NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you feel about them? Do you have any? If not would you get one? Do you feel tattoos have lost their edge somehow?

I have one tattoo, myself. I don't know that tattoos have "lost their edge," since I still am surprised by the number of people who are utterly SHOCKED that I have one. I, personally, don't think tattoos are shocking, and I honestly didn't expect there would still be people who felt that way. I think tattoos have become much more mainstream, which is fine with me, and hopefully soon they will come to be regarded in much the same way that ear piercings are now.

How do you feel about them? Do you have any? If not would you get one? Do you feel tattoos have lost their edge somehow?

I have one, and will get more.

If you are worried about them 'losing their edge', I'd say you are thinking about them the wrong way - that is looking at them as a fashion statement, which is a fairly ridiculous way to think about permanent marking of your flesh...

Outlaw it.
No need whatsoever to tolerate bodymods.

I don't have any, but I've thought about getting one. Don't know what it would be, though - I have a few ideas, but nothing that I think would be particularly great. The only thing that would bother me would be what it looks like in 50 years time when I've gone all wrinkly.

Want to see some really bad tattoos? Go here! (http://www.capohedz.com/typebrighter/2005/10/really-bad-tattoos.html)

I have one, and will get more.

If you are worried about them 'losing their edge', I'd say you are thinking about them the wrong way - that is looking at them as a fashion statement, which is a fairly ridiculous way to think about permanent marking of your flesh...
It certainly is silly to look at tattoos the way one looks at clothing fashions, because fashions change pretty quickly and a tattoo is not going to change along with the current trends. However, I am perfectly fine with people getting a tattoo for no reason other than personal decoration. I don't think a tat needs to have any special meaning. It can just be a case of, "I think this looks cool, and it suits my personal style."

If you are worried about them 'losing their edge', I'd say you are thinking about them the wrong way - that is looking at them as a fashion statement, which is a fairly ridiculous way to think about permanent marking of your flesh...

I have 7 tattoos, so don't worry;) I do not see my tats as a "fashion statement", but a lot of idiots out there do. I love every one of mine and I put a lot of thought into getting something meaningful each time, something that I knew would be with me forever. They are becoming too mainstream and a lot of people today get them without putting any thought into them or with the idea they can have them zapped off later if they change their minds. Thats what I meant by losing their edge.

Don't have one, but i know they can be really sexy on someone else. I'm thinking the kind of 'target' tatoo on the small of the back.

Outlaw it.
No need whatsoever to tolerate bodymods.

Yavol, Mein Fuhrer! :rolleyes:

I have 7 tattoos, so don't worry;) I do not see my tats as a "fashion statement", but a lot of idiots out there do. I love every one of mine and I put a lot of thought into getting something meaningful each time, something that I knew would be with me forever. They are becoming too mainstream and a lot of people today get them without putting any thought into them or with the idea they can have them zapped off later if they change their minds. Thats what I meant by losing their edge.
I don't see any problem with this. People get piercings knowing they can always let them close up, after all, so what's wrong with that?

In my opinion, it's stupid to get a tattoo on a whim because it's expensive and painful (and often not completely possible) to get it removed. However, in my opinion it's also fucking stupid to ever buy a pair of white pants, because you ARE going to sit in something within 10 minutes of putting them on. I'm not about to tell people they can't waste their money on white pants, just like I'm not about to tell them they can't get a tattoo of their girlfriend's name on their ass.

I happened to put thought into my ink. I happen to find book-tats or wall-tats rather lame. I happen to find original designs much more interesting and attractive. And I happen to be very good friends with a girl who got an off-the-book butterfly tattooed above her ass crack, and at least four guys who find her tattoo far more enticing than mine. To each their own.

I would never consider having a tattoo and don't find them attractive but each to theri own.

Liasia']Don't have one, but i know they can be really sexy on someone else. I'm thinking the kind of 'target' tatoo on the small of the back.

Those tattoos on the lower back are called "tramp stamps" for a reason...:cool:

Outlaw it.
No need whatsoever to tolerate bodymods.

And no need whatsoever to not tolerate them. If you don't like it, ignore it, its not as if tatoos are damadging you personally.

i would like to get a tattoo cuz i like the look of them but until i'm absolutely sure what design i want i'm not going to get one done.

Those tattoos on the lower back are called "tramp stamps" for a reason...:cool:

Are they? Well, they are quite hot, regardless of their tramp status.

Eh, seems like a lot of work for something I'll probably regret. I regret most of my clothing and haircut styles from just a few years ago, so chances are its a bad idea to assume that the thing I get permanently inked on my body will still look great to me later.

Liasia']And no need whatsoever to not tolerate them. If you don't like it, ignore it, its not as if tatoos are damadging you personally.


Sure, it is not like yobbies wearing knives damage me personally.
No scars here...

