THE POLITICAL BACKLASH OF TATTOOS

[HMS Thunder Child]

black_wing_angel

HMS Thunder Child

black_wing_angel

HMS Thunder Child

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

[Skeptical]

Curious as to how you're an expert on tattoos despite an aversion to them. Or how you can judge people considering your haircut.

I hang out at a tattoo shop my best friend works at, regularly. I do not have any ink of my own, and have absolutely no desire to (considered it a few times, but decided I couldn't commit to the permanency, compared to the uncertainty of the future). Regardless, I've seen absolutely no shortage of it. Hell, my buddy himself has at least 20. I've seen tattoos being done that I know in my heart are going to be cherished forever, and I've seen tattoos done that I guaran-goddamn-tee will be covered, inside of 3 years from now.

And I don't recall saying I have a problem with them. I don't, in general. I have an aversion to potential content, that may prove to be regretful, in the future. ESPECIALLY those who tattoo lovers' names or faces onto their bodies. Yeah, it's really sweet, and all. But permanent. Your relationship very well might not be. Lawyers advise prenups, for a reason.

Quote:

What's wrong with someone spending money getting their entire body inked?

In and of itself? Nothing. But it's generally a lot less likely for people to take you seriously. Not speaking of myself, but of the general society. And it has a lot more to do with the content of the tattoo, than simply the placement. You're going to feel awfully foolish someday, when you carry "Chevrolet Forever!" on your back, pressed against the upholstry in a Toyota.

Quote:

Personally, I find it beats biannual phone purchases and so on.

I don't really see how. A phone can benefit you greatly, in a time of desperation. Car breaks down? Call a friend or tow truck. Accidentally slice your thumb down to the bone? 911. A tattoo has absolutely no benefits, except aesthetic.

I have aboslutely no idea how you can compare the 2.

Quote:

Tattoos, being a personal expenditure, though, beat conspicuous consumption any day, so maybe that's not a fair comparison.

It's not. But not for that reason.

[Skeptical]

I recall you saying something to the effect of you not dating someone for having too many tattoos.

Oh, that. Yeah, I think having too many, or just the wrong tattoos really takes away from one's natural beauty. The same with piercings. 1 or 2 in strategic places can be quite pretty. But when your entire face looks like a metal shop floor, it just takes away.

Quote:

Also, I don't really see anything wrong with name tattoos, though I know others do and I take no issue with that.

Depends on who's name. Your child? Perfect. That's a permanent bond. Zero risk. But your boyfriend you've been dating for 3 weeks? No.

Quote:

I enjoy the notion of permanence. It's human nature to forget some of our more tragic failings. Psychologically healthy or whatever. Balls to that, I say. Never forget, get it perma-inked onto your bod.

See above.

Biannual. As in people buy a new phone more often than I buy clothes. Granted, I'm poor/cheap, but still. My phone is almost six years old. Dinged and scratched to all hell, but it still works. And it doesn't need apps or anything like that, either. The alarm clock is handy, though, I will admit.

Yeah, I've consistently avoided smart-phones thus far. And plan to continue to. They offer very little practical tools, that aren't present on my current phone. Although I do update bi-annually, just because by then, the current one's been through enough hell, and it's time to retire it.

Quote:

Might ought to explain yourself here. Tattoos are a personal thing. Conspicuous consumption is all about bragging about material wealth and status through purchase and presentation of things. One's whatever, the other's the bane of existence and is one of the things rotting in the guts of the West. West tries to mouthwash, cleanse the stink out, but the stink's in its guts.

I have no idea what you're talking about, here...

[Earnest]

I dig them both. Everyone has their limits, but I'm pretty sure my upper limit is far higher than yours. They don't bug me. Some sub-dermals, maybe, but it's not really my body, so I'm not really in a position to talk. I just won't get them.

Depends on the three weeks. If they're important enough, good or bad, why not? I like the idea of the body as an encyclopedia, though, so I'm bound to be biased that way.

I don't see how the average person can do enough damage to their phone to justify such frequent purchases barring construction work and so on, and they make phones for those kinds of jobs. I actually want one. Built like a brick, can't even drown them.

[Informative]

I was saying I see much less wrong with someone inking themselves, even if they're dumb tattoos (which isn't my place to judge since it might be important to them), than someone buying tons of expensive stuff for the sole purpose of showing off their wealth.

