Let's be clear about something; From the beginning, I was discussing the second situation, in which she was actually not allowed in the pool with that swimsuit. You jumped in with your opinion (in regards to my comment about the second situation) - which you based on the person actions in the first situation. I…

Yes, there were two different situations, at two different pools, on two different days - as detailed in the source article. Very confusing.

Yes, the article describes how the employee at the first pool (the one who did allow her to swim) was rude to her. I never disputed that. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a Health Code upon which these rules are based, and upon which the employees were acting in regards to her attire being…

Is there evidence of ongoing "whore shaming" of any woman who wears a two-piece bathing suit at either or both of these pools?

It's right in my reply to you;

Hey - thanks for the info! I assumed it never was used in the body of the piece. I was asking the writer of this story because she claims that the word's inclusion in the Philly Mag piece was her reason for using it here. The reason it is an issue for me is that, though Philly Mag's original piece seems fairly…

That would be your assumption - and a baseless one, at that (regarding the second situation).

Again, I acknowledged that they were wrong in categorizing her swimsuit as underwear - but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a Health Code regulation regarding attire allowed in public pools, upon which the employee was basing their actions. Pool employees know that swimmers are not allowed in the pool in…

Nowhere does the source article say that the first employee "yelled at her" until she left. "He ridiculed me loudly," she says. "He told everyone that I was swimming in a bra and panties. - That does not mean they yelled at her. But that still has nothing to do with my point. The writer is using the wrong terminology…

Yes, I know - which is why I said, "True they were wrong in categorizing her attire as underwear..."

Nothing in the source article says she was banned. A person being banned from a pool and a person not being allowed to wear certain attire in the pool are two different things. She was simply not allowed to wear her bathing suit in the pool (because they wrongfully thought it was underwear). In other words; the woman…

Actually, that is still only one uvula. He has one bifurcated uvula.

Oh, absolutely. There is no good or valid reason to.

Uh, I think you need to update this story:

Turns out this account is completely false:

.

The amount of ignorance on display here is beyond ridiculous. This has to be the single most unintentionally hilarious thing I have ever read.

So, you need printed disclaimers to know that glamour photos are not representative of reality..?

These are glamour photos. Perfection / idealism is -and always has been- the entire point of glamour photos. They serve to present an image of a persona, not to document the reality of the person. This kind of thing has been going on long before digital photography (and Terry Richardson) even existed. This is nothing…