At the gym this morning there were two young women working out. They were both attractive but would have been a hell of a lot more attractive if it wasn't for the ugly tattoos that they both had on their upper arms and backs. They may also have had tattoos on their lower backs (tramp stamps) and legs but if they did they were hidden by their clothing.
Why do women think that tattoos are attractive? It's getting to the point where a young woman (or man) without a tattoo or more is an exception. I used to think that small, elegant and professionally done tattoos as opposed to large, clumsy and poorly executed ones were OK. I commented on this on this blog a few years back when I said that I had almost complimented a young woman on my bus for the nice rose tattoo that she had on her breast (just visible). Richard and some other misery-guts accused me of being a dirty old man so I'm glad that I said nothing.
Apart from the fact that tattoos are way overdone as a fashion statement it's a fashion statement that stays and no doubt will be more a source of embarrassment than pride in the future.
Did you see this guy in the news this week?
His name is 'Modboy' and he's on the run from the police in Australia would you believe. I would have thought that he'd be easy to spot. He has a split tongue and has had his eyeballs tattooed in black ink. Now I'm sure that he won't be rocking up for a job as a bank teller or has plans to join the Seventh Day Adventists and go door-knocking but what does he think he's doing? I guess it's his business but he is wanted for violent offending so it seems that he has mental health issues.
Oh well. I'm getting old.
2 comments:
They can have both of course.
My post was about taste not rights.
Believe it or not free will gives me a right to an opinion without being restricted by an authoritarian institution or archaic beliefs.
Go and continue this spat over on Robert's blog!
Post a Comment