[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by carve

LOL- didn't you start a thread a few months ago about tattoo removal because you regretted the other one? What is the other one, anyway?

Edit- yeah...here it is...
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...too+removal%22

Sounds like you have a tramp stamp, and are tired of people making assumptions about you based on the tat. Isn't that why you get one- to make a statement? It must be, since you can't even see that one without a mirror- it's for others to see. It sounds like it is doing its job just fine- what's the problem???

What makes you think a sleeve will be any different, other than being harder to hide and a huge PITA to remove? Give it 10 years and it'll be every bit as cool as your stamp...probably even more so, since it's far less subtle. It may even get a clever name. Sleeze-sleeve, or slut-sleeve perhaps? Not so different a name than "tramp stamp".

Question for the heavily tattooed people: Do you have murals painted on your BMW? Why or why not?

Murals are tacky to some. but beautiful to others. Same as tattoos, you obviously have a severe hatred for them. So much I beleive an ex of yours was probably taken from you by a heavily tattooed man.
Bottom line if you don't like tattoos doesn't matter to me, still getting them and if I get bunched in with the criminals, oh well.

[carve]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Murals are tacky to some. but beautiful to others. Same as tattoos, you obviously have a severe hatred for them. So much I beleive an ex of yours was probably taken from you by a heavily tattooed man.
Bottom line if you don't like tattoos doesn't matter to me, still getting them and if I get bunched in with the criminals, oh well.

But what are they to you: Tacky or beautiful. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess tacky. Why the distinction?

LOL- sorry to burst your bubble. I've never been dumped. You're not far off though: I am particularly peeved at the moment that that med student I mentioned who I'd otherwise be very attracted to (who is even more interested in me, BTW) is so heavily tattooed. Such a waste of a beautiful body. When she's covered up she's a 9. Uncovered she's a 3. Otherwise perfect skin, too.

I'm happy if I can discourage anyone from getting extensive tattoos, especially a beautiful girl like Sara. It's as attractive and feminine and permenant as getting laser hair removal across your head so the only hairstyle you can have is a mohawk. Ladies: If you don't have tattoos, you'll still be just as attractive to guys who like tattoos, but if you get them a significant % of guys will find you dramatically less attractive, particularly nice and successful guys. There's a reason the vast majority of models don't have 'em: 'cause they're ugly and limiting.

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by carve

But what are they to you: Tacky or beautiful. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess tacky. Why the distinction?

LOL- sorry to burst your bubble. I've never been dumped. You're not far off though: I am particularly peeved at the moment that that med student I mentioned who I'd otherwise be very attracted to (who is even more interested in me, BTW) is so heavily tattooed. Such a waste of a beautiful body. When she's covered up she's a 9. Uncovered she's a 3. Otherwise perfect skin, too.

I'm happy if I can discourage anyone from getting extensive tattoos, especially a beautiful girl like Sara. It's as attractive and feminine and permenant as getting laser hair removal across your head so the only hairstyle you can have is a mohawk. Ladies: If you don't have tattoos, you'll still be just as attractive to guys who like tattoos, but if you get them a significant % of guys will find you dramatically less attractive, particularly nice and successful guys. There's a reason the vast majority of models don't have 'em: 'cause they're ugly and limiting.

I find it tacky, but I don't go on a rant trying to get people to not do it. Its their car, if they want to airbrush it up with a virgin mary or skull and bones its their choice to do so. Doesn't affect me any one way or the other.
Am i getting a superiority complex? If you don't like it, its wrong and people who do it should be ashamed of themselves for it? Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't revolve their lives around your opinion.

[cmyk]

Rather than join in on the "tacky vs tasteful" debate, I'll post one of mine. I have a bunch more, including a chest piece but I won't post that one, sorry lol

This is my 1920's Dia de los Muertos lady.

[bulldog_yyc]

Originally Posted by carve

But what are they to you: Tacky or beautiful. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess tacky. Why the distinction?

LOL- sorry to burst your bubble. I've never been dumped. You're not far off though: I am particularly peeved at the moment that that med student I mentioned who I'd otherwise be very attracted to (who is even more interested in me, BTW) is so heavily tattooed. Such a waste of a beautiful body. When she's covered up she's a 9. Uncovered she's a 3. Otherwise perfect skin, too.

I'm happy if I can discourage anyone from getting extensive tattoos, especially a beautiful girl like Sara. It's as attractive and feminine and permenant as getting laser hair removal across your head so the only hairstyle you can have is a mohawk. Ladies: If you don't have tattoos, you'll still be just as attractive to guys who like tattoos, but if you get them a significant % of guys will find you dramatically less attractive, particularly nice and successful guys. There's a reason the vast majority of models don't have 'em: 'cause they're ugly and limiting.

