# Is this a tattoo era?



## o0o (May 25, 2009)

It seems that the majority of the NBA players have them. The Denver Nuggets have more ink than bare skin it seems. About 40% of the people I see in this part of the Bay Area have them displayed (e.g. on a part of the body where clothing cannot easily cover it up). 
Anyone else noticing how popular tattoos have been over the last 10 years?

They are not my cup of tea, but to each their own.


----------



## McGizmo (May 26, 2009)

On the beaches over here, there is a lot of exposed skin and the trend you have noticed is also really obvious here as well. It seems that at some point the minority of folks will be those who don't sport ink.

I have seen a few tats which I could appreciate as art in and of themselves whether the canvas chosen was appropriate or not. In the majority of cases though, I liken these people's bodies to a magnetic refrigerator door or perhaps a cluttered dash board in conjunction with rear view mirror hangings (the piercings). :shrug:

It is obviously a personal thing and folks are entitled to do what they will with their bodies. I don't doubt that my lack of appreciation is a short coming on my part nor would my approval or opinion amount to anything for them anyway.


----------



## Sgt. LED (May 26, 2009)

4 here so far. 
I do keep them on areas where a T-shirt and shorts cover them. Well I guess as long as the shirt's sleeve reaches nearer to my elbow I'm covered.

Why? :shrug: Just seemed to need them. My grandfather had 3 of them from his Navy days. That might have something to do with it? No regrets on any of them luckily. No plans for more right now but if I get in the mood I'll do it again.

I think the recent trend is more to have them in constantly visible areas for some reason. 
My guess is that people who keep them covered have them for more personal reasons and people who have them on their foreheads, necks, and hands/forearms are using them as either decorations or are simply seeking attention.


----------



## jtr1962 (May 26, 2009)

I think this tends to be a regional thing because I'm not noticing huge numbers here in the city with tattoos. Certainly not 40% anyway. I'm not really a big fan of tattoos although I hate body piercings way more. In either case, I consider it defacing your body but to each their own. The thing people don't seem to think about is how will this look as the years go by? A tattoo on smooth, young skin is one thing. But how will the same thing look when these people are 137 years old (yes, today's youth are likely to live that long or longer given some of things I'm reading about)? Unless we can keep people eternally young, the answer is not very pretty.


----------



## Illum (May 26, 2009)

employers around here are rather sensitive to applicants with tattoos...and even questioned me about it, I had to tell the assistant that it was a bruise from a tree trimming accident


----------



## LowBat (May 26, 2009)

Why would anyone outside of a tribal culture want to purposely and permanently deface their body?


----------



## Illum (May 26, 2009)

LowBat said:


> Why would anyone outside of a tribal culture want to purposely and permanently deface their body?



it works like wearing your shirt backwards...its another era of counterculture that tries to counter the counterculture before them. Personally I'm fine with it...as long as its not being waved around and purposely emphasized...like tramp stamps:shrug:

If I was ever going to get a tattoo...it might be my name, next of kin, Nationality, blood type. In the event that there is a flood and I'm ruined beyond facial recognition...at least they can read it off my belly


----------



## LowBat (May 26, 2009)

Illum said:


> it works like wearing your shirt backwards


I wasn't aware of that one. Did it come before or after the fad of having pants falling down and other such rodeo clown fashions?


----------



## Illum (May 26, 2009)

LowBat said:


> I wasn't aware of that one. Did it come before or after the fad of having pants falling down and other such rodeo clown fashions?



beats me... :thinking:
I think it comes after the purposeful low wearing of pants though.

Japan continued that fad by stitching underwear outside their pants...so you can still hold a tight belt but has that "design feature"


----------



## o0o (May 26, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> 4 here so far.
> I do keep them on areas where a T-shirt and shorts cover them. Well I guess as long as the shirt's sleeve reaches nearer to my elbow I'm covered.
> 
> Why? :shrug: Just seemed to need them. My grandfather had 3 of them from his Navy days. That might have something to do with it? No regrets on any of them luckily. No plans for more right now but if I get in the mood I'll do it again.
> ...


 
I definitely respect the personal meanings they have to many people.

Like you said though, those that have them all over their head, neck etc. are maybe looking for attention or an intimidation factor.


----------



## Sgt. LED (May 26, 2009)

o0o said:


> I definitely respect the personal meanings they have to many people.


 Thank You


----------



## blasterman (May 27, 2009)

> Like you said though, those that have them all over their head, neck etc. are maybe looking for attention or an intimidation factor.


 
Plus, it insures they'll likely never a job other than Taco Bell, or working as a bouncer at the local biker bar.

I can appreciate a cool tribal on somebody's arm or ankle from an artistic standpoint. However, when the ink starts going past what can be covered via a T-shirt, then it starts going beyond 'personal expression and into the weird realm of 'personality expression'. Employers start cutting interviews short, etc. I've worked various corporations for years as a contractor, and *never* seen an employee with extensive body ink because HR *won't* hire them.

Just a personal preference, but I find girls and lower back 'tramp stamps' to be unattractive as hell, but lately it seems the trend is slowing down. A lot of moms out there who got their fancy artwork 10 years ago when they were 30lbs lighter don't look quite as attractive to younger girls who get a glance of the 'ink' when mom is bending over picking up toys in the yard 

Irony is that I know the local strip club owner, and he won't hire dancers with anything more than an ankle tatoo.


----------



## Helstar (May 27, 2009)

I am in the process of having one removed at this time. I paid $75.00 have it put on and $500.00 to take it off. I changed careers, so it has to go it is on my hand.


----------



## Illum (May 27, 2009)

Helstar said:


> I am in the process of having one removed at this time. I paid $75.00 have it put on and *$500.00* to take it off.



lasers tend to be expensive...economically and physically

http://tattoo.about.com/od/tatremoval/a/tatremoval.htm


> On top of being physically painful (it has been described as feeling like being splattered with hot grease), laser removal can be painful to your wallet as well. Depending on your tattoo, you may need anywhere from 1-10 sessions, each costing in the range of $250-$850 per session. A large, professional tattoo in color could cost thousands of dollars to remove, and the effectiveness of the removal still isn't guaranteed.


----------



## paxxus (May 27, 2009)

When I see people with:

1. Piercings, and/or
2. Thumb/toe rings, and/or
3. Tattoos

I also imagine a big blinking LOSER sign above their heads. I know it's not always true (I think), but it's close enough to work as a guiding principle - at least in my general area of the world.

I also just love it when peoples expressions of individuality becomes main stream - the sheer irony of it seems to totally elude them.


----------



## greenlight (May 27, 2009)

I don't have any tattoos, and most of my friends aren't covered with them. I'm certainly not looking to meet women with tattoos, but I don't hold it against them if I find one, later, after I get her clothes off.. I'd rather meet someone with a tattoo than a smoker, but they tend to go together. (People with poor judgment).


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (May 27, 2009)

Haven't noticed such a trend around here. However, I live in Oregon, and heating season is eight months of the year; not much skin exposed.

I don't like tattoos or body piercings in general, for exactly the same reason I don't like spraying Krylon on or twisting bits of wire through a great painting or sculpture.

:buddies:


----------



## RA40 (May 27, 2009)

All over the place, even the soccer moms are in this "style" trend. I've seen fresh ink on granny aged peeps...60+. Then in So. Cal, another land of massive cosmetic surgery, I'm not going to raise an eyebrow at what people do for the sake of appearance.


----------



## Patriot (May 27, 2009)

Illum said:


> Personally I'm fine with it...as long as its not being waved around and purposely emphasized...like tramp stamps:shrug:





"tramp stamps" .....lol. No matter how many times I hear that it's still funny to me. For whatever reason I've never had any interest in drawing on my skin and I personally find them unattractive on the opposite sex. To each their own I guess.


----------



## Mike Painter (May 27, 2009)

LowBat said:


> I wasn't aware of that one. Did it come before or after the fad of having pants falling down and other such rodeo clown fashions?



In my day it was "pegged" pants. Pants with the legs tailored, later store bought so they were real tight. Then the bell-bottoms came later.
My father (and I) thought they were silly but he was quick to point out that in his day kids would sit with their feet pressed against a wall to curl the toes of their shoes up.
He also mentioned a fad where you wore the same pair of jeans all the time and never washed them.
They were in fashion when they could stand in a corner without your wearing them.

I'm engaged to marry Sue,
Honey, honey.
I'm engaged to marry Sue,
babe, babe.
I'm afraid to get undressed cuz
Mary's tattooed on my chest,
Honey, Oh baby mine.


----------



## Illum (May 27, 2009)

Patriot said:


> "tramp stamps" .....lol. No matter how many times I hear that it's still funny to me. For whatever reason I've never had any interest in drawing on my skin and I personally find them unattractive on the opposite sex. To each their own I guess.




I have no idea what else to call it...that was the name of it I was told and certain matters I don't dare question


----------



## Greta (May 27, 2009)

LowBat said:


> Why would anyone outside of a tribal culture want to purposely and permanently deface their body?


 
'Cuz they can... 



blasterman said:


> Plus, it insures they'll likely never a job other than Taco Bell, or working as a bouncer at the local biker bar.


 
... or a heavyweight boxing champion 



blasterman said:


> I can appreciate a cool tribal on somebody's arm or ankle from an artistic standpoint. However, when the ink starts going past what can be covered via a T-shirt, then it starts going beyond 'personal expression and into the weird realm of 'personality expression'. Employers start cutting interviews short, etc. I've worked various corporations for years as a contractor, and *never* seen an employee with extensive body ink because HR *won't* hire them.


 
You should check out the _MAJORITY_ of Apple employees! 



blasterman said:


> Just a personal preference, but I find girls and lower back 'tramp stamps' to be unattractive as hell, but lately it seems the trend is slowing down. A lot of moms out there who got their fancy artwork 10 years ago when they were 30lbs lighter don't look quite as attractive to younger girls who get a glance of the 'ink' when mom is bending over picking up toys in the yard


 
A friend of my daughter's had Papa Smurf and Smurfette tattoo'd on her lower abdomen when she was about 17 years old. Then she had a couple of babies. It was just downright scarey! 




paxxus said:


> When I see people with:
> 
> 1. Piercings, and/or
> 2. Thumb/toe rings, and/or
> ...


 
WOW!! I must be a *HUGE* loser then! I have all of the above! (2 piercings in other than my ears, 1 thumb ring, 1 toe ring and 12 tats (no tramp stamp!!))

And FWIW... all of my ink is original design. The only other person in the world with the same tat(s) is my daughter. We have 4 matching ones.



greenlight said:


> I don't have any tattoos, and most of my friends aren't covered with them. I'm certainly not looking to meet women with tattoos, but I don't hold it against them if I find one, later, after I get her clothes off.. I'd rather meet someone with a tattoo than a smoker, but they tend to go together. (People with poor judgment).


 
Hmmm... guess I have poor judgement too... :thinking:



RA40 said:


> All over the place, even the soccer moms are in this "style" trend. I've seen fresh ink on granny aged peeps...60+. Then in So. Cal, another land of massive cosmetic surgery, I'm not going to raise an eyebrow at what people do for the sake of appearance.


 
Appearance? Most people with tats don't do it for appearance. Truly... I do mine for me as part of my "life map". Each of them means something to me and only me and "appearance" has nothing to do with any of them. 

But... to each his/her own. I don't understand why some people would want to have hair on their face or hanging out from under their arms... :eeew:... but then that's just me. And I would never tell them that they are losers or have poor judgement. That would just be rude.


----------



## Sgt. LED (May 27, 2009)

:twothumbs


----------



## McGizmo (May 27, 2009)

Greta said:


> .... I don't understand why some people would want to have hair on their face or hanging out from under their arms... :eeew:... but then that's just me. And I would never tell them that they are losers or have poor judgement. That would just be rude.



What's your take on nose and ear hair? :nana: :kiss:

(I wondered when you were going to step in here  )


----------



## Greta (May 28, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> What's your take on nose and ear hair? :nana: :kiss:
> 
> (I wondered when you were going to step in here  )


 
Oh I have both of those too!! :nana: :kiss:


----------



## csshih (May 28, 2009)

me too!


----------



## McGizmo (May 28, 2009)

Greta said:


> ....



Ah, it's been too long! Thanks! :kiss:


----------



## Patriot (May 28, 2009)

Greta said:


> I don't understand why some people would want to have hair on their face or hanging out from under their arms... :eeew:... but then that's just me.






Are we talking about boys or girls here Gretta....lol? Maybe you mean literally "hanging down" though? 

As a guy who works outdoors in AZ, I can't imagine not having some hair under my arms. I imagine it would get pretty sticky!


----------



## jtr1962 (May 28, 2009)

Patriot said:


> As a guy who works outdoors in AZ, I can't imagine not having some hair under my arms. I imagine it would get pretty sticky!


Just get rid of it. Trust me-it's much more comfortable (and far less smelly), especially if you're in warm weather. Looks better too although that's just my opinion. Truth is I've gotten rid of it from day one and never looked back. It just grossed me out but as a bonus not having it is a lot cleaner. If/when I have the money I'll probably get it removed for good via laser hair removal. Ditto for my facial hair. One of our former neighbors (female BTW) didn't bother grooming there and frankly it looked like she had a squirrel under each arm. 

I personally don't think beard/body/underarm/nose/ear/pubic hair looks good on either of the sexes but that's just me. Amazing this day in age with more people going for the smooth look that nobody has invented an easier, cheaper method of permanent hair removal, something like a cream you apply a few times to just kill the hairs. I know Gillette wouldn't be happy about it but it would sure make a lot of people's lives easier.


----------



## Tempest UK (May 28, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> The thing people don't seem to think about is how will this look as the years go by? A tattoo on smooth, young skin is one thing. But how will the same thing look when these people are 137 years old (yes, today's youth are likely to live that long or longer given some of things I'm reading about)? Unless we can keep people eternally young, the answer is not very pretty.



