The 'individuality' of Hipsters,

<"James Cook University senior creativity and innovation lecturer Eduardo de la Fuente said nearly a third of women in their 20s had been tattooed.

Citing a McCrindle Social Forecasting study and National Health and Medical Research Council research, Dr de la Fuente said for the first time, the number of young women getting tattoos outnumbered men.

"The groups that pre-dated tattooing becoming an expression of yourself and also a fashion statement, like bikers, prisoners, people in the military, they all tended to be almost exclusively men," he said.

"Women were very much under-represented in the tattooing department.

"Traditionally it was men, because of the communities and subcultures they belonged to".>

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/queensland/tattoo-surge-leaves-its-mark-on-women-20150415-1mlus9.html

Some time ago I started a discussion on tattooing as I couldn't understand why anyone would want to permanently "paint" their bodies with cartoons which I felt was a form of mutilation. I was surprised by the negative reaction to this opinion. I often look at these pictures and nine times out of ten cannot make out what they are supposed to be as they are more like birth marks than anything else. This scrutiny sometimes draws a fixed stare that translates to "what are you looking at?" I thought these things were supposed to draw attention to the wearer. If not, why is so much money spent on something that I am sure 50% of these fashionistas will eventually spend 3 times the amount to get them removed when they grow old.

I hate the look of tattoos on anyone, especially those dreadful 'sleeve' tattoos I see on some footballers arms. It destroys their lovely muscled look!

Obviously, in these days of equal rights, women now feel the need to have tattoos on their bodies so they can match their men maybe.

In any case, all tattoo-clad people should wander in to the cosmetic surgeries to check out how many older people are having the things surgically removed....often leaving an even uglier scar.

The tattoos also come at a price.

I was surprised how much money it costs to look cheap and trashy.

For a good laugh and a look at some really stupid things people do, some crazy tattoos, try this link.

http://www.epicfail.com/pictures/

Some of the people that are heavily tattooed appear to have some serious psychological issues. I saw a guy in Woolies the other day without a shirt, pants hanging down below his waist with is ass crack half exposed, no shoes, looking like a total loser... on his back was a large tattoo across his shoulders that spelled out an uncensored "F*+K Y*U". What a message to give to everyone that sees you.

I felt like decking him on the spot, but that would be stooping to his level.

I agree with snake about the illegibility of many tattoos. No matter how hard you look you can't figure out what they are supposed to be. Seems to totally defeat the purpose, but then we aren't witnessing the smartest people in our society. And Snake is correct, some of these people don't want you to stare at their 'artwork'.

So many young women are getting unreadable phrases tattooed on their feet; I'm certain they will live to regret it.

On a light note, during the 60's when the draft was in full swing (USA) calling up young men to go fight in Viet Nam, urban myth had it that if you got "F*+K Y*U" tattooed on the side of you hand, below the little finger, it would be seen when you salute an officer and thus was grounds to not be accepted into the military.

A friend of mine who did his national service in the Royal Navy told me a story of the time they were in an Eastern port with a US ship.... An unusual occurrence anyway, as they tried to keep the navy personnel apart when on shore leave.
However, two British matelots met a US sailor in a bar and were challenged to a drinking match which the two pommies won by a whisker when the American slid under the table, so they picked him up and took him to a tattooist in a comatose state and had the Union Jack tattooed on his chest and Britannia Rules the Waves on his back and dropped him off back at his ship! I can't imagine how he survived that little excursion.

Of course tattoo's are very much a personal thing I guess, but once there're 'incised' on, they're pretty well on. I note much younger people are being tattooed these days, and I think there's now a minimum age to be legally allowed to get them. Both for the Tattoo artist and his client ? When I was in the job it was 16 years minimum, unless a parent or official guardian accompanied the client to the 'studio'.

Those incised in gaol are generally quite crude, there're exceptions occasionally. Most though are downright hideous with descriptive words tattooed all over their body, genitals as well. Deriding and mocking the police, the judiciary, and anybody else they have a particularly dislike for ?

There's a general prohibition on marking, incising, or doing anything else to your body. Alternatively, have another person, mark you etc., in gaol ! But hey, it doesn't worry most of them, what are you going to do, lock 'em up !

Tattoos on the fairer sex, unless it's traditional or an ethic practice, or for a religious obligation, a female should never permit herself to be 'branded' for life, with a tattoo ! They look positively obscene (personal opinion only).

Anyone wishing to glimpse the effects, both physical and psychological of ill-advised, rash or injudicious tattoos, on a woman, need only spend an hour or two at the Mulawa women's prison at Silverwater ? There's some real beauties to be seen in that place.

Around the Coast the women (and men) who have 'ink' are usually quite predictable. It runs in families from the wrong side of the tracks. People and homes the police are regularly called upon to visit.

Although fashion has added many of the easily persuaded vain to swell the numbers.

What to do though when the fashion moves on? Which has already happened in tatts. For example, tribal is old hat, but all tatts will be in time and soon. Fashion is like that.

I've just discovered this discussion and I
can fully understand why so many people
are against tattoos (and body piercing) and
other forms of the so-called "decorative arts."
Much of it is over the top and neither beautiful
nor elegant nor decorative. There's programs on
television on this very subject - and much of what
people are doing to themselves is quite alarming -
especially things like changing parts of the body
(elf ears, horns on the head, et cetera).

Still I am in no position to criticise people too severely
as I happen to have a beautiful and elegant butterfly
tattoo, which my son paid for as a birthday
present to me a few years ago. It's on my ankle and
I am very fond of it. I have no intention of getting rid of
it.