The lack of damage doesn't strike me as relevant.

Sure, it is not like yobbies wearing knives damage me personally.
No scars here...

The lack of damage doesn't strike me as relevant.

Yes, because everybody with a tatoo is a chav or willing to rob you. Please.
So you don't think it is a bit arrogant to assume you can tell other people what to do with their bodies when it doesn't even affect you?

I have three, getting about 10 more I guess.

I don't look at my tatt's as a fashion statement, they're more like self-sacrifices in my own self-worshipping religion.

Liasia']Yes, because everybody with a tatoo is a chav or willing to rob you. Please.
So you don't think it is a bit arrogant to assume you can tell other people what to do with their bodies when it doesn't even affect you?

You mean there is zero relation between say.... tattooing and HIV?

What you suggest is that there is a grey area.
There is.
You may think the existence of grey is a reason to do nothing.
I think it is reason to apply strong Law and Order methods.

I've got one, I designed it myself, and I love it.
I didn't do it as a fashion statement, I did it because I wanted it. I'm a bit of an artist, and I felt like putting some of my art on my body permanently. I couldn't care less if I shock people or if people find me cool because of it. It's not in a place I show every day, although I can show it if I want to.

You mean there is zero relation between say.... tattooing and HIV?There is a greater than zero relation between being male and having HIV. I guess it's sex changes for all the chaps, then?

There is a greater than zero relation between being male and having HIV. I guess it's sex changes for all the chaps, then?

Perhaps a lifestyle change is a tad more effective... ;)

It's the same logic we apply to the dangers inherent in smoking.

You mean there is zero relation between say.... tattooing and HIV?

Yup. I'm pretty damn sure that they clean their instruments after doing artistry, and i have never heard of a case where someone caught a disease from a tatoo. Maybe piercings, but not a procedure that doesn't even draw blood.

There is a greater than zero relation between being male and having HIV. I guess it's sex changes for all the chaps, then?

There are females who are born with HIV, or catch it from a male who has it or through some other means.

Perhaps a lifestyle change is a tad more effective... ;)
Well, a "lifestyle change" is exactly what the tattoo industry has had since HIV hit. Instead of eliminating tattooing, they've greatly changed the way the ink industry is regulated and monitored. Health practices are strictly observed at every reputable establishment.

So, instead of requiring that all males get sex changes, we suggest that maybe males should refrain from dangerous and unhealthy practices that lead to HIV infection. Similarly, instead of banning tattoos, we suggest that maybe tattoo artists and tattooed individuals take precautions to avoid health complications.

Liasia']There are females who are born with HIV, or catch it from a male who has it or through some other means.
Um, yes, and I never said there were not.

Um, yes, and I never said there were not.

But you suggested changing sex to female would save everyone from AIDS. Which it wouldn't.

You mean there is zero relation between say.... tattooing and HIV?

What you suggest is that there is a grey area.
There is.
You may think the existence of grey is a reason to do nothing.
I think it is reason to apply strong Law and Order methods.

Bottom line is, you cannot control what people do with their own bodies. If I choose to tattoo the words FUCK YOU :upyours: on my forehead, I'm not huring anyone. Its my forehead, and I will have to live with that choice, it only affects me. So why should you care?

And while Incidences of HIV and tattooing do exist, they are relatively unheard of these days because good, responsible tattoo artists and educated consumers make sure all instruments are properly sterilized and/or new before use.

Liasia']But you suggested changing sex to female would save everyone from AIDS. Which it wouldn't.
I did not suggest any such thing.

Well, a "lifestyle change" is exactly what the tattoo industry has had since HIV hit. Instead of eliminating tattooing, they've greatly changed the way the ink industry is regulated and monitored. Health practices are strictly observed at every reputable establishment.

I. So, instead of requiring that all males get sex changes, we suggest that maybe males should refrain from dangerous and unhealthy practices that lead to HIV infection. II.Similarly, instead of banning tattoos, we suggest that maybe tattoo artists and tattooed individuals take precautions to avoid health complications.

I. *head askew*
As in outlawing gaiety?
Sorry, I don't think that is quite convincing.

Suggesting changes there isn't quite as effective as a systematic ( and quite dogmatic! ) campaign to marginalise practises of unsafe sex.

II. *shrug*
More red tape.
Just ban the entire thing altogether.

I did not suggest any such thing.

'There is a greater than zero relation between being male and having HIV. I guess it's sex changes for all the chaps, then?'
Looks like you suggested it to me.

Eh, seems like a lot of work for something I'll probably regret. I regret most of my clothing and haircut styles from just a few years ago, so chances are its a bad idea to assume that the thing I get permanently inked on my body will still look great to me later.

