No, I would pencil in a labret under the lip of each of the gentlemen depicted thereon and imagine that they were you ... (sigh!)
English People...
Wait! I'll take the cheque! I don't care how you spell it, if it's worth money, I accept ;) (Reall, we're not THAT picky)
Especially with the wonderful exchange rates with the pound, I'll try take it.
<<Banque = Bank
Cheque = Check>>
Huh? No one spells it "banque". I use "cheque" and "bank".
Cheque = Check>>
Huh? No one spells it "banque". I use "cheque" and "bank".
>Banque = Bank
Cheque = Check <
Got to agree with you Mr Fields. I myself would use 'cheque' and 'bank'.
Cheque = Check <
Got to agree with you Mr Fields. I myself would use 'cheque' and 'bank'.
Difficult, isn't it?
So, recapping, a cheque is a cheque, a criss-crossing pattern is a check, and a tick is a tick.
What's that you say? They're all checks?
Surely not, in such a rich language as English which accepts words from anywhere.
So, recapping, a cheque is a cheque, a criss-crossing pattern is a check, and a tick is a tick.
What's that you say? They're all checks?
Surely not, in such a rich language as English which accepts words from anywhere.
It's French for yoghurt. I mean if there's a "cheque" then there's got to be a "banque" to deposit it in.
I loved all the British people after i fell in love with a handsome guy there.He is more like David Beckem but after he left me with no reason i became more sensitive towards those strange people.Are all british guys act naturally like this? I tried to know at least one reason why he decided to leave this way?!! I think this goes to their cold nature not like the Arabs who are so hot and enthusiastic in doing anything even it is a very impossible love affair.
Understanding the YBM (Young British Male)
It is extrapolated from the findings of a survey of 1,000 Young British Males, aged between 18 and 36, each of whom was interviewed for an hour about the slippery subject of contemporary relationships. While hardly shoring up Cosmo's claim that women's wishful thinking has finally triumphed over male wish fulfilment, the results are nevertheless intriguing. Not least because, despite behavioural and social evidence to the contrary, the Young British Male emerges as a tentatively caring, relatively selfless but essentially conservative creature.
Going against the values espoused by a decade of Lad culture, what the YBM values most in a partner, it seems, is not good looks, great sex and a female-free Saturday afternoon on the terraces, but fidelity, friendship and a good sense of humour...the latter is essential. Of the three, fidelity easily emerges as the single most important constituent of the YBM ideology: 46% claimed they had never been unfaithful; nearly half claimed they would not cheat on their girlfriends even if there was a 100% guarantee they would not be found out, while 54% said they would consider continuing a relationship if they found out their girlfriend had cheated on them. (The word "consider" is perhaps a key one here.)
So, unless the participants were lying en masse (unlikely, but with guys you just never know), or responding to questions deftly pitched to elicit responses that fitted a preordained agenda (which, given Cosmopolitan's self-aggrandising pitch as "the voice of young women for the last three decades", is a much more likely bet), these findings certainly challenge a few received wisdoms about contemporary male-female relationships.
They run counter to the recent strident (re)assertions of the biological determinist brigade who maintain that, in evolutionary terms, women are programmed to be naturally monogamous and men to be naturally promiscuous....(well, that's life!). What emerges most forcefully, though, is the underlying suggestion that Young British Males, particularly at a time of rapid social change and relationships uncertainty in the UK, adhere most forcefully to the perceived values of the traditional relationship narrative - courtship, marriage, fidelity - and cling to the enduring, but battered, ideal of the monogamous partnership like a life raft in a storm.
In the messy narrative that is real life, though, what we wish for most - contentment, fidelity, security - seems more elusive than ever, more fraught with myriad small difficulties, particularly, it seems, for the British twenty- and thirtysomethings in whom Cosmo puts such faith and hope. Indeed, if we are to believe the seemingly contradictory findings of lifestyle researchers, and the recent spate of attendant articles in female glossies such as Cosmopolitan, an increasing number of Young British Men and now even more Young British Women, seem to be putting off the monogamous moment for as long as they can. The ideal of the traditional relationship is under siege not just from the fallout of marriage break-ups, divided families and casual infidelity, but because singledom is increasingly seen as a safer, simpler option.
Experts have posited various mainly socioeconomic determinants for this shift in attitude, particularly where it applies to professional aspirational women who are still dogged by the either/or dichotomy when the demands of fulfilling career and fulfilled relationship collide. But it seems to me that an eddy of less easily definable, relatively new psychological undercurrents are at play here, too.
Chief among these is what has been blithely termed commitment-phobia but what, in my experience, manifests itself as a kind of subtle, but abiding, suspicion of starting a relationship. That way lies compromise, instability and, most debilitating of all, mess. Better to stay uninvolved, this new logic runs, than to invite the potential chaos that involvement could bring.
