Where can I live where no one has tattoos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tattoos should be legal only for age 25 and up. Too many regret getting them as teenagers or 20 somethings, only to discover that "clever slogan" won't look good as a grandma with wrinkles and sagging skin.

Adults shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. That's a bad take.

Have you ever actually seen old sagging tattooed skin? It's not pretty and it won't look any better on old you, no matter how cool you think you are.

+1 so true!!

I wouldn’t assume every older person with tattoos got them when they are older. I know a federal judge in her late 60s who has gotten three in the past three years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that try to fit into a certain clique often end up doing this. Ever wonder why so many basketball and football players have tattoos all over? It’s part of the culture of the groups, there’s peer pressure to fit in and look like everyone else. The ones with enough self confidence don’t care about superficial body markings like tattoos.

For regular folks, their environment influences their decisions. That’s why it’s so important to be selective in who you spend your time with.

The stupidity and amateur psychology in this thread is amazing.

The takeaway from this dumbass:
- it takes self confidence to resist getting a tattoo
- pick your friends carefully, otherwise you'll end up with a tattoo

You seem really defensive. I don't think PP's comments are off base. People get tattoos because of cultural influences, and that people generally are affected by their cultural surroundings. If you think that people who get covered in tattoos generally lack good judgment, why wouldn't you want to avoid living around them?

This is stupid circular reasoning.

All you have to do is to think long and hard about why tattoos were so verboten in 1990 compared to today. It wasn't as if you couldn't find a tattoo artist back then. Even the hippies shunned tattoos.

Most people are lemmings to a degree. Cultural influences heavily determine what we consider cool and edgy and attractive. Most people today getting tattoos are influenced by seeing their friends and whatever "influencer" they admire getting tattoos, because that tells them what to think is attractive and pretty. It's why fashion come in and out of style all the time.

But there is a difference between fads like piercings or clothing trends or hair styles and tattoos and it's that tattoos are nearly impossible to remove, especially the more extensive they are. And there is something to be said about studying the psychological behaviors of getting a tattoo.

Ah yes, everyone is a lemming and blame any change on instagram. Keep on pearl clutching, boomer.

Well, yes. That is the point. We don't exist in isolated vacuums. How else do you explain styles coming in and out all the time? You are no exception, your worldview and tastes are heavily determined by the culture around you. Today, that culture tells you tattoos are cool and edgy and attractive, whereas just a generation ago the same culture shunned them as ugly and distasteful and stupid. WWYD.

Tattoos have been edgey and cool for decades. Sorry boomers like you need Facebook to tell you about trends years after they started.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not a boomer. Back then they were considered trashy, mostly Vietnam veterans and Hells Angels riders. Predominately very bottom of the barrel working class, with the exception of a few military, usually naval, enlisted sailors from WWII. No one "normal" got tattoos. No one considered them cool and edgy. There is a reason the counter culture hippies avoided tattoos outright. My mother, who was a granola hippie of the 60s, said most people saw tattoos as redneck and racist white trash.

The only reason people consider them cool today when they were trashy and rather revolting 30 years ago is cultural. And culture influences individual decisions. You aren't immune. I don't doubt the next generation will be mocking your tattoos and seeing them as silly, which is what generations always do when they rebel against the conventions of the previous generation.

Your memory of the 80s and 90s is quite different from mine. In fact, two seconds of googling counters your assertion. The 80s were, in fact, when tattoos exploded in popularity. I'm guessing you had a pretty sheltered childhood and, honestly, you come off as a bit of a nut.

NP here. Very few people with any class who were also drug free were getting tattoos on visible parts of their bodies in the 80's and 90's.

I was there; I 55 and don't have any tattoos, but many friends started getting them in the mid to late 90s. All were drug free, in their 20s, and this was in the southeast.

I'm really surprised at the popularity of tattoos still, would have assumed they would be an "old people" thing by now.

Tattoos have been around for millenia, dipshit.

