Comments (3)

By infmom, September 12, 2010 12:47 pm

I’ve touched on this subject before:  Getting tattoos that are usually visible versus getting tattoos that are usually covered up by your clothing.  But a discussion in the About.com tattoo and bodypiercing forums (a link to About.com is in the sidebar on the right) got me thinking about the issue again.

All of my tattoos are in areas usually covered by my clothing.  That was a conscious choice on my part, because I knew I’d have to meet employers’ dress codes for years to come and I didn’t want to ink myself out of a job.  This is not to say I didn’t want a visible tat (or more than one) but I had to put other considerations first.

Well, now I’m retired and running my own business (OK, I have to put in a plug for that here, because I am proud of it, Logan Books) I can set my own dress code, and I’m strongly considering getting a bracelet tattoo on my left wrist.  I’m proud of being a tattooed person and I’d like to show off my ink a little more. Besides, I’m hitting my 60th birthday in November and wouldn’t getting some new ink be a grand way to celebrate? 

Have you had issues with hiding your ink to please your employer?  Do you sometimes wonder what the guys and gals in the “suits” are hiding under all those conservative clothes?  I sure do.  It’s fun to think that the guy in the oh so proper suit might have a pinup girl on his leg or a koi on his back, and the lady in the go-to-meeting dress might have a dragon on her upper thigh and a Japanese half sleeve.  My Egyptian tat shows off very nicely when I’m wearing a dress, but you know what?  I can’t remember the last time I wore a dress.  Retirement means a lot less money but a lot more fun.

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

Comments (0)

By infmom, October 5, 2008 1:07 pm

I’ve written on the subject of religious objections to tattoos before (if you’re interested, you can read that entry here).   I was reminded of that by a story in yesterday’s local paper, on the subject of Jews and tattoos.

Before I begin today’s essay:   I had one Jewish grandfather, but he died before I was born, and I don’t claim any expertise on the subject of Judaism or the Law and the Prophets.   I am an interested outsider, with a nearly lifelong interest in Biblical history and comparative religions.   I belong to no sect, either by heritage or by choice.   All human theological traditions both living and past have an equal chance of being true, in my opinion.

Does Leviticus say no?

That said, it is widely believed that there is a prohibition against making any marks on the body in the book of Leviticus.   The various translations seem to agree that people should not cut themselves “for the dead” (it was a tradition in many cultures for the bereaved to slash their own skins).   But what follows differs depending on which translation one reads.   Some prohibit “making marks” or “printing marks” on the skin, while some use the word “tattoo.”   I can’t read Hebrew, so I don’t know exactly what the original Scripture said.   I am looking forward to Dr. James Tabor’s group’s future publication of The Transparent English Bible, so those of us who can’t read the original IN the original can finally get as close as possible to what it says.

Many Jewish people believe that the prohibition is against tattooing, which made the death-camp marks all the more horrible.   And that memory quite rightly lingers on, lending greater force to the present-day prohibition on tattoos.   Whether a modern tattoo becomes a matter of honor or horror is far beyond any outsider’s business to decide.   But according to the article, many modern Jews are choosing to be tattooed precisely because they value their heritage and wish to say so in a permanent way.

Does 21st century choice enter into it?

In an earlier post, I talked about choosing religious or spiritual designs for tattoos.   I believe those designs should have intense personal significance, and certainly people who choose to override religious prohibitions must have strong feelings on the subject.

Here is a link to the original story. If you do a Google search with “Jew tattoo” you’ll find plenty of opinions pro and con, with good reasons to support both sides.   Do you have an opinion?   I’d like to hear it.

photo credit: hometownzero

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

Comments (0)

By infmom, August 27, 2008 12:58 pm

Tattoos and other body art are becoming more popular all the time–just look at all the tattoo related showson TV these days. Even the National Geographic has gotten into the act. But the fact that something is popular doesn’t necessarily mean that it has widespread acceptance.

In what ways are multicolored people reminded that body art is still outside the mainstream? As I see it, there are three common objections.

Dress codes

I used to laugh when a friend who worked as a fundraiser for a fundamentalist college told me he would never ever EVER dare wear anything but a white shirt to work. The people he worked for wouldn’t tolerate anything else. And whether it was strictly true or not, he believed that the potential donors he went to see wouldn’t tolerate anything else either, and if his clothing offended them he could kiss their money goodbye. That was years ago, but it’s still pretty much the rule that employers have dress codes and employees are expected to follow them.

