Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in the '50s, tattoos were one reliable sign of the sociopathic personality, according to the classic "The Mask of Sanity." Now they are considered cool and no big deal. I, for one, detest them (I know; okay, boomer). I personally find them aesthetically ugly (many look like the person took a Magic Marker and drew all over him- or herself) as well as a dumb idea (they're permanent when you may well change your mind about it later), a waste of money (often acquired by those who don't seem to have any disposable income) and somewhat risky (infections are not unheard of). Why are they now so popular, not to say ubiquitous, among a certain demographic?
Moderator note: People, be warned that if this thread devolves into bashing those with tattoos it will be closed down. This topic comes up from time to time and it always ends badly. Try to keep this discussion civil. Thanks.
Well for me personally I take this stance: if as the Lord says, my body is a temple I intend to decorate the walls. I like it. My tattoos have meaning for me and i enjoy them.
For my husband who has significantly more tattoos than me they are artwork he has invested large amounts of time and money in. He researches artists and finds the perfect artist to create the artwork he is looking for and his tattoos are stunning and complex.
For some people it was a way to buck societies expectations
For others it was to advertise their belonging to a certain group such as the military or tribal tattoos.
And for yet others its a way to fit in with ones peers.
Yes they are permanent but most people dont devote large amounts of money or time to regret it later. Some do obviously and tattoo removal is becoming better everyday.
And most people i know who have nice large tattoos are not spending their last dollar to buy them. They are very expensive. The people with bad tattoos probably didnt spend much.
Good tattoos arent cheap and cheap tattoos arent good.
"For some people it was a way to buck societies expectations."
But, like all forms of rebellion, doesn't it lose its shock value when EVERYBODY has one?
To me it's like carving your initials in the rocks of the Grand Canyon or spray-painting your name over a work of art. I guess such people are expressing themselves, but - IMHO - they're also defacing something inherently beautiful. I don't understand the need to broadcast the fact that you exist or to draw attention to yourself in this way ("you" in the general sense). And one more thing: they hurt! What compels people to do this?
"For some people it was a way to buck societies expectations."
But, like all forms of rebellion, doesn't it lose its shock value when EVERYBODY has one?
To me it's like carving your initials in the rocks of the Grand Canyon or spray-painting your name over a work of art. I guess such people are expressing themselves, but - IMHO - they're also defacing something inherently beautiful. I don't understand the need to broadcast the fact that you exist or to draw attention to yourself in this way ("you" in the general sense). And one more thing: they hurt! What compels people to do this?
BEFORE everyone had them it was to buck society but now its a way to fit in with ones peers. I agree that tagging a work of art or carving your initials in the Grand Canyon is defacing it. But to me painting a mural on the wall of my house isnt. Tattooing myself is enhancing it not destroying it. Alcohol and drugs destroy it, i dont do those. I have tattoos for my mother, my children, myself, my relationship, lessons ive learned and things i genuinely love. None of those tattoos was put there to broadcast my existence, they were put there to commemorate the journey that is my life, for myself.
Yes they do hurt. I enjoy that sacrifice to get a piece of my story permanently added to my canvas.
"For some people it was a way to buck societies expectations."
But, like all forms of rebellion, doesn't it lose its shock value when EVERYBODY has one?
It doesn't need to have shock value.
Everyone DOESN'T have one.
In any case, different tattoos express different things. A woman that has a small tattoo on her foot/ankle (which is a pretty common one) has that tattoo for reasons sentimental to her. A woman with a full sleeve says something else, and it is an outward statement to society of some sort or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterhere
To me it's like carving your initials in the rocks of the Grand Canyon or spray-painting your name over a work of art. I guess such people are expressing themselves, but - IMHO - they're also defacing something inherently beautiful. I don't understand the need to broadcast the fact that you exist or to draw attention to yourself in this way ("you" in the general sense). And one more thing: they hurt! What compels people to do this?
That's your opinion. Someone might think that cutting down a Cherry Tree to make cabinets is the same thing. Then the second owner of the cabinets may paint them white, thus masking the nice grain of the cabinets.
And they don't really hurt, though I'm told that there are some spots that do hurt.
I see some tattoos and I cringe. I see some and roll my eyes. I see others and shrug.
Regardless of the stance you decide to take on the subject of tattoos, OP, fact is: everyone has an opinion.
People enjoy making assumptions about one another. It makes them feel comfortable, believing they are all knowing of others.
Despite the fact that millions of people all around the world from different economic backgrounds have tattoos on their bodies, there still exists the ridiculous notion that tattoos are a signifier of the underclass or anarchic counterculture. This prejudice is not only painfully ignorant - it's comical.
Tattooed people are often stereotyped to be criminals, dangers, or drug addicts and are particularly vulnerable to workplace discrimination, as it is legal to discriminate for being in violation of company policies concerning appearance.
Generally, tattooed women would be viewed more harshly than tattooed men.
Ever heard of Bang Bang Tattoo place in NY? Their flat rate is $300/hr - their artists deliver high quality art work, and there is a long waiting list of clients willing to pay a starting rate of $950 for a custom piece.
So, there is a high quality tattoo and ghetto work, that some people get in parlors for few bucks.
Fashionable clothes and accessories aren't the only indicators of style, as a custom tattoo from a top artist is more valuable than a tailored suit or hemmed designer gown could ever be.
I tend to not discuss or criticize what other people do with their bodies, and don't care if their hair is green, nose pierced, breasts enlarged, or skin tattooed. I might not like some of the crappy ghetto tattoos some people have, but what right do I have to stigmatize them??
I really do not get tattoos at all, especially on girls and women. When I see a lady with tattoos on their legs, I wonder what the Hell they were thinking. I am a leg man, and love nice legs, and to deface them with ugly markings is just plain nuts.
When these women get older, those tattoos are going to look like ugly veins, instead of ink art.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