Everything will look bad at 137 years old, not just the tattoo  

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## js (May 28, 2009)

I read this thread yesterday and decided not to respond at time, but after thinking about it, I maybe have a thought or two on the subject.

First of all, I really don't think it's wise to be all judgmental about people who get tattoos! All sorts of people get tattoos, not just "losers" (as witnessed by our very own fearless and mutli-talented leader, Greta!).

Second, the notion that the body is a temple and you shouldn't desecrate it, really cuts the other way too: the body is a temple and all temples have markings and signs that are significant to those who worship there. It isn't because the statues or words or signs are _pretty_ (although they usually are), it's because they are *SIGNIFICANT* and meaningful.

Third, the argument that tats will look bad when you're older is kind of lame. When you're older, you're not really going to be concerned with winning beauty contests, but even if you were, you'd then obviously still be fit, with good looking skin, and your tats would still look good. And if your skin got a bit lose, you could always have a nip/tuck. LOL!

Finally, I noticed that every time someone mentioned a tattoo on a woman and whether it was or wasn't attractive, I just found myself getting more interested in said girl, theoretical or otherwise. Tattoo's are _interesting_, and by association, the woman who wears one is interesting. Why did she do it? Why did she chose that exact design and where does it come from? What does it mean? Where is the tattoo on her body?

God! I'm getting shivers just thinking about that, especially if the tattoo were in an area of the body normally covered up.

Granted, there are such things as ugly tattoos, poorly positioned, and done for no reason, with no meaning, etc. But, by and large, the people I've met who have tattoos (especially the women), have been very cool people and the tattoos were just part of their personality, part of who they were.

Tattoos are FUN, people! (And, no, I don't have any tattoos at the moment, and probably never will. But still . . .)


----------



## LowBat (May 28, 2009)

137 years old?... not the way things are headed. The average life span (at least in the U.S.) is for the first time in history actually decreasing thanks to a number of preventable factors.

As far as body hair goes I'd also like a way to permanently and easily remove it in certain areas (back, ears, face). Yes the face too. I've never liked the daily ritual of shaving, and I don't care for having facial hair either.

Back on topic there is another (local) name for the "tramp stamp". In a nearby beach community I've heard them referred to as "Santa Cruz license plates".


----------



## LowBat (May 28, 2009)

js said:


> First of all, I really don't think it's wise to be all judgmental about people who get tattoos! All sorts of people get tattoos, not just "losers" (as witnessed by our very own fearless and mutli-talented leader, Greta!).


You have a point, but I also understand the general viewpoint of why tattoos are seen as... shall we say... and unfavorable reflection of character. Tattoos are not common on most people but are common among the worst elements of society . Take a look at the general prison population and then ask yourself if you really want to have a tattoo. Maybe it's my years of dealing with such people that makes me see a tattoo as a red flag rather than as something "fun".

I also agree that some comments made here are a little rude, and if my previously posted opinion on tattoos offended anyone, I apologize and will post no further on the subject.


----------



## paxxus (May 28, 2009)

js said:


> Tattoo's are _interesting_, and by association, the woman who wears one is interesting.
> 
> Why did she do it?


Because all of her friends did it.



js said:


> Why did she chose that exact design and where does it come from?


It came from some "new age" / "ancient culture" BS.



js said:


> What does it mean?


Nothing.



js said:


> Where is the tattoo on her body?


Ask any of the blokes at the local bar.

:tinfoil: :nana:


----------



## McGizmo (May 28, 2009)

LowBat said:


> ..... Tattoos are not common on most people but are common among the worst elements of society . ......



I think this statement may be true of yesterday but I question its validity today.

Tats have become quite common I believe and here on Maui, I see a lot of local residents with ink but I also see folks who are obviously visitors who also sport ink.

Although some tats may be unrecognizable to the casual viewer, there is certainly a reason and significance to the owner as Greta and others have stated. I believe in all aspects of tattoos, you have a full range from 1-10 with the numbers assigned and judged by both the owner and viewer with the viewer in mind in some cases and irrelevant in others.

Regardless of any of our opinions of tats in general or the reasons and thoughts behind them, I think the subject question of "is this a tattoo era" is current and topical and an interesting question to ponder. On one hand the greater acceptance and frequency of ink among us makes it less of a "risky" or significant departure or less taboo I would think in the eyes of most of society. For those seeking to go counter culture, it may have less impact now. On the other hand, it opens the door for those who want to sport ink for what ever reason with less concern of its acceptability.

I am guessing that for some people it is not much more than a fashion statement or means of fitting in with some group who share common interests and ideas. There _is_ a permanence to it that may or may not be fully appreciated by the owner. I don't doubt that for some there will be some regrets later on but then some of us are prone to activities of all kinds that may be viewed later on with regret. :shrug:

Personally I prefer natural beauty and appreciate the natural and physical improvements I see in some people where they have tuned their form and features by exercise, good living or whatever. Much of what is considered enhancements by society I find to be obvious cosmetic change of artificial basis and I find I discount these as a result. Although I might appreciate the beauty or form despite the obvious artificial assistance, it is a situation that needs to be overcome and not positive in itself. The only relevance here is to whatever extent my perceptions are shared by others and to what extent anyone might give a dang what we think! 

Datapoint:

The last two days I have noticed a very attractive young woman at the beach who sports a simple tattoo on her hip of the Hawaiian Islands. By this I mean the aerial view of the islands themselves like you would see from space or on a map. The tat is solid black ink and not that large with each island perhaps 3/4" to 1" in its longest dimension. To someone not familiar with the islands, this tat would be unrecognizable and almost like beauty marks yet obviously ink. There is no symmetry in form or location of this tat. There are decals and bumper stickers with the same graphic representation of the islands and it is certainly not unique. The first day I saw her, she was with a few girl friends and I noticed that one of them had ink which included the same graphic but for her it was on her stomach. 

Clearly these tats had significance to both girls and perhaps even represented a bond between the two? Regardless, I found the tattoo to have significance for me as well and found I could relate to this woman though we never exchanged words or even eye contact. Is it her intent to communicate with her ink or simply a personal statement to herself and her friends? No idea. To be clear, for me, this was one of those tattoos that I found attractive and appealing and this based on its symbolic content.


----------



## MarNav1 (May 28, 2009)

Not for me, thanks anyway. As far as era goes, it seems that way. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Dave Keith (May 28, 2009)

After working at a couple of universities for about 17 years I believe it is a growing trend right now. It no longer seems an automatic statement about socio-economics, culture, etc.

The "jail-house" tatoo seems easily distinguished from the modern trendy ones the students seem to favor. I agree that site selection is rather critical as to perception of the wearer.

What I always think about is what was mentioned earlier about the ravages of time on the body. That cute little butterfly at 20 may end up looking like a Turkey Buzzard at 50!


----------



## Greta (May 28, 2009)

Dave Keith said:


> What I always think about is what was mentioned earlier about the ravages of time on the body. That cute little butterfly at 20 may end up looking like a Turkey Buzzard at 50!


 
Hmmm... so I wonder what a Turkey Buzzard will look like at 50?!?! :thinking:

I'll let you know in 3 years...


----------



## kramer5150 (May 28, 2009)

o0o said:


> It seems that the majority of the NBA players have them. The Denver Nuggets have more ink than bare skin it seems. About 40% of the people I see in this part of the Bay Area have them displayed (e.g. on a part of the body where clothing cannot easily cover it up).
> Anyone else noticing how popular tattoos have been over the last 10 years?
> 
> They are not my cup of tea, but to each their own.



I don't mind tats.

Personally I don't have any... I have no problems expressing myself without em'.

*edited* Sorry that was rude and insensitive of me, I should know better than that.


----------



## american lockpicker (May 28, 2009)

I don't like tattoos or piercings.


----------



## o0o (May 28, 2009)

IMO... Its one thing not to like them (they're not my cup of tea at all), but its another to judge someone with one before getting to know the person.

Its a free country, and I'm thankful that people have the right to do what they want to do with their bodies.


----------



## Dave Keith (May 28, 2009)

Hi Greta, 
It looks like the person with the amazing tattoo of the _Cathartes aura _had the foresight to have it placed in a low-sag area. 

The Turkey Buzzard, as we call it here in TX, is actually a Turkey Vulture and is a great clean up crew. Without them, we would be up to our hip pockets in road kill. I have great admiration for any creature that can clean up a dead skunk and wish for more!

best wishes from the Lone Star State :wave:


----------



## MarNav1 (May 28, 2009)

Turkens!


----------



## js (May 29, 2009)

You know, maybe it's a generational thing, but some of the comments made so far are just blatant stereotyping, and superficial stereotyping at that.

If you are close enough to see someone's tattoo, then you are close enough to see _much_ better indicators as to what type of person they are than a knee-jerk sweeping generalization such as "what type of people wear tattoos." I understand why someone might chose not to get a tattoo based on the fear of _being_ stereotyped, and the fear of hurting their first-impressions, but to turn that around and decide to stereotype people just based on the fact that they have tattoos is far harder for me to understand. And that act of stereotyping says more about the person without the tattoo--the person judging--than it says about the person with the tattoo.

And this brings up the topic: yes this probably is a "tattoo era" in the sense that Don mentioned: that it's more and more acceptable to get tattoos, and more and more people are getting them, across all the demographics. I don't know why exactly, but the older generations seem to be OK with superficial stereotyping. It was just a convention or something. If you had long unkempt hair, you were obviously a degenerate. If you didn't wear a suit and tie to church, you were obviously an undesirable, and etc., etc.

The most poignant example of this involves my own mother. One of my best friends growing up decided while he was in college that he wanted to do the whole "goth" thing. He dyed his hair black and wore eye liner and a studded leather wrist strap and wore all black and started listening to goth music, and all that. Now, before he did this, my mother loved Matt and would always comment on how polite he was and how nice his parents were. He was an honors student in High School, and my mother was actually his French teacher at one point. He was never a trouble maker and was indeed as upstanding and moral as my mom thought him to be.

Then, one day, he shows up at my house and he's a goth. His behavior is pretty much exactly the same. He's still as polite as ever and considerate as ever. Matt and I do the same things as before. All that has changed, as far as I can see, is his appearance and his taste in music. And my mom wasn't listening to music with us or anything, so she wouldn't even know that.

But, from that point onward, Matt was _persona non gratis_ and was a "bad influence" and my mom was clearly uncomfortable that I would decide to hang out with anyone who looked like he did.

And this was a person (and his parents) whom she had known for years, not a stranger who just walked in off the street.

Didn't matter.

Surface totally over-ruled everything else. Stereotyping wasn't something to ferret out and eradicate in this case, but an effing PROOF all by itself.

Shameful and disgraceful, really.

It must be a generational thing, I guess. Too bad, really, to close yourself off in this way; to lose vision in this nearsighted way. If all you focus on is the surface like this, the depths won't be seen, as they will all be out of focus.

Ah well, to each his or her own.


----------



## LowBat (May 29, 2009)

js said:


> Shameful and disgraceful, really.
> 
> It must be a generational thing, I guess. Too bad, really, to close yourself off in this way; to lose vision in this nearsighted way. If all you focus on is the surface like this, the depths won't be seen, as they will all be out of focus.
> 
> Ah well, to each his or her own.


Don't forget the freedom to mark one's body is no different than the freedom to form one's own opinion. I realized I was a little rude in expressing my opinion of tattoos in a prior post and apologized for doing so. I think the scale is now tipping the other way.


----------



## js (May 29, 2009)

LowBat,

My last sentence "Ah well, to each his or her own" was a specific recognition of "the freedom to form one's own opinion". So, I didn't forget!

However, as with anything else, the opinions that you form, and _why_ you formed them are also open to being the subject of others' opinions.

To clarify, though, I was trying to criticize a certain class of _actions_ that I see as stereotyping. I didn't mean to say that anyone who made a judgmental post on people with tattoos was a jerk. I just think it's a lousy thing to do, stereotype and pre-judge.

But, all of us do lousy things from time to time, and none of us agrees exactly as to what is and isn't "lousy".

That's one of the reasons to talk about stuff. (Or post about it).

Just my two cents. YMMV. Or rather, YMMAPWV.


----------



## jtr1962 (May 29, 2009)

js said:


> You know, maybe it's a generational thing, but some of the comments made so far are just blatant stereotyping, and superficial stereotyping at that.
> 
> If you are close enough to see someone's tattoo, then you are close enough to see _much_ better indicators as to what type of person they are than a knee-jerk sweeping generalization such as "what type of people wear tattoos." I understand why someone might chose not to get a tattoo based on the fear of _being_ stereotyped, and the fear of hurting their first-impressions, but to turn that around and decide to stereotype people just based on the fact that they have tattoos is far harder for me to understand. And that act of stereotyping says more about the person without the tattoo--the person judging--than it says about the person with the tattoo.
> 
> ...


This is really, really interesting as I could think of about a dozen responses here. Besides the million-dollar question of what exactly prompted your friend to change his appearance so radically there are lots of angles to this. Yes, I think you're right-stereotyping as your mom did based on appearance is silly. However, on another level it's also quite understandable. What exactly is stereotyping? It's categorizing, compartmentizing. Animals do it all the time. If something that looks a certain way harms them, in the future all things which look similar are taken as harmful and avoided. Of course, this behavoir can be gradually unlearned as anyone who has gained a stray animal's trust knows. It's no different with humans. I know you like to think humans are special, different, whatever, but in the end we're just another animal. A very unique one to be sure, but still one capable of the same survival traits as any other animal. And that's what stereotyping really is at its core-a quick way of determining if something is good or bad, and reacting accordingly. The problem with stereotyping is that it's simply a black or white method of categorizing. As such, it can't account for the shades of grey present in modern civilization. Like other survival traits, it can sometimes cause problems in modern society, yet other times can literally save our lives by allowing a quick judgement and action to avoid real or perceived danger. As such, it's neither good nor bad, but rather something which just _is_. Maybe you mom didn't react to Matt's appearance but rather to his _change in appearance_. Remember that this is something all animals are hardwired to react to as sudden changes in appearance of fellow animals can signal dangers such as disease, making the sick animal one to be avoided. Perhaps in time we'll evolve so that our brains are no longer hardwired to react in such a manner, but be aware that such behavoir still sometimes serves a useful purpose, even if it at times also offends.

