In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote
> >
> > Advice that I've read lately suggests leaving the circumcision decision
> > (unless medically necessary) to the person wanting himself to be
> > circumcised.
>
> Maybe, but if you are adolescent or adult, do you want to start cutting
> stuff for any reason?

By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
baby through that trauma, either?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article .com>,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> Miche wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> >
> > > Miche wrote:
> > > > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The rule against tattoos is a religious one. There's a line in I think
> > > >> Deuterotomy against going painted like foreigners. I looked up the
> > > >> footnotes for that line and it said it meant not getting tattoos like
> > > >> northern barbarians, maybe Scythians or Hittites. I'm a farther noth
> > > >> barbarian than that so I figured it means it's fine for me to have
> > > >> tattoos.
> > > >
> > > > And I don't follow the rules of Deuteronomy, so it's fine for me to have
> > > > them too.
> > > >
> > > > Electricians do it in three phases
> > >
> > > Quoting the .signature because I found it funny. So are the phases
> > > rare, medium and well done? ;^) Still new and shown off, old and
> > > routine, ancient and murky green?
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > In this country, red white and blue, believe it or not.
>
> Not the US eh? Black, red and blue here, and sometimes orange.

Black's neutral here. I'm in New Zealand.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 20/12/2010 8:15 PM, Miche wrote:.
> >
> > As I said above, I can note the existence of a tattoo and then ignore it
> > from then on. I don't have to give the tattooed person a disgusted look
> > or say anything or anything like that. They're just a person.
>
>
> I get it. They are desperately seeking attention and you want to rain on
> their parade by pretending they haven't made themselves look like freaks.

Yup. They're just a person, after all.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 20/12/2010 8:14 PM, Miche wrote:
>
> >> When someone is exposing them in public you really don't have much
> >> choice about seeing it.
> >
> > There's a difference between "Oh look, a tattoo" and then looking away
> > and making a performance about how disgusting and disfiguring it is,
> > even if it's just to yourself.
> >
> >> The way I figure it is that if someone gets the number and type of
> >> tattoos, piercings and other body mutilations to make themselves look
> >> like freaks, I reserve the right to look and react as if they are
> >> freaks. It is not like a strange skin condition, natural ugliness or
> >> accidental dismemberment. When you do something that is bound to attract
> >> attention you have to realize that you won`t always get the positive
> >> feedback. And let`s face it, the people with the most bizarre tats and
> >> mutilations are doing it for the shock value.
> >
> > All the more reason to react as though they're an ordinary person then,
> > no?
>
> Because they are probably unbalanced? I can take care of myself. I
> suppose that most people might have reason to fear them

Um, why? They're just people. And in my experience the ones I have to
fear most are the ones who look _just like anybody else_.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

"Dan Abel" > wrote
>
> By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
> baby through that trauma, either?
>

It was common practice. I don't recall it happening. If I was 16 or 21 at
the time, I'd bet it would be an unpleasant memory.

On Dec 20, 3:44*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 3:00 PM, Miche wrote:
>
> >> Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
> >> general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
> >> talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
> >> "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
> >> permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
> >> but don't make me have to look at it.
>
> > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? *Shouldn't
> > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
>
> When someone is exposing them in public you really don't have much
> choice about seeing it.
>
> The way I figure it is that if someone gets the number and type of
> tattoos, piercings and other body mutilations to make themselves look
> like freaks, I reserve the right to look and react as if they are
> freaks. *It is not like *a strange skin condition, natural ugliness or
> accidental dismemberment. When you do something that is bound to attract
> attention you have to realize that you won`t always get the positive
> feedback. And let`s face it, the people with the most bizarre tats and
> mutilations are doing it for the shock value.

And then there are the kids who walk around with their jeans pulled
halfway down their backsides. You can't help but notice their stupid
underwear. You can then choose to look away, but it's already too
late.

Miche wrote:
>
> In article .com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Miche wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Miche wrote:
> > > > > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> The rule against tattoos is a religious one. There's a line in I think
> > > > >> Deuterotomy against going painted like foreigners. I looked up the
> > > > >> footnotes for that line and it said it meant not getting tattoos like
> > > > >> northern barbarians, maybe Scythians or Hittites. I'm a farther noth
> > > > >> barbarian than that so I figured it means it's fine for me to have
> > > > >> tattoos.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I don't follow the rules of Deuteronomy, so it's fine for me to have
> > > > > them too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Electricians do it in three phases
> > > >
> > > > Quoting the .signature because I found it funny. So are the phases
> > > > rare, medium and well done? ;^) Still new and shown off, old and
> > > > routine, ancient and murky green?
> > >
> > > LOL.
> > >
> > > In this country, red white and blue, believe it or not.
> >
> > Not the US eh? Black, red and blue here, and sometimes orange.
>
> Black's neutral here. I'm in New Zealand.