Yes, but they weren't trendy or popular among most. When I was in my teens it was mostly Navy guys, and bikers who had tattoos.

By the time I was in my late 20s it was edgy people too. On so on from there.

The DC area is the place I have lived there fewer people have visible tattoos.

Not everyone likes tattoos, so deal with it.

The reality is that they were widely accepted in most cultures for hunreds of years, and it was really just a weird blip in the 20th century when white, christian culture associated them with other bad things.

But elsewhere, they were always popular for hundreds of years. The mid 20th century was the blip

I know sailors and many indigenous people as well as other groups had tattoos pre 20th century.
I worked at a maritime museum and we had a whole tattoo art and book collection. Which is how I know tattoos were only popular in certain segments of society. Not necessarily "bad" just not mainstream.

I'm fine with people having tattoos, but don't rewrite history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that try to fit into a certain clique often end up doing this. Ever wonder why so many basketball and football players have tattoos all over? It’s part of the culture of the groups, there’s peer pressure to fit in and look like everyone else. The ones with enough self confidence don’t care about superficial body markings like tattoos.

For regular folks, their environment influences their decisions. That’s why it’s so important to be selective in who you spend your time with.

The stupidity and amateur psychology in this thread is amazing.

The takeaway from this dumbass:
- it takes self confidence to resist getting a tattoo
- pick your friends carefully, otherwise you'll end up with a tattoo

You seem really defensive. I don't think PP's comments are off base. People get tattoos because of cultural influences, and that people generally are affected by their cultural surroundings. If you think that people who get covered in tattoos generally lack good judgment, why wouldn't you want to avoid living around them?

This is stupid circular reasoning.

All you have to do is to think long and hard about why tattoos were so verboten in 1990 compared to today. It wasn't as if you couldn't find a tattoo artist back then. Even the hippies shunned tattoos.

Most people are lemmings to a degree. Cultural influences heavily determine what we consider cool and edgy and attractive. Most people today getting tattoos are influenced by seeing their friends and whatever "influencer" they admire getting tattoos, because that tells them what to think is attractive and pretty. It's why fashion come in and out of style all the time.

But there is a difference between fads like piercings or clothing trends or hair styles and tattoos and it's that tattoos are nearly impossible to remove, especially the more extensive they are. And there is something to be said about studying the psychological behaviors of getting a tattoo.

Ah yes, everyone is a lemming and blame any change on instagram. Keep on pearl clutching, boomer.

Well, yes. That is the point. We don't exist in isolated vacuums. How else do you explain styles coming in and out all the time? You are no exception, your worldview and tastes are heavily determined by the culture around you. Today, that culture tells you tattoos are cool and edgy and attractive, whereas just a generation ago the same culture shunned them as ugly and distasteful and stupid. WWYD.

Tattoos have been edgey and cool for decades. Sorry boomers like you need Facebook to tell you about trends years after they started.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not a boomer. Back then they were considered trashy, mostly Vietnam veterans and Hells Angels riders. Predominately very bottom of the barrel working class, with the exception of a few military, usually naval, enlisted sailors from WWII. No one "normal" got tattoos. No one considered them cool and edgy. There is a reason the counter culture hippies avoided tattoos outright. My mother, who was a granola hippie of the 60s, said most people saw tattoos as redneck and racist white trash.

The only reason people consider them cool today when they were trashy and rather revolting 30 years ago is cultural. And culture influences individual decisions. You aren't immune. I don't doubt the next generation will be mocking your tattoos and seeing them as silly, which is what generations always do when they rebel against the conventions of the previous generation.

Your memory of the 80s and 90s is quite different from mine. In fact, two seconds of googling counters your assertion. The 80s were, in fact, when tattoos exploded in popularity. I'm guessing you had a pretty sheltered childhood and, honestly, you come off as a bit of a nut.

NP here. Very few people with any class who were also drug free were getting tattoos on visible parts of their bodies in the 80's and 90's.

