People have been tattooing for various reasons including religious, civil and decorative since prehistory. It is one of the oldest forms of two dimensional art. The placement and subject matter changes, but the practice has not.
I suspect the opposite; tattoos are so common now that there’s bound to be a backlash. Tattoos will be a sign that you’re a certain age (i.e., old), and the kids will stay far away.
The people who bought into the tattoo trend will be overweight 40-year-old soccer moms in a few years, and there is no way that kids will follow that. Tattoos survived because soccer moms weren’t getting them. Now that’s the largest tattooed demographic, and a damn good indicator that the trend is about to bust.
I’m not so sure about that. I think that the type of tattoo will be the indicator. Kids who don’t want to be like their parents will avoid the cutsie little cartoon characters, astrological signs and Native American images around the bicep but not tattoos altogether.
Not seeing it. I live and work on a college campus and tattoos are scarce. Pretty much the only people under the age of 25 with tattoos are hipster wannabes. And when hipsters go the way of the beatnik and the mod haircut tattoos will become even more niche.
Things must be wildly different in Chicago then, because I have a college-aged kid who is decidedly not a “hipster”, yet has a tattoo, as do most of her also-non-hipster friends. I also work on a grad school campus amidst a sea of undergrad campuses, and tattoos are the farthest thing in the world from scarce.
Well, if we’re talking personal experience, I live and work in a college town. I am good friends with the owners and employees of several of the tattoo shops in town, and business is going well even in the recession. College kids are getting more and more tattoos all the time. Everything from groups coming in to get their frat letters or team logos to some very fine custom work on individuals. One newer trend seems to be women getting big pieces on the outside of their thighs, where they can be exposed in short shorts or skirts but covered more easily in future jobs.
And I’m not exactly in a booming metropolis or hipster haven. We’re talking football colleges, not art schools.
That was exactly the guys attitude - before he got his tattoo!
I used to work for a major credit card company, and my predecessor for one of my positions had full sleeve tattoos. He wore long sleeved shirts every day, even on the hottest summer days, because it would have been frowned on to have them showing at work. He was perfectly willing to work within that restriction, though, and is still very successful in the corporate world.
He’s directing it at those with an impaired sense of humor.
AKA, he was directing it at me, move along, ain’t nuthin’ to see here.
/me Do I change my Custom User Title to ‘retarded hyperbole’?
I am severely disappointed in you. The only reason you don’t do unethical things is because they’re illegal?
Seriously, Cat. I thought way better of you than this. 
That’s a disturbingly defensive way to end a post.
No, that’s absolutely how the threads here dealing with tattoos and piercings go. As you should have been able to see by the course of this one before you even posted.
Hey, your box of Crackerjacks came with a psychology degree, too, huh? Wow!
I also work in insurance, and before that, I spent years doing a boring analyst job for a bank. Very conservative crowd of people who still wore Polo shirts on casual Friday (even though tee shirts were allowed). My two visible tattoos have never caused a problem. I don’t know what planet these people are living on where tattoos or piercings are barring them from employment. Just don’t get a tattoo of an electric ice cream cone on your face, and you’ll be fine.
I confess, although I cannot offer a rational explanation: If I had two programmers of equal quality and one had visible tattoos I would hire the other one.
Your title is pretty good, I think I would leave it. I think Retarded Hyperbole would be better as a user name.
Well, I balance you out.
Sorry to disappoint you. 
I don’t consider choosing to hire someone without tattoos over someone with visible tattoos to be unethical in any way; I consider it to be part of the decision-making process when looking at candidates for a job and weighing your options. One person did not choose to have visible tattoos, and the other person did; I would prefer to not hire the person who thought getting visible tattoos was a good idea.
See above for my rationale.
As would I.
Fuck what anyone else says. If YOU are having any second thoughts about the tattoo, for any reason, don’t get it.
If you feel the need to check for public approval before getting your tattoo, don’t get it.
Not if you ever plan on looking for a new job.
Like many folks, it’s one of the areas where she’s not mature enough to see past the issue that bothers her. Hopefully she’s not in a position where she serves the public, as her prejudice against tattoos appears to be severe enough for her to not be able to treat people ethically if she sees them at all.
I’ve worked in a number of environments where tattooing was acceptable but expected to be covered in certain situations. If I were in a hiring situation where I had to choose between someone who was tattooed and someone who was not, their skills otherwise being equal, I’d probably base it on whose personality I liked better, regardless of tattoos and tattoo subject matter. Mind you, if they were dealing with the public, a swastika on the forehead would probably not get them past the first interview with me, even as a tattooed person. Though facial tattooing can be really interesting and well-done, it’s rarely a great indicator of prudence when choosing to be tattooed.
[QUOTE=Sierra Indigo]
Fuck what anyone else says. If YOU are having any second thoughts about the tattoo, for any reason, don’t get it.
If you feel the need to check for public approval before getting your tattoo, don’t get it.
[/QUOTE]
Fully agreed. This is a decision that ultimately is your own, not ours to make for you.
My comment is made as someone who has a visible tattoo, on the inside of my left wrist, and I make no particular effort to cover it.
I didn’t consult anyone besides my tattooist before getting it, because I wanted it, it means something to me, and most importantly I don’t give a sweet, biscuitty fuck what anybody else thinks about it. It’s my body, the tattoo doesn’t affect my work or my demeanour in any way (I was this unpleasant BEFORE I got the ink ;)) so it’s nobody else’s business.
Incidentally, despite that I’m the only person in my office with a visible tattoo, I’ve had approximately 3 comments at work in the 7 months since I got it. And all three of them were “Is that a tattoo? Did it hurt to get that there?” or something along those lines.
But if the first thoughts when considering any sort of body modification are “Should I?” “Is this a good idea” or “What will xx think of it?”, then no, you probably shouldn’t. You do it for you, or you don’t do it at all.