Take Tatt

For those of you who do not know, Blog Explosion is a traffic exchange for blogs. Thanks to the fantastic moderators (well, one fantastic moderator, I largely have to carry Jayne) we’ve developed a good community on the forums. We exchange links, discuss ideas for blogging and just generally try and have a lot of fun. One of the members came up with the idea of having a contest where some bloggers all blog on the same predetermined mystery topic. I suppose this should be the point at which I link you to the other articles in the contest, I don’t quite frankly see the point. Once you have read the best why would you want to waste your time with the rest (ooh look, I rhymed)? The topic this week is tatoos.

I’d like to begin by saying I don’t have any. This has nothing to do with not liking them, or not thinking they’d look good on me (after all, what wouldn’t look good on me?) or even to do with the pain, it comes down to the fact that when you’ve the body of an adonis, any ink on it, no matter how skilled the “artist”, will never match up to the canvas. It also does not have to do with “professional” reasons because I’m a professional bum. Anyway, who’s to say you cannot get a discreet tattoo somewhere nobody need see it unless you want them to? Hardly likely to turn off a future employer if they never see it.

That does bring me, however, to an interesting point about tattoos, the many preconceptions one makes based upon them. Some may link tattoos with the military, some may link them with prison, I, however, link them with sideshow freaks. I mean, seriously, would you employ that man? If that idiot thinks he’ll make it as a lawyer then he is even more stupid than your average American. Generally speaking, though, when it comes to men, I think tattoos are by and large ok. So long as you’re not covering up large chunks of your body and look semi-human (harder for some of you than others, but try at least) it’s ok.

On women, however, it is a much more subjective issue. I don’t think tattoos are problematic per se for women, but positioning is everything. Others will disagree but I rather love those tattoos at the top of a woman’s pelvis, peeking out from the top of her jeans. Gets the juices flowing. Not literally, of course. It gets the imagination going. There and the lower back look very hot, but a tattoo on the arm (wherever it is) looks a little problematic on women. They come with manly preconceptions attached (the old sailor stereotype with “mum” on his arm).

Worst of all, however, has to be tattoos on the ankle. One of my exes got one and it was one of the reasons we broke up. Yes, I really am that shallow, don’t act surprised. My problem with these comes from the fact that tattoos are clearly meant to be seen. Why else would you “decorate” your body with ink unless it’s for people to see the “artwork”? If the ink is on your ankle, how exactly do you expect people to see it unless, of course, your ankles are up by their ears. The idea of my girlfriend in said pose with lots of other men (be a bit pointless if it was just for my benefit) was clearly not a pleasurable thought.

I had little else to back up any suspicions of infidelity but I’m a judgemental man (yeah, like that’s a revelation). Anyway, she disobeyed me, I told her not to get one, she did it anyway, and that’s that. It’s not that I think women are slaves to men, not at all, I think in many cases it’s the other way around. Most men will do anything for a woman just to get her into bed, and that’s real power. No, what it boils down to for me is that women, like all mere mortals, should bow before my feet and realise my immense greatness. And consider themselves blessed.

What I find interesting is the idea that all tattoos have some sort of significance. I would say that there was a time where this was the case, back to their military roots, where, often, men who were away from their families for long periods got tattoos with names of special people, wives, girlfriends and mothers, almost like a permanent reminder for those trips away with the navy (and initially I’d say it was solely the preserve of the navy, until it spilled into the rest of the military).

Prison tattoos also have significance, acting much like a “brand”, stamping your crime, usually, on you, so that your status in the prison hierarchy (murderers at the top, child molesters at the bottom) is clearly marked. With the emergence of gang crime came the need to be marked as a member of a specific gang both on the street, and when you finally ended up in prison for your crimes. However, as time has gone on tattoos have become less and less significant, instead being a fashion statement, perhaps even an expression of your personality.

Beyond this my attention, through this contest, has been drawn to the growth in television shows devoted entirely to tattoos. First came Miami Ink and now a spin-off LA Ink (am I the only one who thinks Kat, Pixie and Kim all look hot, with or without their tatts and Hannah would still be ugly even without any?). I have never seen either, nor do I have an inkling to do so (although three hot women does tempt me), and in fact I wonder what sort of sad person would.

Whilst I totally understand watching a good documentary about, say, the Third Reich, I can see nothing interesting in learning more about tattoos. What could possibly be that fascinating about watching people stick needles in other people and watching it heal? It would be like watching an episode of House MD without Hugh Laurie’s wit or the sheer hotness that’s Jennifer Morrison. It simply doesn’t compute, but maybe that is because I actually have a life, unlike you saddos out there who read this tripe I keep banging out every day.

This post was an entry in the Mystery Topic Challenge at Blog Explosion. You can find more information HERE. Please drop by that link and vote for me if you liked my entry value your life. Thank you!