tattoos

[Artifact]

intlzncster, you also forgot to include the piercings in the genital areas ? Having a 'free will' does not make every decision 'correct'.

 

[intlzncster]

intlzncster, you also forgot to include the piercings in the genital areas ? Having a 'free will' does not make every decision 'correct'.

I was mostly talking of piercings in the ears. You said:

"I was of the opinion that carbon injected tattoo material was a mutilation of the skin, others disagreed. Without going into aesthetics, biologically, skin is an organ & I strongly feel it's integrity should not be violated."​

I was curious how piercings fit under that definition; it appears that they would be included, as they violate the integrity of the skin.

 

[RadyLady]

We have this discussion every couple of years or so. It's normally split down generational lines in terms of 'for' or 'against' with some exceptions.

Bottom line, if someone wants to tat themselves up, it's their choice. Their body, their choice.

best post of this thread.

everyone has their own opinion of course, but at the end of the day, having an opinion is a freedom as is the ability to have a tatoo - or not.

 

[cabbie191]

We have this discussion every couple of years or so. It's normally split down generational lines in terms of 'for' or 'against' with some exceptions.

I have found that as I've aged into my 60's I've become more accepting of various forms of body art. At first, I didn't like sharply colored hair - now I actually like it in most cases. *** When my daughter got wide gauge ear pierces, I was horrified. That trend seems to have largely gone away and I hadn't seen a pair in quite a long time, but yesterday I met a young man with moderate gauges in his ears and it didn't bother me.

I find myself becoming more tolerant of tattoos over time. But bottom line with tattoos and hair coloring and manner of dress, I still tend to have a negative reaction for anything that comes across to me as overdone, that seems like the person is screaming for attention.

But it is everyone's choice what they do with their bodies, just as it is my choice to look away or disengage.

Pertinent to UConn WBB, I am appreciative of the limitations the staff has imposed in this regard.

*** - This includes Danny UConn! (Apologies if I misspelled your handle).

 

[JRRRJ]

We have this discussion every couple of years or so. It's normally split down generational lines in terms of 'for' or 'against' with some exceptions.

Bottom line, if someone wants to tat themselves up, it's their choice. Their body, their choice.

I must respectfully disagree. Responsible freedom includes the responsibility to be aware of when your actions have effects on others.

When someone's tats include misogynistic rap lyrics, cock fights, devil-worship symbology with blood everywhere, F ** K YOU in 3-inch capitals and very many et ceteras, all out in plain public view, they have crossed far over that bottom line you mention.

If you choose to indulge in irresponsible freedom, you cannot be indignant when others take exception to your unprovoked attack upon their sensibilities.

 

[rocky rococo]

I'm sort of old, but lots of Navy in the family. Thus, lots of tattoos in the family as well (though not me).

 

[OneTrickPony]

A good rule of thumb is "Don't waste your space"...many tats do just that...others I can appreciate...

 

[Icebear]

My mother and father's advice to my brothers in raising their kids.

1) Pick you battles carefully.

2) It is only hair. It can be cut. It will grow out. Don't bother.

3) Piercings heal, better a piercing than a tat.

4) Tats are permanent. They can be removed but it will cost an arm and a leg. Tell them your frank opinion. Tell them it is their choice and tell them you won't pay for either the tat or the removal. But never hand them the power and make it a battle unless you are ready to lose it.

 

[meyers7]

I must respectfully disagree. Responsible freedom includes the responsibility to be aware of when your actions have effects on others.

When someone's tats include misogynistic rap lyrics, rooster fights, devil-worship symbology with blood everywhere, F ** K YOU in 3-inch capitals and very many et ceteras, all out in plain public view, they have crossed far over that bottom line you mention.

If you choose to indulge in irresponsible freedom, you cannot be indignant when others take exception to your unprovoked attack upon their sensibilities.

Not sure I agree there, JR. If they choose to affect others with their "look", it's still their choice. As long as it's legal (i.e. nudity), what they have in view of the public it up to them. Granted they have to face any indignation from others, but so does everyone. I'm sure there are many young people out there that think people who wear a suit and tie look stupid. And it may even attack their sensibilities.

IMO there are a lot of people out there wearing more obnoxious stuff than tattoos. (See http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ ) I saw a guy the other night (a preppy sort) wearing plaid shorts and a hoop striped shirt. Ridiculous (IMO). Another thing that I find completely ridiculous is when women get dressed up, they put their hair up (an Updo, I've been told). WTH? Why would you go to all that trouble to look good, and then make your hair look worse?? Makes no sense to me. (but then I don't even have enough hair to do anything with, so....what do I know )

 

[JRRRJ]

Not sure I agree there, JR. If they choose to affect others with their "look", it's still their choice. As long as it's legal (i.e. nudity), what they have in view of the public it up to them. Granted they have to face any indignation from others, but so does everyone. I'm sure there are many young people out there that think people who wear a suit and tie look stupid. And it may even attack their sensibilities.