Now you mentioned that stereotyping a person because they have tattoos is hard for you to understand. Am I the only one here who sees the irony in that? Granted, on its face stereotyping is a superficial, simplistic way of looking at things. But let's look at tattoos, or for that matter any number of other things people do to their bodies to change them in such a way to reflect "their individuality". Isn't that equally superficial? I agree it's important to see the person inside rather than just the outer shell. But to me anyway radically changing your body seems to convey to me that this is a person more concerned with outward appearances than with matters of the soul. And yet many such people will be the first to complain that they're being stereotyped based on their outward appearance. For example, if I see a woman with breast implants I see someone who can't fathom that there actually exist men who might like small-breasted, or even heaven forbid flat-chested, females. Ditto for guys getting penile enlargements. And now tattoos, body piercings, etc. are becoming mainstream? Am I the only one here who thinks maybe we're actually taking a step backwards evolution-wise here?

What happened? No certain answer but I'd say as we've become more and more materialistic in the last two decades this way of life has carried over into how we treat our bodies. Yes, our bodies have become just another thing to bling up like our homes and our cars and our children. It started with clothing and has gone on to tattoos and body piercings. We say all this is to show the world our "individuality". I say why bother? Those close to you will already know your individuality without in your face expressions of it. Those not close to you likely won't care. All these expressions of individuality do is to meld together into a cacophony of mass confusion. It's akin to trying to appreciate 10,000 paintings simultaneously, or listen to 10,000 scores of music simultaneously. Our brains just aren't wired for it, there isn't enough time to look at each person and try to figure out the message they're trying to get out. So instead of seeing individuality guess what we do instead? Yes, we try to compartalize, categorize some of the confusion around us to make sense of it. I doubt any studies exist but it wouldn't entirely surprise me if there is more stereotyping nowadays than 50 years ago. Why would that be? It's because there are simply more sharply defined categories of people to categorize than there were 50 years ago.

While I can only speak for myself I suspect those who might stereotype tattoos in general don't care for _any_ blatant outward expressions of individuality. I know I don't. They just make me highly uncomfortable for lack of a better way of putting it. I don't care to immediately know a complete stranger's past loves, or hobbies, or sexual preference, or favorite music/movie/car, or anything else. I'd prefer to be around people who don't dress special or adorn themselves in any way much beyond basic good grooming. That makes the person a total mystery to me unless I decide to try to know them better, like a closed book instead of an open one. Even then, they have the option of only revealing as much to me as they want. And that's how I think it should be for all of us. We should each have parts of us known only to ourselves and never shared with the outside world. I've been told even by those who know me a really long time that they still haven't a clue what makes me tick. I take it as a complement. And I think it's in large part because I reveal little about my inner self by my outward appearance.

Should we all revel in our individuality? Absolutely! Even animals do so. Do we need to use all sorts of outward devices to show complete strangers that we're special? I don't think so. I honestly think we're diminished by doing so. We long ago evolved past the point where outside displays are the only way of communicating who we are. Or paraphrasing you a bit-how can you see the depths if what is on the surface drowns them out?


----------



## LowBat (May 29, 2009)

JS,

Fair enough. I just though we had to be a little more mindful of what could be seen as indirect criticism here on CPF. Perhaps I'm being too cautious.

Maybe it would have been better if the discussion was on how a tattoo affects a first impression, rather than assume it's a significant factor in judging someone's character.


----------



## Greta (May 29, 2009)

Dave Keith said:


> The Turkey Buzzard, as we call it here in TX, is actually a Turkey Vulture and is a great clean up crew. Without them, we would be up to our hip pockets in road kill. I have great admiration for any creature that can clean up a dead skunk and wish for more!


 
Funny you should mention that...  I mentioned earlier that my tats are my "life map"... My Angel/Vulture represents the time I spent working as a death investigator for the Medical Examiner... 



jtr1962 said:


> For example, if I see a woman with breast implants I see someone who can't fathom that there actually exist men who might like small-breasted, or even heaven forbid flat-chested, females.


 
Ok now *THIS* is funny!!  What makes you think that women who get breast implants are doing it for some *GUY*? Please don't flatter yourselves, gentlemen...  Most women that I know who have had such surgery did it 100% for themselves so they could feel better about themselves, wear nicer clothes, undo the effects of gravity & stretchmarks after having children, corrective surgery after more radical surgery such as a mastectomy, etc. Not one of them did it for a man or men... trust me!! :laughing: ... and sorry guys... it ain't always all about you... :nana:


----------



## Monocrom (May 29, 2009)

Greta said:


> What makes you think that women who get breast implants are doing it for some *GUY*? Please don't flatter yourselves, gentlemen...  Most women that I know who have had such surgery did it 100% for themselves so they could feel better about themselves, wear nicer clothes, undo the effects of gravity & stretchmarks after having children, corrective surgery after more radical surgery such as a mastectomy, etc. Not one of them did it for a man or men... trust me!! :laughing: ... and sorry guys... it ain't always all about you... :nana:


 
We know they don't do it for us. We know...

But that doesn't mean we don't like to pretend it's for us. Just like when a guy goes to a gentleman's club. He pretends that the interest all the ladies are showing him are genuine. We know better. We just don't care.


----------



## jch79 (May 29, 2009)

What a crazy thread...

I didn't know that tattoo's get under _other_ people's skin so much (pun... yikes).


----------



## paxxus (May 29, 2009)

Greta said:


> Ok now *THIS* is funny!!  What makes you think that women who get breast implants are doing it for some *GUY*? Please don't flatter yourselves, gentlemen...  Most women that I know who have had such surgery did it 100% for themselves so they could feel better about themselves, wear nicer clothes, undo the effects of gravity & stretchmarks after having children, corrective surgery after more radical surgery such as a mastectomy, etc. Not one of them did it for a man or men... trust me!! :laughing: ... and sorry guys... it ain't always all about you... :nana:


I'm pretty sure I once read in an article about human evolution and what happened when we started to walk around on two legs, that human breasts *also* serve as signals of health. This is why human females have such large breasts (even when not supporting babies, quite unusual really) compared to other animals of similar size, where such a display would be mostly concealed (because they walk on four) - a very large percentage of a human breast is simply nothing but fat and thus serve no functional purpose other than, shall we say, decoration. So whether you like it or not, to a large degree they *are* for the guys, and thank god for that  - whether or not a woman is consciously aware of this while "optimizing" her attributes is irrelevant.

jtr1962, your post was very thoughtful, I enjoyed it a lot.

OK, so my "loser" statement was perhaps a little close-minded, sorry if someone felt offended. If anyone think they aren't judgmental about anything they are simply deluding themselves, you can't go around evaluating familiar patterns from scratch each and every time, you'd get nowhere. Each of us have our little thing, some don't like tattoos and others make sweeping statements about bearded men. To each his/her own


----------



## RA40 (May 29, 2009)

Our society conformity is also summed up during late night commercials. Weight loss, pills for magical health benefits, making things "bigger"...seems to be quite similar even on other continets as you can view similar commercials. 

I also saw that series on the human development. Very interesting primal programming contained in each of us. Technology allows for people to "adapt" more easily...very similar to the whole make-up thing also covered in the youthful attraction game. I wish I could remember what that series is called. ?


----------



## dcycleman (May 29, 2009)

Hey, I like tatoos, and if they come with fake breasts... even better!!!!


----------



## StarHalo (May 29, 2009)




----------



## saabgoblin (May 29, 2009)

Greta said:


> Most women that I know who have had such surgery did it 100% for themselves so they could feel better about themselves, wear nicer clothes, undo the effects of gravity & stretchmarks after having children, corrective surgery after more radical surgery such as a mastectomy, etc. Not one of them did it for a man or men... trust me!! :laughing: ... and sorry guys... it ain't always all about you... :nana:


I understand the desire and or need from a medical perspective but from what I understand, they have to sever the nerves that connect to the areola and nipple and personally, I wouldn't want to loose that sensation on my own body. Surgery scares the patoot out of me and the idea of a squishy bag of fluid inside of my body makes me just a little squeamish.:green:

Personally I believe that au natural is the most aesthetically pleasing but should it help ones self confidence and esteem then so be it after all, it is someone elses body and not my own. I may be confusing the monster truck implants for those that may fly under the radar and are a little more understated. Sadly, we do live in an all too image concious world that seems to be an extension of high school beauty queens and kings and I have heard of studies that show that humans are attracted to perfect mirror image balance in the human form and certain characteristics and body traits lead to success in aquiring a mate.

Basically, I just love women!



Monocrom said:


> We know they don't do it for us. We know...
> 
> But that doesn't mean we don't like to pretend it's for us. Just like when a guy goes to a gentleman's club. He pretends that the interest all the ladies are showing him are genuine. We know better. We just don't care.


:drunk:No tie required I take it!

I have come close on many occasions, especially the passing of my wife, to go under the needle but after giving it some time, I personally have realized that the strong convictions that I held yesterday may not have the same bearing as they do for me today. Basically I am too commit phobic but there are some beautiful ones out there.

Living in San Francisco and frequenting California's nude beaches, I have seen some sights, one in particular was a part of a man's body that had so many studs in it that it looked more like a studded and jeweled 1920's Flapper Girls coin purse.:eeew:

Well, some say potato, some say patatoe, diff strokes for diff folks, well it's all in the human smorgisboard to me!

Is that Bamboo work scarification or a tatoo???


----------



## StarHalo (May 29, 2009)

saabgoblin said:


> Is that Bamboo work scarification or a tatoo???



Scarification, sections of skin are simply cut away to form the image.


----------



## saabgoblin (May 29, 2009)

Transcendence through pain!


----------



## js (May 30, 2009)

jtr,

I am once again amazed at how _radically_ different our understands of the world are!

For starters, while evolutionary and survival considerations may provide insight into where certain behaviors came from, they in no way touch the moral issues involved. In this particular instance, I don't see the value in that angle because I do *not* believe that stereotyping, in the sense here considered, is "hardwired" into us. What one society stereotypes as good can be exactly what another stereotypes as bad. However, I don't want to dwell on this topic, and will concede that perhaps this sort of stereotyping is a survival trait in the sense of _tribal or ingroup loyalty_, where whatever is different from the group is likely to be seen as bad. Let's admit that.

Even so, that would have implications for a _first impression_, not for a conceptual thought structure and considered stances! For example, OK, my mom sees Matt and has a WTF reaction. Totally understandable. She's an animal, subject to flight or fight and such-like responses. Granted. But, after some time, after seeing first-hand that Matt is still a polite, considerate, and upstanding boy, this would fade away to be over-ridden with what _culture_ has written on her soul.

But this is exactly where the stereotyping comes in, and not in the first impression. We're not talking a tiger or a badly mishappen, horrific human figure here. We're talking black hair, eyeliner, and black clothes. Big freaking deal. Not the sort of thing that would trigger a "hardwired" response.

No, the issue was not with evolution at all, not with my mom's "animal" nature, but rather with her prejudices and cultural notions as to what is "good / acceptable" and what is not. So the evolution argument is not only irrelevant here, it is actually misleading.

What I'm more interested in addressing, however, is your assertion that tattoos are just as superficial (if not more so) as stereotyping, and your feeling that it's ironic for me to have a problem with stereotyping but not with tattoos, as if the two were logically tied together.

The fact that you think they _are_ linked together in this way is completely a function of _your own personal ethos regarding appearance and expression of individuality_, which I will address below. First, however, let's consider two different actions that you have lumped together as "stereotyping":

1. You see _a specific person with a specific tattoo_ and that weighs significantly in your first impression of the person. Something about the tattoo and where it is on his or her body speaks to you. Maybe you get a bad "vibe" from it. Maybe you get a good one. But, either way, you have made a connection between the "surface" and the "depths", between the _tattoo_ and what the wearers _personality_ is. This I do *NOT* consider to be "stereotyping". This is better considered as intuition or a "first impression", to my mind.

2. You have a general feeling and ethic that _anyone_ with _any_ tattoo is more likely to be an undesirable than someone without. Now *THIS* is stereotyping. This is a prejudice. Literally something active before there is anything to actually judge upon. The classic example is racism.

And THIS is what I have been railing against, and not the first. See, because, I totally disagree that modern society in any way necessitates more of the second type of stereotyping. Quite the opposite, actually.

Now, is it "superficial" to get a tattoo? Or to get plastic surgery or implants or get your hair dyed?

Once again, a sweeping, stereotyping judgment is being made here (by you) regarding a WHOLE CLASS of behaviors. To say that everyone who gets a tattoo is superficial, to some degree, is totally unjustifiable. To be sure, _some_ people who get a tattoo, or breast implants, may be in that category. But just as surely, some people are not. You only hold with this because you yourself are too caught up in your own value judgment on appearance and individuality.

There is a difference between what is on the surface, and what is "superficial". There's actually a word for what is on the surface: "surficial", and it has a different connotation than "superficial". As we are talking about it here, "superficial" means "apparent rather than actual or substantial" and "trivial; insignificant". If you get a tattoo because Megan Fox has a tattoo, and you get a design that has no meaning for you, then this is a superficial act. It does not proceed from the core of who you are.

The surface should complement the depths.

It's entirely possible to get a tattoo that _profoundly_ expresses the core of who you are. This is _the exact opposite_ of superficiality.

