Tattoo's who got one and who wants one?

[Prunepicker]

Maybe it was your previous post (#37) where you stated:

"Tattoos are so irrational. I'm not saying they're stupid. Not at all.
Tat's are simply irrational."

That's hardly saying it's wrong, or it affects my life and certainly doesn't
say that nobody should have a tat. But I do believe they are irrational.

[Jeepnokc]

That's hardly saying it's wrong, or it affects my life and certainly doesn't
say that nobody should have a tat. But I do believe they are irrational.

I agree as far as you never said no one should get one but saying it is irrational is basically saying that no rational person would get one. I am ok with agreeing to disagree with tattoos but it came across as judgmental of tattoos to me. Probably wasn't your intention as I don't normally get that from your posts but in this thread...that's what I took from it for some reason.

[Prunepicker]

... Probably wasn't your intention as I don't normally get that from your
posts but in this thread...that's what I took from it for some reason.

There was no intention of being judgmental at all.

[catch22]

As Jeep pointed out, stating they are not rational comes across as you being above people who have tattoos.

By going to such lengths to prove them irrational, they must affect your life somehow.

For the record, I have no tattoos and no intention of getting one at this time.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm not sure if I will ever get one. I think the majority of people who get them end up regretting it, but some might mean a lot to whoever gets one.

[trousers]

I have two. Neither have great symbolic or emotional ties to them. Yet I somehow have no regret over them. Then again neither are neck tats or Guicci Mane style ice cream cone face tats.

[PennyQuilts]

Maybe I'm wrong but over time, the risks are higher for women than men. We're smaller; with age we lose collagen so our skin is more affected, less able to support the tat in its original configuration; and so many of us want to use a tat as plumage or to be either fanciful or attractive.

I know a young woman in great shape who takes good care of herself. She has a relatively large array of stars across her back approaching her right shoulder, the largest is about two and a half inches in diameter and others decrease in size. They have classic elegant lines, are well spaced and thought went into what she did. They aren't "cute," they aren't overtly sexual, they are rather timeless and simple. Importantly, they are well done and in an area that is less prone to the perils of aging and can be covered up if she chooses. When I see them, I think, "mature, spiritual being." I don't have the same reaction to someone who has a fairy tattooed on her calf or neck or, god forbid, her breast.

[Prunepicker]

As Jeep pointed out, stating they are not rational comes across as you
being above people who have tattoos.

That wasn't the case. It's an opinion. That's all. I don't consider
myself above anyone. In fact I consider myself to be the least of
all people.

[Prunepicker]

This is interesting.

14 Simple and Stunning Tattoos That You Won't Regret in 20 Years | Brit + Co.