http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239968/Girls-dogs-sell-Father-defends-decision-use-half-naked-pictures-daughter-20-sell-1977-Datsun.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Tats though. :yuk: she should be beaten for each tat.
The tats are way worse than the photo shoot.
I'd like to beat gay fox for his eventual defense of her tats.
I am ok with tattoos on girls, but hers are HORRIBLE.
I'm better with the tats then I am with the lip piercing. :yucky:
Check out the ass implant pictures about 2/3 down on the right. :lol:
Wow. That is one used-up looking girl.
Actually I don't see a problem with this, just so long as he gives his daughter a share of the sale or a fee for the photos.
For once I found a DM comment both amusing and inoffensive:
Quote
I could see getting upset over this if it were a matter of preserving the young ladies honor and virtue. Buuuut....it looks like that ship has pretty much sailed already.
- Glen Hazelwood , West Harrison, United States, 28/11/2012 23:08
Meh. I've seen more provocative pictures and skimpier outfits on women in professional car ads. If the daughter was 14 or even 17 there might be an issue, but she's an adult. Non-story.
Unless, of course, the dog mentioned in the article killed some chickens--then it's international news!
C'mon. Even if she's an adult her pop asking her to do crotch shots in black panties is pretty weird.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2012, 08:12:10 PM
C'mon. Even if she's an adult her pop asking her to do crotch shots in black panties is pretty weird.
Really you of all people should get it; it's the return on his investment. :P
Ick. Piercings and tattoos are both unattractive, and make her look like crap.
Also, yeah. Creepy.
I'd like to have the Datsun.
a. Not half naked.
b. Someone get her a sandwich
Quote from: Maximus on November 28, 2012, 08:24:44 PM
a. Not half naked.
Exactly. With that headline, I expected that she was topless, and they were going to superimpose a black rectangle over her chest. Like I said, you see skimpier outfits in plenty of ads.
Quote from: Maximus on November 28, 2012, 08:24:44 PM
a. Not half naked.
b. Someone get her a sandwich
Women are supposed to be the ones bringing sandwiches. :mad:
Booooooooooooo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239968/Car-seller-used-half-naked-pictures-blonde-sell-1977-Datsun-admits-just-friend.html?ICO=most_read_module
The only thing creepier than that story is the fact that there's even a Datsun subculture out there.
Tweeker tats and the two tone hair. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 28, 2012, 07:41:53 PM
I'd like to beat gay fox for his eventual defense of her tats.
Tats are awesome, you are just old.
Also, I would beat you. Well until you unleash the Toddler army.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2012, 07:59:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 28, 2012, 07:41:53 PM
I'd like to beat gay fox for his eventual defense of her tats.
Tats are awesome, you are just old.
Also, I would beat you. Well until you unleash the Toddler army.
Those tats suck
Quote from: 11B4V on November 29, 2012, 09:51:24 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 29, 2012, 07:59:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 28, 2012, 07:41:53 PM
I'd like to beat gay fox for his eventual defense of her tats.
Tats are awesome, you are just old.
Also, I would beat you. Well until you unleash the Toddler army.
Oh so much, yes.
Those tats suck
Albertan ghetto?
Looks like she's has some inbreeding somewhere in the family tree too.
Yeah, tattoos mark a woman as impure and indecent, and someone who deliberately aspires to lower society. It is best avoided. :)
I'd be ashamed to hit that. Doesn't mean I wouldn't, though. :P
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 30, 2012, 08:40:33 AM
I'd be ashamed to hit that. Doesn't mean I wouldn't, though. :P
Indeed. "Dazza UK" left a comment saying that she looked "filthy", he was paying her a compliment though :P
Nothing shocking about her clothes (well beyond shocking to good taste). Her pose is what makes it all sexual. But since it is not his daughter anyway this is even less of a story.
'Man tries to sell car by getting woman he is not related to to bend over it.' OMG!
I expended my once a month starting a thread on a fraud. :cry:
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 30, 2012, 01:23:39 AM
Yeah, tattoos mark a woman as impure and indecent, and someone who deliberately aspires to lower society. It is best avoided. :)
Pretty much, yeah.
Wrong, wrong. Wrong. WRONG.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 30, 2012, 12:41:36 PM
Wrong, wrong. Wrong. WRONG.
At least on that particular point, you have D and Lettow lined up against you - so you're looking good. :thumbsup:
Bog standard rough-looking British chick. She's a looker by local standards.
Tattoos are slut tells btw.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 30, 2012, 01:23:31 PM
Bog standard rough looking British chick. She's a looker by local standards.
Tattoos are slut tells btw.
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
:)
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Which is stupid. Nothing worse than a 40something that tries to act like a 20something, like getting a tramp stamp or fucking up their leg with a butterfly, or Howard the Duck inside her pantie line.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Which is stupid. Nothing worse than a 40something that tries to act like a 20something, like getting a tramp stamp or fucking up their leg with a butterfly, or Howard the Duck inside her pantie line.
