Why the negativity about tattoos?

[Haiku]

I work in a craft beer and homebrew store that also has an extensive wine selection and a state liquor agency. Believe me, we get ALL KINDS.

 

We get the stereotypical "trashy" tattoo/piercing people. We get the stereotypical "punk" tattoo/piercing types. We also get a ton of really regular, ordinary-looking people with tattoos/piercings. The ones who come in wearing sweater vests and ear hoops. Or the ones wearing a Destin, FL sweatshirt and sporting a tat. I know a lot of my regulars pretty well. Some of them have less mainstream jobs. Some of them have very professional jobs. Honestly, to me, I DON'T see truth to the stereotype. Perhaps the stereotype was truer in the past, but these days ... nope, not in my experience.

 

(And FWIW, we get a ton of non-tattooed/non-pierced people as well. Beer and liquor purchasing is something that pretty much crosses all race/class lines.)

 

Prior to my illustrious career as a hooch hawker, my professional jobs included social work and textbook editing. Again, I encountered the spectrum of tatted/pierced to not with regard to employees.

 

I really don't see truth in the stereotype. I'm not being intentionally obtuse; I just don't.

 

Tara

[Scarlett]

Prior to my illustrious career as a hooch hawker,

Tara

 

:eek:

 

What is that?

[KnitWit]

:eek:

 

What is that?

 

:lol: A seller of alcoholic beverages.

[Scarlett]

:lol: A seller of alcoholic beverages.

 

Whew. I was frightened for a moment.

 

;)

[nmoira]

I've been inspired to change my location due to this and the other tattoo-related threads. After writing it down I hesitated, thinking it might narrow me down too much as to location, until I remembered I'm in Portland. :tongue_smilie:

[Haiku]

:eek:

 

What is that?

 

:lol: :D

 

Tara

[TranquilMind]

Of course. Because it's true that things are better when everyone is more alike. A Wrinkle in Time and 1984 illustrate that quite effectively.

 

;)

 

Tara

 

It has nothing to do with a demand that people be more alike. It has everything to do with understanding that you are responsible for the outcome of your own choices, good or bad.

[TranquilMind]

I mean, honestly, what if I said I wouldn't hire the guy with the short haircut, the khakis, and the polo shirt because his attire indicates that he holds values different than mine and that he must be looking that way because he doesn't think creatively and is rigid in his ideas. Or that he's doing it for the conventional factor, not because it's just what he happens to like.

 

Tara

 

You are entitled to this belief if it is your playground (work environment). You may be right or wrong. He may very well have held different values and not fit in. You have to make a judgment call on that and live with your choice. Likewise, he has to make a judgment call on how he should appear when he shows up at your office for a job interview.

 

It is not illegal to discriminate on any other basis other than the protected categories. He wears orange socks...don't hire him! It's your call. And his call to wear orange socks or something more conventional.

[Haiku]

You are entitled to this belief if it is your playground (work environment). You may be right or wrong. He may very well have held different values and not fit in. You have to make a judgment call on that and live with your choice. Likewise, he has to make a judgment call on how he should appear when he shows up at your office for a job interview.

 

It is not illegal to discriminate on any other basis other than the protected categories. He wears orange socks...don't hire him! It's your call. And his call to wear orange socks or something more conventional.

 

And people are ok with this? Judging people when we know nothing about them? That's just hunky dory? Were I in charge of hiring, I would base my decision on the person's qualifications and interview, not on what they looked like/wore.

 

ETA: I'm not completely naive. If the applicant showed up in a thong and pasties, I would have a friendly conversation about dress code. And I'd still hire her if she were most qualified and willing to abide by the dress code.

 

Tara

Edited June 4, 2012 by TaraTheLiberator

[Bluegoat]

And that's what I keep wondering. What do tattoos say about the person who has them? Is it that we're tacky, low class, and trashy? Because I think that's been pretty adequately debunked. Is it that we have values incompatible with respectable people? Again, debunked. Is it that we want to be shocking? I think that's debatable ... probably true in some cases, definitely untrue in others. I think the only consistent thing this thread has shown is that people who hold prejudices about tattoos/people with tattoos are often in the wrong. Why is it the burden of those with tattoos to accommodate those with unrealistic prejudices? Is that what we as a society want? Untrue negative stereotypes are the order of the day and dictate social acceptability?

