Neck tattoos
- Thread starter JHZR2
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Whether it`s fair or not,people and society WILL judge you by your appearance. Imagine if you go into a law office interviewing to join their law firm.............you show up in shorts,a t-shirt,flip flops,unshaven,unbrushed unwashed hair vs someone who`s in a business suit,clean shaven,clean cut...............with the same credentials.............who do you think will get the job?
Last edited:
Quote:
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.
When I got out of the Army, I decided that I was done with the "high and tight" and I was not going to cut my hair.
Mistake. The greasy black cloth tape that wraps the wiring on most European cars does not stick back on the wiring or anything it's supposed to. But it does stick to hair. Pulling it back into a ponytail didn't make it any better. It found my hair anyway. Nothing washes it out. Not Goop, not shampoo...nothing.
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.
Mistake. The greasy black cloth tape that wraps the wiring on most European cars does not stick back on the wiring or anything it's supposed to. But it does stick to hair. Pulling it back into a ponytail didn't make it any better. It found my hair anyway. Nothing washes it out. Not Goop, not shampoo...nothing.
Originally Posted By: Al
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 .
I have to agree with you. I also started noticing tatoos being much more common starting sometime in the late 90's. Tattoo popularity seemed to soar after that and seems like a fad to me.
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 .
I have to agree with you. I also started noticing tatoos being much more common starting sometime in the late 90's. Tattoo popularity seemed to soar after that and seems like a fad to me.
On big tough bikers, those that have served in the forces, or those that have served time, tattoos don't surprise me. That tattoo roadmap struck me as funny...but also somewhat accurate.
To me, tattoos are like putting a GTR, SS, or other "instant horsepower" badge on a vehicle declaring it more than it really is. The body speaks for itself in that matter, it is a wonderful creation and a marvel of its operation, and it needs no additional adornment as far as skin dye is concerned...
To me, tattoos are like putting a GTR, SS, or other "instant horsepower" badge on a vehicle declaring it more than it really is. The body speaks for itself in that matter, it is a wonderful creation and a marvel of its operation, and it needs no additional adornment as far as skin dye is concerned...
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
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.
Just google for the number of tattoo parlors 60 years ago, and compare to the number today, adjust for population, and if the number of parlors/1000 citizens has risen, then you know it's a recent development.
But an informal study, look for photos of athletes and musicians from 1960 with visible body art and compare to today.
Are you going to tell me that the cultural icons of 1961 were sporting visible body art in the same numbers as today?
That's what drives most fads. Folks see those who get media attention and then mimic that. The entertainers and athletes in 1961 didn't sport visible body art. Today it seems it's part of the uniform.
Ergo, it's likely a fad in our culture.
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.
Just google for the number of tattoo parlors 60 years ago, and compare to the number today, adjust for population, and if the number of parlors/1000 citizens has risen, then you know it's a recent development.
But an informal study, look for photos of athletes and musicians from 1960 with visible body art and compare to today.
Are you going to tell me that the cultural icons of 1961 were sporting visible body art in the same numbers as today?
That's what drives most fads. Folks see those who get media attention and then mimic that. The entertainers and athletes in 1961 didn't sport visible body art. Today it seems it's part of the uniform.
Ergo, it's likely a fad in our culture.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Yeah...I think I am done here.
Opinions are opinions, and apparently questioning their reason goes nowhere.
G'night all.
It works both ways, questioning the wisdom of getting visible body art knowing all the potential negative stereotypes it brings appears equally fruitless.
Folks are "hating" on the body art. They are just being honest about the impressions it conjures up. You see enough gang-bangers and other thugs sporting such art and you begin to associate such art with those decisions.
If everything else is equal, it's going to be a negative when it comes down to hiring two candidates.
I'm sure there are some professions where it doesn't really matter. But when you think of doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc, you don't think of much of the visible body art.
You are aware that some find it to be against their religious views.
What I'm trying to say is you are free to do it, but don't be shocked or indignant when you encounter folks who don't hold such art in high regard.
Yeah...I think I am done here.
Opinions are opinions, and apparently questioning their reason goes nowhere.
G'night all.
It works both ways, questioning the wisdom of getting visible body art knowing all the potential negative stereotypes it brings appears equally fruitless.
Folks are "hating" on the body art. They are just being honest about the impressions it conjures up. You see enough gang-bangers and other thugs sporting such art and you begin to associate such art with those decisions.
If everything else is equal, it's going to be a negative when it comes down to hiring two candidates.
