To think some people are going to regret some of these ridiculous tattoos.

[riverwalk]

What is it with tattoos lately. They're just getting ridiculous and some of them look plain stupid. Rita Ora has some just under her armpits, the part of the arm that gets dangly as you age. Just what is the point, they don't look good at all. I don't think they define you as a person (as lots of them say) at all. How does it.

This thread just makes me want more tattoos

OP, please stop trying to twist everybody into being sneery when they're not. You've done it a few times now.

YOU started a judgemental thread and when people have asked you why you've then said that they're judging you and somehow that makes them worse.

The only way it would be sneery of me regarding lowlife scum would be if I was calling specific people lowlife scum, which I haven't done. You, however, tried to make out that there was a connection between someone having lots of tats and not paying their maintenance. You also brought up people who pay for getting a tattoo before putting the food on the table, which just shows what you think of people with lots of tattoos.

When I use the phrase lowlife scum I'm thinking of rapists, burglars, paedophiles. And I'm quite happy to judge the fuck out of them.

Mary, I don't actually have any tats myself, so no choices to be confident in there. You could try owning your opinions and not being silly and saying you'd cry your eyes out if your adult child got tats.

Ha jorahmormont was just thinking the same.Some people on this thread should worry more about their own life and not some random stranger who has tattoos.

Its not infringing on you so why let it bother you.

Same here jorah

In fact. Can anyone help me with things from nature that can mean 'in memoriam' so plants, creatures, birds etc

How am I not owning my opinions?

My children are only 4 and 2... And I'll be fully instilling in them not to get tattoos so don't you worry.

Lunchpack - first thing that springs to mind for me is Victorian mourning jewellery, which used to be decorated with particular plants and birds. Can't remember which offhand, but it might be worth looking into those. Even a tattoo in the style of a Victorian mourning brooch would look pretty cool.

I also dislike them intensely but it's probably my age. I've always thought they were really chavvy but this now seems so out of step with fashion and they have become much more mainstream. I suppose if they were to go on like fake tan and fade, I would regard them as just an interesting adornment. It is because they are for forever that I wonder whether everyone having them done really thinks it through. You wouldn't permanently dye you hair or have a forever haircut.
It's just an opinion and not a very fashionable one evidently.
I also wonder whether it's really a very British phenomenon. Recently on holiday, I would say Brits only comprised about 1/3 of visitors but they were almost without exception the only ones I saw with tattoos (and sorry but it was on the chavvier ones). Tat parlours outnumber nail bars in my neck of the woods so I'm well out of step.
Sorry to everyone I've offended and I do manage to keep my mouth shut when friends pass their tat pics around on FB but I hate them.

Lunchpack Yew trees are often associated with mourning and memorials.

I have a willow tree on my thigh. I love the symbolism of it - the willow tree looks weak and brittle, but because it is flexible, it can withstand the strongest of winds and the most vicious storms. I have severe joint hypermobility so it's really symbolic for me, and I love it :)

Some of the most beautiful tattoos I've seen are tree tattoos.

Worried, I doubt you've offended anyone (although I do hate the word 'chav' but I think I'm fighting a losing battle on that front because it seems acceptable now). I don't mind if people don't like my tattoos - I've even had perfectly friendly conversations about this in person, and the only time I got even a bit annoyed was when someone told me I was going to get cancer because of them. She knew this because of something she'd seen on the internet. Personally I think it's a bit rude to predict the manner of someone's death, but since this person also believes that pasteurised milk is 'literally poison for your body', I took her concerns with a hefty dose of salt.

Headofthehive55 raises some interesting points. I didn't know about the bladder cancer risk with inks and dyes.

I agree that the tattoo industry needs more regulation.

There is absolutely no good evidence currently linking tattoos with cancer. There's a possibility that heavy tattooing might make detecting early skin cancer more difficult, as it can obscure skin changes around moles or new moles appearing. However, my view is that we've all got to go sometime, and there's lots of other activities that have actually been demonstrably linked to cancer that plenty of people enjoy without a second thought.

I love the artistry of some tattoos, but I've never thought they looked good on skin. I just think that skin looks more lovely without ink.

I don't think that people shouldn't have them, I don't think people are weird for having them, I have no objection to people having them but I do think that the vast majority look awful and I cannot imagine a single design that would really look great over an entire lifetime.

There are some horrifically dreadful ones and some ok ones that I have seen, but I have never thought someone looked better having had a tattoo, than they did before.

I agree with most of your points Oddly

I also agree that, unless you have a good close look at a sleeve, the artwork just doesn't stand out - a bit like putting a picture up on a wall that has heavily patterened wallper.

I agree with you, Oddly.