 

Tara

 

It depends. It can actually say all those things. It isn't a matter of saying that every person who has a tattoo is low class. But if people come from an area of the country or from an era where tattoos are in fact normally worn by a particular group, then wearing a tattoo will tend to send that same message.

 

Where I live, there are a few different groups that wear tattoos, and they tend to be in different places and of different types. We have a big student population, an art school, there is a sort of working class tattoo group, and then bikers and related communities. You can make a guess which group someone belongs to from looking at the tattoo and be in the right ballpark over 80% of the time.

 

Now, when my mom was growing up here, and until I was in jr high roughly, young people and professionals from middle-class backgrounds did not get tattoos. The groups that got them were smaller and distinct. We are a port town, and there is a very old tat shop here that caters to sailors (not officers, typically). Bikers and carnis wore them, and prisoners often wore homemade ones. THose are populations that tended to have a common origin in working class backgrounds and a few of them were associated with crime, (though not all bikers or carnis are criminals), and all of them with hard living.

 

So when people saw someone with a tattoo, their association, their guess, was that the person might come out of one of those groups, and might well have a working class background. And that tends to suggest the values associated with those groups.

 

And in a situation like that, I suppose someone who chooses to get a tattoo may be trying to associate themselves with those groups, or with their image in some way. They sure aren't going to be doing it to disassociate themselves from them.

 

Of course if someone has a FTW tattoo or particular gang tattoos that will be saying something pretty clear.

[creekland]

I work in a craft beer and homebrew store that also has an extensive wine selection and a state liquor agency. Believe me, we get ALL KINDS.

 

We get the stereotypical "trashy" tattoo/piercing people. We get the stereotypical "punk" tattoo/piercing types. We also get a ton of really regular, ordinary-looking people with tattoos/piercings. The ones who come in wearing sweater vests and ear hoops. Or the ones wearing a Destin, FL sweatshirt and sporting a tat. I know a lot of my regulars pretty well. Some of them have less mainstream jobs. Some of them have very professional jobs. Honestly, to me, I DON'T see truth to the stereotype. Perhaps the stereotype was truer in the past, but these days ... nope, not in my experience.

 

(And FWIW, we get a ton of non-tattooed/non-pierced people as well. Beer and liquor purchasing is something that pretty much crosses all race/class lines.)

 

Prior to my illustrious career as a hooch hawker, my professional jobs included social work and textbook editing. Again, I encountered the spectrum of tatted/pierced to not with regard to employees.

 

I really don't see truth in the stereotype. I'm not being intentionally obtuse; I just don't.

 

Tara

 

But you admit that some who fit the stereotype are out there. If one reads this thread alone, one would assume that no one with tatts fits those stereotypes (or practically no one). If one looks at the tattoo poll, one sees that roughly half of people on here (JUST on here) are rather against tatts - sometimes overall and sometimes just for themselves.

 

When one is in a business where it matters (hooch hawker, dance teacher, textbook editor, and some like those would NOT matter around here), then one has to make a choice to try to break stereotypical beliefs by a good portion of the population and "make a statement" or "fit the image" of what people expect to see when they are making a higher $$ value investment. Enough of our clients care that we opt to do the latter. ANYONE on here can start their own engineering firm with their own money and hire whomever they like (with a PE certification/license) to do the actual civil engineering (these guys deal with the public, some types of engineers do not - it probably doesn't matter as much for them). Feel free. It's your money then.

 

There could very well be some Civil Engineers I know who have tatts if you saw them on the beach. I honestly don't care and neither do our clients. There just aren't any visible tatts or unusual piercings (meaning other than earrings) when on the job in Dockers and a short sleeved shirt because a fair number of clients likely do care at that point - and they decide which firm to go with.

 

It doesn't really matter to me if people unwilling or unable to put their money at risk agree with our policy (and that of firms we know around here). We deal with reality. We pay our bills with real income.

 

Would love to stay, but gotta go be useful.