I was there; I 55 and don't have any tattoos, but many friends started getting them in the mid to late 90s. All were drug free, in their 20s, and this was in the southeast.

I'm really surprised at the popularity of tattoos still, would have assumed they would be an "old people" thing by now.

Tattoos have been around for millenia, dipshit.

Yes, but they weren't trendy or popular among most. When I was in my teens it was mostly Navy guys, and bikers who had tattoos.

By the time I was in my late 20s it was edgy people too. On so on from there.

The DC area is the place I have lived there fewer people have visible tattoos.

Not everyone likes tattoos, so deal with it.

The reality is that they were widely accepted in most cultures for hunreds of years, and it was really just a weird blip in the 20th century when white, christian culture associated them with other bad things.

But elsewhere, they were always popular for hundreds of years. The mid 20th century was the blip

I know sailors and many indigenous people as well as other groups had tattoos pre 20th century.
I worked at a maritime museum and we had a whole tattoo art and book collection. Which is how I know tattoos were only popular in certain segments of society. Not necessarily "bad" just not mainstream.

I'm fine with people having tattoos, but don't rewrite history.

That's my point. People that think tattoos are just a recent fad are rewriting or erasing certain non-white histories. Saying "tattoos weren't popular"is a very narrow-minded perspective and just erases the Japanese and pacific island cultures.

Lets also not forget that tattoos weren't uncommon royalty in the 19th and 20th century, the most notable being King George V; his father, King Edward VII also had ink And it goes back thousands of years, King Harold II was reported to have multiple tattoos, which were used to identify his body on the battlefield.

It was just a strange 20th century conservative mindset that associated it with a seedier element. For most other times in history, and in most other places across the globe, it did not have those associations.

[Anonymous]

Think about avoiding the places with a lot of MS-13 and similar tattoos. Otherwise, as many have stated, they have other meanings culturally or just at the personal level.
As Stan, the Chotchkie's Manager, says in Office Space, "Well, I thought I remembered you saying that you wanted to express yourself."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that try to fit into a certain clique often end up doing this. Ever wonder why so many basketball and football players have tattoos all over? It’s part of the culture of the groups, there’s peer pressure to fit in and look like everyone else. The ones with enough self confidence don’t care about superficial body markings like tattoos.

For regular folks, their environment influences their decisions. That’s why it’s so important to be selective in who you spend your time with.

The stupidity and amateur psychology in this thread is amazing.

The takeaway from this dumbass:
- it takes self confidence to resist getting a tattoo
- pick your friends carefully, otherwise you'll end up with a tattoo

You seem really defensive. I don't think PP's comments are off base. People get tattoos because of cultural influences, and that people generally are affected by their cultural surroundings. If you think that people who get covered in tattoos generally lack good judgment, why wouldn't you want to avoid living around them?

This is stupid circular reasoning.

All you have to do is to think long and hard about why tattoos were so verboten in 1990 compared to today. It wasn't as if you couldn't find a tattoo artist back then. Even the hippies shunned tattoos.

Most people are lemmings to a degree. Cultural influences heavily determine what we consider cool and edgy and attractive. Most people today getting tattoos are influenced by seeing their friends and whatever "influencer" they admire getting tattoos, because that tells them what to think is attractive and pretty. It's why fashion come in and out of style all the time.

But there is a difference between fads like piercings or clothing trends or hair styles and tattoos and it's that tattoos are nearly impossible to remove, especially the more extensive they are. And there is something to be said about studying the psychological behaviors of getting a tattoo.

Ah yes, everyone is a lemming and blame any change on instagram. Keep on pearl clutching, boomer.

Well, yes. That is the point. We don't exist in isolated vacuums. How else do you explain styles coming in and out all the time? You are no exception, your worldview and tastes are heavily determined by the culture around you. Today, that culture tells you tattoos are cool and edgy and attractive, whereas just a generation ago the same culture shunned them as ugly and distasteful and stupid. WWYD.