Gotta love those standards... plenty to choose from...

Dan Abel wrote:
> "Default User" > wrote:
>
>> "Tattoos: better than piercings, I guess."
>
> She had the piercing for less than a year (it was a stud under her lower
> lip). There was no trace of it in a short time once she gave it up.

Boot camp runs just long enough for a tongue piercing to heal over
completely. Boot camp has been around a lot longer that popular
piercings - I recall no one my my boot camp company having a piercing
that I learned about. But when one of the kids had a piercing heal
over during boot camp that was a nice bonus when I learned of it.

On 21/12/2010 6:35 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Dan Abel" > wrote
>>
>> By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
>> baby through that trauma, either?
>>
>
> It was common practice. I don't recall it happening. If I was 16 or 21
> at the time, I'd bet it would be an unpleasant memory.


It was done routinely to make babies after WWII because so many of
their fathers had had to have it done in the services, or knew someone
who had. They figured it was so much better to have it done quickly and
easily at infancy that to have to endure it as adults.

On 12/19/2010 4:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:00:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Many Dermatologists collect photos of their patient's tats as a hobby.
> 99% chance this is bullshit along with all the other stuff.
>
> More likely they collect "Before and After" [removal] photos for
> professional reasons.

Prisons will photograph the tattoos on inmates. This one prison in
Texas, had the photographs in a binder.

Becca

On 12/19/2010 7:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Ema Nymton" > wrote
>>
>> Two of my clients were "dancers" at a gentleman's club in Houston.
>> One of them had tattoos, and the tattoos had to be covered before she
>> could perform. She used a makeup that is commonly used to cover
>> scars. It was a thick cream, then a powder.
>>
>> Becca
>
> I'd have though the tattoos would have been a "plus" for the clientele
> in such a place. Sort of exotic and erotic, no?

This gentleman's club was in the Galleria are of Houston. Some of the
locals here are familiar with the place. These women start their routine
in full length, formal gowns, as if they were perhaps going to the
Oscars. Anna Nicole Smith worked there, that is where she met the
millionaire J. Howard Marshall.

Becca

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:35:11 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote:

>
>"Dan Abel" > wrote
>>
>> By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
>> baby through that trauma, either?
>>
>
>It was common practice. I don't recall it happening. If I was 16 or 21 at
>the time, I'd bet it would be an unpleasant memory.

For many years now the procedure (with parental permission) is
performed within seconds of cutting the umbilical cord. The area is
deadened with a local anesthetic, there would be no pain and no more
discomfit during healing than from a mosquito bite. As an adult any
discomfort would be psychological anticipating the event. Even when
done a day or two after birth no one remembers... I underwent a
tonsilectomy at age two, I don't remember. My appendectomy at age ten
I do remember, but only being held with my face shoved into the
cleavage of the largest breasts on this planet while they administered
the spinal.

On Dec 20, 8:15*pm, Miche > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
> *sf > wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:00:06 +1300, Miche > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *none of your business > wrote:
>
> > > > Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
> > > > general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
> > > > talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
> > > > "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
> > > > permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
> > > > but don't make me have to look at it.
>
> > > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? *Shouldn't
> > > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
>
> > When people walk around with tattoos on every part of their body,
> > including their faces, it's hard to ignore... especially when they are
> > shirtless or in short sleeves and wearing shorts or a bathing suit.
>
> As I said above, I can note the existence of a tattoo and then ignore it
> from then on. *I don't have to give the tattooed person a disgusted look
> or say anything or anything like that. *They're just a person.
>
> Miche
>
> --
> Electricians do it in three phases

"just a person" who has chosen to disfigure themselves and make a
spectacle out of their appearance.
They want the attention, negative or positive. If they wanted to be
"just a person", they wouldn't have mutilated themselves where
everyone can see it.