[Haiku]

wearing a tattoo will tend to send that same message

 

 

Perhaps that's the fundamental difference in opinion/stance about this. My tattoo doesn't send any messages (unless someone can read the language it's in). The person viewing my tattoo assigns a message to the tattoo/me. IMO, it's the person assigning the message who bears the burden of not stereotyping.

 

I guess I understand a little better now why people are at odds over this.

 

Tara

[creekland]

And people are ok with this? Judging people when we know nothing about them? That's just hunky dory? Were I in charge of hiring, I would base my decision on the person's qualifications and interview, not on what they looked like/wore.

 

ETA: I'm not completely naive. If the applicant showed up in a thong and pasties, I would have a friendly conversation about dress code. And I'd still hire her if she were most qualified and willing to abide by the dress code.

 

Tara

 

ALL people make judgments all the time and anyone thinking differently ought to look up studies on it. Even babies make snap judgments. It's a human trait. Perhaps if we were Androids we could avoid it... but we're not. That's why first impressions are incredibly important (google it and read up on it). The reason firms even HAVE interviews is to check out the person - otherwise - they'd hire based upon paper qualifications only. Not showing up appropriately cleaned and dressed is a big part of it all.

 

Your example of a prospect showing up in a thong and pasties would immediately disqualify her for most jobs - perhaps not as a lifeguard. It instantly shows her incompetence for our jobs. She might be a really fun person, but she's not right for our jobs. The two categories can be different.

[Bluegoat]

And people are ok with this? Judging people when we know nothing about them? That's just hunky dory? Were I in charge of hiring, I would base my decision on the person's qualifications and interview, not on what they looked like/wore.

 

ETA: I'm not completely naive. If the applicant showed up in a thong and pasties, I would have a friendly conversation about dress code. And I'd still hire her if she were most qualified and willing to abide by the dress code.

 

Tara

 

I think you are largely right that they are silly not to hire such people. Pretty much all the jobs that require higher education require people who can think creatively in their discipline, and demanding too much conformity of dress is going to tend to produce cookie-cutter types of people and cookie-cutter solutions. People from different backgrounds and perspectives working together are going to give the most diversity of approach.

 

I tend to think the companies coming up with the really amazing solutions and products are the ones that are going to get the big contracts, no matter what their employees look like.

 

I'd sure as heck hire an engineer with an alternative look, especially since most of the engineers I know pretty consistently come up with solutions I don't like, or fail to see the implications of the solutions they find. (I suppose that is a stereotype too, but it is my anecdotal experience so I'll stick with it.)

 

But that happens all over the place. Trying to get into a creative profession when you dress like someone off of Little House on the Prairie might be hard as well.

 

But, there are always going to be limits, and how narrow they are will depend on the business. I have a friend who is a business lawyer in a big, important firm. He has to wear suits all the time. If you look closely though, at his socks, his cuff-links, and his ties, you can guess that he might actually be kind of subversive.

 

I agree it would be worthwhile to talk to a good prospect about the dress ode.

[Haiku]

Your example of a prospect showing up in a thong and pasties would immediately disqualify her for most jobs - perhaps not as a lifeguard. It instantly shows her incompetence for our jobs. She might be a really fun person, but she's not right for our jobs. The two categories can be different.

 

I was being facetious because I don't really think anyone actually would show up at a job interview in a thong and pasties. ;)

 

*Cue someone on WTM producing a link to a news article about a woman showing up at a job interview in a thong and pasties.*

 

I know that people make judgments. It's impossible not to, as you stated. It is, however, possible to examine those snap judgments for validity.

 

On a classical education board, I am honestly surprised to see so many people being willing to go with their negative snap judgments. We've not studied logic yet so I couldn't tell you what the logical fallacy or premise is called, but I am sure there is one out there that covers the "having a tattoo makes you unprofessional" thing.

 

ETA: Aha, could this be it?

 

Tara

[Bluegoat]

Perhaps that's the fundamental difference in opinion/stance about this. My tattoo doesn't send any messages (unless someone can read the language it's in). The person viewing my tattoo assigns a message to the tattoo/me. IMO, it's the person assigning the message who bears the burden of not stereotyping.

 

I guess I understand a little better now why people are at odds over this.

