I should probably get in early and buy the removethatbutterflyaboveyourass.com domain.
That’s why I shake my head at people who say tattoos are going to go out of style. No they aren’t going to go out of style, they’re permanent. The 20 year old with the barbed wire bicep tattoo is going to have that tattoo for the next 60 years.
Maybe kids a decade from now will stop getting new tattoos, but it’s going to take half a century for the current crop of tattooed kids and middle aged housewives to die.
Let’s face it, she has grotesquely ugly feet even without a tattoo. Blotchy skin, cankles, and big ass gross veins. Sorry, but this does not look like how a professional should look, unless the profession is that of a carnival worker. Wear some boots, socks, or opaque tights and she’d look better.
That’s not what they mean, of course. But they’re probably not going out of style, since young people are much more likely to get tattoos than the overall population. People do seem to insist they’re going out of style, but I don’t see it. Maybe the frequency of people getting new tattoos will go down at some point, but like I said, it’s gone mainstream, which means it’ll be a thing some sizable minority of the population continues to do. C’est la vie (right?).
Yeah 20 years is a pretty long “fad”.
Those statistics show the 18-25 group as having fewer tattoos than the 26-40 age group.
I’m a professor at a large state university, and I have noticed a significant decline in tattoos among undergraduates. Not scientific, of course, but very noticeable.
The age group I’m noticing here in the NW that is most likely to have a lot of tattoos is pretty much heading to middle age.
Could just be me.
Unfortunately.
Anyway, tattoo removal has surged by 440% over the past decade, just for another statistic which informs the issue.
Not OP related, but…
I don’t agree. It’s been close to 40 years since tattoos have crossed over from motorcycle gangs and early punk rockers to the mainstream, and at least 20 since people started saying “it’s inevitable, tats will become more and more ubiquitous as more young people enter the workforce.” Well, no. Fashions come and go. There is nothing different about tattoos - nobody is forced to get one anymore than someone was forced to get a mohawk or shave their head - it was a choice and people’s choices change all the time.
My experience is that we are at an equilibrium. Tattoos aren’t anymore popular now than they were in 2000. In less than a decade, more people with tats will be leaving the workforce than entering it simply due to demographics. There are a huge number of people who were under 35 in 1990 who are approaching retirement and have tattoos.
My impression is that things are close to being settled now. Visible tattoos, while a non factor in many settings, are still not accepted in many, if not most, conservative and traditional occupations where facing the public is a part of the job. I don’t see any reason why that would change if it hasn’t by now.
It’s entirely possible (though unlikely, IMO) that tattoos will be seen in five years as old fashioned as chicken a la king and mullets with zubaz.
The second age group has more money and independence, as well as more time to pick one. And it’s just plain larger. The Harris poll showed the percentage of tattooed people 18-24 just about doubled in the last decade.
That’s definitely not what the numbers say.
I’ve also seen grandmothers with shoulder tats and baggy arms wearing tank tops at the state fair. If anything can make tattoos less attractive as signs of entry into edgy young adulthood, the growing number of tattooed old people might.
Am I bothered that many places of employment have no problem with tasteful ink? No. Am I bothered that some places of employment require no visible ink? Also no.
She should not be fired. She can be required to cover it up, with socks or stockings or pants.
"I think those look stupid’ is not a valid defense, as just as many may find the tattoo stupid. Especially if some of those people are the job’s customers.
Let’s think about that one for a second.
Yes, one possible interpretation is the previous generation 18-25 group got most of the tattoos among adults in the US and is now in the older group, and the younger group while still heavily tattooed compared to several generations ago is not getting them as much as the immediately preceding generation, which jives with my own personal observation about the fewer visible tattoos exhibited by a current large cohort–the undergraduate population of a large state university.
ETA: but this digressions is not germane to the OP; probably best to drop it.
Y’know it’s really astonishing how long that bit of wisdom has been floating around. I remember (vaguely) watching a rerun of The Real McCoys (a show that ran from 1957-1963) in which a character was showing off a new tattoo he’d just gotten. And an older character (not Walter “Grampa” Brennan, though, IIRC) felt the need to pipe up with: “That’s on forever now; hope ya like it.” Or words to that effect.
I’ll just mention again my link above thread showing a 440% increase over the past decade in tattoo removal.
She (still) does not deal with customers. She’s a lawyer and appears to have been hired by the company on a temporary contract, and that company seems to have started enforcing this policy after she started there. It’s true that she might not be making much of an effort to comply with its policy, but perhaps you can see where the demand might comes off as unreasonable. “Buy a new wardrobe or a bunch of new shoes so you can comply with a demand a company that’s giving you a temporary job made up after it hired you” would probably annoy a lot of people.
You already mentioned this “data point.” I thought you were dropping it because of its irrelevance.
It is entirely relevant to the hypothesis that the popularity of tattoos might be waning.
ETA: and also directly pertinent to the comments from the post above mine, and its quoted post.
Which still isn’t relevant to the original topic, but in any case, I don’t see the connection. I think if people get their tattoos removed, it’s probably because they’ve decided they don’t like them or want them anymore - not just because tattoos are less popular in a general way (and that proposition still runs counter to the evidence). If tattoos are less popular, the bigger indication would be fewer people getting them, not more people getting them removed. To put it another way, your article says the tattoo industry has $3.4 billion in annual revenue. The tattoo removal industry is 2% of that and the article says tattoo removal revenue is expected to grow on pace with the rest of the industry.
That’s not the only interpretation, but you’re right that this discussion is not germane to the OP, so I’ll drop it.
I think it looks like a tramp stamp in the wrong place, but I’m no expert.
I agree. I read a complaint by a guy who couldn’t get a job because of his tattoo, and whined on for several paragraphs about how “Tattoo was the new Black,” or something like that. It turned out that he had a skull tattoo over half his face. He looked like an extra in a zombie movie.
How’d you like to be in a car accident, and the EMT who comes over to start your IV has that tattoo? Or even the guy selling you a new car?
Now, I realize that most people don’t have that tattoo, but because some people do, trying to write legislation that says twee little insects, or your soulmate’s initials are OK, but profanity and images of death are not starts to get tricky. Maybe puppies vs. zombies is easy, but what about a picture of your dead BFF, with RIP under it, or religious imagery, like bleeding Jesus? (My Jewish kid, who isn’t familiar with Christian symbolism, saw a guy’s huge back tattoo of a crucified Jesus, dripping blood, when the kid was about 4, and he got really scared.)
It’s better to allow employers to ban tattoos if they wish. As for ones that are never visible, well, don’t ask, don’t tell. They can’t exactly strip-search you.
There are also some excellent cosmetic concealers that will fully cover up a tattoo, especially if there is something like nylons over it as well, that a tattooed person working in a professional capacity might want to look into. It’s not a solution for everyone, and frequently covering a full sleeve might become expensive, but for one of the smaller, solitary examples of ink it might be a solution.
I realize, of course, this will probably offend some people but anti-tattoo prejudice is out there and will not vanish entirely this generation, if ever. Options are good. It’s no different than deciding on placing a tattoo someplace easily or not-so-easily concealed by clothing.