I was looking through a recently published Playboy book (for research purposes obviously) and I noticed that none of the fifty-seven women in this book had a visible tattoo.
This would not have been the case five years ago. There would have been tattoos on ankles, shoulder blades, lower backs, arms, pubic areas, etc. But this group of women seem to have none.
It seems unlikely that Playboy decided to start photoshopping out tattoos after not bothering for several years. And fifty-seven woman seems like a significant sample size.
So has the popularity of women getting tattoos passed?
Possibly. Most of the tattoos on women that i’m seeing these days are quite large traditional style pieces. Japanese style back pieces, half sleeves, and the like. Usually bright full color pieces as well. these are a significant investment of time and money, so less people are likely to get them.
Everybody and their grandma seems to have one, and yet …
They’ve never reached critical mass and gone mainstream (I don’t think?)
15 years ago, I thought tattoos were a fad. But it’s 2010, and I see more than ever. In 2050, will tattoos seem like “something your grandparents did”? Will going inkless ever be “subversive” while having tats is something “the squares” do?
The answer to those questions is “almost certainly not”, but I’m not sure why. Maybe because of the virtual permanence of tattoos – you can’t take then off like clothes, or grow 'em out/cut 'em like you can hairstyles. Tattoos almost seem to lie in their own universe, apart from common fashions or trends.
My WAG on this is that Playboy has made a conscious decision not to show ink in this case. Going even further out on the limb, I would guess the audience for any paper-based porn, and particularly Playboy, skews to old guys, who as a group have a relatively low tolerance for tramp stamps and big colorful tats on their fantasy objects. My unscientific research into the bodies of barely-legal babes suggests that tattoos (not to mention piercings) are as prevalent as ever.
I think this is more about Playboy than it is about society. I suspect your memory is faulty with regard to their previous treatment of tattoos.
They also differentiate between centerfolds and celebrity models - if Megan Fox poses for them, they’re going to leave her tats in because people want to see Megan Fox. If it’s some random college chick, they’ll airbrush them, because nobody cares.
I’ll have you know that my Playboy research is very thorough and has been ongoing since the seventies. My work in this field has been widely published. (Wikipedia counts as publishing, right?)
Seriously, one sample group doesn’t make a trend. But it wouldn’t surprise me if there was such a trend. Fashions have always changed. And tattoos have now been around long enough that trendy teenagers are probably starting to think, “A tattoo? Ewww. That’s the kind of thing old women in their thirties do.”
I agree. And I know Playboy is iconic, but I don’t think Playboy reflects anything about society in general. It reflects Playboy’s management and Playboy readers. And on top of that, models have a professional reason not to get a tattoo: it can cost you a job if the client doesn’t want someone with a tattoo.
In a country with, give or take, 150 million women? Even if you narrow it down to the age group where tattoos are the most popular, which is probably women from 20 to 40 or so, 57 is not a lot of people. I’m sure there are actual surveys that deal with this.
That’s quite the self-contradiction.
Nah. They’re a little too much effort for most people, even if they don’t carry much of a social stigma anymore. Socially I think they’ll end up with a niche similar to the way non-ear piercings have a particular niche.
Anyway, I came in here to say, my WAG is Photoshop, and the fact that people who know what they’re doing with it are cheaper and more common than they used to be.
My daughter just finished her freshman year in a college that’s on the leading edge of trends. The students still smoke pot, and piercings seem to be going on quite strongly, but tattoos? No. I usually take her to lunch every other week, and her dorm was virtually tattoo free.
There was a large tattoo parlor on “The Hill” (The main shopping/dining/drinking area) in Boulder. It’s not there anymore.
No, it really isn’t. I don’t know how many chicks had tattoos when you were in college, but I can guarantee it’s fewer than the number that did in the late nineties and early 2000s.
Did you do *naked inspections *of everyone in there? I know plenty of people–myself included–who have tattoos that aren’t always visible. (For instance, I specifically picked the location of mine to be covered up when I’m in business dress.)
And on the other side of anecdote street, they just opened up yet another tattoo parlor in my town, bringing the total up to 10 or 12 of them. 15 years ago, there was a single shop downtown, now you’ve got options all over the city. Few of them go out of business, and they all seem to stay busy.
The place I work hires a lot of temp workers, many of them college students. They seem to be a pretty heavily tattooed bunch. (Mostly crappy tattoos, IMHO.) However… I’m here in the great fly-over, Bush, Cheney, Palin, Rush loving mid west and when a style or fashion or fad is big here that means it is long dead in the trendy, style making centers of the country.
Oh meant to add that like the poster above said, tattoo shops seem to be the major growth industry around here, I see new ones all over the place. Wasn’t that long ago they were illegal here.