IMO there are a lot of people out there wearing more obnoxious stuff than tattoos. (See http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ ) I saw a guy the other night (a preppy sort) wearing plaid shorts and a hoop striped shirt. Ridiculous (IMO). Another thing that I find completely ridiculous is when women get dressed up, they put their hair up (an Updo, I've been told). WTH? Why would you go to all that trouble to look good, and then make your hair look worse?? Makes no sense to me. (but then I don't even have enough hair to do anything with, so....what do I know )

It's absolutely anyone's right (as a being with free will) to do anything of which they are capable.

But someone who shouts "Fire" in a theater, or displays words or imagery the vast majority of parents don't want to explain to a young child, has demonstrated they hold no regard for the safety or feelings of others, respectively. Having chosen this outcast attitude, they have no right to be surprised if they're made outcast.

I was objecting to the idea that it is always "just" a personal choice. We live here with 7x10^9 others who have rights too.

 

[calpedaler]

Rebecca Lobo ‏@RebeccaLobo 1h
Here's a new promotion : The Phoenix Mercury is giving away a Griner tattoo sleeve to first 3,000 fans...

 

[intlzncster]

I must respectfully disagree. Responsible freedom includes the responsibility to be aware of when your actions have effects on others.

When someone's tats include misogynistic rap lyrics, rooster fights, devil-worship symbology with blood everywhere, F ** K YOU in 3-inch capitals and very many et ceteras, all out in plain public view, they have crossed far over that bottom line you mention.

If you choose to indulge in irresponsible freedom, you cannot be indignant when others take exception to your unprovoked attack upon their sensibilities.

Is that what we were talking about here? I mean, you can make a similar argument with everything. Tshirts even. The point is that if someone wants to get a tattoo...and it's not a frickin hate crime...then it's up to them.

And who decides what is 'responsible freedom'. I certainly don't want to live by your morals. Devil worship stuff makes me laugh actually.

 

[intlzncster]

Also, If we had to worry about every one of 7 billion other peoples' proclivities, we could never leave the house. Heck, we probably couldn't even have a house, because it would be impinging on someone else's view or maybe someone's feeling that we shouldn't affect nature in any way.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I have no desire to get one, but I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't intentionally hurt themselves or somebody else. I did have an employee though that had a really trashy tattoo and it really tested my guidelines above.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

It's absolutely anyone's right (as a being with free will) to do anything of which they are capable.

But someone who shouts "Fire" in a the lawer, or displays words or imagery the vast majority of parents don't want to explain to a young child, has demonstrated they hold no regard for the safety or feelings of others, respectively. Having chosen this outcast attitude, they have no right to be surprised if they're made outcast.

I was objecting to the idea that it is always "just" a personal choice. We live here with 7x10^9 others who have rights too.

The discussion wasn't (I thought) about tattoos that are in poor taste, just tattoos in general. As someone else said, you don't have to get a tat to look offensive. I was in a hotel elevator where a parent was trying to explain a nasty gay-sexual-reference Jeter t-shirt to his child, the Jeter comment was on the front and "Yankees s*ck" on the back. And passed the t-shirt salesman on the way to the game.

Having a tattoo isn't offensive in the abstract - whether or not I like it. If it is offensive, it isn't because it is a tattoo, it is because the person is displaying it at all.

 

[meyers7]

It's absolutely anyone's right (as a being with free will) to do anything of which they are capable.

But someone who shouts "Fire" in a the lawer, or displays words or imagery the vast majority of parents don't want to explain to a young child, has demonstrated they hold no regard for the safety or feelings of others, respectively. Having chosen this outcast attitude, they have no right to be surprised if they're made outcast.

I was objecting to the idea that it is always "just" a personal choice. We live here with 7x10^9 others who have rights too.

That was my point. If they choose to be made an outcast, that is their choice. And they have the freedom to make it. Just as other choose what they wear (people of Walmart) or how they wear their hair (men with ponytails). They too have demonstrated they hold no regard for feelings of others. True, they have no right to be surprised they are an outcast, but that is their choice.

 

[intlzncster]

That was my point. If they choose to be made an outcast, that is their choice. And they have the freedom to make it. Just as other choose what they wear (people of Walmart) or how they wear their hair (men with ponytails). They too have demonstrated they hold no regard for feelings of others. True, they have no right to be surprised they are an outcast, but that is their choice.

Meyers, you sneaky bastard.

Pro tip: never tease men with ponytails in the vicinity of Steven Seagal.

 

[meyers7]

Meyers, you sneaky bastard.

Pro tip: never tease men with ponytails in the vicinity of Steven Seagal.

Hair envy.

 

[Adesmar123]

I am going to address only tats in the US. Other cultures look on them quite differently than the US

IMHO tattoos generally are an indication of sadness, anger and discontent. They are seen on the young and restless. They are a way of showing independence.

Sadness, anger and discontent are more prevalent today than 20 years ago. Do you think things are better now than 20 years ago? Angry at someone or something - get a tattoo. Drunk and don't care - get a tattoo. Want to say in your face to society - get a tattoo.