I'm not going to continue this discussion. We disagree. I find it
repulsive. I look away and try to hold down my lunch. We were having a
discussion, I thought an intelligent one, and I expressed my opinion.
You expressed yours. Done.
Go be "just a person" with disfiguring marks on your body. You choose
to disfigure yourself. I choose to look away so I don't vomit on you.
My choice to be repulsed by your choice to mutilate and disfigure
yourself is equally valid.

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote
> >
> > By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
> > baby through that trauma, either?

It was considered medically beneficial back when I was a baby. It was
recommended by most doctors, and most baby boys back then had it done.
(I was born in 1949). Sometime after that, it was determined that it
wasn't medically necessary, but it wasn't medically harmful either.
Most baby boys were circumcised, simply so they would look like daddy
and the other little boys.

> It was common practice. I don't recall it happening. If I was 16 or 21 at
> the time, I'd bet it would be an unpleasant memory.

I'm pretty sure that those folks recommending that circumcision be
delayed to adulthood, fully realize that the rate of circumcision would
drop hugely. After all, if everything has worked fine for 18 years, why
would you choose to have surgery on your penis when the doctor tells you
it isn't medically necessary?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:24:43 -0800 (PST), A Moose in Love
> wrote:

>On Dec 20, 3:44*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> On 20/12/2010 3:00 PM, Miche wrote:
>>
>> >> Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
>> >> general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
>> >> talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
>> >> "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
>> >> permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
>> >> but don't make me have to look at it.
>>
>> > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? *Shouldn't
>> > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
>>
>> When someone is exposing them in public you really don't have much
>> choice about seeing it.
>>
>> The way I figure it is that if someone gets the number and type of
>> tattoos, piercings and other body mutilations to make themselves look
>> like freaks, I reserve the right to look and react as if they are
>> freaks. *It is not like *a strange skin condition, natural ugliness or
>> accidental dismemberment. When you do something that is bound to attract
>> attention you have to realize that you won`t always get the positive
>> feedback. And let`s face it, the people with the most bizarre tats and
>> mutilations are doing it for the shock value.
>
>And then there are the kids who walk around with their jeans pulled
>halfway down their backsides. You can't help but notice their stupid
>underwear. You can then choose to look away, but it's already too
>late.

You needn't look far for sensibility offending stupidity... read
usenet. No one makes you look at tattoos... I find folks displaying
religious items far more offensive than a nose stud... wearing say a
crucifix is far more a mutilation than a butterfly tat on a tit,
thumping a bible indicates your brain is mutilated.

On 21/12/2010 1:30 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> You needn't look far for sensibility offending stupidity... read
> usenet. No one makes you look at tattoos... I find folks displaying
> religious items far more offensive than a nose stud... wearing say a
> crucifix is far more a mutilation than a butterfly tat on a tit,
> thumping a bible indicates your brain is mutilated.

Crucifies are no more impressive to me than other religious
adornments. Having a crucifix tattooed, burned or carved into your skin
is mutilation. Wearing one is not.

On Dec 21, 1:30*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:24:43 -0800 (PST), A Moose in Love
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 20, 3:44*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> >> On 20/12/2010 3:00 PM, Miche wrote:
>
> >> >> Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
> >> >> general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
> >> >> talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
> >> >> "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
> >> >> permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
> >> >> but don't make me have to look at it.
>
> >> > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? *Shouldn't
> >> > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
>
> >> When someone is exposing them in public you really don't have much
> >> choice about seeing it.
>
> >> The way I figure it is that if someone gets the number and type of
> >> tattoos, piercings and other body mutilations to make themselves look
> >> like freaks, I reserve the right to look and react as if they are
> >> freaks. *It is not like *a strange skin condition, natural ugliness or
> >> accidental dismemberment. When you do something that is bound to attract
> >> attention you have to realize that you won`t always get the positive
> >> feedback. And let`s face it, the people with the most bizarre tats and
> >> mutilations are doing it for the shock value.
>
> >And then there are the kids who walk around with their jeans pulled
> >halfway down their backsides. *You can't help but notice their stupid
> >underwear. *You can then choose to look away, but it's already too
> >late.
>
> You needn't look far for sensibility offending stupidity... read
> usenet. *No one makes you look at tattoos... I find folks displaying
> religious items far more offensive than a nose stud... wearing say a
> crucifix is far more a mutilation than a butterfly tat on a tit,
> thumping a bible indicates your brain is mutilated.