Tattoos have been edgey and cool for decades. Sorry boomers like you need Facebook to tell you about trends years after they started.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not a boomer. Back then they were considered trashy, mostly Vietnam veterans and Hells Angels riders. Predominately very bottom of the barrel working class, with the exception of a few military, usually naval, enlisted sailors from WWII. No one "normal" got tattoos. No one considered them cool and edgy. There is a reason the counter culture hippies avoided tattoos outright. My mother, who was a granola hippie of the 60s, said most people saw tattoos as redneck and racist white trash.

The only reason people consider them cool today when they were trashy and rather revolting 30 years ago is cultural. And culture influences individual decisions. You aren't immune. I don't doubt the next generation will be mocking your tattoos and seeing them as silly, which is what generations always do when they rebel against the conventions of the previous generation.

Your memory of the 80s and 90s is quite different from mine. In fact, two seconds of googling counters your assertion. The 80s were, in fact, when tattoos exploded in popularity. I'm guessing you had a pretty sheltered childhood and, honestly, you come off as a bit of a nut.

NP here. Very few people with any class who were also drug free were getting tattoos on visible parts of their bodies in the 80's and 90's.

I was there; I 55 and don't have any tattoos, but many friends started getting them in the mid to late 90s. All were drug free, in their 20s, and this was in the southeast.

I'm really surprised at the popularity of tattoos still, would have assumed they would be an "old people" thing by now.

Tattoos have been around for millenia, dipshit.

Yes, but they weren't trendy or popular among most. When I was in my teens it was mostly Navy guys, and bikers who had tattoos.

By the time I was in my late 20s it was edgy people too. On so on from there.

The DC area is the place I have lived there fewer people have visible tattoos.

Not everyone likes tattoos, so deal with it.

The reality is that they were widely accepted in most cultures for hunreds of years, and it was really just a weird blip in the 20th century when white, christian culture associated them with other bad things.

But elsewhere, they were always popular for hundreds of years. The mid 20th century was the blip

I know sailors and many indigenous people as well as other groups had tattoos pre 20th century.
I worked at a maritime museum and we had a whole tattoo art and book collection. Which is how I know tattoos were only popular in certain segments of society. Not necessarily "bad" just not mainstream.

I'm fine with people having tattoos, but don't rewrite history.

That's my point. People that think tattoos are just a recent fad are rewriting or erasing certain non-white histories. Saying "tattoos weren't popular"is a very narrow-minded perspective and just erases the Japanese and pacific island cultures.

Lets also not forget that tattoos weren't uncommon royalty in the 19th and 20th century, the most notable being King George V; his father, King Edward VII also had ink And it goes back thousands of years, King Harold II was reported to have multiple tattoos, which were used to identify his body on the battlefield.

It was just a strange 20th century conservative mindset that associated it with a seedier element. For most other times in history, and in most other places across the globe, it did not have those associations.

Well, we are not in the pacific islands or commanding European battlefields in the 19th century are we. And outside of those contexts tattoos have been generally associated with the military and prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Price range up to $1.2M.

Select an Orthodox neighborhood. No one will have tattoos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that try to fit into a certain clique often end up doing this. Ever wonder why so many basketball and football players have tattoos all over? It’s part of the culture of the groups, there’s peer pressure to fit in and look like everyone else. The ones with enough self confidence don’t care about superficial body markings like tattoos.

For regular folks, their environment influences their decisions. That’s why it’s so important to be selective in who you spend your time with.

The stupidity and amateur psychology in this thread is amazing.

The takeaway from this dumbass:
- it takes self confidence to resist getting a tattoo
- pick your friends carefully, otherwise you'll end up with a tattoo

You seem really defensive. I don't think PP's comments are off base. People get tattoos because of cultural influences, and that people generally are affected by their cultural surroundings. If you think that people who get covered in tattoos generally lack good judgment, why wouldn't you want to avoid living around them?

This is stupid circular reasoning.

