Tit for tat.

Members of society today are so judgmental, they stereotype absolutely everybody and are full of misconceptions about people by how they look.
Tattoos are a very common factor when it comes down to judging people, and a lot of individuals perceive tattoos to be a warning sign to steer clear from an individual.
Men are especially judged by their tattoos and often parents tend to tell their children to avoid these members of society, and it's quite common for them to cross the road.
Realistically though, a tattoo is just some ink on somebodies skin, it does not mean that they are a danger to your children or even you, it simply means it is another form of them expressing themselves.

This photo is a prime example of stereotyping, this man has suffered from ridicule, avoidance, judgments muttered under breath and all of it simply because he has tattoos.
Please get a grip society, is this really what is comes down to, some ink on skin, no longer do we can about a persons behavior or personality.
You might be avoiding this man and keeping your children away from him, but next week or even next year, this evil tattoo'd man might in fact be the consultant doctor that saves your little princesses life.

Are these really the people that you need to be protecting your children from?
The people who openly have some ink on them, the people that are expressing their stories, or the hidden away pedophiles, the secretive neighbor next door you never see, the trusted family friend who you would trust with your life, it's the people you don't worry about that often surprise you, they can be emotionally, sexually, physically abusing your children and still you won't open your eyes, still you make all these judgement about people without knowing a thing about them, you need to start looking closer to home at the people you do know about, they're the real threat. 

Ridiculously women are often judged on their tattoos and people often assume that they are either gay or promiscuous, in regards to sexuality, this is an absolutely ridiculous assumption as unless a tattoo literally states "I kiss women" then there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest that they do, and even if a tattoo were to say that it could even be an ironic joke.
Sexuality is not defined by how you look, what you dress like, what you wear, or even whether you are inked, it is solely based upon emotions, feelings and sexual attraction.
Furthermore the assumptions regarding a woman's exclusivity can most definitely not be related to tattoos whatsoever, quite often if a woman has got a lot of tattoos, in order to photograph them all at once then there may include underwear shots yes, but how does this differ from the average underwear shots of models?


Is this really the issue though, is it the tattoos?

This lady has got a very large amount of tattoo's, however on the website which it was sourced from, she speaks openly about how she receives a large amount of verbal abuse saying that she is unattractive and makes tattoo's look awful. Perhaps this style of tattoo is not one of your preference, however how can you say that she is unattractive when you can't even see her face.
Her body is a real body, she has a waist, hips, curves, pert buttocks and defined legs, is that or is that not the same as other tattoo models?

This model however, receives a lot of abuse regarding claims that she must be "a slut", and other variations to describe her incredibly apparent promiscuity, however let me back-track slightly and consider the fact that more ink apparently means more sexual activity. Would that not mean the above photo was suggesting more promiscuity than the photo to the right?

They both show equal proportions of the body, one showing buttocks, one partial breast, however the bottom photo has less ink?

It can only lead to the conclusion that there is more to these judgement, that it isn't the ink which causes people to jump to conclusions, perhaps it's something different, something the below photo must posses that the one above doesn't.

If a photo of a man with a gun were to mean people jumped to the conclusions they were mass murderers, and even mass murdering psychopaths with intent to kill your family and lead others astray for the more creative stereotypers then perhaps it would make more sense.

Sadly, this is not the case, just because there is a photo of a woman in her underwear, does not mean that they are a threat, a slut, or intent upon stealing your husband, maybe it means they are proud of their body, has that ever occurred to you? 

Unless the photo has them literally inserting unanimous objects into their vagina then I'm very certain there is nothing to suggest that they are at all promiscuous.

What these photo suggests is something far different, an entire new can of worms, it suggests that they are comfortable in their own skin, and comfortable with their bodies, and at least if they aren't then they are trying to be.

This is the threat to modern day society, they are intimidated by confident, independent women, and it's judgments like this which lead society to feel so bad about themselves and have such low self esteem, if you feel good about yourself, then there are always people there to pick faults with you, to push you down until you're on the same level as them and what you once felt good about, is now what concerns you most.

It always boils down to the juvenile philosophy, degrading others to make yourself feel better, we have developed our society so that we make everybody feel bad about themselves, to try to make ourselves better. 

But of course to open our eyes and admit this would be to admit a fault, which as a society we cannot do, we must only pick faults with others, and keep up pretenses that we are perfect. So we ignore the fact we are secretly trying to put others down, we hide it under the cover of "ink prejudices", we try to segregate groups of society which stand out, and perhaps even display some confidence, we do whatever it takes.

We live in a selfish world, one where we pretend to have other people in mind and consideration, when really, we only do it to make ourselves look better.

