Post: #1

What a shame! This must be some ugly feminists complaining about girls tanning in bikinis at a NY park. As an excuse they are using "kids" as to protect the kids because it's a kids playground, yet has nothing to represent a playground but only turf.

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/n-...40182.html

I guess I should not stay here and continue looking for paradise.

Post: #2

Quote:Bikini tanning Attention whoring not allowed in NYC park!

Fixed it for you.

I support this kind of legislation, though not for the stupid think-of-the-kids rationale.

Post: #3

Yes, ban the bikinis. Nude sunbathing for everyone!

Post: #4

(05-13-2013 05:57 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote:Bikini tanning Attention whoring not allowed in NYC park!

Fixed it for you.

I support this kind of legislation, though not for the stupid think-of-the-kids rationale.

Yeah, feminists got it right on this one, even if for the wrong reasons.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Post: #5

Bikini tanning is bad now?

Jesus some of you guys need to get a grip...

Post: #6

This isn't a park, so it has nothing to do with the law. It's in a private residential complex called Stuy Town. The place has an interesting history. It got built back in the 40s as affordable housing MetLife. It was basically the projects for white people. It stayed that way until 2006 when it was sold to a private real estate company. There's probably some strife between the families that have been there a while and the younger people that have started to move in once the place went market rate.

Post: #7

(05-13-2013 06:15 PM)j r Wrote:  ...It stayed that way until 2006 when it was sold to a private real estate company.

Sold to Tishman and BlackRock, to be exact. I'm surprised how little mentioning of BlackRock there is in this Wikipedia article, considering that the disastrousness of the Stuyvesant investment for BlackRock is well-known.

Perhaps it's BlackRock's PR team hard at work.

Post: #8

Before I read the article, I thought they were banning bikini sunbathing on the great lawn in CENTRAL Park...whew!

Post: #9

(05-13-2013 05:53 PM)Freedom Wrote:  What a shame! This must be some ugly feminists complaining about girls tanning in bikinis at a NY park. As an excuse they are using "kids" as to protect the kids because it's a kids playground, yet has nothing to represent a playground but only turf.

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/n-...40182.html

I guess I should not stay here and continue looking for paradise.

The most important question is not even asked by the article: how far do those girls have to walk to find a grassy lawn that is not reserved for kids? Of course entitled 21-year old girls are bitching about being told they can't do something. But what's the reality of their suffering?

In a place where real-estate is scarce and expensive, like NY City, having parks reserved for a particular purpose is standard. Certainly, prime sunbathing spots would probably be taken over by sports and dogs if prohibitions weren't in place. So let the kids have their park and go find one of your own.

Post: #10

(05-13-2013 05:57 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote:Bikini tanning Attention whoring not allowed in NYC park!

Fixed it for you.

I support this kind of legislation, though not for the stupid think-of-the-kids rationale.

So laying out in the sun is Attention whoring???

Sometimes on sunny days Im a attention whore then I guess..
Who knew

Post: #11

God damn bratty kids have to ruin everything

Post: #12

(05-13-2013 06:15 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Bikini tanning is bad now?

Jesus some of you guys need to get a grip...

Yeah.

Explain to me why girls in bikinis are bad?

Hell, I think it should be law that girls are in bikinis at all times.

Just the bottom half of course.

Post: #13

These lazy tricks can just head over to Central Park to lay out if they want.

Post: #14

Like others in this thread have noted, this is not a public park. It's the grounds of an apartment complex. I don't get how people tan there anyways. It's probably rat infested.

(05-13-2013 06:31 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:15 PM)j r Wrote:  ...It stayed that way until 2006 when it was sold to a private real estate company.

Sold to Tishman and BlackRock, to be exact. I'm surprised how little mentioning of BlackRock there is in this Wikipedia article, considering that the disastrousness of the Stuyvesant investment for BlackRock is well-known.

Perhaps it's BlackRock's PR team hard at work.

These guys (BlackRock) are literally the shadow over Wall Street. No one manages the amount of money they do. Yet ask any Joe blow about BlackRock and they'll probably think you're talking about coal. Ask them about Larry Fink and they'll probably think you're talking about Larry King.

There is a great book on the about the failed $5.4 billion deal with BlackRock & Tishman called: Other People's Money Inside the Housing Crisis and the Demise of the Greatest Real Estate Deal Ever Made. It's a really good read, don't miss out on it.

Post: #15

Diversity and entitlement. Welcome to the U.S.

Post: #16

Women are allowed to walk around topless in NYC.

This is ridiculous.

I bet it's angry feminists and aging women who are jealous of hot younger bodies.

Stuytown is ugly. It's a projects that they are trying to sell to yuppies now. Idiots.

It's an eye-sore and looks like a jail or asylum. It's easy to get lost in there. We used drink 40s there. What a dump.

Post: #17

Quote:Yet ask any Joe blow about BlackRock and they'll probably think you're talking about coal.

Not me



That said, I don't agree that laying down in a sunlit park in wearing a bikini is attention whoring. If anything, it exposes the girl to creeeeeeeepy stares and awwwwwkwwwaaaaarrd approaches. Real attention whoring is done from your bathroom, through the safety net of your Facebook or PoF profile.

Post: #18

I consider chicks shamelessly flaunting their wares sexual harassment.