Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?

[barleycorn 10]

Split tongues? Good grief.

 

It does beg the question of why people choose to change (some would say mutilate) their bodies in the first place. Tattoos, tongue piercings and split tongues would seem to lie at the far end of a spectrum which goes from 'This is the body/face I was born with, I'm happy in my own skin and I have no desire to change it', through 'A bit of make-up makes me feel more confident', and more radically, 'I'm having cosmetic surgery because I hate my face and it makes me feel I don't want to go out or socialise' to 'I don't think my body is OK as it is, I need to punish myself/beautify it by paying someone to stick needles full of ink into me leaving a permanent image which other people will have to look at and therefore notice me'.

 

But anything to the right of 'My unadorned body may not be perfect by the world's standards, but I'm fine with it' is probably more about egotism than anything else.

 

Otherwise, why would you want to turn your body into a canvas for a permanent, public work of 'art' (Bonzo's term, not mine)?

They don't have to be for the benefit of the public, you can get then purely for your own edification.

 

jb

[aliceBB 10]

They don't have to be for the benefit of the public, you can get then purely for your own edification.

 

jb

 

No, if you just wanted to derive pleasure by looking at a particular image or a slogan, you could have it as your computer 'wallpaper', display it on your wall, your key fob, keep it on a photo in your wallet, etc. The fact that you choose to have it permanently emblazoned on your skin in a place other people cannot help but see it (and in many cases where you cannot yourself see it unless in a mirror), is a social, not a purely personal act.

 

People change their appearances nearly always because of social pressures (or perceived social pressures), not just for 'personal edification' (though why having potentially infected needles stuck in you for several hours,. painfully, can be considered 'edifying', escapes me).

Edited August 20, 2014 by aliceBB

[barleycorn 10]

No, if you just wanted to derive pleasure by looking at a particular image or a slogan, you could have it as your computer 'wallpaper', display it on your wall, your key fob, keep it on a photo in your wallet, etc. The fact that you choose to have it permanently emblazoned on your skin in a place other people cannot help but see it (and in many cases where you cannot yourself see it unless in a mirror), is a social, not a purely personal act.

 

People change their appearances nearly always because of social pressures (or perceived social pressures), not just for 'personal edification' (though why having potentially infected needles stuck in you for several hours,. painfully, can be considered 'edifying', escapes me).

There are plenty of places you can have one where they are not on display to the general public. Granted some people have them due to perceived social pressures, or because they think they make them look cool, that doesn't mean some people have them purely for their own benefit.

Even if they are on display for all to see it doesn't follow that they are for the benefit of the general public. You could for example have you wife's (or husband's) name emblazoned on your arm as a show of love and devotion to you partner. I don't see why this should be considered any different to wearing a wedding ring.

 

jb

[aliceBB 10]

There are plenty of places you can have one where they are not on display to the general public. Granted some people have them due to perceived social pressures, or because they think they make them look cool, that doesn't mean some people have them purely for their own benefit.

Even if they are on display for all to see it doesn't follow that they are for the benefit of the general public. You could for example have you wife's (or husband's) name emblazoned on your arm as a show of love and devotion to you partner. I don't see why this should be considered any different to wearing a wedding ring.

 

jb

 

I agree that the motivation for having a tattoo on a more private part of one's anatomy is a slightly different motivation from having one somewhere which is highly visible, but I would still dispute the idea that tattoos can be done for purely personal reasons, ie not involve any other human 'audience' (real, intended or imagined). People (in any society) rarely, if ever, make significant, permanent changes to their bodies which involve mutilation/cutting or piercing the skin unless they are pyschologically ill, or responding to cultural pressures to do so. Cultural pressure are by their nature social - they involve the need or desire to 'fit in with the crowd', make people notice you, gain approbation, or even entertain other people. The impulse to create art is not - in itself - necessary social, but to create it on your body, where everyone will see it, almost certainly is.