People with tattoos talk about the amazing artistry involved, and yes, some of it can look like it's done by a talented person, but for someone who doesn't see the appeal of tattoos, that is somehow rendered meaningless, because tattoos on human skin almost always look generic. They look like tattoos. Similar to the discussion upthread about sleeves - tattoo lovers think they're all unique; non-devotees just think they look like the same old tattooed arm that everyone else has. And the very nature of it being a 'sleeve' means it's going to date to this era, regardless of the intricacies of each person's individual design.

For me, as well, it's about the incongruity of doing this sort of outré thing, that marks you out as an individual, with your own style ... and yet you're stuck with it forever, in a way you wouldn't stick with anything else so publicly obvious - clothes, hairstyles, design, home decor, music - anything.

And it's on your skin for the world to see - therefore people will have an opinion. Not of you, per se, necessarily, but of the phenomenon. Most people won't share that opinion with you, but in the age of the Internet, when anonymous discussion is the main currency, you will be privy to opinions you don't like. People were always thinking them; they just weren't expressing them.

When I use the phrase lowlife scum I'm thinking of rapists, burglars, paedophiles. And I'm quite happy to judge the fuck out of them.
Actually you were referring to people who pay for tattoos rather than putting food on the table. Please stop saying I'm being sneery when I'm not. I've said some tattoos look ridiculous etc. That's not being sneery, it's giving my opinion. You sound very defensive and hostile. Stop making a big deal out of it.

Years ago it may have been hard to get jobs with visible tattoos, but it's really not now.
My one friend is a nurse, with tattoos.
One works in a posh shop (where i also worked for many years).
My other friend and i worked in banking with our very visible tattoos.
I also trained as a hair dresser before i got sick and did work experience, with many hair dressers with them.
The spa that joined it, their staff had many many tattoos.
It's no longer an unusual thing, thankfully a lot of employers don't discriminate.

Why are non-tattoo fans convinced that the only motives for getting a tattoo is to be 'alternative' OR 'trendy'? Some people with tattoos are 'edgy', some aren't. Some are young & trendy, some are old and conservative.

Also 3 of my aunts (born 1940s/50s) had tattoos when young as did several of my mum's friends from the same generation - so the idea that tattoos are new-fangled or trendy is somewhat off. I admit they are much more widespread now but hardly a new trend.

I work in a corporate-ish environment and visible tattoos are relatively common on men and women.

And finally - if anecdotes are evidence, my father and exBIL have never paid child maintenance and they are uninked.

Another Buzzfeed link sorry - vintage pictures of tattooed women

Some of these are so beautiful. I don't know how anyone can say that all sleeves look the same (unless you need a visit to Specsavers). The lovely thing about sleeves is that you can have lots of detail and intricacy.

No Tondeleyo I'd be foolish to suggest all non payers of maintenence were heavily tattooed. I was just mentioning my daughters ex as an example of someone who had their priorities wrong.

I live in NZ where there is a cultural tradition of tattooing and the standard is very high. Most of them look great - a big emphasis on Maori and Polynesian designs and a low cliche ratio. Some while back I saw a woman with Klimt-inspired poppies tattoed on one of her calves (this being in NZ I'll clarify that it was on her leg not her livestock). They looked so good that I spent about three minutes quietly following her.

But the tattoo brigade are taking a bit too much offence on this thread. Yes I get that it's your body and it's your right of self-expression. And it's everyone else's right to hold a view on what you choose to express, positive or negative, just as one might with clothes. I do wince just a bit when I see someone with tattoos displaying personal information that no one would expect to bring up in conversation - dates of birth, for example. I also wince when I see something entirely unoriginal or a symbol used out of context. Sure it sends a message, just like a tattoo is meant to, but not in a good way.

As for me, the only tattoo I'd get is the birthdays of my extended family on my forehead (backwards, so I could see them in the mirror) as I'm useless with birthdays.

Id love a tattoo but im allergic to black ink

findo there is a lot of evidence linking inks and cancer. In particular occupational links with workers in the printing industry. To my mind I am not sure why you would want that sort of substance inside you. Some of the components that make up dyes are carcinogenic and there can be unreacted components left in the finished product.

However I agree that people do all sorts of risky things, not wearing cycle helmets, smoking etc. it's not for me to judge. It does seem strange that half the population are worried about food dyes and in recent years several have been banned, yet people happily inject dyes into themselves! I doubt people realise there is no safety legislation surrounding the quality. It's just an observation really.

Oh dear. What a load of judgypants there are out there. Andy Mary - you would cry if your children got neck tattoos and will I still into then not to get them.

That says to me that you are simply a control freak, and a judgemental one at that.

Wpuld you stop your child being saved by a doctor who was tattood? I thought not. If that is the case why are you so far up your own @rse about it.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. But to judge or discriminate others you are not.

Would I stop my child being saved by a doctor with a tattoo??

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Just because I don't want my children covered in them... Which is a belief many people have.

Why is it being a control freak to not want your child covered in tattoos? I don't quite follow.