Do you think people with tattoos are annoying? (eyebrow, scalp, remove)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not talking one or two tattoos, but tattoos all over their body. Of course, it is their body. However, I find those people with tattoos all over their arms, legs, body, everywhere very annoying and can't understand why anyone would do that!?
I find tattoos to be very interesting, and I'm glad some people have them...I love checking them out. The only time I've ever been "annoyed" with someone for getting a tatt was when they didn't have enough money for their bills cause they spent it all on a tattoo.
Tattoos don't "bother me" but I have no respect for people who get them.
You mean you have zero respect for someone that gets a tattoo? What other things can someone do that causes you to disrespect them? Do you understand how many people oyu have no respect for? Like police, firemen, veterans, EMTs, etc.
I am sure you respect them enough to be saved by them in a situaiton, or to take money from the for your business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonorio
In any hierarchy anywhere (except show business which is a warped world), the incidence of tattoos increases as you go down and decreases as you go up.
Causation? I do not think so. Maybe many of these people want to get a tattoo, and maybe many of them have one you cannot see; but they follow society prejudices and only do what they think they should do; it was only a few decades ago women were looked down upon for wearing pants; just because many women wore dresses does not mean they agreed with having to do so.
I also like how you dismiss show business (and probably sports, do you watch sports with those tattooed up guys and cheer them on?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonorio
The guy who drives the garbage truck probably has tattoos.
The guy who runs the city probably doesn’t.
The guy whose job it is to saw off rusty, burnt-out mufflers probably has tattoos.
The guy who owns the chain of muffler shops probably doesn’t.
The guy who washes the dishes at the restaurant probably has tattoos.
The owner of the restaurant probably doesn’t.
So what do your tattoos express?
Probably, that you’re a failure, or aspire to be one.
Yes, I see your statistics here showing this as fact..wait, I do not, where are your stats? or is this just how you think it should be, not what it is? I am sure Phil Knight is doing just fine with his tattoos.
Who says tattoos have to express anything? People want them because they can, and if they want it to be expressive, than they can state so, how does it matter to you?
I hate fat people, I think what they do to their body is disgusting, but I still respect their choice and would gladly accept their service if I needed their skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonorio
And by the way, following a huge fad is hardly "expressing individuality".
And by the way, tattoos freeze you right where you are in life. You will never be another person. You will never grow. You will never develop. You will always be what you were when you got those tattoos.
You call it a fad, but fads are short term, tattoos have been around for years, and the number of people getting them keeps growing, I would not call it a fad, I would call it the norm. The rest of this makes no sense, how does it "freeze" where you are in life? A person gets one, and they go on their merry way, no big deal. Given the number of military members with tattoos who went on to college and a successful career, I serious doubt their life was "frozen" in one place when they got their tattoos.
You mean you have zero respect for someone that gets a tattoo? What other things can someone do that causes you to disrespect them? Do you understand how many people oyu have no respect for? Like police, firemen, veterans, EMTs, etc.
I am sure you respect them enough to be saved by them in a situaiton, or to take money from the for your business.
Causation? I do not think so. Maybe many of these people want to get a tattoo, and maybe many of them have one you cannot see; but they follow society prejudices and only do what they think they should do; it was only a few decades ago women were looked down upon for wearing pants; just because many women wore dresses does not mean they agreed with having to do so.
I also like how you dismiss show business (and probably sports, do you watch sports with those tattooed up guys and cheer them on?).
Yes, I see your statistics here showing this as fact..wait, I do not, where are your stats? or is this just how you think it should be, not what it is? I am sure Phil Knight is doing just fine with his tattoos.
Who says tattoos have to express anything? People want them because they can, and if they want it to be expressive, than they can state so, how does it matter to you?
I hate fat people, I think what they do to their body is disgusting, but I still respect their choice and would gladly accept their service if I needed their skills.
You call it a fad, but fads are short term, tattoos have been around for years, and the number of people getting them keeps growing, I would not call it a fad, I would call it the norm. The rest of this makes no sense, how does it "freeze" where you are in life? A person gets one, and they go on their merry way, no big deal. Given the number of military members with tattoos who went on to college and a successful career, I serious doubt their life was "frozen" in one place when they got their tattoos.
That poster and many other just don't know how many people there are with tattoos that are not visible. They have no idea the amount of people they are missing out on disrespecting!
Only if they brag about it, or put other people down for not having tattoos. Honestly...I like my nice, clean skin. I don't want to permanently damage it for the sake of "individuality".