[Lycoris Path]

People in general, especially in politics, will say or do anything to put someone else below them. Tattoos are a pretty common thing now, but like a lot of things it's still "risqué" in popular opinion. You'd think not to judge people based on their appearance would be soooo first grade, but these are politics were talking about. They are all first graders.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Mei tsuki7

duldol v3

I AM R U

duldol v3

I AM R U

Perhaps it isn't so much that he has tattoos, but the nature/position of them. I have no issue with tattoos, but getting a tattoo in certain places can lead to generalised ideas about one's character. For example, getting a tattoo on your lower back is described as a "tramp stamp", and is seen as something on slutty, lower class girls would get. I'm not saying this is right, just about the ideas associated with the image.

I agree. So therefore do we just need to associate positive images with tattoos?

Well, I think that is happening naturally as tattoos move into the mainstream - they become more acceptable as more "acceptable" people get them.

Hopefully!

I'm still trying to understand this professionalism attire and why tattoos are sometimes banned from being shown in the workplace.

I've never understood it either but it's just another subjective, societal belief I guess.

[Disappointed/Informative]

It's not hard to understand. They were originally associated with various POC cultures until they were assimilated. They then began to show up within the criminal elements, and were eventually fully appropriated by the rest of American culture. They have a very negative connotation from history, which is why they're opposed to this day.

(And yes, by appropriated I mean white people destroyed the original tattooing cultures and then took it on for themselves)

[Sir Fharlanghn]

Mei tsuki7

Sir Fharlanghn

Because there is a tendency that people with tattoos are not as well off as a person without tattoos. There is many exceptions though.

Source for said tendency please. While there is a lot of jokes about being unable to make good money with tattoos it had not really been proven in any way, shape or form that I've seen.

Agent Borealis

If the majority of people with tattoos that the average person comes across is a trouble maker then its just the individual being intelligent. They are picking up on a pattern and then deducing the likely outcome. Sure they MIGHT be wrong but based on previous evidence they are more likely to be correct.

That is called anecdotal evidence and has no true scientific basis and is not true evidence. It is prejudice honestly but that doesn't mean it's not a normal human response.

I actually don't know anyone with a tattoo who is a troublemaker honestly.

Go talk to any business that requires you to dress well. They will tell you that they are more likely to hire people without tattoos than with tattoos. Go check who has sleeves of tattoos and who doesn't. Is it the people that live on 20k a year or 100k?

[duldol v3]

Jewish Santa

duldol v3

All I see really are people having a problem with a man's free will.

It's no more constricting of a man's free will, than not letting him walk around in nothing but stuffed crotch spandex trunks.

I never said anyone is constricting a man's free will, I'm saying they have a problem with it.

[duldol v3]

Spyke180

duldol v3

Spyke180

You can have full sleeves in the US Navy.

What's your point? Mind elaborating please

Its one of the few careers thats rather accepting of tattoos.
Im seeing alot of people with tattoos and piercings at McDonalds.
But as far as careers with good upward mobility, I don't imagine many being very accepting of larger tattoos. Maybe its getting better though

Ah. Yes. I've seen some lawyers with tattoos, but they still cover them up at work. And receptionists.

I feel like there's some kind of clash between liberalism and expression in terms of art versus conservatism.

[duldol v3]

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

[HMS Thunder Child]

duldol v3

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

[Informative]

Any tattoist worth their salt won't tattoo a drunk person. In addition to the issues of people making stupid decisions and potentially laying them up with legal troubles, people bleed more with alcohol in their system, and that isn't good for the tattooing process.

[duldol v3]

HMS Thunder Child

duldol v3

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

[Informative]

Any tattoist worth their salt won't tattoo a drunk person. In addition to the issues of people making stupid decisions and potentially laying them up with legal troubles, people bleed more with alcohol in their system, and that isn't good for the tattooing process.

Pretty much.

[Mei tsuki7]

Sir Fharlanghn

Mei tsuki7

Sir Fharlanghn

Because there is a tendency that people with tattoos are not as well off as a person without tattoos. There is many exceptions though.

Source for said tendency please. While there is a lot of jokes about being unable to make good money with tattoos it had not really been proven in any way, shape or form that I've seen.

