If a tattoo is a "permanent reminder of a temporary feeling" (something I have heard many people use to justify "bad" tats), then what is a Twilight tattoo on a 49-year-old woman?
There is a time for bad tattoos and that time is way before you turn 50. Older people getting tattoos are fine -- great in fact. Tattoos can transform us (literally) and they can help us express our creativity and emotions. And mostly I try not to judge them.
And that "no judging of tattoos" policy even applies to the guy I know who has a tattoo of a hot dog in a motorcycle jacket with the phrase "born to be delicious" beneath it. Tattoos are awesome. But not this Twilight one.
I have to draw the line somewhere and it looks like this is it. Why would she cover her entire back with this?
I congratulate her for working to lose weight and a tattoo is a great celebration of that. But this one? Really? She also spent $3,000 to get it in the first place! That is a lot of coin.
"I wanted a permanent reminder of the amazing series so I got a small tattoo and that turned into what I have got now," Cathy Ward told the Daily Mail.
Twilight is not forever (sorry, ladies!). Soon enough some other fad will come into town and Bella Swan and Edward Cullen will go the way of Debbie Gibson. Does she really want to be 65 with her ENTIRE BACK dedicated to a film whose shelf life is less than that of a Twinkie?
Of course, it is what it is at this point and second guessing it is pointless. I wonder what her children and family think of this tattoo, though. They could not possibly have thought it was a great plan. Or maybe they did? Maybe they also have giant Twilight tattoos.
I hope not, though. I also hope she has a lot of money for the amount she will have to pay to get that thing lasered off in three years.
Good night and good luck.
What do you think of this Twilight tattoo?