Tattoos

[SAINT_X]

Again...I hope I haven't offended anyone and apologize if I have.

I will add that I have seen tattoos that I felt were subtle and interesting.

[Jovan the Un1337]

Perhaps they just considered them part of primitive culture that they had moved beyond by The Enlightenment and beyond.

What is your glitch? You keep saying "sorry" yet keep making very generalised statements about people who have tattoos based on your, apparently, very limited experience.

[Atlantic Sailor]

Interesting to contemplate why they generally did not feel the need...it isn't like tattoos didn't exist in their time. Perhaps they just considered them part of primitive culture that they had moved beyond by The Enlightenment and beyond.

I think they just missed the cresting of the fad. If you run a search, you can find endless pictures of science and math related tattoos. If Einstein was a 20's patent clerk in 1998, he'd probably be sporting a tribal band along with his equation. The girls his age would have the famous lower back tattoos along with some small work elsewhere. Just depends on the whims of fashion.

Tattoos were the mark of the exotic or undesirables for many years in Western societies. Coming from cultures that were seen as backwards, tattoos in developed nations they were the near exclusive provenance of sailors stationed in far off areas (like the Asiatic Squadron). The other segment (often overlapping with the first) to have tattoos was loosely organized criminal organizations. Then tattoos started to gain cachet among sets looking to express their rebellion and individuality. What better way than to get something shocking like a tattoo? So, you saw an explosion of their popularity in 1990s. Now, as that sets grows up, you see the growth industry in tattoo removal. So, the fad fades for a few decades. I'm sure it'll resurge in the future with even more shocking developments than black light ink and fluorescent colours. Until then the industry will subsist on sailors, motorcycle gangs and prisoners.

[Costi]

Until then the industry will subsist on sailors, motorcycle gangs and prisoners.

I am sure this is not entirely true, because I also have tattoed friends who don't fall in either of the above categories. I don't consider any of them elegant and I am sure they don't view themselves as such either or even strive for this - apropos the name of the LL subforum where we are posting this.
Still, what I would like to ask Jovan, who seems to have more experience with the whys and wherefores of tattoing, is why do people who are not sailors (Atlantic or not ), motorcycle gang members or prisoners get tattoos and what do they have in common? I ask this because I know many who wanted to get "a tattoo" generically, choosing a design from a collection of pictures - which means it does not always carry a personal significance; a tattoo for the sake of it, as it were - why? As for those to whom the tattoo does have a meaning, what is it that makes them want to print this important message on their bodies? The fact that it is like a lifelong vow, being indelible (although nowadays it can be removed)? Is it the innitiatic ritual of the pain they go through while it is being made? I am referring mainly to "western" cultures, because elsewhere the motivations may be different.

[Jovan the Un1337]

Costi, as I pointed out in my example, I don't like people generalising about tattoo wearers because I know many who are hardly bad boys/girls yet have many.

As for the people who just want "a tattoo" and pick from a book -- they probably should not get them. Getting a tattoo just for the sake of getting one is kind of dumb, and I personally feel that tattoo shops shouldn't even have a book of defaults since it kind of defeats the point of every one being unique.

I don't pretend to know why they do it. I think that is their own business. I have considered getting one myself, though.

My point is, don't pigeonhole people into categories. They don't always fit. I know elegant people with tattoos and inelegant people who have none and wouldn't dare think of "ruining" their skin that way. Add to that, many people in gentle society (including monarchy) have had tattoos.

Also, let's be real here. There are many people who think that bespoke clothing is a waste when you can get RTW. Wouldn't you defend yourself if those people made sweeping generalisations like, "those people are uptight" and "they all have too much disposable income"? Better yet, the people who think any sartorialists Must Be Gay if they like clothes so much. Try to understand where I'm coming from here and you'll see why these tattoo discussions -- which always include negative stereotypes from people who don't even know tattoo wearers -- on every clothing forum I've been on thus far piss me off to no end.

[Costi]

Dear Jovan,

I actually agree with you that prejudice and generalization do not EXPLAIN things - read the first line of my post. But I also think prejudice must be fought with arguments, so that those who generalize would understand why they are wrong. I was expecting a pleading from you and instead I only found out that you are... angry - well, with your own choice of words - but you are not sure why, either, except you feel someone holds a prejudice against a tattooed woman you had a crush on. It is impossible to defend something you don't understand or cannot explain. Perhaps you would like to try again. Take yourself as an example, if you don't know what is in other people's heads: why are you thinking of getting a tattoo, what would it be, where would have it?... Try to shed some light here and redeem tattoos from the commonplace of prejudice you say they are.

[SAINT_X]

Perhaps they just considered them part of primitive culture that they had moved beyond by The Enlightenment and beyond.

What is your glitch? You keep saying "sorry" yet keep making very generalised statements about people who have tattoos based on your, apparently, very limited experience.

You've converted me!

Mine shall say..."Nostalgie De La Boue"

And it will be ever so fraught with meaning.

Why would you assume that my experience with them is limited? Because I fail to agree with you on this subject?

Why do take issue with me making generalized statements when those very people I am discussing have gone to such trouble to make themselves available for generalization. Do they not, for the most part, want to be generalized into 1 of 3 or 4 subgroups ?
You really think most of the tattooed are independent thinkers? That Independent thinking led them to become tattoed? From my perspective, I actually find it kind of humorous that a serious person could even consider that a possibility..

Again, there are exceptions...perhaps that means you.

[Jovan the Un1337]

Again, you make no attempt to go beyond your preconceived notions of who people with tattoos are. It's prejudice and you know it.

You're obviously only trying to rile me up at this point and have nothing more constructive to say in your five posts here. Grow up.

[Costi]

Again, you make no attempt to go beyond your preconceived notions of who people with tattoos are.

But WHO ARE THEY?