Who are you to decree that expressing ones personality and core being in a way that is visible on the surface is "superficial"? That's just bull, jtr. So you like to hide yourself away and keep yourself hidden, even from those who are closest to you. Big-whoop-de-freaking-do. I mean, you are obviously free to do so! And more power to you! I have no problem with it. But it doesn't mean that those of us who decide on a different approach to life are superficial or crass.

And note that in any case, outward appearance has a great deal to do with soul. You studiously avoid tattoos and unusual clothing or hair-styles or adornment precisely because this accords with your inward being and your notions of what is best.

Others pay the same attention to their outward appearance by getting tattoos and dressing unusually and wearing jewelry for the same reason: because it accords with their inner being and their notions of what the relations of these things should be.

You don't know why someone gets a tattoo or wears goth clothing. You _assume_ it's because they want to show that they are "special" and "individual", and to "complete strangers" at that. But it's only a generalization, another stereotyping--one which has nothing to do with what is hardwired into your brain. It's simply a lack of imagination on your part, jtr.

Consider Greta. From what I know about her, I can pretty much guarantee you that she did not get her tattoos to impress complete strangers and try to prove to them that she is "special". Trust me when I tell you that she has got way better things to do with her time than that.

You asked me "-how can you see the depths if what is on the surface drowns them out?" The answer is simple: don't drown them out. Let the surface complement the depths. Perhaps this means revealing the depths. Perhaps this means concealing them. Perhaps it means accenting some, and softening others, in an artful way. Who knows. It would be different for each person.

But to suggest that the only authentic thing to do is to _avoid_ expressing anything important on the surface is outrageous.

You, like my mother in the example I mentioned, suffer from a lack of vision here, a lack of imagination on this point. You can't really see this clearly because you judge it only from your own vantage point. And _that's_ ironic, really, considering your attempt to broaden the discussion by bringing in a radically different vantage point (evolution). Try starting with a thought experiment a lot closer to home. Try to imagine that there are people who get tattoos and hair styles and unusual cloths, who have reasons for doing so that are just as profound and integral to them as the reasons why you do NOT do these things.


----------



## js (May 30, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> Scarification, sections of skin are simply cut away to form the image.



Now THAT's some freaking serious commitment, there! You'd have to be really serious about your body art to endure that amount of pain.


----------



## js (May 30, 2009)

OK. You know, my response to jtr actually suffers from a lack of imagination! LOL! I, like jtr, tend to be very intellectual, very deliberate, about my life--too much so, really--so it's my natural tendency to see things from that perspective.

Let's imagine the person who gets her hair dyed red _just for the fun of it, for no "deep" reason_. Or who gets a tattoo just for the fun of it, with a design that tickles her fancy at the moment, chosen on a whim.

Ah yes, I hear the deep stentorian voice of conservative reason: that to get such a permanent thing as a tattoo on a whim is perverse, especially if it isn't something deeply meaningful. And to that voice, I say "ah stuff a sock in it--you aren't the only citizen in this country." I mean, seriously, so someone gets a tattoo for fun? So what? It might well tell you that that person is impulsive and not much concerned with long term consequences. What's so wrong with that? Why do we have to judge it categorically? Why do we have to come down for or against in this way, when the reasons behind the act could be so various and different?

I say that we don't. I say there's nothing categorically wrong with wanting to look pretty or attractive or distinctive. In some people, in some particular instances, I find this to be distasteful and off-putting. But in others, I find it to be charming and pleasing.

So, once more I say that to insist, as jtr does, that we must all avoid outer expression, or be crass, is in itself to make a crass judgment. Is it so hard to be a bit more discerning than that? A bit more broad minded than that?


----------



## js (May 30, 2009)

Greta said:


> . . .
> 
> Ok now *THIS* is funny!!  What makes you think that women who get breast implants are doing it for some *GUY*? Please don't flatter yourselves, gentlemen...  Most women that I know who have had such surgery did it 100% for themselves so they could feel better about themselves, wear nicer clothes, undo the effects of gravity & stretchmarks after having children, corrective surgery after more radical surgery such as a mastectomy, etc. Not one of them did it for a man or men... trust me!! :laughing: ... and sorry guys... it ain't always all about you... :nana:



You know what makes it even funnier? Is that guys assume that women do all this sort of stuff just for them, then believe they are "shallow" for doing it. :thinking:


----------



## jtr1962 (May 30, 2009)

js,

I read your post but I'm too tired to write a detailed response now (up all night working and I'm actually into my fourth week without a day off). I'll say for now I agree our world views are different. Most of my aversion to decorating one's body has to do with my viewpoint that the body is a temple. In my mind doing things to stop the advance of aging, or to restore what once was (hair transplants, breast reconstruction), are fine, even desireable. Doing things which permanently change the body, such as tattooing, or even worse scarification, aren't. Don't even get me started on things like those basketball-sized breast implants which IMO make the wearer look like a caricature. It's one thing to get normal size implants to fix sagging or surgery. It's quite another to walk around with watermelons. A grey area for me is some types of cosmetic surgery. I can definitely understand why some people might want to have their features altered if they're not happy with them. I just can't understand altering your body to the point where the end result doesn't resemble something naturally occurring.

I'll grant that some people who do these things have deep and personal reasons for doing so. Greta certainly appears to be one. What alarms me is when something like this starts becoming a trend, as in I see a lot more tattoos and especially body piercing compared to a generation ago. When a few people do something for special reasons it's one thing. I see what's happening now more as a fad. But then it always goes that way. Look at every time period and there was always one primary way people tried to express themselves. Sometimes it was with clothing, other times with jewelry. Now it's with tattooing and/or piercing.

Now here's the parts I just don't get about these newest forms of expression. First off, many of them cost money, lots of money. Now we all spend some money on frivolous, unnecessary things but in some cases here we're not talking a few tens or hundreds of dollars. We're talking huge sums of money, amounts an average person might need to work months or longer to make. I could personally think of far better things to do with that kind of money, like maybe retire a few years earlier by just investing it. Second, a lot of these cosmetic procedures are not only costly, but PAINFUL and sometimes DANGEROUS. Life already contains enough pain and danger, at least mine does. And I'm going to subject myself to more? And actually pay good money for the "privilege"??? Third, in many cases the procedures are not entirely reversible, or very costly to do so. I may love this tattoo today, but what happens if I don't next month? Fourth, there are going to be, shall we say, unexpected consequences, as in reactions to our new appearance which may not always be to our liking. While we can both agree stereotying is not a desireable behavoir, it exists and likely always will, at least until we evolve out of it. Fifth, a lot of these decorations are uncomfortable, especially the aforementioned watermelon-sized breasts.

So in the end a lot of my objections also have a practical basis. Whatever the wearer's motivations, whether it they be deeply personal or just following a trend, to me anyway the drawbacks seem like an awfully steep price to pay. And I'm sure my list above is by no means comprehensive. Even nonpermanent adornments are a nuisance in that it's yet another thing you must do each day. Maybe it all comes down to that I just couldn't imagine people other than those wealthy enough not to work having the time or money to worry to that extent about their appearance. I know I don't. Never had the time. There are always things to do even when there's not paid work. Shopping, cleaning, home repairs, gardening, etc. On a good day I might get a compliment on my hair because I actually remembered to comb it. Most days there's barely enough time to shower and shave (and I usually shave while I'm doing something else, like maybe posting on CPF). No sense trying to make myself look too nice anyway as I'll look like crap again once I've been working for 12 or 15 or 18 hours, especially if it's physical stuff. My mom's the same way. 70 years old, no job, yet busy from the minute she wakes up until late night. Then she watches TV (and usually quickly falls asleep). Every single day.

Oh, and why didn't your mother just ask Matt why he changed his appearance? I know I have when friends suddenly do that, even things as minor as wearing a new type of clothing. Most of the time I find they're not offended by my question. In fact, they're even happy to talk about it. Yeah, people love talking about themselves. I guess that includes myself.

And BTW, your mom and mine are from an older generation where norms were more strictly defined. I don't think her reaction was that different than my mom's would have been. My mom is actually somewhat tolerant for her generation but even she has her limits. Her sister is way worse. Had it worked out that I married that Chinese girl from high school I really would have dreaded the reaction of our relatives from BOTH sides. Outside of my parents, most were really old school as in marry into your race and religion. But even they would have accepted her eventually I'm sure. And if they didn't, I couldn't have cared less.

And that's the "short" version of my reply. Maybe more later or tomorrow as I'm really tired. Time to grab a few hours of z's and then it's back to work for me. Busy month.


----------



## js (May 30, 2009)

jtr,

Thank you so much for your eloquent and thoughtful post.

Please accept my apologies for my less than excellent posts above. Being on this danged graveyard shift really does have an effect on my verbal centers and on my inhibitions, it seems.

So, listen, actually you and I have very similar views on this stuff, personally. i.e. I don't have tattoos and probably won't get any for the same reasons as you. And when it comes to clothes and grooming and those things, I pretty much follow your approach. So, we're not so different after all, I don't think.

Well, we _are_ (and that's a good thing--I always enjoy talking with you) but not as much as I was saying.

Anyway, I understand your concerns, and I do think that tattoos are definitely a fad right now, at least to some degree, and it may be that many who get them now will regret them later, and your post would be excellent reading for someone considering a tattoo. No question.

So . . . before I get myself into trouble again by trying to reason on 3 hours of sleep, I'm going to shut up, and just say

SORRY, JTR!

I was out of line. You make some very good points.


----------



## McGizmo (May 30, 2009)

"Is this a tattoo era?"

I would guess the consensus is that yes, it is. I believe there are TV series now about ink? Don't remember anything like that back when "Leave it to Beaver" aired.

I remember the worse job I ever had and one that lasted all of one day. Late '60's I got a summer job working at a place called H&H Graphics in Capistrano Beach. It was a sweat shop where we all worked at screening T-shirts with logos and graphics and then laid them on a conveyor that took them through an oven to bake the ink onto the fabric. This was the start of a new era where people were getting into clothing that not only followed a current style or trend but also sported graphics in terms of images, text and identifications of unrelated products or concepts. People were starting to make statements with their dress attire, literally in some cases and figuratively or artistically in others. 

In many ways, I view the present interest and activities of tattooing and body mutilation as a next step and of a more personal and permanent form of similar expressions and statements. I don't know how widespread or popular it might be but there is also the body painting and henna (sp) tattoos where one can sport a temporary graphic. 

I would also guess that technology has enhanced the range, quality and detail that can now be inked, implanted, scarred and so on, as compared to in the years past and this likely has had a favorable impact on the various practices. Some of the colors I am seeing now are really amazing and I assume they are reasonably color fast.

Personally, I have never cared for makeup, painted nails or any of a number of physical alterations people have taken upon themselves to make. I guess I too am a proponent for au natural. My litmus test in terms of viewing a girl or young woman back then was how would they look and appear stepping out of a shower or coming out of the ocean. Lose the clothes, loose the face paint, lose the hair style and let me see what's there behind and under those things. I suspect I am and was not alone in this but by the same token I certainly could be in a minority in holding these values.

For what ever reason, if one knew they would be spending the rest of their life in solitude, how would that effect their desire for and nature of any ink or other body alteration they might wish to have? Perhaps such a consideration helps identify that which is truely and purely personal. Beyond this, I believe any ink or physical alteration is intended as some form of communication to, or wish for perception from, others. This may be in a public arena or more limited and even private.

To a great extent, I think this tattoo era is a new form of means of communication and identification. As to how effective one is in identifying themsleves or communicating to others, I would guess it ranges from right on the money to a bunny with a pancake on its head (has anyone done such a tattoo?  )


----------



## StarHalo (May 30, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I would guess it ranges from right on the money to a bunny with a pancake on its head (has anyone done such a tattoo?  )


----------



## Greta (May 30, 2009)

> ... a bunny with a pancake on its head (has anyone done such a tattoo?  )


 
Hmm... :thinking: I was trying to think of just the right design for my 13th tat... we might just have a winner here!! 

"Is this a tattoo era?"

I also think the answer is yes... but only because getting inked is not the taboo that it used to be. Contrary to what some in this thread might think, tattoos really are more widely accepted and mainstream now thus removing the stigma and stereotyping attached to them. No one really bats an eye at tats anymore... (at least not in the world I live in)... unless it is something offensive (gang related, racial, X-rated, etc)... or you're an ex-heavyweight boxing champion... 

I remember back when I owned my travel agency. I had an employee who really was the cutest little thing and a great employee. But we had a problem with how she dressed. She wore these tank tops and shirts where you could see her bra straps. This was not acceptable! I mean... c'mon! Buy a bra that has convertible straps or a strapless bra for heaven's sake! Well... lo and behold... just a year or two later, Victoria's Secret was selling bras with changable bra straps that were *MEANT* to be seen!! Some with pretty little hearts and flowers and skulls, etc. What had this world come to?!?!? :shakehead Women exposing their undergarments like that!! EGAD!! .... 

Damn but I'd love to go back to the day when all you could see was a bra strap... :sigh:


----------



## McGizmo (May 30, 2009)

In regards to current trends and ultimately related to this thread, I offer up a little story in regards to swim wear. Function has always been of primary importance to me and surfing trunks evolved from goofy cotton "jams" in the early '60's to good functional nylon shorts that gave you the room you needed and dried reasonably quick without holding pounds of water. If I was going to do much swimming, the hell with it, I wore Speedos. Well I have been shamed away from them and more in consideration of not offending anyone else more than giving a hoot what someone might think of me.

