Very seriously the fact that the tattoo removal industry was up 440% in revenue from 2005 to 2015 says something. There’s more spending being done in the U.S. to remove tattoos than to get them.
Still the question I think was poorly phrased. I think the intent was to ask when did they cease to be “edgy” and become “mainstream”? At one point they were a mark of nonconformity and “outsider” status and now, not. For the Millennials they are now virtually a mark of conformity. When did that transition occur?
It’s more likely that indiscriminate tanning is to blame, rather than makeup. Tanning and smoking are possibly the worst things you can do to your skin.
I’ll partially agree with you in that I don’t like seeing face/neck tattoos on people in professional/public interation-type roles - seeing a police officer with a neck tattoo doesn’t make feel reassured, for example.
Otherwise I actually quite like tattoos as art and have no problem with people having as many as they like elsewhere on their bodies - but face/neck tattoos are an instant negative reaction for me.
Plus there is a huge genetic component. Some people win the skin lottery. Few wrinkles, few blemishes, no significant scarring from acne, not to oily - not to dry. Win the skin lottery and you might be able to get away with a sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle and still manage to simply look your age, rather than like the crypt keeper.
I had a perm back when I owned a powder blue leisure suit. I’m thankful I don’t have to wear that same powder blue leisure suit every day for the rest of my life.
I happened to be at lunch with a table full of shrinks one day. One of them was doing a study correlating tattoos and mental instability, specifically body dysmorphic disorder. I wish I could read his finished work, because I think he was onto something. IMNSHO, tattoos seem more “acceptable” these days because more people are accepting mental disorders as being the new norm.
I’ve seen numbers where over 40%(?) (30%?) of certain demographics have tattoos there’s no way that that many people could have that type of a mental disorder. I call bullshit on the claim.
Agreed. About 90% of my family under the age of 40 have tattoos. (And 30% of those over 40) They’re all perfectly normal. I don’t have one, but I have no objection whatsoever.
Both. Given the nature of tattoos, it’s hard to hide them in a closet or donate them to Goodwill like a pair of leg warmers. Everybody has them and they are uncool.
My son turned eighteen and is legal age for tattoos. He’d given himself two in middle school because they were “cool” - he’s been eighteen for six months and no ink has shown up on his body.
He is a skateboarder - if any kid ten years ago would run off to get a tattoo on their eighteenth birthday ten years ago, it would be my son. Plus, I’m not fond of them, so its an awesome way to piss off Mom. But my husband got one, and I think that killed any desire in my son.
Tattoos are ubiquitous, which means some people in some circles now regard them as passe.
There’s no perfect analogy but… I can remember the moment in the Seventies when long hair stopped meaning “I’m a free spirit and a rebel” and started meaning “I’m a blue collar dude and/or red neck who hates free spirits.” Freddy Mercury traded his long hair for a buzz cut right when Skynyrd fans and hard hats started wearing their hair long.
Long hair and tattoos are very common, but no longer mean what they once did to people who pioneered them.
I’m afraid you’ve missed the moment. The full beardy look got revived a few years ago in gay culture, and then started spreading to fashion. It’s since gone mainstream, and seems to be on the way out again. We’re probably in for another round of cleanshaven, or edgy stubble, before we cycle back through facial hair again.
Back in the 90s tattoos became part of the non-conformist uniform. Now it is non-conformist to think they are ugly. So yes, in that sense they are passe. No longer a style statement, but something every white-bread suburbanite runs out to get as soon as they are old enough.
Just because something is ubiquitous does not mean it is not passe.
Tattoos used to “mean something” now all they mean is that you can afford a tattoo.
Not sure why you are quoting me since your reply doesn’t seem to have any relevance to anything I said.
You apparently think something should be up to the person acquiring the tattoo. You don’t say what. So I don’t know whether to agree or disagree with you.
Society decided tattoos meant something, namely that you were outside the mainstream if you got one. Society doesn’t think they mean that anymore. That’s how fads work. They start out as something only the cool kids know about and end up as something the cool kids avoid like the plague.
This sounds like Yogi Berra’s old quip that “Nobody goes there (to Toots Shor’s bar) any more- it’s always too crowded.”
I’m old enough to remember the Sixties and Seventies, when a tattoo marked one as either a former Marine, a former sailor, or a redneck, and when no educated or middle class person of either gender would ever get one.