Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a guy in the church I used to attend whose shaved/bald head was covered with tats. I liked to sit behind him and study his head when the sermon was boring and repetitive, as it often was.
I think God sent him to keep me from screaming "Get to the point already!" at the nice man in the pulpit.
In "The Mask of Sanity," the seminal work on sociopathy written in the 1940s by Dr. Cleckley, tattooing was rare and considered one of the tell-tale marks of a psychopath. Now it's common and considered normal.
THAT'S the difference.
I guess it's a matter of opinion. I for one don't consider face tattoos in any way "normal".
I meant tattoos in general, not face tattoos, and by "normal," I meant common. Tattoos ARE now common.
I share your opinion that it's not rational to pay money and endure pain to permanently disfigure your body.
Meh, lots of tribes have undergone body mutilations of some sort for centuries, piercings, tats, scaring, neck stretching, lip plates, feet binding, genital mutilation. Women give birth everyday. That often comes with permanent disfiguration and its not cheap.
Meh, lots of tribes have undergone body mutilations of some sort for centuries, piercings, tats, scaring, neck stretching, lip plates, feet binding, genital mutilation. Women give birth everyday. That often comes with permanent disfiguration and its not cheap.
Yeah, and I figure we should be trying to be more civilized than that ... trying to move forward.
Women give birth everyday. That often comes with permanent disfiguration and its not cheap.
I think a lot of (especially young) mothers would disagree that they're "permanently disfigured," LOL! And presumably there's some benefit to be derived from giving birth. I don't see what that could be with facial tattoos or any, for that matter.
I think a lot of (especially young) mothers would disagree that they're "permanently disfigured," LOL! And presumably there's some benefit to be derived from giving birth. I don't see what that could be with facial tattoos or any, for that matter.
Stretch marks, saggy boobs, smaller boobs, loose skin, C-section scars, episiotomy scars, wider hips, fallen arches, bigger feet, larger vagina, incontinence, linea nigra, loosing teeth.
These, like tattoos, are some possible permanent disfigurations. Like tattoos, having a child is voluntary, costs money (~19k) and is also painful.
Stretch marks, saggy boobs, smaller boobs, loose skin, C-section scars, episiotomy scars, wider hips, fallen arches, bigger feet, larger vagina, incontinence, linea nigra, loosing teeth.
These, like tattoos, are some possible permanent disfigurations. Like tattoos, having a child is voluntary, costs money (~19k) and is also painful.
Heck, I have some of that, and I never even had kids! With childbirth, you have a child and family for your trouble, which most regard as an asset. With facial tattoos, you have...facial tattoos... If anything, a total liability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
