what utility?
what utility?
Meh124794 wrote:
Funny how people equate blank skin with some kind of intrinsic good. It doesn't matter. A lot of people have poor taste in what they get, but at least the end of the day markings on skin don't make a difference to a person's value. People have sought to mark their skin for thousand of years across many cultures, so there obviously some utility to be gained for some people. Haters gonna hate.
What vapidity! I haven't seen evidence of hatred towards tattoo bearers. I have seen evidence of low estimation of their judgment. As for a person's value: we human beings have an intrinsic dignity - an intrinsic worth - independent of how we are treated, including by ourselves.
I got a tattoo of a chess piece, the knight, on my upper arm (out of sight if wearing a short sleeve shirt) 54 years ago. I was 19. At that time tattoos were pretty rare. My three friends all got theirs on their biceps. I was always thankful I had mine out of sight. I did a lot of dumb things that I thought were cool when I was young.
I see a lot of conservative looking women in their twenties and thirties in the local gym with tattoos. Also some geezers in their sixties and seventies with newly acquired tattoos. I gave up trying to be cool when I was twenty two.
dfa wrote:
I'm 34 - graduated college in 2007.
Back then, perhaps maybe less than 2% of men and women I see on the street had visible tattoos.
Tattoo sleaves weren't even a thing.
Nowadays, I see them pretty much on 30% of women and men in my area with some visible tattoo.
What's going on here?
When did this seismic shift happen? Why?
Cause having a tat that you couldn't see (i.e. the tamp stamps of the 90s/00s) no longer marked you as a rebel. Now you need a sleeve. Nobody under like 60 cares if you have a tat even if it is visible. A lot of people care if that is the first thing you notice when looking at someone.
Meh124794 wrote:
Funny how people equate blank skin with some kind of intrinsic good. It doesn't matter. A lot of people have poor taste in what they get, but at least the end of the day markings on skin don't make a difference to a person's value. People have sought to mark their skin for thousand of years across many cultures, so there obviously some utility to be gained for some people. Haters gonna hate.
Translation: "I regret my tattoo."
Tattoos used to reflect class divisions. Most people would get tattoos when they enlisted. Officers were clean cut, college educated and never had tattoos. Enlisted men were working class and got tattoos when on leave as a right of passage/dare. This division would then follow into post-enlistment employment. Mechanics, plumbers, and factory workers had tattoos. Manager, lawyers, doctors did not.
Then, tattoos proliferated in gang culture in the 80s and 90s and with sports stars and musicians/rappers. Tattoos were now very visible in pop culture and suburban white kids started getting tattoos when they went off to college. Bud it was mostly inconspicuous stuff like tribal arm bands and Chinese characters. But for a growing group of people wanting to have counter culture cred, getting big and conspicuous tattoos were catching on. My sister in law got a giant phoenix on her back in the 1990s as she was fumbling around after dropping out of grad school and was working barista jobs. It was a way of showing that you were part of a counter culture that rejected the white collar world and dropped out.
I think things really took off during the market crash. An entire generation was left out of the job market upon graduation and became aligned with the growing counter culture. So, lots and lots of people were getting big tattoos. This counter culture aesthetic appealed to the quickly rising tech/social media sector. This sector sees itself as redefining many of the social mores of employment and the business world. That included doing away with proper attire, being clean shaven and having no tattoos. So, now tattoos have effectively gone mainstream. And that is why everyone has them.
you know their existence is kind of cumulative. Every day people are making the bad decision to add a sleeve, so there will be cumulatively more and more until the juul pods finally start to kill them off.
Precious Roy wrote:
Tattoos used to reflect class divisions. Most people would get tattoos when they enlisted. Officers were clean cut, college educated and never had tattoos. Enlisted men were working class and got tattoos when on leave as a right of passage/dare. This division would then follow into post-enlistment employment. Mechanics, plumbers, and factory workers had tattoos. Manager, lawyers, doctors did not.
Then, tattoos proliferated in gang culture in the 80s and 90s and with sports stars and musicians/rappers. Tattoos were now very visible in pop culture and suburban white kids started getting tattoos when they went off to college. Bud it was mostly inconspicuous stuff like tribal arm bands and Chinese characters. But for a growing group of people wanting to have counter culture cred, getting big and conspicuous tattoos were catching on. My sister in law got a giant phoenix on her back in the 1990s as she was fumbling around after dropping out of grad school and was working barista jobs. It was a way of showing that you were part of a counter culture that rejected the white collar world and dropped out.