You sound incredibly lame - stick to prude and plain looking girls so your mom doesnt get mad when you have them over (yes I know you are 34, funny). I'm "nice and successful" (your stereotypes are also hilarious) and I have tattoos and think girls with tattoos and nice bodies are very attractive. Widen your perspective.

And I keep editing this because your comments about models is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Models are there to model a product (clothes, perfume, car, lifestyle etc etc). When appropriate, models will have tattoos or whatever accessory to get the message to the potential viewers. Second, even if its not related to the particular shoot/show, models can still have tattoos:
Google > You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...tle=Heidi_Klum

[bulldog_yyc]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Theres another off topic thread about this I think.. But i'll play along.

My tattoo deemed "the gun show"


Work in progress
[IMG][/IMG]

Shortly after that session.

Don't judge that dirty ass bathroom, that was at a hotel in Newport beach.

nice man - that is great work!

[bulldog_yyc]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Surely....but slowly
I have two other tattoos on my body

[Gimlet]

CMYK - that is incredible - did you get that done in Dallas? And if so, by who? Always on the look for a good artist.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Gimlet

CMYK - that is incredible - did you get that done in Dallas? And if so, by who? Always on the look for a good artist.

Thanks That one was done by the talented Stacey Martin at Dovetail Tattoo in Austin, TX.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by RambleJ

Wow, never heard someone so anti tattoos. Oh well to each their own, I love all of mine and have no regrets about any of them and still won't have any regrets even when I am on Medicare.

+100

[Sara]

Originally Posted by carve

NONSENSE! This is foolishness that'll last a lifetime! At least they're small, discreetly located, and black only, vs. a tacky full-color sleeve or something like that.

Not really.. Laser tattoo removal.

[carve]

Originally Posted by Sara504

+100

+100 on no regrets? LOL- you already said you regretted one of yours. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. It's kind of the only thing you're left with when people point out it was a short-sighted choice: convince yourself it was a good idea, and have others who made the same choice offer support.

Removal isn't always 100%. It's less effective (scarring, ghost-images/incomplete removal) on large areas and colored inks, and effectiveness depends on skin tone, too. It's good that option is out there now though. It's a business with a bright future.

LOL at "prude" comments up above. Dude- you know nothing about me other than I hate tattoos. You probably think I'm some religious right-wing social conservative or something (I'm actually an anti-theist and libertarian on all social freedoms). Would you be attracted to a girl who did laser hair removal so she could only grow a mohawk, or would you think that was a shortsighted, limiting, unattractive choice? Does that make you a prude?

[Sara]

Originally Posted by carve

+100 on no regrets? LOL- you already said you regretted one of yours. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.

Removal isn't always 100%. It's tougher on large areas and colored inks, and effectiveness depends on skin tone, too. It's good that option is out there now though. It's a business with a bright future.

LOL at "prude" comments up above. Dude- you know nothing about me other than I hate tattoos. You probably think I'm some religious nut or something (I'm actually an anti-theist). Would you be attracted to a girl who did laser hair removal so she could only grow a mohawk, or would you think that was a shortsighted, limiting, unattractive choice? Does that make you a prude?

No on his first sentence.

[chinoxs203]

im not cool enough for a tat

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by chinoxs203

im not cool enough for a tat

I'm not able to express myself by letting somebody else doodle on me.

[Ammonia]

Dear Carve, and SkiMask and whoever else that likes to shit on our thread,

Is there a anti-tattoo thread somewhere you guys can go to? GTFO with that shit, holy fuck. Since when is a fucking mural on a car the same as a tattoo on a body? WTF?


What it boils down to, regardless of whatever lists or paragraphs you'd like to draft up in rebuttal to this, is that your OPINION is that tattoos are (tacky, outdated, w.e), and OUR opinions, of the tattoos on OUR bodies, not yours, is that obviously, we like them. Who the fuck are you to try and correct what we like? You may be 34 years old, but you are a child. You are in here to do nothing but argue with us and try to tell us the tattoos we have are stupid. Who does that? Seriously

I'll be back to post up my tattoos.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by Ammonia

Dear Carve, and SkiMask and whoever else that likes to shit on our thread,

Is there a anti-tattoo thread somewhere you guys can go to? GTFO with that shit, holy fuck. Since when is a fucking mural on a car the same as a tattoo on a body? WTF?


