alh

#473

I was interested in the idea presented that someone trying to push the boundaries with tattoos/piercings may find it necessary to keep going more and more overboard as the practice becomes mainstream. What looked excessive twenty years ago may be a suburban mom look today. What surprised us 10 years ago doesn't anymore. okay - what surprises some of us

Two publics and two religious privates. I am guessing TCU and Baylor?

Yes! That's the study I want to see.... the reaction study

alh

This from the study article:
Tattoos vs non-tats; botox vs. "natural"; potato shoes vs. heels

Is it human nature to see those who present differently than us as somehow wrong in their choices? Do we need this tension to feel secure in our own choices? Or is there actually some sort of reality that tats are sad & deviant, botox is indicative of a questionable state of mind and potato shoes the highest form of footwear? I am still searching for where these standards of right and wrong are coming from Maybe in the reaction study?

frazzled1

I have wondered this over and over in reading this long thread. Human nature or perhaps human biology - though they're probably the same thing, aren't they? Maybe there's some reason a neuroscientist or evolutionary biologist could explain. People (many of them, anyway) do have a hard time understanding values that differ from their own.

Pizzagirl

That's very true. 25 years ago, one of H's friends - who was a groomsman in our wedding - had one pierced ear / diamond stud. He didn't wear it to the wedding because it was sort of an "out there" / not mainstream / push the envelope choice at the time; today, I wouldn't blink an eye at it.

I'd say the same for double-pierced ears. I don't like the look, personally - I'm old school classic in that regard - but I think double-pierced ears kind of morphed from "ewww, tacky" to just another pierced-ear alternative.

coureur

>>That's very true. 25 years ago, one of H's friends - who was a groomsman in our wedding - had one pierced ear / diamond stud. He didn't wear it to the wedding because it was sort of an "out there" / not mainstream / push the envelope choice at the time; today, I wouldn't blink an eye at it.<<

Right, and the example of the male earrings is very instructive. They used to be way "out there" Then in the 90s and early 2000s they became cool and went sort of mainstream, and it was common for men, young and old alike, to get one - similar to tattoos today.

And that's where the big difference arises. Male earrings went back out of style. You do see a few holdouts still wearing one, but a lot of those guys who were walking around with a diamond stud in one ear in 1999 are now walking around with tiny dent scar where it used to be. They took out the earrings when the fashion changed, the hole grew in, and there was mostly no harm, no foul. People who jump on the latest notion of "cool," the current tattoo bandwagon, won't have that option. They are going to wear that fashion statement forever.

absweetmarie

Yes, they will wear the fashion statement forever unless they pursue expensive, painful and not always effective removal procedures. So what? A quick review of state guidelines suggests that most states have rules in place to prevent minors from getting tattoos or to prevent them from getting them without parental consent. If an adult gets a tattoo without considering the meaning of the word "permanent," what's it to anyone else? I'm curious why people keep mentioning the permanent nature of tattoos as if this is news to anyone.

Pizzagirl

I think it relates to the perceived lack-of-judgment precisely because it is permanent. Go ahead and get a mullet, or wear Goth-style or Tammy Faye Bakker-style makeup, or pour yourself into tight leopard leggings -- but hair goes, makeup gets wiped off and you can change your pants. We all know styles can change and certainly I'm glad I'm no longer wearing the Farrah feathered bangs of my youth!

But the person who got the mullet, put on the makeup, wore the skanky leggings didn't permanently (or near-permanently) put herself into those options. We all are going to make sartorial choices at one point that we never want to see again, or that we grow tired of, or that won't be as stylish as they once wore, or will express things we no longer desire to express, or won't look as good once our bodies and faces age. But the logic that says - let me lock into this permanently - I think is where some of us think, "Hmmm, questionable logic, possibly poor decision-making." I want to be very clear that I'm talking about potentially poor decision-making, but not a moral / value judgment on the person herself. (IOW, she's not a lowlife because she got the extreme tattoos -- she could be the loveliest person on the planet -- but she may have showed poor judgment in locking herself into a passing style in a way that hair / makeup / clothing isn't.) Does that clarify a bit?