I don't wear a crucifix or any other religious item. Or any 'bling'
for that matter except for a watch. Tattoos are there. Many times
they are in your face because they are so obvious. We differ in our
opinions I guess. I think nose studs are stupid looking. I'd say
that if you are a bible thumper, you may suffer from some sort of
psychosis. I also say that if you are a tat freak, you may suffer
from some kind of group think go along bot kind of thinking. Being
tattooed does not make you an individual apart from the crowd if
that's what you are thinking. Tat people that I have spoken to think
highly of having tats. They think it's cool. Define cool.

In article
>,
none of your business > wrote:

> On Dec 20, 8:15*pm, Miche > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> > *sf > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:00:06 +1300, Miche > wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *none of your business > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
> > > > > general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
> > > > > talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
> > > > > "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
> > > > > permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
> > > > > but don't make me have to look at it.
> >
> > > > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? *Shouldn't
> > > > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
> >
> > > When people walk around with tattoos on every part of their body,
> > > including their faces, it's hard to ignore... especially when they are
> > > shirtless or in short sleeves and wearing shorts or a bathing suit.
> >
> > As I said above, I can note the existence of a tattoo and then ignore it
> > from then on. *I don't have to give the tattooed person a disgusted look
> > or say anything or anything like that. *They're just a person.
>
> "just a person" who has chosen to disfigure themselves and make a
> spectacle out of their appearance.

So what?

> They want the attention, negative or positive. If they wanted to be
> "just a person", they wouldn't have mutilated themselves where
> everyone can see it.

They're still just a person. And if they're craving attention, as you
claim, aren't you just feeding what you see as their dysfunction by
giving it to them?

> I'm not going to continue this discussion. We disagree. I find it
> repulsive. I look away and try to hold down my lunch. We were having a
> discussion, I thought an intelligent one, and I expressed my opinion.
> You expressed yours. Done.

Cool.

> Go be "just a person" with disfiguring marks on your body. You choose
> to disfigure yourself. I choose to look away so I don't vomit on you.
> My choice to be repulsed by your choice to mutilate and disfigure
> yourself is equally valid.

What the heck ever. I'm certainly not spending thousands of dollars to
have my personal, meaningful body art removed just because you don't
like it.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

Ema Nymton wrote:
>
> Prisons will photograph the tattoos on inmates. This one prison in
> Texas, had the photographs in a binder.

That's the reason my Dad taught me to oppose tattoos. They are used for
prisoner identication. I didn't even think about that until high
school. What if I never end up a criminal? At the time I must have
thought he meant that having a tattoo identified a person as a criminal.
That concept didn't wrok well with the WWII veterans in the neighborhood.

Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
far.

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> Ema Nymton wrote:
> >
> > Prisons will photograph the tattoos on inmates. This one prison in
> > Texas, had the photographs in a binder.
>
> That's the reason my Dad taught me to oppose tattoos. They are used for
> prisoner identication. I didn't even think about that until high
> school. What if I never end up a criminal? At the time I must have
> thought he meant that having a tattoo identified a person as a criminal.
> That concept didn't wrok well with the WWII veterans in the neighborhood.
>
> Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
> Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
> people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
> feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
> limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
> far.

Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
since it was never visible under street clothes.

How was I limiting myself?

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On 21/12/2010 3:35 PM, Miche wrote:

>
>> Go be "just a person" with disfiguring marks on your body. You choose
>> to disfigure yourself. I choose to look away so I don't vomit on you.
>> My choice to be repulsed by your choice to mutilate and disfigure
>> yourself is equally valid.
>
> What the heck ever. I'm certainly not spending thousands of dollars to
> have my personal, meaningful body art removed just because you don't
> like it.

Not a problem. You may have spent thousands to get the tats on, but
don't expect everyone to be impressed, especially potential
employers.... the kind you have good jobs and good wages.

On 21/12/2010 3:38 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

>
> That's the reason my Dad taught me to oppose tattoos. They are used for
> prisoner identication. I didn't even think about that until high
> school. What if I never end up a criminal? At the time I must have
> thought he meant that having a tattoo identified a person as a criminal.
> That concept didn't wrok well with the WWII veterans in the neighborhood.
>
> Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
> Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
> people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
> feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
> limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
> far.