 

Tara

 

 

Hmm, I don't know. It is kind of like public vs private art I think. It's all there because it has some meaning, and I guess tattoos have some meaning in every case as well. But private art is meant only for the creator and maybe a select few who will understand what it is supposed to mean. Public art is meant for everyone, and they will try to figure out what it is saying. If it is good art, the artist will effectively communicate his vision, if it is bad art, not so much.

 

You seem to see a tattoo as private art. I think if it is visible to others though, at least in public places, they will interpret it as public art. They will assume you are saying something to other people and try and figure out what. But if it is part of your private vision and not designed so others can understand it, they may get the wrong end of the stick.

[Haiku]

But you admit that some who fit the stereotype are out there.

 

Sorry, I missed this previously. And no, that's not at all what I was doing. The point I was making is that people with tattoos are just like people without tattoos ... they come from the whole spectrum of humanity. You can't stereotype people based on their tats/lack thereof any more than you can stereotype them on anything else. Which is to say, you can't stereotype them, because you can't tell what someone is like just by looking at them.

 

Tara

[abacus2]

We spent some time at a waterpark yesterday and my husband and I were looking around wondering if we are the only people left who don't have a tattoo. I am very unlikely to ever get a tattoo because I've never put on anything I liked so well I would want to wear it permanently. The only type of tattoo I've ever considered compelling is moms who get a tattoo to remember a lost child. Some tattoos are small and/or inconspicuous and not a big deal. However, I wonder about the judgement of people get very large elaborate tattoos that it seems likely to me they will regret in the future.

[creekland]

I have a friend who is a business lawyer in a big, important firm. He has to wear suits all the time. If you look closely though, at his socks, his cuff-links, and his ties, you can guess that he might actually be kind of subversive.

 

 

 

I think the majority of those who have a strict dress code and are in creative types of jobs tend to have some aspect of their lives like this. As one who has lived with an engineer for 20+ years, there are definitely certain drawbacks to their way of thinking (stereotyping again, but more often true than not IME). Lack of creativity is not one of them.

 

 

*Cue someone on WTM producing a link to a news article about a woman showing up at a job interview in a thong and pasties.*

 

I scrolled down hoping... ;) :lol:

 

 

I know that people make judgments. It's impossible not to, as you stated. It is, however, possible to examine those snap judgments for validity.

 

On a classical education board, I am honestly surprised to see so many people being willing to go with their negative snap judgments. We've not studied logic yet so I couldn't tell you what the logical fallacy or premise is called, but I am sure there is one out there that covers the "having a tattoo makes you unprofessional" thing.

 

ETA: Aha, could this be it?

 

Tara

 

But again, the issue isn't whether or not we (as employers) can go deeper to check people out. Of course we could. The issue is potential clients. These are people we may, or may not, meet at first. They may see us and make their snap judgments without our ever knowing they are doing so. If we meet, it's often a quick meeting - hardly enough to get past a first impression if that starts off negative due to that automatic snap judgment. Word of mouth is often important to getting new clients and it can come from clients or those merely thinking of being clients. We need that word of mouth to be good, not bad.

 

Besides making sure employees look the part, we also don't make statements regarding politics (even though we have our personal views and always vote). It wouldn't help to turn off half the population. There are many things associated with image and they're all important when image helps pay the bills.

 

We spent some time at a waterpark yesterday and my husband and I were looking around wondering if we are the only people left who don't have a tattoo. I am very unlikely to ever get a tattoo because I've never put on anything I liked so well I would want to wear it permanently. The only type of tattoo I've ever considered compelling is moms who get a tattoo to remember a lost child. Some tattoos are small and/or inconspicuous and not a big deal. However, I wonder about the judgement of people get very large elaborate tattoos that it seems likely to me they will regret in the future.

 

I'm sure you saw far more tattoos than we're talking about. We've never had to ask anyone if they had a tattoo. You'd either see it in the interview/shadowing or not. No employee has gotten (or asked about getting) a tattoo that's visible. I think those in jobs where it would count just know. It may be a self selecting crowd. Who knows? The subject just never comes up. Quite honestly, we've never had an applicant we had to reject due to it either - which leads me to thinking they "just know" and are perhaps self-selecting.

