Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I kind of love the ides of the temporary tattoo sleeve... the chance to have a different tattoo any time on a whim

http://www.giftsupplying.com/product/pic/tattoosleeve.jpg

but... then again is that a bit like making graffiti legal... sort of takes the meaning out of it


ie

tattoos = permanent

graffiti = done under cover of darkness to avoid arrest

I like tattoos, even Amy Winehouse's tattoos and I think most people who have tattoos don't really give a crap about the opinions of people who don't like them. I hate mediocre 'Gap' type clothes, but thousands of people think it's ok to walk about looking bland and boring. I wouldn't think it was my place to turn my nose up at them and criticise them for their clothes and lifestyle choices, but anti-tat people think it's acceptable to not just criticise people with tattoos, but do it in a pretty sneering way.


I'm just glad i'm me, tattos, piercings and all; and not you judgemental tat-haters.

citizenED Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love the way that some have justified getting

> tattoos by claiming that they have personal

> meaning. Wouldn't the same image in a book or in a

> picture on the wall would have the same meaning? I

> really like some tattoos, but pretty much detest

> others. Often it correlates with the atractiveness

> of the person thus tattooed.


Sorry to say CitizenEd that is just a load of nonsense, I know why I have tattoos and I dont have to justify myself to anyone. To say "Wouldnt the same image in a book have the same meaning" No its does not. I have just finished 2 hours of MSc critique and every so often I look at the rosary on my foot when I am feeling low and tired and it empowers me. So unless you understand and feel how I feel about my tattoos, then please do not compare it to looking at a book.

I have always felt that a tattoo brand's you, and while at the moment they seem to have become popular with various celebs they always hint at low life behaviour like having a bruiser dog instead of a pooch which is acceptable.


My sister worked in a hospital for years and the major part of her time was spent organising the removal of tattoo's where people had been revolted by there own stupidity at their "body art". Even when they are removed you can see where they were, as the skin is not the same after the op.


Guys with lots of tattoo's often suggests time in prison. I had never seen a woman with a tattoo until fairly recently, as it was generally considered to be for macho bad boys.


Nope, I think they are best left to someone else, but they are certainly not for me, not even for free.

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maybe it was being rough and ready and being able

> to give a good seeing to .. oh my :))


------------------------------------------------------



Maybee he had one on his "appendage" for ladies eyes only.......





W**F

I've got a Chinese imperial dragon on my upper right arm when I was 17 I'm being deadly serious when I say I got it because I was bored and there was nothing else to do. So about an hour later I was sitting in the Tattooists chair and half way through the twin towers were attacked. No, I'll never forget that day.


Absolutely no spiritual reason or any other besides that for it being there. I've never regretted it either.


However,


I don't sympathise one bit when you get these idiots who have their entire arms or half their face done and moan when they're turned down at a job interview.


Not into piercings one bit or those tunnel earings.

OHMYGOD!!!


VILE, VILE, VILE - (stomps foot).


Tattoos are not for everyone, they are very Trailor Trash/Jeremy Kyle Show in my opinion.


I can see what some people are saying about having a childs name as a tattoo - but there are so many other things that can be done - that are not so permanent.


Check out these fabulous trinkets from Chambers and Beau.


http://chambersandbeau.com/writeable/uploads/images/resized/269w_14044_pendant-test2-web.jpg


They personalise these super necklaces with your poppets' names and your husband's name - divine!

dulwichmum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OHMYGOD!!!

>

> VILE, VILE, VILE - (stomps foot).

>

> Tattoos are not for everyone, they are very

> Trailor Trash/Jeremy Kyle Show in my opinion.

>

> I can see what some people are saying about having

> a childs name as a tattoo - but there are so many

> other things that can be done - that are not so

> permanent.



Like Dr Barnados, LOL

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...