I'll bother getting a tattoo when it has a lifelong accomplishment attached to it.

Until then, I don't care if you have one or not.

Amanda Marcotte is getting a tattoo that says that the myth of G-Spot orgasms are a weapon of a frightened patriarchy intended to keep women in the kitchen.

The Persistent Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm -- Amanda Marcotte

(Sorry for the threadjack)

12 years ago on a scuba trip to Papua New Guinea, the (lady) flight attendants had a tattooed faces. Tribal stuff, not Disney bunny whiskers or East LA teardrops. Nice girls from good local families... Pleasant cabin service, fresh drinks, good pantomime for emergency evac procedures, etc. Still weird, though.

I think that, if you went into tattoos in an organized fashion, viewing your body as a painter views an empty canvas, you might actually be able to achieve something worthwhile; most times the individual ends up more like the artist's sketchbook, a series of drawings that have no linking theme. "I'll put a unicorn over here, and a rose over here," is how it works out.

Tat fans have given me two charges of maniacal laughter, though.

One, seen years ago at a Harley dealer in Daytona, was on a paunchy and pale Gene Shalit-looking, sandaled wannabe wearing a wife-beater while out riding. On his left, in fresh ink, was his advertisement arched over a flabby upper arm: "Harley Davidson Booty Patrol".

Yeah. That'll bring 'em running.

Just recently, I was amazed at the spectacle as a young lady bent over to reach into the back seat of the car next to mine at a convenience store. Delight at the scenery turned to surprise as I read her tramp stamp: two paw prints framing the words, "Doggy Style".

Whew, good times!

I'm still waiting for a little honesty in ink. First "conformist" wins.

"The trend for tattoos is not exactly breaking news. But in the last few months, it seems to me that tats have gone from fad to raging unstoppable pandemic."

I missed the June 1998 byline on this one. Simon is tardy to the party by more than a decade.

If anything, judging by the kids in my office and the few young people I see when I totter out for the occasional sherry, tattooing has fallen off in the last few years.

I dunno, Kevin. I have kids in their teens diligently sketching out their first tattoo for when they hit the age. It may just depend on the local culture. Nearer to the beach [where I work], I can't deny that about half the parents that come in here (ages from 20's to early 40's) have ink. The amount of tramp stamps I'm subjected to is pretty depressing.

I'm a little bit confused, your opening for this article is vague at best leaving me unsure as to why you posted it. Either you disagree with his views, in which case the author should be viewed with humor, or you agree with his statements, which implies that he has the right to degrade and debase people who are doing him no harm.

As to the author, his view of history is very narrow. According to his implications tattoos seem to have appeared some time in the 1940s-50s and were forms of intimidation used only by bikers and thugs. Tattoos date back to at least 5000 BCE and were, and still are, used for both healing/mystical purposes and to mark rights of passage thus marking you as a member of a group. Very few people have tattoos that do not mean something to them. Meaning is not negated simply because it is not blatantly obvious to the outsider.

I have far more respect for people with tattoos than those without. They signify that the individual was willing to undergo a fair amount of pain (and they do hurt, sometimes intensely). They also denote a person who is willing to make a choice and stick with it, in most cases permanently, which is more that can be said about most people in this country today.

@Bryan:

> I have far more respect for people with tattoos
> than those without.

LOL! Judging people by their ink "debases" people...so Bryan is going to judge people by their LACK of ink!

> They signify that the individual was willing to
> undergo a fair amount of pain

Do you also respect people who drill holes in their hands?

I mean, someone who just gets a tattoo is a POSEUR. Drills and drill bits are cheap, but these lameos want to take the easy way out and just get a tattoo!

> They also denote a person who is willing to make
> a choice and stick with it, in most cases
> permanently

I respect people who get married.

I respect people who sign up for a 4 year hitch in the military.

I respect people who hike the Appalachian trail.

I respect people who write novels.

That stuff takes a TON of work and a TON of time.

Getting a tattoo takes an hour and $300.

Don't make a modest consumerist choice into something it's not.

Getting a tattoo doesn't imply anything about someone's attention span or hard work.