07DAD

Seems like it is becoming possible to remove fairly easily if you use the right ink.

http://www.livescience.com/14212-tat...l-popular.html

It will be more like breast augmentation in that you can change your mind.

alh

^^curious here, too, but can only assume it is well meant.

A friend, 60ish, still wears his diamond stud although otherwise is the epitome of conservative male dress: tweed sport coat, club ties, etc. He is too smart not to be aware what his clothes say and I think that stud is important to him in some way although I wouldn't presume to say exactly what it means. I know the diamond belonged to one of his grandmothers. I know he first had this piercing as a young man in the deep south. I think from his perspective there are probably layers and layers of meaning, but I could be completely wrong. Maybe he just likes to wear a diamond. It is interesting to me to consider how many men I know haven't removed their studs. Does the political statement it might have meant in their 20s still hold for them today? Does it signal something to their 20something yr old students? Or do the students consider them just unfashionable geezers? In the end few of us are going to be as cool at 60 as Mick and it may not be worth spending our youth planning for not looking ridiculous at 60 or 70 or whatever.

Pizzagirl

?? You don't go into breast augmentation thinking that it's anything but permanent. These procedures are not la-di-da-I-changed-my-mind. Going into breast augmentation thinking that it's anything but permanent is about as stupid as getting your tubes tied or getting a vasectomy and not treating it as permanent. (And yes, I know those things can be reversed. Not the point at all.)

07DAD

That's the point. You go into augmentation/tattooing thinking this is great and permanent, but if you change your mind later, you can reverse it.

There are 40,000 implant removals a year and 380,000 augmentations a year.

http://www.center4research.org/2010/...east-implants/

absweetmarie

Yes, I get that while you can move past a sartorially misspent youth replete with Flashdance-style leggings, you cannot as easily undo a tattoo that declares your undying love for your (now-ex) BF. I learned that from following the saga of Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob Thornton. I just wonder why people keep bringing it up as if it's a new concept. If I had tattoos, it would feel condescending and patronizing to me, and most of the people on this thread who have tattoos don't come across to me as lacking in judgment. Of course, some people are spectacularly lacking in judgment and impulse control; I imagine for those people, regrettable tattoos are the least of their problems.

I hope there is a permanent record of your Farrah days in the form of embarrassing photos, Pizzagirl.

cosmicfish

This is certainly how I feel! Yes, a tattoo is a mostly-permanent choice, in that it can be removed but only with difficulty and significant expense. But so many here seem to presuppose it is a mistake simply because it is something that they would not, in their obviously superior wisdom, do! Presupposing that eventually it will be undesired misses the fact that for most of us, especially those with more than one tattoo, we will NOT regret getting said tattoo. Deciding that "it is not worth it" means substituting your value system for someone else's, and then judging them for not living up to it.

coureur

I think the emphasis on and concern about the permanence of tattoos comes from the universal experiences of seeing ever-changing fashions and regretting the style choices of our own youth.

"Permanent" in taken in isolation is a rather abstract concept, particularly for the young. But when you analogize a tattoo to being stuck with same hairstyle you had in middle school, that's an unfortunate circumstance that even those still full of youthful thoughtlessness can grasp on a deeper and more meaningful level.

For older adults, beyond say about age 25, who choose to get a tattoo, I say "Good luck with that. I hope you don't come to regret it." For young adults and teenagers, I say "Maybe you should hold off on that for a few years and have a little more experience with changing fashions and passing fads before you commit yourself to be forever locked into the current notion of "cool."

And for none of them do I consider getting a tattoo to be a moral failing, just a bad idea.

absweetmarie

I do not consider these data definitive, because I haven't read the studies referenced and they are just two small studies. But this HuffPo story references "tattoo regret" statistics of around one-third (British study) and one-quarter (Northwestern U.) study. Depending on how you look at those numbers, you could either conclude that lots of people do regret tattoos or that most people don't.

Nearly One-Third Of People With Tattoos Regret Getting One: Study

This other site suggests that around 17 percent of people regret tattoos (citing a Pew study) but I can't find the original study referenced: Tattoo Statistics | Statistic Brain