I was never one for succumbing to peer pressure. I was treated with
suspicion by the fad following lemmings who had to have the longest
hair, the widest bell bottoms, the idiotic disco boots. I always tended
to dress conservatively and kept my hair fairly short. You's be amazed
at what you can get away with. A lot of my friends ended up in jail but
I never got hassled because I looked so straight laced.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:24:43 -0800 (PST), A Moose in Love
> > wrote:
>
> >On Dec 20, 3:44 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> >> On 20/12/2010 3:00 PM, Miche wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Tattoos and piercings have no health benefit, no cultural mandate in
> >> >> general US culture (I realize some native tribes mandate it... I'm not
> >> >> talking about that). For the general public, tattoos and piercings are
> >> >> "self-expression". And in my opinion, they are nothing more than
> >> >> permanent disfigurement. You wanna disfigure your body, be my guest,
> >> >> but don't make me have to look at it.
> >>
> >> > Who's holding you down and forcing you to look at tattoos? Shouldn't
> >> > your beef be with them rather than the tattooed people?
> >>
> >> When someone is exposing them in public you really don't have much
> >> choice about seeing it.
> >>
> >> The way I figure it is that if someone gets the number and type of
> >> tattoos, piercings and other body mutilations to make themselves look
> >> like freaks, I reserve the right to look and react as if they are
> >> freaks. It is not like a strange skin condition, natural ugliness or
> >> accidental dismemberment. When you do something that is bound to attract
> >> attention you have to realize that you won`t always get the positive
> >> feedback. And let`s face it, the people with the most bizarre tats and
> >> mutilations are doing it for the shock value.
> >
> >And then there are the kids who walk around with their jeans pulled
> >halfway down their backsides. You can't help but notice their stupid
> >underwear. You can then choose to look away, but it's already too
> >late.
>
> You needn't look far for sensibility offending stupidity... read
> usenet. No one makes you look at tattoos... I find folks displaying
> religious items far more offensive than a nose stud... wearing say a
> crucifix is far more a mutilation than a butterfly tat on a tit,
> thumping a bible indicates your brain is mutilated.

Agreed.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2010 1:30 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> > You needn't look far for sensibility offending stupidity... read
> > usenet. No one makes you look at tattoos... I find folks displaying
> > religious items far more offensive than a nose stud... wearing say a
> > crucifix is far more a mutilation than a butterfly tat on a tit,
> > thumping a bible indicates your brain is mutilated.
>
> Crucifies are no more impressive to me than other religious
> adornments. Having a crucifix tattooed, burned or carved into your skin
> is mutilation. Wearing one is not.

It's a symbol of mental mutilation...
(so are other religious articles)

Miche wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
>> Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
>> people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
>> feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
>> limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
>> far.
>
> Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
> since it was never visible under street clothes.
>
> How was I limiting myself?

If they are not visible then they don't exist to folks who don't like
them. Out of sight out of mind. Maybe you would have gotten turned
down as a lifeguard at a conservative private beach or whatever.

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 21/12/2010 3:35 PM, Miche wrote:
>
> >
> >> Go be "just a person" with disfiguring marks on your body. You choose
> >> to disfigure yourself. I choose to look away so I don't vomit on you.
> >> My choice to be repulsed by your choice to mutilate and disfigure
> >> yourself is equally valid.
> >
> > What the heck ever. I'm certainly not spending thousands of dollars to
> > have my personal, meaningful body art removed just because you don't
> > like it.
>
> Not a problem. You may have spent thousands to get the tats on, but
> don't expect everyone to be impressed,

Oh, I don't. I don't care one way or the other. My tattoos are for me,
not anybody else. Of the three I have, only one is occasionally visible
when I'm wearing street clothes.

> especially potential
> employers.... the kind you have good jobs and good wages.

It hasn't been a problem so far.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:57:26 +1300, Miche > wrote:

>In article >,
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> Ema Nymton wrote:
>> >
>> > Prisons will photograph the tattoos on inmates. This one prison in
>> > Texas, had the photographs in a binder.
>>
>> That's the reason my Dad taught me to oppose tattoos. They are used for
>> prisoner identication. I didn't even think about that until high
>> school. What if I never end up a criminal? At the time I must have
>> thought he meant that having a tattoo identified a person as a criminal.
>> That concept didn't wrok well with the WWII veterans in the neighborhood.
>>
>> Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
>> Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
>> people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
>> feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
>> limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
>> far.
>
>Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
>since it was never visible under street clothes.
>
>How was I limiting myself?
>
>Miche

I suppose if you decided to become a nun at a nudist rectory... more
likely you'd be the hit of the party... they'd all be looking for
sister miche to test the sisters and brothers for polarity! teehee

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:25:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 21/12/2010 3:35 PM, Miche wrote:
>
>>
>>> Go be "just a person" with disfiguring marks on your body. You choose
>>> to disfigure yourself. I choose to look away so I don't vomit on you.
>>> My choice to be repulsed by your choice to mutilate and disfigure
>>> yourself is equally valid.
>>
>> What the heck ever. I'm certainly not spending thousands of dollars to
>> have my personal, meaningful body art removed just because you don't
>> like it.
>
>Not a problem. You may have spent thousands to get the tats on, but
>don't expect everyone to be impressed, especially potential
>employers.... the kind you have good jobs and good wages.