> which is more that can be said about most people
> in this country today.

There are great people with tattoos and horrible people without them, so I'm not proposing any sort of blanket condemnation of one group.

...but ON AVERAGE people with tattoos have poorer impulse control, lower levels of schooling, shorter attention spans, etc.

Don't make a silly hobby into some sort of us-vs-them identity cult.

Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches.

-Eric Hoffer-

PS- Some pf those "Suicide Girls" are really hot now, but in 20 years we'll see.

I am the only one in my family with NO tattoo. My brothers both have a bit of ink. Even my sister the good Mormon girl has a tat.

I have always wanted one a little. Good reason and strange for why not. Money. I am cheap a bit. The longevity of it, well permanence. Finding that right image you can be amazed of the flip flopping. Legal issue where I live - quasi illegal. Plus finding a good artist too is hard - enough dabblers. When you get one you want an expert not a person who has done a few. Increase the chances of bad art or mess ups. My strangest reason aka pipe dream. I want to be in Intelligence/Spy and a tattoo would be a mark that well could easily mark me.

I will agree with Bryan a little. Going through the process takes a bit of guts. You do have to deal with some pain. If we are going to judge on pain - I would have more respect for a woman who has given birth. Or that guy who climbed a mountain or ran a marathon. Ya a medallion from the Boston Marathon would impress me more. Do not many people walking around with them hanging around their neck.

as gravity is destiny, that pert twitty tattoo peeking out of the push-up bra of today is gonna be one sad saggy little bird 50 years on.

tattoo removal centers = growth industry.

TJIC just reminded me of a semi serious problem/solution. Sorry for the hijack.

The problem: Where are we going to get people who can be on the jury for the Zimmerman trial? (or other similar over sensationalised trial)
Answer: Hiking the AT.

(and amy beats me to it...dang i type too slow)

Radwaste "two paw prints framing the words, "Doggy Style"."
LOL good one.
The best I'd heard of was a lady tattooed a ruler on her inner thigh, with the phrase you must be at least this tall to ride this ride.

Speaking of "Margaritaville" tattoos, I think Jimmy Buffet said it best: "Tattoos are a permanent reminder of a temporary feeling."

I will wear a Calvin Klein T-shirt the day Calvin Klein wears an Amy Alkon T-shirt.

So where can I get an Amy T-shirt? And what would be on it?

I know! A loaf of bread, an airport screener, and a Muslim cleric with a Circle/Slash over them.

I'm gonna get an "M" tattooed on each butt cheek. That way, when I bend over, it will spell "MOM"

I have far more respect for people with tattoos than those without. They signify that the individual was willing to undergo a fair amount of pain (and they do hurt, sometimes intensely).

So, undergoing voluntary pain for little to no tangible reward is a reason to respect someone?

If experiencing voluntary pain is all it takes to earn respect, how about I just drop a bowling ball on my foot? I'll experience the pain and won't have to wear Betty Boop on my bicep for the rest of my life.

On the other hand, I could do a few of those things that TJIC mentioned and actually earn respect.

[Tattoos] also denote a person who is willing to make a choice and stick with it, in most cases permanently, which is more that can be said about most people in this country today.

Making a choice and sticking with it isn't a reason to respect someone. Making a good choice and sticking with it is.

And, while a tattoo is not automatically an indicator of a bad choice, it ain't an automatic indicator the person makes good choices either.

I will agree with Bryan a little. Going through the process takes a bit of guts.

Or copious amounts of alcohol and poor impulse control.

"How it got here, I haven't a clue."

=========================

On a related topic:

"I think men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought jewelry." -- Rita Rudner

An undying meme on Facebook: "Don't judge me for having tattoos. Having tattoos does not make me a delinquent, a criminal, or a Satan worshiper."

First of all, if you put artwork on your body in a visible location, you're doing it to make a statement. When we ornament ourselves, we are asking to be judged. In our culture, tattoos are historically associated with prisoners, tough guys, and the lower class. People who get them know that. You can't blame others for thinking they look trashy.