You are exactly the kind of person who should never get a tattoo!;)

I. *head askew*
As in outlawing gaiety?
Sorry, I don't think that is quite convincing.

Homosexuality does not have any impact on an individual's HIV status.


Suggesting changes there isn't quite as effective as a systematic ( and quite dogmatic! ) campaign to marginalise practises of unsafe sex.

Marginalization of unsafe sex practices is not acheived by forbidding individuals to have sex. Just as marginalization of unsafe tattooing practices is not acheived by banning tattoos. Indeed, quite the opposite; when tattooing is illegal, it is also far more unsafe. Legalization and regulation of the tattoo industry have led directly to the increased safety of these practices.


II. *shrug*
More red tape.
Just ban the entire thing altogether.
If your desire is to decrease HIV transmission, then this is not a viable option.

Not only do I have a tattoo, and not only am I planning on getting some more once I find a celtic design I want, but I also have several piercings, including one on my 'plumbing'!

Liasia']'There is a greater than zero relation between being male and having HIV. I guess it's sex changes for all the chaps, then?'
Looks like you suggested it to me.
Not at all. Read the conversation more carefully.

The other poster was suggesting that there is a relationship between HIV transmission and tattooing. This is, obviously, not saying that ALL PEOPLE WITH TATTOOS have HIV, nor was he claiming that all HIV positive people have tattoos. He was saying that people who have tattoos are more like to contract HIV.

I responded by pointing out that being male is also linked to increased likelihood of having HIV. This does not mean that ALL MALES HAVE HIV, or that being non-male guarantees that one will be HIV negative. It most certainly does not mean that an HIV positive male could be cured by undergoing a sex change opperation.

His argument was that because tattooing is linked to higher rates of HIV infection, we should ban tattooing. My response was that his logic therefore supports the idea that we should likewise eliminate maleness, since maleness is also linked to higher rates of HIV infection. Neither of us was suggesting that our proposed "bans" would eliminate all HIV infections.

Homosexuality does not have any impact on an individual's HIV status.


Marginalization of unsafe sex practices is not acheived by forbidding individuals to have sex. Just as marginalization of unsafe tattooing practices is not acheived by banning tattoos. Indeed, quite the opposite; when tattooing is illegal, it is also far more unsafe. Legalization and regulation of the tattoo industry have led directly to the increased safety of these practices.


If your desire is to decrease HIV transmission, then this is not a viable option.


The purpose - as always - is to maintain a minimum-friction society.
Not a thing achieved by individual choices - but instead by enforcing the decisions and choices of the majority.

I rather like your argument about the negative effects of banning tattooing, but I think I should add a caveat ( on a job otherwise well done! ):
The thing about tattoos is that they are highly visible.
You might get one on the sly - but IF you are spotted in public ( or by your nearest NHS-official ), the Peelers can still chuck you in the bin.

The purpose - as always - is to maintain a minimum-friction society.
Not a thing achieved by individual choices - but instead by enforcing the decisions and choices of the majority.

Whose purpose is that?

And since when is "minimal friction" achieved by attempting to supress any non-majority beliefs or activities? History has shown us anything but! The periods of greatest "friction" in our history have occurred precisely because a majority tried to enforce its vision of conformity across the board.

It seems to me that minimal friction would be achieved in a society that requires the least amount of conformity, because then there would be the fewest number of restrictions for people to chafe against.


I rather like your argument about the negative effects of banning tattooing, but I think I should add a caveat ( on a job otherwise well done! ):
The thing about tattoos is that they are highly visible.
You might get one on the sly - but IF you are spotted in public ( or by your nearest NHS-official ), the Peelers can still chuck you in the bin.
Actually, a great many tattoos aren't the least bit visible when people are out in public. Most people deliberately get tattoos in locations that can be covered or uncovered depending on the occasion.

Furthermore, I would venture to guess that maleness is slightly more visible than the average tattoo, so my argument would still stand. If tattoos should be banned because tattooing increases the likelihood of HIV transmission (something you have yet to support, by the way), then maleness should also be banned for the same reason. As should being poor. As should being under the age of 55.

Furthermore, I would venture to guess that maleness is slightly more visible than the average tattoo, so my argument would still stand. If tattoos should be banned because tattooing increases the likelihood of HIV transmission (something you have yet to support, by the way), then maleness should also be banned for the same reason. As should being poor. As should being under the age of 55.Damn.. Things aren't looking very promising for me, if BogMarsh has his way. I'm male, bisexual & tatoos cover most of my body...

I. Whose purpose is that?

II. And since when is "minimal friction" achieved by attempting to supress any non-majority beliefs or activities? History has shown us anything but! The periods of greatest "friction" in our history have occurred precisely because a majority tried to enforce its vision of conformity across the board.

III. It seems to me that minimal friction would be achieved in a society that requires the least amount of conformity, because then there would be the fewest number of restrictions for people to chafe against.