 

A tattoo declaring one's love for one's partner is different from a wedding ring, it really is. For a start, you can take a wedding ring off. Second, it is still an act of egotism - what is the point of declaring your love for that person so publicly and permanently, when you could do it privately, if it is not to say : 'Look at this, everyone'? I suppose it also says 'I love this person so much that I am prepared to have an indelible statement to that effect printed on my body', but that somehow misses the point of what love is really about, doesn't it?

 

Even tattoos to the memory of a loved one who died are not about the bearer's personal grief or memories per se, but about affirming to the world, (or a smaller audience, depending on where it is sited) that they feel like that.

Edited August 20, 2014 by aliceBB

[vwkittie 10]

For the record I'm not anti-body mods, I have a few piercings myself but none of them (expect regular ear lobes) are where anyone can see them. I personally wouldn't choose to have facial piercings because for one I'm not interested in the attention that comes with them and for two I wouldn't want it to affect my employment opportunities. Seems fair to me...

[Alien52 10]

Neither beards or tattoos are going anywhere. They might be popular now, but they'll never disappear.

---------- Post added 20-08-2014 at 00:06 ----------

 

 

When you wake up and realise that you don't like the beard you shave,on the other hand when you don't like the tattoo....................

[barleycorn 10]

I agree that the motivation for having a tattoo on a more private part of one's anatomy is a slightly different motivation from having one somewhere which is highly visible, but I would still dispute the idea that tattoos can be done for purely personal reasons, ie not involve any other human 'audience' (real, intended or imagined). People (in any society) rarely, if ever, make significant, permanent changes to their bodies which involve mutilation/cutting or piercing the skin unless they are pyschologically ill, or responding to cultural pressures to do so. Cultural pressure are by their nature social - they involve the need or desire to 'fit in with the crowd', make people notice you, gain approbation, or even entertain other people. The impulse to create art is not - in itself - necessary social, but to create it on your body, where everyone will see it, almost certainly is.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it is entirely possible to have a tattoo purely for your won benefit without any social component to the desire.

 

A tattoo declaring one's love for one's partner is different from a wedding ring, it really is. For a start, you can take a wedding ring off. Second, it is still an act of egotism - what is the point of declaring your love for that person so publicly and permanently, when you could do it privately, if it is not to say : 'Look at this, everyone'?

If the tattoo is an act of egotism then so is the wedding ring. Both are public displays of wedlock (except the tattoo need not be public), the wedding ring even more so.

I suppose it also says 'I love this person so much that I am prepared to have an indelible statement to that effect printed on my body', but that somehow misses the point of what love is really about, doesn't it?

Love means something different to everyone. For some a tattoo can be an expression of love.

Even tattoos to the memory of a loved one who died are not about the bearer's personal grief or memories per se, but about affirming to the world, (or a smaller audience, depending on where it is sited) that they feel like that.

There can be to an audience of one, yourself.

 

jb

Edited August 21, 2014 by barleycorn

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

It's fine for those doing manual labour type jobs and menial tasks on minimum wage to have visible tattoos. No problem with that at all as they need somewhere to work. But I'm certainly not going to hire an accountant with visible tattoos to do my books, nor am I going to sit in the chair of a dentist with visible tattoos, and I sure as hell wouldn't allow a surgeon with visible tattoos to operate on me.

 

So NO, ani-tattoo discrimination should NOT be made illegal.

 

Jeezus!

 

What a snob!

[metalman 21]

I think Bonzo needs to get a job at Cex in town where it certainly seems to be approved of.

[francypants 441]

No it shouldn't.

[Coutts 10]

Jeezus!

 

What a snob!

 

That's nothing, you should hear my views on the poor having children, abortion, why men should never get married and why only ugly women need intelligence, would really make your toes curl.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

That's nothing, you should hear my views on the poor having children, abortion, why men should never get married and why only ugly women need intelligence, would really make your toes curl.

 

Would you turn your nose up at a tattooed accountant, who could save you, or your company 50k a year on your tax bill?