slag tags, tramp stamps and butthorns is what ive heard them called
I've heard plenty of labels used to deride others based on something as superficial as their appearance, gender, creed, etc. Each time I hear any of them, they always tell me more about the person that said them than the person they were said about.
I've heard plenty of labels used to deride others based on something as superficial as their appearance, gender, creed, etc. Each time I hear any of them, they always tell me more about the person that said them than the person they were said about.
Take a chill pill, flippin eck, im not saying otherwise. i dont use those phrases, just saying what id heard.
Not a lover of tattoos overall......................
can take the Robbie Willams type ones, ....................subtetly done - yep I can appreciate.
as for on women...short of a tender one on ankle or in a place designed only for a significant other to see...............all others.. on the female bod, for me are a no go.
As far as female tattoos go - in the mainstream public : they are in the great majority, favoured by chavs / slappers and idiots with no real purpose in life......nor respect for themselves, nor their bodies.
As far as female tattoos go - in the mainstream public : they are in the great majority, favoured by chavs / slappers and idiots with no real purpose in life......nor respect for themselves, nor their bodies.
how did you make that gigantic leap in reasoning that a woman with tattoos is therefore a slag and an idiot?
My sister has tattoos, she is married, a teacher and has a masters in special needs.
A friend of mine is female with tattoos - she is an engineer.
you - for judging people and making broad sweeping generalisations on who have ink against those that dont- are a moron
Take a chill pill, flippin eck, im not saying otherwise. i dont use those phrases, just saying what id heard.
One of us need to calm down, certainly. I don't recall accusing you of using those phrases, and the point I made about people who do use those epithets still stands.
The (thankfully small) percentage of people who make derogatory, sexist comments about women with tattoos purely because they have tattoos and for no other reason are idiots. Other people, in other time periods, said the same sort of things about other groups and people that were different to them too (as late as the 1980's, I can remember people talking about homosexuals as if they were far more promiscuous than other 'normal' people, and in the 1950's black men were widely stereotyped as being both more promiscuous than whites, and pre-occupied with having sex with white women). People who expressed those views, in a different time period when they felt safe to verbalise prejudiced viewpoints based on similarly-inaccurate stereotypes, were idiots too. See Romeos Giglo's comment above for a perfect example of such sweeping generalisations in action.
One of us need to calm down, certainly. I don't recall accusing you of using those phrases, and the point I made about people who do use those epithets still stands.
The (thankfully small) percentage of people who make derogatory, sexist comments about women with tattoos purely because they have tattoos and for no other reason are idiots. Other people, in other time periods, said the same sort of things about other groups and people that were different to them too (as late as the 1980's, I can remember people talking about homosexuals as if they were far more promiscuous than other 'normal' people, and in the 1950's black men were widely stereotyped as being both more promiscuous than whites, and pre-occupied with having sex with white women). People who expressed those views, in a different time period when they felt safe to verbalise prejudiced viewpoints based on similarly-inaccurate stereotypes, were idiots too.
Do you think the stereotyping and abuse of women with tattoos (which I agree is stupid and wrong) is comparable with the civil rights movement, the suffragettes and the ongoing fight for the rights of gay people?
I'm not taking the piss now, I honestly don't see how those examples stand up.
Not a lover of tattoos overall......................
can take the Robbie Willams type ones, ....................subtetly done - yep I can appreciate.
as for on women...short of a tender one on ankle or in a place designed only for a significant other to see...............all others.. on the female bod, for me are a no go.
As far as female tattoos go - in the mainstream public : they are in the great majority, favoured by chavs / slappers and idiots with no real purpose in life......nor respect for themselves, nor their bodies.
Wow thats as you admit! A pretty low opinion of the rest of the human race ever thought of joining another species
Do you think the stereotyping and abuse of women with tattoos (which I agree is stupid and wrong) is comparable with the civil rights movement, the suffragettes and the ongoing fight for the rights of gay people?
I'm not taking the piss now, I honestly don't see how those examples stand up.