IV. Actually, a great many tattoos aren't the least bit visible when people are out in public. Most people deliberately get tattoos in locations that can be covered or uncovered depending on the occasion.

V. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that maleness is slightly more visible than the average tattoo, so my argument would still stand. If tattoos should be banned because tattooing increases the likelihood of HIV transmission (something you have yet to support, by the way), then maleness should also be banned for the same reason. As should being poor. As should being under the age of 55.

I. I'd say it is the Law and Prophets of British life, antedating Stone Henge by a fair margin. ( The abrupt cultural changes in Britain are not the result of invasions ( as previously thought ) but rather the result of people changing their minds together! ( cf Prior's Britain BC ) ).

II. I disagree. Friction is the result of failure to be utterly dogmatic about Conformity.

III. *unconvinced* Would you say that the kniving of Kiyan is the result of restrictions? I'd say it is the LACK of restrictions that is to blame!

IV. *whispered* as long as it is quite invisible, darned if I care.

V. I don't have to. Liam(?) wanted an argument, so I gave him one. Some kid or old biddie spraining her eyes because of a reflection of a weird ink in a mirror would have served as well.
Non-comformism should only be tolerated if it is conformistic in nature.

V. I don't have to. Liam(?) wanted an argument, so I gave him one.

This me? If so, good guess.

Not at all. Read the conversation more carefully.
*snip*

Ok, ill give you that.:fluffle:

Liasia']This me? If so, good guess.

*one raised eyebrow*
Whatever...

If you can't use a memorable alias, don't expect to be memorable.

*one raised eyebrow*
Whatever...

If you can't use a memorable alias, don't expect to be memorable.

I don't really need an alias. It's not as if my opinons are any different in r/l.

Liasia']I don't really need an alias. It's not as if my opinons are any different in r/l.

Nor memorable.

Nor memorable.

*shrugs* whatever. And you are the source of all wisdom, oh great and mighty one.

Liasia']*shrugs* whatever. And you are the source of all wisdom, oh great and mighty one.

Nah. I'm not God Almighty. Nor Tony Blair.

Nah. I'm not God Almighty. Nor Tony Blair.

Really:eek: I couldn't tell.

Liasia']Really:eek: I couldn't tell.


OMG? For a moment I really thought I was Tony Blair!

It certainly is silly to look at tattoos the way one looks at clothing fashions, because fashions change pretty quickly and a tattoo is not going to change along with the current trends. However, I am perfectly fine with people getting a tattoo for no reason other than personal decoration. I don't think a tat needs to have any special meaning. It can just be a case of, "I think this looks cool, and it suits my personal style."

Indeed - by fashion - I was referring to 'fad' fashion.

My tattoo very much fits my personality, and is very pretty... it isn't JUST personal decoration, but that IS an element of it.

I just think someone getting a tattoo as a fad fashion statement is asking for trouble... they are likely to have to deal with it for a fair while..

I just think someone getting a tattoo as a fad fashion statement is asking for trouble... they are likely to have to deal with it for a fair while..Unless they're snakes :p

But hey, they can always take comfort in the fact they'll be trendy again every 25 years, give or take.

OMG? For a moment I really thought I was Tony Blair!

I AM Tony Blair. Bet you feel silly now.

I'm lost, how did a thread about tattoos suddenly turn into a gay thread? I mean aside from the Christian pyscho posting?

Liasia']I AM Tony Blair. Bet you feel silly now.

Nah. Now I feel like Prezza...

Tony, I want a third Jag, or I'll throw a hissyfit.

I quite like some Maori/Samoan arm/leg tattoos. Of course I wouldn't get one myself, but they look amazing.

I have 7 tattoos, so don't worry;) I do not see my tats as a "fashion statement", but a lot of idiots out there do. I love every one of mine and I put a lot of thought into getting something meaningful each time, something that I knew would be with me forever. They are becoming too mainstream and a lot of people today get them without putting any thought into them or with the idea they can have them zapped off later if they change their minds. Thats what I meant by losing their edge.

Ah... got you. Your approach is much like mine. I have my next few planned out, and each one has a numebr of layers of meaning to me.

I'm currently on 12 at the moment but don't think I'll have any more. I got most of them when I was in the services.

Out of interest, tatoos are very prevalent in the British armed forces, is this true of other armed forces?

And I happen to be very good friends with a girl who got an off-the-book butterfly tattooed above her ass crack, and at least four guys who find her tattoo far more enticing than mine. To each their own.

In that case... it might not be the tat that interests them, to be honest... :)

Out of interest, tatoos are very prevalent in the British armed forces, is this true of other armed forces?If tatoos are common? Yes. If they're as prevailent as in the UK army? Not even close, as far as I can tell. Don't know what it's like in the US though.

