Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The placement, or mere presence, of tattoos does not on its own make someone a tramp/slut/other female-shaming word. If people who still use those words spent the energy for that vitriol and judgment on being just plain nice, the world would be a better place.

Grow up.

It takes little energy on my part to hold the opinion that a tattoo on the small of your back is placed there so that the guy can gaze at it admiringly when he's banging you doggy style. That's WHY it's there, and that's WHY the female put it there, instead of on her arm, ankle, deltoid or ribcage. Or neck, forearm or navel.

Everyone knows this, and it doesn't make me "not grown up" to state this.

Yeah it does.

Agree with immediate pp. The "banging you doggy style, everyone knows this" poster is ridiculous and sounds like a gossipy High schooler (which is ironic because you are probably a bitter old nag approaching or passing middle age). My childhood best friend got a flower in the small of her back at age 18 because she thought it was pretty and because it would invisible most of the time. I would wager many "tramp stamp" owners thought the same. This girl was the farthest thing from what some of you would consider a "tramp." Good family, elite private school, now happily married with two kids and a rich husband.

Grow up.

--non-tramp-stamp-haver who thinks some people need to get out more

Anonymous wrote:Yes, along with two full sleeves, a chest piece and a back piece.

And I'm not a tramp....

Yes, along with two full sleeves, a chest piece and a back piece.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I do. It is small and I like it and no one hardly ever sees it. But even if I didn't have one, the term tramp stamp is just so offensive. I hate this term, just like I hate bimbo, slut, whore, whatever. I HATE these words.

Your preferences are irrelevant. Tattoo in the small of the back = tramp stamp. Act like a stupid woman = bimbo. Sleeping around = slut. These are all negative choices and behaviors and we will judge you for them. The fact that you "hate" it doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:The placement, or mere presence, of tattoos does not on its own make someone a tramp/slut/other female-shaming word. If people who still use those words spent the energy for that vitriol and judgment on being just plain nice, the world would be a better place.

Grow up.

LOL. Regretting your tramp stamp?

Anonymous wrote:So.. If it's for only those who are sexing you up from behind, is it meaningful to the person? Like...do you put something there that is what someone humping you would want to stare at? Confused.

I've been told that it's a target for the guy to aim for when he's 'finished'

Guys call it that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The placement, or mere presence, of tattoos does not on its own make someone a tramp/slut/other female-shaming word. If people who still use those words spent the energy for that vitriol and judgment on being just plain nice, the world would be a better place.

Grow up.

It takes little energy on my part to hold the opinion that a tattoo on the small of your back is placed there so that the guy can gaze at it admiringly when he's banging you doggy style. That's WHY it's there, and that's WHY the female put it there, instead of on her arm, ankle, deltoid or ribcage. Or neck, forearm or navel.

Everyone knows this, and it doesn't make me "not grown up" to state this.

Yeah it does.

Nope. However, I would get a tattoo...just not in that location.

Anonymous wrote:The placement, or mere presence, of tattoos does not on its own make someone a tramp/slut/other female-shaming word. If people who still use those words spent the energy for that vitriol and judgment on being just plain nice, the world would be a better place.

Grow up.

It takes little energy on my part to hold the opinion that a tattoo on the small of your back is placed there so that the guy can gaze at it admiringly when he's banging you doggy style. That's WHY it's there, and that's WHY the female put it there, instead of on her arm, ankle, deltoid or ribcage. Or neck, forearm or navel.

Everyone knows this, and it doesn't make me "not grown up" to state this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, never will either. I find tattoos trashy especially on women.

There have been studies noting the correlation with lack of academic success, sexual promiscuity and higher incidences of venereal disease.

Glad those studies prove your worldview.

-monogamist with three tattoos, a Masters degree and no STIs

The placement, or mere presence, of tattoos does not on its own make someone a tramp/slut/other female-shaming word. If people who still use those words spent the energy for that vitriol and judgment on being just plain nice, the world would be a better place.

Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:So.. If it's for only those who are sexing you up from behind, is it meaningful to the person? Like...do you put something there that is what someone humping you would want to stare at? Confused.

This...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My back tattoos are on my back because the skin there is less prone to stretching and aging than other parts, and they can be easily covered up for, for example, the workplace. The piece on my shoulder blade is especially meaningful, and it was very touching when my wedding photographer did a series of shots featuring it (it was very obvious with my strapless dress), because it commemorates my grandparents. I can see it--and my other back pieces--when I look in the mirror.

[Weird.]

NP here. You're an asshole.

Anonymous wrote:No, never will either. I find tattoos trashy especially on women.

There have been studies noting the correlation with lack of academic success, sexual promiscuity and higher incidences of venereal disease.