I don’t have tattoos, but I have been skanky once in a while. Aside from the fact that my clean appearance misrepresents myself as a non-skank, I feel like I’m missing out on all the fun. Since I’m over 40, I’m pretty sure a visible tattoo would scare away women of my age and make me even more neurotically self-conscious. Besides which, needles scare me.
So, maybe non-permanent tattoos on a hidden body part should be my thing – you know, the kind that washes out after a month. I’m thinking of a tiger on my bicep. It would have to be a small tiger though. Maybe an ocelot instead. I wonder if there are tattoos of ocelots.
Does anybody ever get naked with someone and have fun applying temporary tattoos on each other?
I don’t like tatoos or piercings on either gender. That doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t do it, but your beliefs contrary to mine will not diminish my opinion that they generally make the person look skanky. Really, deep-down skanky to the bone. But I’m an old fart, too, so you can value my opinions as much as I valued the style opinions of people of my parents’ generation.
Obviously people who get tattoos think they’re great. That’s kind of a meaningless defense, when a guy is expressing an opinion of his own. Sure, he ranted on a bit in a rather militant fashion, making demands and pronouncements, but clearly it’s just an opinion. If you can’t see that, then you’re being deliberately difficult.
You like tattoos - why else would you get one? Some people, like myself, don’t really like tattoos at all. They tend to be symbolic of a certain kind of person, they have a certain reputation. To some that reputation is ‘skanky’. To me, it’s lack of individuality. They all think they’re being rebellious or unique - but they’re just conforming.
As I said earlier, it’s rebellious to not conform, and these days it’s a lack of tattoo or body-piercing that is rare (within certain age groups, anyway) and it’s almost an act of rebellion just with that.
Am I being rebellious by pointing out that the idea that “They all think they’re being rebellious or unique” isn’t worthy of more than a :rolleyes:, not to mention an argument thoroughly debunked by previous posters in the thread, or am I just stating the completely fucking obvious?
What ever happened to accepting the use of hyperbole? There seems to be way too many people jumping on others who use “all” or “everyone” as though they actually mean every single individual ever in the whole world, when really they’re just being expressive.
I’m sick of that bullshit. I say we should be allowed to use the word “everybody” even though we don’t actually mean everybody. For fuck’s sake.
Incorrect, at least at West Point. They follow Army standards (no tattoos visable while wearing Class A “dress” uniform) but do modify it so you also cannot have one visable while wearing Physical Training uniforms. So the place’s “prestige” does count and modify the rule, tattoos are still permitted pretty much like the rest of the Army.
Question for Guanolad and others who believe that those who get tattooed are ‘conforming to nonconformism’:
Do you ever really look at people’s tattoos? I mean, it seems like you’re trying to put all tattoos into the same ‘fashion’ category, when that simply isn’t possible.
I would agree heartily with your above statement were we talking only about, say, flash or other mass-produced artwork. But I still don’t think that most of you understand that it’s not a fashion statement. It’s not done for image at all, as a matter of fact.
I can appreciate that others are entitled to their opinion, and I’ve listened to those opinions with great interest, but what I don’t get is why those of us with tats get blown off as though we’re all mindless skanks unworthy of your time or effort.
This thread has shown how threatened most people can become when faced with something that doesn’t fit their standards of normal or logical.
Well, “threatened” may be more hyperbole. “Grossed out” can be appropriate, especially with certain piercings. “Struggling not to laugh in his face” could describe my reaction to YET ANOTHER junior rebel thinking he’s tough because he has barbed wire tattooed around his arm. “It’s been done” is my usual reaction to an assortment of piercings and tattoos topped off with a green, spiked Mohawk. But “threatened?” Sorry, but you give yourself far too much credit. You’re not that scary. :rolleyes:
And that’s not exactly what I meant. But apparently the whole thing tends to raise your hackles a bit, and you feel a need to assign some rationale to behavior that you don’t understand. Your defenses are raised a bit, and your mind is closed in the process. Therefore, in my mind that makes it seem as though it’s all a bit threatening as an overall idea.
How do you know that someone with a tattoo of barbed wire is trying to be tough? How do you know that it’s not symbolic of something personal to them?
I guess what I’m trying to get at is that no one has given any underlying rationale as to why they feel tattoos make one look skanky other than ‘they just do’. I’m not trying to change your mind, I just can’t understand what it is about having tattoos that makes you feel this way.
Umm… FWIW I think you are making a false dichotomy here. Tattoos may indeed be deeply personal and meaningful the to inked individual, but they are also (IMO) all about image and fashion. For the majority of individuals with newly inked visible tattoos I have talked to, they are mostly about a fashion and image statement the individuals want to make about themselves for others to see and respond to.
People’s objectives in projecting a fashion and image statement about themselves are often the product of intense consideration. To make a false distinction between these two aspects of self image is an affected pose that cannot be logically sustained. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I know several people with highly visible tattoos who are intelligent and articulate, but quite frankly they are in the minority. Most of the people I know with highly visible large tattoos are lower middle class and underclass people who are poorly educated but not at all un-intelligent. Interestingly the poorest and/or less well educated people are often the ones that seem to have given the most deliberation and thought to their tattoos and what they want them to represent.
Everybody’s got his own viewpoint. I see a bunch of tattoos and think “likely to wind up on the forensic pathologist’s examining table”, but that’s just jaundiced personal experience talking.
Conditioning and snobbery. When I was young the only people who had tattoos were bikers and other men, and men only, on the lowest rungs of society. In the 70s women started getting tattoos on their breasts, butts, and privates. Not the most upscale areas and the women who showed them off were women who showed said areas in public, like strippers and hookers. You know, skanks.
Since then I have made an effort to be more openminded about this issue, especially since many women I like and respect and don’t consider skanky have them. I have not been totally successful. Deep down I still associate tattoos with the dregs of society. It’s unbecoming of me but there it is and perhaps now you can understand why many people, especially those older than you, do not share your appreciation for body art.
Tattooing is a fad? Wow. People have been permanently imbedding pigments into their skin (“tattooing” to you and me) since the Paleolithic Era, folks. If that’s a fad, it’s a pretty goddamn tenacious one.
Man, the original thread was the closest I’ve come to pitting somebody practically since I started here, and I decided that I was getting to worked up over nothing and took a couple days away from the boards.
Now I come back, and see that the moron has gone and pitted himself over it. Dammit, this coulda been MY three page long thread!
So, instead, I’ll just call Maud’Dib a judgemental asshole, and since he hasn’t had the courage to stick his nose back into this thread and take the lumps he has comin’, I’ll add “pencil-dicked coward” on for good measure.