[Unscripted]

On a classical education board, I am honestly surprised to see so many people being willing to go with their negative snap judgments.

 

This was my reaction too. I realize I am a newbie here... But the clear, and often irrational broadbrushing was pretty, um, enlightening to read through at first. But, after having thought about it more- I realized that those opinions are coming from walks of life that remind me of the biblical Pharisees.

[Haiku]

The issue is potential clients. These are people we may, or may not, meet at first. They may see us and make their snap judgments without our ever knowing they are doing so.

 

Then they have some issues they need to deal with. ;)

 

Tara

[GailV]

Then they have some issues they need to deal with. ;)

 

Tara

 

I'm guessing that they'll feel the simplest way to deal with it is to go elsewhere. And then the employer will have an issue to deal with -- a drop in amount of business.

 

I have a vague thought nibbling at the back of my mind that this is one of the same arguments used as to why we should all put our kids in school -- because then we can work for change within the system, change perceptions, etc. (Obviously this depends on why your kids aren't in school, but if it's because the local school choices are not rigorous enough, or accommodating alternative learning styles, or something of that sort, then non-homeschoolers will wonder why you don't work WITH the system to improve it.) I haven't really thought that through, though, since I have other things I need to get done today. Feel welcome to discuss that, though. Okay -- confession time -- maybe you already did, and I didn't read the last 10-15 pages of this thread so I missed it.

[creekland]

Then they have some issues they need to deal with. ;)

 

Tara

 

Maybe so, but here's the link to the current poll on here:

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=392271&page=11

 

As of this writing, there are roughly 42% who could likely make the snap judgment against us compared to roughly 16% who MIGHT consider it positive (vs neutral).

 

If we were in Key West, the odds might change, but for where we are, we'll go with the odds. Our livelihood depends upon it. Granted, a WTM vote is hardly scientific, but I don't expect it's too off either.

[SKL]

As far as how to talk to kids about this, I would recommend they try Mehendi (henna tattoos). They last long enough to make a "statement" or be "individual" etc., but they are far from permanent. Kinda like a daring hairstyle. I've had Mehendi done a couple of times on my hands & arms and it is really fun and pretty (in my opinion - though my boss initially thought it was a skin disease, LOL).

 

I can understand some of the permanent adult tattoos some here have described - like the ones done to remember deceased loved ones. But in general, I think it is rare that a tattoo chosen while young proves to be a great idea for one's entire life.

[Scarlett]

This was my reaction too. I realize I am a newbie here... But the clear, and often irrational broadbrushing was pretty, um, enlightening to read through at first. But, after having thought about it more- I realized that those opinions are coming from walks of life that remind me of the biblical Pharisees.

 

:eek: That is probably one of the worst things you could say about a person. Wow.

[Haiku]

As of this writing, there are roughly 42% who could likely make the snap judgment against us compared to roughly 16% who MIGHT consider it positive (vs neutral).

 

Then those people have issues, too. ;)

 

Tara

[I.Dup.]

:eek: That is probably one of the worst things you could say about a person. Wow.

 

I find this ironic, esp. on this thread, lol.

[Scarlett]

I find this ironic, esp. on this thread, lol.

 

I don't. There may have been a few harsh comments about tattoos but mostly people said it gave them a negative first impression. And that those in positions of hiring won't risk their livelyhood over it.

 

That is a far cry from calling someone a Pharisee.

[Unscripted]

I find this ironic, esp. on this thread, lol.

 

Seriously! Calling out self-righteous and hypocritical comments is a far cry (IMHO) from the trash, low class, loose morals comments that I have seen here. And to be clear I am not referring to every negative opinion that was posted- I am referring to those that had no tact or fact for that matter- but came across as "the law" hence the Pharisee comment.

[nmoira]

I don't. There may have been a few harsh comments about tattoos but mostly people said it gave them a negative first impression. And that those in positions of hiring won't risk their livelyhood over it.

 

That is a far cry from calling someone a Pharisee.

But if calling tattoos low class and trashy isn't meant to necessarily indicate a person with them is low class and trashy, surely one can be "reminded" of Pharisees with respect to a single, specific topic without it being supposed people are being called Pharisees. ;) Edited June 5, 2012 by nmoira

[raceNzanesmom]

for me, it is a religious conviction to not have a tattoo.