It would seem that, in spite or maybe because of, our increasing familiarity with the newly digestible grammar of therapy, self-help and emotional damage limitation, an increasing number of men and women have swapped one set of baggage for another in the turbulent, ongoing journey that is the contemporary relationship. Put simply, where once we were wary of the risk inherent in any new relationship, we now seem hidebound by the fear of taking that risk. One step forward, two steps back.
The idea of damage limitation through non-involvement is perfectly illustrated by a new film called The Low Down, which opens later this month, directed by much-touted thirtysomething British film-maker Jamie Thraves and hailed by some critics as a portrait-of-a-generation movie. In its wilfully low-key and meandering plot, the lead character, played by Aidan Gillen, is dogged by his inability to make a real decision about anything, most notably his love life.
He is edgy, unfocused and unsure - of himself, his values, his direction. The reasons for his inability to embark on even the most undemanding relationship with a beautiful and relatively carefree woman are left unexplained, mainly because he himself cannot understand, never mind articulate, them. By the end of the film, he is alone and still unsure, but at least he has a mortgage.
The character played by Gillen, though relatively unsympathetic, is eminently recognisable. His low-level but ultimately debilitating fear of commitment seems to have struck a deep chord with the late twenties-early thirties audiences who have seen the film at festival screenings. If Thraves has indeed caught the uncertain, tentative mood of the times, young men, in particular, are in a lot more trouble, emotionally and psychologically, than Cosmopolitan would have us believe.
Essentially, though, I cannot help thinking that both Thraves' modern-day everyman and Cosmo's modern-day idealised man are, in their separate ways, chasing after the unattainable: a relationship without the threat of disruption and uncertainty. Ironically, though, Cosmo man, if he exists other than in the semi-virtual world of research, seems to have the healthier attitude: he will at least risk disappointment in the quest for the monogamous ideal; he will not simply recoil and withdraw.
In this way, ironically, he resembles his opposite. "Profoundly committed to the better life, the promiscuous, like the monogamous, are idealists," writes the psychologist and essayist Adam Phillips in his provocative book Monogamy. "Both are deranged by hope, in awe of reassurance, impressed by their pleasures.
We should not be too quick to set them against each other. At their best they are both enemies of cynicism. It is the cynical who are dispiriting because they always get their disappointment in first." Better to be a deranged idealist, then, than a careful cynic.
It is extrapolated from the findings of a survey of 1,000 Young British Males, aged between 18 and 36, each of whom was interviewed for an hour about the slippery subject of contemporary relationships. While hardly shoring up Cosmo's claim that women's wishful thinking has finally triumphed over male wish fulfilment, the results are nevertheless intriguing. Not least because, despite behavioural and social evidence to the contrary, the Young British Male emerges as a tentatively caring, relatively selfless but essentially conservative creature.
Going against the values espoused by a decade of Lad culture, what the YBM values most in a partner, it seems, is not good looks, great sex and a female-free Saturday afternoon on the terraces, but fidelity, friendship and a good sense of humour...the latter is essential. Of the three, fidelity easily emerges as the single most important constituent of the YBM ideology: 46% claimed they had never been unfaithful; nearly half claimed they would not cheat on their girlfriends even if there was a 100% guarantee they would not be found out, while 54% said they would consider continuing a relationship if they found out their girlfriend had cheated on them. (The word "consider" is perhaps a key one here.)
So, unless the participants were lying en masse (unlikely, but with guys you just never know), or responding to questions deftly pitched to elicit responses that fitted a preordained agenda (which, given Cosmopolitan's self-aggrandising pitch as "the voice of young women for the last three decades", is a much more likely bet), these findings certainly challenge a few received wisdoms about contemporary male-female relationships.
They run counter to the recent strident (re)assertions of the biological determinist brigade who maintain that, in evolutionary terms, women are programmed to be naturally monogamous and men to be naturally promiscuous....(well, that's life!). What emerges most forcefully, though, is the underlying suggestion that Young British Males, particularly at a time of rapid social change and relationships uncertainty in the UK, adhere most forcefully to the perceived values of the traditional relationship narrative - courtship, marriage, fidelity - and cling to the enduring, but battered, ideal of the monogamous partnership like a life raft in a storm.
In the messy narrative that is real life, though, what we wish for most - contentment, fidelity, security - seems more elusive than ever, more fraught with myriad small difficulties, particularly, it seems, for the British twenty- and thirtysomethings in whom Cosmo puts such faith and hope. Indeed, if we are to believe the seemingly contradictory findings of lifestyle researchers, and the recent spate of attendant articles in female glossies such as Cosmopolitan, an increasing number of Young British Men and now even more Young British Women, seem to be putting off the monogamous moment for as long as they can. The ideal of the traditional relationship is under siege not just from the fallout of marriage break-ups, divided families and casual infidelity, but because singledom is increasingly seen as a safer, simpler option.