I don't happen to think people with tattoos /are/ thugs or Satan worshipers. I don't think most of my friends have the dedication to be either of those things. But I do perceive them to have questionable judgment. My friends who poor-mouth and say they can't afford to pay their bills somehow always have fresh ink to show off, and that's expensive.

Also, why would you put a team logo or cartoon character that's too cheesy for your /walls/ permanently on your body? Would you wear a Marvin the Martian t-shirt every day of your life?

Dang it. We need the ability to go back and edit our postings when we miss closing an HTML tag.

"I think it's wise to look to one's Old Bag Years when signing up for body art"

When you're an old bag it doesn't matter anymore. How much uglier could Helen Thomas look with a rose & a unicorn, or even a tramp stamp (shudder)?

When I was a kid (a looong time ago)only drunk sailors got tats somewhere in Long Beach.

two paw prints framing the words, "Doggy Style"

At least it wasn't a bullseye with the words "aim here"...

What?

At least it wasn't a bullseye with the words "aim here"...

What?

http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/1705my-name-is-kelly.jpg

I see a difference between a small tattoo that can easily be covered and full sleeves. The latter shows a lack of judgement IMO, because even if you want to live on the fringes of society at 30, you might not want to at 50. You don't know where you'll move and what circles you'll have to move in later in life.

I did the bright hair colors thing through college, and dyed it back to dark brown junior year, as I wanted an internship that summer and a job the next. In my then-field weird hair would have been ok in some places, but it limits ones options.

I keep a neutral look in general, that varies from outdoorsy (jeans and fleece) to slightly crunchy (long skirts and hair) to preppie (bun, muted shades and pearls).

Having a tattoo is customizing one's body much like dying hair or wearing certain make-up. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think about it, for most of US history, men had little way to do anything fun and decorative with themselves.

Trashy Roots is constantly booked here. They specialize in neon hair streaks for the soccer mom set. I'm contemplating letting my wee ones get pink streaks for their bday. So what? It's not fringe of society here in williamson county, and I have trouble imagining where it would be, nowadays.

I have 2 tats (hubby has 6) and used to have my webbing pierced on my thumb. It didnt stop me from getting an office manager job. It wasn't very noticable, in fact. I'd say my overall look is very conservative.

Plus, old bags are old bags and no one is going to think they look hot-tat or no. The "it'll look bad when you're old" argument has got the be the dumbest of the bunch in the no-tat crowd. Don't like them? don't get one. Easy.

If someone really want to be "different" and earn my "respect" for doing nothing terribly couragous I'd say I'd respect the guy/gal these days who wears a pocket protector, pays back their student loans and slicks their hair to one side and changes their political party from (D) to ANYTHING else. THAT's DIFFERENT.

And if YOU- reading this right now are part of that rebellious-oh-so-different crowd striving for attention with your "body art", PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop posting pictures of the latest waste of money purchase of permanent ink on FB. PLEASE stop treating us all to the unflattering images of your red swollen legs, mangled clevage or the side of your now marred torso (while obscuring - just ever so slightly your wilted, and stretched out sweater puppy - like I needed to see THAT - with your unmanicured paw.

We get it. You like attention, you crave it and posting this crap on FB does it for ya. But here's the absolute truth - it has the opposite affect on people like me. Makes me think about what type of idiot would give up that much money and half a days time to endure a very painful procedure - producing nothing of any REAL value and doesn't make you the least bit more brave, attractive or different - ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE COMPELLED TO POST A PICTURE OF IT FOR OTHERS TO COMMENT ON HOW COOL YOUR "TAT" B. "Look at me Look at me".

Ya, do something different....get a life.

I mean, come the FUCK on....REALLY?

http://ugliesttattoos.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/funny-tattoos-better-than-getting-the-devil-horns-tattooed-on-your-head-i-guess.jpg

"They also denote a person who is willing to make a choice and stick with it, in most cases permanently, which is more that can be said about most people in this country today"

I am far, far more impressed by a person who embraces REALITY and can adapt ...a person who has the humility to CHANGE or redirect their choices based on the complexity of what life gives us moment to moment rather then respecting a person based on a physical attribute that can be obtained by any one demensional mouth breather out there. Not really thinking sticking to a permanent choice (without the foresight of how your tastes might change and grow as you age) is a charachteristic that demands that much admiration. But that's just me.