If tatoos are common? Yes. If they're as prevailent as in the UK army? Not even close, as far as I can tell. Don't know what it's like in the US though.

Where you from? I spent 6 years in the Royal Navy where nearly all the lower ranks were tatooed, and 5 years in the French Foreign legion, where it tended to be only the "Anglos" (Brits, Irish, Aussies and Americans) who got themselves tattooed.

Don't care for them, especially not those trendy ass tattoos on women - whereever you look, every second butt has'em.

I never found anything I'd like to keep forever, either, so I honestly don't care that much for tattoos. Or piercings for that matter. I don't even like earrings all that much, so...

I have several tats and of course they rock :D

2 tattoos. planning on getting more.

as for the disease transmission, go to a clean place, and there is no problem.

I'd be too afraid that I would change my mind. Also that it would be harder to get a job I wanted.

Don't care for them, especially not those trendy ass tattoos on women - whereever you look, every second butt has'em.

Yeah, kind of like boobies. I mean, come ON ladies, quit being such followers.

Honestly, I couldn't care about them. I've never even thought about it really.

I just think someone getting a tattoo as a fad fashion statement is asking for trouble... they are likely to have to deal with it for a fair while..
Yeah. Whenever I see a chick with a fairy tattooed above her ass crack, I think about how she's gonna feel about that tattoo on her 50th birthday.

In that case... it might not be the tat that interests them, to be honest... :)
Nah, we can rule that out because I've got a better ass than hers, but she's got nicer boobs. If they were gonna stare at her hotness, they'd be looking at the other side :).

Yeah. Whenever I see a chick with a fairy tattooed above her ass crack, I think about how she's gonna feel about that tattoo on her 50th birthday.

If she walks around showing of her ass crack with 50, I don't think she'll be ashamed of that tattoo either...

If she walks around showing of her ass crack with 50, I don't think she'll be ashamed of that tattoo either...
I wasn't assuming she would be showing her ass crack. I was talking about how she would feel about her tattoo. Believe it or not, some women have thoughts and feelings about their bodies that don't revolve around other people staring at them :).

I wasn't assuming she would be showing her ass crack. I was talking about how she would feel about her tattoo. Believe it or not, some women have thoughts and feelings about their bodies that don't revolve around other people staring at them :).

In that case, why put a tattoo on a place you can't even see yourself?? In my opinion, those kinds of tattoo are exclusively intended for showing them off to others....

In that case, why put a tattoo on a place you can't even see yourself??

Some people pick the location for their tattoo based on factors like how well the area stays constant over time, or how easy it is to cover the area if you needed to (like for formal occasions or something). Women's fashions sometimes make it preferable to get a lower back tattoo rather than a shoulder or arm because formal women's clothing bares the shoulders and arms a lot. The back is also a popular area because there tends to be less sagging and stretching than other regions. It also is less painful than many other locations. It also is a better "canvas" for some designs because it is flatter than other areas.


In my opinion, those kinds of tattoo are exclusively intended for showing them off to others....Usually, yes. That was kind of my point: a girl at 18 might like the idea of getting a tattoo that's all about tittilating others, while a woman of 50 might realize that inking your body to attract 18 year old boys (who really don't need any help with that) is kind of a silly thing to do.

Some people pick the location for their tattoo based on factors like how well the area stays constant over time, or how easy it is to cover the area if you needed to (like for formal occasions or something). Women's fashions sometimes make it preferable to get a lower back tattoo rather than a shoulder or arm because formal women's clothing bares the shoulders and arms a lot. The back is also a popular area because there tends to be less sagging and stretching than other regions. It also is less painful than many other locations. It also is a better "canvas" for some designs because it is flatter than other areas.

Usually, yes. That was kind of my point: a girl at 18 might like the idea of getting a tattoo that's all about tittilating others, while a woman of 50 might realize that inking your body to attract 18 year old boys (who really don't need any help with that) is kind of a silly thing to do.

But in that case, there's very little she needs to worry about, as this is an area that's really easy to cover up.

When I got mine I decided to place it on my ankle because that allows me to conceal or show it whenever I want, plus I can actually see it myself....

But in that case, there's very little she needs to worry about, as this is an area that's really easy to cover up.

Um, again, this is not about OTHER PEOPLE. This is about how she feels. Not about other people seeing her body, but about her own experience of her body. She might not like the tattoo because it no longer suits HER, regardless of how other people feel about it.

My own godmother had a tattoo of a dragonfly on her ankle, which she got at age 23, and by age 55 she was pretty sick of it. That's a pretty easy area to hide, and the tattoo was plenty tiny, but she didn't like having the tat any more. It isn't always about what other people think...sometimes it's just about your own opinion.

