Tattoos

Watching QPR v Newcastle last night, it seemed to me that about 50% of the players had some sort of tattoo on their body, which seems a very high percenatge compared to the average man or woman (but not in P**tsmouth) on the street. I'm not against tattoos but some of them look ridiculous and thuggish, especially if they are on your neck! Why are so many footballers doing it? It's not like you can get rid of them that easily once you get fed up with them!

It's actually easier to get rid of them than you think tbf......if it's just black ink anyway, however I do agree, especially like you say on the neck and full sleeves down arms.

It's actually easier to get rid of them than you think tbf......if it's just black ink anyway, however I do agree, especially like you say on the neck and full sleeves down arms.

I know we're talking about well off footballers here but surely getting rid of them would be time consuming, painful and expensive?!

I'm a fan of them but the majority of footballers look like idiots.

No idea what it would cost to get rid of one of any size but it's bound to be more expensive than getting it done in the first place. As for the removal of them, if it's just black ink I know it's very effectively done by a laser of some sort, after treatment the ink passes out through the body. Different issue if other colours like red or green are involved.

Same mentality as body piercings. People with no imagination trying to show how individual they are by copying each other.

It's actually easier to get rid of them than you think tbf......if it's just black ink anyway, however I do agree, especially like you say on the neck and full sleeves down arms.

Now that'll be the business to be in a few years from now - tattoo removal.

Of all the "Body Art" (Which i find most of it horrible, but funny) the one i simply can't get my head around is these ......

I mean why ....just why? It's not as if it makes you better looking or more attractive.... it just makes you look like a mong

Of all the "Body Art" (Which i find most of it horrible, but funny) the one i simply can't get my head around is these ......

 

 

 

 

I mean why ....just why? It's not as if it makes you better looking or more attractive.... it just makes you look like a mong

This!!!

Something I've said to mates before! It's not like it'll shrink again, I don't get this either.

I saw a woman the other day who seemed to have flowers tattooed on her tits,mind you there was enough space for the entire Kew Gardens catalogue.

I saw a woman the other day who seemed to have flowers tattooed on her tits,mind you there was enough space for the entire Kew Gardens catalogue.

seedy

I saw a woman the other day who seemed to have flowers tattooed on her tits,mind you there was enough space for the entire Kew Gardens catalogue.

The crucial question here, clearly, is: did they look worth watering?!

Someone once said that "people who can't make a mark on life make a mark on their bodies instead!" Probably not the case with Beckham but pretty close to the mark I suspect.

Someone once said that "people who can't make a mark on life make a mark on their bodies instead!" Probably not the case with Beckham but pretty close to the mark I suspect.

Or an unquantifiable comment from an unnamed source, depending on how you look at it...!

I was talking to a friend last year who runs a beauticians, she said there was no 100% process of tattoo removal, most will leave a scar, and there will normally be some ink still visable. As more and more people are having tattoos, there will be more people offering removal, and this will lead to all sorts of problems.

99.999999999999% of the tattoos I have seen on folk look utter sh1t, what possesses them to get such sh1te painted on their body is beyond me. Saw one the other day on someone's back in huge sh1tty Cyrillic font with "I'm your lady and your my man". WTF?!?

99.999999999999% of the tattoos I have seen on folk look utter sh1t, what possesses them to get such sh1te painted on their body is beyond me. Saw one the other day on someone's back in huge sh1tty Cyrillic font with "I'm your lady and your my man". WTF?!?

I'm interested to know what of the 0.000000000001% of the tattoos you've seen you didn't think looked sh1t?! What made the difference??

Always think a tatto on a eighty year old granny looks great NOT, women snhould not have tattos full stop

 

I was talking to a friend last year who runs a beauticians, she said there was no 100% process of tattoo removal, most will leave a scar, and there will normally be some ink still visable. As more and more people are having tattoos, there will be more people offering removal, and this will lead to all sorts of problems.

That's interesting, had no idea it could be that quick, wonder what it looked like after a few months of sun etc. Did your friend say there would always be ink visible afterward or only in some cases.....don't know why I'm so interested in this?!?!

Always strikes me as weird that people spend time and money on clothes, hair, make up, etc and then make themselves look uglier with a tattoo or strange piercings.

At least most piercings will heal up if allowed to, but tattoos are not easily removed. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A534791 which is usually a pretty reliable source of health info.

