4 ms·
No it was definitely for the lower class only. Now it’s “counter culture” to not have a tattoo. They are so common. They have become a sign of conformity.
by voidspark 1y ago
No it was definitely for the lower class only.
Now it’s “counter culture” to not have a tattoo. They are so common. They have become a sign of conformity.
- jansan 1y agoI would describe me and my environment as pretty normal middle class and I do not know a single person who has a visible tattoo.
- voidspark 1y agoI don't know where you live or what generation you are in. In my country, it seems that every young woman has a tattoo.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kbelder 1y agoI think a majority, perhaps nearly all, of my daughter's friends have tattoos (early 20s). Not huge ones... a little flower on the ankle, etc. This is in the Pacific Northwest, though. They really got big here, to the point I agree it's a little rebellious of a young person to not get a tattoo.
- voidspark 1y agohttps://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-americans-have-a-tattoo-including-22-who-have-more-than-one/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-ame... 38% of women vs 27% of men. The number would be higher for young women.
- apercu 1y agoI have had multiple tattoos since the 90's. None visible, so what's your point? (Also, my mom and dad both have masters degrees).
- ghaff 1y agoWatch An Officer and a Gentleman sometime. (Pretty decent movie.) There's a scene where the Richard Gere character shows up to training (I guess) and he has a tattoo covered up. As I recall the drill sergeant rips the bandage off and basically mocks him for it with the implication being that officers don't have tattoos.
- apercu 1y agoOk, but that screenplay was written in the late 70's and came out in something like 1982.