Yes there are some that are done for the self. But often these don't show publicly.

They are not a sign of affluence or happiness. Think of people with a lot of tattooes. Are they generally happy? Yes that is a very general statement which has a number of exceptions - some very prominent.

Invest in the tattoo removal industry. Tatoos generally don't look good on 70 year olds.

 

[JRRRJ]

That was my point. If they choose to be made an outcast, that is their choice. And they have the freedom to make it. Just as other choose what they wear (people of Walmart) or how they wear their hair (men with ponytails). They too have demonstrated they hold no regard for feelings of others. True, they have no right to be surprised they are an outcast, but that is their choice.

It appears your stance is there is no qualitative freedom-of-expression difference between my ponytail and a person who chooses to place a permanent "" shout on his forearm. I say the difference is the tat in the second case is a deliberate attempt to antagonize or frighten others, like yelling your conversation. It's a sign to me of an angry person who wants to demonstrate they don't give a rat's a** about anyone else.

I'm not indicting tattoos in general, nor even expressing your anger in ink. I'm condemning those who do not consider the effects of their acts on others before doing things that are difficult to reverse. As Adesmar123 says, it seems to frequently be the discontented who apply visible tattoos.

This isn't about something that offends your taste or opinions. I'm a firm believer that all points of view have validity based on their proponent's experience. I did many things during the 60's and 70's that were intended to attract attention, stimulate discussion and confront people's beliefs -- a number of them fell into your offensive style category, like my hair.

Sorry I took this somewhat off course from tattoos in general to my theory of inappropriate tattoos.

To try to get back on track, I'll just say that putting art on your body is a personal choice, sometimes attractive, sometimes fascinating (as an expression of self and/or as a demonstration of skill), sometimes art and not something I'm ever likely to do. ;^)

Is there a tattoo removal industry? Good investment advice if so, I think.

 

[meyers7]

It appears your stance is there is no qualitative freedom-of-expression difference between my ponytail and a person who chooses to place a permanent "" shout on his forearm. I say the difference is the tat in the second case is a deliberate attempt to antagonize or frighten others, like yelling your conversation. It's a sign to me of an angry person who wants to demonstrate they don't give a rat's a** about anyone else.

My point was that to some people, ponytails on men or tattoos, there is no difference. They may find one or the other or both offensive. (Not me specifically, I don't find long hair or "most" tattoos offensive. Plaids and stripes though .) And many of those who dislike ponytails on men would say it's a sign of an angry person who wants to demonstrate they don't give a rat's @ss about anyone else. You would probably disagree with them, or even someone who wants to intimidate.

I'm condemning those who do not consider the effects of their acts on others before doing things that are difficult to reverse.

And there are those who would condemn men with the ponytails and that effect on certain people. However, you point about it being difficult to reverse is very true. (haircuts are easy, reversing baldness, not so much)

I'm a firm believer that all points of view have validity based on their proponent's experience. I did many things during the 60's and 70's that were intended to attract attention, stimulate discussion and confront people's beliefs -- a number of them fell into your offensive style category, like my hair.

I disagree. I don't think you hold all points of view as valid. You have already condemned certain people who have tattoos that you find offensive.

And again, your hair is not offensive to me. Other than maybe jealousy.

Is there a tattoo removal industry? Good investment advice if so, I think.

There is. Not as lucrative as the tattoo inking industry, but probably pretty good non the less.

 

[meyers7]

IMHO tattoos generally are an indication of sadness, anger and discontent.

I would disagree. While some (maybe quite a few) may be, I would not say most (generally). Probably a smaller percentage. I’ve never come across anyone (that I’ve talked to about theirs) with a tattoo that got it because of sadness, anger or discontentment.

They are seen on the young and restless. They are a way of showing independence.

I agree with that. I don’t’ think that makes someone sad, angry or discontented though. Anymore than when we were young. When we were young, we moved out to show our independence. Youth today, not as much. They tend to hang around home much longer.

Angry at someone or something - get a tattoo. Drunk and don't care - get a tattoo. Want to say in your face to society - get a tattoo.

Occasionally, but not very often. These are usually pretty well thought out. You’ll see a few here and there and ask “what the h@&& were you thinking?”. And they really got no answer, but most people have a story about their tattoo and what it means.

Invest in the tattoo removal industry. Tatoos generally don't look good on 70 year olds.

If you want to make more money, invest in the tattooing industry.

 

[intlzncster]

Is there a tattoo removal industry? Good investment advice if so, I think.

It certainly exists, but I think it'll truly take off in about 15-20 years, with tech advances and the large numbers of people who are getting tatts these days.

 

[wallman]

A funny joke from a guy I knew in college, he would tell guys at the bar , I bet I have your name tattooed on my butt! They always fell for it and then he would show them his tattoo.... Your Name!!!!

 

[cabbie191]

And then, of course, there's this: Don Tattoo Commercial