All you have to do is to think long and hard about why tattoos were so verboten in 1990 compared to today. It wasn't as if you couldn't find a tattoo artist back then. Even the hippies shunned tattoos.

Most people are lemmings to a degree. Cultural influences heavily determine what we consider cool and edgy and attractive. Most people today getting tattoos are influenced by seeing their friends and whatever "influencer" they admire getting tattoos, because that tells them what to think is attractive and pretty. It's why fashion come in and out of style all the time.

But there is a difference between fads like piercings or clothing trends or hair styles and tattoos and it's that tattoos are nearly impossible to remove, especially the more extensive they are. And there is something to be said about studying the psychological behaviors of getting a tattoo.

Ah yes, everyone is a lemming and blame any change on instagram. Keep on pearl clutching, boomer.

Well, yes. That is the point. We don't exist in isolated vacuums. How else do you explain styles coming in and out all the time? You are no exception, your worldview and tastes are heavily determined by the culture around you. Today, that culture tells you tattoos are cool and edgy and attractive, whereas just a generation ago the same culture shunned them as ugly and distasteful and stupid. WWYD.

Tattoos have been edgey and cool for decades. Sorry boomers like you need Facebook to tell you about trends years after they started.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not a boomer. Back then they were considered trashy, mostly Vietnam veterans and Hells Angels riders. Predominately very bottom of the barrel working class, with the exception of a few military, usually naval, enlisted sailors from WWII. No one "normal" got tattoos. No one considered them cool and edgy. There is a reason the counter culture hippies avoided tattoos outright. My mother, who was a granola hippie of the 60s, said most people saw tattoos as redneck and racist white trash.

The only reason people consider them cool today when they were trashy and rather revolting 30 years ago is cultural. And culture influences individual decisions. You aren't immune. I don't doubt the next generation will be mocking your tattoos and seeing them as silly, which is what generations always do when they rebel against the conventions of the previous generation.

Your memory of the 80s and 90s is quite different from mine. In fact, two seconds of googling counters your assertion. The 80s were, in fact, when tattoos exploded in popularity. I'm guessing you had a pretty sheltered childhood and, honestly, you come off as a bit of a nut.

NP here. Very few people with any class who were also drug free were getting tattoos on visible parts of their bodies in the 80's and 90's.

I was there; I 55 and don't have any tattoos, but many friends started getting them in the mid to late 90s. All were drug free, in their 20s, and this was in the southeast.

I'm really surprised at the popularity of tattoos still, would have assumed they would be an "old people" thing by now.

Tattoos have been around for millenia, dipshit.

Yes, but they weren't trendy or popular among most. When I was in my teens it was mostly Navy guys, and bikers who had tattoos.

By the time I was in my late 20s it was edgy people too. On so on from there.

The DC area is the place I have lived there fewer people have visible tattoos.

Not everyone likes tattoos, so deal with it.

The reality is that they were widely accepted in most cultures for hunreds of years, and it was really just a weird blip in the 20th century when white, christian culture associated them with other bad things.

But elsewhere, they were always popular for hundreds of years. The mid 20th century was the blip

I know sailors and many indigenous people as well as other groups had tattoos pre 20th century.
I worked at a maritime museum and we had a whole tattoo art and book collection. Which is how I know tattoos were only popular in certain segments of society. Not necessarily "bad" just not mainstream.

I'm fine with people having tattoos, but don't rewrite history.

That's my point. People that think tattoos are just a recent fad are rewriting or erasing certain non-white histories. Saying "tattoos weren't popular"is a very narrow-minded perspective and just erases the Japanese and pacific island cultures.

Lets also not forget that tattoos weren't uncommon royalty in the 19th and 20th century, the most notable being King George V; his father, King Edward VII also had ink And it goes back thousands of years, King Harold II was reported to have multiple tattoos, which were used to identify his body on the battlefield.

It was just a strange 20th century conservative mindset that associated it with a seedier element. For most other times in history, and in most other places across the globe, it did not have those associations.

