gotta wonder how serious this guy was about getting the job when he talks about the difficulty of getting laid during the interview.
Or maybe it’s a generational thing?
“Requirement”? Probably not. I suspect young people get tattoos for the same reason they do anything that looks utterly ridiculous 5-10 years later. Because they think it looks cool to all other young people.
“stony waste matter separated from metals during the smelting or refining of ore.”
I’m pretty sure people of all nationalities and cultures “date”.
I am a male. I have one tattoo, I’d like to have more but it’s an expensive hobby.
I find attractive women with tattoos even more attractive. The Suicide Girls are amazing.
I realize not everyone feels the same way and that’s a-ok with me.
I could have written this post.
IDK how being tattooed affects dating prospects, other than that it varies from person to person, but tattoos in places like hands and necks DO appear to be a necessity to get a job nowadays. :smack:
It already is.
About 15 years ago, I was in a book club with a dermatologist, and the subject came up and I said, “I bet you make a lot of money off tattoo removals.” She replied that this is the only procedure where she required that cash, as in the green stuff, be paid upfront, because she’d been burned too many times. Most of the tattoo removal work she did at the time was pro bono, usually for people who got out of prison and wanted their facial and hand tattoos removed so they could get a job and move in “respectable” circles and stay out of future trouble.
My uncle, who is in his 70s, has a large scar on his forearm that looks like a burn scar, and when I was a little kid, I asked what had happened to him, as kids will do. He replied, “I had a tattoo removed!” and his whole demeanor said, “Don’t you EVER get one.” Back then, he had to have it surgically removed and replaced with a skin graft. :eek: My parents to this day do not know what that was, and honestly probably don’t want to know.
Why would you think that? Some people are into tattoos. There are far weirder things to find attractive. I think both of these things are neutral in terms of dating and career: some people are really into tattoos, some people really hate them, and most people don’t care much. Yes, if you get a big tattoo on your face it will probably affect your prospects in some careers. But I think most people who get a tattoo like that are aware of that going in and they’re probably not going to have one of those job.
Definitely not.
As with anything else, people do things for all sorts of reasons. Some of those reasons are dumb and some are not, but assuming people are doing something for stupid reasons just because you personally don’t like it is, well, dumb.
Until recently, you had to be 21 to get tattooed in Illinois, and most states won’t do them on minors, even with parental permission. That would not stop someone from going to an unlicensed artist, of course.
I’ve also heard that people should never get anyone’s name tattooed on themselves, not even their own children, and also not get a commemorative tattoo for at least 5 years after the event has happened. What do y’all think about that? I think it’s a good idea.
Personally, I would never have someone’s name inked on me. I do have a tattoo that references my daughter, but not her name (I call her my bug, so have a ladybug tattooed behind my right ear). I would never get a tattoo in honor of someone who dislikes tattoos, either. That’s just…weird, IMO.
I don’t know why it would be suggested to wait a certain time before a commemorative tattoo. I would suggest that a person find a very good artist, as nothing would be worse to commemorate a loved one with a shitty tattoo.
Looking at it cold-bloodedly, and speaking only of publicly-visible tattoos, people who are into tattoos tend to be more likely to accept an otherwise-attractive person without them, than people who are not into tattoos are to accept an otherwise-attractive person with them - it is more likely for the presence of tattoos to be a deal-breaker than the absence of them to be a deal-breaker, in terms of numbers.
This goes doubly for careers, as there are few jobs in which absence of tattoos is a deal-breaker, and many in which presence of them is a deal-breaker.
The positive effect of tattoos is to make a person more attractive to those who are into tattoos - which of course may well be enough: a person getting tats may not care that the pool of dates is narrowed, if he or she is getting tons of hot action from tattoo-fanciers! But there is no doubt that it narrows the pool.
I have a bunch of tattoo work done by a good friend (and Pittsburgh ink icon). When he passed away in 1997 one of the ways we dealt with our grief was by getting together at his shop. Several artists did (free) memorial pieces. I got one that day and it was the right thing to do.
As a guess, I’d say it’s to make sure your perspective on the event doesn’t change. Sometime stuff seems HUGE at the time it happens but becomes relatively unimportant in a pretty short time, or something happens afterward that sours us on the event we once wanted to commemorate. I think about the number of people who want to get ink to celebrate/commemorate their new marriage, and the number of people who divorce acrimoniously within the first 5 years–it’s got to suck to be in the intersection of those groups.
Wouldn’t that probably be a minority of tattoos? It’s easy to cover up a tattoo on your arms, legs, or torso if you want to.
Is it?
Again, same deal: I don’t think most tattoos are publicly visible. And I think most people who get a visible tattoo that might affect their career prospects are probably aware of that fact ahead of time (the tattoo is evidence that they’re fine with this).
But that being the case, does it matter if the pool gets narrowed? People who make these arguments tend to approach these matters from a weirdly theoretical perspective- as if you could get any career you want or any date you want until you got the tattoo. The reality of it is that lots of choices narrow our career and dating options, and it’s unlikely that a tattoo will significantly reduce your dating or career possibilities. Even if it does, what are the chances you’ll be unable to get a job or a date because of it?
The older I get, the less worked up I find myself about choices people make about their own lives.
I don’t have any tottoos myself, but if I ever found myself out in the dating pool, the question if there is permanent ink on a body would be so far down on the list that I wouldn’t be able to read it without new glasses.
Do we like each other?
Is she a good person?
Am I attracted to her personality?
etc., etc.
Of course, there was my friend’s new girlfriend, sporting a rather flashy one just at her plunging neckline. We’re all having coffee and trying not to stare and figure out what it was.
Probably NO jobs where the absence is a deal-breaker. Anecdote: Several years ago, I read an update about the Kienast quintuplets, who are now about 40 years old. They have two older siblings, and one of them was, at the time, an award-winning tattoo artist who had no tattoos or even piercings himself. He liked to do them, but didn’t want any of them himself.
However, whenever I walk at the mall, it seems that their absence might be at the businesses there. :dubious:
There is no way of knowing, since other than people you know intimately, you only notice if someone has visible tatoos. Hence, restricting the analysis to them.
Absolutely. How often is the sentiment expressed “I will never date anyone without a visible tatoo”?
They may well be “fine with this” at age 20, only to discover that they are no longer “fine with this” at age 35.
In any event, whether they are or are not “fine with this” isn’t the issue–the issue is whether it narrows prospects, not whether someone is okay with having their prospects narrowed.
Maybe not. Which is what I said.
Hence what I wrote - that this is a “cold blooded” analysis and that a person who is getting lots of hott attention from tattoo-fanciers (or plans to work all their lives in an occupation comfortable with tattoos) may not care in the slightest.
That doesn’t stop the point from being true - that having visible tats narrows your options in various ways. What you do with that truth is, of course, up to the individual. As you say, lots of choices narrow your options in life. So why resist the fairly reasonable point that this one does?
The issue of course is whether the cost of narrowed options is “worth it” to the individual under their individual circumstances. That can only be answered by that individual.
Of course. But if that’s a minority of tattoos, which I think it is, and a minority that may not be representative of the larger group at that, then how much does it mean?
You could say this about anything- including a lot of things you can’t cover with a shirt sleeve.
I’m not resisting the point. I’m doubting its relevance. I’ll concede the point for the sake of argument even though I’m not sure how true it is in the first place.
Tattoo lady at the circus? 