Sure I do. I also think people cheat, steal, lie, and murder. Knowing that people do things does not automatically mean that those things are acceptable.</p>
<p>
It can, but that is a complex issue precisely because there is always a diverse audience and because interpretation is not entirely up to the person making the presentation.</p>
<p>Going back to the issue of “hooker makeup”, a young woman might wear it specifically to give that appearance, or because she is an actress getting ready for the stage, or because she doesn’t realize that she put on THAT much (which I have seen). You might condemn her based on your interpretation without ever even realizing that there were all those possibilities, or the likelihood of each one. Personally, I will wait to see if she offers me sex for money before I decide that she is a prostitute.</p>
<p>Likewise, if I see a guy with tattoos all over, I don’t think “thug” or “drug dealer” until they actually do something to warrant it.</p>
<p>Interestingly, there is an entire field called “information theory” that addresses this very issue - you have a transmitter, a channel, and a receiver, and everything that goes through that channel is subject to limitations and distortion, and finding truth is incredibly complicated… and nowhere, NOWHERE, does it say that it is a good thing to automatically assume that the message you receive is the message that was sent. In many cases, the message you receive may not even exist in the lexicon of the one sending it, or vice versa.</p>
Both are relevant, just to different degree. For example, an unhidden tattoo will damage (or eliminate) your chances at certain jobs during the interview process. But some people are so biased against the tattooed that seeing a tattoo might influence them to deny a promotion, or cancel a purchase. There are two solutions to this: either never do anything anyone might consider inappropriate (literally impossible), or try to change the minds of people so that they realize that they are not doing themselves any favors by making those judgments.</p>
Educate about the risks? Sure, absolutely. Try to scare them off, tell them that it is wrong, dirty, whatever? Heck no.</p>
<p>And that is the difference - I think we have been butting heads over the calculation of the risk, and that calculation is important but tragically lacking in good solid numbers. Others on here don’t want to educate, they want to hand out scarlet letters (or at least pride themselves on how THEY don’t have one), and that is a different bunny entirely.</p>
<p>I like how I keep getting shocked faces about knowing sex workers. I work in community outreach programs, and I can tell you that most of the people I encounter who are sex workers are not people you would think do that kind of work. And they are usually wonderful, careful, and responsible people. </p>
<p>And no, I don’t know their clients. What they specifically do and who they see is private, it’s none of my business. I provide assistance in legal and health areas.</p>
<p>I figured, redhares, that you were working either in public health or a similar field. Most people who know sex workers for a different reason (;)) do not talk about that. I just love to use that :eek: symbol. :)</p>
<p>Cosmicfish, sometimes scaring the begeezus out of a kid is the best tactic to get them to think about the risks. Drivers Ed programs use this approach all the time. It is one thing to tell someone that s/he can get infected with HPV via unprotected, indiscriminate sex, but the message will be delivered in a more effective way if it is accompanied by photos of genital warts or penile cancer. Introducing a little scare into the message does not equal saying “do not do it”’- it says “if you want to do it, use your brain, or you can end up like this”.</p>
<p>“She HAS made it part of her - and that is the exact reason she did it. And as so many people note, her purpose in life (yes, even HER’S) is not to beautify your world. If she chose to wear the same unattractive hair style, shoe style, makeup, etc every single day, would that be any different?”</p>
<p>First, no one has suggested that tattoo wearers don’t have every right to do what they want. </p>
<p>But really, you don’t see a difference in judgment between the person who says - I’d like a tattoo of something personally meaningful to me, I’ll have it done small in a fairly non conspicuous place -and the person who says - go ahead and give me full sleeves and tattoos all over? Are you incapable of saying that the first person probably made a better judgment than the second person for fear of “inculcating your value system”?</p>
<p>“Justifying for example that getting a tattoo is foolish because of health risks that can be minimized, or because it is permanent, is saying it is foolish for everyone cause you don’t like it, and all the justifications, about work, about people’s perceptions, come down to really personal bias, and even though it is an optional thing, judging a person for their tattoos is like judging someone because of their race, their height, their weight, their sexual orientation, it is judging someone for what they are or appear as, rather than who they are.”</p>
<p>It’s precisely NOT like judging someone for race, height, sexual orientation, etc. because those things are what you are born with. Your analogy would hold if tattoos were like freckles and appeared randomly on some people and not others. </p>
<p>People talk about the meaning that tattoos have for them - marking very personal events and symbols - and they choose to tattoo those things on themselves (versus, say, wear a piece of jewelry) precisely BECAUSE they WANT those things to express meaningful parts of who they are. So then to pretend that they aren’t in some way part of “who they are” is disingenuous. You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>“Sure, there are risks with Tattoos, but the thing with Tattoos is unlike smoking, the risk factors can be made pretty small. Leaving out aesthetics or the permanence for the moment, let’s look at the risks:”</p>
<p>But I can’t. It’s the aesthetics that is my objection. Not fear of disease or medical complication. To me, it defaces a beautiful human body. It’s graffiti on Miss Kansas. I don’t know how you’re going to talk me out of that aesthetic judgment. I don’t think Miss Kansas is a bad PERSON but I think it was short-sighted to deface her beauty like that. I think the same of large breast implants for cosmetic purposes or siliconed-lips that look fake. </p>
<p>As with anything, there are degrees. If you always wanted some cleavage and took yourself from A to a C, that’s a different thing than if you took yourself from A to H. It’s one thing to wear a lip plumping lip gloss and another to get your lips to look as though they are overstuffed. And, it’s something to get a discreet, small tattoo in an inconspicuous place and another to get very large, visible ones. Why am I not allowed to have shades of gray here?</p>