Um, again, this is not about OTHER PEOPLE. This is about how she feels. Not about other people seeing her body, but about her own experience of her body. She might not like the tattoo because it no longer suits HER, regardless of how other people feel about it.

My own godmother had a tattoo of a dragonfly on her ankle, which she got at age 23, and by age 55 she was pretty sick of it. That's a pretty easy area to hide, and the tattoo was plenty tiny, but she didn't like having the tat any more. It isn't always about what other people think...sometimes it's just about your own opinion.


Most people I know with tats think long and hard about it, and I know many people in their 40's and even a few in their 50's that are still fine about thier choice. It's sort of a moot point already though, it is now far easyier, less costly and less painfull than it was even 10 years ago to get rid of an unwanted tat. Just think what that will be like in another 10 years.

At the end of the day though, people get them for many differant reasons, and just like your stlye of clothing, or how you wear your hair, or what colour makeup you like, or wether you wear gold, silver or no jewrly at all, generaly in the long run it what actual effect it will have on your life is negligable.

Getting married or having kids is always going to have more of an effect than gettinking inked or not.

Nah, we can rule that out because I've got a better ass than hers, but she's got nicer boobs. If they were gonna stare at her hotness, they'd be looking at the other side :).

I don't know, then... as far as I'm concerned a cute ass always beats cute boobs... tattoo optional.

Most people I know with tats think long and hard about it, and I know many people in their 40's and even a few in their 50's that are still fine about thier choice.

I'm totally with you on this. I have a tat, remember.


It's sort of a moot point already though, it is now far easyier, less costly and less painfull than it was even 10 years ago to get rid of an unwanted tat. Just think what that will be like in another 10 years.

1) It's not "easy" to get most tats removed, particularly if you got a full-color design. It's actually more painful to get the tat removed than it is to get it in the first place. It's also inconvenient to have to keep going back for laser treatment, which you most likely will have to do because one session will not do the trick.
2) It's EXPENSIVE to get a tat removed.
3) Usually there will still be some remnant of tat left, no matter how good the treatment, especially if you ever got the tat re-inked.

This is not to say our technology isn't awesome. It's a great option, and you can get great results from laser removal. But I think it's very very premature to say that it is "easy" to have a tattoo removed. I also think it's a bad idea to bank on potential improvements in technology, since you never know what might or might not be available in the future.


At the end of the day though, people get them for many differant reasons, and just like your stlye of clothing, or how you wear your hair, or what colour makeup you like, or wether you wear gold, silver or no jewrly at all, generaly in the long run it what actual effect it will have on your life is negligable.

Depends on who you are and what path you take in life, I suppose.


Getting married or having kids is always going to have more of an effect than gettinking inked or not.
Again, depends on who you are.

1) It's not "easy" to get most tats removed, particularly if you got a full-color design. It's actually more painful to get the tat removed than it is to get it in the first place. It's also inconvenient to have to keep going back for laser treatment, which you most likely will have to do because one session will not do the trick.
2) It's EXPENSIVE to get a tat removed.
3) Usually there will still be some remnant of tat left, no matter how good the treatment, especially if you ever got the tat re-inked.

This is not to say our technology isn't awesome. It's a great option, and you can get great results from laser removal. But I think it's very very premature to say that it is "easy" to have a tattoo removed. I also think it's a bad idea to bank on potential improvements in technology, since you never know what might or might not be available in the future.


Hey Bottle you are right, but I did not say easy, I said easyier, less costley, and less painfull than 10 years ago. I also agree with the whole not banking on future technology thing, but as I said most people think long and hard before getting ink, I have no reason to think that will change, and for those that don't think, and do regret, then on the scale of things to regret as you get older,(cos you know there will be) I hardly think a lil bit of ink in your skin is that big a deal.

And if it is then for fuck sake get ya head out of ya narsistic arse, and get your self a good shrink! Is what I would be shouting at those that bothered me with such complaints!:D

Yeah. Whenever I see a chick with a fairy tattooed above her ass crack, I think about how she's gonna feel about that tattoo on her 50th birthday.

These tramp stamps are very unattractive. This is what I always ask myself. What is that going to look like after you have crapped out a bunch of kids and gained 60 pounds and your ass drops? UGH.

If you are going to get a tattoo, remember, your skin ages and changes with time, so think long and hard about the placement of your tattoos.

No tattoos. No piercings. I don't know that I would get one. Maybe my fiancee and I will get matching ones when we get married, but that's really about it. It's really not for me. Though if I really wanted to freak my mother out, I suppose I would get one in a relatively visible place...if I wanted to avoid freaking her out, I would get one in a more discreet place.

