I've seen much better. But okay.
I just don't get tattoos. I don't.
I "get" them in a context where the tattoo is a marker of some significant cultural event (e.g. "You've completed the Right of Passage and are now officially an Adult") and that marker is universally acknowledged.
But as a medium of self-expression? I think about how much my world view and tastes have changed over time, and how any tattoo which would have been meaningful to me 20 years ago would now be hopelessly anachronistic, and how tattoos (unless one is willing to undergo expensive surgery) are essentially permanent...and I don't get it.
Only to the next study group
I think of them sagging on an old body. That is all I think. Plus they get boring after awhile. Plus they look tacky unless you have a really good reason for one. I just hate them actually. Especially women who put them on their legs. That almost NEVER works. Here is another thing about tattoos . The bigger the uglier as a rule. They usually look better on men and they can look stunning on women if they know how to do design that works with the body . That almost never happens. Usually you see hillbilly- looking ex-cons, or worse still, tough guy wannabe's, with them all over the place. FUGLY. (I wonder what common sense took over when it came to stopping at her face here?)
Which reminds me......
Yes. They meet the standards of nipple area plus dimension plus width. If they were larger nipples or bigger areolas, NOT PERMITTED.
Wearing the same thing every day for the rest of your life is soo boring.
I cannot think of anything less interesting than a tattoo.