What it boils down to, regardless of whatever lists or paragraphs you'd like to draft up in rebuttal to this, is that your OPINION is that tattoos are (tacky, outdated, w.e), and OUR opinions, of the tattoos on OUR bodies, not yours, is that obviously, we like them. Who the fuck are you to try and correct what we like? You may be 34 years old, but you are a child. You are in here to do nothing but argue with us and try to tell us the tattoos we have are stupid. Who does that? Seriously

I'll be back to post up my tattoos.

Fair enough
fwiw - I am blown away by what some tattoo artists can do, I just know more than a few people who regret their tats

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Ammonia

Dear Carve, and SkiMask and whoever else that likes to shit on our thread,

Is there a anti-tattoo thread somewhere you guys can go to? GTFO with that shit, holy fuck. Since when is a fucking mural on a car the same as a tattoo on a body? WTF?


What it boils down to, regardless of whatever lists or paragraphs you'd like to draft up in rebuttal to this, is that your OPINION is that tattoos are (tacky, outdated, w.e), and OUR opinions, of the tattoos on OUR bodies, not yours, is that obviously, we like them. Who the fuck are you to try and correct what we like? You may be 34 years old, but you are a child. You are in here to do nothing but argue with us and try to tell us the tattoos we have are stupid. Who does that? Seriously

I'll be back to post up my tattoos.

Well said

I don't like to get into debates with people about petty things like tattoos so I generally stay away from conversations like this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but, like Ammonia said, these are *our* bodies and while others' opinions about what we do to them or put on them are duly noted, it's really none of anyone else's concern, one way or the other. The choices we make about our bodies and how we choose to express ourselves really should have no significance to you; just as your opinions of our choices won't be causing us any grief, either. As a Libertarian you should be able to appreciate or at least accept that others' opinions and views should not be mandated onto others who do not share your outlook.

[MadDog]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Not really.. Laser tattoo removal.

From the Wall Street Journal: WSJ


As growing numbers of people rue the tattoos they got in their youth, a new study has found that tattoo removal is less likely to succeed if the person is a smoker, the design contains colors such as blue or yellow and is larger than 12 inches.

The study is believed to be the first research that looked at several factors—which included tattoo size and location on the body—involved with successful tattoo removal, according to the researchers.

The standard procedure for removing tattoos currently is treatment with a laser called a Q-switched laser, or QSL, applied over a number of sessions. But the technique can lose its effectiveness depending on certain variables, according to the study, published online on Monday in the American Medical Association's Archives of Dermatology.

Smoking, for instance, can reduce by 70% the chance of successfully removing a tattoo after 10 treatment sessions.

Dermatologists have long known certain colors are easier to remove than others, but the findings on the impact of smoking on tattoo removal are new.

The research was conducted at a laser-surgery center in Milan, Italy, from 1995 through 2010. There were 352 people in the study, of which 201 were men, with a median age of 30 years old.

As many as 22% of U.S. college students have at least one tattoo, according to background information in the study, and about half of people who get tattoos later try to have them removed.

In order to remove tattoos, patients must undergo about 10 laser treatments several weeks apart. The light from the laser targets pigments in the ink of the tattoo and helps the ink break down. Over time the ink is removed through the body's lymphatic system. Each treatment costs about $200 and isn't covered by insurance.

Overall, the study found about 47% of people had their tattoos successfully removed after 10 laser treatments and it took 15 treatments to remove tattoos from 75% of patients.

Black and red pigments in tattoos were most easily removed. All-black tattoos had a 58% successful-removal rate, while tattoos with black and red pigments had a 51% success rate after 10 treatments. The presence of other colors such as greens, yellows or blues reduced the chances of effective removal of a tattoo by as much as 80%, the study found. Other factors that reduced the procedure's success included a design larger than 12 inches or one located on the feet or legs.

Karthik Krishnamurthy, director of the cosmetic dermatology clinic at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, N.Y., who wasn't involved in the study, explained that black and red inks absorb the wavelength of light emitted by the QSL laser better than other colors.

Older tattoos are harder to remove in part because the ink particles move deeper into the skin over time, the researchers said. And smoking is believed to hinder tattoo removal because smoking is known to hinder wound healing.

The researchers also found that the amount of time between QSL treatment sessions was important to the technique's success. Treatment intervals of eight weeks or less were found to be less effective for tattoo removal.

A separate study, also published in the Archives of Dermatology, however, suggests a different type of laser currently in development called a picosecond alexandrite laser, can remove tattoos with fewer treatments than the QSL laser.