So it may well take a series of treatments over many months, will be painful and costly (several hundred pounds according to other sites), will carry a risk of infection, and may be of only limited success. You have to be pretty stupid to get a tattoo of any sort IMO, but to get one somewhere easily visible, so for example it will be seen when going for a job interview, is pain downright nuts.

Same mentality as body piercings. People with no imagination trying to show how individual they are by copying each other.

This

Intelligent people - low proportion of tattoos

Idiots - high proportion of tattoos

This

 

Intelligent people - low proportion of tattoos

Idiots - high proportion of tattoos

Interesting. You appear to be presenting that statement as fact, rather than an opinion. Either way, on what are you basing it?

Blimey theres a lot of people on here who have strong opinions about tattoos.Surely its up to the person if they get tattooed or not?

As for iansums suggesting the less tattooed you are,the more intelligent you are?Ive never read such rubbish in my life!I know people who have qualifications longer than their arms,yet have lots of tattoos.

Live and let live peeps!

And yes i do have tattoos!

That's interesting, had no idea it could be that quick, wonder what it looked like after a few months of sun etc. Did your friend say there would always be ink visible afterward or only in some cases.....don't know why I'm so interested in this?!?!

I believe it will look like a slight burn mark and the ink will be feint and smudged afterwards, she said the problem is we will all get saggy skin later in life, there is no way of really knowing how the laser process will effect people.

The process is called IPL there was a debate going on in her industry for and against.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1T4GPEA_enGB298GB298&q=ipl%20tattoo%20removal%20before%20and%20after&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Blimey theres a lot of people on here who have strong opinions about tattoos.Surely its up to the person if they get tattooed or not?

As for iansums suggesting the less tattooed you are,the more intelligent you are?Ive never read such rubbish in my life!I know people who have qualifications longer than their arms,yet have lots of tattoos.

Live and let live peeps!

And yes i do have tattoos!

are you suggesting that an internet forum is full of people acting small minded, knee jerk, conservative, confrontational, full of bluster and unable to understand other people's tastes?

I really can't believe that'd be the case. No no i think it's far more likely you can judge intelligence by how a person looks.

Now i'm just off to set up a political party that believes this, it'll be much easier to dish out jobs too if we set a criteria of how intelligent a person will be based on their features or dress sense.

I stopped wanting to draw on myself when I was about six.

Phew: a sudden outbreak of sense on this thread. And there I was, just drafting a resignation letter (in crayon), having been convinced my qualifications have been nullified by my tattoos, and I'm an idiot incapable of working in an office!

This

Blimey theres a lot of people on here who have strong opinions about tattoos.Surely its up to the person if they get tattooed or not?

As for iansums suggesting the less tattooed you are,the more intelligent you are?Ive never read such rubbish in my life!I know people who have qualifications longer than their arms,yet have lots of tattoos.

Live and let live peeps!

And yes i do have tattoos!

There is a low percentage of prisoners who don't have a tattoo or who don't smoke. A bit random I know.

As I said earlier, I stopped wanting to draw on myself when I was in primary school. I think the last time I wanted to have one was when I had one of those 1p bubble gums that included a small print that you licked and pressed on your skin.

Of all the "Body Art" (Which i find most of it horrible, but funny) the one i simply can't get my head around is these ......

 

 

 

 

I mean why ....just why? It's not as if it makes you better looking or more attractive.... it just makes you look like a mong

I get your point, and I too find it somewhat abhorent, but if you think that's bad, check this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193384/What-did-expect-Incredible-face-revealed-man-tattooed-girl-56-stars-asked-three.html

A fairly recent case of 'tattoo gone bad', but look at that guy - would you really allow him to 'art you up'. No wayyyyyyyy.

I'm interested to know what of the 0.000000000001% of the tattoos you've seen you didn't think looked sh1t?! What made the difference??

It was some sort of simple tribal design in black and quite small. I can see that you are being defensive about this, but I did not state that tats were for dummies, I stated that I thought they looked sh1te (so a statement of my opinion regarding the subject matter) and that I don't understand why someone would get some of the sh1te I have seen on peoples skin.

Not just footballers but the cricketers too - KP & Dernbach.

Not something I'd ever want to do, can understand why some people want to do it.

There is one view that a tattoo (or a temporary Henna one) does look on a woman - the small of her back when viewed from ouch, yes dear, sorry dear. G'night all

It's actually easier to get rid of them than you think tbf......if it's just black ink anyway, however I do agree, especially like you say on the neck and full sleeves down arms.