:unsure:
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Which is stupid. Nothing worse than a 40something that tries to act like a 20something, like getting a tramp stamp or fucking up their leg with a butterfly, or Howard the Duck inside her pantie line.
Agreed, although you use much more colourful language than I would.
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:15:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
:)
Is that the descriptor you aim for? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:15:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
:)
Is that the descriptor you aim for? :unsure:
No, just seems to be the one I get. :(
Well, that or slut. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:15:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
:)
Is that the descriptor you aim for? :unsure:
No, just seems to be the one I get. :(
Well, that or slut. :hmm:
:hug:
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Which is stupid. Nothing worse than a 40something that tries to act like a 20something, like getting a tramp stamp or fucking up their leg with a butterfly, or Howard the Duck inside her pantie line.
:unsure:
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Then the tats turn into a beluga whale from all the stretching and weight gain.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Then the tats turn into a beluga whale from all the stretching and weight gain.
WIN!!!!!!!!111111 :w00t:
Although, technically, I'm smaller now than I was when I got my last two tattoos, so not sure how that works.
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
The females who got them 20 years ago are the ones responsible for the current stereotype.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 02:26:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Some of the females who got them 20 years ago are the ones responsible for the current stereotype.
FYP
:)
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:15:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
:)
Is that the descriptor you aim for? :unsure:
No, just seems to be the one I get. :(
Well, that or slut. :hmm:
Really? I was just trying to vocalize the opposite of slut.
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 02:26:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Some of the females who got them 20 years ago are the ones responsible for the current stereotype.
FYP
:)
No, 20 years ago it wasnt the questionable fashion it is today. It was biker chicks and the stereotypes we know so well.
If you are literally talking about 1992 you are dead wrong. Maybe if we are talking like 1982.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
If you are literally talking about 1992 you are dead wrong. Maybe if we are talking like 1982.
No you are.
But I am glad you are following form.
Step 1: CC disagrees with Meri;
Step 2: Valmy comes valiantly to her defence;
Step 3: Max will come in shortly to say how awful and perhaps insane CC has become;
Step three has become my favourite lately. One of the few reasons for still sticking around. Hope he logs in soonish.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 04:08:54 PM
If you are literally talking about 1992 you are dead wrong. Maybe if we are talking like 1982.
You forgot that he lives in Canada. Lag time?
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Which is stupid. Nothing worse than a 40something that tries to act like a 20something, like getting a tramp stamp or fucking up their leg with a butterfly, or Howard the Duck inside her pantie line.
:unsure:
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Then the tats turn into a beluga whale from all the stretching and weight gain.
I've known a girl whose butt cheek scorpion had turned into a lobster before she turned 30.
I got tattoos back in 93, does this make me a slut? :hmm:
More on topic, she has ugly tats and why keep a datsun in good condition, not a american muscle car.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 02:26:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Some of the females who got them 20 years ago are the ones responsible for the current stereotype.
FYP
:)
No, 20 years ago it wasnt the questionable fashion it is today. It was biker chicks and the stereotypes we know so well.
Yer off a bit, hon. The female tattoo craze started when I was a kid, but became really popular in the middle-class groups while I was in college in the late 1980s. Unless you're claiming that average middle-class kids were biker chicks and sluts, in which case we'll have to just agree to disagree.
QuoteA Modern Tattoo Renaissance (http://www.randomhistory.com/2008/07/26_tattoo.html)
American sailor Jerry Collins was a critical figure in reinventing and introducing tattoos in the middle class in the 1970s and 1980s. Sailor Jerry wanted to improve the Western style, which he saw as primitive and abrupt, and started to use the style, colors, and imagery of Japanese tattooing as well as their belief that the entire body acts as a canvas. He argued that the Japanese's sophisticated and spiritual style could move the American tattoo from is "primitive" state to a credible art form.
Lyle Tuttle also sought to bring tattooing into the mainstream, and due in part to his influence, tattoos changed during the 1970s more than in any other previous period in U.S. history. Not only did he advocate updating health regulations and creating tattoo magazines aimed at the middle class, Tuttle also created images that both were influenced by Collins' theories and also reflected the social movements of the time, such as the peace, gay, and women's movements. Previously, most tattoos relied on flash rather than personal creation and they were masculine in terms of imagery (masculine icons, aggressive animals, and motorcycle insignias), style (bold lines), and placement (the ubiquitous bicep tattoo). Tuttle's new designs were both more feminine and appealing to middle-class tastes than the classic working-class design. In addition, as tattooists started coming from more theoretical fine arts backgrounds, they brought with them more sophisticated images that began appearing on women's shoulders, breasts, and other angles. The 1980s reinterpretation of the Chicano and tribal style also introduced new images and symbols to the S&M and punk communities that were later appropriated by middle-class communities (DeMello 2007).
