An interesting discussion here.
Sorry for the lack of quality posting, but there are some things I had to sort out when I came home;) Next week better!
An interesting discussion here.
Sorry for the lack of quality posting, but there are some things I had to sort out when I came home;) Next week better!
This is a fun one. The quick answer is no, they are not a good idea. The more lengthy answer is it depends, but leans heavily towards no.
ReplyDeleteI'd say first you would need to split the guys and the girls. Like most things in life, they effect and are seen as different between men and women.
So starting with men. A few discrete tattoos are probably fine. Upper arms, chest, thighs, back, places that are normally not shown when working or in public (exception being the beach.) Tribal markings on the upper arms are probably fine in small tasteful doses as they tend to work well with muscles. Things like names, animals, faces are almost always bad on both guys and girls. Though men (generally service men) could probably get away with flags, and emblems of their units.
For women tattoos are generally things that should be avoided. While a small discrete butterfly, heart, etc is generally ignored or can be overlooked. The more typical tats women get, tattoo sleeves, tramp stamps, names of soon to be ex-boyfriends, or bible-verses are all seen as bad things. An employer might overlook the sleeves if a women's personalty is nice. However she will have a much harder time finding a guy to marry her. (Please Note, guys split girls into 2 categories. Wifey material, and pump and dump. Once a girl is in the 2nd category, it is almost impossible to get back into the 1st. And the above mentioned tattoos are generally seen as a direct path to this category.)
A lot has to do with how the other sex perceives tattoos on their prospective partners. Things like tribal tats in moderation on men generally seem to be popular with the women. Likewise tats of animals, faces, names, etc. are generally seen as trashy at best. For guys a women with tats of names and writing (even bible verses) are generally frowned upon, and while a small discrete butterfly, heart, etc is ok, things like tramp stamps typically knock a girl out of the running to be wifed up.
All in all I think tattoos are something that probably should be avoided, especially if you are a women who wants to be married. You could probably get away with a few small and or discrete tats, but a lot of what people cover themselves with today is the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot and wondering why they can't run anymore. Quite frankly it shouldn't need to be said, but tats on your neck/face/head are always a bad idea. Especially the really moronic folks who have the name of a soon to be ex tatted on their forehead. (Yes, there are people in my hometown who were dumb enough to do that, and it is a very common trend here.)
Anyway that is my $0.02 - W
Well, the gist of his article is that tattoos in general signify either low class/trashy or too rich to care:) And since most people don't fall into 2nd category they'd best avoid them.
ReplyDeleteAgree about male/female distinction, but if a man aspires to an (upper) middle class job he'd better have none visible.
Concidering how popular tattoos are nowadays, I would suggest sane people should not have them. EVERYTHING "everybody does it" nowadays seems to be sinful, uneahlthy or just plain stupid.
ReplyDeleteI personally find tattoos repulsive on both men and women. They look ridiculous when fresh, and when the colour starts fading, people end up looking like they just have stains of dirt on them. (In my bubble it is fur more likely to have dirt or motor oil or tar or resin on your skin than tattoos, so when I see something darkish on peoples skin, I first see as stain.)
There is some research pointing to the toxicity of tattoo ink. And those big ones do look like skin blemishes from the distance.
ReplyDelete