I think things really took off during the market crash. An entire generation was left out of the job market upon graduation and became aligned with the growing counter culture. So, lots and lots of people were getting big tattoos. This counter culture aesthetic appealed to the quickly rising tech/social media sector. This sector sees itself as redefining many of the social mores of employment and the business world. That included doing away with proper attire, being clean shaven and having no tattoos. So, now tattoos have effectively gone mainstream. And that is why everyone has them.
All the beards bother me more than tattoos. Other than the Yankees, close to 100% of MLB players have them. It has a "Monkey see, monkey do" feel to it.
I always thought that ink looks best on smooth skin with subcutaneous fat, like on burly biker dudes or goth chicks. I have always been extremely lean, single-digit BF, and very ripped, and just think it would compromise or even look crappy on me. Every once in a while I think of some seemingly clever symbol or phrase for ink, but wait for it to pass as it always does. Glad to be ink-free in my 60s for sure.
People with neck/face ink to me are just Darwin-award material.
By 2000 all the piercing and tattoos were in full rage mode in San Diego. Gross. How could anyone think it was original to look like all the rest of the genies that just came out of some filthy bottle? I think people young people generally look better now. I like the arm tattoos on women if they have fit arms. Anywhere else is annoying because you basically aren't supposed to be looking there anyway.
Young people have always had an affinity for tattoos (i have three and am planning for more) but there was always a stigma that you could not work a white collar job and be tatted up or have more than a piercing or two in your ears. Now that the baby boomers are retired and out of the way for the most part, there is a much more relaxed attitude at most corporate jobs regarding tattoos. The Great Recession also unlocked much more of an eff-it/YOLO attitude in young people who were faced with financial difficulty. People feel safe getting them and not having the tattoos get in the way of their climb up the ladder. Worst comes to worse, you can just wear long sleeves to important meetings.
Bye boomers wrote:
Young people have always had an affinity for tattoos (i have three and am planning for more) but there was always a stigma that you could not work a white collar job and be tatted up or have more than a piercing or two in your ears. Now that the baby boomers are retired and out of the way for the most part, there is a much more relaxed attitude at most corporate jobs regarding tattoos. The Great Recession also unlocked much more of an eff-it/YOLO attitude in young people who were faced with financial difficulty. People feel safe getting them and not having the tattoos get in the way of their climb up the ladder. Worst comes to worse, you can just wear long sleeves to important meetings.
But why? Do you think they improve you somehow? To me, most tattoos are ugly and silly (eagle versus horse, e.g.). And the world is already too awash in bad decision-making about sex for me to get a tattoo of some vixen. Even if I admire the image, it is on the wrong canvas. And to pierce skin adds a route for infection. Skin has its purposes: piercing bypasses the gatekeeping function. Tatting and piercing strike me as bizarre.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
All the beards bother me more than tattoos. Other than the Yankees, close to 100% of MLB players have them. It has a "Monkey see, monkey do" feel to it.
Agree, the Chechen rebel beards are tiresome. But they'll be long gone before their wearers are old. Imagine being a long-term care worker in 2065 and bathing all these inked geezers.
St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:
Poor people want what upper classes have. Nothing amazing or surprising there. It's success signaling using status symbols that wealthy people fall prey to, as well, also with opportunity cost. A few thou dropped on tats isn't keeping them from better education or better neighborhoods, though.
What (and not WT...)? The lack of a few thousand dollars, even the lack of several hundred dollars, can make a critical difference at many points in our lives. I was thinking just minutes ago before I spotted this thread that the lack of money for a security deposit on an apartment could prevent someone from accepting a job offer, or getting a laptop computer for school or work (some job descriptions specify that job applicants should have their own computer, sometimes with certain types of software) for just a few examples.
Further, tattoos are not something usually, in my view, anyway, associated with "upper classes."
I don't know where you've looked but the most visible people with tattoos (pro athletes, musicians, etc.) are indeed actually upper class. People getting visible tats aren't interested much in changing jobs (that's usually forced on them) and don't go to careers involving using computers at home. Unless you're talking about all the millennial hipsters, who already have education and a higher career path because they typically come from an affluent (middle class or higher) background.