I'm sure there are some professions where it doesn't really matter. But when you think of doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc, you don't think of much of the visible body art.
You are aware that some find it to be against their religious views.
What I'm trying to say is you are free to do it, but don't be shocked or indignant when you encounter folks who don't hold such art in high regard.
Looking at this:
http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_facts.htm
It appears that about 2.5x as many have tattoos in this time vs back in 1936. In 1936, approximately 6% of the population vs 14-16% in recent years.
When you look at it based on age, you find odds are about 1 in 3 three that adults under 30 will have at least one tattoo.
Given that this is part of one age group, it's probably still in the fad stage here in the US.
http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_facts.htm
It appears that about 2.5x as many have tattoos in this time vs back in 1936. In 1936, approximately 6% of the population vs 14-16% in recent years.
When you look at it based on age, you find odds are about 1 in 3 three that adults under 30 will have at least one tattoo.
Given that this is part of one age group, it's probably still in the fad stage here in the US.
No one is "hating" anything.
But when I state my dislike of other's position - I am called close-minded and hating.
When they state their dislike of my position - it's because they're open-minded and tolerant ??!
Yeah, that's not hypocrisy...
But when I state my dislike of other's position - I am called close-minded and hating.
When they state their dislike of my position - it's because they're open-minded and tolerant ??!
Yeah, that's not hypocrisy...
Its a fad. Just like those "Baby on Board" signs everyone had in 1986, or neon yellow and pink hats in 1989, or mullets in 1991. People look back at pictures of themselves from those days and cringe. It'll be the same way with prominent, visible tattoos.
Tattooing is thousands of years old. That part isn't faddish, though the modern treatment of them appears to be. They've marked personal milesones and religious attainment over millinia, and they still do. I've got six myself, one of which was from a Dad/Daughter trip to the tattoo shop. She's Navy, and it was a tasteful tatt in a respectable place. Wife is retired Navy Chief from a Navy family and wants a fouled anchor, but doesn't like pain and needles.
There will always be tasteless tattoos, just as there will always be paintings of poker playing dogs hanging up in people's houses. And just as there will always be pretentious jerks with their gray poupon mustard and down-their-nose looks at other people that the rest of us have to deal with.
There will always be tasteless tattoos, just as there will always be paintings of poker playing dogs hanging up in people's houses. And just as there will always be pretentious jerks with their gray poupon mustard and down-their-nose looks at other people that the rest of us have to deal with.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Yeah...I think I am done here.
Opinions are opinions, and apparently questioning their reason goes nowhere.
G'night all.
It works both ways, questioning the wisdom of getting visible body art knowing all the potential negative stereotypes it brings appears equally fruitless.
Folks are "hating" on the body art. They are just being honest about the impressions it conjures up. You see enough gang-bangers and other thugs sporting such art and you begin to associate such art with those decisions.
If everything else is equal, it's going to be a negative when it comes down to hiring two candidates.
I'm sure there are some professions where it doesn't really matter. But when you think of doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc, you don't think of much of the visible body art.
You are aware that some find it to be against their religious views.
What I'm trying to say is you are free to do it, but don't be shocked or indignant when you encounter folks who don't hold such art in high regard.
I meant to say folks are NOT hating on body art. Dissent is not the same as hate. Sorry I was unclear and left out a key word in my post.
Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
Yeah...I think I am done here.
Opinions are opinions, and apparently questioning their reason goes nowhere.
G'night all.
It works both ways, questioning the wisdom of getting visible body art knowing all the potential negative stereotypes it brings appears equally fruitless.
Folks are "hating" on the body art. They are just being honest about the impressions it conjures up. You see enough gang-bangers and other thugs sporting such art and you begin to associate such art with those decisions.
If everything else is equal, it's going to be a negative when it comes down to hiring two candidates.
I'm sure there are some professions where it doesn't really matter. But when you think of doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc, you don't think of much of the visible body art.
You are aware that some find it to be against their religious views.
What I'm trying to say is you are free to do it, but don't be shocked or indignant when you encounter folks who don't hold such art in high regard.
I meant to say folks are NOT hating on body art. Dissent is not the same as hate. Sorry I was unclear and left out a key word in my post.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
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.
+1
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.
+1
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here
Faced with people who do not even know him but presume to cast aspersions, stereotypes, etc, he's been pretty level headed.