My son took me to a famous tattoo artist here in Melbourne
and I had to sit and wait with some young guys having theirs
done. They showed me pictures of what they wanted done.
And I thought they'd laugh at me when I showed them the picture
of my butterfly tattoo. Mine looked sort of lame compared to
their massive ones. Anyway, they were lovely guys and friendly and
they cheered me on. We ended up having a beer with them
at the local pub after
it was all over. They rode away on their motor bikes, and
my son drove me home.

There you go.

Hi there FOXY...

There are some exceptions I guess. I've seen these quaint little butterflies some ladies have on their ankles, and I'll admit they look OK. I suppose as long as the Tattoo is small and elegant these no harm ? Still...?

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

You're on the money once again. There are some amongst the criminal world who're fully 'inked' mainly etched in gaol. They're not all that bright, considering when a crook is 'descripted' his tatts are carefully described and enumerated, and they're an excellent secondary source for police and corrections to readily ID them, additional to their Prints. And with DNA, fingerprinting, photographs, and an assemblage of tattoos, some individuals truly do have the 'mark of Cain' upon them, in some cases all over them ?

Still amongst some criminals, tattoos are a form of intimidation, particularly the more menacing these 'inking's' are, the more threatening these men and women seem to be ? The truth or otherwise is still yet to be substantiated, one way or the other ?

To my mind, many of these fools are more 'theatre than fact' ? The really formidable and truly daunting criminal, would much rather NOT draw attention to himself, by covering his body with crude tatts. Most 'real' heavies do have a few, but the operative word is a few !

Dear O Sung Wu,

I suppose it is a question of doing things in
moderation and tastefully - because as has already been
pointed out - you may live to regret it later on.
I also don't really like the "weird" and the
"not so wonderful" and as Suse's
pointed out earlier - those "sleeve" tattoos that some men are
partial to and cover their entire arms - Or the full chest and backs. But then that's
just me - and of course - to each his/or her own.

We had a young waitress serve us recently in a restaurant
who had the most exquisite roses tattooed on one arm.
She was a delightful young lady and ever so proud of the
art work. Exquisite as the roses were - I would never
cover an entire arm as she had done. Still, she was a youngster
and I wasn't about to deflate her bubble.

For me, my ankle butterfly was done on a whim and at my son's
urging.
I love butterflies.
And it has retained its beauty, its colour, and I don't regret
having it done at all.

Although I must admit that I would not have another tattoo
done on my body. That one is more than enough for me.

o sung wu,

The Southport Magistrates Court sees plenty of bikies with their face and neck tatts.

It is de rigueur for them to top it off with designer casual ensemble (Asian knock-offs) and those dark sunglasses with the over-large logos that the thirty-something ducks, pretentious 'wanna-bes', used to wear years ago.

Hi (again) FOXY...

I believe I know the design to which you refer, and it's a small, quite tasteful little butterfly, of about an inch, to an inch and a half long, and proportionally wide ? And I reckon it looks quite nice on a lady.

Speaking of coffee shops, a place where I was a regular sometime back, there was this 'stick thin' but pretty young twenty something young girl working there. She had her complete left arm and forearm tattooed with a huge scroll like affair with many colours displayed thereon. She made no attempt to cover or conceal it. I wondered what will she do when she's a mother or grandmother ?

It was not my place nor business to pass a comment, but she has completely spoilt her femininity with this hideous tattoo, mind you it's only my opinion FOXY ? To me though, it looked absolutely grotesque, and completely detracted from any of her normal attractive features, she may've otherwise possessed !

As one's attention was spontaneously and involuntarily drawn to her left arm and forearm ! You couldn't be otherwise drawn. Any other of her more appealing features, were totally overshadowed by this awful portrayal of this massive, almost impenetrable and bewildering tattoo ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I totally agree with your take on this subject.
One has to be careful about what one decides to
do when young. My son wanted my tattoo to be on my
lower back. Because at that time I used to wear
evening dresses that plunged down the back.
But I told him - "No way." On my ankle is about as
adventureous as I was prepared to go. And most of the
time the tattoo is covered up with my harem pants and
long jeans as well as full-length high-heeled boots.

Tattoos are an interesting subject. And Googling their
history is very revealing. Especially their connection
with criminals and crime. I also did not realise just
how old they were in time.

Google it for yourself. It makes for quite absorbing
reading.

The things one can learn on this Forum.
Great stuff!

Dear O Sung Wu,

The following two websites are quite interesting:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_tattoo

See you on another discussion.

Hi again ONTHEBEACH...

When it comes right down to it, most of these bikie hoodlums are just wannabe's as you quite rightly opined ! Individually most of 'em are simply nothing, collectively they can and are quite representative of a more dangerous group with some true malevolence. It's their communal category that renders them quite hazardous in which to handle. A former colleague of mine was made OIC of the 1%'s Task Force. The last I heard he was being tired up in mountains of litigation, with defining - 'powers' of police ?

As an example; powers of entry, powers of seizure, powers of search; etc., etc., etc. All of which have been adequately defined in statute for years, yet these people have the money and resources to brief high priced legal counsel to forever and a day, tie-up all these police in Court, on petty legal argument (on matters already determined), as I've stated herein, already adequately defined by statute !

My question still is, and will always be :- where exactly do these people get all the money and the resources they need, in order to brief these top legal counsels, to continually argue points of law, all the while they can go their own sweet way and do exactly as they please ?

My thrust in this type of investigation, if I were the appointed case officer, would always be to - follow the money, always follow the money, with these bikie, ne'er do wells ! Cripple their resources, you've crippled them and their cause.

A bit off topic, but what do others think of older men wearing a diamond earring.

Personally every time I see some old guy with a flashy earring, or worse two earrings, I see a sad wannabe.

Women wear earrings. Has he been in gaol?