GF from the early '70s had one like this, maybe 10-15% smaller, just below her ankle bone. I never thought of her as "a tattooed woman".
dfa wrote:
I'm 34 - graduated college in 2007.
Back then, perhaps maybe less than 2% of men and women I see on the street had visible tattoos.
Tattoo sleaves weren't even a thing.
Nowadays, I see them pretty much on 30% of women and men in my area with some visible tattoo.
What's going on here?
When did this seismic shift happen? Why?
Because those people are fundamentally insecure....
Droddy & Stinson's Communal Bong wrote:
I don't know where you've looked but the most visible people with tattoos (pro athletes, musicians, etc.) are indeed actually upper class. People getting visible tats aren't interested much in changing jobs (that's usually forced on them) and don't go to careers involving using computers at home. Unless you're talking about all the millennial hipsters, who already have education and a higher career path because they typically come from an affluent (middle class or higher) background.
Um, they might have money, but they certainly aren't upper class. Just the opposite in most cases.
I believe tattoos are more prevalent now because everyone is trying to seek individuality. Social media has raised the bar of what unique is. You can't just climb Everest and be special, you have to do it blind or on one leg. You can't just run across american, you have to have overcome abusive parents and play basketball with kids at the end of the day (Robert Young!), You can't just give money to charity. You have to have had your house burned down and beaten cancer to be noticed.
Look at American Ninja Worrier, are there any "joe averages" on there? No, they are either crazy good athletes like a former gymnast or that have a back story.
It's human nature to want to feel like we are not just like everyone else. It's why people are falling off of cliffs to take selfies.
Having something permanently painted on your skin makes you feel like you are not the same as everyone else.
Because for men today, if you want to signal your position on the leading edge of counterculture, your choices are: Civil War era beard, tat, put on dress/cut off schlongboli. This makes tats the mid-range option for demonstrating your commitment.
Precious Roy with great analysis here. The post-2000 tattoo phenomenon is first and foremost an economic phenomenon. It is purely a reflection of our sick, winner take all, crony capitalism, corporate kleptocracy that has been damaging our society from Reagan onward.
The common man no longer feels he has upward mobility. The common man no longer feels he has a chance to become "the man," i.e. a part of the establishment. The common man no longer feels he has a chance to own a beautiful home like he saw in Ferris Bueller's Day Off or a 1990s Steve Martin rom-com. AND WITH GOOD REASON. He doesn't!!!
People are dumb in many ways (example: getting tattoos), but they are often surprisingly not dumb in figuring out the big picture--even if they can't articulate it in words, they articulate this understanding with their actions. The common man in post-2000 America has indeed figured out he is hosed economically, and he has responded by saying, "oh yeah, well f*ck you then!" in a thousand different ways. The tattoos. The vaping. The obesity. The opioids. The common man today rages not outward towards the elite, but inwards, in self destruction.
Tattoos, the glorification of tattoos-- these are low class markers. The confused poster who claims rappers and NBA/NFL covered in tattoos are "upper class" misses the point entirely. These celebrities are members of the poverty classes, with poverty values, who have achieved financial success against all odds, but they are not upper class in any traditional sense of the word. More importantly, the people signing their checks are NOT covered in tattoos. In a vicious cycle, the remaining members of the poverty classes see their heroes covered in tattoos and copy them. The poster says, "haters gonna hate," adopting the language of the poverty class. By adopting the language and values of the poverty class, he diminishes himself, subconsciously joining the others in self-destruction.
I live in one of the most expensive enclaves in the US. My neighbors are Stanford and Ivy-league graduates. We live in multi-million dollar homes and drive understated luxury vehicles. None of us say things like "haters gonna hate." We are the upper middle to upper class. There are almost no tattoos in this crowd. The VERY few who have them are in two crowds: 1. those who already "made it" and are semi-retired at 50 and get tattoos to feel edgy between upgrading their Teslas. 2. those as Precious Roy astutely pointed out, are in tech, which glorifies non-conformity.
I don't hate people who have tattoos. They are victims in an era of terrible income inequality and greed, and I hope we can turn our society around to one where the common man feels he is a stakeholder rather than a rebellious outcast.