That's not to say people with tattoos dont have other wonderful qualities, but that alone would do nothing to sway my personal respect for someone.

Tweet

"Plus, old bags are old bags and no one is going to think they look hot-tat or no. The "it'll look bad when you're old" argument has got the be the dumbest of the bunch in the no-tat crowd."

Fair enough if you're talking about a senior citizen, but what about the "in between" years when people should aspire to a more sophisticated sort of attractiveness?

> Either you disagree with his views, in which case
> the author should be viewed with humor, or you
> agree with his statements, which implies that he
> has the right to degrade and debase people who
> are doing him no harm.

What on Earth would make you say so? How in the World did you come to imagine that you could judge the enthusiasms of others with such precision?

To wit:

> They also denote a person who is willing to make
> a choice and stick with it

Or, they denote fashion-addled goofballs.

Having a tattoo has lost its original meaning. Having a tattoo now has no meaning. Having a tattoo means that you have a tattoo.

Its original meaning being one he invented*, and now decoration has no special code?

A river, cry me it.

Also, I'm with Kevin - he's over a decade late to the "zomg tattoos are popular and stuff!" freakout.

(* If it was to mark one as a sociopath and a rebel, why did all those perfectly normal soldiers and sailors have them?)

(I am pleased to note, however, that none of my tattoo-bearing friends are lame like Feeble's, as none of them have expressed any such beliefs or motives about or for them.

I do wonder if "showing it on FB means it was for attention" is a motive expressed by them, or inferred by him, though - and if that applies to durable goods shown on FB, like computers, guns, cars. I have seem people show off new tattoos on FB ... because they were excited about their new thing, not to prove they're rebels or different or because they "crave attention".

I mean, more than people "crave attention" by interacting with others at all.)

(Disclosure: I have zero tattoos, so the "you're just angry because I attacked you!" dodge won't work.)

One, you spelled my name wrong.

Two, I am a girl.

Three, what other reason could you possibly think of that some middle aged chick wants to flash half of the classmates from her graduating HS class half her wilted boob? She's excited!!! HER BOOB? Why show me? Ink it and be cool.

It's like that whole random acts of kindness thing. Once you start telling people....just not the same. Ya know?

"(Disclosure: I have zero tattoos, so the "you're just angry because I attacked you!" dodge won't work.)"

Dude. Inference? I wasn't even thinking that.

Three, what other reason could you possibly think of that some middle aged chick wants to flash half of the classmates from her graduating HS class half her wilted boob?

To spare them the picture of her entire wilted boob?

To add to my earlier comment:

I don't think tattoos or the lack thereof are necessarily any big deal (obviously a face tattoo, in American culture, is a bigger deal that something on a bicep or buttcheek), but the argument that "It's PERMANENT!" is pretty silly.

People live with decisions that make, and some they regret -- it's a part of life. On the regret scale, I'd rather see someone regret a tattoo than a child.

Questions regarding the link Feebie posted of the devil's tail: what is that red mark in the middle that looks like a burn? Is that part of the tattoo to look like a shadow?

A blast from the past... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa2LOMajSwM

Cracked has it all figured out:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-298-tattoos/

The first chart is very accurate.

"When you're an old bag it doesn't matter anymore."

Objectively true, I'm sure, but speaking subjectively as a certifiable old bag, I am proud of my clear, tat-free skin.

...but what about the "in between" years when people should aspire to a more sophisticated sort of attractiveness? -- Insufficient Poison

That's too dowdy for today's youth-obsessed middle-agers.

Even grandma wants to be forever 21 these days, tripping around in her hip hugging jeans and string bikini, flashing tattoos and piercings ("look, kids, nana got a tongue stud!").

These days, even the Ivy-educated wanna look like they were schooled on the mean streets - but they miss the mark when they try to look that way in $200 jeans and designer tees.

==============================

If it was to mark one as a sociopath and a rebel, why did all those perfectly normal soldiers and sailors have them?

