Check out this “article” (I use the word very loosely in this case) about tattoos that women (not men, women specifically) should avoid getting because of the down-the-road implications.
Being someone with more than a little bit of ink adorning my own body, I obviously have weighed the pros and cons of where to have new tattoos placed and what exactly to get, which is why I found this brilliant piece of cutting-edge journalism so intriguing.
To start on a positive note, a few of these 15 recommendations I genuinely do agree with. For example, getting tattoos of curse words. In my opinion, it’s just tacky. Sure there was a time when we were all rebellious and wanted to go against the grain; so an artfully placed “F*ck the Police” tattoo might’ve seemed cool at the time, but I truly believe that most of us mellow out as we get older. We find more constructive ways to express ourselves rather than our use of expletives that reek of desperate attempts to shock the prude or elderly.
Case in point, my parents took my daughter and I out to eat at a nice restaurant a little while ago and our waitress had a phrase written pretty prominently on her arm with the word “fuck” in it. It wasn’t even a particularly “artful” phrase. It was right out in the open (although easy enough to hide with sleeves) and though I’m covered in my fair share of tattoos and very pro-body art, even I thought it was in bad taste…especially for someone dealing with the public on a daily basis – in a nice establishment no less. I was actually surprised she wasn’t wearing something to cover it up of her own accord or that management hadn’t asked her to do so.
So I have that in common with the article. And that’s about where our overlap ends.
Besides agreeing on the “no curse words” idea, the article is complete nonsense if seen as a whole. Imagine you’re back in Health class and there’s a diagram of a very basic, featureless female body on the chalkboard that the teacher is pointing at. Now let’s go through the suggestions of this article and see what’s off-limits, shall we? No hands. Nothing on the back. Cross off the stomach. Nix the chest. Forget about the thigh. Upper arm is out too. Lower arm as well. And no face. Put all that together and basically the “article” is saying that the only acceptable places for a woman to even consider getting a tattoo are the feet (covered by shoes), the back of the neck (covered by hair), the calves — which frankly I think they simply forgot, and…that’s it!
Roughly 80% of the body is a no-ink zone which, I’m sorry, but are you kidding me? Their reasoning for restricting all this skin real estate of course is because of how things might sag, inflate, wrinkle, and stretch over time. To the author of the article I have to ask the following: by the time we’ve hit 80 years old do you really think we’re going to care?
Speaking personally, if I live to be 80 the state of my tattoos are going to be the least of my concerns. Seriously, if I make it that far, there are going to be a lot, and I mean a lot, of other things taking precedence…such as whether or not I’m going senile…or have the ability to eat on my own…or able to afford health insurance. Those fairy wings elongated by gravity? Not so much.
And if it turns out I’ve got all my wits about me, you damn sure better believe that I’ll be pointing at my tattoos and telling some great stories in the old folks’ home.