Confidence is beautiful, ink is beautiful, we all have our own ways of expressing beauty and ways to make ourselves feel better, some are selfish, some appear selfless, but we cannot hide the fact that we live in a society where you break, or be broken down, just to be moulded into what we see as perfection.

We live in a society where nothing is beautiful, yet so is everything, we live in a world where everybody is hearing, but not one of us is listening.

What is Freedom?

I recently read an article which questioned where did freedom begin and end, and what were the limitations of freedom to us, as human beings.

"Freedom is the right to speech and free will" "Freedom is upon us all"

What actually constitutes freedom in society today?
Is it the freedom to go where we want? Maybe, as long as it is not within the prohibited areas defined for us.
Is it the freedom to say what we want ? Sure, so long as it does not offend anybody or breach the rules.

The freedom we have, is the freedom we are given, clue to that being the concept given.
A certain amount of freedom has to be given to members of society to stop outbreak, rioting and all out chaos,  and within any society there has to be a social hierarchy allowing for different privileges to be presented dependent upon social positioning and equity, with further options to  increase freedom e.g. using money to bribe officers within the federal departments.
In today's world it's a rich mans game, money is power, and the two buy everything.
Why is it that footballers have more money than they could ever possibly need, yet the soldiers that go out and risk their lives, sometimes lose them, aren't paid a tuppence, how is that right? How is that fair?
Somebody can go out, risk their life for 2 years, come back home with mental scars that even the best therapists cannot diminish, and have recognition for what, the first 5 minutes, then it's "get on with life lads", move on, get a job and work hard just to even get by.
How can that be justified when some footballers can earn £200,000 a week, some up to £326,000 a week, when this is more than the price of the average house, infact it is the price of the average house, and the one next door.
How is it acceptable for somebody to earn so much for, in effect, kicking a ball around, having immediate medical care at their disposal if god forbid they trip over, have a fan base of millions with thousands of people congratulating them and presenting them recognition for the brilliant job they do. ( Again, kicking a ball around).

Come on society, get a grip.

This is a prime example of freedom, everybody argues that there is freedom to change the wages that everybody is presented with, but at the end of the day, is there? Are people going to just take it with a pinch of salt if wages are drastically cut from one end of society and reassigned to the other?
I don't think so.
Our society is conditioned, it is formulated the way in which the people at the top desire.
Society is like a very clever architecturally designed building, held up by a lot of beams which are supporting all of the levels above.
The bottom levels and beams need to be there, they support the top, but no matter what level you're on, if any of the beams go, the whole building comes crashing down.

We are all just sociological test subjects for the government, they don't actually care about us, not as people, as a statistic yes, but on a 1-2-1 basis, we are just the same as every Tom, Dick & Harry.

I know exactly how that sounds, psychotic delusional controversialist,  absolutely not, have you never heard of the term "making an example".

There can be 15 people who all commit the same crime, then number 16 might be the example, numbers 1-15 have not being sufficiently put off the crimes by the punishments, so if number 16 is given a harsher punishment, then potential numbers 17-30 might not actually commit crimes.

The government see this as an effective crime control manner, they don't actually think about how number 16 feels, being the one treated differently and unfairly, yes they may have committed a crime, which is bad, yes, but the other 1-15 weren't treated that way, but hey, who cares so long as it helps government statistics.

Now, this might be controversial, but this is completely from a factual perspective here.
Racism.

Racism is a crime, and fairly so, the official definition of racism is as follows;
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

We are all equal as people, and there are certain words which cause a lot of offence to different groups within society;
"Nigga"
"White Trash"
"Pykey"
"Paki"
All of these are offensive racist terms, used to offend different groups, nationalities and members of society.
I completely agree that all of these are offensive and should not be allowed, there is no question about this.
However, there are so many songs which are in the charts, public eye that use offensive racist slang, Jay Z is a very popular a well respect artist, however he has a song called "Nigga what, Nigga who",  the term nigga is generally used to offend people skin is black, therefore it is perceived as socially acceptable for a black person to sing a song which uses the word "Nigga" in it, because they are within the ethnic group most likely to be offended and are therefore considered as advocating it.
I don't think that's quite right, it's actually ludicrous because whether it offends them or not, it still offends other people within the black community.
One overweight person may enjoy making jokes and calling them self offensive names and making light of it, however what one person may find amusing, another person can find highly offensive and upsetting.

The same applies to racial terms.

If a person with white skin would be to sing a song with the word "Nigga" in it, then were would be a major outcry, and a kick off among people, how on earth is this any different?

Both cases are offensive, so why is it seen to be acceptable for one group of society to have different rules to another, because does that not suggest that they are more superior, which is therefore a form of racism.


Freedom of speech? So long as it's within the laws?
Laws? Only apply to some?
Freedom?

We just have the freedom that we are given.