|
|
Post by BA on Jan 7, 2007 12:51:31 GMT -5
I wonder if there are any disabled SG girls. THAT would be truly radical... Thar ya go Triassic, question answered. She's quite hot. PS, why does this freakin' board keep requesting me to "log in" when I am already logged in "forever" |
|
|
|
Post by Chan on Jan 7, 2007 13:25:58 GMT -5
It was PUNK and the only thing missing were the tats, because tats were not en-vogue.. Being a "real" punk has absolutely nothing to do with being en-vogue. If you were, in fact, a true punk, as you say, the fact that tattoos weren't popular or trendy shouldn't have had anything to do with you not having any. I agree that having short dark hair, piercings, and tattoos doesn't make an SG a "punk." I know how many carbon-copy little SG girls there are running amok on the site. But it doesn't matter if it's 2007 or 1979, having said short dark hair, piercings, and wearing lots of black doesn't make you a punk or even gothic for that matter. Period. It's the same fucking thing. SO, for now, I'd like to just admire their "cutting-edge" looks and that be that, regardless of how hard-core they actually are in real life or if they walk-the-walk or not. I could give a fuck about that seeing as how I look at those pictures for their bodies/overall appearance and not any sort of 'who they are as a person', how they live their lives, or what their beliefs are kind of crap. |
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Jan 7, 2007 17:31:05 GMT -5
And they are hot looking, alright...no denying that. What is that amp chick's 'name'.? I love her breasts, tho I doubt they're natural. AB, you DISAGREE with my views a lot? How...how can this be, since I'm always right?  No, but seriously, what sorts of things am I off base on, in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Chan on Jan 7, 2007 18:47:29 GMT -5
What is that amp chick's 'name'.? ? She's Amina on SG. |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jan 7, 2007 21:07:37 GMT -5
what would one of those SG chicks have to do in order to "walk the walk"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Jan 7, 2007 21:09:04 GMT -5
Thanks Chan,
Right now my favorite SGers are: Flux, Tea, Squeek, Manko, Quinne, and especially Waikiki...
Can't help but wonder if there are a few dev SG's.
|
|
Jocker
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Jocker on Jan 7, 2007 21:16:25 GMT -5
I got to hang out with some of the touring SGs after a GNR concert here in Halifax. No Nobel prize winners but pretty cool all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Jan 7, 2007 23:00:51 GMT -5
To be a real punk/goth/etc wouldn't you have had to be part of an ancient group that 'sacked' Rome?
Okay, that was lame, I know.
That stuff is beyond my understanding...what is the 'official definition' of being punk/goth/etc/ (grouping them together seems like making a bad assumption, so as a disclaimer I'm not grouping together and claim ignorance, they are together because I am mentioning them together)
Cool to see an amp SGer...not an avid follower so didn't know one existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by BA on Jan 7, 2007 23:05:20 GMT -5
It is a style of music, a style of dress, a way of thinking and a way of life. It is hard to explain, but for me it was largely driven by music that I loved and the people that I met via that music. It is NOT about self abuse, satanism or anything else of the sort. It's not about what you wear or don't wear either.
I don't know how the term "goth" even came about and you are right, in terms of the Visigoths who were a barbaric tribe from what is now Germany. I suppose it has more to do with the Gothic style of architecture one finds from the middle ages, as in cathedrals and the syles of those times. I never heard it referred to as goth until about 10 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by BA on Jan 7, 2007 23:53:00 GMT -5
It was PUNK and the only thing missing were the tats, because tats were not en-vogue.. Being a "real" punk has absolutely nothing to do with being en-vogue. If you were, in fact, a true punk, as you say, the fact that tattoos weren't popular or trendy shouldn't have had anything to do with you not having any. No, punk has nothing to do with being en-vogue. It is anti-vogue. However, in 1979, it wasn't a matter of being trendy or not. They simply didn't have tat quality and tat artists like they do now. They were basically "sailor tats". (Unless you went to Japan or Samoa). Ink quality and last was poor at best and the tats bled to nothing in a few short years, hence not worth getting one back then. Truth be told, I am really not much into what people look like as much as what they stand for. As for me, I just don't like tats. Period. Therefore I never got one. |
|
|
|
Post by BA on Jan 7, 2007 23:58:18 GMT -5
what would one of those SG chicks have to do in order to "walk the walk"? Lots are into the BDSM scene and Fetish. |
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Jan 8, 2007 0:18:51 GMT -5
I was thinking about this subject a few weeks ago after listening to a review of a 70's punk CD compilation on NPR's 'Fresh Air": Punk. On 'Fresh Air', for god's sake.
It just struck me that there's really no way to be 'extreme' anymore. Back when I was a 21 y/o black-wearing, semi goth boy, the thing was to find the harshest,most obscure, gratingest music out there: Cabaret Voltaire, Swans, Throbbing Gristle...stuff that was NOT remotely mainstream. That was sort of enough. That set you apart from the meatheads.
But now, there's really no 'mainstream' or 'alternative' anymore; it's all sort of known and available via the Internet. Now there's just More and Less popular products.
So today, to be truly Extreme, you've got to be borderline criminal, or truly anti-social, dangerous and negative. For instance, you'll never hear NPR review a compilation by Panzerfaust records...because Panzerfaust are NAZI punks. But they *are* pretty extreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by BA on Jan 8, 2007 0:20:40 GMT -5
You got that right straight up Triassic. Alot of people just don't get that at all.
I was a radio DJ in college from '81 - 84 (WNYU) and had the chance to interview Cabaret Voltaire, Siouxie and OMD. To me, they were outrageous. It was all NEW. Nothing to me is cutting edge anymore. It's all redux, but hey, it still looks hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by E on Jan 8, 2007 7:56:13 GMT -5
Nothing to me is cutting edge anymore. It's all redux, but hey, it still looks hot. You're just not as in tune, anymore, that's all. It's still out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Jan 8, 2007 11:13:16 GMT -5
I believe I know what you're speaking of, my father got his first tatoo in '79 upon joinage of the military...but it didn't 'bleed to nothing', so I'm not sure what you mean by that...could be that he had a superior quality artist...(well tatoo applier...he did the art himself)...but it is this boring drab blueish sort of colour (and it happens to be all of his tatoos that are composed of that colour).
|
|
