Neck tattoos
- Thread starter JHZR2
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
If by "fad" you mean a practice nearly as old as the human race...I think you have a very usually definition of "fad".
Except for the fact that almost no-one 25 years ago and longer had them. It is in this country a recent "Fad". This coming from someone who has lived in this country for 65 years.
+1. Excessive quantities, and especially the highly visible neck/sleeve/calf ones are far more numerous now.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
If by "fad" you mean a practice nearly as old as the human race...I think you have a very usually definition of "fad".
Except for the fact that almost no-one 25 years ago and longer had them. It is in this country a recent "Fad". This coming from someone who has lived in this country for 65 years.
+1. Excessive quantities, and especially the highly visible neck/sleeve/calf ones are far more numerous now.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Can you cite a source on that?
Uhhhh...yea..Source = me. ( I was there)
Can you cite a source on that?
Uhhhh...yea..Source = me. ( I was there)
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Can you cite a source on that?
Uhhhh...yea..Source = me. ( I was there)
Not a valid sample in a debate. If you are going to make a statement as broad as you did, the burden of proof lies upon you to provide the statistics for it.
I can say I have never seen a grizzly bear in 28 years. Statistically, that has absolutely no meaning on the number of bears out there.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Can you cite a source on that?
Uhhhh...yea..Source = me. ( I was there)
Not a valid sample in a debate. If you are going to make a statement as broad as you did, the burden of proof lies upon you to provide the statistics for it.
I can say I have never seen a grizzly bear in 28 years. Statistically, that has absolutely no meaning on the number of bears out there.
I ALWAYS associate tattoos with slavery. And indeed this connection goes back centuries in many cultures.
So I'm wondering ....do all these folks with tats think is it "kewl" to look like a "slave"?
Throughout history slaves usually had some sort of tattoos put on them.
There is nothing interesting or attractive about them either.
I also find it unprofessional for service employees to expose these tattoos as well. Not to mention the tons of piercings that appear in many places today besides the ears, looks ugly and trashy.
I tend to think that there is also an "intimidation factor" when these folks show their tats off. Anyone else agree?
So I'm wondering ....do all these folks with tats think is it "kewl" to look like a "slave"?
Throughout history slaves usually had some sort of tattoos put on them.
There is nothing interesting or attractive about them either.
I also find it unprofessional for service employees to expose these tattoos as well. Not to mention the tons of piercings that appear in many places today besides the ears, looks ugly and trashy.
I tend to think that there is also an "intimidation factor" when these folks show their tats off. Anyone else agree?
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Wasnt that the case with piercings?
I love the commercial that contrasted "bad idea" and "good idea".
In the "bad idea" category was the giant tatoo across the guy's back that said something like "Spring Break '89"...yeah...like I would want that on there when I finally grew up!
In the "bad idea" category was the giant tatoo across the guy's back that said something like "Spring Break '89"...yeah...like I would want that on there when I finally grew up!
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Wasnt that the case with piercings?
I'm sure it was.
The odd thing is I always wondered how this "trend" in the past 20 or 25 years even got started. It is almost a perverse reversal of meaning in history now somehow these items denote "rebellion and independence" ? Really? Almost makes me think someone or some group is getting a nice chuckle out of the deal.
Wasnt that the case with piercings?
I'm sure it was.
The odd thing is I always wondered how this "trend" in the past 20 or 25 years even got started. It is almost a perverse reversal of meaning in history now somehow these items denote "rebellion and independence" ? Really? Almost makes me think someone or some group is getting a nice chuckle out of the deal.
JHZR2
Staff member
Wasnt the "peace" sign (i.e. two fingers in a V) actually the sign for victory in war? I always get a chuckle out of that...
In England, palm in, it has an entirely different meaning....not forum friendly...lol.
My Grandpa would say..."I gave em the tongs"
My Grandpa would say..."I gave em the tongs"
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Wasnt the "peace" sign (i.e. two fingers in a V) actually the sign for victory in war? I always get a chuckle out of that...
It was, my grandparents always laughed at the people throwing the peace sign and would explain it to me when i was little.
Wasnt the "peace" sign (i.e. two fingers in a V) actually the sign for victory in war? I always get a chuckle out of that...
It was, my grandparents always laughed at the people throwing the peace sign and would explain it to me when i was little.
