<p>
</p>
<p>No, I don’t “need” to condemn EVERY potential “bad thing.” Not that I sit there and harrumph at tattoos, because honestly I don’t care all that much, but even if I did, that doesn’t obligate me to harrumph at people who ride roller coasters or drink unpasteurized milk or go bungee jumping.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what if it’s neither? What if you just thought it, but you didn’t really share it with other people (unless directly asked your opinion)? Because that’s how I feel about tattoos. I don’t like them, but I’m not really going to do much with that opinion, any more than I might notice someone with a bad haircut and think, oh my, they could look better. You know what they say about opinions …</p>
<p>I do feel an obligation to convey my opinions about what constitutes prudent behavior to one group even if they don’t ask: my kids. So they know what I think about tattoos, smoking, motorcycles, binge drinking, and lots, lots more. They may or may not take my views into account in deciding what to do.</p>
<p>" “…or a sushi place you run the risk of getting sick, including hep A, B or C, from raw seafood.”</p>
<p>This phrase discredits whatever else you said in that lenghty post. Only Hep A is transmitted through contaminated food. Can’t get the otherr two via the “sushi route”:"</p>
<p>Really? I goofed with hep B and C (I didn’t look it up), but the fact is you can get hep A from seafood, and you also can get other diseases from it, including typhoid and dysentery if they have been in dirty water (especially shellfish and bottom feeders). </p>
<p>BTW your argument that because of one flaw the whole thing is meaningless reminds me of fundy christians who say evolution is invalid because they have proven “there are holes”, and therefore only genesis could be true. My fundamental point, that eating raw seafood is risky, stands whether it is just hep A, or Hep B and C…and diseases I didn’t mention. </p>
<p>You then went on to talk about sex, and how we educate kids, and I agree, but there is an interesting parallel with the two. Those who posted on the health risks of getting a tattoo made it sound like there was this tremendous risk of getting a disease from getting a tattoo, and especially bringing up the spectre of HIV like they did, makes it a scare tactic, not information on true risks. It is more akin to “reefer madness” then talking about the real risks of pot. Someone said there were no documented cases of someone getting HIV from a tattoo, and there was the infamous prison tattoo…given the fact that millions of people in the US alone have tattoos, the fact that there has only been 1 reported case in the 30 years AIDS has been tested for, says a lot about relative risks, epidemiology when it comes to risks is all about relative risks, if 1 person in a million has a side effect from a medication you don’t ban it; if 1 in several hundred have it, much more of a concern. </p>
<p>It is much the same with sex ed and safer sex. The Abstinence only sex ed is a classic example of this, leaving out promoting sex only after marriage (which is a bit of a joke, given that 90% of people are not virgins when they marry), the ‘education’ often distorts risks, for example, they will tell you that the risk of HIV transmission with oral sex is as high as with vaginal or anal sex, and that isn’t true (oral sex has risks of std’s,but with HIV it is much lower, in part because saliva is resistant to it). They often make claims about condoms that aren’t true, about the birth control pill, and it is done to scare those they are ‘educating’, rather than having them make intelligent decisions. </p>
<p>If we are going to talk about risks, then they need to be talked about rationally, not throwing out any risk as if it is a foregone conclusion. If you go to a third world country and get a tattoo, the likelyhood of it having problems is much higher then if it is in a place where the shops are regulated, and going to an established shop that has a reputation is like going to a topnotch sushi restaurant then as in a tv commercial, getting sushi from a gas station convenience store. It is about relative risk, it is about informed risk.</p>
<p>Saying that there is the risk of infection, possible allergic reaction to the ink, are valid as long as you also say the risk is relatively low, but what some of the posts said was in effect if you get a tattoo, you run a high risk of having it go wrong, and that isn’t true if you follow simple precautions.</p>
<p>Likewise, it is wise to point out that an exposed tattoo could cause problems with jobs and such, and that is very real, but it is kind of idiotic to claim that getting a tattoo at all, without qualifying it, would stop them from getting a job. </p>
<p>Education is about learning the facts and making informed decisions, and both the risks of getting a tattoo and how it could have you perceived on a job interview are fair warnings, but scare tactics, like saying you could get HIV when apparently there have been a teeny percentage who have, is scare tactics. It would be like me telling someone who loves raw seafood (as I do), that if they eat it at all they are playing russian roulette, when if you are careful where you get it from, it is overwhelmingly likely you will be fine. You can have massive problems with a pedicure, but if you go to a salon where they know how to do it safely, the risk is low, go to some cheap nail place that looks like it is based on getting as many people through the doors in a day and hiring the cheapest talent they can, and it is higher <em>shrug</em>. </p>
<p>My point is, if we avoided all the things that have any kinds of risks, we probably wouldn’t lead much of a life, we would be stuck at that safe but boring job, would never try new things, and wouldn’t be very happy. Getting a tattoo has risks, but if the person knows them and is careful, it isn’t exactly like doing free flight gliding in a flight suit off the side of a mountain, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One relative has a well known quote from the serenity prayer tattooed on his arm. It was obviously a budget job because one of the words is misspelled. While obviously meaningful to the individual - and signifies a battle won - it announces a past issue to the world. </p>
<p>Another relative has a quote from an English poem on the back of her neck/upper back area. It is in small print. She wore a wedding dress showing the tattoo and many of the guest spent a number of brain cycles trying to figure out what the danged thing said - all while the ceremony was taking place. She can not even see this tattoo without the benefit of a hand held mirror. Obviously it was meant as a signal/symbol to the outside world. Not sure what the message is - other than - slyly get closer and tried to read what’s at the back of my neck while maintaining eye contact :D</p>
<p>Both relatives made these decisions before the age of 20. Both represent something meaningful to them. Both are judged on the basis of their choice. Oh well, reality is what it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TL;DR. I don’t think you’re hearing that many of us who don’t care for tattoos aren’t looking at the “risks” from a medical risk standpoint. Indeed, that doesn’t enter my mind at all in my judgment of them. I don’t like the look, aesthetically. There’s not much more to it than that.</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.
