As much as I hate the tattoo, I can't believe people are still talking about it on 2 separate threads!! It's not that newsworthy, surely?
Well it's the 'main story' on the front page of The Sun on a Sunday in August..........;) I can't wait until that particular rag 'turns negative' on her,it's bound to happen sooner or later......:sleep:
did you get her knickers off for the guy to do it properly, or did he just go round the knicker lining lol
That's what I wondered earlier in the thread - what modesty is she trying to preserve with those knickers when her whole arse is basically on show anyway ?
Hang on - are people not allowed an opinion on tattoos now? I know almost everyone and their dog has one these days, but still.
When it comes to Cheryl's tat, I think it's just as reasonable to describe it as "nasty" as it is to describe it as beautiful. It's a subjective thing (although I personally think it looks genuinely disgusting) and I don't see anyone trying to dictate what people can and can't do with their bodies - quite the opposite as many people are saying Cheryl can do what she likes even though they have also said they hate it.
Tattoo lovers can be so chippy and defensive it's ridiculous.
They can. I wonder, in the case of those who keep going back for more - and often admit they are slightly addicted to it - whether its a bit like smoking: they enjoy it and want to keep doing it, but deep down they would rather that cigs had never been invented or that they had never taken it up.
With tattoos I always think of the 'why would you treat your body like a toilet wall' quote.
Hang on - are people not allowed an opinion on tattoos now? I know almost everyone and their dog has one these days, but still.
When it comes to Cheryl's tat, I think it's just as reasonable to describe it as "nasty" as it is to describe it as beautiful. It's a subjective thing (although I personally think it looks genuinely disgusting) and I don't see anyone trying to dictate what people can and can't do with their bodies - quite the opposite as many people are saying Cheryl can do what she likes even though they have also said they hate it.
Tattoo lovers can be so chippy and defensive it's ridiculous.
Whilst I agree it's okay think it's "nasty" or "beautiful" and most people do seem to feel its her choice. I have read comments here claiming she has "ruined" her body (as if its existence is there for their aesthetic enjoyment alone) or that her career is suddenly over
Tattoo haters 'can' be quite judgemental and childish. Although the best they generally offer is the threatening "that'll look nice when she's 60/70/80" as if that bloody means anything! It's as if they think they are getting the last laugh: "haha Cheryl, when your arse sags and is covered in wrinkles noone will want to see it because of that tattoo, serves you right" Anyone would think saggy elderly arses are all over the place, the public are crying out for more, except the ones with tattoos. We don't want to see the ones with tattoos, because that shit's nasty
Personally I neither love or hate tattoos, I wouldn't have Cheryl's but believe it is her choice to do what she wants. You only live once.
did you get her knickers off for the guy to do it properly, or did he just go round the knicker lining lol
Imagine a man tattooing a woman's nice looking backside with her knickers down. He'd have probably had to have ignored the fact that he was actually looking at a woman's backside when her knickers were so far down. One way to get things happening for a man. Phew!
Imagine a man tattooing a woman's nice looking backside with her knickers down. He'd have probably had to have ignored the fact that he was actually looking at a woman's backside when her knickers were so far down. One way to get things happening for a man. Phew!
I know discussing the 'technicalities' of whether or not it was knickers on or off probably makes me sound like a steaming great perv .. but .. I suspect it would most likely have been a g-string. It would afforded the most amount of "access" and would have also most likely have shielded "that" part of her anatomy from view.
That said, perhaps she really trusted the tattooist? :eek:
Imagine a man tattooing a woman's nice looking backside with her knickers down. He'd have probably had to have ignored the fact that he was actually looking at a woman's backside when her knickers were so far down. One way to get things happening for a man. Phew!
Maybe he tattoos arses all the time and is used to it?
Like a doctor. And if he spent 8 + hours drawing on it maybe the novelty wore off after a while.
Actually, i dont need to justify myself. Im not here to flaunt anything. However there is no correlation between having tattos and not being successful.