Well, we are not in the pacific islands or commanding European battlefields in the 19th century are we. And outside of those contexts tattoos have been generally associated with the military and prison.

This thread should have been locked weeks ago. It's two prudish douche bags posting the same stupid thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tattoos should be legal only for age 25 and up. Too many regret getting them as teenagers or 20 somethings, only to discover that "clever slogan" won't look good as a grandma with wrinkles and sagging skin.

Adults shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. That's a bad take.

Have you ever actually seen old sagging tattooed skin? It's not pretty and it won't look any better on old you, no matter how cool you think you are.

+1 so true!!

I wouldn’t assume every older person with tattoos got them when they are older. I know a federal judge in her late 60s who has gotten three in the past three years.

Small ones can be okay. Large ones on thinning, wrinkling, saggy skin are gross.

[Anonymous]

Salt Lake City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that try to fit into a certain clique often end up doing this. Ever wonder why so many basketball and football players have tattoos all over? It’s part of the culture of the groups, there’s peer pressure to fit in and look like everyone else. The ones with enough self confidence don’t care about superficial body markings like tattoos.

For regular folks, their environment influences their decisions. That’s why it’s so important to be selective in who you spend your time with.

The stupidity and amateur psychology in this thread is amazing.

The takeaway from this dumbass:
- it takes self confidence to resist getting a tattoo
- pick your friends carefully, otherwise you'll end up with a tattoo

You seem really defensive. I don't think PP's comments are off base. People get tattoos because of cultural influences, and that people generally are affected by their cultural surroundings. If you think that people who get covered in tattoos generally lack good judgment, why wouldn't you want to avoid living around them?

This is stupid circular reasoning.

All you have to do is to think long and hard about why tattoos were so verboten in 1990 compared to today. It wasn't as if you couldn't find a tattoo artist back then. Even the hippies shunned tattoos.

Most people are lemmings to a degree. Cultural influences heavily determine what we consider cool and edgy and attractive. Most people today getting tattoos are influenced by seeing their friends and whatever "influencer" they admire getting tattoos, because that tells them what to think is attractive and pretty. It's why fashion come in and out of style all the time.

But there is a difference between fads like piercings or clothing trends or hair styles and tattoos and it's that tattoos are nearly impossible to remove, especially the more extensive they are. And there is something to be said about studying the psychological behaviors of getting a tattoo.

Ah yes, everyone is a lemming and blame any change on instagram. Keep on pearl clutching, boomer.

Well, yes. That is the point. We don't exist in isolated vacuums. How else do you explain styles coming in and out all the time? You are no exception, your worldview and tastes are heavily determined by the culture around you. Today, that culture tells you tattoos are cool and edgy and attractive, whereas just a generation ago the same culture shunned them as ugly and distasteful and stupid. WWYD.

Tattoos have been edgey and cool for decades. Sorry boomers like you need Facebook to tell you about trends years after they started.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not a boomer. Back then they were considered trashy, mostly Vietnam veterans and Hells Angels riders. Predominately very bottom of the barrel working class, with the exception of a few military, usually naval, enlisted sailors from WWII. No one "normal" got tattoos. No one considered them cool and edgy. There is a reason the counter culture hippies avoided tattoos outright. My mother, who was a granola hippie of the 60s, said most people saw tattoos as redneck and racist white trash.

The only reason people consider them cool today when they were trashy and rather revolting 30 years ago is cultural. And culture influences individual decisions. You aren't immune. I don't doubt the next generation will be mocking your tattoos and seeing them as silly, which is what generations always do when they rebel against the conventions of the previous generation.

Your memory of the 80s and 90s is quite different from mine. In fact, two seconds of googling counters your assertion. The 80s were, in fact, when tattoos exploded in popularity. I'm guessing you had a pretty sheltered childhood and, honestly, you come off as a bit of a nut.

NP here. Very few people with any class who were also drug free were getting tattoos on visible parts of their bodies in the 80's and 90's.