Pizzagirl is offline "</p>
<p>Whoa, you are talking about two different things here. Hopefully a tattoo has meaning to the person, i won’t deny that, and sure it is part of them, it is part of who they are. If a person has a tattoo that reminds them of a lost relative, it is that they cherished that person. If Miss Kansas has the serenity prayer tattooed on her, it is because it reminds her of overcoming tough times in her life and reminds her when it happens again that she can get through it. </p>
<p>The problem isn’t what it means to the person, it is what others assume it means about the person, that is the problem. If you looked at someone with a tattoo that had scary images on it, I can understand being oft put, what I am talking about is seeing someone has tattoos and saying 'they have a tattoo, means they are a deficient person", when the tattoo could stand for something really important. A person who was abused as a child who has a tattoo of a favorite stuffed animal that helped them be less scared is not a bad person, yet there are those who would say “they have a tattoo, they are garbage”. (and Pizzagirl, I am not speaking of you here, talking in general). Someone with white supremacist images is obviously telling you something about themselves and yeah, you can judge that, but a girl with a tattoo of flowers with a hummingbird on her back doesn’t tell you much, other then she finds birds and flowers attractive <em>shrug</em>. You can judge the image for its meaning, but judging a tattoo simply because they have it is the problem. And yes, it is like age,race, height, weight, gender, in of themselves it doesn’t tell you what kind of person they are. </p>
<p>My primary car I drive is an old mini van, does that mean I am poor or lack aesthetic sense, or work a dead end job at Walmart? Nope, it is because I don’t put much stock in the car I drive, and I also am sending my kid to an expensive school and am able to pay full freight <em>shrug</em>…</p>
<p>Again, it isn’t that tattoos don’t have meaning, I would hope they do, it is that people assign a value to them that has nothing to do with what the wearer is like, simply cause they have one.</p>
<p>@pizzagirl-</p>
<p>Not liking them aesthetically is fine, there are a lot of things I find I personally don’t like, in art, in music (modern classical music for one), I don’t like seeing an older woman trying to look like a teenager, and I find three piece suits nothing more than a variation on a military uniform <em>shrug</em>…and that is fine, I can understand that, and there are a lot of tattoos I find unappealing, believe me:). That kind of thing comes down to personal taste and values, and I don’t think it is wrong to look at someone and think “what were they thinking”, that is natural, I think what I object to is seeing someone with a tattoo, and assuming they are a bad person (not from your posts, others)</p>
<p>Who here has said that person with a tattoo = bad person?</p>
<p>Must be a blue moon, but… even the most judgmental message has been that you stand the chance of being mistaken for a person of less than stellar character or judgment, hasn’t it?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - I don’t know that anyone has said it in this thread, but in previous discussions of this topic other posters have said those with piercings/tattoos are self-mutilators/probably mentally ill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah I think that tattoos are going to be pretty much over. There is a stigma that there are so many hideous ones on public display on every hausfrau. The clock is ticking on every bro with a half sleeve, pretty soon they are going to be flabby, faded distorted eyesores. You cant go to the grocery store without standing behind people who look like they have been vandalized. Thats going to be the marketing message in a couple of years and young people are going to stay away in droves.</p>
<p>Do you really want to permanently affix acid washed jeans to your body?</p>
<p>Beyond that the design sounds terrible and since it requires symmetry, is subject to distortion. Stick with the marker tattoo, which seems to be safe enough. Or show some real commitment and get on the bottom of your foot.</p>