It was major police action for a minor issue though. But still.

And if she wore her thong underwear with out the shorts? She was showing way more cheek than she should at an amusement park full of kids.
If she wore her underwear without shorts, then she would be walking around in underwear. Which was probably sold as underwear. That is public nudity. Which is against the law. The park doesn’t need to make rules against that.
But wearing shorts - even if they are shorter than some people may like - is not against the law. And if there is not dress code against it, then even if you may not like it, the police have no business telling her to leave.
Plus, I think we both know that there’s a big difference between wearing short shorts, and wearing underwear. Fabric thickness is one of them. Hygiene is another. Maybe if you said boy shorts then the amount of skin showing would be similar, but you said a thong, so that’s not the same either.
And who cares if the kids see her legs? They’re legs. It’s not a secret that women have legs. And I don’t know what her outfit looks like from the back, but even if you could see some of her bum, who cares? It’s not a secret that those exist either. The human body is not inherently sexual. If you want your kids to grow up to have a healthy attitude about their bodies, don’t act like parts of it are so shameful.
Her outfit is cute. I like her shirt. And I have no problem with her shorts. If she’s comfortable, then she should wear whatever she wants.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now! No. In the city. For instance sitting on the edge of a fountain eating an ice cream.
It's not common at all, but you can see topless women in some parts of Copenhagen.
Yes. I’m obviously arguing for the absurdly extreme instead of wearing panty-sized shorts in public.
AI Bot Choice
Superb Opinion