She's an electrician... within the building trades no one gives a
rat's b-hind about tats.... in fact in such a male dominated
environment her tats would be a huge plus for acceptibility and
equality.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:17:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

>Miche wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>
>>> Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
>>> Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
>>> people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
>>> feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
>>> limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
>>> far.
>>
>> Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
>> since it was never visible under street clothes.
>>
>> How was I limiting myself?
>
>If they are not visible then they don't exist to folks who don't like
>them. Out of sight out of mind. Maybe you would have gotten turned
>down as a lifeguard at a conservative private beach or whatever.

I seriously doubt anyone cares about or even notices tattoos on the
body of the person who just saved them from drowning. From what I've
seen most lifeguards have tattoos... nowadays dolphin tats are very
popular.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:10:29 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 21/12/2010 1:30 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >
>> > You needn't look far for sensibility offending stupidity... read
>> > usenet. No one makes you look at tattoos... I find folks displaying
>> > religious items far more offensive than a nose stud... wearing say a
>> > crucifix is far more a mutilation than a butterfly tat on a tit,
>> > thumping a bible indicates your brain is mutilated.
>>
>> Crucifies are no more impressive to me than other religious
>> adornments. Having a crucifix tattooed, burned or carved into your skin
>> is mutilation. Wearing one is not.
>
>It's a symbol of mental mutilation...
>(so are other religious articles)

I enjoy following boxing, but when I see those with crucifix/jesus
tats I can't root for them, neither can I root for those who when they
are interviewed first need to thank god. What a dichotomy beating the
shit out of someone with jesus emblazoned on their arm... don't need
to open their mouth to know they're an ignorant deranged *******.

On 12/21/2010 4:31 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I was never one for succumbing to peer pressure. I was treated with
> suspicion by the fad following lemmings who had to have the longest
> hair, the widest bell bottoms, the idiotic disco boots. I always
> tended to dress conservatively and kept my hair fairly short. You's be
> amazed at what you can get away with. A lot of my friends ended up in
> jail but I never got hassled because I looked so straight laced.

When I was young I followed all the rules, but I learned to misbehave
when I got older. ;-)

You never know what you will see under people's clothes. One of my
clients was a high school principal, and as I was busy preparing the
area to work and putting on gloves. When I got closer and started to
work, I noticed that she had a tattoo of 3 small cherries on her inner
thigh. What a surprise that was.

Becca

On 21/12/2010 9:35 PM, Omelet wrote:

> That so opens a can of worms. ;-)
>
> Circumcision is genital mutilation. No better than infibulation.

I disagree.
>
> There are also a number of cites googleable that state why circumcision
> reversal is desirable... and so is avoidance.
>
> It should be a choice. Not enforced on a helpless infant.
>
> If moms are not lazy slobs and keep their baby's penis clean, it's not a
> necessary thing.


The mother's can do all they want to maintain good genital hygiene while
the child is young and they have normal access to it. The problem
seemed to have been with older boys and young men who were not keeping
clean or working in situations where it was not possible, like soldiers
in time of war.

There are some benefits to male circumcision.
- it is almost 100% effective in preventing cancer of the penis
- it reduces the incidence of cancer of the cervix in women due to
the Human Papilloma Virus by 20%
-protects against HIV and AIDS
- it makes it easier to keep clean which can make for more
enjoyable sex,
- it prevents the occurrence of Nalantis, a painful swelling
of the glans
- urinary infections in babies are 10 times less likely

The most convincing argument for some men is it is pretty much a
non-issue for newborn infants, and so much less traumatic than having to
have one as an adult.