Which "perfectly normal" soldiers and sailors had them?

Not so long ago, being a common soldier or sailor was not considered "respectable." Officers, yes. Soldiers and sailiors, no.

"We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers." -- Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington)

Remember Officer and a Gentleman. In order to seem a "respectable" officer, Richard Gere tried to cover his tattoo. The scene was understood and did not need to be explained to the viewer.

My nephew was told last year by Army and Marine recruiters he'd have to lose the visible ink on his hand in order to join.

==============================

Sailors and tattoos are associated.

Way back, many old-time sailors were superstitious and symbols had meaning for them. Tattoos were often these symbols for luck (e.g., a compass rose tattoo to ensure the sailor always finds his way home).

Many sailors were illiterate, so tattoos were how they told their life story. They were symbols of a sailor's journeys (e.g., a standing turtle to indicate the sailor had crossed the Equator).

==============================

"I want to get a tattoo of myself on my entire body, only 2" taller” -- Stephen Wright

"To spare them the picture of her entire wilted boob?"

(snort)

.

*****...but ON AVERAGE people with tattoos have poorer impulse control, lower levels of schooling, shorter attention spans, etc.*****

You got some backup for that statement? I have four tattoos, I'm an accountant, and I have a VERY long attention span. And I can't POSSIBLY be the exception that proves the rule.

*****People live with decisions that make, and some they regret -- it's a part of life. On the regret scale, I'd rather see someone regret a tattoo than a child.*****

WORD.

I totally agree that a tattoo you regret impacts you, not so much anyone else, and in that sense, it's pretty minor. I have two, got one at 23 and one at 35. I'm in my 40s now, still no regrets. They mean something to me and that's why I got them. One is usually covered, the other one can be unless it's strapless dress time.

And Daghain, you're not alone. About 30-40% of the professors at my university have them, mostly the younger ones.

Poison-there are few in between years. The ones that exist, aren't generally going to be defined by a tat. I'd rather be with someone in my 50s who knows how to be fun, and is less concerned with whether I look refined enough. I like going to the opera on occasion, but it doesn't define me, you know?

If someone really want to be "different" and earn my "respect" for doing nothing terribly couragous I'd say I'd respect the guy/gal these days who wears a pocket protector, pays back their student loans and slicks their hair to one side and changes their political party from (D) to ANYTHING else. THAT's DIFFERENT."

You assume the above are mutually exclusive from body art WHY?

As to your FB tat-pic request-you have too many "friends" if all you are seeing is body art. One shouldn't "friend" people one isn't friends with, for real. If you DO think you are their friend for real, you should rethink that if you find their choices (and the fact that they share them with "friends" so stupid. And, you ever think they might not want to hear about the venison your BF bagged last weekend? Really-why are your posts so stellar? Do you think your activities and life are so freackin' interesting that they need to be recorded for posterity, or are you just letting people you know see what you've been up to? And if the latter, why do you ascribe other motives to your "friends"?

"Three, what other reason could you possibly think of that some middle aged chick wants to flash half of the classmates from her graduating HS class half her wilted boob?""

You are "friends" with people you went to high school with roughly 35 years ago? What's up with that? Get a life indeed, feebs.

Who shit in your cheerios, mama?

Also, mama. I have no idea why you are getting nasty with me but If I had to take a wild guess I'd say we may have found a forum poster here that likes to post pictures of her tats on FB and two, I'm not sure when u graduated but I certainly didn't graduate 35 years ago. Lol. Not even close.

Oh, ok. I see. Middle aged was suppose to be "mid thirty".

> "Getting a tattoo takes an hour and $300.
> Don't make a modest consumerist choice into
> something it's not."

We don't get to choose what our fashion choices mean to other people. (As if "I shall wear a shallow-brimmed hat at this rakish angle, and you shall perceive that I'm a daring, thoughtful innovator who's good in bed, rather than a glum, sullen TV-viewer with no sense of purpose.")

No. Other people see whatever they see, often whatever they want

> Objectively true, I'm sure, but speaking
> subjectively as a certifiable old bag, I am
> proud of my clear, tat-free skin.