Let me state up front that I’m a 52-year-old white male, born into a middle-class family in the South. I have lived in some different places: the Midwest, the Northeast, and a few locations throughout the South. I am, modesty aside, a fairly open-minded person. Self-expression and the desire to get in touch with an inner self is OK with me, as long as no one is hurt and the rights of others are respected.
But, holy cow, can we please cease-and-desist with the tattoo fixation in this country? No matter where I go, I see people with tattoos. And they aren’t on some covered-up part of the body. They are blazoned on shoulders, arms, hands, feet, legs, necks, upper backs, lower backs, chests and abdomens.
The majority of these tattoos are not small: They are huge, and they are ugly. I’ve seen swirling balls of fire, dragons, flowers, skulls, footballs, nude women, nude men, college logos, names of girlfriends, names of boyfriends, glasses of beer, crucifixes, devils, you name it.
One of the more shocking developments is the number of women who have them. Many of the tattoos are like Roseanne Barr: big and loud. In the grocery a few months ago, I saw a perfectly nice young mom near the checkout line. She had her toddler in the proper spot on the cart and was getting ready to unload her groceries on the conveyor belt. Then she turned her and I saw this huge, blue-and-red tattoo of a snake creeping all over her right shoulder.
Aaaaaah! Have people lost their minds? Do they have any clue on what that thing is going to look like in say, oh about, 15 years? First, it won’t be on her shoulder, it’ll be on her lower back once age starts to works its magic. Second, it will be twice the size it is now, since people gain weight as they get older.
Here’s the big kicker: there will be buyer’s remorse. I promise you at some point, the vast majority of people who have decided to engage in so-called body art will say to themselves, “Gee, should I have done that?” The fact that they ask themselves that question means the answer is “No.”
It wasn’t always this way.
When I was a kid, I would see an adult with a tattoo, but 99.99999 percent of the time, it was a veteran who had an anchor or the Marine Corps symbol or some other military-type tattoo on a bicep or forearm. It was a point of pride for these grizzled veterans, but even then there were some regrets about having it done.
Even as recently as 10 to 15 years ago, you wouldn’t see tattoos stretching from shoulder to wrist like the sleeve on a shirt. I’m convinced that most people who have tattoos fall into one of four categories: 1) the decision was spur-of-the-moment; 2) they were egged on by friends; 3) liquor or some other substance was nearby; or 4) all of the above.
Someone once told me that getting a tattoo was a good conversation starter. Excuse me? You could also start a conversation if you had an axe in the head, but I don’t see that becoming the rage anytime soon.
How about this: next time someone you know is thinking about getting a tattoo, ask them, “Is this something you would still want on your body in 10 years?”
Piercings are also a big thing these days, but the crucial difference is piercings grow over and can go away by simply not putting in the earring, stud or whatever piece of jewelry fits in the spot. The body repairs itself.
Tattoos are forever … forever a pain and a stain.
I think if you asked a "tatooed" person why - they would say it is a permanent statement. Well, I don't know about you - but I don't believe in permanent statements...I see that as stagnant thinking. We all change. Don't we?
ReplyDeleteAmen brother, amen!
ReplyDeleteI once heard that a grandmother, when she learned her 16-year-old daughter was considering a tattoo, applied one to her body ... then paid her granddaughter a visit.
Horrified, the teenager changed her mind about a tattoo.
Tattoos ... oh, please.
that is, the grandmother used a temporary tattoo...
ReplyDeleteSo self-expression is alright, so long as it's invisible? Then what's the point? That's like saying, "Oh, you can wear your (insert name of sports team here) t-shirt, but only if no one else can see it."
ReplyDeleteI'm not a huge fan of tattoos, and would likely never get one myself, but to automatically make a judgment about someone simply because they have a tattoo seems wrong. And to assume that the majority of people who have tattoos got them out of peer pressure, intoxication, or impulse is to jump to conclusions. Some might want to memorialize a loved one they've lost, express something that is important to them, commemorate an important event in their lives, or simply to decorate their bodies. Just because you don't think it's beautiful doesn't mean they don't.
Not everyone can express themselves in words or through music or painting or some other such medium. Of course some people get tattoos out of impulse or under coercion, but not everyone.
And one thing that REALLY bothered me: "One of the more shocking developments is the number of women who have them...all over her right shoulder." That statement is ridiculously sexist. Why is it so "shocking" that women are getting tattoos? Because they're deciding what to do with their bodies? Because tattoos aren't "feminine"? I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound this way, but to say it's inappropriate for a woman to have tattoos comparable to "Roseanne Barr: big and loud," is a very narrow way of thinking about a woman's identity. It suggests that there's an "appropriate" way for a woman to behave. It also sounds like you're saying that a woman shouldn't have a big, loud tattoo because it's not "feminine", because it's opinionated, because perhaps it means she doesn't "know her place". Furthermore, the woman in the checkout line was perfectly normal, obeying all the "rules" of shopping in a supermarket, but the second she turned and the snake tattoo became visible, all bets were off. Why can't she be a good mother AND have a tattoo? And what about women in the armed forces? Is it acceptable for them to have tattoos?
Why does our society have such a stigma against tattooing? I think it's probably something of a class thing--tattoos originally being associated (at least in the U.S.) with circus folk, roughhousing sailors, etc. But I think the more modern issue people have with tattoos is that individuals with tattoos look different. They're more difficult to categorize, to fit into a box. To recognize that people are incredibly complex and that they won't fit into just one category frightens us. Yes, the woman in the checkout line could be someone who enjoys tattoos AND a good mother AND a business owner AND a whole other set of myriad complexities that make her unique. Instead of seeing people with tattoos as some "other", why can't we view their art as an extension of themselves, as part of what makes them human?