Moderator: Moderators
Demi wrote: I have no tattoos. I just find it odd why someone would go out of their way to judge someone elses decision. I've seen plenty of people with tattoos and I never think "gee, they're pathetic!". I can only assume it's a self-esteem thing because I'm not sure what else it could be.
Because they're passionate about something? Or as a memorial to someone? To recognize the importance of something to them? Or heck, maybe just because they can.TrenchGoon wrote: ...so if its not to look "cool" and "tough" why do you think there has been such an increase in the prevalence and trendiness of tattoos?
so is it your opinion that people in the generation we are discussing have become more passionate, or like memorials more, or have more things that are important to them than previous generations and this has manifested itself in the form of tattoos?Demi wrote: Because they're passionate about something? Or as a memorial to someone? To recognize the importance of something to them? Or heck, maybe just because they can.
that makes sense, and I think that when people make a concerted effort to "fit in" or "be cool" they almost without fail look incredibly silly, especially once that standard of "fitting in" is no longer current and we have a little perspective.jackal wrote:I am sure there are hundreds of different reasons for getting them
but in my opion people are sheep and the wanted to do what they see other
people doing. (obviously someone who does a memorial tatoo to a loved
one or friend would not apply to this)
So it's to fit in? Then why do the majority of people not even have them? And anyway, why do you even feel the need to make a judgement based on something as simple as that? That's about as silly as me seeing you driving whatever it is you drive, and suddenly deciding to judge you based solely on that. Or what type of shoes you wear, clothes, or hell even your hair cut.TrenchGoon wrote: that makes sense, and I think that when people make a concerted effort to "fit in" or "be cool" they almost without fail look incredibly silly, especially once that standard of "fitting in" is no longer current and we have a little perspective.
That's what I was trying to say in the first place. I still think its true.
In response to what seems to be your main objection to my point of view, yes, I think you can tell a fair amount about a person by the way that they present themselves to the world. I'll bet you do too.Demi wrote: So it's to fit in? Then why do the majority of people not even have them? And anyway, why do you even feel the need to make a judgement based on something as simple as that? That's about as silly as me seeing you driving whatever it is you drive, and suddenly deciding to judge you based solely on that. Or what type of shoes you wear, clothes, or hell even your hair cut.
ouch! talk about damning demi and glg with faint praise.Samkon35 wrote:Like always Demi is right. Just like he is right about everything on here. Honestly Demi, glg, and I are the three smartest people on here. lol
PurpleMustReign wrote:
Yeah, after thinking about it more it does sound more and more lame. I want a Vikings something, but I don't know what?
hey zamboni. I think if someone is going to get a tattoo, the reason you have described for getting yours makes the most sense, though I personally think inking it into one's skin is an unnessesarily permanent method of self expression. I don't see a huge difference between the tacky and middle designations you have assigned, but I would say the vast majority of tattoos that I see would fall into that/those categories. using vikings players for example, Phil Loadholt and Jared Allen both would fall into those categories and both look stupid. Your friend loves wolves but regrets getting a wolf tattoo. She loves Mickey Mouse and that's more fitting? Won't she regret that too? Buy her a mickey mouse shirt and save her the trouble. Wolves and Mickey Mouse? Really? She wants to have that on her body for the rest of her life?zamboni14 wrote:yeah I know I am digging up an old topic... cut me some slack, I'm still "new" here. Think of it like "catching up" on beers after showing up late to a party
There are a few different types of "tattoos" that people do (IMO.) You have the "fad" people who do the really tacky things, those that want to express themselves, and those that are kind of in the middle.
Tacky- ever see a tattoo that is so meaningless on some one, that it's totally obvious that the person even considers it a mistake? The ones that put zero thought into what or where they are getting? This is a prime example of someone getting one "just for the hell of it" only to see how stupid it was 10+ years down the road. Think "ultra-preppy" with a "tribal" on his arm, or a snobby chick with a "tramp stamp."
Expression- this is where I land, I have 3 tattoos right now with at least 3-4 others still in the designing process. I have all 3 in locations that nobody sees unless I want to show them. None of what I will get will ever be visible unless I am not wearing a shirt or pants. If I don't know you, then I don't need some stranger coming up to me and questioning why I did it. Those who know me, know why I did them after they see them.
Middle- A close friend of mine likes wolves... note; LIKES not LOVES. She got a wolf howling at the moon on her back. I asked her one question; "why that?" Her answer? "I dunno, I thought it looked cool." Not even 5 years later she was wishing she would have done something more meaningful and personal. She is planning on getting a Mickey Mouse tattoo which is much more fitting to her because she's always LOVED Mickey Mouse. Another example, my wife has a small butterfly on her back... she wants another/different tattoo, but agrees that the butterfly was "stupid and girly" to get.
she won't regret the Mickey tat because it's something she's never grown out of. It's something that will never change about her. When she's in her 60s, she'll still love watching old Mickey Mouse cartoons, she'll still purchase Mickey Mouse things, etc. That's the difference with her.TrenchGoon wrote: hey zamboni. I think if someone is going to get a tattoo, the reason you have described for getting yours makes the most sense, though I personally think inking it into one's skin is an unnessesarily permanent method of self expression. I don't see a huge difference between the tacky and middle designations you have assigned, but I would say the vast majority of tattoos that I see would fall into that/those categories. using vikings players for example, Phil Loadholt and Jared Allen both would fall into those categories and both look stupid. Your friend loves wolves but regrets getting a wolf tattoo. She loves Mickey Mouse and that's more fitting? Won't she regret that too? Buy her a mickey mouse shirt and save her the trouble. Wolves and Mickey Mouse? Really? She wants to have that on her body for the rest of her life?
Especially in light of the fact that it seems the majority of people where I live have tattoos, it just seems silly to me. Its not rebellious anymore, its just standard. Its not cool or different. If you see a guy without tattoos on his arms you think he might be a rebel.
Furthermore, when a woman gets a tattoo she should be aware of the statement she is making. Namely, she is designating her body as something that can be written on, damaged, an object and she will be viewed as such. There's a reason its called a "tramp stamp" and that guys see a girl with tattoos and assume she is easy. She's saying, "My body is a piece of meat". I can understand and appreciate the sexual charge and titilation of that and if she wants to communicate that, more power to her, but she should be aware what she is telling the world.