The study involved 15 patients and was partly funded by Cynosure Inc., a Westford, Mass., firm that is waiting for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to clear its picosecond laser for marketing.

Most patients could have their tattoos removed with four or fewer treatments, said one of the study's authors, Nazanin Saedi, who was a fellow at SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., where the study was conducted. Dr. Saedi is now an assistant professor and director of laser surgery and cosmetic dermatology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

[carve]

Originally Posted by Ammonia

Dear Carve, and SkiMask and whoever else that likes to shit on our thread,

Is there a anti-tattoo thread somewhere you guys can go to? GTFO with that shit, holy fuck. Since when is a fucking mural on a car the same as a tattoo on a body? WTF?

The OP said this was youthful foolishness. I pointed out that it was permanent, but not that big of a change compared to things like sleeves, and then said why I feel those are a bigger form of foolishness. Every other post here is me responding to someone else's question or comments about my view, including this post.

Want me to stop talking about my viewpoint? Then don't discuss it.

What it boils down to, regardless of whatever lists or paragraphs you'd like to draft up in rebuttal to this, is that your OPINION is that tattoos are (tacky, outdated, w.e), and OUR opinions, of the tattoos on OUR bodies, not yours, is that obviously, we like them. Who the fuck are you to try and correct what we like? You may be 34 years old, but you are a child. You are in here to do nothing but argue with us and try to tell us the tattoos we have are stupid. Who does that? Seriously

I'll be back to post up my tattoos.

Of course they're just opinions. I'm not correcting you or forcing anyone to do anything. I'm just pointing out reasons why tattoos might, as the OP said, be foolish. This is ON TOPIC. Threads like this tend to turn into a circle-jerk of people telling each other how bad ass they are due to some scuzzy guy doodling a pretty picture on them. I'm the counterpoint. You get a tattoo for aesthetics and for people to see, and I'm telling you what a large % of people see. Don't like it? Maybe you're a little insecure about your irreversible atheistic choices. People have complained they don't like my opinion, but nobody has addressed any of my points...even people who ASKED me to bring up the points. We obviously each think our own opinion is better than the others, but I explain why I think so. Instead of getting your panties in a bunch and pouting perhaps you could do the same.


Car murals are an analogy. The beauty of a car is primarily in the shape and surface finish, and a mural typically detracts from that, even if very well done, because it interrupts the shape. The body is exactly the same way, but more permanent. I'd be willing to bet most people think murals on cars are tacky, but never even considered that tattoos are essentially the same thing, but even MORE limiting and tacky. Double standard.

[Ammonia]

Dude, you're arguing again. This thread is for people to post up pictures of their tattoos, not defend their choices to people like you. This is not a thread for us to discuss why or why not tattoos can be dumb. YOU ARE NOT ON TOPIC.

Yes OP said something about getting all his foolishness out while he was young. But thats an off remark, the ending line and even the thread title all say what we're here for.

I'm pretty sure there are zero fucks being given about why you feel the way you feel about tattoos. Like you probably give zero fucks about tattoos or people who enjoy them. Thats fine, solution? Don't post in here. When you go out of your way to talk shit about someone's hobby or life choices, thats when this becomes less of a debate and more of you trying very hard to prove a point to our detriment. The people "asking" for your opinion, or making replies, those are just a bunch of people rightfully annoyed that you're down-talking something that we happen to enjoy.


Do you find tattoo forums and post in there as well about how stupid they are?

Or, on the same note, if I don't like black cars, will I go into the "Official BSM" thread and bash their decision on car color? They're in there to post pictures of their black cars, but how dare they! And then I'll compile a fucking list that tells why I think they're all morons!

1. Black makes scratches show up more.
2. Black hides the lines of the car's body.
3. The paint is permanent! Even if you repaint it, you can still tell that the black paint used to be there.
4. You guys will have to live with this the rest of your life, and my opinion is that your decision is shit.
5. Later when you car is old the black paint will be all faded and look like a bag of ass, and everyone will be able to tell how out-dated your paint is.
6. HEY, I found a thread you posted about regretting picking black as your car color, LEMME LINK IT. +5 internets.

What does that accomplish? A bunch of pissed off people and a very smug self? Now if the OP had asked, "What do you think about tattoos?" that'd be one thing. But he didn't. We like to come in here and post up our pictures without you remarking on how dumb you think we are, and no, we don't want to turn this into a discussion. Thank you very much. Good day.

[Templar]

Stop fighting and post your pics!