As someone who grew up in America, this cultural shift seems seriously weird to me. I guess it's just a symptom of Americans' extremist individualism, just like the trend in the last couple decades for parents to invent utterly ridiculous names for their kids.
Not really, because most "unique" names I hear of nowadays are just common names or nearly common names spelled weird. "This is my daughter Jossilyn and her sister Payzlei!"
Names are not arbitrary in the least. They are deeply connected to history, family, religion, and ancient tradition. They are meaningful in just about every way a thing can be meaningful.
You can consider those things unimportant, but society as a whole does not agree with you.
Considering all the completely wacky names that American parents are choosing for their kids these days, it seems that modern American society no longer agrees with you.
If people choose their own names, that would make more sense, syndicatedjelly.
My first name was a common baby name when I was born, and as far as I can tell has no connection with my family history or anything else. Probably my parents just liked the sound of it.
We just don't have as much reefer-madness level of propaganda brainwashing the public into associating tattoos with motorcycle gangs that tear through town and rape your daughters.
I think the criminal association threshold has moved to facial tattoos having offensive content, suggesting incarceration.
Hmm I love tattoos but I have only one and not of those categories :)
I plan to have more eventually but I'm not in any hurry. I've found a few great artists but the biggest problem is actually getting time in their calendar.
But my point is: now that tattoos are becoming more popular, there will be more 'beginners' like me.
Sure - not everybody with a single tattoo has a "pragmatic | commemorative" tattoo.
The main point of my comment above was to point out the obvious, that not everybody with a tattoo is into tattoos for the same reasons .. and a number of people with tattoos aren't neccesarily even into tattoos per se.
It's a trite point for a HN crowd - no one should assume the analytics on a group are homogenous.
> Wondering why people do it, art or what are we missing?
The linked article states that 69% of people that got a tattoo did so to honor or remember someone or something, 47% did so to make a statement, and 32% to improve their appearance.
The inks have unknown effects. I have a tattoo. I would not recommend them considering long-term lymphatic and mutagenic properties. Eh.
You feel good at first, more aligned with your mind, then you realize you could have just put a poster on the wall that doesn't come with the risk of cancer or autoimmune disease.
Not to be unkind, but I believe this is very similar to other irreversible decisions folks make. We're all suckers, trying to make ourselves feel better through deals with the devil.
Citations for what makes you think the inks have "unknown" effects, and/or cause cancer or autoimmune disorders? If you don't have a source, what has led you to believe it's true? I'm talking normal color inks, not unconventional ones like the ones that glow in the dark.
I would think that if a third of the population has a tattoo, we'd actually know with almost certainty what the effects are.
We knew smoking was bad for a long time. It took time to push through tobacco industry's lobbying and massive amounts of advertising convincing people against what they could evidently see in front of them. I don't think tattoo industry has remotely near that level of push.
Yeah it's very telling of the power this industry has that smoking is still not banned in most countries. And that new techniques with no existing user base like vaping were not stopped before they ever started.
I saw some special on youtube years ago, maybe from VICE, where they reported on folks needing lymph node surgery who had substantial tattoos. The removed lymph nodes were enlarged and visibly full of ink.
The FDA takes a light touch [1] on tattoo ink in comparison with many other things that go in people's bodies.
> FDA considers the inks used in intradermal tattoos, including permanent makeup, to be cosmetics. When we identify a safety problem associated with a cosmetic, including a tattoo ink, we investigate and take action, as appropriate, to prevent consumer illness or injury. The pigments used in the inks are color additives, which are subject to premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because of other competing public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments, FDA traditionally has not exercised regulatory authority for color additives on the pigments used in tattoo inks. The actual practice of tattooing is regulated by local jurisdictions.
As regards long term population studies... we'd also need to know if what's in tattoo inks has changed over time, which seems plausible?
Considering the FDA constantly approves things that have tiny affects bet and placebo, yet have massive side effects with genuine risks, I wouldn't really take any ok from the FDA as proof of safety anyway.
Many things carry small health risks. Being obese is probably a lot worse. It's not as if I lead a super healthy life. It's not really worth worrying about IMO.
And feeling better is also important. Stress can also cause major health issues, and it interferes with the enjoyment of life.
the graph shows it is still a class system where tattoos cement the wearer into a lower caste, as in likely harder to traverse the socioeconomic classes with them than without
formally educated people with the associated support system to get the degree are the least likely to have tattoos
while all their bastards and the alt single parent that both get ignored forever get and have tattoos, should be a much larger population, which tracks
52 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 94.1 ms ] threadI think around here with my demographic, I might be in the minority with no tattoos. Makes me feel rather countercultural.
You can consider those things unimportant, but society as a whole does not agree with you.
My first name was a common baby name when I was born, and as far as I can tell has no connection with my family history or anything else. Probably my parents just liked the sound of it.
Oh wow so you're just going to stand by this outrageous statement then
We just don't have as much reefer-madness level of propaganda brainwashing the public into associating tattoos with motorcycle gangs that tear through town and rape your daughters.
I think the criminal association threshold has moved to facial tattoos having offensive content, suggesting incarceration.
Wondering why people do it, art or what are we missing?
* Blood type, DNR, med info, service ID, etc,
* Name &/or death date of loved one,
* moment of youthful|drunken excess
tattoos.
I plan to have more eventually but I'm not in any hurry. I've found a few great artists but the biggest problem is actually getting time in their calendar.
But my point is: now that tattoos are becoming more popular, there will be more 'beginners' like me.
The main point of my comment above was to point out the obvious, that not everybody with a tattoo is into tattoos for the same reasons .. and a number of people with tattoos aren't neccesarily even into tattoos per se.
It's a trite point for a HN crowd - no one should assume the analytics on a group are homogenous.
You left important passwords off the list. I feel invisible now. :(
The linked article states that 69% of people that got a tattoo did so to honor or remember someone or something, 47% did so to make a statement, and 32% to improve their appearance.
You feel good at first, more aligned with your mind, then you realize you could have just put a poster on the wall that doesn't come with the risk of cancer or autoimmune disease.
Not to be unkind, but I believe this is very similar to other irreversible decisions folks make. We're all suckers, trying to make ourselves feel better through deals with the devil.
I would think that if a third of the population has a tattoo, we'd actually know with almost certainty what the effects are.
I wouldn't count on it. It took us 100 years to find out smoking was extremely bad, even though the majority of the population was doing it.
> FDA considers the inks used in intradermal tattoos, including permanent makeup, to be cosmetics. When we identify a safety problem associated with a cosmetic, including a tattoo ink, we investigate and take action, as appropriate, to prevent consumer illness or injury. The pigments used in the inks are color additives, which are subject to premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because of other competing public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments, FDA traditionally has not exercised regulatory authority for color additives on the pigments used in tattoo inks. The actual practice of tattooing is regulated by local jurisdictions.
As regards long term population studies... we'd also need to know if what's in tattoo inks has changed over time, which seems plausible?
[1] https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-perm...
I’d say the known risks - infection, although only a small risk, are much more likely than things like cancer.
And feeling better is also important. Stress can also cause major health issues, and it interferes with the enjoyment of life.
formally educated people with the associated support system to get the degree are the least likely to have tattoos
while all their bastards and the alt single parent that both get ignored forever get and have tattoos, should be a much larger population, which tracks
>A neck tattoo used to say "Watch out, motherfucker." Now it says "I'd love to read you a poem about my vegan bicycle!"
https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/64775497468485632?lang...
Though now I think even that hipster association is gone, tattoos are just another aspect of fashion these days.