I'm not crazy about the looks of them, but could care less if people tattoo their whole bodies. Not my business or anyone's else. Free expression, doing your own thing okay by me.
I do agree with much of what Sonorio mentioned.
Those that choose to get them and do locate them where their visibility is limited matters very little to me. However, I think they look gross and never enhance or flatter one's appearance.
Personally, as a business owner and one who once had positions in industry where I had a direct influence or oversaw and controlled entire divisions or departments, I can tell you this that any fellow with "Ozzy Osbourne" tatoos on his fingers, hands, wrists, was simply not going to be considered for promotion to any position where they dealt with the public directly as our company's representative, agent, vendor, sales agent, repair technician, delivery driver, or even a part-time helper that met the public directly. So yes, even if a long time employee that had worked their way up to a position that placed them there, once visible tattoos appear than the philosophy was that this employee had to be re-directed to a less-visible position if possible or phased out if that was not possible. Just like I could not be expected to show up with a green mohawk, orange and purple eye shadow and gold teeth and 4 inch long earrings and circa '71 Tina Turner & the Ikettes style body hugging ultra-short mini dresses.
Certain expectations of standard attire and appearance. It is just how it is. It is the way of the world. Yes, plenty people that are my age, once did some crazy things and challenged the norms of dress and speech. I was in College in the late sixties and yes we all did a 180 turnabout from wearing clothing that looked like the norm for 1957 thru 1967 everywhere in the US. Look at any of those old tv shows. 1969 was the year that even the squares like myself began dressing more like a slob and adopting the hippie chick look of center parted very long hair that was a huge change from the crazy flip and shellaced helmut hair look of '67 into early '68. See the old Peticoat Junction tv series where mainstream America still looked like that until late '68 /'69. Like most I went from pleated skirts and flats and blouses to hip hugging bell bottoms and flowered tops and went bra less and wore sandals, keds, flip fops and went barefoot. My parents generation thought we had lost our minds. Some of our crowd probably did for a while. Some never recovered....
Stupidity is universal. Everyone at some point has serious moments of stupidity. Often these moments are more like years. Getting back on point now.... No matter how we thought we were gonna change things.......ultimately everyone realized that there are general expectations of the mass public and employers on what constitutes appropriate attire and appearance. Like it or not that is the way of the world. If you want to get hired and progress up the career path, you must generally follow a somewhat uniform path, and that means conforming to certain generally accepted standards.
Yes, my college class-mates and I had to get haircuts and stop dressing so far-out. Yes back in 1970 or '71 after I entered the professional ranks, fellows could wear more flashy hip, ties, shirts, suits, coats, slacks than they can wear now, but for women it was exactly the opposite because we were limited and we were expected to have an attire and style that looked straight out of 1963 as far as our hair-do and clothes.....think Jackie K circa '62/'63, as anything current or "hippy-like" on a lady was deemed unacceptable still in the corp professional workplace for a lady in '70/'71 though by late '73 one saw more current styles for workplace ladies, something the men had had much earlier. You did not dare push the envelope as you wanted to move up and succeed and the career path was limited for ladies back then as far as promotions, etc. You had to work twice as hard to get noticed and you still were earning only 60% of a male in the same position.
Like it or not in society, we wear "UNIFORMS" every day whether we like it or not. One is severely limiting their advancement and future earning potential by decorating their exposed skin with tattoed artwork. Freedom of expression and individuality is fine, but remember that you owe it to yourself and your family (spouse & kids) to provide for them. Quality gainful employment that has potential advancement opportunities must be considered. Yes, somebody like Ozzy or Craig Ferguson, who hosts a late night CBS tv show have nice tats but your earning potential will essentially be stymied if you overdecorate yourself to the point of having exposed skin with Tattoos. Unless your famous and it the Tats won't limit your advancement and/or employment opportunities, please don't be stupid and tatoo your skin where it can be seen. Sure, there are worse things that one can do, other than inking artwork on their skin. Many folks of my era destroyed braincells and worse by using drugs.
The thing is that a deviated septum where one's nostrils are now just one large opening instead of two from heavy cocaine use is far less noticeable than a visible tattoo. Even former meth and crack heads and heroin users if they get dentures or veneers don't readily show that they have had a rough past.
If you want to look LOW-RENT and undesireable from an employment standpoint, than the worst thing that you can do is look like the Rolling Stones TATOO YOU album cover or the two fans on the cover of Rolling Stones NO SECURITY album cover. Can you say limited opportunities for upward advancement? You definitely would need specialized welder, or carpentry skills, or expert machinist skills or maybe something in music/entertainment...... otherwise you might be looking at a lifetime of low wage, jobs with little chance for advancement. There is always the possibility of opening your own TATOO PARLOR and inking others. Laser TAT removal will undoubtedly be the choice of some that made idiot choices, so they will appear less scary to the public and employers everywhere.