I don't have any objections to people wanting to get tattoos...it's their bodies, and it's not hurting me. It's not like people's decision to smoke. I don't have to breathe tattoo ink. Conformity is not all it's cracked up to be...sure, let's all force everyone to get married out of high school, have kids and a white picket fence, and turn the whole United States into a fucking Pleasantville. Fan-tastic. And we all have to dress alike, talk alike, and work the same hours. I'll get right on that.

I have seven currently and am working on sleeves, towards a full suit.
I am personally disturbed by the number of "Ink Elitists" around here.
Tattoos are a global ritual well over 4000 years old, from religious reasons to pure decoration tattoos have been recieved into the flesh.

The act of taking possesion of your flesh and making it as you will.

Common is the use of tattoing for sexual attractiveness or to show the reaching of the age of maturity.

Now I read lines from posters who are themselves inked and have the nerve to slam those who are inked as well?

Yours is good, but theirs is stupid?
Wow, how lucky the artist was who did you, beautification of giant assholes is a service to us all.

I ashamed to be in the company of needle snobs like the people in this thread.
I shouldnt expect much from NS General, but really? what in hell makes your tattoos any better or smarter then some girl with flower on her breast or a butterfly over her ass.

Maybe she is celebrating the fact she has an ass to show off, and at fifty she will see that tattoo and think "I used to be stunner".

Maybe the classical American Traditionalist Tattooing practice of a woman getting her breast tattoo'd is why she has a heart on breast?

Maybe its none of your nosey judgemental fucking business why someone has ink where they have it.

In most normal people with ink or scars or other drastic bodymod I find a common bond that transends many other barriers...black white, teacher/student, man/woman, old/young you can see someone on the street with Ink and ask the ancient question "Who does your work?" and suddenly you ad the other person speak as if you are old friends....you do not sit and judge how 'trashy' someones ink is, because your ink is equally as trashy.

I have a rose and a dragonfly tattoo'd on my right arm and the only comments about the femininity of the tattoo come from shit bags who dont have ink, or one-timers who suddenly believe they have a right pass judgement over psycological motivation behind each piece on someones flesh.

In short,
Fuck your opinion.

CTY~

then on the scale of things to regret as you get older,(cos you know there will be) I hardly think a lil bit of ink in your skin is that big a deal.

And if it is then for fuck sake get ya head out of ya narsistic arse, and get your self a good shrink! Is what I would be shouting at those that bothered me with such complaints!:D

Exactly.

Hey Bottle you are right, but I did not say easy, I said easyier, less costley, and less painfull than 10 years ago. I also agree with the whole not banking on future technology thing, but as I said most people think long and hard before getting ink, I have no reason to think that will change, and for those that don't think, and do regret, then on the scale of things to regret as you get older,(cos you know there will be) I hardly think a lil bit of ink in your skin is that big a deal.

Sounds like we pretty much agree. I just think there are people for whom a tattoo is a bigger deal than, for instance, producing a biological child. Do I like such people? Nope. But they exist.


And if it is then for fuck sake get ya head out of ya narsistic arse, and get your self a good shrink! Is what I would be shouting at those that bothered me with such complaints!:DI think I could happily join in such shouting :).

Now I read lines from posters who are themselves inked and have the nerve to slam those who are inked as well?

To be fair, slamming a person's tat is not the same as slamming the person. For instance, I have absolutely no problem slamming somebody who gets a tattoo of a black man being lynched, just like I have no problem slamming somebody who thinks it's cool to wear Nazi gear around. I will defend to the death their right to decorate their body however they choose, but I also defend my right to tell them that I think they've got some deeply shitty taste.


Yours is good, but theirs is stupid?
Wow, how lucky the artist was who did you, beautification of giant assholes is a service to us all.

I ashamed to be in the company of needle snobs like the people in this thread.

Deep breaths. Deep, soothing breaths.


I shouldnt expect much from NS General, but really? what in hell makes your tattoos any better or smarter then some girl with flower on her breast or a butterfly over her ass.

"Better" is a useless word.

My tattoo is, unequivocally, more creative than that of a girl who picked her butterfly design off the shop wall. That is not an insult, it is simply fact; I created an original design, while she did not. I don't think that automatically makes my tattoo better than hers, but it does make mine more original.


Maybe she is celebrating the fact she has an ass to show off, and at fifty she will see that tattoo and think "I used to be stunner".

Yes, that's entirely possible. Maybe she simply likes her body right now, and is pleased by the act of decorating it. Maybe she is trying to get that boy to like her. Maybe she's drunk. Who knows? Who cares? It's her body, and she can decorate it however she pleases.

With that said, we all have the freedom to tell her she's acting like a dumbass if her reasons for getting a tattoo are stupid. I've got a buddy who decided to get a tattoo of his favorite skateboarding logo, and I told him he was a fuckwit for doing it at the time. (Of course, I also went along with him to get it, and loaned him an extra $10 to tip his artist.) Turns out I was right, because he got it removed about a year ago.