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 30, 2012, 04:45:19 PM
I got tattoos back in 93, does this make me a slut? :hmm:
No, you're a dude. Duh...
Anyway, as much as I agree with CC's opinion about tattoos, I think they really got popular right around the early to mid-90s. Meri's article states that the "craze" started in the 70s or 80s or whatever. But that's sort of like saying the microbrewing movement started in the 70s. It technically did get its start then, but it didn't really have a lot of momentum until the 90s.
Quote from: Syt on November 30, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
I've known a girl whose butt cheek scorpion had turned into a lobster before she turned 30.
I know. And we warn them about this and they just went ahead and did it anyway. Ah well.
It's not that she has tats that's the problem here. It's that she has lots and lots of awful ones all over her.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 30, 2012, 04:58:04 PM
It's not that she has tats that's the problem here. It's that she has lots and lots of awful ones all over her.
Yep. Those are some horrid tats. But it is pretty obvious by looking at her she has terrible taste in general.
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Nobody else should get a pass, unless you're some goofy ass 3rd world tribal member, running around in a banana hammock with a spear, making clucking sounds to one another over whether the sun is mad at you or not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Nobody else should get a pass, unless you're some goofy ass 3rd world tribal member, running around in a banana hammock with a spear, making clucking sounds to one another over whether the sun is mad at you or not.
Correct.
Quote from: Syt on November 30, 2012, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Not really. I mean those tatoos are pretty sketchy but lots of perfectly prudish boring square women get tattoos these days.
Which is stupid. Nothing worse than a 40something that tries to act like a 20something, like getting a tramp stamp or fucking up their leg with a butterfly, or Howard the Duck inside her pantie line.
:unsure:
What if said 40-something got said tattoos in her 20s and 30s?
Then the tats turn into a beluga whale from all the stretching and weight gain.
I've known a girl whose butt cheek scorpion had turned into a lobster before she turned 30.
A rock lobster!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Yeah not a fan. I was just pointing out the horrible scourge of tattoo getting had spread throughout the female population. Nobody is immune.
I also hate them on athletes. What a bunch of posers.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Yeah not a fan. I was just pointing out the horrible scourge of tattoo getting had spread throughout the female population. Nobody is immune.
I also hate them on athletes. What a bunch of posers.
Especially on black athletes. They are unreadable.
As Charles Emmerson Winchester said - Tattoos are the common man's way of sponsoring art.
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2012, 04:53:02 PM
Anyway, as much as I agree with CC's opinion about tattoos, I think they really got popular right around the early to mid-90s. Meri's article states that the "craze" started in the 70s or 80s or whatever. But that's sort of like saying the microbrewing movement started in the 70s. It technically did get its start then, but it didn't really have a lot of momentum until the 90s.
The article is bs, there may have been people getting tattoes in the 90s but they were not the young professional women crying out for attention. Back then those types into navel piercings.
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Nobody else should get a pass, unless you're some goofy ass 3rd world tribal member, running around in a banana hammock with a spear, making clucking sounds to one another over whether the sun is mad at you or not.
Correct.
Wrong as rain
Quote from: 11B4V on November 30, 2012, 06:42:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Nobody else should get a pass, unless you're some goofy ass 3rd world tribal member, running around in a banana hammock with a spear, making clucking sounds to one another over whether the sun is mad at you or not.
Correct.
Wrong as rain
There is nothing wrong with rain.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 05:48:46 PM
The article is bs, there may have been people getting tattoes in the 90s but they were not the young professional women crying out for attention. Back then those types into navel piercings.
That may have been the case where you are, but I got my first tattoo in 1991, and I was one of the last in my crowd to get one. Belly button piercings were in, too, but not like tattoos, yet.
And I love how it's "crying out for attention". :rolleyes: Most of us kept our tattoos in places that were easily hidden. We were looking for professional work, after all. Only the idiots got them where they could easily be seen.
I think you should get your nipples pierced with rings the size of door knockers. ZOUNDS! WHAT MOUNDS!
Quote from: derspiess on November 30, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Tattoos on chicks are wrong, regardless of the generation, and are morally reserved for servicemen, bikers and convicts.
Nobody else should get a pass, unless you're some goofy ass 3rd world tribal member, running around in a banana hammock with a spear, making clucking sounds to one another over whether the sun is mad at you or not.
Correct.
I agree.
Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 07:23:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2012, 05:48:46 PM
The article is bs, there may have been people getting tattoes in the 90s but they were not the young professional women crying out for attention. Back then those types into navel piercings.
That may have been the case where you are, but I got my first tattoo in 1991, and I was one of the last in my crowd to get one. Belly button piercings were in, too, but not like tattoos, yet.
And I love how it's "crying out for attention". :rolleyes: Most of us kept our tattoos in places that were easily hidden. We were looking for professional work, after all. Only the idiots got them where they could easily be seen.
Nicely put. I should start a poll