On 21/12/2010 9:43 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In article
>
>> By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
>> baby through that trauma, either?
>
> Indeed!!!
>
> They don't even use any kind of anesthetic.
>
> I've heard those babies scream... :-(

Newborn babies scream about a lot of things. They settle down and get
over it quickly.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:56:54 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

> On Dec 20, 12:00*pm, Miche > wrote:
>
>
> > > I know they are not REALLY unclean. * It is more of a visceral
> > > reaction from me. *It has nothing to do with logic.
> > > As I stated, it is only my opinion and has nothing to do with anyone
> > > personally.
> >
> > No offence taken.
>
>
> I will admit, though, I have some grudging admiration for any guy who
> would submit to this
>
> http://files.blog-city.com/files/S06...enistattoo.jpg
>
> to me, that is simply too painful to think about since the member in
> question had to be 'firm' to be tattooed........
>
Either he gets off on pain or he used viagra. I can't imagine him
remaining "firm" after the first few stabs... then again, it could be
body paint passed off as a tattoo.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> Miche wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> >
> >> Some folks don't like tattoos. It's a common feeling in many groups.
> >> Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly have problems with that set of
> >> people. Other folks don't care about tattoos. It too is a common
> >> feeling in many groups. Thus to get a tattoo is to knowingly put a
> >> limit on yourself. Maybe that's why I've never bothered to get one so
> >> far.
> >
> > Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
> > since it was never visible under street clothes.
> >
> > How was I limiting myself?
>
> If they are not visible then they don't exist to folks who don't like
> them. Out of sight out of mind. Maybe you would have gotten turned
> down as a lifeguard at a conservative private beach or whatever.

I don't think there are any conservative private beaches in this country.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

"Miche" > wrote
> Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
> since it was never visible under street clothes.

If is is on your back where you don't see it, covered with clothing so that
others can't see it, I can't see much reason to have one. Even naked, most
times another person would be facing you where it is out of view. If I had
one, I'd want to show it off.

On 21/12/2010 10:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Miche" > wrote
>> Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
>> since it was never visible under street clothes.
>
> If is is on your back where you don't see it, covered with clothing so
> that others can't see it, I can't see much reason to have one. Even
> naked, most times another person would be facing you where it is out of
> view. If I had one, I'd want to show it off.


How can you beat the logic. Be cool by getting a tattoo on your back
where you can't see it and cover it up so that no one else can. Makes
to much sense to me.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Miche" > wrote
| > Until I got one on my arm nobody knew I already had a tattoo on my back,
| > since it was never visible under street clothes.
|
| If is is on your back where you don't see it, covered with clothing so that
| others can't see it, I can't see much reason to have one. Even naked, most
| times another person would be facing you where it is out of view. If I had
| one, I'd want to show it off.

Don't you pirouette when naked?

pavane

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:08:51 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 21/12/2010 9:43 PM, Omelet wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >> By the same reasoning, if it isn't medically necessary, why put a little
> >> baby through that trauma, either?
> >
> > Indeed!!!
> >
> > They don't even use any kind of anesthetic.
> >
> > I've heard those babies scream... :-(
>
> Newborn babies scream about a lot of things. They settle down and get
> over it quickly.

Babies in a hospital are not circumcised anymore as if they were at a
bris.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:35:27 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article
>,
> none of your business > wrote:
>
>> It's also been proven time and again that it's healthier
>> for the man and his partner to be circumcised (google it, I'm not
>> providing cites. it's general knowlege at this point). There is a
>> bonafide purpose to circumcision. Not to mention, the only
>> circumcisions that impact me are my husband's and my son's. I have no
>> problem with gays at all, either.
>
>That so opens a can of worms. ;-)
>
>Circumcision is genital mutilation. No better than infibulation.
>
>There are also a number of cites googleable that state why circumcision
>reversal is desirable... and so is avoidance.
>
>It should be a choice. Not enforced on a helpless infant.
>
>If moms are not lazy slobs and keep their baby's penis clean, it's not a
>necessary thing.

In my experience, which extent I wont go into here, women who are
sexually active much prefer circumcised men, for hygienic, tactile,
and visual reasons. No matter how often an uncircumcised male bathes
their penis is not clean. Intercourse with an uncircumcised penis is
tantamount to anal sex, anal sex is never clean, not ever. You
couldn't pay me enough to stick my dick in a rectum, I'd rather bone a
ham. Only extremely mentally ill people engage in anal penetration...
that's right, penetration, I don't consider that behaviour sex, at
best sticking a tube up someone's butt is a medical procedure, one
normal people hope to avoid. Those who engage is such filth deserve
whatever diseases they contract.