There was an article about this in the Daily Mail yesterday (Wednesday). Green is the most difficult and it is bloody expensive:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2035900/Tattoo-removal-Like-Megan-Fox-beginning-regret-inkings.html

It was some sort of simple tribal design in black and quite small. I can see that you are being defensive about this, but I did not state that tats were for dummies, I stated that I thought they looked sh1te (so a statement of my opinion regarding the subject matter) and that I don't understand why someone would get some of the sh1te I have seen on peoples skin.

It's a fairly tongue-in-cheek defensive stance on my part! It's all very subjective, like most things in life.

I respect your opinion, which you're entitled to: what disappoints me is when people appear to confuse something not being to their taste with its being somehow negative / inferior generally. I think Oasis are sh1t, for example, but they sold a few records over the years, so I'll acknowledge they aren't, and their music and attitude just isn't something I like personally!

The comment about high proportions of idiots having tattoos wasn't yours. It was ludicrous though, and goes in the bin with others like that one about people who can't make a mark on life marking their bodies (hope no-one inclined to self-harm reads that, it's unlikely to help!) That sort of comment is sh1t...

... IMHO!

I get your point, and I too find it somewhat abhorent, but if you think that's bad, check this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193384/What-did-expect-Incredible-face-revealed-man-tattooed-girl-56-stars-asked-three.html

 

A fairly recent case of 'tattoo gone bad', but look at that guy - would you really allow him to 'art you up'. No wayyyyyyyy.

Lots wrong there! Easy to blame the girl, particularly after the ridiculous falling asleep while he did it lie (confessed as such in a link within that article). That sort of behaviour's not atypical of a teenage kid though.

The guy who did it, besides looking like an utter freak (to me) should be getting written consent anyway, and should have understood his profession and customer base enough to know that she wasn't nearly old enough to really understand what she was doing, regardless of being a legal adult. I tried to get a tattoo on my finger when I was about the same age: the chap I went to fortunately was what I'd call a "good" tattooist and refused to do it, saying he wouldn't work on the hands or neck / head of a teenage kid. Fortunately for me, he made sense, and I realised it was a daft idea and didn't go looking for someone with a few less scruples to do it instead.

Based on that sort of experience, I think the tattooist is at greater fault here, he should be liable for some if not all of the cost of removing them, and any license he has should be taken off him until he can demonstrate an ability and willingness to practice responsibly.

It's a fairly tongue-in-cheek defensive stance on my part! It's all very subjective, like most things in life.

 

I respect your opinion, which you're entitled to: what disappoints me is when people appear to confuse something not being to their taste with its being somehow negative / inferior generally. I think Oasis are sh1t, for example, but they sold a few records over the years, so I'll acknowledge they aren't, and their music and attitude just isn't something I like personally!

 

The comment about high proportions of idiots having tattoos wasn't yours. It was ludicrous though, and goes in the bin with others like that one about people who can't make a mark on life marking their bodies (hope no-one inclined to self-harm reads that, it's unlikely to help!) That sort of comment is sh1t...

 

... IMHO!

And indeed you're entitled to your opinion. It is the case though that the majority of people view tattoos negatively and associate them with a 'type', as many comments on this thread confirm, in the same way as they do say bright green hair. So in the same way as going for a job interview with bright green hair will almost certainly lessen your chances of success, so will a visible tattoo. The difference is of course that a tattoo is permanent. Anyone getting a tattoo that can't be discreetly hidden under clothing is making a decision that will almost certainly damage their career chances in many walks of life.

Of all the "Body Art" (Which i find most of it horrible, but funny) the one i simply can't get my head around is these ......

 

 

 

 

I mean why ....just why? It's not as if it makes you better looking or more attractive.... it just makes you look like a mong

i've heard of stories of plonkers with these types of piercing are victims of people who attach padlocks to them. Which I find amusing. Whether its true or not I cant verify, but its something for you all to consider

And indeed you're entitled to your opinion. It is the case though that the majority of people view tattoos negatively and associate them with a 'type', as many comments on this thread confirm, in the same way as they do say bright green hair. So in the same way as going for a job interview with bright green hair will almost certainly lessen your chances of success, so will a visible tattoo. The difference is of course that a tattoo is permanent. Anyone getting a tattoo that can't be discreetly hidden under clothing is making a decision that will almost certainly damage their career chances in many walks of life.

I concur on the existence of a negative stereotype: think I'd accept 'many people' over 'the majority' though, unless there's something more to substantiate that than the extremes of view we normally see in this type of forum!

