Posted on 08/04/2018 11:42:34 AM PDT by simpson96
Edited on 08/04/2018 12:50:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Call those dinky, little things ‘tattoos’?
Not these days.
no they havent changed that much.
Frankly, the fact that she opted to resign her title vs lawyer up with Gloria Allred and demand on CNN that she retain her title and belittle the "patriarchal" Chamber over their after-the-fact contract ploy, is a pretty encouraging sign for people who disdain Millenials.
This is the age of the mouthy skank.
Exactly.
So, what’s the issue? They wanted the ink covered during official events. She didn’t want to. So they parted ways. It’s all good and now some other basic chick gets to be the queen of sand and Joshua trees and livestock.
“Tatts used to be a sign of low life and trashy on women, but times change”
Yes. A lot more trashy low life women (and men).
“The women have changed. What was once “low life and trashy” is now mainstream.”
Because trashy and low life is mainstream.
Tats are a sign of ignorance. These women have no idea how incredibly ugly those tats will be as they pass 60. Not just ugly, I mean nauseating on thin and wrinkled skin.
Tell me she isn’t banjo boy’s sister from Deliverance. How did she get crowned?
That’s a beauty queen??
How repulsive!
Another example. She is a complete idiot who doesn’t understand her own contract, AND would rather have a tattoo than hold the title.... She’ll someday be a typical woman in upper management at some fortune 500 company (if not the NYT)
my husband hates tattoos on women, and overly decorated men.
I have no tattoos. I have a friend who must be 70 by now. She has the Yellow Rose of Texas on the front of her thigh. If she did not tell me what the hell it was, i couldn’t have guessed. and she is a crispy critter, very tanned but very wrinkled.
RTFA
Still a sign of low-class trash.
I hate them. Hate them more since it’s a sign of how trashy our whole society has become. “Mainstream”...may I NEVER be mainstream if it means immoral libertinism.
Never mind how damn ugly they can be; they look dirty. Why would one mutilate and deface one’s God-given body?
Uhm ... the article says she opted not to sigh the contract.
Yes, nobody would look good in that shot.
A celebration which she will get to live with for the rest of her life (short of expensive and sometimes risky laser removal) and has already caused her to lose a position as a contest winner. They are distracting and to many people they are STILL viewed as low class.
I'm retired in Southeast Asia and in "that" part of town most all the hookers are tatted up: on their arms, legs, back, the visible portion of the chest and even their face. As a twenty-something they think it is the thing to do (I'm guessing?), but the country I live in is still quite conservative in the main. The young ladies are marked for life and they will never get a decent paying job in society after their years "in the trade" are over. Labor laws are quite different here and they can openly screen for tats. Any tattoo which is visible in business attire will nix the job.
You can change your tie or buy a different pair of shoes when they go out of style, but tats are a different story. This young lady from California has already reaped the first benefit of her 18th birthday celebration. There will be more of the same down the road for her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.