I believe that stereotyping any group is innocuous and wrong. Stereotypes of all kinds are a tool that the prejudiced have always used to try to represent people that hold values or characteristics they don't like in a bad light. In the topic at hand, the prejudiced amongst society know that it's a risible, and indefensible, position merely to say that they don't like tattoos on women as an idea in and of itself, and they therefore invent all sorts of other imagined characteristics that they portray that group as having, such as promiscuity and workshy tendencies. The reason why prejudiced people, whatever their own particular prejudice might be, do this is that they hope to gain the disapproval of other people towards those same groups they harbour irrational resentment for.
Getting back to your question about whether I think that stereotyping as applied to gay people and Suffragettes is any more innocuous than stereotyping applied to women with tattoos: I think it's a pretty moot point, to be honest. I think that shop lifting is wrong. I also think that bank robbery is wrong. If I stated both of those facts together to highlight a wider point about the morality of theft as a whole concept, and all someone had to say in retort was 'do you really think bank robbery compares with shop lifting?', I'd think that that person had wilfully missed the point, to be honest.
Comments
Oh well! I like them and that's all that matters!
Thanks!
I've heard plenty of labels used to deride others based on something as superficial as their appearance, gender, creed, etc. Each time I hear any of them, they always tell me more about the person that said them than the person they were said about.
Ah, dear Oscar; again with the wit. Tell me, is this the longest conversation you've ever had with a woman that was not a blood relation?
Take a chill pill, flippin eck, im not saying otherwise. i dont use those phrases, just saying what id heard.
Wow. All I said was thanks and suddenly, flying in the face of all available evidence, you think I'm the one who's trying too hard. That is funny.
can take the Robbie Willams type ones, ....................subtetly done - yep I can appreciate.
as for on women...short of a tender one on ankle or in a place designed only for a significant other to see...............all others.. on the female bod, for me are a no go.
As far as female tattoos go - in the mainstream public : they are in the great majority, favoured by chavs / slappers and idiots with no real purpose in life......nor respect for themselves, nor their bodies.
i think she was being sarcastic to you the first time anyway
My sister has tattoos, she is married, a teacher and has a masters in special needs.
A friend of mine is female with tattoos - she is an engineer.
you - for judging people and making broad sweeping generalisations on who have ink against those that dont- are a moron
One of us need to calm down, certainly. I don't recall accusing you of using those phrases, and the point I made about people who do use those epithets still stands.
The (thankfully small) percentage of people who make derogatory, sexist comments about women with tattoos purely because they have tattoos and for no other reason are idiots. Other people, in other time periods, said the same sort of things about other groups and people that were different to them too (as late as the 1980's, I can remember people talking about homosexuals as if they were far more promiscuous than other 'normal' people, and in the 1950's black men were widely stereotyped as being both more promiscuous than whites, and pre-occupied with having sex with white women). People who expressed those views, in a different time period when they felt safe to verbalise prejudiced viewpoints based on similarly-inaccurate stereotypes, were idiots too. See Romeos Giglo's comment above for a perfect example of such sweeping generalisations in action.
Do you think the stereotyping and abuse of women with tattoos (which I agree is stupid and wrong) is comparable with the civil rights movement, the suffragettes and the ongoing fight for the rights of gay people?
I'm not taking the piss now, I honestly don't see how those examples stand up.
Wow thats as you admit! A pretty low opinion of the rest of the human race ever thought of joining another species
I believe that stereotyping any group is innocuous and wrong. Stereotypes of all kinds are a tool that the prejudiced have always used to try to represent people that hold values or characteristics they don't like in a bad light. In the topic at hand, the prejudiced amongst society know that it's a risible, and indefensible, position merely to say that they don't like tattoos on women as an idea in and of itself, and they therefore invent all sorts of other imagined characteristics that they portray that group as having, such as promiscuity and workshy tendencies. The reason why prejudiced people, whatever their own particular prejudice might be, do this is that they hope to gain the disapproval of other people towards those same groups they harbour irrational resentment for.
Getting back to your question about whether I think that stereotyping as applied to gay people and Suffragettes is any more innocuous than stereotyping applied to women with tattoos: I think it's a pretty moot point, to be honest. I think that shop lifting is wrong. I also think that bank robbery is wrong. If I stated both of those facts together to highlight a wider point about the morality of theft as a whole concept, and all someone had to say in retort was 'do you really think bank robbery compares with shop lifting?', I'd think that that person had wilfully missed the point, to be honest.