I have no tattoos and don't see myself getting any, but the attitude of many posters regarding those who do says more about those posters than it does about the tattooed.
jeff
Faced with people who do not even know him but presume to cast aspersions, stereotypes, etc, he's been pretty level headed.
I have no tattoos and don't see myself getting any, but the attitude of many posters regarding those who do says more about those posters than it does about the tattooed.
jeff
Tramp stamps are nice on some women. They're good to look at in that position
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here
Faced with people who do not even know him but presume to cast aspersions, stereotypes, etc, he's been pretty level headed.
I have no tattoos and don't see myself getting any, but the attitude of many posters regarding those who do says more about those posters than it does about the tattooed.
jeff
Reasonable is relative. Look at the studies in the link I gave before. Right or wrong, it seems that those who will view body art in a positive manner are largely going to be those sporting body art.
Conversely those who will view it negatively will be those who are not sporting body art.
Now we can argue it right or wrong and I'd side with those who say it's probably wrong to judge folks based on such a thing. But it would also be folly to pretend that such biases did not exist. As a parent, with an 18 year old step son, a 17 year old step daughter and a 12 year old daughter, it's my job to share the realities of the world with them and then let them make their own choices.
I would not be doing my children any favors if I just said do what you want. I'm teaching them to critically analyze their decisions and then determine if the potential costs are outweighed by the potential benefits.
With body art, today (which means it can change) it seems that those who find it favorable are those who already have it. Those who don't are those who don't have it. Given that the population that has is is about 1 in 8, that means the choice to have visible body art has the potential to alienate 3 to 5 people for every one who finds it a positive attribute.
Now is that hate, or is that the reality of the situation.
No one is saying don't do it. They are sharing, honestly, the impact of making such a choice.
If you want ink, get ink. If you don't, don't. If you get it and end up not having the same opportunities that you see others getting, you've been cautioned. At this time, you'll likely have to work harder to get your foot in the door in some places.
That is the cold, harsh reality.
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here
Faced with people who do not even know him but presume to cast aspersions, stereotypes, etc, he's been pretty level headed.
I have no tattoos and don't see myself getting any, but the attitude of many posters regarding those who do says more about those posters than it does about the tattooed.
jeff
Reasonable is relative. Look at the studies in the link I gave before. Right or wrong, it seems that those who will view body art in a positive manner are largely going to be those sporting body art.
Conversely those who will view it negatively will be those who are not sporting body art.
Now we can argue it right or wrong and I'd side with those who say it's probably wrong to judge folks based on such a thing. But it would also be folly to pretend that such biases did not exist. As a parent, with an 18 year old step son, a 17 year old step daughter and a 12 year old daughter, it's my job to share the realities of the world with them and then let them make their own choices.
I would not be doing my children any favors if I just said do what you want. I'm teaching them to critically analyze their decisions and then determine if the potential costs are outweighed by the potential benefits.
With body art, today (which means it can change) it seems that those who find it favorable are those who already have it. Those who don't are those who don't have it. Given that the population that has is is about 1 in 8, that means the choice to have visible body art has the potential to alienate 3 to 5 people for every one who finds it a positive attribute.
Now is that hate, or is that the reality of the situation.
No one is saying don't do it. They are sharing, honestly, the impact of making such a choice.
If you want ink, get ink. If you don't, don't. If you get it and end up not having the same opportunities that you see others getting, you've been cautioned. At this time, you'll likely have to work harder to get your foot in the door in some places.
That is the cold, harsh reality.
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here
He needs all the support he can get.
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here
He needs all the support he can get.
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here.
Faced with people who do not even know him but presume to cast aspersions, stereotypes, etc, he's been pretty level headed.
I'll pass your concerns on to my boss for his consideration the next time he interviews a potential new hire. Somehow I don't think its going to make a difference; he's pretty straight-laced and traditional. He's going to "recycle" the application from the guy with the 1"-diam. earlobe piercings and the neck tattoos. I've seen it MANY times.
Don't bother replying to me, tell it to my boss.
Funny, reading this whole thread HollowEyes comes across as the most reasonable one here.
Faced with people who do not even know him but presume to cast aspersions, stereotypes, etc, he's been pretty level headed.
I'll pass your concerns on to my boss for his consideration the next time he interviews a potential new hire. Somehow I don't think its going to make a difference; he's pretty straight-laced and traditional. He's going to "recycle" the application from the guy with the 1"-diam. earlobe piercings and the neck tattoos. I've seen it MANY times.
Don't bother replying to me, tell it to my boss.
- Status