The whole "jailin" trend with crotch down or back to somewhere previously visited and shorts perhaps 4" shorter than long pants in length, for some reason has become the standard for men's swimming and boardshorts.  Functional? Well yeah but so is a sea anchor. Women's swimwear on the other hand has reached new minimums in terms of yardage and yet even considering the need for waxing, their garments are required to cover more real estate than mens and they can do it fashionbly as well as functionally with a fraction of the material used in men's swimwear. Yeah, maybe now with all of the length and girth enhancements, the typical male needs shorts well past his knees to insure that his "johnson" doesn't peek out at the bottom. :nana:

So I see this guy I know at the beach one day who usually just wears Speedos (he was mad at me when I hung mine up) and he is sporting some short legged, reasonable looking swim trunks. They even have cargo pockets. I asked him where he got ths shorts and he told me from a catalog company who is also on the internet. I asked for the name and he gave it to me but he warned me that I might find the catalog as well as most of the clothing in it not of my interest, at all! 

 Well he was right!! It would seem that this company caters to a certain type of man that simply isn't me in any shape, form or interest. I did buy some shorts from them and now I get catalogs from them in the mail that are frankly a bit embarrassing (as would be a subscription to any of the glamor magazines). To each his own. Different strokes for different folks and these folks and likely their strokes are not me or mine. 

The shorts I did buy from them were subsequently discontinued and I looked once to see if they had something new that might be a viable alternative which they didn't and at this point, I have no interest in checking further or receiving their catalog!!

What prompted this story is the fact that I just got another catalog in the mail from them today and at least when I went for the link, their online images include the same picture of a man with hands on head and the tat "mother" prominantly displayed on his upper arm. It is the cover image on the catalog. Granted, this is not a mainstream catalog but it is in keeping with a new era, I would propose.


----------



## Greta (May 31, 2009)

Um... hey Don... um... you can forward those catalogs to me if you want. Um... I'll uh... recycle them! Yeah... that's it... I'll recycle them for you! Out in the recycle bin every week! Yep... that's where they'll go! 



Yowza!! :wow:


----------



## MarNav1 (May 31, 2009)

Starhalo, I want a tat of your avatar.


----------



## Monocrom (May 31, 2009)

Greta said:


> Um... hey Don... um... you can forward those catalogs to me if you want. Um... I'll uh... recycle them! Yeah... that's it... I'll recycle them for you! Out in the recycle bin every week! Yep... that's where they'll go!


 
Ah yes, recycling old catalogs. 

Would make a very interesting topic on CPF Green. :huh:


----------



## StarHalo (May 31, 2009)

MARNAV1 said:


> Starhalo, I want a tat of your avatar.


----------



## MarNav1 (May 31, 2009)

[email protected]#$%^&*_()+!


----------



## McGizmo (May 31, 2009)

Greta said:


> Um... hey Don... um... you can forward those catalogs to me if you want. Um... I'll uh... recycle them! Yeah... that's it... I'll recycle them for you! Out in the recycle bin every week! Yep... that's where they'll go!
> 
> 
> 
> Yowza!! :wow:



Greta,
Just buy something special for that hunk of yours and you will get your own catalogs!! :thumbsup:

I find it illuminating that you have commented on a _men's_ fashion line but none of the guys here have.  

I think there is a lot of underlying meat here for a Mars/ Venus type discussion and yet many of the trends and now accepted cosmetic activities seem to be on a merge of the male/ female boundaries. :thinking: :shrug:


----------



## Greta (May 31, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I find it illuminating that you have commented on a _men's_ fashion line but none of the guys here have.


 
Uh... it's not the _fashion line_ I'm interested in looking at... :naughty:

... and yes, I can simply turn my head to the right and look at the hunk sitting at the desk next to mine. But how would I know what a fine hunk he is if I didn't have something else to compare him to?


----------



## TKC (May 31, 2009)

*I have 5 tats and always want another.*


----------



## js (May 31, 2009)

Greta said:


> Uh... it's not the _fashion line_ I'm interested in looking at... :naughty:
> 
> ... and yes, I can simply turn my head to the right and look at the hunk sitting at the desk next to mine. But how would I know what a fine hunk he is if I didn't have something else to compare him to?



Greta,

You are too cool! I love this bit. I think I may steal it from you. :devil:


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 1, 2009)

Greta said:


> But how would I know what a fine hunk he is if I didn't have something else to compare him to?



This is excellent news. I am providing the following so that fellow CPFers' wives may do the same.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 1, 2009)

Good one Starhalo. Now if the gent had a tat on one inner thigh with the script: "your sister" and on the other thigh, "your mama" ...... :duck:


----------



## Greta (Jun 1, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Good one Starhalo. Now if the gent had a tat on one inner thigh with the script: "your sister" and on the other thigh, "your mama" ...... :duck:


Ok... no lie... I know a chick who has an American Express card tattoo'd on her upper inner thigh. And yes, you can correctly assume whatever you want with that one. I'd say that some of the more "rude" stereotypes mentioned in this thread would most definately be appropriate.


----------



## saabgoblin (Jun 2, 2009)

I know of a guy who has two hinges tattooed on his inner arms at his elbows, while funny it may not be as priceless as Greta's acquaintance and as with American Express, there is no spending limit!


----------



## chmsam (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm way too old and too cheap for good ink (and quality does make a huge difference doesn't it? -- ain't nothin' worse than bad ink) but here's my thoughts.

1). I once stole a line from an old sitcom and told a kid that his Chinese tattoo really said, "Of the couple of men who live together, this one is the woman." Of course he had no clue of what his tattoo really said so it worked perfectly. How can someone permanently brand their body and not take the time to find out what the image means?

2). This country prides itself on the thought of being a "rugged individual" (both genders most of the time) but most people get tat's that are way too close to everyone else -- no originality 90+% of the time. How can they say they want to look different when they end up looking like everyone else?

3). If the tattoos really are different then most of the time the person is looked at as being too weird and they're shocked by that. If you get your face tattooed and are surprised that people look at you differently you're in for a lot of other shocks in life.

I figure that you should either have the stones to be actually be an individual and at the same time have the brains to see people for who they are no matter what they look like, or you might as well just sit on the porch and bark at the parade of life as it passes you on by.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 2, 2009)

My "niece" told me that one of the boys in her high school would make the rounds to the girls, pull them aside and tell the that " I have your face tattooed on my butt". He would then proceed to drop his drawers and they would see the words: "Your Face" tattooed on his bottom. 

A guy walked by me at the beach yesterday and I couldn't make out all of the words tattooed around his waist but on his back was something like "and your real friends will be there for you". 

To each, his or her own....

I wonder if there are any spelling errors out there in the land of skin...


----------



## gswitter (Jun 2, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I wonder if there are any spelling errors out there in the land of skin...


They show up occasionally on the FailBlog.

At least with misspellings, you can usually blame someone else. The ones that give me the biggest chuckle are the unfinished or aborted tattoos that look unexpectedly funny. In his youth, my cousin wanted a large eagle on his back. He had it started, but for some reason never finished it, and he walked around for twenty years with what looked like a plucked chicken.


----------



## Benson (Jun 2, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I wonder if there are any spelling errors out there in the land of skin...


Of course. Googling tattoo spelling fail hit this right off, and I'm sure there are endless more...

Not sure about credibly blaming someone else for a misspelling - if I ever got a tattoo, I would insist on checking the text as stenciled/drawn before it was inked.


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 18, 2009)

In the news:

An 18 year old girl in Belgium is claiming that during a visit to a tattoo parlor, she requested three stars be tattooed on her face - but then fell asleep not long after the procedure began and awoke much later to this:


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 18, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> In the news:
> 
> An 18 year old girl in Belgium is claiming that during a visit to a tattoo parlor, she requested three stars be tattooed on her face - but then fell asleep not long after the procedure began and awoke much later to this: ...


 
Maybe that's what she requested, and then realized what she had done.


----------



## Scottiver (Jun 18, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> In the news:
> 
> An 18 year old girl in Belgium is claiming that during a visit to a tattoo parlor, she requested three stars be tattooed on her face - but then fell asleep not long after the procedure began and awoke much later to this:


 
Really! she calmly slept while some guy engraved 50 stars in her face? She must not have a central nervous system.


----------



## paxxus (Jun 18, 2009)

Poor insecure fool - obviously she requested the stars and then regretted. But I gotta admit, that tattoo actually marks her out as an unique individual, as in "look at me, I'm an idiot" 

This sort of self mutilation should be illegal, without multiple written consents and a waiting period.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 18, 2009)

paxxus said:


> Poor insecure fool - obviously she requested the stars and then regretted.
> 
> This sort of self mutilation should be illegal, without multiple written consents and a waiting period.


 
No need for that. Folks quickly realize that other than working in a tattoo parlor or a cult, no one will hire someone with a big @$$ facial tattoo. 

She probably came home, mom took one look at her, and the fireworks started flying! :duck:


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 18, 2009)

paxxus said:


> ...
> 
> This sort of self mutilation should be illegal, without multiple written consents and a waiting period.



Yeah, more laws and more paper work. That's what we need! Not only should people not be held accountable for their own actions, they need to be protected from even taking some of them, as well. :tinfoil:


----------



## saabgoblin (Jun 18, 2009)

"Freedom is Slavery" George Orwell


----------



## paxxus (Jun 18, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Yeah, more laws and more paper work. That's what we need! Not only should people not be held accountable for their own actions, they need to be protected from even taking some of them, as well. :tinfoil:


OK, I see what you mean, and I tend to agree - as few laws as possible. I still feel that it is highly irresponsible for the tattoo guy to do this to an 18 year old girl even if she asked for it. I can't see that, say, a week from written consent to actual execution can hurt anybody. A lot of stupid mutilation done on a whim would be avoided and the tattoo dude would also have a signed paper detailing the "artwork" to be performed.

What if she came in asking "please pour acid on my face". Would that be OK? The end result would be much the same as what she'll look like after they have tried to remove those 50 stars as good they can.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 19, 2009)

saabgoblin said:


> "Freedom is Slavery" George Orwell


 
Most people would happily live in chains, if they were made out of gold.


----------



## BenjiBot (Jun 19, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> She probably came home, mom took one look at her, and the fireworks started flying! :duck:



Apparently it was her dad and brother who went bonkers, resulting in her "making up a story". The tattooist is adamant the design, the number of stars, was what she asked for. As for falling asleep while someone drills ink into your face over a few hours… please


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 19, 2009)

BenjiBot said:


> Apparently it was her dad and brother who went bonkers, resulting in her "making up a story".


 
Oh! Daddy's little girl came home covered in stars.... She would have been better off dealing with mom.


----------



## js (Jun 19, 2009)

There are a lot of things you can do at 18 which have serious repercussions. You could get married (on a whim). You could have unprotected sex (on a whim) and get someone pregnant, or get pregnant yourself. You could join the military during wartime (on a whim).

We don't need a law enforcing a waiting period on getting an effing tattoo. Give me a break!

How many of you who are spouting off negative stuff about tattoos and people who get them and people who do them --how many of you actually know what you're talking about? How many of you know people with tattoos? How many of you know, even indirectly, about tattoo parlors?

I'm sorry but I have to ask, because it's simply not true to say that no one will hire you if you have tattoos. I interact with employees almost everyday, who have tattoos. I work at a particle accelerator and NSF funded nationally recognized science lab, and we have at least two people who have tattoos.

So a woman went and got stars tattooed on her face and her dad freaked out? So what? Happens all the time--not that particular, exact scenario, of course--but daughters will be daughters, as it were.

Getting tattoos is in no way the same as having acid poured on you, whether they will be on your face or elsewhere.

This is a tattoo era. And thank goodness for that. It's an era of a lot of things, a lot of changes, and that's only one of them. If you all have such a fit over tattoos, . . .well, just wait. Just wait.


----------



## LowBat (Jun 20, 2009)

Well to answer your question I've known a number of people with tattoos and most of them have expressed regret at getting them. It's one of those decisions you have to live with the rest of your life. The reality of doing something with permanent results doesn't seem to really set-in until somewhere down the road when there is a change of mind.

I used to work on a transit system and we were given temporary tattoos of trains and buses to pass out to children riding the system. At first I did so until I thought about what it also was promoting. When any of my co-workers asked why I stopped passing out temporary tattoos, I said it seemed about as responsible as passing out candy cigarettes.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 20, 2009)

js said:


> ... it's simply not true to say that no one will hire you if you have tattoos. I interact with employees almost everyday, who have tattoos. I work at a particle accelerator and NSF funded nationally recognized science lab, and we have at least two people who have tattoos.


 
Well sure you can get hired if you have tattoos. A good friend of mine has a few of them, including an artistic set of tattoos on the back of each calf. He doesn't even have to cover them up. Then again, he's a Master Electrician. Some places will hire you, but they make it clear that you have to cover up your tattoos "to look more professional." If you work at a place where a suit & tie is mandatory, then they don't even bother with the "professionalism" speech. 

But how often have you seen a Banker in a 3-piece suit, with a facial tattoo? I'll go out on a limb and say, probably never. Folks still have certain expectations, depending on what type of job a person has. If you went to the meat section of a supermarket, and a guy came out who was dressed in blood-stained, white, coveralls; you'd barely pay attention to him. Same outfit, but he's walking out of the back of a shoe store. Admit it, you'd notice him then! Same thing with a full-on, facial tattoo. A Banker with something like that is not going to be thought of as a responsible person. Whether or not he is, is not what counts. It's what the bank's customers think of him. And they're not going to think he's going to be responsible enough to trust with their money. 



> So a woman went and got stars tattooed on her face and her dad freaked out? So what? Happens all the time--not that particular, exact scenario, of course--but daughters will be daughters, as it were.


 
Perhaps "woman" is a bit optimistic. So the law says that 18 is old enough to get a tattoo. Doesn't mean your dealing with a woman who is mature enough to fully understand the possible consequences of her actions. This particular _girl _changed her mind real quick! .... When daddy freaked out. 

Some girls get a tramp stamp, or a little heart-shaped tattoo just below and to the side of their belly-button. Some even get a pair of butterfly wings on either side of their .

But all of those can be covered up. Short of a paperbag with eye-holes, you're not covering up 56 stars all over one side of your face. Do they even make a concealer that's *that *good? 

