new swimsuit in New Zealand and could not find anything that was not a g-string for the bottom. I can't recall now exactly but I think this extended to many one-piece suit options as well, or perhaps she wasn't wanting to be "forced" to buy a one-piece suit in order to cover her butt.

In light of this flaring up, I wonder about that wider aspect. Whether it's been, in part, exacerbated by a lack of options for women these days. Presumably things are driven by market-forces and g-string suits wouldn't be as pervasive if they weren't popular and selling. How much is anything the "norm" because it's genuinely popular and widely accepted and how much of it is because of societal pressure and wanting to fit in, or a lack of choice in this instance?

Bung

6733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2926

Subscriber

#3259109 13-Jul-2024 11:25

thermonuclear:

I remember reading an online article not so long ago in which the columnist was bemoaning the fact that she wanted to buy a new swimsuit in New Zealand and could not find anything that was not a g-string for the bottom. I can't recall now exactly but I think this extended to many one-piece suit options as well, or perhaps she wasn't wanting to be "forced" to buy a one-piece suit in order to cover her butt.

Sounds like the standard columnists answer to a deadline when they've run out of inspiration, make something up.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6