If you get a visible tat, or if you choose to show your tat to people, be prepared for criticism. If you can't take people criticizing your art, then you've got no business getting it in the first place. Not everybody is going to love your design as much as you do, and some people may even tell you it sucks. You don't have to agree with them, just like they don't have to agree with what you stuck on your own skin.


Maybe the classical American Traditionalist Tattooing practice of a woman getting her breast tattoo'd is why she has a heart on breast?

Personally, I don't think "tradition" is automatically something that enhances the "value" of a tattoo. My uncle has a tattoo of a naked girl being sexually assaulted by a snake because it was "tradition" for the sailing community in which he grew up...the tattoo is ugly, violent, and hateful, and the fact that it is "traditional" doesn't make it a better tattoo.


Maybe its none of your nosey judgemental fucking business why someone has ink where they have it.

If they get a conspicuous tat, or if they decide to deliberately show me their tat, then they are choosing to make it my business. Just like how people who got Flock Of Seagulls hair back in the day were making their hairstyle everybody's business.


In most normal people with ink or scars or other drastic bodymod I find a common bond that transends many other barriers...black white, teacher/student, man/woman, old/young you can see someone on the street with Ink and ask the ancient question "Who does your work?" and suddenly you ad the other person speak as if you are old friends....you do not sit and judge how 'trashy' someones ink is, because your ink is equally as trashy.

People with body mods are no different than any other diverse community. Most are nice, welcoming, polite, friendly people. Some are dickheads. Some are all of the above. Body art doesn't make you a better (or worse!) person.


I have a rose and a dragonfly tattoo'd on my right arm and the only comments about the femininity of the tattoo come from shit bags who dont have ink, or one-timers who suddenly believe they have a right pass judgement over psycological motivation behind each piece on someones flesh.

If people take issue with the "femininity" of your tattoos, I think that's got fuckall to do with their feelings on tats. That's about gender issues, and is a whole other thread.


In short,
Fuck your opinion.

CTY~
You really shouldn't worry so much about other peoples' opinions on your tat. I know it hurts when somebody insults your body or your ink, but when it comes down to it the tattoo should be about YOU. It should be about how you feel, not about what others feel.

I have seven currently and am working on sleeves, towards a full suit.
I am personally disturbed by the number of "Ink Elitists" around here.
Tattoos are a global ritual well over 4000 years old, from religious reasons to pure decoration tattoos have been recieved into the flesh.


Sorry can you point that out I didn't actualy see that?

I have seven currently and am working on sleeves, towards a full suit.
I am personally disturbed by the number of "Ink Elitists" around here.
Tattoos are a global ritual well over 4000 years old, from religious reasons to pure decoration tattoos have been recieved into the flesh.

The act of taking possesion of your flesh and making it as you will.

Common is the use of tattoing for sexual attractiveness or to show the reaching of the age of maturity.

Now I read lines from posters who are themselves inked and have the nerve to slam those who are inked as well?

Yours is good, but theirs is stupid?
Wow, how lucky the artist was who did you, beautification of giant assholes is a service to us all.

I ashamed to be in the company of needle snobs like the people in this thread.
I shouldnt expect much from NS General, but really? what in hell makes your tattoos any better or smarter then some girl with flower on her breast or a butterfly over her ass.

Maybe she is celebrating the fact she has an ass to show off, and at fifty she will see that tattoo and think "I used to be stunner".

Maybe the classical American Traditionalist Tattooing practice of a woman getting her breast tattoo'd is why she has a heart on breast?

Maybe its none of your nosey judgemental fucking business why someone has ink where they have it.

In most normal people with ink or scars or other drastic bodymod I find a common bond that transends many other barriers...black white, teacher/student, man/woman, old/young you can see someone on the street with Ink and ask the ancient question "Who does your work?" and suddenly you ad the other person speak as if you are old friends....you do not sit and judge how 'trashy' someones ink is, because your ink is equally as trashy.

I have a rose and a dragonfly tattoo'd on my right arm and the only comments about the femininity of the tattoo come from shit bags who dont have ink, or one-timers who suddenly believe they have a right pass judgement over psycological motivation behind each piece on someones flesh.

In short,
Fuck your opinion.

CTY~

I think you are making an argument where none was.

I'm not sure I've seen ANYONE arguing about 'better' tattoos... more that, you'd better be SURE you want what you ask for, because once you've got it, that stuff doesn't just wash off.

For me - the tattoo I have is a 'symbol'... and the designs I have ready for the next couple I'll get, are all 'symbolic' too. I don't want 'pictures' on me - I want mine to mean something. But then, my wife has three 'picture' tattoos, and two 'symbolic' ones... That doesn't make hers 'better' than mince, or mine better than hers... but it DOES make mine 'better' FOR ME.