Relax already! You're just being paranoid. LOL.
It's not like paint has lead anymore. Sure, you'll bleed and some might end on your bloodstream but i doubt it will have repercussion in a fetus you might have years ahead. If it doesn't harm you now, i guess it's safe to assume that it won't harm your developing child in the future.
Do you have a doctor you can go to and ask?
Tattoos are the rage - really stylish nowadays. This should be reason enough to avoid them. The whole idea of taking something so totally transient, by definition, as style and fashion and PERMANENTLY engraving it on your body so you can't get away from it whenever you go is the epitome of silliness.
Get a stylish haircut instead. It will grow back about the time it goes out of style.
You do realize, don't you, that one of the fastest growing industries in Southern California is tattoo removal??
yeah, Californians need mary jane just to get through all the tattoo removals
My personal concern is the potential risk of birth defects because I am planning on having more children.
Okay, but who do you want to attract as daddy/hubby material? A biker or pirate or some saggy pants guy with a few years of prison under his belt? or someone with enough income to support you and a mess of kids because he can get a regular real world job not involving music or selling paintings (or drugs)?
Do you know that a lot of guys will go into a bar looking for chicks with tattoos because, the word is, they are easier to get a f**k out of than chicks who treat their body as a temple instead of a billboard.
Lower back tats are also known as "butt antlers."
Yes, guys going into a club or bar and hoping to get lucky are, if they are smart, looking at how the females are presenting themselves. Very short skirts, capris showing camel toe, lots of cleavage, obvious tattoos...these are all clues that can put a girl into the "possible slut" bracket.
They say "you can't tell a book by the cover." That's true in the sense that you can't tell what someone is like conclusively by their presentation of self, BUT you can make an educated guess. If a girl goes into a bar braless in a daisy duke top with the shortest of short shorts, and tattoos showing, she's probably more likely to give a parking lot blowjob than the girl whose clothing is sending out more demure signals that don't scream "I'm looking for a hookup tonight."
Women who do look at guys with major tattoos and see them as not very likely "success objects" are probably making a rational choice, much like the girl who looks at the guy wearing his pants below his ass and showing off his underpants is not likely to be a good provider and/or responsible parent relative to a straighter guy.
Stereotyping? Sure. Just goes to show that stereotyping can help one avoid trouble.
Suppose I have $600 I could spend on...
a tattoo above my ass I've always wanted
a college course to help me earn more $$$
a charitable donation to a women's shelter
What would make getting the butt art the best course of action?
Would it be because I always wanted one?
Since you "get" his point, perhaps you can explain it.
Your argument is an enthymeme. It's missing a/some premiss(es).
I'm not sure. Make it explicit.
It depends upon if the purchase of the car IS a frivolous expenditure and what else he's doing with his time. If he's a generous donor to public broadcasting and various good causes, I wouldn't begrudge him buying a nice car.
I don't know how it is where you are, but in American business, in some some job fields being successful is hard without looking successful. You probably won't be able to sell that $170 million condo block if you show up to give a prospective client a tour in a 10 year old Chevrolet.
So, if the car is a business deduction, I'd say it's okay. If he's harming his family with a frivolous expenditure, that's not right.
Now, let's take the case of a woman who is low in income, has children and wants more. It would appear that $600 spent on a skill which is likely to raise her income and provide a better life for her children would seem a better investment than a butt decoration. In fact, it's hard to think of a tattoo as an investment unless she wants to become a Suicide Girl.
This sounds similar to questions about 'marginal utility'.
Would greater 'utility/value' be created by giving $600 to a poor woman on welfare, or a rich yuppie? I expect a finer question might involve a similar choices between:
'a tattoo above my ass..'
'a college course..'
'a charitable donation..'
Sadly among these I would just about always include a very large list of 'other choices', which would demand some deeper thought...;p)