Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Amusement park in the south discriminating obese? How can they be more fair?
Replies
-
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
Yes, Carowinds in North/South Carolina does this as well. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, because 200lbs can look very different on people.
ETA - and it also gets rid of the gender specific qualification as well.3 -
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
King's Dominion in Doswell, VA and Busch Gardens in Williamsburg, VA have these as well.1 -
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
Yes, Carowinds in North/South Carolina does this as well. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, because 200lbs can look very different on people.
ETA - and it also gets rid of the gender specific qualification as well.
Ah, Carowinds! I worked there when I was in high school, serving up all-the-way foot long hot dogs at Billy Bob's Barbecue. I haven't been there in decades.
...
Whoa, I just had a look at the park map. I hardly recognize anything on there!2 -
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
If they had these seats at entrance to the park they could eliminate the nuances of describing who can and cannot go on the rides. A simple "If you don't fit in this seat you can't go on the ride" would eliminate all ambiguity and let people know up front whether the rides are an option for them. Does anyone know of a park that does this?2 -
If you are unable to fit on the rides at OWA, go get yourself some park food, that should help your situation...
8 -
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
If they had these seats at entrance to the park they could eliminate the nuances of describing who can and cannot go on the rides. A simple "If you don't fit in this seat you can't go on the ride" would eliminate all ambiguity and let people know up front whether the rides are an option for them. Does anyone know of a park that does this?
Wouldn't different types of rides have different restrictions, though? Having the seats specific to that ride close to each ride seems to make more sense. Then again, I haven't been to an amusement park since my high school days cruising the county fair.0 -
It seems very reasonable to me parks have always done things like this for safety reasons... Nobody is forced to go there if your overweight past Roller Coaster rules maybe that's not a great weekend trip to take unless you plan on skipping the rides like anyone else who might have a condition like hearts and or backs plenty of people can't ride them. You choose what to spend your money on, be responsible and check the place out online before you go. I also imagine if you didn't know and asked for your money back right after buying tickets they would refund you anyway.2
-
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
If they had these seats at entrance to the park they could eliminate the nuances of describing who can and cannot go on the rides. A simple "If you don't fit in this seat you can't go on the ride" would eliminate all ambiguity and let people know up front whether the rides are an option for them. Does anyone know of a park that does this?
Wouldn't different types of rides have different restrictions, though? Having the seats specific to that ride close to each ride seems to make more sense. Then again, I haven't been to an amusement park since my high school days cruising the county fair.
I was thinking of having a seat for every ride at the entrance. That way if your focus is the rides (or even some of the rides) and you don't fit, you don't have to pay to get into the park and then find out you can't ride. I don't know of any places that do this (all the test seats are in front of the specific ride) but I think it makes sense.1 -
I think that most amusement parks just charge you a given rate to get in regardless of what you actually intend to do, like Disney World and Cedar Point. My mother-in-law hates rides and rarely does anything more than walk around and occasionally ride the train, but has to pay full admission; once you are in the gate, there are no controls in place to limit your activity, you can ride anything (that your size permits). Once they start allowing discounted admission based upon riding certain rides, I think it becomes too difficult to administer.4
-
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.
Yes, Carowinds in North/South Carolina does this as well. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, because 200lbs can look very different on people.
ETA - and it also gets rid of the gender specific qualification as well.
Ah, Carowinds! I worked there when I was in high school, serving up all-the-way foot long hot dogs at Billy Bob's Barbecue. I haven't been there in decades.
...
Whoa, I just had a look at the park map. I hardly recognize anything on there!
Yes, they really keep changing things there. They added a new roller coaster fairly recently. I've only been about 3 times, but I remember the seats they had outside the ride, at least for some of them.1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »I think that most amusement parks just charge you a given rate to get in regardless of what you actually intend to do, like Disney World and Cedar Point. My mother-in-law hates rides and rarely does anything more than walk around and occasionally ride the train, but has to pay full admission; once you are in the gate, there are no controls in place to limit your activity, you can ride anything (that your size permits). Once they start allowing discounted admission based upon riding certain rides, I think it becomes too difficult to administer.
I agree with this - I don't see any reason parks should have to provide discounts for people who only intend to participate in some of the park's activities. I just think it makes sense for people to know going in that something they might have planned as the focus of their visit isn't available to them.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lalepepper wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Some rides have a weight limit for safety reasons like our zip lines, climbing tower, and water slide.lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
As I clarified above, I meant having a cut off weight specifically for women. I see how my original post could be construed as dismissing weight limits all together. I completely agree that weight limits are reasonable, but having a particular one for women that is different than men does not make sense.