So, it’s practical to have your tattoos applied to areas that can be covered up by clothing. Not quite so easy to conceal piercings, unless they’re in intimate areas. There’s a market out there for clear or flesh colored spacers that can be inserted to keep a piercing open, but from my reading I gather they’re not entirely satisfactory. (Nor, despite what I saw at one previous job, is a bandage over a pierced ear going to fool anyone).

Conscious or unconscious aversion

Historically speaking, tattoos have been favored by the “upper crust.” All kinds of royalty had body art a hundred years ago. (Heck, Prince Charles was in the Navy, do you suppose he’s got ink where the sun don’t shine?) But, sad to say, most people don’t know diddly-squat about history, and their main exposure to tattoos often comes from gangbangers, bikers, sailors, soldiers, and other kinds of People We’re Not. Thus, tattooing gained an unfortunate reputation as being the provenance of People We’re Not, and anyone with a tattoo is therefore eyed with suspicion. (My father didn’t want me to get my ears pierced when I was 16, claiming it “looked cheap.” I’m glad I never found out what he thought of my tattoos.) The fact that this anti-ink prejudice exists is something multicolored people have to understand and deal with, no matter how irrational the basis.

Age and its issues

“What will happen when you get old and it sags?” It’s true that our skin changes shape as we get older. And it’s a common assumption that wherever the tattoo goes, the skin will sag, wrinkle, change color, and otherwise distort and deface the tattoo, so why even bother? Of course, the fact that humanity has a long tradition of art that gets better with age, despite the ravages of time upon the medium (the Mona Lisa ain’t what she used to be, and neither are the Lascaux cave paintings) doesn’t seem to apply to body art. It’s gonna sag! Don’t do it!

Of course, the idea that we can enjoy the ink till gravity takes its toll doesn’t seem to mean anything to the sag fanatics. And the fact that there are plenty of areas that don’t sag doesn’t change people’s minds, either.

What’s your story?

What kinds of objections and challenges have you faced? Did your family raise a fuss about your tattoos? Were you called too young or too old? Does your employer have even an inkling you’re covering up inking?

photo credit: Cassi Saari

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

Comments (5)

By infmom, June 24, 2008 9:11 am

On the front page of today’s Los Angeles Daily News, there was a story about the new policy at the Los Angeles Fire Department.

Firefighters’ tattoos must be covered up at all times. Apparently, the LAFD brass thinks that tattoos are… unprofessional? Not the proper image that the department wants to project?

Tattoos must be covered in the firehouse as well, and according to the story they even have to be covered up while the firefighters are sleeping. Yeah, sure, the general public is keeping an eye on THAT.

This is the same fire department that recently paid out over a million bucks to settle a complaint about a practical joke. It seems to me that they’ve got their priorities way, way wrong. If I call the fire department, I don’t care what the firefighters look like while they’re dealing with the blaze. If they’re out doing presentations to school kids or in some other situation where image is king, OK, no problem, cover the ink. But it just seems to me that there are a lot more serious things the department ought to be putting on its worry list.

photo credit: kilt medic

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites

Comments (0)

By infmom, July 9, 2007 5:57 pm

There’s a passage in the Bible that’s often interpreted as a prohibition against tattooing. (Leviticus19:28 if anyone’s interested.) The King James version has it as a prohibition against “printing marks” on yourself–which, when you get right down to it, is not the same as a tattoo.

Tattoos, of course, had been around for thousands of years before Leviticus (the “iceman” from the Alps had them, and so did a lot of ancient Egyptians, so we know it’s a very ancient art indeed). Many Biblical prohibitions had a basis in health and hygiene, so perhaps this was just the rule-makers’ concern for what could happen under primitive, punch-soot-into-your-dirty-skin circumstances.

In this day and age, people who get tattoos that are visible under normal circumstances will, sooner or later, run into someone who Definitely Disapproves. Most tattoo-haters won’t go much farther than giving the tattooed person a dirty look or making a muttered comment. But there are, alas, people who are not shy about speaking up and telling you you’ve done something (a) disgusting, (b) ugly, (c) awful, (d) against God’s will, (e) THEY wouldn’t let THEIR family member do, or (f) some combination of all of the above.

If you’re the kind of person who looks like you can kick these people’s butts halfway to the moon, you won’t have to put up with this attitude much. The rest of us have to learn to cope. Just ignoring the ignoramus is usually the best option. There’s usually something about them that can be criticized with equal vehemence, but why get into a pissing contents with someone who’s pretty much all piss?

Corollary: If you see another multicolored person, smile and take time to admire their ink if you can. No matter what else that person may be, you already have something in common. Being multicolored transcends the usual human divisions and we should strive to recognize that in any way we can.

Submit this post to:

Hide Sites