Agent Borealis

If the majority of people with tattoos that the average person comes across is a trouble maker then its just the individual being intelligent. They are picking up on a pattern and then deducing the likely outcome. Sure they MIGHT be wrong but based on previous evidence they are more likely to be correct.

That is called anecdotal evidence and has no true scientific basis and is not true evidence. It is prejudice honestly but that doesn't mean it's not a normal human response.

I actually don't know anyone with a tattoo who is a troublemaker honestly.

Go talk to any business that requires you to dress well. They will tell you that they are more likely to hire people without tattoos than with tattoos. Go check who has sleeves of tattoos and who doesn't. Is it the people that live on 20k a year or 100k?

Ancedotal evidence is not proof. Here's my ancedotal evidence. I have a tattoo on my left inner wrist. I make just slightly less than the average household income in the US and I'm only a year and a half out of college. I work with two other people with tattoos, one with a half sleeve, who probably make at least twice what I do. So basically, my ancedotal evidence states that having tattoos does not effect how much you make.

O and the dress code for my job is business casual but we aren't required to cover up our tattoos.

[black_wing_angel]

duldol v3

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

Definitely agreed. By the way, most of the tattoo parlors around my area, absolutely will not draw on someone who's intoxicated. For exactly that reason (also the thinning of blood, due to alcohol). And at least 1 will not take "walk ins". They make you make an appointment, and wait at least a few weeks, to see if you back out of it. I find that very responsible.

Quote:

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

I have made no such assumptions, myself. I've only spoke on the behalf of society in general.

[I AM R U]

duldol v3

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

Well, it would be impossible to get your whole body tattooed in one day sweatdrop just saying.

[duldol v3]

I AM R U

duldol v3

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

Well, it would be impossible to get your whole body tattooed in one day sweatdrop just saying.

Exactly. I'm saying it took real dedication and commitment to go through with all that body ink. Not rash at all

[black_wing_angel]

HMS Thunder Child

black_wing_angel

HMS Thunder Child

black_wing_angel

HMS Thunder Child

[Skeptical]

Curious as to how you're an expert on tattoos despite an aversion to them. Or how you can judge people considering your haircut.

I hang out at a tattoo shop my best friend works at, regularly. I do not have any ink of my own, and have absolutely no desire to (considered it a few times, but decided I couldn't commit to the permanency, compared to the uncertainty of the future). Regardless, I've seen absolutely no shortage of it. Hell, my buddy himself has at least 20. I've seen tattoos being done that I know in my heart are going to be cherished forever, and I've seen tattoos done that I guaran-goddamn-tee will be covered, inside of 3 years from now.

And I don't recall saying I have a problem with them. I don't, in general. I have an aversion to potential content, that may prove to be regretful, in the future. ESPECIALLY those who tattoo lovers' names or faces onto their bodies. Yeah, it's really sweet, and all. But permanent. Your relationship very well might not be. Lawyers advise prenups, for a reason.

Quote:

What's wrong with someone spending money getting their entire body inked?

In and of itself? Nothing. But it's generally a lot less likely for people to take you seriously. Not speaking of myself, but of the general society. And it has a lot more to do with the content of the tattoo, than simply the placement. You're going to feel awfully foolish someday, when you carry "Chevrolet Forever!" on your back, pressed against the upholstry in a Toyota.

Quote:

Personally, I find it beats biannual phone purchases and so on.

I don't really see how. A phone can benefit you greatly, in a time of desperation. Car breaks down? Call a friend or tow truck. Accidentally slice your thumb down to the bone? 911. A tattoo has absolutely no benefits, except aesthetic.

I have aboslutely no idea how you can compare the 2.

Quote:

Tattoos, being a personal expenditure, though, beat conspicuous consumption any day, so maybe that's not a fair comparison.

It's not. But not for that reason.

[Skeptical]

I recall you saying something to the effect of you not dating someone for having too many tattoos.

Oh, that. Yeah, I think having too many, or just the wrong tattoos really takes away from one's natural beauty. The same with piercings. 1 or 2 in strategic places can be quite pretty. But when your entire face looks like a metal shop floor, it just takes away.

Quote:

Also, I don't really see anything wrong with name tattoos, though I know others do and I take no issue with that.

Depends on who's name. Your child? Perfect. That's a permanent bond. Zero risk. But your boyfriend you've been dating for 3 weeks? No.