I have people come into my office with visible tats. I don't even enter into a conversation with them. No way is it acceptable in a professional environment.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
I have people come into my office with visible tats. I don't even enter into a conversation with them. No way is it acceptable in a professional environment.
Wow... I cannot fathom the rudeness there.
"Professional" is subjective, evolving, and means nothing concrete. 70 years ago it was "not professional" to have someone who was not white working in a business. 40 years ago not having short hair was "unprofessional". Appearance does not equal ability, talent, and/or worth. To me it just comes across shallow to judge based on looks.
I have people come into my office with visible tats. I don't even enter into a conversation with them. No way is it acceptable in a professional environment.
Wow... I cannot fathom the rudeness there.
"Professional" is subjective, evolving, and means nothing concrete. 70 years ago it was "not professional" to have someone who was not white working in a business. 40 years ago not having short hair was "unprofessional". Appearance does not equal ability, talent, and/or worth. To me it just comes across shallow to judge based on looks.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
not a valid sample in a debate. If you are going to make a statement as broad as you did, the burden of proof lies upon you to provide the statistics for it.
Yes I am well aware of statistical models. Forums usually end up in debates that are relative free of facts. A sample requires at least 30 "Sample Statistics" to be able to make a "Hypothesis" with respect to a "Population".
I would guess in the years of 1960 to 1985..I made at least 30 observations (for instance going to a grocery store and noticing few if any tats) and again in the last 25 years going to a grocery store,or area where many people are present ...obviously I see lots of tats.
Makes more sense than your statement saying its not a "Fad" bc people centuries ago had tats. Note we are talking the good 'ol U.S.A here; not the Mesopotamian region .
not a valid sample in a debate. If you are going to make a statement as broad as you did, the burden of proof lies upon you to provide the statistics for it.
Yes I am well aware of statistical models. Forums usually end up in debates that are relative free of facts. A sample requires at least 30 "Sample Statistics" to be able to make a "Hypothesis" with respect to a "Population".
I would guess in the years of 1960 to 1985..I made at least 30 observations (for instance going to a grocery store and noticing few if any tats) and again in the last 25 years going to a grocery store,or area where many people are present ...obviously I see lots of tats.
Makes more sense than your statement saying its not a "Fad" bc people centuries ago had tats. Note we are talking the good 'ol U.S.A here; not the Mesopotamian region .
Last edited:
I'm a pretty easy going guy and never judge a person by their immediate appearance. HOWEVER - one "fad" that really, really disturbs me is the HUGE earlobe piercing! I mean, you see guys with rings in their earlobes several inches wide!! What happens when you grow out of it or just decide to not wear them anymore?? Your earlobes must hang like loose skin. Stupid.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Had this debate with my sibling once, who when searching for a job out of college, refused to "dress corporate" stating that people had to accept the person and look past the clothes...but the clothes were a statement of who the person was...and the interviews weren't all that productive.
I think that gets to the original question as well as anything posted so far. People can tattoo, pierce, brand, or otherwise decorate themselves in any way they want. However, nobody else has to like it, or accept it, or not be "judgmental" about it. In an ideal world, we all should accept one another and look past the surface. In the real world, getting a tattoo on one's neck and then expecting that nobody will make judgements about it is a sure way to be a perpetual victim of misunderstanding.
Unless you're either independently wealthy or successful and satisfied in a profession where big, visible tattoos are the norm--musician, artist, tattoo artist, bartender or server at a place where tattoo aficionados hang out--common sense would suggest not getting tattoos that can't be covered easily.
I don't have a tattoo, but I did have hair about halfway down my back for ten years. That ended with the choice of either getting my first job with an actual salary, or continuing to be the cool, straight, educated, responsible guy with really long hair. I was hungry enough that I cut the hair (I was going bald anyway). Since then, I have never worried that somebody was judging me based on the length of my hair.
Had this debate with my sibling once, who when searching for a job out of college, refused to "dress corporate" stating that people had to accept the person and look past the clothes...but the clothes were a statement of who the person was...and the interviews weren't all that productive.