Dads (and moms) expect their boys to do stupid things. "Timmy jumped off the top of the dresser, cause he thought he could use one of the bathroom towels as a parachute." 

Meanwhile, girls are expected not to do really stupid things. Many girls are held to a higher standard. And it's perfectly fair. They're smarter than boys. We just never tell them that, otherwise they might rise up and take over the world.


----------



## Kiessling (Jun 20, 2009)

StarHalo said:


>



I like it. Looks cool and has some style.


BTW ... a few drops of certain substances (odorless) in a drink while in a tattoo shop makes you sleep well and sound, so well infact that something like this would be possible. Such tactics are used to commit other crimes as well. So her story might not be invented after all. Don't judge her.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 20, 2009)

I find it dubious that a tatoo artist would intentionally go against the request of the art sought and desire of their client; not a good way to stay in business.

This young lady now has an obvious distinction about her whether she now regrets it or not. She has the challenge of integrating this distinction into her persona and going about her life. Where as before she might have just been recognized superficially as another attractive young woman, she now gives off a stronger signal which may or may not be an opportunity for her to get past the superficial with anyone she is so inclined to interact with. :shrug:

Interestingly to me, some of the comments about "employ ability" may well be part of the inspiration for some folk to get inked to start with. When I was young, there was an issue with young men and their hair length as it related to employ ability. Certainly there was a much easier fix if one elected to "toe the line" but for many it was a statement basically of take me for who I am or not.

Although this gal's face is certainly more unique and in your face (not to mention on her face), I find her appearance more honest and appealing than one where a woman obvious has a full face "paint job" that has completely concealed her skin and its unique texture and colors. There may be a uniformity in color with blended highlights in a "paint job" and of course it can be removed but for me personally, a "dolled up" face is just that and I am much more interested in the person and not the pretend doll.

This young gal has some challenges ahead but it may well be that these challenges can help her to become a better person and one who can enjoy life more than had she kept the option of just sliding by, unremarkable.


----------



## Kiessling (Jun 20, 2009)

Don said:


> I find it dubious that a tatoo artist would intentionally go against the request of the art sought and desire of their client; not a good way to stay in business.



There are strange people walking the earth. One never knows.

And please Don, old Bud, stop making such great posts after my somewhat "basic" post :nana:


----------



## paxxus (Jun 20, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> There are strange people walking the earth. One never knows.


Indeed there are, check him out.


----------



## o0o (Jun 20, 2009)

StarHalo said:


> In the news:
> 
> An 18 year old girl in Belgium is claiming that during a visit to a tattoo parlor, she requested three stars be tattooed on her face - but then fell asleep not long after the procedure began and awoke much later to this:


 
Not as bad as some I've seen on faces, such as bones, scorpions, and other death symbols.

Still don't like it though, looks unattractive, but to each their own.

Am I alone in thinking that the photo looks a bit photoshopped?


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 20, 2009)

I actually feel a little sorry for her. While I don't buy her story about falling asleep while the tattoo artist took a bit of artistic license, it appears she made a quick, impulsive decision to do something, as we all have at one time or another, and regretted it. Problem is the results of this decision are something she'll have to live with the rest of her life, barring of course some new techniques which can remove tattoos without scarring or bleaching skin. This is why all tattoo parlors should voluntarily start requiring a waiting period of at least a few days from the time you come in until they actually do the tattoo. Of course, many won't like to do this as I'd guess 50% would change their minds if they actually thought about it a while. But IMO it would be the ethical thing to do.

One of the comments on you-tube was priceless:

"My God, it's full of stars!" Dave﻿ Bowman


----------



## Greta (Jun 20, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> This is why all tattoo parlors should voluntarily start requiring a waiting period of at least a few days from the time you come in until they actually do the tattoo. Of course, many won't like to do this as I'd guess 50% would change their minds if they actually thought about it a while. But IMO it would be the ethical thing to do.


 
Let's apply the same standard to becoming a parent... Let's see how that statement looks...


_This is why all *state agencies* should voluntarily start requiring a waiting period of at least a few days *for all males and females* from the time *they* come in until they actually *make a baby*. Of course, many won't like to do this as I'd guess 50% would change their minds if they actually thought about it a while. But IMO it would be the ethical thing to do. _

I'll be more than happy to support the "waiting for a tattoo" thing when people are also forced to "wait" before becoming parents. Gotta have a marriage license... hunting license... fishing license... license to carry a gun... license to use certain computer software... license to give tattoos... but anyone in the world can belt out kids and become a "parent" without anyone else's permission or license. Yeah... tattoos are bad... very, very bad...


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 20, 2009)

I followed the link and saw the artist who did her stars. It would not come as a surprise if he found some types of employment unavailable to him but given his chosen line of work, he certainly practices what he preaches, as it were.

on an aside: I doubt he will be doing any snorkeling or scuba diving these days. I could imagine that getting a decent water seal on a mask and snorkel would be problematic.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 21, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Interestingly to me, some of the comments about "employ ability" may well be part of the inspiration for some folk to get inked to start with. When I was young, there was an issue with young men and their hair length as it related to employ ability. Certainly there was a much easier fix if one elected to "toe the line" but for many it was a statement basically of take me for who I am or not.


 
A few years ago, I was watching a 60 Minutes special on a program designed to help individuals find employment. These were folks who no matter what they seemed to do, just couldn't find or hold a job. The program was state-sponsored. One of the individuals in it was a young man with very long hair. He was proud of his hair. 

Through the program, he was about to get a job as a Doorman. (Good work; actually. Tips, good pay, strong Union). But the job required him to cut his hair. He refused to do it, and someone else in the program got the job. When the interviewer asked the President of the Program, he admitted that he was disappointed in the young man's decision. The interviewer than immediately made the assumption that the issue was about the young man's hair. The President corrected her by saying that the issue wasn't about his hair... It was about his future.

That young man missed out on a very good employment opportunity, on the money it would have provided him, and on what he could have done with that money for his future. (But he did get to keep his hair. And thanks to that decision, someone else is now enjoying a better future).


----------



## LowBat (Jun 21, 2009)

Greta said:


> I'll be more than happy to support the "waiting for a tattoo" thing when people are also forced to "wait" before becoming parents. Gotta have a marriage license... hunting license... fishing license... license to carry a gun... license to use certain computer software... license to give tattoos... but anyone in the world can belt out kids and become a "parent" without anyone else's permission or license. Yeah... tattoos are bad... very, very bad...


If there was a way to prevent people who are uncapable of caring for a child from having one, you'd have my vote. At least with tattoo parlors there can be some safeguards put in place. A waiting period may not be such a bad idea.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 21, 2009)

A waiting period is not a bad idea at all provided the person intent on a tattoo elects to give it some thought and wait. But if it is something that is required by law and in need of regulation and enforcement with legal ramifications then it would certainly not get my vote and I would be bummed if it even took public resources to be brought to ballot. Caveat Emptor, in the simple sense.

I have no idea how many tatoos have been the result of a night out on the town and too much to drink but I suspect that there are some that serve the owner as a reminder of an impulse that was regretted later. Perhaps it's good to bear such a reminder for some of them.

Our society coddles us too much as it is, IMHO.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 21, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I have no idea how many tatoos have been the result of a night out on the town and too much to drink but I suspect that there are some that serve the owner as a reminder of an impulse that was regretted later. Perhaps it's good to bear such a reminder for some of them.


 
Excellent point! My dad is nearly 90 and has a tattoo on the inside of his left wrist. An old-fashioned harp, with an "S" inside of it. He and some of his friends got their hands on some tattoo ink, and created an improvised tattoo needle. He was about 12 years old at the time. They were young & dumb, and just messing around. Thankfully, he got it in a spot where most folks don't notice it. (My grand parents weren't too happy when he got home. Grand-ma was upset, Grand-pa gave him a beating).

He never got the tattoo removed, even when the technology came into being. A nice reminder all these decades of a stupid stunt as a kid.


----------



## Big_Ed (Jun 22, 2009)

If a waiting period is a bit much, how about at least a breathalyzer test? Any alcohol in your system, and no tattoo for you today. And some sort of written agreement and a sketch showing what the tattoo is to look like. (Maybe that already exists, I don't know)


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jun 22, 2009)

Now I've been in shops that do breathalyzers before you get any work done. I think it's a pretty good idea too especially from the shop owner's position.


----------



## js (Jun 23, 2009)

See, the reason this is a tattoo era is that attitudes like some of the ones shown here are going away. Going, going, . . . gone (someday soon).

Oh my, a guy didn't get a job as a door man because he wouldn't cut his hair. How sad for him. Whatever will become of him now that he's thrown away his future?

His "future"? Really? Once again, I say, give me a break. The view that takes a persons future as their ability to fit in as a cog in the machinery of society is one that will have less and less relevance in times to come. Yes, at a certain juncture, if it's a choice between eating or not, then, yes, you cut your hair. But if the choice is between a "future" as a door man vs. cutting your hair? Well, I'd say, screw that. The length of your hair has absolutely no bearing on how well you can do your job as a door man, or as a banker.

The only reason it has relevance is because general "good taste" in "higher" society is still against non-conformity of all sorts.

I would have no worries if a banker from my bank came out to meet me with a tat on his face. In fact, I would actually be pleased. Because I would think it far more likely that he was really, REALLY good at his job if the stick-in-the-muds in charge of things hired him despite his tat.

I work at an NSF funded particle accelerator / laboratory. I have longish hair. I never dress in a suit and tie. I often have a day or two of stubble on my face. My boss looks like a back woodsman, with long long hair and a beard, and dresses in a complementary style: jeans, flannel shirt, etc.

We are where we are because *we're freaking good at our jobs.* Very, very good. My boss is an electronics genius, in fact, and just all around science genius to boot.

It doesn't matter what style we dress in or what length our hair is.

And that's the way it should be in all cases where style or dress or appearance doesn't directly bear on the job itself. Whether you're straight or gay, man or woman, tattooed and pierced or not tattooed and pierced, democrat or republican, atheist or christian, etc. --all of that has no bearing. The only question should be "How well can this person do the job?" Period.

There's no need to feel sorry for the woman with the stars on her face. Really. Instead, I would sooner feel sorry for those people who can't imagine a world where having a tat on your face is no big deal.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 23, 2009)

js said:


> The view that takes a persons future as their ability to fit in as a cog in the machinery of society is one that will have less and less relevance in times to come.


I certainly hope so. Thankfully, businesses are finally waking up to the fact that you don't have to dress a certain way to be good at your job. We've still got a long way to go, seeing that many businesses still require a suit and tie for men, or some sort of business suit for woman. But at least we're making progress. We have dress down days. In some places they've finally realized that even if the staff dealing with customers needs to wear business clothes, there's absolutely no reason for the backroom people nobody ever sees to do likewise.

Ironically, I think some of the recent trends of tattooing and other forms of permanent body alterations are coming about exactly because in many respects society is still too conformist. If you can't express individuality in other ways, say by dressing a certain way in school or work, you'll find some way you can. So in a way for some but not all who choose to do it, tattooing is a form of rebellion against an increasing intolerant society (i.e. a society of far too many petty laws, many of which are enforced with zero tolerance). I know this flies in the face of what I said in my previous paragraph, but it seems to be true. Businesses may be lightening up with regards to dress codes, but many are increasingly intolerant of any kind of normal human behavoir. For example, give a coworker of the opposite or even same sex a pat on the back for a job well done, and it becomes sexual harassment. If a teacher does this to a student they risk getting arrested as a pedophile. In short, our behavoir is becoming increasingly constrained by a society where even the appearance of impropriety is forbidden. People just can't act normal any more. So people rebel in any way they can, as they always have. I for one hope things change so one doesn't need to fear legal repercussions with every word or gesture. And if/when it does, I suspect most will choose to express their individuality through their actions rather than their appearance.



> I work at an NSF funded particle accelerator / laboratory. I have longish hair. *I never dress in a suit and tie.* I often have a day or two of stubble on my face. My boss looks like a back woodsman, with long long hair and a beard, and dresses in a complementary style: jeans, flannel shirt, etc.


You really hit home with this, especially the part I bold-faced. I HATE wearing a suit and tie with a purple passion. It's the single most stupid-looking and uncomfortable attire designed by man in my opinion, especially the tie. While some in business suits may turn up their nose at a prospective employee with long hair, it's ironic because they look absolute ridiculous in their 3-piece suits with a stupid piece of fabric dangling from their necks. I said before I graduated college that I would NEVER take any job requiring me to wear a suit and tie. Just couldn't function at my best. In fact, in the summers I don't see how you can function at all with all those clothes on. If this hurt my "future", so be it. Then again, if all I am is another suit in a particular business, I doubt I would even want to work there.



> And that's the way it should be in all cases where style or dress or appearance doesn't directly bear on the job itself. Whether you're straight or gay, man or woman, tattooed and pierced or not tattooed and pierced, democrat or republican, atheist or christian, etc. --all of that has no bearing. The only question should be "How well can this person do the job?" Period.


It should be like that, let's hope it eventually is like that. I suspect the only reason we continue to have dress codes and so on is because there are still a fair number of older clients who expect this. Once they die off I think dress and appearance will be far less relevant. One thing though which should never be acceptable is poor personal hygiene. Regardless of appearance, one shouldn't be forced to deal with people who smell like a bison (except on jobs where you end up that way by the nature of the work).



> There's no need to feel sorry for the woman with the stars on her face. Really. Instead, I would sooner feel sorry for those people who can't imagine a world where having a tat on your face is no big deal.


I feel sorry for her because she regretted doing the tattoo, not because she has it. She made a bad decision as we all have, but unfortunately this one has lifelong consequences.


----------



## chmsam (Jun 23, 2009)

In this wonderful Internet world (I saw that said on the 'net so it must be true) there's always more than one side to a story and probably 50 urban myths beyond that. To add to the fodder (or what happens to fodder when it comes out the other end of the cow) you get the reports about the girl being drunk when she went to get the tattoo (Really, could you sleep through getting any tattoo?), that she only became very upset when her boyfriend and his father voiced a lot of opposition, etc. 