I was there; I 55 and don't have any tattoos, but many friends started getting them in the mid to late 90s. All were drug free, in their 20s, and this was in the southeast.

I'm really surprised at the popularity of tattoos still, would have assumed they would be an "old people" thing by now.

Tattoos have been around for millenia, dipshit.

Yes, but they weren't trendy or popular among most. When I was in my teens it was mostly Navy guys, and bikers who had tattoos.

By the time I was in my late 20s it was edgy people too. On so on from there.

The DC area is the place I have lived there fewer people have visible tattoos.

Not everyone likes tattoos, so deal with it.

The reality is that they were widely accepted in most cultures for hunreds of years, and it was really just a weird blip in the 20th century when white, christian culture associated them with other bad things.

But elsewhere, they were always popular for hundreds of years. The mid 20th century was the blip

I know sailors and many indigenous people as well as other groups had tattoos pre 20th century.
I worked at a maritime museum and we had a whole tattoo art and book collection. Which is how I know tattoos were only popular in certain segments of society. Not necessarily "bad" just not mainstream.

I'm fine with people having tattoos, but don't rewrite history.

That's my point. People that think tattoos are just a recent fad are rewriting or erasing certain non-white histories. Saying "tattoos weren't popular"is a very narrow-minded perspective and just erases the Japanese and pacific island cultures.

Lets also not forget that tattoos weren't uncommon royalty in the 19th and 20th century, the most notable being King George V; his father, King Edward VII also had ink And it goes back thousands of years, King Harold II was reported to have multiple tattoos, which were used to identify his body on the battlefield.

It was just a strange 20th century conservative mindset that associated it with a seedier element. For most other times in history, and in most other places across the globe, it did not have those associations.

Well, we are not in the pacific islands or commanding European battlefields in the 19th century are we. And outside of those contexts tattoos have been generally associated with the military and prison.

This thread should have been locked weeks ago. It's two prudish douche bags posting the same stupid thing.

IP addresses will say otherwise my friend. Remember, if you love your tattoos, that is all that matters. Be confident in your choices, no need to tear others down to feel happy about yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Go live in the forest.

People in the forest have tattoos.

[Anonymous]

Move to a senior community.

[Anonymous]

Chevy Chase md. Kalorama?
Don’t ever visit Disney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People that try to fit into a certain clique often end up doing this. Ever wonder why so many basketball and football players have tattoos all over? It’s part of the culture of the groups, there’s peer pressure to fit in and look like everyone else. The ones with enough self confidence don’t care about superficial body markings like tattoos.

For regular folks, their environment influences their decisions. That’s why it’s so important to be selective in who you spend your time with.

The stupidity and amateur psychology in this thread is amazing.

The takeaway from this dumbass:
- it takes self confidence to resist getting a tattoo
- pick your friends carefully, otherwise you'll end up with a tattoo

You seem really defensive. I don't think PP's comments are off base. People get tattoos because of cultural influences, and that people generally are affected by their cultural surroundings. If you think that people who get covered in tattoos generally lack good judgment, why wouldn't you want to avoid living around them?

This is stupid circular reasoning.

All you have to do is to think long and hard about why tattoos were so verboten in 1990 compared to today. It wasn't as if you couldn't find a tattoo artist back then. Even the hippies shunned tattoos.

Most people are lemmings to a degree. Cultural influences heavily determine what we consider cool and edgy and attractive. Most people today getting tattoos are influenced by seeing their friends and whatever "influencer" they admire getting tattoos, because that tells them what to think is attractive and pretty. It's why fashion come in and out of style all the time.

But there is a difference between fads like piercings or clothing trends or hair styles and tattoos and it's that tattoos are nearly impossible to remove, especially the more extensive they are. And there is something to be said about studying the psychological behaviors of getting a tattoo.

Ah yes, everyone is a lemming and blame any change on instagram. Keep on pearl clutching, boomer.