 

Same here. IDC what others do.

 

ETA: Wow, 40 pages!

Edited June 5, 2012 by raceNzanesmom

[nmoira]

:lol: Now if you had added juggling store...no, wait, that still wouldn't narrow it down enough.

But if I were to say I'm not near a juggling shop, it might. :D

 

My 10yo and her dad go ahead pub trivia weekly. I call it "life skills" and count it as school. :tongue_smilie: Or I would if I kept track of school.

[tristangrace]

I kinda liked seeing tattoos twenty year ago, when they were counter-cultural. Now that they are trendy, I respond to tattoos like I do to other ubiquitous fashions: some people wear them better than others, and most would have done better to skip it altogether.

[mamajudy]

I have only read the first 15 pages of this thread and more pages are being added as I read. To those who wonder what the religious objection is to tattoos, here's a verse for you: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28.

 

I think tattoos are ugly. From any kind of distance they look like dirt. Sorry to offend, but it's my opinion, which is what the OP asked for.

Edited June 5, 2012 by mamajudy

[Moxie]

I have only read the first 15 pages of this thread and more pages are being added as I read. To those who wonder what the religious objection is to tatoos, here's a verse for you: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28.

 

I think tatoos are ugly. From any kind of distance they look like dirt. Sorry to offend, but it's my opinion, which is what the OP asked for.

 

"Do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread". Leviticus 19:19

 

:confused:

[Haiku]

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

 

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

 

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

 

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -Deuteronomy 21:18-21

 

:confused:

 

Tara

[Mississippi Mama]

This thread has had SO many replies and I didn't read them all, but figured I might as well put my thought into it.

 

I got a tattoo at 19. I got it on my back shoulder. Even then at 120 pounds I knew to put it in a place that wouldn't stretch if and when I ever gained weight. That's about all the concern I had over it at that time. I knew I'd be stuck with it.

 

Now Fast forward many years. I still have it and am so glad I got it where I got it. I did gain weight and stretch! Where it is most people don't ever see b/c I dress modestly.

 

BUT if I could go back I would not have gotten it. Every time my kids see it, it brings memories of a time in my life that was not good in any way. My tattoo was actually sort of tame compared to the life I led then.

 

But it does remind me to of how people can change for the better and thankfully for the grace of God, I am forgiven of ALL that terrible stuff I did back then.

 

I hope my boys don't want a tattoo. One might be ok if it were only one, no more ever and small in nature.

 

My husband doesn't care for them either.

 

Just my thoughts:)

[mamajudy]

Melissa and Tara,

The verses you quoted have nothing to do with tattoos. I simply mentioned a verse that some people might understand to be related to the subject at hand, because the question was asked about the religious objection to tattoos. Take it or leave it. They're not MY words.

Edited June 5, 2012 by mamajudy

[Moxie]

Melissa and Tara,

The verses you quoted have nothing to do with tatoos. I simply mentioned a verse that some people might understand to be related to the subject at hand, because the question was asked about the religious objection to tatoos. Take it or leave it. They're not MY words.

 

Yeah, I knew you didn't write the book of Leviticus. My point was that maybe "tattoo" in Leviticus is different then what we are talking about.

[Haiku]

Melissa and Tara,

The verses you quoted have nothing to do with tatoos. I simply mentioned a verse that some people might understand to be related to the subject at hand, because the question was asked about the religious objection to tatoos. Take it or leave it. They're not MY words.

 

Well of course they are not your words. They're from the Bible. But it's interesting that people would say they won't get a tattoo because the Bible forbids it but they will wear garments of differing cloth and they won't allow people to stone their disobedient children.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

Yeah, I knew you didn't write the book of Leviticus. My point was that maybe "tattoo" in Leviticus is different then what we are talking about.

 

:lol:

 

Good point, btw. Lots of things in the Bible are mistranslated or misinterpreted. My dh went to Catholic school from pre-K through his university degree. He said he learned a lot of interesting things about Biblical history from the priests at his university, who were unafraid to point out the difference between historical meaning and literal meaning.