It's just a guideline for people to judge if they should go for a certain ride or not. When you think 200 pound woman, what comes to mind? And what comes to mind when you think a 200 pound man? If a taller woman who fits securely comes in, do you think they would stand her on a scale to make sure she isn't over 200? If a shorter man who doesn't fit securely comes in, do you think they would stand him on a scale and tell him "you're under 225 pounds, go ahead". The average 200 pound woman is sized differently from the average 200 pound man. Gender differences exist in several aspects, and that's why sports are mostly by gender, not because they are singling out women. That's why there is are different calculations for men and for women to estimate TDEE. The different formulas don't exist because "women are supposed to be these dainty little creatures who eat less", it's because women do on average need fewer calories than men. Gender differences is also why what is considered a healthy body fat for men is different from what is considered healthy for women. These differences aren't really meant as a "because you're a woman and probably don't have the willpower and mental capacity to manage your body fat we will give you an easier percentage to aim for". Looking at it this way would be reading too much into simple facts, as is dissecting these guidelines... What, in your opinion, do they mean by having gender specific guidelines? What do you believe they're saying that is offensive?
What comes to mind starts at my own frame of reference. While I logically know that the average height woman will be more significantly overweight at 200 lbs than I would be, I still tend to assume from my perspective, as a 6' woman who would be under 20 lbs overweight at 200, because that is my reality. Folks shorter than myself often do the same with me - they have difficulty guessing my weight because they are working from their own baseline assumptions.
I don't think that at all about the scales. The initial post referred to them posting a policy that women over 200 lbs or size 18 (the gender specific guidelines I was referring to) wouldn't be allowed on certain rides. Really, my only point was that having such a policy is a bit stupid because women have range of heights/sizes just like men do. Yes, being 6' I am an outlier, but I think a fit/weight limit should apply to both sexes. Looking at it the way that you did - as in these are guidelines to help people decide if they will fit to avoid problems/embarrassment, is totally fine. It is possible I misunderstood how the park originally posted their policy/guidelines.
I think you are reading too much in to what I was saying. I simply meant that it is kind of silly to have a rule that women should be under 200 lbs to ride when a woman at 200 but tall may easily fit the ride without issue. Maybe I misinterpreted the original post - I was under the impression that the park specifically put weight/size limits on women riders but did not indicate any specific limit for men.
Just put a tester seat out to use, and allow folks to test for themselves whether they fit/want to wait in line, versus trying to set a random and unreliable measurement based on sex.
I never said anything they did was offensive to me, only stated that it seems like a silly policy to single out women.
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
lalepepper wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lalepepper wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Some rides have a weight limit for safety reasons like our zip lines, climbing tower, and water slide.lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
As I clarified above, I meant having a cut off weight specifically for women. I see how my original post could be construed as dismissing weight limits all together. I completely agree that weight limits are reasonable, but having a particular one for women that is different than men does not make sense.
It's just a guideline for people to judge if they should go for a certain ride or not. When you think 200 pound woman, what comes to mind? And what comes to mind when you think a 200 pound man? If a taller woman who fits securely comes in, do you think they would stand her on a scale to make sure she isn't over 200? If a shorter man who doesn't fit securely comes in, do you think they would stand him on a scale and tell him "you're under 225 pounds, go ahead". The average 200 pound woman is sized differently from the average 200 pound man. Gender differences exist in several aspects, and that's why sports are mostly by gender, not because they are singling out women. That's why there is are different calculations for men and for women to estimate TDEE. The different formulas don't exist because "women are supposed to be these dainty little creatures who eat less", it's because women do on average need fewer calories than men. Gender differences is also why what is considered a healthy body fat for men is different from what is considered healthy for women. These differences aren't really meant as a "because you're a woman and probably don't have the willpower and mental capacity to manage your body fat we will give you an easier percentage to aim for". Looking at it this way would be reading too much into simple facts, as is dissecting these guidelines... What, in your opinion, do they mean by having gender specific guidelines? What do you believe they're saying that is offensive?
What comes to mind starts at my own frame of reference. While I logically know that the average height woman will be more significantly overweight at 200 lbs than I would be, I still tend to assume from my perspective, as a 6' woman who would be under 20 lbs overweight at 200, because that is my reality. Folks shorter than myself often do the same with me - they have difficulty guessing my weight because they are working from their own baseline assumptions.