I think that gets to the original question as well as anything posted so far. People can tattoo, pierce, brand, or otherwise decorate themselves in any way they want. However, nobody else has to like it, or accept it, or not be "judgmental" about it. In an ideal world, we all should accept one another and look past the surface. In the real world, getting a tattoo on one's neck and then expecting that nobody will make judgements about it is a sure way to be a perpetual victim of misunderstanding.
Unless you're either independently wealthy or successful and satisfied in a profession where big, visible tattoos are the norm--musician, artist, tattoo artist, bartender or server at a place where tattoo aficionados hang out--common sense would suggest not getting tattoos that can't be covered easily.
I don't have a tattoo, but I did have hair about halfway down my back for ten years. That ended with the choice of either getting my first job with an actual salary, or continuing to be the cool, straight, educated, responsible guy with really long hair. I was hungry enough that I cut the hair (I was going bald anyway). Since then, I have never worried that somebody was judging me based on the length of my hair.
I like how rowdy and defensive HollowEyes is getting.
Some people think that having a skull tattooed on your Adam's apple is a sign that you may have eaten paint chips as a child and they aren't interested in hearing some esoteric yarn about life when they ask why you got the grim reaper cutting his way out of your forearm. Why would they be so closed minded? Because you look like an idiot.
Tattoos in visible places are not some ridiculous form of free expression that everybody should celebrate because the wearer is so enlightened and special. They're a sign of poor judgment. The fact is, getting something tattooed where it can't be concealed is a mistake. That's why it's not professional.
I actually wore my hair pretty long for awhile, but I got tired of being harassed by cops.
Some people think that having a skull tattooed on your Adam's apple is a sign that you may have eaten paint chips as a child and they aren't interested in hearing some esoteric yarn about life when they ask why you got the grim reaper cutting his way out of your forearm. Why would they be so closed minded? Because you look like an idiot.
Tattoos in visible places are not some ridiculous form of free expression that everybody should celebrate because the wearer is so enlightened and special. They're a sign of poor judgment. The fact is, getting something tattooed where it can't be concealed is a mistake. That's why it's not professional.
I actually wore my hair pretty long for awhile, but I got tired of being harassed by cops.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
I have people come into my office with visible tats. I don't even enter into a conversation with them. No way is it acceptable in a professional environment.
Wow... I cannot fathom the rudeness there.
"Professional" is subjective, evolving, and means nothing concrete. 70 years ago it was "not professional" to have someone who was not white working in a business. 40 years ago not having short hair was "unprofessional". Appearance does not equal ability, talent, and/or worth. To me it just comes across shallow to judge based on looks.
You can't compare skin color (genetically determined) with tatoos (deliberately chosen)....that's not a reasonable comparison. I treat all races, genders, religions, and national origins the same. I evaluate people on their merit.
Professional has to do with job performance and personal behaviour.
If a person wants to display a flagrant dumb decision, likely done when they were under the influence, well, then, that sure makes the evaluation easier...
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
I have people come into my office with visible tats. I don't even enter into a conversation with them. No way is it acceptable in a professional environment.
Wow... I cannot fathom the rudeness there.
"Professional" is subjective, evolving, and means nothing concrete. 70 years ago it was "not professional" to have someone who was not white working in a business. 40 years ago not having short hair was "unprofessional". Appearance does not equal ability, talent, and/or worth. To me it just comes across shallow to judge based on looks.
You can't compare skin color (genetically determined) with tatoos (deliberately chosen)....that's not a reasonable comparison. I treat all races, genders, religions, and national origins the same. I evaluate people on their merit.
Professional has to do with job performance and personal behaviour.
If a person wants to display a flagrant dumb decision, likely done when they were under the influence, well, then, that sure makes the evaluation easier...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
What I would like to know is how can low income folks afford to get all their tattoos, yet don't have any money to feed their 5 kids ?
^^Exactly!
What I would like to know is how can low income folks afford to get all their tattoos, yet don't have any money to feed their 5 kids ?
^^Exactly!
I have to say that whether or not it is the intended reaction from the other person that is interacting with the tattooed subject I find them intimidating. That is my automatic reaction.
Another question too. Although all the ink doesn't leave the tattoo some of it MUST reach the blood stream, since it is permenant you'd think it would be poisonous.
Another question too. Although all the ink doesn't leave the tattoo some of it MUST reach the blood stream, since it is permenant you'd think it would be poisonous.
- Status