There are a couple of song lines that kinda fit -- "She's so pretty, oh so pretty... she's pretty vacant" or even "She used to be pretty. Now she's just pretty ****ed up." 

So how about googling The Enigma and see what you think?


----------



## js (Jun 23, 2009)

jtr,

Thanks for your post. I'm not sure I entirely agree as to what is happening in society, --i.e. I don't think it is becoming more intolerant, long-term-ish, in any way--, but I think I'm fairly in line with your post nonetheless.

As for the woman with the stars, I don't think she regretted it, necessarily, right? I mean, we don't know that, do we? I thought she tried to deflect the anger of her father and brother by saying what she did, but she may very well be happy with her face, now that the deed is done and it can't be undone. She can pretend to be unhappy about it to escape some of the wrath of her relatives.

However . . . even if that is true, it's a bad sign that she can't weather the wrath of her father and brother, as she will have to weather a lot more in the coming years, from total strangers who look at her like she has two heads. Perhaps she will come to regret her tattoos. Who knows. Or perhaps, as Don suggests, she will rise to the occasion and be the better for it.

We clashed earlier over the notion of individuality and what it means to express it, and etc. There was mention of plastic surgery and breast implants and the like. And I've been thinking about that, and both from my own experience and from what I've read and seen online and in other media, the women who get tattoos and piercings are precisely the ones who DO NOT get plastic surgery and breast implants and who DO NOT wear a ton of makeup and end up looking like plastic dolls. The SuicideGirls spring to mind . . . (DO NOT search on that term unless you don't mind adult content.)

Personally, I disagree with the thesis that people are getting tattoos in response to a lack of other ways of expressing themselves socially. I think more and more people are getting tattoos (25 percent under the age of 30 have tats IIRC) because there is in fact more openness in society, more acceptance of diversity in all its forms.


----------



## js (Jun 23, 2009)

As for the suit and tie thing, I don't think it's a big deal myself. I used to have to wear a suit and tie, and I had fun with it, and had some cool ties, and enjoyed getting the knot just so. I also was at the United States Air Force Academy for a time, and had to wear a uniform, and while I didn't think it was "fun", I did appreciate the ethos behind it, and took pride in my shiney shoes and perfectly creased and ironed shirt. They were mad about having your shirt tucked in at that place--like impossibly so. It was impossible to maintain your shirt in a perfectly tucked in state for any length of time unless you were standing absolutely still at attention. So, I got two sets of those stretchy bands with attachment points top and bottom, and had two on each sock, front and back, and two on each side of my shirt, front and back, and I ironed and safety-pined the pleat of my shirt closed, and I had the most freaking perfect perfectly tucked shirt the USAFA had _ever_ seen. I went on with my duties that day hoping to get several complemiments from the upperclassmen and -women, but instead no one said anything at all about my uniform. Nothing.

Then I noticed that the safety pins were ripping the fabric, and also got tired of the double set of suspender-type bands, and stopped doing it. Well . . . after that, I got three times as many complaints about how bad my shirt was tucked in than before . . . LOL! 

Glad I left that place! My dad disowned me for doing so. Best thing that ever happened to me.


----------



## Greta (Jun 23, 2009)

chmsam said:


> ... (Really, could you sleep through getting any tattoo?)....


 
Yes. I have. And I wasn't drunk or on any other kind of "substance". I was just very relaxed and dozed off.


----------



## js (Jun 23, 2009)

Greta said:


> Yes. I have. And I wasn't drunk or on any other kind of "substance". I was just very relaxed and dozed off.



This just confirms what I've always known. Greta is, like, extremely bad-a** and stuff. Holy Crap! :bow: :bow: :bow:


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 23, 2009)

js said:


> And that's the way it should be in all cases where style or dress or appearance doesn't directly bear on the job itself. Whether you're straight or gay, man or woman, tattooed and pierced or not tattooed and pierced, democrat or republican, atheist or christian, etc. --all of that has no bearing. The only question should be "How well can this person do the job?" Period.


 
And that's just it. You're talking about how it _should _be. I made mention of how it _is._ If you're very skilled at what you do, then certainly your appearence will be overlooked in many cases. But it also depends on what line of work you're in. If it's something where you don't need to interact with the public, then a non-"clean cut" appearence won't matter to an employer. On the other hand, the Banker example is a perfect illustration of what I mean. The guy could be incredibly intelligent... But he's not getting the Banker's job that requires him to interact with the public. Namely because the public, by and large, won't deal with someone in a suit & tie and facial tattoo. They just won't. No, that's not how it should be... just the way it is. They'll go to a different bank, or perhaps ask to speak with a more "normal" Banker. (Normal in their eyes).

As for the young man with the long hair, keep in mind; you have skills that are in demand. He doesn't. He likely found a different job, but the Doorman position came with good pay & benefits. He could have used that good pay to go back to school and aquire some in-demand skills. But with a lesser paying job in which he doesn't have to cut his hair, he's going to have less money to better himself. It'll take him longer to save up for a higher education, shaving years off his life. In that way, his refusal to cut his hair did indeed effect his future.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 23, 2009)

js & jtr,
Good comments and thoughts! :thumbsup:

I have been a non conformist most of my life and by non conformist I mean conforming for the sake of conforming and especially in areas where any conforming was contrary to my personal values or preferences.

I do see some irony in the new wave of tat's where some people are in fact conforming to this new "order" in desire to "fit in". I make this statement because it has been my perception all along that many are followers, plain and simple and they are best suited as followers. That they have options and alternatives of who they choose to follow is a good thing, IMHO.

Reality is subject to enhancement, alteration, spin and deceit. The reality of our physical appearance and being is included. At least in the case of tattoos, they are what they are and likely rather obvious. For want of a better term, there is an honesty in tattoos that is lacking in many other avenues one can follow when altering their person.

Unlike other styles and fashions which change easily and can be embraced or ignored, there is a permanence to tattoos which does raise the significance for the individual at least.

A new tattoo may be an obvious change in a person's appearance but I would think the important thing would be is there any change in the person them self. I would imagine that the significance could range from an almost trivial cosmetic change to something of great personal significance and substance. A book's cover and claims are just that. The truth is within should anyone care to find it.


----------



## Greta (Jun 23, 2009)

HA!! Check this out!... the "Star" chick lied!


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 24, 2009)

Greta said:


> the "Star" chick lied!



That's pretty much what I had figured, there just isn't any way to "sleep" through all that..

She should be grateful that she got such a good artist, and that he didn't even charge her that much.


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 24, 2009)

Greta said:


> HA!! Check this out!... the "Star" chick lied!


 
Ah to be young and stupid again... Well, maybe just young.

(Stupid part wasn't getting the tats. It was thinking daddy would not freak out about them).


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 24, 2009)

So which side of her face are the stars really on?


----------



## paxxus (Jun 24, 2009)

Anybody with just a tiny bit of decency in them would not give this 18 years old _girl_ ("woman", give me a break, she looks 12) a full facial tattoo just like that, you just don't do that.

The decent thing to do would be to talk to her and find out if she understands what she's doing, tell her to think about it for some days, then do a _few_ of the stars, see how it heals up, then do some more. Another idea could be to start by painting them on with some semi-permanent paint, which will eventually wear off. If you actually care a little about other people, the options are endless.

In our society, as it actually _is_ (not as it perhaps _should_ be, or perhaps _will_ become), a tattoo like that will mark you out as very odd. A full facial tattoo can be compared to few other things, since it is irreversible and will profoundly affect your social life: *giggle* look there comes StarFace! Should you just merrily go ahead and do this to an 18 years old girl, I think (and hope) the answer is pretty obvious. If you just take the money and proceed to mess up her face with a radical tattoo you're just an irresponsible idiot, simple as that.

In this case, the physical appearance of the tattoo guy turned out to be a pretty good indication of his judgment.


----------



## js (Jun 24, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> And that's just it. You're talking about how it _should _be. I made mention of how it _is._



Fair enough. But, do I take it then that you agree with me in how things _should_ be--at least on this point?



> If you're very skilled at what you do, then certainly your appearence will be overlooked in many cases. But it also depends on what line of work you're in. If it's something where you don't need to interact with the public, then a non-"clean cut" appearence won't matter to an employer. On the other hand, the Banker example is a perfect illustration of what I mean. The guy could be incredibly intelligent... But he's not getting the Banker's job that requires him to interact with the public. Namely because the public, by and large, won't deal with someone in a suit & tie and facial tattoo. They just won't. No, that's not how it should be... just the way it is. They'll go to a different bank, or perhaps ask to speak with a more "normal" Banker. (Normal in their eyes).



The public (by or large or near and small or whatever) is just people--a lot of individuals. The forest is made up of a bunch of trees. If no one stands up for how things should be, then they will never change--or at least not for the better.

Worse, if people leave forces for ill unchecked, things not only do not move in the direction they should, they move against it. Some of the contempt in this thread for those with tattoos comes to mind . . .

Anyway, the point is just that there is good reason to talk about more than just what IS. To talk also about what should be. And about the people who are making what should be into what is, what will be.



> As for the young man with the long hair, keep in mind; you have skills that are in demand. He doesn't. He likely found a different job, but the Doorman position came with good pay & benefits. He could have used that good pay to go back to school and aquire some in-demand skills. But with a lesser paying job in which he doesn't have to cut his hair, he's going to have less money to better himself. It'll take him longer to save up for a higher education, shaving years off his life. In that way, his refusal to cut his hair did indeed effect his future.



The most important thing for your future is your integrity. If you sell that out--if you even just _feel_ or _think_ you're selling that out--you won't get much joy out of your future, no matter how financially or socially impressive it may turn out to be.

Symbols are more than just signs, information. The flag is more than a piece of cloth. Humans are more than consuming and producing animals. If your hair length means something for you, stands for something for you, it's more than just organic matter that can be dispensed with at the least inconvenience.

I would trade a future of convenience and financial success for a future of meaning any day of the week. I have done so, time and time again. And I don't regret it in the least.


----------



## js (Jun 24, 2009)

paxxus said:


> Anybody with just a tiny bit of decency in them would not give this 18 years old _girl_ ("woman", give me a break, she looks 12) a full facial tattoo just like that, you just don't do that.
> 
> The decent thing to do would be to talk to her and find out if she understands what she's doing, tell her to think about it for some days, then do a _few_ of the stars, see how it heals up, then do some more. Another idea could be to start by painting them on with some semi-permanent paint, which will eventually wear off. If you actually care a little about other people, the options are endless.
> 
> ...



Do we know that the tattoo artist who did the stars did *not* do any of these things you suggest? Do we know that this 18 year old *woman* didn't go in over several weeks to talk with him about the star design? I haven't read anywhere about any of the events (or lack thereof) of this period.

Are you just making assumptions here, or if not, could you provide me with evidence, links, reports, etc.?


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 24, 2009)

js said:


> Do we know that the tattoo artist who did the stars did *not* do any of these things you suggest? Do we know that this 18 year old *woman* didn't go in over several weeks to talk with him about the star design? I haven't read anywhere about any of the events (or lack thereof) of this period.
> 
> Are you just making assumptions here, or if not, could you provide me with evidence, links, reports, etc.?



+1

I gave some thought initially to the number of stars since she originally said she only wanted 3. Frankly, in for a penny, in for a pound. 3 stars on her face would be just as obvious. The fact that there are more just seems to be a statement of greater conviction and certainty that "yes, I elected to have stars on my face". 

Appearance and first impressions give us a clue or glimpse into a person upon which we can base a hypothesis and make educated assumptions as to what they might be like. The face value may be enough to either encourage us to try to find out more or pass on lack of interest. Tattoos may or may not serve as signals for us to try to interpret as some form of communication or insight into the person. They may be a viable filter benefiting either the viewer or the owner. 

I know a couple here on Maui who are retired school teachers from New York. She is my age, 57, and I think he just turned 70. They are both reasonably active and do enjoy going to the beach. She has a couple small colored tattoos which are recent, within the last couple years. He has a small turtle tat on his ankle and just recently had a Polynesian style band tattoo done on his bicep. He states that he did this so the locals will know he is a local. I have no idea if the locals actually get this message from that tattoo or not but it does seem to at least communicate an awareness on his part as well as a favorable acceptance of a culture. I would propose that he seeks to be identified by virtue of his tattoo. Others may be seeking an identity and using tattoos as an aid. :shrug:

There is another trend that is relatively new or at least emerged during the lifetime of some of us older folks. That would be men getting their ears pierced. By now, it is rather common place. I had a friend in the bay area who had a pierced ear and I never did know what brought this about. I would guess he had his ear pierced maybe 30 - 40 years ago. He was a banker and did have to conform to a conservative dress code. I believe toward the end that I knew him, things had loosened up enough that he would wear a piercing at work but initially, when I first knew him, he didn't. I got the impression that this piercing for him was his subtle expression of revolt against the ordered society to which he needed to conform to. Putting in his stud was akin to letting his hair down. 

I suspect that tattoos and other piercings and ornamental scarring will become more common place and accepted in the work place as time moves forward. I used to hire and manage people in the marine industry and my primary focus was on their knowledge and ability. At one point, I had more females working in a chandlery then males and there were some male boat owners who didn't think they could be helped by a woman. Some would insist on talking to a man. I used to enjoy asking just such a customer if he wanted me to bring in an expert to aid in his search for a solution. After an affirmative response, I would often bring in the woman who he had just tried to bypass or another female who was indeed the expert in the area of marine hardware of focus. Had there been a qualified person available to me who also sported stars on his/ her face, I would not have hesitated to hire them.


----------



## js (Jun 24, 2009)

I loved your post, Don!