I don't think that at all about the scales. The initial post referred to them posting a policy that women over 200 lbs or size 18 (the gender specific guidelines I was referring to) wouldn't be allowed on certain rides. Really, my only point was that having such a policy is a bit stupid because women have range of heights/sizes just like men do. Yes, being 6' I am an outlier, but I think a fit/weight limit should apply to both sexes. Looking at it the way that you did - as in these are guidelines to help people decide if they will fit to avoid problems/embarrassment, is totally fine. It is possible I misunderstood how the park originally posted their policy/guidelines.
I think you are reading too much in to what I was saying. I simply meant that it is kind of silly to have a rule that women should be under 200 lbs to ride when a woman at 200 but tall may easily fit the ride without issue. Maybe I misinterpreted the original post - I was under the impression that the park specifically put weight/size limits on women riders but did not indicate any specific limit for men.
Just put a tester seat out to use, and allow folks to test for themselves whether they fit/want to wait in line, versus trying to set a random and unreliable measurement based on sex.
I never said anything they did was offensive to me, only stated that it seems like a silly policy to single out women.
There is a guideline for both sexes. Women's sizes go by size number and men's sizes go by waist inches. There are also weight guidelines for both. May not be the perfect method to judge (I like the test seating idea) but I see no singling out.1 -
<<sidetrack>>
Dumb question. I haven't been to Disney since I was a kid.
Do you just pay one price admission and then not pay for individual rides?0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »<<sidetrack>>
Dumb question. I haven't been to Disney since I was a kid.
Do you just pay one price admission and then not pay for individual rides?
it was that way when I was there 14 years ago...there may have been a few that were extra but I don't remember exactly where or what...so it probably wasn't many if any...
but I know my son (he was 10) could go on all but 1 ride (he was tall for his age) and the one he couldn't...we didn't fuss over it.
0 -
alwaysbloated wrote: »Aren't most people over 200lbs though? Would make more sense for the weight limit to be closer to 250lbs. Maybe they should make some rows of seats for bigger people, and some for smaller people.
May seem like it but
Researchers from the CDC found that the average weight of U.S. men over the age of 20 has increased to 195.7 pounds, according to data from 2011 to 2014. The former average, 180.7 pounds, was based on data from 1988-1994. The heights of both men and women remained about the same.
Women and children are not immune to the slow weight gain of recent decades, either. The average woman in 1960 weighed 140.2 pounds. Today, the average weight for a woman is 168.5 pounds. Adolescent boys and girls seem to be the most at risk, with a 12 pound average weight gain -- proportionately more based on height -- compared to 20 years ago.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/average-weight-american-men-15-pounds-20-years/story?id=411007823 -
I don't understand why the "general" restriction is over 225 pounds, but for women it's over 200 pounds. That made no sense to me and is discriminatory.3
-
peckchris3267 wrote: »I work at a park and several of our rides have restrictions. There are height minimums, and weight minimums and maximums on our water slide for safety reasons. Our rock climbing wall has minimum and maximum weight limits due to the automatic belay system. Our Segway park has a minimum height, and Merlins mystical mansion won't allow anyone in with any type of seizure disorder due to flashing lights. I have to weigh and measure people all the time and never had an issue.
The minimum size requirements are important for safety and work the same way it does for child safety seats in a car and why kids under a certain size have to be rear facing in the back seat or can't be in the front seat.0 -
I guess I missed the reference to waist size in the initial post or follow up posts - if that is the case I agree with you - using size guidelines for both sexes to help people determine if they will fit is reasonable.amusedmonkey wrote: »lalepepper wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lalepepper wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Some rides have a weight limit for safety reasons like our zip lines, climbing tower, and water slide.lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
As I clarified above, I meant having a cut off weight specifically for women. I see how my original post could be construed as dismissing weight limits all together. I completely agree that weight limits are reasonable, but having a particular one for women that is different than men does not make sense.