I took a pic of my £6k Rolex and my £500 Seiko kinetic but whats the point? (the Tag is away getting serviced).
The point is i do ok. Im not trying to be boastful to impress you. The point is my tattoos havent stopped me getting these trinkets.
Im good at my job. Im not "council" in any way, shape or form, you should respect me for who i am not for whats on my arms.
Indeed it is coupled with more uncouth bragging.
Like I said, I have never mentioned anything about money or success in relation to tattoos. The only person who has is you. I just think they're tacky and common.
Maybe he tattoos arses all the time and is used to it?
Like a doctor. And if he spent 8 + hours drawing on it maybe the novelty wore off after a while.
I don't think it would have, but the feeling might not have been as strong as it would have for others who don't get to see different women's backsides sometimes.
Well it's the 'main story' on the front page of The Sun on a Sunday in August..........;) I can't wait until that particular rag 'turns negative' on her,it's bound to happen sooner or later......:sleep:
^ this. Pretty much. And I'd rather see her floral derriere than CallMeDave's gutbucket.
I find her tattoo hideous but whatever she does with her bum, it's her own business. Imagine though when she'll be an old lady how attractive that rose "garden" is going to look....
Comments
Why do you think she's a chav for?
Well it's the 'main story' on the front page of The Sun on a Sunday in August..........;) I can't wait until that particular rag 'turns negative' on her,it's bound to happen sooner or later......:sleep:
definitely
knickers off
:cool:
That's what I wondered earlier in the thread - what modesty is she trying to preserve with those knickers when her whole arse is basically on show anyway ?
They can. I wonder, in the case of those who keep going back for more - and often admit they are slightly addicted to it - whether its a bit like smoking: they enjoy it and want to keep doing it, but deep down they would rather that cigs had never been invented or that they had never taken it up.
With tattoos I always think of the 'why would you treat your body like a toilet wall' quote.
Whilst I agree it's okay think it's "nasty" or "beautiful" and most people do seem to feel its her choice. I have read comments here claiming she has "ruined" her body (as if its existence is there for their aesthetic enjoyment alone) or that her career is suddenly over
Tattoo haters 'can' be quite judgemental and childish. Although the best they generally offer is the threatening "that'll look nice when she's 60/70/80" as if that bloody means anything! It's as if they think they are getting the last laugh: "haha Cheryl, when your arse sags and is covered in wrinkles noone will want to see it because of that tattoo, serves you right" Anyone would think saggy elderly arses are all over the place, the public are crying out for more, except the ones with tattoos. We don't want to see the ones with tattoos, because that shit's nasty
Personally I neither love or hate tattoos, I wouldn't have Cheryl's but believe it is her choice to do what she wants. You only live once.
Imagine a man tattooing a woman's nice looking backside with her knickers down. He'd have probably had to have ignored the fact that he was actually looking at a woman's backside when her knickers were so far down. One way to get things happening for a man. Phew!
I know discussing the 'technicalities' of whether or not it was knickers on or off probably makes me sound like a steaming great perv .. but .. I suspect it would most likely have been a g-string. It would afforded the most amount of "access" and would have also most likely have shielded "that" part of her anatomy from view.
That said, perhaps she really trusted the tattooist? :eek:
Maybe he tattoos arses all the time and is used to it?
Like a doctor. And if he spent 8 + hours drawing on it maybe the novelty wore off after a while.
Oh, is that another hasty back peddle?
Indeed it is coupled with more uncouth bragging.
Like I said, I have never mentioned anything about money or success in relation to tattoos. The only person who has is you. I just think they're tacky and common.
Lol.
"He DID kick mee up deearse!"
I don't think it would have, but the feeling might not have been as strong as it would have for others who don't get to see different women's backsides sometimes.
^ this. Pretty much. And I'd rather see her floral derriere than CallMeDave's gutbucket.
Plus she's a national treasure, izznit she?
Oh wow, and yes it looks so horrible!
So how does she manage to sing in a recording studio if she doesn't use her voice then? Mm?
I highly doubt anyone on here would be lucky enough to know that.