<p>I am not the same person I was at age 20. Thirty five years later, I doubt the images that I would have thought were important or deeply meaningful at age 20 would translate well to my life today. Any tatoo I might have chosen then would probably be embarrassing now.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about the thoughts and feelings behind the tatoo, but the image that I might have chosen to express those thoughts and feelings. </p>
<p>I don’t begrudge anyone the right to a tatoo. But, for me, the idea that any image I might have chosen at age 20 would continue to represent me at age 75 is questionable.</p>
<p>(I have one piece of original art that I bought for my mother when I was 20, and which I inherited from her a few years ago. It is beautiful and simple, and I love it now as much as I did then. That is the single artistic choice I made at that age that has translated well to my middle age, so it is <em>possible</em> that I might have chosen a tatoo image that I would still love now, but highly unlikely.)</p>
<p>But let’s not forget that OP is thinking of getting a tattoo to remember his/her grandfather. No matter how old OP is OP will still love his/her grandfather.</p>
All of my decisions are representative of my judgment. That’s kind of the point. It might be that a deeper understanding of a person’s reasons for a decision will change my evaluation of whether it represents good or bad judgment. And certainly, people can show good judgment most of the time, but make occasional bad decisions, and people can improve over time with respect to their judgment.</p>
<p>But I simply don’t agree with the idea that we can’t have opinions about the prudence of the decisions others make, for fear of becoming discriminating tyrants. I think it’s highly imprudent to smoke, for example, and somewhat imprudent to wear a T-shirt to your Harvard interview.</p>
<p>
Yes, but what if he starts hating Walt Disney?</p>
<p>I can respect the decision of the OP to do something that memorializes how he feels about his beloved grandfather, and I can understand that the <em>meaning</em> behind the tattoo is heartfelt and a lovely sentiment, but that doesn’t make me aesthetically like the tattoo any more.</p>
<p>The tattoo isn’t about the OP’s liking of Walt Disney. It is about his grandfather loving a cartoon mouse. Yes, Walt Disney and the Disney company have some low points, but I don’t know if the OP would care about that. And you can like and appreciated things even if they are problematic, it’s just important to know that they are so.</p>
<p>Play with me for a moment. I go out and get huge, highly visible tattoos and piercings – we’re not talking the rose on the ankle thing here. Then I am “shocked” when I go interview in Corporate America and I get turned down for client-facing positions. Does that not show that I am a person who isn’t very bright? </p>
<p>Or, I get a swastika tattoo and am surprised when people are bothered / repelled by it – because I just thought it was a pretty design, I had no knowledge whatsoever that it represented Bad Things to most people. Does that not show that I am a person who isn’t very bright?</p>
<p>My decisions DO reflect my judgment. Which is not to say that I walk around condemning people with tattoos, since frankly I have other things to worry about in life and it just isn’t my business what people do with their bodies. It just says that those people made decisions I wouldn’t have made. That’s all. I make decisions they wouldn’t make either, and life goes on. The difference is – I don’t worry about the decisions I make that other people might not make – I don’t care what they think. But it seems that you care passionately that other people might not like your decisions about your own tattoos. Which begs the question - if you’re truly content with it, why do you care what others think? I heartily dislike tattoos, but if I somehow really did want a rose on my ankle or whatever – other people can take a flying leap if they don’t like it.</p>
<p>Here’s a recent example. Friend of mine has a son who has had some extended emotional troubles / struggles. I recently saw on his Facebook that he got a tattoo that has a line from a De La Soul song – “Tread Water” – to the effect that even when the water closes above you, you have to keep on paddling. Taken in context, it’s a very life-affirming thing for this kid to say. I can be proud that his kid has this life-affirming quote to inspire him (since he hasn’t always been so positive with life’s ups and downs) and if it takes a tattoo to remind him of this message, well, then I say more power to him. I also think he showed good judgment by having this tattoo in a location where it’s covered by most street clothing. I can still think in the abstract that tattoos aren’t a great idea, but that doesn’t mean I’d react in horror to one or anything. In this kid’s case, if it takes a tattoo to give him hope / courage, I’m all for it. It’s still aesthetically unappealing to me though :-)</p>
<p>Sure. I was assuming this was an adult of sound mind in 2013 in America, not someone from Papua New Guinea who just got airlifted in and wouldn’t know world history.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,
In the case of you’re friend’s son, I would be concerned for him if the message were not covered by street clothing, so I’m glad it can be. When a young person puts a visible quote on themselves which serves as a means of helping them get through the day, that doesn’t really inspire confidence to someone who might be hiring them, or trusting them in some important capacity. It actually advertises that this young man has or has had emotional problems that run pretty deep. And while I’d be glad that he found something to help him, I still think it would be unwise to display it publicly, since once asked, he’d be inclined to go into his rationale. </p>
<pre><code>This gets into a whole other question and concern I have about the younger generation, in particular, which has to do with privacy and boundaries. I am SO glad we didn’t have FB, the the rest of the viral media when I was young. It seems that everything in some kids’ lives is public and up for grabs. Unfortunately, it’s just the nature of things that when people are young, they don’t have the wisdom that comes later. They don’t know that what they display today may come back to haunt them, and they don’t even know that they don’t know. What you get is, they don’t care. But how do they know they won’t care? Its so naive. And there’s nothing one can say to make them see it.
</code></pre>
I just love to use that :eek: symbol. :)</p>