 

Tara

[mamajudy]

Most people have inconsistencies in their lives. All the more reason to examine our motives for what we do. (Do I really want to have that design or name written on my body permanently? Have I considered the consequences it might have in my life years from now? Is it possible that I might regret getting this tattoo someday?)

Edited June 5, 2012 by mamajudy

[I.Dup.]

Well of course they are not your words. They're from the Bible. But it's interesting that people would say they won't get a tattoo because the Bible forbids it but they will wear garments of differing cloth and they won't allow people to stone their disobedient children.

 

Tara

 

It bugs me when people use the "religious reasons" as an excuse, when the verse is found in the OT, for the reasons you mentioned here. Either you follow the OT or not, but don't cherry pick verses to throw out as sacred cows if you're not following every OT guideline down to the letter. We aren't meant to follow the OT down to the letter, so it's silly to cherry pick verses there, IMO.

[Scarlett]

Well now I *have* to link the leviticus tattoo fail...

 

FTR, I don't believe we are under the Mosiac Law....but this tattoo strikes me as sacrilegious.

[mommaduck]

Well now I *have* to link the leviticus tattoo fail...

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Okay, at one time I would have had an issue with tats. A tattoo would make me leary of a person. I was raised by a WASP, military, and stuck in an Indenpendent Fundamental Baptist church. Contemporary Christian Music was considered "of the devil", as was playing card, any kind of alcohol, shorts, men that looked like bikers or truckers, and "only whores wear earrings" (stepdad's issue, not mine...got my ears pierced the day after I left his house), etc.

 

Having grown up, I'll be honest, I'd trust more bikers or truckers before I'd trust a man in a suit and tie :P Also found out I'm the daughter of a biker/trucker LOL! And DH is a truck driver (okay, not a big rig yet, but getting there). I've learned to admire tats. I don't have the guts to get something that permanent. I also still don't believe in doing it "for the dead", but if I got one it would have to really mean something to me and be done by a proven excellent artists (I can't afford someone else's "fail"). It would also have to be somewhere that I would keep covered mostly (probably my back or part of my leg). Honestly, I'd probably check out Nance's husband's work if I was considering a tat. In the meantime, I've learned to appreciate the one's my sisters, their stepmother, and dh's cousin all have.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I knew you didn't write the book of Leviticus. My point was that maybe "tattoo" in Leviticus is different then what we are talking about.

 

From what I understand it probably was a tattoo. The question would be whether the context was the same.

 

In general it isn't accurate for Christians to unreservedly accept or reject the OT regulations - some are still appropriate and others aren't. So it could be that for Christians this particular rule would still make sense, while banning cotton/polyester blends wouldn't.

 

Without spending much time thinking about it I would say the reasons it might have been prohibited would relate to either self-mutilation, or to religious tatoos used by other cultures. If it meant the latter, it wouldn't necessarily mean Christians shouldn't have them, if the former it seems more likely it could still apply.

[Impish]

Generally, I just don't like them. Not my cuppa.

 

That being said, I've seen some that are wonderfully done.

 

I've also seen others that are just...ick. As Wolf puts it, "Prison ink tatts"

 

What I do find kind of amusing is folks that get all twitchy when ppl are obviously looking at their tatts. "WHAT?!!" Well, geez, if you have ink covering both arms, up your neck, and wearing a tank top, don't you WANT ppl noticing them? Or at least expect it?

 

I'm not talking pointing and talking about it, but when someone's in front of me inked up at the grocery store, chances are I'm going to look at their tatts, if nothing more out of curiousity as to what they're of, or represent.

 

(and ftr, my reply was, "Just looking at your tatts." w/a smile)

[MrsBasil]

Reported!

 

Resurrected thread!

 

Exclamation points!

[Delirium]

the difference between a tattooed person and a non tattooed person is the former rarely cares if the latter isn't tattooed.

[IsabelC]

the difference between a tattooed person and a non tattooed person is the former rarely cares if the latter isn't tattooed.

 

That's not actually true. Some people who enjoy collecting tattoos have a distinctly contemptuous attitude towards those who don't. I think they believe that the inkless have not been able to define themselves as individuals.