Old Grump Doesn't Like Extensive Tattoos On Women (friends, definition, Korean)
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.
Im waiting for the day when they're uncool, and all these folk now uncool. Women having tatoos can be a help in screening potential mates or just dates. According to sone single men, tatoos on a woman mark them as "easy". I dont know, thats just what I've heard.
Well, for starters, it's only "mutilating" the body according to those with your particular brand of thought. The rest of us just see it as a form of art that we happen to like. If you don't like them you're free to look elsewhere. It's not that difficult.
Well, it does fit the literal definition of "mutilation." Instead, I would say it was mutilation to create art, or art by mutilation.
The part in your post I've bolded in red is nearly identical to what I said to another poster who claims that people who have a lot of tattoos are 'low class' people. Then MsMetal defended him, saying how what he said didn't mean that he would 'discriminate' against someone with a lot of tattoos if it involved saving his life or giving him medical attention. I told her that she was right because at the time, I thought I might've been a little harsh on that poster and because I sometimes tend to be impulsive with my responses when it involves something that comes close to my heart.
But, the more I think about it, the more I feel that if someone is that judgmental towards someone who has a lot of ink (I mean seriously, they're not murderers, rapists, abusers, pedos, thieves, etc.), then they should ONLY receive medical care from a 'non-tattoed' person. That would serve them right. This might be an immature way to look at it, but whatever. I happen to know a few heavily tatted people that I love and care for a lot...and who I would give my life to protect. So, whenever I read posts like that, it touches a nerve in me and I just...react to it.
In 1975, sure. Tattoos labeled you as low socioeconomic class. In 2017, tattoos are a lot more mainstream. You're still going to bump into job/hiring barriers if you have them just like speaking a working class dialect or speaking & writing with poor grammar. It shouldn't matter but those first impressions can certainly get you flushed on a job interview unless you're off-the-charts talented.
Well, it does fit the literal definition of "mutilation." Instead, I would say it was mutilation to create art, or art by mutilation.
Depends on the context. "To mangle or cause lasting damage." It's a shallow penetration of the skin. Heck, getting a microdermabrasion can be considered "mutilation" according to this definition since it technically damages the surface layers of the skin, and any other cosmetic procedure. Tattooing skin, or piercings, doesn't inflict serious damage, so I fail to see how that qualifies. Limbs and essential parts of the body aren't being removed. Since I don't feel my body is maimed or degraded in any way due to tattoos and piercings, it isn't mutilation.
My point is, I don't care one way or another what people do, but it still is a sort of purposeful mutilation of the body.
It's a loaded word used by many religious and orthodox followers that exaggerates what tattooing actually does. It's meant to send the message that such cosmetic work defiles the body/temple, thus making it imperfect, so I'm not surprised by the usage of the word when this brand of thought views it in such a strong way, as evidenced by passages in some religious text. Though said interpretation is taken out of context. Go figure.
But in general usage outside this context, I'm not buying it. *shrug*
In 1975, sure. Tattoos labeled you as low socioeconomic class. In 2017, tattoos are a lot more mainstream. You're still going to bump into job/hiring barriers if you have them just like speaking a working class dialect or speaking & writing with poor grammar. It shouldn't matter but those first impressions can certainly get you flushed on a job interview unless you're off-the-charts talented.
And you know this for certain, how? About every industry and location. Yeah, no. Job industry and region are huge factors in how tattoos are perceived by hiring managers and work places. Your claim also assumes tattoos are inherently visible and thus an issue in such situations. There are easy ways to hide tattoos. There are also industries and employers that simply don't bat an eye. I have tatted up friends that are professors, physicians, lawyers, engineers, programmers, teachers, and quite a few work in places where tattoos are visible.
Is Susie has a large or visible tattoo and is applying to teach at a private conservative Christian school then Susie can find a way to cover them. It's not that hard. Really. This is 2017, not 1970, after all.
And you know this for certain, how? About every industry and location. Yeah, no. Job industry and region are huge factors in how tattoos are perceived by hiring managers and work places. Your claim also assumes tattoos are inherent visible and thus an issue in such situations. There are easy ways to hide tattoos. There are also industries and employers that simply don't bat an eye. I have tatted up friends that are professors, physicians, lawyers, engineers, programmers, teachers, and quite a few work in places where tattoos are visible.
Is Susie has a large or visible tattoo and is applying to teach at a private conservative Christian school then Susie can find a way to cover them. It's not that hard. Really. This is 2017, not 1970, after all.
Sigh....
We've all been down this road before.... Professionals probably should look more the "part" than the average civilians. Especially doctors and PE's.......
Here a large part of people getting ink is cultural. If I stayed away from people with tats..... well, I'd have to say home.
I could care less if my ER doc has tattoos, that is hardly a qualification of medical expertise.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Depends on the context. "To mangle or cause lasting damage." It's a shallow penetration of the skin. Heck, getting a microdermabrasion can be considered "mutilation" according to this definition since it technically damages the surface layers of the skin, and any other cosmetic procedure. Tattooing skin, or piercings, doesn't inflict serious damage, so I fail to see how that qualifies. Limbs and essential parts of the body aren't being removed. Since I don't feel my body is maimed or degraded in any way due to tattoos and piercings, it isn't mutilation.
It's a loaded word used by many religious and orthodox followers that exaggerates what tattooing actually does. It's meant to send the message that such cosmetic work defiles the body/temple, thus making it imperfect, so I'm not surprised by the usage of the word when this brand of thought views it in such a strong way, as evidenced by passages in some religious text. Though said interpretation is taken out of context. Go figure.
But in general usage outside this context, I'm not buying it. *shrug*
I knew this would come into question, but there is more than one definition. And I don't care what many religious and orthodox followers say. I don't care about any religious views on it. I'm just going by the dictionary(s).
You're (in general) purposely poking holes through the skin, or poking holes and injecting a foreign object/material, I would call that mutilation, no matter how harmless it may be. It's damaging the body, no matter how trivial. Like I said, I've done it, so I'm not all up in arms about it. But it's still a fact.
We've all been down this road before.... Professionals probably should look more the "part" than the average civilians. Especially doctors and PE's.......
Well, they do with their clothes and uniform on. Who said anything about not wearing proper workplace attire? My dear friend is a professor with a huge back tattoo. It stands to reason it is fully covered 99% of the time.
Some of these comments are downright laughable. They make it seem like most folks with tattoos have them on their face and neck, in places that require more than clothing to cover up.
Most professionals look professional in their professional work attire that likely covers their "unprofessional" tattoos.
Simply a matter of personal taste. No more, no less. It's humans argumentative behavior that makes it an issue.
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.
