Woman covers her tatts with before and after. Weird.

[Mr Natural]

Makes one wonder what the kids of the tattoo generation are going to do the freak out their parents.

 

[hjmick]

Your thoughts?

To each his or her own.

Who am I to judge someone else? Maybe you should think about that...

 

[hjmick]

Makes one wonder what the kids of the tattoo generation are going to do the freak out their parents.

Not get any?

 

[konradv]

Do not make faulty arguments by putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "anything". And while I am not defending ANY circumcision here, it is just a fact that you can't compare male and female circumcision. One is much more significant than the other.

They’re both done without consent and religion is no excuse. That’s my point.

 

[Mr Natural]

Just out of curiosity, what does a full set of "sleeves" cost?

 

[Anathema]

Ivan understand her issue to a degree. I have a full facial birthmark. Yep, from ear to ear and from the corner of my lips over the crown of my skull my skin tone is BURGUNDY. It has been for my entire life.

That’s a tough thing to deal with as an adult, never mind growing up as a child. Thankfully I have a caring and supportive family that taught me my difference was a positive not a negative. Not everyone gets that level of support.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I will never understand tattoos other than those that mean something specific and real.
Such as a tattoo on the arm of a Army veteran who served overseas. The name of a child who died etc. etc.
But to plaster large portions of your body with stupid images of skulls/snakes/dragons etc. WTF??
You think that makes you a badass? No... it looks like shit to every walking person except someone else as dumb as you are who also thinks it makes them look badass.
Particularly a female. The female shape is beautiful. Amazing. Covering it up with weird spiderweb looking... thorny vines.. or whatever... looks like shit, again, to 98% of the population... the only people that are impressed are other people who ruined their looks also

 

[Canon Shooter]

Once you tattoo your face, you are lost to humanity.

Yeah, I've never understood the desire to do that. Talk about ensuring you never get a decent job.

I've got five tattoos, and I'm currently drawing up #6. All of them are on my arms. I guess I could see doing a piece on my leg, but that'd probably be it. I'm not good with pain. I've got a tattoo of Neptune on my left inner forearm, and that was six hours of never-ending pain. Also, if I'm going to spend a few hundred dollars on some ink, I want to be able to see it. Ergo, no back tattoos for me, either.

My smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend has four: one on each shoulder, one on her left shoulder blade and one on her right calf. They're all tasteful and unobtrusive.

The girl in the video? Yeah, I don't get that. On the one hand she speaks of having very low self-esteem. Well, if the work she's had done helps her to regain that, I guess, but it's simply not something I can really condone. At the end of the day, though, she's the one who has to live with her decisions, not me.

I think ink can look good on a woman, even if the work is somewhat extensive.

This woman's pretty inked up:

This is a back piece that a friend's daughter has:

The woman in this picture is actually a seminary student:

Sometimes tattoos can be strong reminders. This one's written in Arabic, but it loosely translates to "Be fearless in love". It's tattooed over the scar she got when she tried to kill herself:

As a rule, I've no problem with tattoos on women (not a big fan of boob ink, though), but anyone, male or female, can go overboard...

 

[SweetSue92]

They’re both done without consent and religion is no excuse. That’s my point.

My point is there is no comparison, and frankly, it's belittling to women to make that comparison. And I don't call that out lightly or easily.

A man without a foreskin has sexual functioning. In fact, men without foreskins are usually less prone to UTIs.

A woman who has been 'circumcised" does not, and that's the point. To make SURE she does not. And sometimes she is so mutilated she cannot function in any way.

So you can say that both are wrong and I won't put up a fight. But one is definitely much, much worse.

 

[SweetSue92]

Yeah, I've never understood the desire to do that. Talk about ensuring you never get a decent job.

I've got five tattoos, and I'm currently drawing up #6. All of them are on my arms. I guess I could see doing a piece on my leg, but that'd probably be it. I'm not good with pain. I've got a tattoo of Neptune on my left inner forearm, and that was six hours of never-ending pain. Also, if I'm going to spend a few hundred dollars on some ink, I want to be able to see it. Ergo, no back tattoos for me, either.

My smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend has four: one on each shoulder, one on her left shoulder blade and one on her right calf. They're all tasteful and unobtrusive.

The girl in the video? Yeah, I don't get that. On the one hand she speaks of having very low self-esteem. Well, if the work she's had done helps her to regain that, I guess, but it's simply not something I can really condone. At the end of the day, though, she's the one who has to live with her decisions, not me.

I think ink can look good on a woman, even if the work is somewhat extensive.

This woman's pretty inked up:

View attachment 685361


This is a back piece that a friend's daughter has:

View attachment 685364


The woman in this picture is actually a seminary student:

View attachment 685363


Sometimes tattoos can be strong reminders. This one's written in Arabic, but it loosely translates to "Be fearless in love". It's tattooed over the scar she got when she tried to kill herself:

View attachment 685366


As a rule, I've no problem with tattoos on women (not a big fan of boob ink, though), but anyone, male or female, can go overboard...

I am too old now. But if I were not, I would get this, which I think is delicate and lovely:

 

[konradv]

My point is there is no comparison, and frankly, it's belittling to women to make that comparison. And I don't call that out lightly or easily.

A man without a foreskin has sexual functioning. In fact, men without foreskins are usually less prone to UTIs.

A woman who has been 'circumcised" does not, and that's the point. To make SURE she does not. And sometimes she is so mutilated she cannot function in any way.

So you can say that both are wrong and I won't put up a fight. But one is definitely much, much worse.

You shifted the point of the subject and are now trying to make it one of degrees. If it’s not right to do things to people’s bodies without their consent, it applies across the board.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I am too old now. But if I were not, I would get this, which I think is delicate and lovely:

View attachment 685368

Too old?

Bullshit.

If anything, waiting until later in life to get a tattoo means that it won't look like an ink blob 40 years from now...

 

[SweetSue92]

Too old?

Bullshit.

If anything, waiting until later in life to get a tattoo means that it won't look like an ink blob 40 years from now...

I mostly agree, but this tattoo is for pulling your hair back, which I do less and less of now that I'm in my 50s.

I think I could go for a pretty version of it somewhere else. I just love those delicate flowers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You shifted the point of the subject and are now trying to make it one of degrees. If it’s not right to do things to people’s bodies without their consent, it applies across the board.

It's not ok to remove the foreskin of a newly born child because it violates their rights.... but it is okay to rip them out of their mothers womb, literally in pieces?
yeah... you will get nowhere with that absurdity

 

[Canon Shooter]

I mostly agree, but this tattoo is for pulling your hair back, which I do less and less of now that I'm in my 50s.

I think I could go for a pretty version of it somewhere else. I just love those delicate flowers.

See, I think that's why you should do it.

Hardly anyone would know it's there. Then, on that rare occasion when you do pull your hair back, your friends will freak!

 

[konradv]

It's not ok to remove the foreskin of a newly born child because it violates their rights.... but it is okay to rip them out of their mothers womb, literally in pieces?
yeah... you will get nowhere with that absurdity

Thread hijack

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thread hijack

No.
It is called comparative analysis.
And you don't like it because it stepped on your toes and made you self examine the absurdity of your opinion.

 

[Gracie]

To each his or her own.

Who am I to judge someone else? Maybe you should think about that...

To each his or her own. Just as you said. Which means the same thing concerning my commentary. Her own. Meaning me. So who is really the judge right now? You.
Right?

 

[Gracie]

I am too old now. But if I were not, I would get this, which I think is delicate and lovely:

View attachment 685368

Oh, that is PRETTY!! So delicate and feminine!

If had a double mastectomy, I was going to not get rebuilt ones and instead just a tattoo. Nobody would see it except me..and if I chose to go to the beach and not wear a bathing suit top, lol. But..too old to do that shit now and I am no longer close to the beach. So....no tatts for me. Shoulda done it long ago. But the girl in the OP...she is just beautiful and I'd kill for that body of hers. Why she wanted to cover it up is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Gracie]

This was what I wanted, but never got.