I am not sure if I can explain that. It's difficult enough to explain feelings in one's native tongue, but in a foreign language.. What I mean is: it's ok if they draw it on their body where others don't see it (unless they especially desire it). However, most of the times tatoos are plain ugly and you'd really prefer not to see them. Yet if they are displayed in plain sight you can't avoid seeing them - you are practically being forced to do something you dislike. The feeling of being forced against your will makes you aggressive and angry and you'll dislike the tatoos even more. Oh dear - I really express myself quite poorly. My point is that I would prefer to have a choice. I don't want to have no alternative to looking at bad tatoos. People who don't cover their tatoos violate other people's rights to not be offended esthetically. Plus, people covered in really bad tatoos always remind me of old school tables, daubed with scribbles, doodles etc.
I think you're doing quite well explanatory-wise; And tattoos are a bit like nudity: There's a place for that sort; a bedroom or a beach I'd say. Dang! -I just made an enemy of 90% of the posters on this board with that sentence
No kidding. I didn't realize people found tattoos so offensive. Maybe I just know a lot of people with tattoos, but I honestly get surprised when I don't see a visible tattoo on somebody these days.
Wow. By that logic, I have a right "to not be offended esthetically" by my friend's ugly sweater. Or by my neighbor's strange choice of color for his front door. Nope, doesn't work that way.
precisely. I was taught as a kid that your own rights end where other people's right starts and that you should not molest others or make them feel uncomfortable. Some colours can indeed be an offense. If you need sunglasses to avoid damage to your eyes when passing your neighbour's neon-yellow door, you can request that next time he paints his door he might perhaps consider a less exotic shade. In extreme cases you'd stand good chances at court if you'd sue him for causing you physical and emotional harm. I think trekkiedane's comparism with nudity is very apt. Some people like to look at it, others don't. It sure depends on both the displayed body and the watcher's personal attitude toward nudity. But almost all countries have laws that forbid nudity in public or at least restrict it to certain areas. Doubtlessly, that's not out of concern for nekkid people to catch a cold but rather in order to spare people the view. If they'd like to see someone naked they can do so any time, privately at home. Much the same goes for tattoos in my opinion. They are something not everyone wants to see and that should therefore be looked at privately, but not be forced upon all the world. Besides, which medium could be more private than one's skin?
I think that's a bit of an extreme attitude. Sure there are tattoos I'd rather not look at, but there are also people I'd rather not look at. You know what I do in those cases? I don't look.
Yeah, I don't like that attitude either. Everyone is not going to be aesthetically pleasing, tattoos or not. I mean I know when I don't wear makeup, I'm not a pretty sight. But fuck it, people don't have to look at me. I'm not forcing anything horrible on anyone else and neither is anyone with tattoos. Nudity is kind of a weird situation because that's so tied into our prudishness as a society.
no, there's a difference. Peaple are like they are, by nature and nobody is completely unattractive but everyone has something that's really pretty. But painting pictures on the skin is not at all natural and only seldom pretty.
The nature and natural thing doesn't make any sense to me because just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's beautiful. Nature makes some really ugly things. And in regards to tattoos or "painting on the skin," I don't have much of an opinion either way about whether it's pretty or not. What I object to is the broader notion that someone should have to cover up something that you personally find unattractive.
Ok, I think I didn't manage to describe precisely what I mean. Let me give you an example: That's the kind of tattoo I meant when I said some should really better be covered in order to spare others the view. That's one of the cases where I think nature would in any case be a good deal better than the painted skin. (and the guy even has pretty eyes! What a shame he ruined every chance of them getting noticed by a nice girl ) A tattoo like this I consider non-offensive because it's well done, esthetically pleasing and unobtrusive:
He may look like an idiot but it should still be his right to do it no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel.
If you ask me he doesn't just look like one... LOL, ok, that was really unfair, so back to the discussion. I see your point and I'm honestly trying to be tolerant but some things just make me physically sick. Baggy pants and bad tatoos are definitely beyond my pain threshold. But that's what the whole thread is about, after all. It's about what we personally and individually consider ok and what we find intolerable. It doesn't neccessarily mean we all must agree on everything. In fact, it'd be a terribly boring world if we did! It doesn't mean either that anyone is right or wrong. In matters of aesthetics there can't be a right or wrong, only preferences, impressions and feelings. But that's what makes this thread so interesting. So many different views and new perspectives. Spock would be fascinated =)
Yeah, I mean honestly that just makes me insecure about the way that I look. I think there's already too much pressure to be attractive. So what if someone isn't aesthetically pleasing? Good hygiene should really be all that we care about.
{{{{{{{Kestra}}}}}}} Don't ever be insecure. You have such a beautiful personality! Good looks are only temporary at best. After a few years they are gone. The sexiest body will sooner or later give in to gravity. All that being handsome is only on the surface and doesn't count after the first 2 minutes. Admittedly, the body is what attracts us. But the mind is what makes us stay.
Haha, my husband and I are getting a divorce and I found out that he was sleeping with a 21 year old so all this talk about looks fading isn't helpful right now! But I know what you mean. I just think you should be more accepting of people's individual expression when it comes to looks. There are things I don't care for, definitely. I prefer people who are really clean cut. But I wouldn't expect any random stranger to alter their appearance because of my own aesthetic preferences, if that makes sense. It's all just so personal.
It must be much harder for larger men to buy clothes that fit properly than us larger women. I'm a UK size 16-18, and shop almost exclusively at stores that cater for larger sizes because the proportions of the clothes in these stores are right. Simply upsizing a size 8 pattern to a 16 doesn't work because the overall proportions change. It's pretty easy for me to find clothes that fit properly, including jeans, but it must be much harder for larger men. I can't think of any store which caters exclusively for their clothing needs. I'm 44, and lately when I've been shopping with my teenaged daughter I've asked her point-blank whether I'm too old to wear a particular item of clothing. This is when her brutal honesty comes in handy.