LOL! I think it's absolutely GREAT that you would bring in the woman whom the customer had just tried to bypass, precisely because she was indeed the expert in the area in question! "Do you want an expert?" "Yes" "Well, here she is". "Oh, no, I wanted a MAN . . ." hehe. Pick one or the other.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 24, 2009)

js,
You probably remember a sexist bumper sticker from years back:

"The best man for the job is a woman"

Well like so many stereotypes, there is a basis often times. I don't want to open the door to any other racist or sexist or any other filters for prejudgment here but we all know of these filters and indeed use some of them at least on an initial viewing. Tattoos seem to fit into just such a filter "kit".

I don't know about you guys but I always enjoy a "sleeper" and someone or something that is not at all what one might initially assume. They make life interesting and help keep one alert!


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 25, 2009)

js said:


> Fair enough. But, do I take it then that you agree with me in how things _should_ be--at least on this point?


 
Yes, I agree with you that folks shouldn't be judged so quickly on appearance alone. But it happens so often that perhaps it is something ingrained into our DNA. Perhaps on a primal level. What's the first thing that attracts a guy to a woman (and vice-versa).... appearance. "Lookism" could very well be a deeply ingrained issue.





> The most important thing for your future is your integrity. If you sell that out--if you even just _feel_ or _think_ you're selling that out--you won't get much joy out of your future, no matter how financially or socially impressive it may turn out to be.
> 
> Symbols are more than just signs, information. The flag is more than a piece of cloth. Humans are more than consuming and producing animals. If your hair length means something for you, stands for something for you, it's more than just organic matter that can be dispensed with at the least inconvenience.
> 
> I would trade a future of convenience and financial success for a future of meaning any day of the week. I have done so, time and time again. And I don't regret it in the least.


 
I agree with you about the importance of one's integrity. But to be honest, I have a difficult time seeing integrity from the point of view of hair. The Flag is certainly a symbol that many Americans rally around. (And not just war veterans). Connecting the Flag to one's integrity is much easier than connecting hair to integrity. I actually see your point, but would argue that many people would not. Many folks would understand if a young man turned down a high-paying job if one of the requirements was to burn the American Flag. But if the job was turned down due to needing to get a haircut, it would be seen as a silly; perhaps even foolish refusal.

It would be interesting to see if that particular young man would cut his hair, if a hot girl said she goes wild for short-haired guys.


----------



## NA8 (Jun 27, 2009)

Reminds me of San Diego. An electronics professor once told our class that techs in SD worked six months and collected unemployment the other six months. Shocking. However, I eventually got with the program. I recall sitting in job interviews with my beard saying, Oh yeah, hobbies ? I LOVE guns. Oh, you'll call me back with a time for the next interview ? Great !!!


----------



## Fallingwater (Jun 27, 2009)

Don't much care about them on others, and certainly don't want them on myself.
On a side note, it's amazing to see what people will do to themselves. I refer to things like Hayden Panettiere who likes to "vivere senza rim*i*pianti", which is funny as hell to me because, as an Italian, I immediately recognize the mistake in that sentence (the extra "i" shouldn't be there).
Or to any of these...


----------



## LowBat (Jun 27, 2009)

Fallingwater said:


> Or to any of these...


Hey I used to have this exact same chair an ottoman. :laughing:


----------



## js (Jun 27, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Yes, I agree with you that folks shouldn't be judged so quickly on appearance alone. But it happens so often that perhaps it is something ingrained into our DNA. Perhaps on a primal level. What's the first thing that attracts a guy to a woman (and vice-versa).... appearance. "Lookism" could very well be a deeply ingrained issue.



There is certainly such a thing as a "first impression" and a person you find physically attractive definitely is a factor in a first impression. And if you find tattoos disgusting, that too will be a factor. Or if you LOVE tattoos, same thing only opposite. But, while a first impression may well be beyond your mental control, a *judgment* is not. And, while I am all about intuitions and gut feelings and hunches, and do myself rely on them when making _decisions_ where time is a factor, I still think it's very important not to turn such things into a guiding principle, or sweeping generalization.

Which, for the record, I would not accuse you of having done here in this thread.



> I agree with you about the importance of one's integrity. But to be honest, I have a difficult time seeing integrity from the point of view of hair. The Flag is certainly a symbol that many Americans rally around. (And not just war veterans). Connecting the Flag to one's integrity is much easier than connecting hair to integrity. I actually see your point, but would argue that many people would not. Many folks would understand if a young man turned down a high-paying job if one of the requirements was to burn the American Flag. But if the job was turned down due to needing to get a haircut, it would be seen as a silly; perhaps even foolish refusal.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if that particular young man would cut his hair, if a hot girl said she goes wild for short-haired guys.



It all depends on the person, the context, the situation. I don't think you can objectively say that ANYTHING is "silly" when it comes to integrity. What is important is whether or not it is *really* a core issue of integrity for the person, or if it is maybe just a pose, just a passing phase that doesn't really burn brightly at the core of who they are. Perhaps this young man who wouldn't cut his hair was being silly, and it was just a matter of him not really caring about much of anything, --job, hair, future, whatever--, and that if he DID care, such as for a woman, that the real truth would come out: the hair length had nothing to do with his integrity.

Or perhaps not. Probably only that young man himself knows for sure.

A lot of people have staked a great deal on things that an outsider might see as "silly", but which were truly of great importance and moment for them.

You don't have to go back far in time to reach a point where almost all people would find the modern's relation with his four-footed family members (some call them "pets") to be silly, stupid, maudlin, sentimental, and somewhat insane. They wouldn't understand why it was a big deal for people getting on busses out of New Orleans in-the-path-of-Katrina to just leave their cats and dogs and other animals. Who cares? It's "just" a cat, right? It's "just" a dog, right?

I wouldn't have left my cats for anything in the world. I wouldn't have gotten on that bus. I simply wouldn't have been able to live with it. They would have had to tie me up and and bodily carry me off kicking and screaming.

And there have been times in my life when I wouldn't have been able to live with cutting my hair for a job, either. For my lover . . . well, that's a different story. I would have cut my hair (or have grown it out) for any woman I was in love with.

Integrity is in the (minds) eye of the person him or herself, not the beholder.


----------



## js (Jun 28, 2009)

Been noticing a lot of people with tattoos lately, mostly due to this thread and thinking about the subject. Tonight at dinner one of the servers had these two absolutely gorgeous flower tattoos on her arms, just above her elbows. Tattoos are quite common here, and from my own experience and suspicions, the people who have tattoos seem to me to be much more interesting and attractive/charismatic people than those without. If I had to pick one camp, I'd be in the tattoo camp. Of course, one doesn't need to do any such thing, and can take individuals as individuals and not feel the need to stereotype them based on whether they have tattoos or not. But, in any case, there it is. I like tattoos, generally, and I seem to tend to like people with tattoos. Just my informal personal experience, of course! YMMV.


----------



## js (Jul 2, 2009)

Greta, or anyone else with some tattoo knowledge:

What do you think of L.A. Ink, or Miami Ink, or Inked, or similar shows about tattoos / tattoo parlours?


----------



## Greta (Jul 2, 2009)

I've never watched them so I really can't give an opinion one way or another. :shrug: Sorry...


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 2, 2009)

js said:


> Greta, or anyone else with some tattoo knowledge:
> 
> What do you think of L.A. Ink, or Miami Ink, or Inked, or similar shows about tattoos / tattoo parlours?


 
I've watched them. A bit too much drama at times, but great advertising for the tattoo places. Even better than free advertising, they got paid to be in front of the cameras.


----------



## js (Jul 2, 2009)

Hmmm. OK. Well, I'm kind of interested. I think I'll watch an episode of LA Ink out of curiosity!


----------



## McGizmo (Jul 2, 2009)

I haven't seen any of those shows either. I was told by a friend that there is also a show about plastic and enhancement surgery?!?! I guess a lot of people contemplating it and curious so perhaps these shows do serve an audience and of course their mere presence is an endorsement for society in their own right, I suppose.

For some reason(s) much of what is on TV reminds me of Fellini's Satyricon. I am probably just jaded and getting old.....


----------



## Monocrom (Jul 3, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> I haven't seen any of those shows either. I was told by a friend that there is also a show about plastic and enhancement surgery?!?!


 
Ah... "Dr. 90210"

It's entertaining in a deformed-fool-dancing-for-the-King kinda way. If you know what I mean.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 17, 2012)

Do you remember: From June 2009/page 3 of this thread -



StarHalo said:


> An 18 year old girl in Belgium is claiming that during a visit to a tattoo parlor, she requested three stars be tattooed on her face - but then fell asleep not long after the procedure began and awoke much later to this:



Here's a picture of the girl from last week; looks like she never did get the ~$10,000 needed for tattoo removal:


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 17, 2012)

Like I said, she got what she wanted. Her parents freaked out. She said the tattoo artist mutilated her face. 

On the bright side? Apparently he didn't do a very good job because the stars are fading and look grey.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 17, 2012)

She went in with the intention of having just three stars tattooed on her face, fell asleep, probably with the aid of some sort of drug. The phone rings, the tattoo "artists" answers it........and just doodles away.

~ Chance


----------



## Dr Evil (Apr 17, 2012)

My step-father has a couple tatoos. He told my brother and I not to get any and that he wished he never did. I don't care for being stuck with needles as it is. That is the one of the main reasons I won't get any. Not sure about my brother though. It seems like if he wanted to, he would've got one already. They aren't very appealing to me either. Tatoos that are full arm, full body or something like that are the only ones that really turn me off though. I've never seen any like that in public so they either cover it up all the time or they hide at home. Same goes for those that have multiple eyebrow piercings, nose piercing and stuff like that. 

IF they want to do that to themselves, I don't care. All I've got to say is good luck finding a job.


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 18, 2012)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> She went in with the intention of having just three stars tattooed on her face . . .



That's what she said. (Literally.) 

I guess she's sticking to that story. Still, even if it had only been three stars; it's still three stars on her face. Dr. Evil has a good point about being able to find a job. You can cover up most tats during a job interview. Face and hands are the clear exceptions though.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 18, 2012)

She admitted to a TV station a week after the incident that she was indeed awake for the entire procedure and asked for all 56 stars, she had just been lying because she was worried how her father would react.

And a celeb news source says she's spent $18,000 for removal procedures thus far..


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 18, 2012)

In that case, forget the facial tattoos. She shouldn't be hired because she clearly lacks good judgment.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 18, 2012)

Clearly a case of stupidity not being painful enough to stop the actions of a teenager. :shakehead
"Sorry Honey, your mother and I spent your college tuition having the stars upon thars removed." 

Seldom (if ever) do those who know me, hear me calling for more laws, but it does seam reasonable that an 18 year old who can't drink alcohol legally, shouldn't be able to have 56 stars tattooed on her face. 

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 18, 2012)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> it does seam reasonable that an 18 year old who can't drink alcohol legally, shouldn't be able to have 56 stars tattooed on her face.



She's Belgian; 18 is the legal drinking age for all forms of alcohol there.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 18, 2012)

.


StarHalo said:


> She's Belgian; 18 is the legal drinking age for all forms of alcohol there.



Something else the Belgians should change......what's your point?

~ Chance


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 18, 2012)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Something else the Belgians should change......what's your point?



If you're old enough to drink, then you're old enough to shoulder the consequences thereof, no?


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 18, 2012)

Yes, but not necessarily. The government decides at what age one is able to legally consume "adult" beverages, but said government is unable to provide, or prove maturity. 

I wholeheartedly agree that actions should have consequences.....they teach lessons that are not soon forgotten. Love and Logic  teaches children should be allowed to make mistakes, and then suffer the logical consequences of their actions. My point was, some lessons are too severe, and that is why governments should help society protect itself by enacting laws designed to do just that.....for example, setting an age requirement on when one is legally able to drink alcohol,......... or have 56 stars tattooed on their face. 

~ Chance :devil: 
aka Reluctant Devils advocate when it comes to more laws.


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 18, 2012)

Clearly in her case . . . I'd have to say "no." (When it comes to shouldering the responsibility and being able to legally drink at 18 years of age.)

You know what's really sad. She's a pretty girl. Obviously not very bright. 
(Are we sure alcohol wasn't involved before she hit the tattoo shop?)

It's just sad that a pretty girl would mutilate her face that way. I mean, if you're an ugly dude and you're trained to work as a tattoo artist, okay. A face tattoo would not only be okay, but could realistically be an improvement. But a young, pretty girl, with her whole future ahead of her . . . :shakehead


----------



## nbp (Apr 19, 2012)

I don't have any piercings or tats, and don't intend to get any. And while realistically I don't want my future wife covered in stars, the rebel rocker inside me actually kinda likes the tat sleeve wearing, pierced cheeks and eyebrows look on girls. Something about that is strangely attractive to me. Not that I will be dating some Miami Ink chick anytime soon, but I like the look. Figure that one out. :shrug: Like pop singer Christina Perri for example-she's pretty tatted up and I think she's super foxy.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 19, 2012)

nbp said:


> Like pop singer Christina Perri for example-she's pretty tatted up and I think she's super foxy.



And super talented; you know a girl's the real deal when she has a tattoo of Johnny Cash's autograph..


----------



## nbp (Apr 19, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> And super talented; you know a girl's the real deal when she has a tattoo of Johnny Cash's autograph..



For sure! I tend toward hard rock and alternative with some classic rock and blues thrown in for good measure, not pop so much, but Yeah I bought her album, and Yeah it's very good. I'd pay real money to have that chick, tats and all, sit on my couch and just play guitar and sing for me. Some of her videos on youtube of her just playing acoustic and singing in front of a camera are really good; raw and gritty and very cool. Pretty girl + real talent = real sexy. Plus, in that line of work, tattoos are no big deal at all.


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 19, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> And super talented; you know a girl's the real deal when she has a tattoo of Johnny Cash's autograph...



...And not a single star tattooed on her face.


----------