Experts have posited various mainly socioeconomic determinants for this shift in attitude, particularly where it applies to professional aspirational women who are still dogged by the either/or dichotomy when the demands of fulfilling career and fulfilled relationship collide. But it seems to me that an eddy of less easily definable, relatively new psychological undercurrents are at play here, too.
Chief among these is what has been blithely termed commitment-phobia but what, in my experience, manifests itself as a kind of subtle, but abiding, suspicion of starting a relationship. That way lies compromise, instability and, most debilitating of all, mess. Better to stay uninvolved, this new logic runs, than to invite the potential chaos that involvement could bring.
It would seem that, in spite or maybe because of, our increasing familiarity with the newly digestible grammar of therapy, self-help and emotional damage limitation, an increasing number of men and women have swapped one set of baggage for another in the turbulent, ongoing journey that is the contemporary relationship. Put simply, where once we were wary of the risk inherent in any new relationship, we now seem hidebound by the fear of taking that risk. One step forward, two steps back.
The idea of damage limitation through non-involvement is perfectly illustrated by a new film called The Low Down, which opens later this month, directed by much-touted thirtysomething British film-maker Jamie Thraves and hailed by some critics as a portrait-of-a-generation movie. In its wilfully low-key and meandering plot, the lead character, played by Aidan Gillen, is dogged by his inability to make a real decision about anything, most notably his love life.
He is edgy, unfocused and unsure - of himself, his values, his direction. The reasons for his inability to embark on even the most undemanding relationship with a beautiful and relatively carefree woman are left unexplained, mainly because he himself cannot understand, never mind articulate, them. By the end of the film, he is alone and still unsure, but at least he has a mortgage.
The character played by Gillen, though relatively unsympathetic, is eminently recognisable. His low-level but ultimately debilitating fear of commitment seems to have struck a deep chord with the late twenties-early thirties audiences who have seen the film at festival screenings. If Thraves has indeed caught the uncertain, tentative mood of the times, young men, in particular, are in a lot more trouble, emotionally and psychologically, than Cosmopolitan would have us believe.
Essentially, though, I cannot help thinking that both Thraves' modern-day everyman and Cosmo's modern-day idealised man are, in their separate ways, chasing after the unattainable: a relationship without the threat of disruption and uncertainty. Ironically, though, Cosmo man, if he exists other than in the semi-virtual world of research, seems to have the healthier attitude: he will at least risk disappointment in the quest for the monogamous ideal; he will not simply recoil and withdraw.
In this way, ironically, he resembles his opposite. "Profoundly committed to the better life, the promiscuous, like the monogamous, are idealists," writes the psychologist and essayist Adam Phillips in his provocative book Monogamy. "Both are deranged by hope, in awe of reassurance, impressed by their pleasures.
We should not be too quick to set them against each other. At their best they are both enemies of cynicism. It is the cynical who are dispiriting because they always get their disappointment in first." Better to be a deranged idealist, then, than a careful cynic.
I entered the above extract from the Guradian.....soz I forgot to enter my handle......again! This is getting to be a habit...... Just wanted to explain the phenomenon of us strange YBMs to wee lovelorn Leena...
Uriel:
Labret......a new one on me...just looked it up.....och no!....it's not quite a piece of bone or shell for heaven's sake! I know I'm Scottish but I'm not a wild savage newly discovered in a remote jungle somewhere.......or am I? Could be a new image for the YBM.
Labret......a new one on me...just looked it up.....och no!....it's not quite a piece of bone or shell for heaven's sake! I know I'm Scottish but I'm not a wild savage newly discovered in a remote jungle somewhere.......or am I? Could be a new image for the YBM.
Bone???
Don't know what you're calling 'em there, but that's what that piercing is called here, and I think it's more likely to involve stainless steel...
http://www.kissmytattoo.com/labret.jpg
Don't know what you're calling 'em there, but that's what that piercing is called here, and I think it's more likely to involve stainless steel...
http://www.kissmytattoo.com/labret.jpg
I've always called them lip studs but labrets are what they're called here it seems. Mine is definitely not bone and I've had it for about six years due to peer pressure. Aren't the bone ones usually put through the nose by jungle dwellers???
http://www.bodyjewellerydirect.co.uk/9ctgoldlabretstud-p-130.html
http://www.body-piercing-jewellery.com/
http://www,bodyjewellerydirect.co.uk/liplabretjewellery-c-4.html
http://www.bodyjewellerydirect.co.uk/9ctgoldlabretstud-p-130.html
http://www.body-piercing-jewellery.com/
http://www,bodyjewellerydirect.co.uk/liplabretjewellery-c-4.html