Tinkerbell farking a lightswitch

One of my friends is heavily tattooed. Her and her son were escorted out Legoland in Dallas, Tx after , stated by the manager, A patron had complained of her tattoos. this is the tattoo..



she felt super offended, which not sure why you would be embarrassed if you would have something like that tattooed on your leg.
she called several reporters hoping to give legoland a bad rep...but honestly I don't see anything wrong with their issues about the tattoo....I mean she could have worn pants...

what do you guys think? should we have to cover risque tattoos around children?

here is one of the articles written about her...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/vdlr/mom-kicked-out-of-legoland-for-naked-tinkerbell-ta-44qs

 

id have to agree with the descrimination

we shouldnt treat retards like that....

 

yeah but it is nude... I honestly dont care....

I mean its just boobs. Its not a gaping vagina or anything. I think legoland had the right intentions, but the didn't handle it well at all. They didn't even give her the option to cover them up..they just escorted her out without even specifying what tattoo it was. It wasn't until later when she emailed their corporate office that she found out.

 

Your just plain wrong.
It's not discrimination, it's a PRIVATE company exercising their rights to allow/refuse service to whomever they want.
Their house, their rules.
If she did not have the foresight to anticipate such a reaction at a children's amusement park and take measures to avoid any problems, then it's all on her.

I love how people will rant and rave about their "rights" to do something like put potentially offensive tattoo's on themselves, but are all butt hurt when other people wish to exercise their right to not have to view it.

At what point and by what justification do her rights to wear such a tattoo supersede the rights of other patrons of the park or the rights of the park itself?

(personally I think the tattoos are pretty funny, but maybe not for public display to a bunch of 2-5 year olds)

 

^agree..... you do have to have a certain degree of respect for other people and other peoples children.
Just because I dont care if my children saw this particular tattoo, doesn't mean others dont care.

 

If I had kids I would not want them seeing either of those tatoos.

 

I wouldn't want my kid seeing that shit. I'm no prude, but those tattoos are clearly pornographic. In my mind it's the same as whipping out your genitals at chuck-e-cheese. People have a right to take their children to child friendly environment and not have to worry about them being exposed to porn. I mean where do you draw the line? I suppose if you think it's healthy for your child to be exposed to pornography, that's your business (personally I think it's a real good way to emotionally fuck up your kids), but it's certainly unreasonable for one to think that they have the right to go around showing those kinds of images to other people's children.

 

I just don't think a kid would even know whats going on here....kids are subjected to waaay worse these days.

it might make it worse though since they are recognizable cartoon characters....it makes the art more attractive to kids....

"Mommy what is tinkerbell doing" hahaha

 

Kids being subjected to "way worse" than this is a pretty poor justification. I don't think it's a good thing to see barely pubescent girls pushing baby strollers around town. That's where this kind of shit can lead. Babies having babies and those babies growing into fucked up adults. Kids developing brains have enough crazy shit to deal with, without throwing adult sexuality into the mix.

 

If your kids go to public schools....they are subjected to way worse. Its a fact.

 

Not arguing that "fact" - but it doesn't make any less wrong.

 

I think those tatts are pretty cute. If they were mine, I'd be conscious of covering them in the presence of children. I think because they are well know children's characters, children would be drawn to look at them more than if they were other nudes. I would have taken all that into consideration if I had chosen them.

 

its not what you look at that matters, its what you see. -Henry David Thoreau

In this case its all in the eye of the beholder. She should have worn pants, this is obvious. Its almost like you ask for it when you tattoo your body like that and walk around for the world to see....someone is going to have an issue with it.
she got super angry about it and went around trying to get people on her side of the matter, but it just ended up blowing up in her face when the wrong people got a hold of her story. I guess it a lesson learned that she needs to just cover that shit up when she goes somewhere around children....then she wouldn't have to embarrass her son in one of his favorite places.
In all honesty I feel bad for her son because she didnt think about this ahead of time. -talking about fucked up kids becoming fucked up adults...

 

I didnt see them as pornographic just because technically there is no genitalia shown (other than nipples) ...

I see them as paedophilia fantasy art (which is worse in my book)

 

she is all up on that lightswitch!

 

While I personally LOVE the artwork of those tattoos myself (WOW!), I wouldn't want my sister's grandson to see that either.

 

Are you dom or sub?


I like both. I'm switch...

 

your friend is an idiot

 

haha

 

(1)...Maybe I Have Lived A Sheltered Life, But I Can't

For The Life Of Me Understand Why Anybody, Let Alone A Woman, Would

Want To Do Such A Tasteless, And Permanent, Disfigurement To Her Body....

(2)...She Should Have Worn Jeans....

(3)...And Three Cheers For The Employee Who Kicked Her Ass Out The Front Gate...:2thumbsup:.

(4)...And, YES, She Appears To Be A "Gold Digger"....



Cheers Glen.

 

She was asked to leave because her tattoos WERE being a disruption to other people at the park.
Regardless if it is blatant discrimination or not, the park was well within their legal rights to ask her to leave. She wasn't denied employment, food, a seat on the bus, etc. she was asked to leave private property.
She can bitch and complain all she wants, still doesn't change the fact that it was within her means to cover up the tattoos and the park has the right to refuse service to whomever they want.