Quote:

I enjoy the notion of permanence. It's human nature to forget some of our more tragic failings. Psychologically healthy or whatever. Balls to that, I say. Never forget, get it perma-inked onto your bod.

See above.

Biannual. As in people buy a new phone more often than I buy clothes. Granted, I'm poor/cheap, but still. My phone is almost six years old. Dinged and scratched to all hell, but it still works. And it doesn't need apps or anything like that, either. The alarm clock is handy, though, I will admit.

Yeah, I've consistently avoided smart-phones thus far. And plan to continue to. They offer very little practical tools, that aren't present on my current phone. Although I do update bi-annually, just because by then, the current one's been through enough hell, and it's time to retire it.

Quote:

Might ought to explain yourself here. Tattoos are a personal thing. Conspicuous consumption is all about bragging about material wealth and status through purchase and presentation of things. One's whatever, the other's the bane of existence and is one of the things rotting in the guts of the West. West tries to mouthwash, cleanse the stink out, but the stink's in its guts.

I have no idea what you're talking about, here...

[Earnest]

I dig them both. Everyone has their limits, but I'm pretty sure my upper limit is far higher than yours. They don't bug me. Some sub-dermals, maybe, but it's not really my body, so I'm not really in a position to talk. I just won't get them.

Admirable. But a trait shared by few. And I can guarantee you that your upper limit is higher than mine. *shrug* I can't help what turns me on and off.

Quote:

Depends on the three weeks. If they're important enough, good or bad, why not? I like the idea of the body as an encyclopedia, though, so I'm bound to be biased that way.

*shrug* To each his own. But one must remember that others might not see the same way you do. A lot of people might shy away from a woman who has another man's name tattooed on her body. That can raise several red flags.

Quote:

I don't see how the average person can do enough damage to their phone to justify such frequent purchases barring construction work and so on, and they make phones for those kinds of jobs. I actually want one. Built like a brick, can't even drown them.

I don't know. I've seen phones that are especially fragile. Especially "smart phones". Those things are more fragile than glass...

Quote:

[Informative]

I was saying I see much less wrong with someone inking themselves, even if they're dumb tattoos (which isn't my place to judge since it might be important to them), than someone buying tons of expensive stuff for the sole purpose of showing off their wealth.

And that's your perogative. But at the same time, a tattoo is mostly permanent. While I can go through a mid-life crisis and buy a Harley, ride it for some 2 or 3 years before I grow out of my crisis, and sell it off. Material wealth items can be removed, if necessary. Ink may or may not be.

[I AM R U]

duldol v3

I AM R U

duldol v3

black_wing_angel

Technically, judging someone for their tattoos IS judging them for their actions.

But regardless, I believe it all comes down to what and where. A small tattoo that can be easily concealed, if necessary? No harm in it. Having your entire body covered in ink? That's not quite so reasonable. And having a tattoo of your national flag, or a heart or butterfly or whatever? Sure. Why not? But too many of the tattoos people get, are ill-conceived "spur of the moment" decisions, that they'll inevitably regret, once time goes by. All you really have to do, is google search "tattoo fail", and you'll see the kind of s**t I'm talking about. Someone with some of THOSE tattoos? I wouldn't trust with such a high responsibility. They've already shown a distinct lack of forethought.

Yes, some tattoos are done rather quickly, however some tattoos are actually thought about for quite a long time and a great amount of research is done into the design and consultations and discussions about the tattoo and other precautions and concerns are dealt with before the tattoo is ever decided upon. It's case by case. That's why I'm saying we need education, we hear all these stories about these frat house bros who just get drunk and walk into the nearest tattoo parlor wanting, "yolo" tatted on their armpit. So we assume tattoos are rash decisions. It's not all like that.

I think it's discriminatory to assume that this man has a lack of forethought just because he goes against the grain and has his whole body tattooed. You don't know anything about the process of how he got his tattoos or why he got his tattoos. It's just being assumed that one day he woke up saying, "yeahhh..I think i'll get my whole body tattooed today. For no reason at all but because I lack forethought and I'm rash!!"

Well, it would be impossible to get your whole body tattooed in one day sweatdrop just saying.

Exactly. I'm saying it took real dedication and commitment to go through with all that body ink. Not rash at all

I'd agree that it isn't rash. Possibly stupid and ill-informed, but no, not rash.