Well, yes. That is the point. We don't exist in isolated vacuums. How else do you explain styles coming in and out all the time? You are no exception, your worldview and tastes are heavily determined by the culture around you. Today, that culture tells you tattoos are cool and edgy and attractive, whereas just a generation ago the same culture shunned them as ugly and distasteful and stupid. WWYD.

Tattoos have been edgey and cool for decades. Sorry boomers like you need Facebook to tell you about trends years after they started.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not a boomer. Back then they were considered trashy, mostly Vietnam veterans and Hells Angels riders. Predominately very bottom of the barrel working class, with the exception of a few military, usually naval, enlisted sailors from WWII. No one "normal" got tattoos. No one considered them cool and edgy. There is a reason the counter culture hippies avoided tattoos outright. My mother, who was a granola hippie of the 60s, said most people saw tattoos as redneck and racist white trash.

The only reason people consider them cool today when they were trashy and rather revolting 30 years ago is cultural. And culture influences individual decisions. You aren't immune. I don't doubt the next generation will be mocking your tattoos and seeing them as silly, which is what generations always do when they rebel against the conventions of the previous generation.

Your memory of the 80s and 90s is quite different from mine. In fact, two seconds of googling counters your assertion. The 80s were, in fact, when tattoos exploded in popularity. I'm guessing you had a pretty sheltered childhood and, honestly, you come off as a bit of a nut.

NP here. Very few people with any class who were also drug free were getting tattoos on visible parts of their bodies in the 80's and 90's.

I was there; I 55 and don't have any tattoos, but many friends started getting them in the mid to late 90s. All were drug free, in their 20s, and this was in the southeast.

I'm really surprised at the popularity of tattoos still, would have assumed they would be an "old people" thing by now.

Tattoos have been around for millenia, dipshit.

Yes, but they weren't trendy or popular among most. When I was in my teens it was mostly Navy guys, and bikers who had tattoos.

By the time I was in my late 20s it was edgy people too. On so on from there.

The DC area is the place I have lived there fewer people have visible tattoos.

Not everyone likes tattoos, so deal with it.

The reality is that they were widely accepted in most cultures for hunreds of years, and it was really just a weird blip in the 20th century when white, christian culture associated them with other bad things.

But elsewhere, they were always popular for hundreds of years. The mid 20th century was the blip

I know sailors and many indigenous people as well as other groups had tattoos pre 20th century.
I worked at a maritime museum and we had a whole tattoo art and book collection. Which is how I know tattoos were only popular in certain segments of society. Not necessarily "bad" just not mainstream.

I'm fine with people having tattoos, but don't rewrite history.

That's my point. People that think tattoos are just a recent fad are rewriting or erasing certain non-white histories. Saying "tattoos weren't popular"is a very narrow-minded perspective and just erases the Japanese and pacific island cultures.

Lets also not forget that tattoos weren't uncommon royalty in the 19th and 20th century, the most notable being King George V; his father, King Edward VII also had ink And it goes back thousands of years, King Harold II was reported to have multiple tattoos, which were used to identify his body on the battlefield.

It was just a strange 20th century conservative mindset that associated it with a seedier element. For most other times in history, and in most other places across the globe, it did not have those associations.

King Edward VII had a tramp stamp?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tattoos should be legal only for age 25 and up. Too many regret getting them as teenagers or 20 somethings, only to discover that "clever slogan" won't look good as a grandma with wrinkles and sagging skin.

Adults shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. That's a bad take.

Have you ever actually seen old sagging tattooed skin? It's not pretty and it won't look any better on old you, no matter how cool you think you are.

+1 so true!!

I wouldn’t assume every older person with tattoos got them when they are older. I know a federal judge in her late 60s who has gotten three in the past three years.

Small ones can be okay. Large ones on thinning, wrinkling, saggy skin are gross.

Thinning, wrinkling, saggy skin is gross period. I assure you not having a tattoo doesn't make it any more appealing at all. Maybe easier to see liver spots.