Seriously think about it. You wouldn't generally hire a square looking person that dressed in a conservative blue suit to work in your "head shop", Tattoo Parlor, etc, just as Wells Fargo wouldn't consider somebody with tattoos on their face or wearing a studded dog collar and tattoos on the neck and tribal pattern on the shaved scalp. It wouldn't matter how qualified such a person was, it would not please customers. Think about how many ladies get let go from positions in broadcasting or public relations or as a bank vp or branch manager, if they radically change their appearance in what is deemed less than "normal". Sure, someone battling cancer and undergoing chemo is going to be accepted if totally bald but there have been numerous reports in the press of women being let go after Shaving Their Heads for St. Baldricks Foundation to raise money & awareness for Cancer Research, and other organizations, usually Medical centers, Doctor groups, Hospitals that generally have these type of shave for cure type of things. Yes, most hospital groups and physician practice groups will be perfectly fine if their ladies and nurses decide to take part, but many organizations will not be happy at all if key female personnel were to sport a bald look. It simply is a reflection that they know many of their customers will not like it. In the case of a tv reporter or a company's sales rep or marketing spokesperson, well lets just say that they would be in deep do do for a bald look if they were not male.
People are judged daily on how they present themselves, how they act and speak and how well they are groomed. Like it or not, that is the expected norm and failing to conform to general uniform expectations for generally accepted attire, grooming and behavior does have consequences.
Individuality without a means for self support is far more restricting of one's individual freedom. Think about that. Don't vandalize your beautiful skin with trashy looking artwork that will limit your earning potential if it is exposed!
I wouldn't expect one pair of shoes to stay fashionable for the next 40 years, so why do young ladies think their tattoos will stay in vogue?
These sorts of things are cyclic. Future generations will be able to tell your age simply by your body art. My niece for example looks like Amy Winehouse, I know 90s fashion victims who rushed out and got barbed wire.
Right now it's all italic words, my favourite is some Hollywood type who has "breathe" on her wrist. Like she needs to remind herself.
I just shake my head at the folly of youth, and some not so young but hey people are pretty dumb in general, but also if you're happy with your body art that's great.
I'm not talking one or two tattoos, but tattoos all over their body. Of course, it is their body. However, I find those people with tattoos all over their arms, legs, body, everywhere very annoying and can't understand why anyone would do that!?
No, they don't annoy me if I don't sleep with them
I do agree with much of what Sonorio mentioned.
Those that choose to get them and do locate them where their visibility is limited matters very little to me. However, I think they look gross and never enhance or flatter one's appearance.
Personally, as a business owner and one who once had positions in industry where I had a direct influence or oversaw and controlled entire divisions or departments, I can tell you this that any fellow with "Ozzy Osbourne" tatoos on his fingers, hands, wrists, was simply not going to be considered for promotion to any position where they dealt with the public directly as our company's representative, agent, vendor, sales agent, repair technician, delivery driver, or even a part-time helper that met the public directly. So yes, even if a long time employee that had worked their way up to a position that placed them there, once visible tattoos appear than the philosophy was that this employee had to be re-directed to a less-visible position if possible or phased out if that was not possible. Just like I could not be expected to show up with a green mohawk, orange and purple eye shadow and gold teeth and 4 inch long earrings and circa '71 Tina Turner & the Ikettes style body hugging ultra-short mini dresses.
Certain expectations of standard attire and appearance. It is just how it is. It is the way of the world. Yes, plenty people that are my age, once did some crazy things and challenged the norms of dress and speech. I was in College in the late sixties and yes we all did a 180 turnabout from wearing clothing that looked like the norm for 1957 thru 1967 everywhere in the US. Look at any of those old tv shows. 1969 was the year that even the squares like myself began dressing more like a slob and adopting the hippie chick look of center parted very long hair that was a huge change from the crazy flip and shellaced helmut hair look of '67 into early '68. See the old Peticoat Junction tv series where mainstream America still looked like that until late '68 /'69. Like most I went from pleated skirts and flats and blouses to hip hugging bell bottoms and flowered tops and went bra less and wore sandals, keds, flip fops and went barefoot. My parents generation thought we had lost our minds. Some of our crowd probably did for a while. Some never recovered....