It's just a guideline for people to judge if they should go for a certain ride or not. When you think 200 pound woman, what comes to mind? And what comes to mind when you think a 200 pound man? If a taller woman who fits securely comes in, do you think they would stand her on a scale to make sure she isn't over 200? If a shorter man who doesn't fit securely comes in, do you think they would stand him on a scale and tell him "you're under 225 pounds, go ahead". The average 200 pound woman is sized differently from the average 200 pound man. Gender differences exist in several aspects, and that's why sports are mostly by gender, not because they are singling out women. That's why there is are different calculations for men and for women to estimate TDEE. The different formulas don't exist because "women are supposed to be these dainty little creatures who eat less", it's because women do on average need fewer calories than men. Gender differences is also why what is considered a healthy body fat for men is different from what is considered healthy for women. These differences aren't really meant as a "because you're a woman and probably don't have the willpower and mental capacity to manage your body fat we will give you an easier percentage to aim for". Looking at it this way would be reading too much into simple facts, as is dissecting these guidelines... What, in your opinion, do they mean by having gender specific guidelines? What do you believe they're saying that is offensive?
What comes to mind starts at my own frame of reference. While I logically know that the average height woman will be more significantly overweight at 200 lbs than I would be, I still tend to assume from my perspective, as a 6' woman who would be under 20 lbs overweight at 200, because that is my reality. Folks shorter than myself often do the same with me - they have difficulty guessing my weight because they are working from their own baseline assumptions.
I don't think that at all about the scales. The initial post referred to them posting a policy that women over 200 lbs or size 18 (the gender specific guidelines I was referring to) wouldn't be allowed on certain rides. Really, my only point was that having such a policy is a bit stupid because women have range of heights/sizes just like men do. Yes, being 6' I am an outlier, but I think a fit/weight limit should apply to both sexes. Looking at it the way that you did - as in these are guidelines to help people decide if they will fit to avoid problems/embarrassment, is totally fine. It is possible I misunderstood how the park originally posted their policy/guidelines.
I think you are reading too much in to what I was saying. I simply meant that it is kind of silly to have a rule that women should be under 200 lbs to ride when a woman at 200 but tall may easily fit the ride without issue. Maybe I misinterpreted the original post - I was under the impression that the park specifically put weight/size limits on women riders but did not indicate any specific limit for men.
Just put a tester seat out to use, and allow folks to test for themselves whether they fit/want to wait in line, versus trying to set a random and unreliable measurement based on sex.
I never said anything they did was offensive to me, only stated that it seems like a silly policy to single out women.
There is a guideline for both sexes. Women's sizes go by size number and men's sizes go by waist inches. There are also weight guidelines for both. May not be the perfect method to judge (I like the test seating idea) but I see no singling out.
That is what I thought was funny.I don't understand why the "general" restriction is over 225 pounds, but for women it's over 200 pounds. That made no sense to me and is discriminatory.
1 -
If it leaves the ground, I don't get on it period. Unless it's a slide or something.
But I love this and think it's a great way to relieve some embarrassment and save them from standing in the line for nothing.
1 -
I don't understand why the "general" restriction is over 225 pounds, but for women it's over 200 pounds. That made no sense to me and is discriminatory.
This was explained a couple of times earlier in the post. An average women is shorter than a average man. Therefore, to fit in the ride safely, on average different weights are set as the maximum. If a short, 225 pound man came to a ride and did not fit, he would not be allowed to ride over a 6'2 woman who was 225, yet safely fit in the ride. The weights are just given as a general guideline for the average population and is not discrimination.3 -
Singling out women specifically is the discrimination issue. There doesn't seem to be any reason for that wording. Saying the ride manufacturer wrote it that way is just lame.
I'm guessing the wording was just to put it into terms so the average person (who doesn't know their circumference) might have an idea if they'd fit. The height and % muscle variation in men might be such that they couldn't easily give a max weight estimate, whereas women tend to be under a certain height with a lower muscle %.0 -
Singling out women specifically is the discrimination issue. There doesn't seem to be any reason for that wording. Saying the ride manufacturer wrote it that way is just lame.
I'm guessing the wording was just to put it into terms so the average person (who doesn't know their circumference) might have an idea if they'd fit. The height and % muscle variation in men might be such that they couldn't easily give a max weight estimate, whereas women tend to be under a certain height with a lower muscle %.
I agree this is what they were trying to do, and while I don't think they were intending to be sextist I'm honestly mind-blown that whoever wrote that had such specific ideas about women's bodies that they didn't think applied to men. The weight limit for instance - the ride has a max weight allowance, not specific for men or women - if the max limit is 250 lbs (or whatever), then that's the limit, why would it be different for men or women? And as far as calling out a clothing size (and just for women), again it shows that whoever wrote that is clueless. Just for myself, I am two sizes smaller in a couple of the stores I shop at regularly than in general sizes, and can be wildly different sizes depending on the cut of the clothing. Sure a woman will tend to be shorter than a man at the same weight, and larger around, but this isn't always true, and where a person carries their weight (men or women) will make a difference in how the restrains fit. I really think that giving the max dimensions of the belts (chest size, waist size, etc) and giving people tools to do their own measurements (in private!), or just having a car from each ride available at the entrance for a fit test (easier in my opinion) would eliminate the ambiguity.2 -
I'm just glad I'm not a business owner in this day and age. Too much walking on eggshells is required and I know for a fact I would break a whole bunch without noticing.11
-
I don't post much here, but this thread caught my attention because I have a story that happened about two weeks ago.