Interesting that this thread has touched on the increasing number of people getting tattoos, and some traditional negative imagery associated with them. I wonder to what extent the former will dilute the latter over time, if it hasn't a bit already?

For my own part, I've got no tattoos that can't be hidden away if they need to be. Pleased though to say my own training in recruitment was entirely focused on extracting the required evidence of a candidate's ability to do a job, and not on making judgements based on physical appearances! I do appreciate that sometimes appearance is a valid consideration though. For my part, It should be if it needs to be: but in many cases, I expect it very much is when it doesn't...

Interesting that this thread has touched on the increasing number of people getting tattoos, and some traditional negative imagery associated with them. I wonder to what extent the former will dilute the latter over time, if it hasn't a bit already?

Its the reverse imo. My Dad used to be in the merchant navy and he had a collection of tats from ports he'd visited like Murmansk and Shanghai - beautifully drawn and a part of his past. A girlfriend I had in 1983 had a small Iris (flower) tatooed on her shoulder at a time when women NEVER got tats and it made her distinctive.

I only became anti when tattoos stopped being an individualistic choice specific that person and became some kind of mainstream fashion statement for 'me toos' to get Sanskrit phrases (like "Im a thick westerner who cant read Sanskrit") or Celtic crosses. Also lots of people go to tatootists who cant draw! If you are going to do it at least get something different and well executed.

Its the reverse imo. My Dad used to be in the merchant navy and he had a collection of tats from ports he'd visited like Murmansk and Shanghai - beautifully drawn and a part of his past. A girlfriend I had in 1983 had a small Iris (flower) tatooed on her shoulder at a time when women NEVER got tats and it made her distinctive.

 

I only became anti when tattoos stopped being an individualistic choice specific that person and became some kind of mainstream fashion statement for 'me toos' to get Sanskrit phrases (like "Im a thick westerner who cant read Sanskrit") or Celtic crosses. Also lots of people go to tatootists who cant draw! If you are going to do it at least get something different and well executed.

That's an interesting take on the debate. I agree very strongly with the last sentence!

I concur on the existence of a negative stereotype: think I'd accept 'many people' over 'the majority' though, unless there's something more to substantiate that than the extremes of view we normally see in this type of forum!

 

Interesting that this thread has touched on the increasing number of people getting tattoos, and some traditional negative imagery associated with them. I wonder to what extent the former will dilute the latter over time, if it hasn't a bit already?

 

For my own part, I've got no tattoos that can't be hidden away if they need to be. Pleased though to say my own training in recruitment was entirely focused on extracting the required evidence of a candidate's ability to do a job, and not on making judgements based on physical appearances! I do appreciate that sometimes appearance is a valid consideration though. For my part, It should be if it needs to be: but in many cases, I expect it very much is when it doesn't...

I take your point but I guess if the majority of people were faced with say this guy as their doctor, or their child's teacher, they'd be a bit put off! So someone looking like him simply ain't going to get a job as a teacher or in just about any profession, regardless of whether he may or may not be capable of doing the job. Nor is any employer (other than another tattooist) going to want him as a receptionist or salesman. In the end any visible tattoo or unusual piercing will have something of the same effect, albeit to a lesser degree if not as extreme as him. Even a small tattoo on the hand or neck will stop you getting many jobs.

There was an article about this in the Daily Mail yesterday (Wednesday). Green is the most difficult and it is bloody expensive:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2035900/Tattoo-removal-Like-Megan-Fox-beginning-regret-inkings.html

Right, done a little research on this & it appears that for the adverage tat it'll take anywhere from 4-10 laser sessions over a period of about a year to get shot of one, with as you say greens & purples etc being the toughest to get shot of.

Oh and a lot of healing & tlc. The reason I'm curious about this is because I'm seriously considering having one removed. Strange how all of a sudden there are two threads on tats, maybe it's a sign?!?!

I take your point but I guess if the majority of people were faced with say this guy as their doctor, or their child's teacher, they'd be a bit put off! So someone looking like him simply ain't going to get a job as a teacher or in just about any profession, regardless of whether he may or may not be capable of doing the job. Nor is any employer (other than another tattooist) going to want him as a receptionist or salesman. In the end any visible tattoo or unusual piercing will have something of the same effect, albeit to a lesser degree if not as extreme as him. Even a small tattoo on the hand or neck will stop you getting many jobs.

That chap's an extreme example: but I'm less inclined to argue the scales of reaction to him to that of someone with a small tattoo on (say) the back of their hand, than I am to agree that the guy looks a freak even to my more forgiving eyes!

Enjoy