Stupidity is universal. Everyone at some point has serious moments of stupidity. Often these moments are more like years. Getting back on point now.... No matter how we thought we were gonna change things.......ultimately everyone realized that there are general expectations of the mass public and employers on what constitutes appropriate attire and appearance. Like it or not that is the way of the world. If you want to get hired and progress up the career path, you must generally follow a somewhat uniform path, and that means conforming to certain generally accepted standards.
Yes, my college class-mates and I had to get haircuts and stop dressing so far-out. Yes back in 1970 or '71 after I entered the professional ranks, fellows could wear more flashy hip, ties, shirts, suits, coats, slacks than they can wear now, but for women it was exactly the opposite because we were limited and we were expected to have an attire and style that looked straight out of 1963 as far as our hair-do and clothes.....think Jackie K circa '62/'63, as anything current or "hippy-like" on a lady was deemed unacceptable still in the corp professional workplace for a lady in '70/'71 though by late '73 one saw more current styles for workplace ladies, something the men had had much earlier. You did not dare push the envelope as you wanted to move up and succeed and the career path was limited for ladies back then as far as promotions, etc. You had to work twice as hard to get noticed and you still were earning only 60% of a male in the same position.
Like it or not in society, we wear "UNIFORMS" every day whether we like it or not. One is severely limiting their advancement and future earning potential by decorating their exposed skin with tattoed artwork. Freedom of expression and individuality is fine, but remember that you owe it to yourself and your family (spouse & kids) to provide for them. Quality gainful employment that has potential advancement opportunities must be considered. Yes, somebody like Ozzy or Craig Ferguson, who hosts a late night CBS tv show have nice tats but your earning potential will essentially be stymied if you overdecorate yourself to the point of having exposed skin with Tattoos. Unless your famous and it the Tats won't limit your advancement and/or employment opportunities, please don't be stupid and tatoo your skin where it can be seen. Sure, there are worse things that one can do, other than inking artwork on their skin. Many folks of my era destroyed braincells and worse by using drugs.
The thing is that a deviated septum where one's nostrils are now just one large opening instead of two from heavy cocaine use is far less noticeable than a visible tattoo. Even former meth and crack heads and heroin users if they get dentures or veneers don't readily show that they have had a rough past.
If you want to look LOW-RENT and undesireable from an employment standpoint, than the worst thing that you can do is look like the Rolling Stones TATOO YOU album cover or the two fans on the cover of Rolling Stones NO SECURITY album cover. Can you say limited opportunities for upward advancement? You definitely would need specialized welder, or carpentry skills, or expert machinist skills or maybe something in music/entertainment...... otherwise you might be looking at a lifetime of low wage, jobs with little chance for advancement. There is always the possibility of opening your own TATOO PARLOR and inking others. Laser TAT removal will undoubtedly be the choice of some that made idiot choices, so they will appear less scary to the public and employers everywhere.
Seriously think about it. You wouldn't generally hire a square looking person that dressed in a conservative blue suit to work in your "head shop", Tattoo Parlor, etc, just as Wells Fargo wouldn't consider somebody with tattoos on their face or wearing a studded dog collar and tattoos on the neck and tribal pattern on the shaved scalp. It wouldn't matter how qualified such a person was, it would not please customers. Think about how many ladies get let go from positions in broadcasting or public relations or as a bank vp or branch manager, if they radically change their appearance in what is deemed less than "normal". Sure, someone battling cancer and undergoing chemo is going to be accepted if totally bald but there have been numerous reports in the press of women being let go after Shaving Their Heads for St. Baldricks Foundation to raise money & awareness for Cancer Research, and other organizations, usually Medical centers, Doctor groups, Hospitals that generally have these type of shave for cure type of things. Yes, most hospital groups and physician practice groups will be perfectly fine if their ladies and nurses decide to take part, but many organizations will not be happy at all if key female personnel were to sport a bald look. It simply is a reflection that they know many of their customers will not like it. In the case of a tv reporter or a company's sales rep or marketing spokesperson, well lets just say that they would be in deep do do for a bald look if they were not male.
People are judged daily on how they present themselves, how they act and speak and how well they are groomed. Like it or not, that is the expected norm and failing to conform to general uniform expectations for generally accepted attire, grooming and behavior does have consequences.
Individuality without a means for self support is far more restricting of one's individual freedom. Think about that. Don't vandalize your beautiful skin with trashy looking artwork that will limit your earning potential if it is exposed!
Anyone want to condense into what she said? I lost interest after the first few sentences because from glancing at the rest of what she said, its mostly irrelevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