I was in Los Angeles at Universal Studios theme park. I waited in a bunch of lines and went on a bunch of rides before eventually waiting the hour and a half to get on the Harry Potter ride, which consists of four seats held by a mechanical arm that navigates them in every which way while some sort of virtual reality thing is happening in front of your eyes (many of their rides are similar).
Anyway, I'm 300+ pounds and I find that most of these rides are already uncomfortable for a guy with my frame and stomach. I had already been pretty self aware of the fact before the Harry Potter ride. I waited the hour and a half and shortly before the actual ride, I'm pulled out of the line by this kid who wants me to try their test seat and see if it got the mandatory 3 clicks when the bar is lowered. He gets one click, then shoves the thing pretty hard to get 2 and 3. He tells me to have someone else shove the bar down when I get on to make sure it fastens.
Finally, I get to the ride and sit. No matter how hard we push that bar, I can only get one click. The operator tells me I have to get off. Another guy wants to have me try again, but I opt out at this point because if we do happen to shove me in that thing, I might be endangering others and myself. In addition, the ride will likely be very uncomfortable for me and I'm already pretty embarrassed about this whole thing.
I walked to the exit, pretty much constantly thinking about how much being obese sucks. I want to be mad at someone, but really I have no one to blame. It would have been nice if they'd put the test seat about an hour and a half down the line, but the reality is that this is in my control.
The Harry Potter ride isn't an isolated incident. It's a pretty good parallel for all things in life. I don't have to run far to be out of breath and I can barely raise my feet enough to put on a sock easily. Life is full of one-click moments and they're just the consequences of a life I choose. The Harry Potter ride was five minutes of enjoyment I deprived myself of, but being as unhealthy as I am is a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week, cycle of depravation. Why be angry with the park? Isn't every moment of every day a challenge? I know that's not everyone's story...some people have legitimate reasons why weight loss is more difficult. For me, it's just laziness, and so I live a one-click life.
This was one ride but there were others I may have been forbidden from if I had been another 40-60 pounds. Could these parks make bigger seats for bigger people or find work-arounds? Probably. Should they have to? It's a good question. I wasn't angry, at least not with the park. At the end of the day, an amusement park ride is only a sliver of time and a fraction of what I'm missing out on.
30 -
Lol nope.Old_Cat_Lady wrote: »I think a discount for entry is Some parks like Marine Land offer discounts for people with disabilities and obesity is a disability. http://www.friendshipcircle.org/blog/2013/10/10/39-theme-parks-with-access-passes-for-special-needs/
0 -
mcbrainder wrote: »For me, it's just laziness, and so I live a one-click life.
You've identified the issue. Best of luck doing something about it.4 -
I imagine that some rides would not work for small people if they were designed for the obese. People would be falling out.
We just took the kids to Disney & Universal. I remember roller coasters with the “Click click click” bars that would come down close to you, but there were a number of one-size-fits-all bars that left about a foot between me and the bar. I had to really brace my feet to keep from sliding down, and had to grab my 4 yo under his bottom to keep him on the seat (he was tall enough, but I could have put him in my lap and had room to spare with that giant bar). So I can definitely see seats for bigger people making rides either unsafe or more uncomfortable (bc I’m rocking back and forth between the restraint and seat) for smaller people.
And nuts to discounts—I’ve gone to parks while pregnant many times and can hardly ride anything and paid full fare.
1 -
Old_Cat_Lady wrote: »I think a discount for entry is Some parks like Marine Land offer discounts for people with disabilities and obesity is a disability. http://www.friendshipcircle.org/blog/2013/10/10/39-theme-parks-with-access-passes-for-special-needs/
Obesity can become a "disability" if it persists into a person's middle-age, as it generally leads to impaired mobility, followed by a government recognized disability in the form of authorizing handicap parking tags on vehicles and the use of scooters. Obesity-related disability is then indistinguishable from many of the general non-self-inflicted variety of disabilities.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions