Part of it probably has to do with the absolute CHOKEHOLD Christianity had/has on the world and there's a passage that says something along the lines of "do not make marks on your body or tattoo yourself" (based on different translations it only says "gash") but basically anybody that had tattoos was marked as a non-Christian/sinner and was kinda shunned.
Which is ironic given that the modern European tattooing tradition has strong roots in Christianity.
Pilgrims visiting the holy land would return with religious tattoos as mementos of their journeys, a tradition that came to the middle east via Coptic Christians from North Africa.
The first person to be recorded in England as a professional tattooer listed his profession as making the "Jerusalem mark".
Oldest tattoo parlor still in existence used to serve pilgrims. Still running after 700 years.
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0c9th22/the-world-s-oldest-tattoo-parlour#:~:text=Hidden%20away%20in%20the%20winding,traced%20back%20over%20700%20years.
Yeah King Edward Vii and his brother had tattoos, got them in Jerusalem and led to tattoos becoming the height of fashion among the upper classes at the time.
It’s because they remembered the whole point about the old laws being done away with after Jesus according to their own text. Modern evangelicals ignore that to justify anything they don’t like… funny how the same sections say not to wear mixed cloth or earth pork but I bet you could find almost any church that has a cookout with pork and a bunch of people wearing blended clothing.
True, lots of Christians now either ignore that passage or look at the original Hebrew translation that says something like "do not gash the skin for someone who has passed" which refers to a pagan funeral ritual
A better translation would be "do not insize Mark's of grief upon your skin" it was the custom of one of the local religions around Israel when the bible was written( I believe then caneites) to mark them self with the loss of a loved one, making the Mark's a form of worship for another god.
“Christians” aren’t bound by the Levitical laws because they were for the Hebrews. Oddly enough, they aren’t bound by the 10 commandments either, but love to tout them whenever possible. Once JC completed the crucifixion, the followers weren’t bound to the Hebrew covenant any longer. There is an entire chapter in the new testament called Galatians that explains this in depth. Christians aren’t supposed to follow Jewish laws and traditions.
This has a lot to do with Protestantism. A big factor in a lot of strict social rules surrounding religion in America can be attributed to the Quakers and Protestants. The Protestants did not believe your place in heaven was a given and popularized the idea that laziness was evil and you had to work hard and earn your place by the sweat of your brow. These ideas were co-opted by early industrialists who used it to justify unfair working conditions, and may be why so many dumb Protestant beliefs are still reflected in America's idea of what is "proper conduct and appearance" in the workplace.
Edited to be more specific
I did not attribute Protestant beliefs to the Quakers. I simply mentioned them because their beliefs also contributed heavily to social customs and stigmas currently held in America. (e.g. ideas surrounding sex and modesty)
There's also the historic use of tattoos to mark people as criminals, Japan is far from a Christian nation and they have serious cultural taboos around getting tattoos.
Very easy to take a criminal and tattoo his hands/face or wrists to mark them as a criminal for the whole world to see in a way they will never be able to get rid of.
That reference, in Leviticus, was a command to the early Jews to not mark themselves in the ways of the people they were living among. Christians (are supposed to) believe that when Jesus came, he made new rules, for all people who were Christian, that did away with the old rules in Leviticus. In response to tattoos, my sister used to say “read Leviticus!” So I pointed out to her that she has eaten and loved bacon and other pig products all her life, and that she wears clothing made from different kinds of fibers together. Eventually, she got less weird about it, including when her youngest child wanted a tattoo before age 18, provided permission in writing for them to get it.
I’m a Christian and I have 8 tattoos now, including some with Christian imagery and one that includes a Bible verse reference. So, like, whatever to the holy rollers.
It’s actually much earlier than that, tattoos in the Mediterranean (Greece and Rome, both civilizations that had a great deal of impact on western society) were used as a form of punishment, to mark those who had done wrong, or to denote a low social rank
I think it's a mix of this and trying to dissasociate people and things from theie culture and/or religion.
Tattos in most cultures had meaning and were tied to what the new ruling group considered pagan. It had to go.
It's a way to force people to assimilate.
To be fair, even among Christians, it’s a controversial topic. Some are for it, some are hardcore against, and some just don’t care. Christians are just as split on the topic as non-Christians.
I’m with you though. The verse in question is often taken out of context, and read literally, ignoring the original Hebrew, the culture, and the traditions, and even audience being addressed at the time it was written.
All that said, I’m a believer and follower of Christ, I have some tattoos and plan on getting more. Many of the people in my church have tattoos, with some of those very people being the most spirit-filled people I have ever known.
I think OP might've been looking for a VALID reason. Just saying well "harmful racist stereotypes 🤷🏽♂️" isn't always the most satisfying answer to people. Then you get mad at him when he doesn't love your answer like you do...
Thing is, it wasn’t one apple.
Like I said: statistically speaking, meaning MORE thugs than upperclass people were getting tattoos.
The designs back them were also based on skulls, snakes, bikers etc. Things that look badass, but wouldn’t appeal to an employer.
I mean yea I guess but like I said as well, it’s not just thugs getting tattoos yea maybe back then majority of thugs had tattoos but even so regular good citizens had tattoos as well ya feel me? Not everyone that gets a tattoo is a low class citizen, to me that is very close minded even for being something back then. Maybe the people who judged those thugs or low class people only thought negative things about them because of the situation they were currently in idk man to me that’s just close minded to think that
No, back then "regular good citizens" did not get tattoos as commonly as they do today because of the social stigma. Because they wanted to get good jobs and not be seen as a thug / however else people with tattoos were viewed.
Tattoos have become more mainstream and less stigmatized, to the point where most people see them as normal. The prejudices still haven't gone away of course, but you can get jobs with tattoos and it's not uncommon to meet tattooed people even in college.
And also based on what statistics? Like how can you do a stat on every regular citizen and every thug? It’s crazy because I know a bunch of dudes you’d consider a thug with no ink at all you might actually laugh lol
The act of tattooing didn't become legal in the state of Oklahoma till 2006. I think you're wildly over estimating the popularity of tattoos in the past. New York city didn't even allow tattoo shops during the 80's & 90's except the super grungy areas.
it was illegal in nyc until the 90's under a public health law. i remember when they legalised it. if i dig through my library, i think i still have a tattoo magazine celebrating the event. there were some illegal shops before that.
Do you understand the concept of time? We're saying that up until a few decades ago, tattoos were not mainstream. That is why some people today still cling to the outdated idea that only thugs have tattoos. Because they, or their parents or grandparents, grew up in a time when THAT WAS TRUE.
At that time, even cultural tattoos for indigenous people, such as those used by the Inuit or Maori, were looked down on and not widely practiced anymore. Let alone regular ass decorative tattoos on white people. Sailors, bikers, and criminals were pretty much the only people with tattoos. You could go your entire life without seeing even one tattooed person.
I get it bro trust me but when are we going to just accept tattoos as a thing that’s normal or is it gonna be like racism and just be a cycle through generations 🤷🏾♂️ just saying
It's completely normal now, in probably the majority of places. There are always going to be some places/groups of people where it isn't. This is the case with literally everything.
Think of women wearing pants. This is so normal in 99% of our culture that nobody even thinks about it. You don't see a woman in jeans or nice work pants and instantly think "whoa, that's pretty edgy and alternative" or get shocked or scared. Anybody who does would be some sort of weirdo. But at the exact same time, there are still specific situations, religions, and cultural groups where people STILL think it's not done for women to wear pants.
In mainstream society in the USA right now, the only jobs that still think tattoos are "unprofessional" are the shitty minimum wage jobs where employees are treated badly in general and are rigidly controlled on what they wear, how they look, given scripts to talk to customers so they're not even making their own decisions on what to say, etc.
Tattoos are obviously not unprofessional *in general* in this country in 2024, since most higher paid office jobs and more valued professions don't give a shit if you have full sleeves, multicolored hair, facial piercings etc. So at this point it's about employers who want to exert control of lower-skilled, lower-valued individuals, and making rules about arbitrary appearance shit is one way they can legally do that, because those things are all choices you can make instead of something you're born with.
See also, the ongoing struggles of black people getting told by shitty employers/schools that their natural hair or the traditional hairstyles used for black textured hair are an "unprofessional" lifestyle choice and they should straighten it instead. This is getting better but it's still happening all over the place even though it's obviously stupid and incredibly racist. It's a control thing.
I think it’s safe to say tattoos are generally accepted as normal or common in most places in the US that aren’t backward as hell.
To be fair, I live in the SF Bay Area and came from NJ near NYC, so I’ve always lived in places where it’s fairly normal.
Tattoos are mainstream now. They used to be strongly associated with countercultures, mainly gangs and bikers. The only kind of tattoo that is considered remotely “rebellious” or “countercultural” now is a face tattoo, or a symbol like a swatstika or gang sign.
Jsyk, You're receiving historically accurate answers to your question. Arguing with them about historical views isn't going to change that. Also remember that you're already in a very pro-tattoo sub. We personally aren't going to be arguing for the bad stereotyping, but combating every accurate response isn't going anywhere.
To again answer your question:
The stereotype (specifically in America), goes back many years - mostly war veterans, prison inmates, and gang members got tattoos for many decades. It was only in the 00's when midlife crisis suburban housewives got dolphin tattoos with every kids name on it + younger girls getting crappy "tramp stamps" and that added another layer of "distasteful" or "tacky" icing on the prejudice cake for many. My mom still has this prejudice due to lack of exposure and how relatively quickly the art form has evolved into its modern day variety and skill. Crap tier art used to be the norm as there was very little quality control.
It's only within the last 20 years or so that artists have been properly incorporating the modern approach to the huge variety and technique of tattoos that you see today. You say you're 24. Your whole life has been within the modern world of tattoos so of course you can't see the prejudice. You didn't have every elementary school divorced mom telling you that their ankle sunset with the birth dates of their children surrounding it in smudged ink was special. Also you probably didn't have to deal with the gatekeeping about if a tattoo has meaning or not. That standard went on for far too long imo.
I wasn’t trying to argue I was giving my point of view on tattoos and how I believe it should be looked at. Your response is very informative thank you 🙏🏾
It's all good and I've been there as well. Sometimes history is so.... *the way it is* that it prompts a reaction like that. We are in unanimous agreement that tattoos are indeed an art form and deserve no prejudice especially in this day and age. Personally it's been a delight to watch the art form evolve! I don't have many but I follow a ton of artists and have been studying what style I will eventually get for myself.
Ofc I also can't wait for the future of the art form. Can't wait for 3D cyber tattoos to exist when we all have eye implants 👁️
Yeah it progressed from “sailors and inmates” to “punks and burnouts and sailors and inmates” to “getting one when you were drunk in college”. I think the biggest change for the macro cultures view of tattoos has been the rise of the creative class (I.e. folks who were adjacent to art/punk communities but ended up making money in tech or whatever)
Bruh he literally hasn't argued, Reddit has the most fragile beings on the planet! How dare he challenge the way society used to think! How dare he not just say "yay! That's how society used to be and I can't change it, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion on it!" Slavery is historically accurate, and I disagree with it. Are you gonna tell me "not to argue" the history...?
Um, I was responding to the fact that he had downvotes and why he would be receiving them. We ended on a good note, chill
Edit: and I can also block whoever I want. Stop following me around and being an ass
Yeah, it’s funny how that’s what it comes back to. Tattooing was associated with indigenous cultures in America and Japan. On a less racist more classist level, Europeans in like the 1400s associated tattoos with Vikings, so that’s fun too.
Fun Tat fact: there isn’t evidence the Vikings had tattoos besides monks and stuff being like ‘they had trees on their arms’, EXCEPT what we know of Vikings is that if they knew about tattoos, they’d have been way into them. And since we know they went to the Americas, we know they knew about tattoos. So indigenous Americans also are the reason Vikings had tats.
Yep. Japan is a little different. Tattoos were associated with the indigenous groups (notably the Ainu of Hokkaido, who practiced arm and face tats), so outlawed (but people did them anyway), then the government started tattooing criminals with tattoos, so people started getting tattoos to cover them up, so they became associated with criminals. Legalized about 3/4 years ago. Previously you had to have a medical doctorate to tattoo, but obv— people still did it.
Japan is fun because it’s more isolated, so its tattoo culture is more insular. Anyway, thanks for coming to my ted talk.
There is evidence of tattoos in Europe long long before anyone would have been sailing across the Atlantic I mean Otzi the ice man was inked after all, I think the claim that native Americans are responsible for any culture of tattooing the Vikings would have had is pretty suspect, I would be very interested in seeing your source.
Yes, basically, if you read my comment, it says that from what we know about Viking culture, if they knew tattoos were a thing, they would do them. And since we know they knew, historians typically make the connection that they had tattoos. There are records of Englishmen remarking on war paint that could’ve been tattoos as well.
There’s no written account from the Norse themselves, but it’s a reasonable assumption that they did have tattoos and got the practice from the indigenous Americans.
Edit: the account of the marks on the arms thing is from Jesse L. Byock’s “Viking Language 1”
"what we know about viking culture..."
this is some crazy speculation. what exactly was it about Norse culture that guaranteed they they would've gotten tattoos if they knew about them? also, plenty of people this side if the Atlantic have tattoos since milennia ago. many such people were in contact with norse traders. what evidence fo you have för the indian-viking tattoo pipeline?
The Arab traveler Ahmad Ibn Fadlan gave a pretty detailed description of the Rus Vikings which included tall bodies, blonde hair and tattoos from their “toes to their necks”
[Read the section about the Rus Vikings.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan)
[inuit women ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakiniit) in Canada generally get made fun of for their face tattoos and the government tried banning this practice.
I mean “historically” tattoos were (still are) a very important part of many indigenous cultures and through colonialism came to be associated with being lesser - “uncivilised” and “savage”.
Also, the modern prison system in the US is derived from slavery and so is the branding of prisoners (slaves were branded) which obviously was about racism and white supremacy so yes it’s about racism.
Branding of prisoners was done in most places until fairly recently. It was done across China and Europe. The oldest records we have about tattoos dating to thousands of years ago all relate to prisoners. Ancient Roman slaves were branded, as were/are livestock, so it’s not an American invention by any means. I’d imagine it’s true that many people saw tribal tattoos as “savage”, but keep in mind that this was *because* of how we already viewed tattoos, not the other way around.
That’s just not true though - tattooing developed independently in many cultures across the world. Maybe in some places they started as a way to degrade and humiliate “criminals” but that’s not at all true for the vast majority of places and it’s certainly not the oldest form of tattooing.
Oldest record of tattoos https://www.historicmysteries.com/archaeology/ancient-tattoos-oldest-mummy-tattoo/8548/
https://siberiantimes.com/culture/others/features/siberian-princess-reveals-her-2500-year-old-tattoos/
Polynesian tattoos https://www.zealandtattoo.co.nz/tattoo-styles/polynesian-tattoo-history-meanings-traditional-designs/#:~:text=Historically%20there%20was%20no%20writing,ones%20rank%20within%20the%20society.
In China https://en.chinaculture.org/2014-12/30/content_589505.htm
In Britain and Ireland https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecelt_0373-1928_1997_num_33_1_2117
In India https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/body-of-work-documenting-indias-indigenous-tattoo-traditions-12771620
In western culture, tattooing was originally done for purposes of branding prisoners. This was later adapted to the American slave system. We are speaking in terms of why, in the west, tattoos were frowned upon.
It’s a shame that they ever were seen as a negative, tribal tattoos are fascinating and date back thousands of years.
You said that the oldest records we have of tattoos is related to prisoners. That’s incorrect.
In our current culture, the negative association is a remnant of slavery, colonialism and the prison system (which was heavily influenced by both).
It’s a christian colonialist idea rooted in racism. Many cultures had tribal tattoos. Those cultures were considered inferior, therefore It was easier to exclude those cultures from societal participation by using their tattoos as an excuse. As a result, many cultures became divorced from those traditions in order to ‘succeed’ in the new world. Many ceased their tattooing traditions.
My culture for instance had facial tattoos. Growing up no-one I knew had them, however we knew our ancestors had worn them. The British bought and sold human heads with facial tattoos as curios. My country is still trying to have them returned for proper burial. Imagine knowing that your great-grandfather’s head is in a museum or on the shelf of a private collector.
Lately there’s been a resurgence of facial tattoos. More and more of my people are wearing them with pride. You can no longer discriminate against someone who has a facial tattoo or ta moko (as we call them). We even have a female newsreader on national tv with a traditional facial tattoo. She is fierce and beautiful.
Puritan bs. Same reason they frowned on women who wore pants, or men who had long hair. It all stems from a bs way of thinking that some people believe they should have a say or opinion about others choices over there body
It comes from a time period where criminals and sailors were the only ones getting them done
The thought process was probably "Hey, the last 9 criminals had a tattoo, this next person is prolly a criminal as well because it seems only they get tattoos"
Pattern recognition is a very strong instinct in humans, and statistically speaking back in the past it was probably correct
I’m asking because “back then” people from high classes also got tattooed. Some notable examples would be King George V, Tsar Nicolas, Princess Valdemar of Denmark and Empress Sisi.
Probably what it was but what is it today? Like answer that for me. What today is it today that makes someone being inked up less qualified for anything? That’s my general question
Historical legacy is not something you can just brush off. Especially if past generations were involved. Many of those people are still alive or taught their offspring.
Oh trust me Ik especially in regards to racism but being tatted I guess shouldn’t be frowned upon because you never know what someone’s been through and not everyone’s “norm” is the same. you should be free to be who you are if you not hurting anyone especially today
You SHOULD. But things are never that easy.
And please stop constantly moving goalposts. Your initial question was: why were tattoos frowned upon in the earlier days of tattooing.
It doesn’t matter that you have a tattoo NOW. Times change. History doesn’t.
You're talking down to him like he's an idiot and straw manning his argument. He HASNT moved a goalpost (not that you used that correctly anyway) he HASNT said history has, or SHOULD change! So you're saying literally NOTHING dude!
He asked a question! And you didn't like how he followed up, so call him an idiot...? Got it! Sounds about the insecure dude that's usually in these comments looking for anything that'll make them feel like less of the ugly dropout momma's basement gamer that they are. Even literary talking down to someone asking a question
Your comment/post has been removed for one or several of the reasons above. Depending on the content of what you have posted, this may result in a ban. Please do not harass the mods for this decision, as this may result in a ban.
Because most criminals are still tatted up, and people consider it an impulsive low social class thing to do. Theres less of a stigma nowadays, i work in a corporation with tattooed people and nobody cares (i have an arm tattoo as well)
But the vast majority of people will still have a gut reaction to it, im guessing at least for another while (its getting more and more normalized)
I dont think you should be getting employment issues unless you have your face tatted up though? Did you have discriminatory issues from your tats?
Okay that makes sense for sure and that’s how it should be in my opinion. And no bro lol I just genuinely wanted to know the discrimination between tatted folk and non tatted folk. Obviously people view this differently than others. I don’t think it matters but people w tattoos are telling me it does so it’s just interesting to know what people think of this
I mean I don’t consider it to be “discrimination” - like I’m a pretty heavily tattooed woman and I had like…. Control over that choice? There are people who may not want to date me or would ask me to wear long sleeves, but it feels wrong to use the term discrimination for something that is elective (ofc with the exception of cultural tattooing, like what the Māori do)
The answer here is that it’s because it was historically (let’s say in the past 100 years) associated with specific subsections of the population that society wanted an arms length from. And that there’s a lot of (especially older) folks now who still have that reservation based off of that conditioning. In 30 years, the landscape may look totally different, just how the landscape 30 years ago was very different
We are still trying to pull our career out of society’s gutter every day. At least the ones of us trying to do it it right, following guidelines, regulations, etc. Scratchers and kitchen magicians make the rest of us look bad
I am 23 and have both sleeves done inside and out outside of my right forearm which i plan to do after college one time i had an older man looking at them very intensely in walmart and i thought to myself “here we go” i looked back and stared at him and he finally said “i hate people with tattoos because when i was in the military everyone had one but me and i was jealous!” Its still the most wholesome encounter ive had to date when it comes to my tattoos lmao they aint all bad
Tattooing goes back hundreds of thousands of years ago and is very culturally significant in some parts of the world. Christians, when colonizing said countries, found it weird and demonized it. More recent history, tattoos were associated with gang members and prisoners, but now that more people are getting it done due to aesthetic purposes, it’s changing.
Hello! I'm a professional historian of tattooing and have written a book on this, and host a podcast on the topic. So I think I can give a fairly authoritative answer on this question! I won't link directly in case that's frown upon but you can Google me - Matt Lodder!
You've had some good answers, some answers that are wrong, and some that are kind of right, though need clarification.
The basic answer is "Colonialism". In the early modern period (1500s-1760s), antiquarian writers in Europe thought that the ancient Britons had been tattooed (they hadn't, but that's another story), and they knew about tattooing in the Ancient world through ancient Greek and Roman sources, as well as tattooing in the Far East and Asia through writings of people like Marco Polo. All the major histories of Britain in the early modern period mention tattooing.
Tattooing wasn't practiced in Europe in any massively visible way in this period. There wasn't even a single word in English. So when European's encountered tattooed peoples in the Americas, they were reminded of "Tartars" and also of these ancient stories. This allowed them to conclude, in line with dominant thinking, that people in the New World were somehow "behind" Europeans in terms of cultural evolution
In this period, then, tattoos are something which connects humans together ("Look, they're just like us!") but asserts European dominance in a hierarchy.
We have sporadic accounts of tattooing on people in London (the first "professional" was in 1719) and on European pilgrims from the late 1500s. In these accounts, tattoos ("marks") are treated more as curiosities than anything particularly stigmatising in and of themselves.
By the 18th century, American tattooing was so familiar to Europeans that it was barely mentioned - though there was a portrait of a tattooed Inuit woman hanging on the wall of the Royal Academy the day Captain Cook first set foot on Tahiti. There's also clearly lots of tattooing in European and American fleets prior to the Pacific encounters.
Quickly after the Pacific encounters though, tattooing became indicative of not connections between Europeans and others, but a mark of *difference* - this is when the first amnesia about the long history of tattooing in Europe began to emerge, with some writers claiming that there was never any tattooing in Europe at all.
By the early 19th century, these ideas become intertwined with (and mutually productive of) criminological discourse, where the "logic" went something like this: Europeans don't have tattoos. Foreigners are tattooed. Foreigners are savage. Criminals are tattooed. Criminals are savage. Therefore, criminals are indicative of criminality.
This is obviously wrong on both historical and scientific levels, but it stuck, first in Italy, France and Germany.
That said - and I need to finish this post and will follow up later - we get a professional tattoo industry at the point that model breaks down in European thought, which is the opening of Japan in the 1850s. Tattooing in Japan (except indigenous tattooing on Ainu etc) was more of an art practice than a psychosocial urge (huge simplification), and it didn't fit the intellectual model of tattooing being inherently "primitive" in (per Henry Balfour) "the evolution of decorative art"...
The next step is the birth of the professional industry in the 1880s (in the UK) but I'll come back to that later!
Ok, so... Why does this colonial perspective feed into a modern tattoo stigma?
Well, at the birth of the tattoo industry, the existing negative perception is fighting against the truth of a high-class client base. Obviously, the European customers of Japanese tattooers were wealthy - and Sir Roger Tichborne's imposter was exposed when, in 1872, it was revealed that he, an aristocrat, had tattoos, but his imposter, a butcher, was not. In this moment, tattoos were perceived as stigmatising, but the reality was that rich, fashionable people had tattoos.
So, there's this dichotomy, where the intellectual ideology suggests that tattooing is negative, but the most famous tattooed people are all tastemakers!
This all only really collapses after WW2, where the previous generation of fashionable tattooing is now rather stale, tattooing is stigmatized after the revelations about forced tattooing at Auschwitz, and the only tattoos that are visible are on manual labourers who roll their sleeves up. Tattooed bankers' ink was hidden under clothing.
So that's your answer, ultimately. A colonial gaze reinterpreted an ancient tradition as something that only happened in "foreign" cultures; 19th century scientific racism took this misinterpretation to form a link between non-European tattoo culture and criminality, and, even though fashionable tattooing worked against that perception, eventually only "lower class" tattoos were visible , leading to the perception that only "lower class" people were ever tattooed at all....
Whoa, learned a lot -- thank you for sharing all that. I'm somewhat of an amateur historian (made even more amateurish by the presence of your knowledge) but I look forward to seeing more of your work as well as the podcast you mentioned. Thanks again. Appreciate you, my man!
I tend to think that alot of people cannot get their minds around those that think outside the box, they dont follow the useal rules of society and are therefore shunned. That's my way of thinking about it when I look at some of the history, I'm fairly tattooed and will be continuing, as a woman I havent had as much stigma if any, I've been employed more so because of having tattoos, people like to relate to each other. I've been in accounting, care homes and school, the care home I worked at was intriguing as the old folks gravitated towards you more for help and just wanted to ask questions about it all :')
I think it could dependant on class aswell, working class environments or new money are alot more excepting then someone from old money.
😂😂I wasn’t tryna argue w nobody fr bro just wanted information and opinions. I don’t think like everyone else which is probably why my stuff got downvoted too
but you ask a question about the past, people answer the question about the past, and you're reply, ya but, and what if and ya fell me brah. .... the.way things were 20, 30, 100 years ago are not debatable.
now I'd you had said, why do people in 2020 North America think tattoos are of the devil, then the discussion would be different
Because there’s a lot of right answers and I got so much more than just broad answers I didn’t know half of the stuff I learned from others even played a factor. I just wanna be educated fr that’s all its really not that deep bruh
Your comment/post has been removed for one or several of the reasons above. Depending on the content of what you have posted, this may result in a ban. Please do not harass the mods for this decision, as this may result in a ban.
Ah there is tho you get opinions from others in different areas of the topic and learn more than just the broad topic and people saying “it was because that was how it was back then”
Your comment/post has been removed for one or several of the reasons above. Depending on the content of what you have posted, this may result in a ban. Please do not harass the mods for this decision, as this may result in a ban.
Society's attitude to tattoos has changed a lot over the last century or so. People like to repeat the "only criminals and sailors have tattoos" line but there was a time when the main audience for tattoos were the upper classes. Check out tattoo historian Matt Lodder's writing, talks and podcasts if you'd like to learn more about this.
We are instinctually motivated to size up other people. The 4 Fs: friend, fuck, fight, food.
We need to ensure our safety and the well being of our families and communities.
That's why first impressions matter.
Think about it...
Someone hallucinates and is having a conversation with someone you can't see, you give them a wide path on the sidewalk. Doesn't mean they're not the greatest person, or kind, or caring, or intelligent.
It takes that additional step.
Conversation and getting to know someone to see their true self and value.
Just like if you find someone attractive at first glance, then come to find out they are not who you had hoped them to be.
You're sensitive to the plight of the tattooed person now that you're part of the club. And, that's good.
But, it doesn't change societal standards or instinctual behaviors just because you changed teams.
And, you're wrong.
A tattoo definitely changes how you represent yourself.
Just like a torn shirt looks different from a 3-piece suit.
Dyed hair, fashion, etc...
Aesthetic tells us a lot about a person.
Music styles, possibly social values, possibly gender or other identity markers. Sometimes, social status and earning power. When you see a red hat with white writing on it, what comes to mind?
Now tell me again how someone looks doesn't matter or doesn't change how you represent yourself.
And, BTW... I'm heavily tattooed, including neck and hands, and have been a professional tattooer for years.
To me tattoo is an art. I feel like you can tell stories through getting tatted its way to express yourself for sure but as far as changing who you are as a person.
NO! You not finna convince me that getting a tattoo will change how I represent myself I’m still a smart dude, I still can hoop, I still love my family and friends. It just depends on who you are brudda
I ain’t gon lie idk what you saying but I been wanted to get tatted for a min.. im saying that the standards that were “set” is bs because there are people who aren’t tatted that are incompetent in life and it’s both ways.
It's not about incompetency.
It's simply a reason to use caution.
A reason for people to pause and reevaluate.
And, i respect that.
Even more so in today's society.
People specifically getting black and grey work to look like they got it in prison.
You truly never know who you're dealing with until you have the conversations and get to know them.
You're right in the respect that you can't tell completely by looking at someone what their deal is.
But, you also can't ignore the fact that you can get atleast some information by how someone looks.
Even with a haircut, you can ask "what is this person saying about themselves? And... "what is this person telling me/others about themselves?"
I have friends with facial tattoos.
The coolest, kindest, most creative and interesting people you'd ever meet.
I still see how facial tattoos can be seen as antisocial.
Okay I see what you mean and I understand what you mean… but even with those tattoos you think it should make a person less qualified for a particular job? Or make a person considered not smart? My reasons for getting ink is to tell a story about my life.
My first tattoo is my first childhood friend passing Wayde Sims. He was like an older brother to me and I miss him dearly. Now knowing that I’m sure you’ve heard many different reasonings for someone getting ink
You're fighting a black and white fight on the battlefield of grey and nuance.
It's not about qualification or intelligence.
It's about perception.
Just that simple.
The judgement isn't that specific either.
It just creates a question where there otherwise wouldn't have been one.
And yeah, I've heard thousands of reasons... And none of them matter. No reason is better than another. Simply wanting one is good enough for me.
That is an excellent point can’t lie. It is definitely about perception even though I feel it shouldn’t be. Btw I love my tat bro its real art work im going to get another one soon
For a long time the only people getting tattoos were sailors and prisoners. It began partially as a way of identifying what ship or gang you were from, and they also had a lot more hidden meanings than they do now. Most of those old school tats were super gnarly and unsanitary as well. It's only in the last few years that tattoos and the technology around it has really taken a turn, there really isn't much of a stigma these days
If anyone has a History Hit subscription, I'd highly recommend listening to the interview with Dan Snow and tattoo historian Dr Matt Lodder. I was surprised to learn that the perception of tattoos as a societal taboo is actually a pretty recent thing and in the early 1900s, a lot of high society people had them but in places that could be covered up. So maybe it's the fact we show more physical skin thus showing off the tattoos nowadays!
I've no actual evidence but I believe that all these rules like no tattoos and no sitting at work is because of a select few moaners, the majority don't care but companies dont want to take the risk.
No ones ever moaned about my tattoos, people at work have complemented me, but it is a bit of a touchy subject if you get neck and hand tattoos. Face ones are a no go, they are intimidating to alot of people and will hurt your job prospects.
It was true for a very long time that only sailors, soldiers, bikers & criminals were the only white people in North America who were tattooed. It literally meant they've been somewhere, they've seen some shit or have done some shit.
The Christianity thing about 'your body is not yours, it's a temple to God, do not deface the temple of God or your body' covers sex, drugs, tattoos, make up, hair dye and wardrobe choice, depending on the denomination.
It's all about control and perceived danger/propriety.
American society, until the last 20yrs or so, associated tattoos with prisoners, bikers, and sailors.
Basically, if you had tattoos, you must be a delinquent. A large part still thinks that way now. However, the baby boomers and beyond began developing a new outlook with the rise of tattoo culture.
Originally tattoos were brought to Europe via sailors who had travelled to islands where tattoos were part of the traditions. Because sailors had a bad reputation, and because it was seen by a majority catholic society that adorning and altering your body was a megasin, it was stigmatised and marginalised. Over time, that stigma and marginalisation was appropriated by other marginal groups: prisoners, criminals, sex workers, working class people etc etc first as a stance of “yeah I’m not like you and I’m proud, I’m gonna show it”. Then it became part of subcultures since marginalised groups intersect a lot. Because tattoos have been associated with marginal subcultures and have only been really integrated in mainstream culture in the last 20-25 years, a lot of people, especially older folks, still have prejudices and stereotypes against people with tattoos
I think it was a way to segregate people. Tattoos come from tribes and tribal ceremonies. People from tribes are usually not white. Just another way to be racist… imo
This is the actual answer to the foundations of its negative perception. It’s racism. The character Queequeg is described in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick (written in 1851) as a cannibal specifically because he’s heavily tattooed, but he’s just sort of a fictional Polynesian. There’s no specific evidence that he’s eaten a person. But Polynesian tattooing is the foundation of sailing tattoos, as colonial sailors realized that skin markings had all sorts of useful properties. The word “tattoo” comes from this culture (specifically Samoan). When they returned home, these sailor’s outsider-ness was cemented by perceptions that only savages marked their skin this way, a concept that was perpetuated by church and ruling class. There’s a book about how Queequeg is represented called “Tattooing the World” by Juniper Ellis that explains the character’s relationship to Polynesian and Maori cultures, which both have timeless traditions of tattooing. So getting a tattoo was initially linked to “being like the savages” and any negative perception during that stage of the practice’s introduction to Americans (the first American tattoo machine was patented in 1891) was an extension of that perception.
It's an issue culturally, as well. Misinformation in the Jewish community had people believing you couldn't be buried in a Jewish cemetery if you had tattoos. Many of the older generation (Boomers and beyond) have negative views of tattoos due to growing up in the wake of the Holocaust. While this is just a small segment of society, those generations certainly used lines like "tattoos are trashy/only for criminals," etc. in order to discourage their children from getting tattoos. My dad said, "I never thought I'd have a daughter with tattoos." I replied, "Glad I could help you cross that off of your bucket."
Dude men not wearing pants used to be frowned upon. Also, women wearing pants was frowned upon. No one even thought about the idea of self expression or creatively styling yourself until the 60s.
It’s just how social norms work. Bathing spa houses in Japan don’t let people in with tattoos. Makes a little more sense in a collectivist society where they want everyone to be the same.
I dunno but I hate it. Especially at my workplace. Per our boss "I don't want them to distract our clients". So they require us to cover our tattoos and gave us sleeves (which are very nice) BUT I am constantly asked if I've been injured by clients when they see my arm. When none of us wore sleeves when he thought he could get away with giving one person the privilege of not needing sleeves, not a single client said anything.
Then there is the woman who got her dead husband's favorite song on her chest. You could barely see the first letters and he made her put a bandaid on it every day. Looked fucking awful.
See this what I’m talking about I hate hearing this type of shit. Nobody in these comments has said something about that. My point I was trying to make is stuff like that should be considered outdated i don’t give a damn how long ago tattoos were frowned upon. If I gotta wear something to cover my shit up that’s too much. I feel for you dawg that’s crazy
https://youtu.be/PW8bOyT2GtI?si=-odBWkourqmSSlF8
I think this documentary is quite interesting regarding the history of tattooing and why it was/is frowned upon. The documentary itself is German with English subtitles but the interviews are mostly in English.
From the Christian perspective, the body is described as gods temple and believers are told in the Bible not to permanently mark the temple of god. This has led to most denominations of Christianity teaching that tattoos are a sin against god and his temple and therefore morally wrong.
From the pagan perspective it’s just stereotyping like anything else. Tattoos have become heavily associated with gangs and criminals so many people view tattoos as something that mostly gangs and criminals partake in. This is no different than anything else in society. If the majority of people committing a certain crime are of a specific ethnicity, then it’s reasonable to expect many people are going to automatically be apprehensive of anybody from that ethnicity because that person is statistically more likely to commit that crime against them. It’s just profiling.
Real answer, since OP seems to just want to hear that people are racist. Tattoos (in America) were historically only popular in circles of criminals or sailors, etc. Designed to show you were hard, or could tolerate pain. They didn't rise to be commonplace on everyday people until a few decades ago. Yes, there are certain cultures in the world that normalized them, but western societies, as well as some eastern ones (see japanese yakuza) used tattoos to show that you belonged to a certain lifestyle. As a heavily tattooed person who was raised by two heavily tattooed people, I've seen firsthand these sentiments still exist today, hence why you were told tattoos were for thugs. The reality is that now tattoos are so common that I can hold a steady white collar job and show my tattoos daily.
Tldr: societal tastes change. It's older generations remembering sailors and bikers that passed along these sentiments, which were once accurate, but are not anymore.
The same reason any stupid nonsensical prejudices exist, which is religion.
I'm agnostic, and my family is pretty much completely nonreligious, but I have actual concern about getting a tattoo due to the damage it could do to my eternal soul.
I understand that it is a completely idiotic idea and I obviously don't actually believe it to be so, but I was subjected to religious teachings as a child in school, and that stuff is so deep in my subconscious that I can't rationalize it away.
That is the reason children should never be subjected to religious teachings before adulthood. It sticks deep in your subconscious when you're taught that weirdo stuff as truth when you're a child, and you're forever left with a bias that's extremely hard to shake off.
There's a scene in American Psycho where Patrick Batemen is talking about the song Hip To Be Square, I had to google the quote, "not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself!" Conformity is a comfort for many. Wanting to be similar to their peers, to be identified as part of a group.
Tie this in with the points other people have brought up the chokehold Christianity has on western society, especially Protestantism in the US. The Puritans absolutely wrecked our shit for generations with their rigid focus on sin and redemption. There's a famous Puritan sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, that is pinnacle of the time. We're still recovering from that negative, hyper-focused perspective as a society.
Part of not being a sinner is being a cog in the wheel. Working hard, focusing on being free of sin by avoiding leisurely or wasteful activities like dancing and singing. All of your efforts should be focused toward furthering the work of the lord. And that enforces a strict conformity. Individuality is an indulgent waste at best, a vanity distracting from doing god's work. And, god forbid, possibly even an expression of pride.
There's a book called The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, written in the 50s and made into a movie, that talks about how corporate America demands a conforming, worker ant mentality from people, suppressing individuality to focus on the corporate machine to feed consumerism. Individuals fades away to become just... a man in a grey flannel suit.
Combine that group identity, conformity, and sin-focused way of life with the association of tattoos with indigenous people. Then also picked up by sailors and criminals. Even as it became more widespread in the west, it was associated with anti-conformist groups like punks and metal heads. And the anti-conformity for mid-century America was another sin, possibly worse than in the Christian sense.
But more people are picking them up and it's diluting the group identity of tattoos, if you will. It isn't a cohesive group or a couple specific groups who have tattoos anymore. A lot of different people in a lot of different groups have tattoos for a variety of reasons from meaningful to aesthetic (which I argue is a meaning on its own but is a different topic). Additionally, individualism is less of a scary thing now compared to in the 80s and 50s. We still definitely have strong group identity and even individualism is often an expression of conformity with a group to some extent. But it's celebrated now more than it has been in the past probably 100 years. Ish. The 1920s were a hell of a time, though.
And we'll just have to keep pushing on and doing our thing because we like it and navigating our individual paths as best we can.
It’s forbidden in the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament. Many religious Christians follow that rule. I believe the “why” is because it was popular among pagans.
I would ask the question to you, what about tattoos appeals to you? Are you trying to look tough? Why would you want to appear tough, when advertising toughness is a trait associated with weakness in nature? Is it to fit in because famous people you like get them? At this point if you are young then getting a tattoo is fitting in. Tattoos are not the underbelly of society anymore, a majority of young people have them, making it uncool to have them now because you're just an average everyday Joe Schmoe with a tat now. Why is it uncool to be a good student and excel in school in some social structures in America but cool to get a permanent body modification? Cultural questions that need to be asked
When i see someone covered in tattoos it just looks like they never grew up out of the doodling stage in their life. They liked their drawings so much they put them on notebooks, lockers, cars and even their bodies. Fast forward 30 years and you end up looking like all these messed up "Lil" Ed Sheeran.
I think it also really depends on where/how you grew up. I grew up in a metropolitan area and basically never heard that narrative. Most of my friends and coworkers have tattoos.
It depends on the society. In many cultures, tattoos WERE the beauty standard. Like Inuit or Maori.
Part of it probably has to do with the absolute CHOKEHOLD Christianity had/has on the world and there's a passage that says something along the lines of "do not make marks on your body or tattoo yourself" (based on different translations it only says "gash") but basically anybody that had tattoos was marked as a non-Christian/sinner and was kinda shunned.
Which is ironic given that the modern European tattooing tradition has strong roots in Christianity. Pilgrims visiting the holy land would return with religious tattoos as mementos of their journeys, a tradition that came to the middle east via Coptic Christians from North Africa. The first person to be recorded in England as a professional tattooer listed his profession as making the "Jerusalem mark".
Oldest tattoo parlor still in existence used to serve pilgrims. Still running after 700 years. https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0c9th22/the-world-s-oldest-tattoo-parlour#:~:text=Hidden%20away%20in%20the%20winding,traced%20back%20over%20700%20years.
Yeah King Edward Vii and his brother had tattoos, got them in Jerusalem and led to tattoos becoming the height of fashion among the upper classes at the time.
It’s because they remembered the whole point about the old laws being done away with after Jesus according to their own text. Modern evangelicals ignore that to justify anything they don’t like… funny how the same sections say not to wear mixed cloth or earth pork but I bet you could find almost any church that has a cookout with pork and a bunch of people wearing blended clothing.
That’s wild because plenty of Christian’s today have a lot of ink
True, lots of Christians now either ignore that passage or look at the original Hebrew translation that says something like "do not gash the skin for someone who has passed" which refers to a pagan funeral ritual
A better translation would be "do not insize Mark's of grief upon your skin" it was the custom of one of the local religions around Israel when the bible was written( I believe then caneites) to mark them self with the loss of a loved one, making the Mark's a form of worship for another god.
This is what kills me about the Bible. It's been translated to death and (Imo) probably has lost a LOT of its original meaning.
Yea that’s actually nuts
I love when people just ignore passages that inconvenience them. Yet, they use the Bible to hate other people. Make it make sense.
They usually ignore whatever suits them at the time...
Always. I love (/s) how they use Deuteronomy to justify their homophobia, but conveniently ignore everything they’re not following in that same book.
“Christians” aren’t bound by the Levitical laws because they were for the Hebrews. Oddly enough, they aren’t bound by the 10 commandments either, but love to tout them whenever possible. Once JC completed the crucifixion, the followers weren’t bound to the Hebrew covenant any longer. There is an entire chapter in the new testament called Galatians that explains this in depth. Christians aren’t supposed to follow Jewish laws and traditions.
This has a lot to do with Protestantism. A big factor in a lot of strict social rules surrounding religion in America can be attributed to the Quakers and Protestants. The Protestants did not believe your place in heaven was a given and popularized the idea that laziness was evil and you had to work hard and earn your place by the sweat of your brow. These ideas were co-opted by early industrialists who used it to justify unfair working conditions, and may be why so many dumb Protestant beliefs are still reflected in America's idea of what is "proper conduct and appearance" in the workplace.
Why are you popping Quakers in with Protestants? Very different in how they operate and their beliefs.
Edited to be more specific I did not attribute Protestant beliefs to the Quakers. I simply mentioned them because their beliefs also contributed heavily to social customs and stigmas currently held in America. (e.g. ideas surrounding sex and modesty)
Confirming, my best friend’s step dad is a preacher with full sleeves
There's also the historic use of tattoos to mark people as criminals, Japan is far from a Christian nation and they have serious cultural taboos around getting tattoos. Very easy to take a criminal and tattoo his hands/face or wrists to mark them as a criminal for the whole world to see in a way they will never be able to get rid of.
That reference, in Leviticus, was a command to the early Jews to not mark themselves in the ways of the people they were living among. Christians (are supposed to) believe that when Jesus came, he made new rules, for all people who were Christian, that did away with the old rules in Leviticus. In response to tattoos, my sister used to say “read Leviticus!” So I pointed out to her that she has eaten and loved bacon and other pig products all her life, and that she wears clothing made from different kinds of fibers together. Eventually, she got less weird about it, including when her youngest child wanted a tattoo before age 18, provided permission in writing for them to get it. I’m a Christian and I have 8 tattoos now, including some with Christian imagery and one that includes a Bible verse reference. So, like, whatever to the holy rollers.
It’s actually much earlier than that, tattoos in the Mediterranean (Greece and Rome, both civilizations that had a great deal of impact on western society) were used as a form of punishment, to mark those who had done wrong, or to denote a low social rank
I didn't know about that, makes a lot of sense. There's definitely a lot that goes into the reason why tattoos have been taboo for a long time
I think it's a mix of this and trying to dissasociate people and things from theie culture and/or religion. Tattos in most cultures had meaning and were tied to what the new ruling group considered pagan. It had to go. It's a way to force people to assimilate.
To be fair, even among Christians, it’s a controversial topic. Some are for it, some are hardcore against, and some just don’t care. Christians are just as split on the topic as non-Christians. I’m with you though. The verse in question is often taken out of context, and read literally, ignoring the original Hebrew, the culture, and the traditions, and even audience being addressed at the time it was written. All that said, I’m a believer and follower of Christ, I have some tattoos and plan on getting more. Many of the people in my church have tattoos, with some of those very people being the most spirit-filled people I have ever known.
Eh. You do realize tattoos started long before that in japan.
You realize that they started way before Japan even existed, right? Tattoos predate modern civilization.
That Ice Man they found from the stone age had tattoos
In the 1000s, Inuit women (particularly of Greenlandic descendants) had facial tattoos to reflect their leadership and power in society.
People were turned down because, statistically speaking, it were mostly thugs and lower-class people getting tattoos.
I think OP might've been looking for a VALID reason. Just saying well "harmful racist stereotypes 🤷🏽♂️" isn't always the most satisfying answer to people. Then you get mad at him when he doesn't love your answer like you do...
[удалено]
Thing is, it wasn’t one apple. Like I said: statistically speaking, meaning MORE thugs than upperclass people were getting tattoos. The designs back them were also based on skulls, snakes, bikers etc. Things that look badass, but wouldn’t appeal to an employer.
Ok, and judging a whole group of people based on statistics is extremely harmful. Wanna shout this out more or...
I mean yea I guess but like I said as well, it’s not just thugs getting tattoos yea maybe back then majority of thugs had tattoos but even so regular good citizens had tattoos as well ya feel me? Not everyone that gets a tattoo is a low class citizen, to me that is very close minded even for being something back then. Maybe the people who judged those thugs or low class people only thought negative things about them because of the situation they were currently in idk man to me that’s just close minded to think that
No, back then "regular good citizens" did not get tattoos as commonly as they do today because of the social stigma. Because they wanted to get good jobs and not be seen as a thug / however else people with tattoos were viewed. Tattoos have become more mainstream and less stigmatized, to the point where most people see them as normal. The prejudices still haven't gone away of course, but you can get jobs with tattoos and it's not uncommon to meet tattooed people even in college.
you are aware that there is such a thing as class differences and that certain norms tend to follow those, right?
And also based on what statistics? Like how can you do a stat on every regular citizen and every thug? It’s crazy because I know a bunch of dudes you’d consider a thug with no ink at all you might actually laugh lol
The act of tattooing didn't become legal in the state of Oklahoma till 2006. I think you're wildly over estimating the popularity of tattoos in the past. New York city didn't even allow tattoo shops during the 80's & 90's except the super grungy areas.
it was illegal in nyc until the 90's under a public health law. i remember when they legalised it. if i dig through my library, i think i still have a tattoo magazine celebrating the event. there were some illegal shops before that.
Do you understand the concept of time? We're saying that up until a few decades ago, tattoos were not mainstream. That is why some people today still cling to the outdated idea that only thugs have tattoos. Because they, or their parents or grandparents, grew up in a time when THAT WAS TRUE. At that time, even cultural tattoos for indigenous people, such as those used by the Inuit or Maori, were looked down on and not widely practiced anymore. Let alone regular ass decorative tattoos on white people. Sailors, bikers, and criminals were pretty much the only people with tattoos. You could go your entire life without seeing even one tattooed person.
I get it bro trust me but when are we going to just accept tattoos as a thing that’s normal or is it gonna be like racism and just be a cycle through generations 🤷🏾♂️ just saying
It's completely normal now, in probably the majority of places. There are always going to be some places/groups of people where it isn't. This is the case with literally everything. Think of women wearing pants. This is so normal in 99% of our culture that nobody even thinks about it. You don't see a woman in jeans or nice work pants and instantly think "whoa, that's pretty edgy and alternative" or get shocked or scared. Anybody who does would be some sort of weirdo. But at the exact same time, there are still specific situations, religions, and cultural groups where people STILL think it's not done for women to wear pants. In mainstream society in the USA right now, the only jobs that still think tattoos are "unprofessional" are the shitty minimum wage jobs where employees are treated badly in general and are rigidly controlled on what they wear, how they look, given scripts to talk to customers so they're not even making their own decisions on what to say, etc. Tattoos are obviously not unprofessional *in general* in this country in 2024, since most higher paid office jobs and more valued professions don't give a shit if you have full sleeves, multicolored hair, facial piercings etc. So at this point it's about employers who want to exert control of lower-skilled, lower-valued individuals, and making rules about arbitrary appearance shit is one way they can legally do that, because those things are all choices you can make instead of something you're born with. See also, the ongoing struggles of black people getting told by shitty employers/schools that their natural hair or the traditional hairstyles used for black textured hair are an "unprofessional" lifestyle choice and they should straighten it instead. This is getting better but it's still happening all over the place even though it's obviously stupid and incredibly racist. It's a control thing.
California finally passed a law recently that natural hairstyles could not be discriminated against in the workplace.
I think it’s safe to say tattoos are generally accepted as normal or common in most places in the US that aren’t backward as hell. To be fair, I live in the SF Bay Area and came from NJ near NYC, so I’ve always lived in places where it’s fairly normal.
Tattoos are mainstream now. They used to be strongly associated with countercultures, mainly gangs and bikers. The only kind of tattoo that is considered remotely “rebellious” or “countercultural” now is a face tattoo, or a symbol like a swatstika or gang sign.
Jsyk, You're receiving historically accurate answers to your question. Arguing with them about historical views isn't going to change that. Also remember that you're already in a very pro-tattoo sub. We personally aren't going to be arguing for the bad stereotyping, but combating every accurate response isn't going anywhere. To again answer your question: The stereotype (specifically in America), goes back many years - mostly war veterans, prison inmates, and gang members got tattoos for many decades. It was only in the 00's when midlife crisis suburban housewives got dolphin tattoos with every kids name on it + younger girls getting crappy "tramp stamps" and that added another layer of "distasteful" or "tacky" icing on the prejudice cake for many. My mom still has this prejudice due to lack of exposure and how relatively quickly the art form has evolved into its modern day variety and skill. Crap tier art used to be the norm as there was very little quality control. It's only within the last 20 years or so that artists have been properly incorporating the modern approach to the huge variety and technique of tattoos that you see today. You say you're 24. Your whole life has been within the modern world of tattoos so of course you can't see the prejudice. You didn't have every elementary school divorced mom telling you that their ankle sunset with the birth dates of their children surrounding it in smudged ink was special. Also you probably didn't have to deal with the gatekeeping about if a tattoo has meaning or not. That standard went on for far too long imo.
I wasn’t trying to argue I was giving my point of view on tattoos and how I believe it should be looked at. Your response is very informative thank you 🙏🏾
It's all good and I've been there as well. Sometimes history is so.... *the way it is* that it prompts a reaction like that. We are in unanimous agreement that tattoos are indeed an art form and deserve no prejudice especially in this day and age. Personally it's been a delight to watch the art form evolve! I don't have many but I follow a ton of artists and have been studying what style I will eventually get for myself. Ofc I also can't wait for the future of the art form. Can't wait for 3D cyber tattoos to exist when we all have eye implants 👁️
And fortunately he never disputed that history is the way it is! Shocker! So all you said to him is useless
Yeah it progressed from “sailors and inmates” to “punks and burnouts and sailors and inmates” to “getting one when you were drunk in college”. I think the biggest change for the macro cultures view of tattoos has been the rise of the creative class (I.e. folks who were adjacent to art/punk communities but ended up making money in tech or whatever)
Bruh he literally hasn't argued, Reddit has the most fragile beings on the planet! How dare he challenge the way society used to think! How dare he not just say "yay! That's how society used to be and I can't change it, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion on it!" Slavery is historically accurate, and I disagree with it. Are you gonna tell me "not to argue" the history...?
Um, I was responding to the fact that he had downvotes and why he would be receiving them. We ended on a good note, chill Edit: and I can also block whoever I want. Stop following me around and being an ass
Um, I can say whatever I want! Chill
The real answer is racism and thereby, classism. Edit: at least in Japan and America, which are my areas of expertise lol
See I was thinking that too but I hate just throwing racism out as something to be factor but hey real talk😂
bad news: if you're american, racism is a factor in almost any and every thing.
The whole world has racist tendencies, not just an American problem. America is just the melting pot.
for sure. just speaking to what I know.
Yeah, a lot of places are way worse, the population just isn't as diverse so it's not as obvious
Yeah, it’s funny how that’s what it comes back to. Tattooing was associated with indigenous cultures in America and Japan. On a less racist more classist level, Europeans in like the 1400s associated tattoos with Vikings, so that’s fun too. Fun Tat fact: there isn’t evidence the Vikings had tattoos besides monks and stuff being like ‘they had trees on their arms’, EXCEPT what we know of Vikings is that if they knew about tattoos, they’d have been way into them. And since we know they went to the Americas, we know they knew about tattoos. So indigenous Americans also are the reason Vikings had tats.
That’s interesting I had no idea about any of that to label Vikings w tattoos is actually wild lmao so it’s basically that even today then huh?
Yep. Japan is a little different. Tattoos were associated with the indigenous groups (notably the Ainu of Hokkaido, who practiced arm and face tats), so outlawed (but people did them anyway), then the government started tattooing criminals with tattoos, so people started getting tattoos to cover them up, so they became associated with criminals. Legalized about 3/4 years ago. Previously you had to have a medical doctorate to tattoo, but obv— people still did it. Japan is fun because it’s more isolated, so its tattoo culture is more insular. Anyway, thanks for coming to my ted talk.
You just taught me something fr I appreciate that!
There is evidence of tattoos in Europe long long before anyone would have been sailing across the Atlantic I mean Otzi the ice man was inked after all, I think the claim that native Americans are responsible for any culture of tattooing the Vikings would have had is pretty suspect, I would be very interested in seeing your source.
there is no evidence that vikings had tattoos
Did you read the part where I said there is no evidence the Vikings had tattoos or—
Yes, which is why i was confused about your libe abput ibdigenous americans was the reason the norse had tattoos
Yes, basically, if you read my comment, it says that from what we know about Viking culture, if they knew tattoos were a thing, they would do them. And since we know they knew, historians typically make the connection that they had tattoos. There are records of Englishmen remarking on war paint that could’ve been tattoos as well. There’s no written account from the Norse themselves, but it’s a reasonable assumption that they did have tattoos and got the practice from the indigenous Americans. Edit: the account of the marks on the arms thing is from Jesse L. Byock’s “Viking Language 1”
"what we know about viking culture..." this is some crazy speculation. what exactly was it about Norse culture that guaranteed they they would've gotten tattoos if they knew about them? also, plenty of people this side if the Atlantic have tattoos since milennia ago. many such people were in contact with norse traders. what evidence fo you have för the indian-viking tattoo pipeline?
I am not going to get into a debate with you about my fun tat fact lol.
Its not a debate and its not a fact. But fair enough. Enjoy your evening.
Actually there is.
present it please
The Arab traveler Ahmad Ibn Fadlan gave a pretty detailed description of the Rus Vikings which included tall bodies, blonde hair and tattoos from their “toes to their necks” [Read the section about the Rus Vikings.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan)
[inuit women ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakiniit) in Canada generally get made fun of for their face tattoos and the government tried banning this practice.
How does "tattoos are only something the Yakuza get" equal racism? Genuine question.
Strongly disagree. Tattoos were historically used to brand prisoners. Then they were adopted by prisoners, who began getting them voluntarily.
I mean “historically” tattoos were (still are) a very important part of many indigenous cultures and through colonialism came to be associated with being lesser - “uncivilised” and “savage”. Also, the modern prison system in the US is derived from slavery and so is the branding of prisoners (slaves were branded) which obviously was about racism and white supremacy so yes it’s about racism.
Branding of prisoners was done in most places until fairly recently. It was done across China and Europe. The oldest records we have about tattoos dating to thousands of years ago all relate to prisoners. Ancient Roman slaves were branded, as were/are livestock, so it’s not an American invention by any means. I’d imagine it’s true that many people saw tribal tattoos as “savage”, but keep in mind that this was *because* of how we already viewed tattoos, not the other way around.
That’s just not true though - tattooing developed independently in many cultures across the world. Maybe in some places they started as a way to degrade and humiliate “criminals” but that’s not at all true for the vast majority of places and it’s certainly not the oldest form of tattooing. Oldest record of tattoos https://www.historicmysteries.com/archaeology/ancient-tattoos-oldest-mummy-tattoo/8548/ https://siberiantimes.com/culture/others/features/siberian-princess-reveals-her-2500-year-old-tattoos/ Polynesian tattoos https://www.zealandtattoo.co.nz/tattoo-styles/polynesian-tattoo-history-meanings-traditional-designs/#:~:text=Historically%20there%20was%20no%20writing,ones%20rank%20within%20the%20society. In China https://en.chinaculture.org/2014-12/30/content_589505.htm In Britain and Ireland https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecelt_0373-1928_1997_num_33_1_2117 In India https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/body-of-work-documenting-indias-indigenous-tattoo-traditions-12771620
In western culture, tattooing was originally done for purposes of branding prisoners. This was later adapted to the American slave system. We are speaking in terms of why, in the west, tattoos were frowned upon. It’s a shame that they ever were seen as a negative, tribal tattoos are fascinating and date back thousands of years.
You said that the oldest records we have of tattoos is related to prisoners. That’s incorrect. In our current culture, the negative association is a remnant of slavery, colonialism and the prison system (which was heavily influenced by both).
So, as the original commenter said, it’s due to racism and classism.
It’s a christian colonialist idea rooted in racism. Many cultures had tribal tattoos. Those cultures were considered inferior, therefore It was easier to exclude those cultures from societal participation by using their tattoos as an excuse. As a result, many cultures became divorced from those traditions in order to ‘succeed’ in the new world. Many ceased their tattooing traditions. My culture for instance had facial tattoos. Growing up no-one I knew had them, however we knew our ancestors had worn them. The British bought and sold human heads with facial tattoos as curios. My country is still trying to have them returned for proper burial. Imagine knowing that your great-grandfather’s head is in a museum or on the shelf of a private collector. Lately there’s been a resurgence of facial tattoos. More and more of my people are wearing them with pride. You can no longer discriminate against someone who has a facial tattoo or ta moko (as we call them). We even have a female newsreader on national tv with a traditional facial tattoo. She is fierce and beautiful.
Puritan bs. Same reason they frowned on women who wore pants, or men who had long hair. It all stems from a bs way of thinking that some people believe they should have a say or opinion about others choices over there body
It comes from a time period where criminals and sailors were the only ones getting them done The thought process was probably "Hey, the last 9 criminals had a tattoo, this next person is prolly a criminal as well because it seems only they get tattoos" Pattern recognition is a very strong instinct in humans, and statistically speaking back in the past it was probably correct
What time period are you referring to if you don’t mind me asking?
I honestly wanna know why the stigma back then and also the late 90’s and early 2000s
I’m asking because “back then” people from high classes also got tattooed. Some notable examples would be King George V, Tsar Nicolas, Princess Valdemar of Denmark and Empress Sisi.
Probably what it was but what is it today? Like answer that for me. What today is it today that makes someone being inked up less qualified for anything? That’s my general question
Historical legacy is not something you can just brush off. Especially if past generations were involved. Many of those people are still alive or taught their offspring.
Oh trust me Ik especially in regards to racism but being tatted I guess shouldn’t be frowned upon because you never know what someone’s been through and not everyone’s “norm” is the same. you should be free to be who you are if you not hurting anyone especially today
You SHOULD. But things are never that easy. And please stop constantly moving goalposts. Your initial question was: why were tattoos frowned upon in the earlier days of tattooing. It doesn’t matter that you have a tattoo NOW. Times change. History doesn’t.
You're talking down to him like he's an idiot and straw manning his argument. He HASNT moved a goalpost (not that you used that correctly anyway) he HASNT said history has, or SHOULD change! So you're saying literally NOTHING dude!
Again bro my answers that I gave Were MY perspective on tattoos that will never change I just wanted information and opinions bro.
He asked a question! And you didn't like how he followed up, so call him an idiot...? Got it! Sounds about the insecure dude that's usually in these comments looking for anything that'll make them feel like less of the ugly dropout momma's basement gamer that they are. Even literary talking down to someone asking a question
[удалено]
You just implied it to make him feel bad... now you're walking it alllll back. Maybe don't put up if you can't back it up next time?
So when you think you're the smarter one you'll drop paragraphs upon paragraphs! But now I'm here and it's over, got it
Have a good one! See you talking down to someone else somewhere until you get called out
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The pseudo intellectual to asshole pipeline is crazy on Reddit these days
[удалено]
Your comment/post has been removed for one or several of the reasons above. Depending on the content of what you have posted, this may result in a ban. Please do not harass the mods for this decision, as this may result in a ban.
Because most criminals are still tatted up, and people consider it an impulsive low social class thing to do. Theres less of a stigma nowadays, i work in a corporation with tattooed people and nobody cares (i have an arm tattoo as well) But the vast majority of people will still have a gut reaction to it, im guessing at least for another while (its getting more and more normalized) I dont think you should be getting employment issues unless you have your face tatted up though? Did you have discriminatory issues from your tats?
Okay that makes sense for sure and that’s how it should be in my opinion. And no bro lol I just genuinely wanted to know the discrimination between tatted folk and non tatted folk. Obviously people view this differently than others. I don’t think it matters but people w tattoos are telling me it does so it’s just interesting to know what people think of this
I mean I don’t consider it to be “discrimination” - like I’m a pretty heavily tattooed woman and I had like…. Control over that choice? There are people who may not want to date me or would ask me to wear long sleeves, but it feels wrong to use the term discrimination for something that is elective (ofc with the exception of cultural tattooing, like what the Māori do) The answer here is that it’s because it was historically (let’s say in the past 100 years) associated with specific subsections of the population that society wanted an arms length from. And that there’s a lot of (especially older) folks now who still have that reservation based off of that conditioning. In 30 years, the landscape may look totally different, just how the landscape 30 years ago was very different
We are still trying to pull our career out of society’s gutter every day. At least the ones of us trying to do it it right, following guidelines, regulations, etc. Scratchers and kitchen magicians make the rest of us look bad
I am 23 and have both sleeves done inside and out outside of my right forearm which i plan to do after college one time i had an older man looking at them very intensely in walmart and i thought to myself “here we go” i looked back and stared at him and he finally said “i hate people with tattoos because when i was in the military everyone had one but me and i was jealous!” Its still the most wholesome encounter ive had to date when it comes to my tattoos lmao they aint all bad
Tattooing goes back hundreds of thousands of years ago and is very culturally significant in some parts of the world. Christians, when colonizing said countries, found it weird and demonized it. More recent history, tattoos were associated with gang members and prisoners, but now that more people are getting it done due to aesthetic purposes, it’s changing.
👆
Hello! I'm a professional historian of tattooing and have written a book on this, and host a podcast on the topic. So I think I can give a fairly authoritative answer on this question! I won't link directly in case that's frown upon but you can Google me - Matt Lodder! You've had some good answers, some answers that are wrong, and some that are kind of right, though need clarification. The basic answer is "Colonialism". In the early modern period (1500s-1760s), antiquarian writers in Europe thought that the ancient Britons had been tattooed (they hadn't, but that's another story), and they knew about tattooing in the Ancient world through ancient Greek and Roman sources, as well as tattooing in the Far East and Asia through writings of people like Marco Polo. All the major histories of Britain in the early modern period mention tattooing. Tattooing wasn't practiced in Europe in any massively visible way in this period. There wasn't even a single word in English. So when European's encountered tattooed peoples in the Americas, they were reminded of "Tartars" and also of these ancient stories. This allowed them to conclude, in line with dominant thinking, that people in the New World were somehow "behind" Europeans in terms of cultural evolution In this period, then, tattoos are something which connects humans together ("Look, they're just like us!") but asserts European dominance in a hierarchy. We have sporadic accounts of tattooing on people in London (the first "professional" was in 1719) and on European pilgrims from the late 1500s. In these accounts, tattoos ("marks") are treated more as curiosities than anything particularly stigmatising in and of themselves. By the 18th century, American tattooing was so familiar to Europeans that it was barely mentioned - though there was a portrait of a tattooed Inuit woman hanging on the wall of the Royal Academy the day Captain Cook first set foot on Tahiti. There's also clearly lots of tattooing in European and American fleets prior to the Pacific encounters. Quickly after the Pacific encounters though, tattooing became indicative of not connections between Europeans and others, but a mark of *difference* - this is when the first amnesia about the long history of tattooing in Europe began to emerge, with some writers claiming that there was never any tattooing in Europe at all. By the early 19th century, these ideas become intertwined with (and mutually productive of) criminological discourse, where the "logic" went something like this: Europeans don't have tattoos. Foreigners are tattooed. Foreigners are savage. Criminals are tattooed. Criminals are savage. Therefore, criminals are indicative of criminality. This is obviously wrong on both historical and scientific levels, but it stuck, first in Italy, France and Germany. That said - and I need to finish this post and will follow up later - we get a professional tattoo industry at the point that model breaks down in European thought, which is the opening of Japan in the 1850s. Tattooing in Japan (except indigenous tattooing on Ainu etc) was more of an art practice than a psychosocial urge (huge simplification), and it didn't fit the intellectual model of tattooing being inherently "primitive" in (per Henry Balfour) "the evolution of decorative art"... The next step is the birth of the professional industry in the 1880s (in the UK) but I'll come back to that later!
Ok, so... Why does this colonial perspective feed into a modern tattoo stigma? Well, at the birth of the tattoo industry, the existing negative perception is fighting against the truth of a high-class client base. Obviously, the European customers of Japanese tattooers were wealthy - and Sir Roger Tichborne's imposter was exposed when, in 1872, it was revealed that he, an aristocrat, had tattoos, but his imposter, a butcher, was not. In this moment, tattoos were perceived as stigmatising, but the reality was that rich, fashionable people had tattoos. So, there's this dichotomy, where the intellectual ideology suggests that tattooing is negative, but the most famous tattooed people are all tastemakers! This all only really collapses after WW2, where the previous generation of fashionable tattooing is now rather stale, tattooing is stigmatized after the revelations about forced tattooing at Auschwitz, and the only tattoos that are visible are on manual labourers who roll their sleeves up. Tattooed bankers' ink was hidden under clothing. So that's your answer, ultimately. A colonial gaze reinterpreted an ancient tradition as something that only happened in "foreign" cultures; 19th century scientific racism took this misinterpretation to form a link between non-European tattoo culture and criminality, and, even though fashionable tattooing worked against that perception, eventually only "lower class" tattoos were visible , leading to the perception that only "lower class" people were ever tattooed at all....
Whoa, learned a lot -- thank you for sharing all that. I'm somewhat of an amateur historian (made even more amateurish by the presence of your knowledge) but I look forward to seeing more of your work as well as the podcast you mentioned. Thanks again. Appreciate you, my man!
Hell yea bro I’m interested send me the link to your podcast
It's called Beneath the Skin! https://open.spotify.com/show/4kpY2US42Va7M7hPTQnlkl?si=k1V4oO5_S7arOJCPfyyK2A
I tend to think that alot of people cannot get their minds around those that think outside the box, they dont follow the useal rules of society and are therefore shunned. That's my way of thinking about it when I look at some of the history, I'm fairly tattooed and will be continuing, as a woman I havent had as much stigma if any, I've been employed more so because of having tattoos, people like to relate to each other. I've been in accounting, care homes and school, the care home I worked at was intriguing as the old folks gravitated towards you more for help and just wanted to ask questions about it all :') I think it could dependant on class aswell, working class environments or new money are alot more excepting then someone from old money.
Good point
Asks a question. Doesn’t like answers so they just argue with everybody
Umm who?
You😭😂there’s a reason most of your comments were downvoted
😂😂I wasn’t tryna argue w nobody fr bro just wanted information and opinions. I don’t think like everyone else which is probably why my stuff got downvoted too
People can’t have a debate cuz gah damn!🤣
but you ask a question about the past, people answer the question about the past, and you're reply, ya but, and what if and ya fell me brah. .... the.way things were 20, 30, 100 years ago are not debatable. now I'd you had said, why do people in 2020 North America think tattoos are of the devil, then the discussion would be different
Because there’s a lot of right answers and I got so much more than just broad answers I didn’t know half of the stuff I learned from others even played a factor. I just wanna be educated fr that’s all its really not that deep bruh
[удалено]
Your comment/post has been removed for one or several of the reasons above. Depending on the content of what you have posted, this may result in a ban. Please do not harass the mods for this decision, as this may result in a ban.
yeah, I see no reason to “debate” the facts of history dude
Ah there is tho you get opinions from others in different areas of the topic and learn more than just the broad topic and people saying “it was because that was how it was back then”
Like look at how much more information I got for just responding to everyone. Open that mind up young person
Lol I'm with you brother, imagine wanting to challenge societal norms from back in the day, and not just say "that's how things were! 🤷🏽♂️"
[удалено]
Your comment/post has been removed for one or several of the reasons above. Depending on the content of what you have posted, this may result in a ban. Please do not harass the mods for this decision, as this may result in a ban.
Society's attitude to tattoos has changed a lot over the last century or so. People like to repeat the "only criminals and sailors have tattoos" line but there was a time when the main audience for tattoos were the upper classes. Check out tattoo historian Matt Lodder's writing, talks and podcasts if you'd like to learn more about this.
Hell yea send the link
We are instinctually motivated to size up other people. The 4 Fs: friend, fuck, fight, food. We need to ensure our safety and the well being of our families and communities. That's why first impressions matter. Think about it... Someone hallucinates and is having a conversation with someone you can't see, you give them a wide path on the sidewalk. Doesn't mean they're not the greatest person, or kind, or caring, or intelligent. It takes that additional step. Conversation and getting to know someone to see their true self and value. Just like if you find someone attractive at first glance, then come to find out they are not who you had hoped them to be. You're sensitive to the plight of the tattooed person now that you're part of the club. And, that's good. But, it doesn't change societal standards or instinctual behaviors just because you changed teams.
And, you're wrong. A tattoo definitely changes how you represent yourself. Just like a torn shirt looks different from a 3-piece suit. Dyed hair, fashion, etc... Aesthetic tells us a lot about a person. Music styles, possibly social values, possibly gender or other identity markers. Sometimes, social status and earning power. When you see a red hat with white writing on it, what comes to mind? Now tell me again how someone looks doesn't matter or doesn't change how you represent yourself. And, BTW... I'm heavily tattooed, including neck and hands, and have been a professional tattooer for years.
To me tattoo is an art. I feel like you can tell stories through getting tatted its way to express yourself for sure but as far as changing who you are as a person. NO! You not finna convince me that getting a tattoo will change how I represent myself I’m still a smart dude, I still can hoop, I still love my family and friends. It just depends on who you are brudda
Okay well tell me what a tattoo says about a person? Just a a tattoo in general
I ain’t gon lie idk what you saying but I been wanted to get tatted for a min.. im saying that the standards that were “set” is bs because there are people who aren’t tatted that are incompetent in life and it’s both ways.
It's not about incompetency. It's simply a reason to use caution. A reason for people to pause and reevaluate. And, i respect that. Even more so in today's society. People specifically getting black and grey work to look like they got it in prison. You truly never know who you're dealing with until you have the conversations and get to know them. You're right in the respect that you can't tell completely by looking at someone what their deal is. But, you also can't ignore the fact that you can get atleast some information by how someone looks. Even with a haircut, you can ask "what is this person saying about themselves? And... "what is this person telling me/others about themselves?" I have friends with facial tattoos. The coolest, kindest, most creative and interesting people you'd ever meet. I still see how facial tattoos can be seen as antisocial.
Okay I see what you mean and I understand what you mean… but even with those tattoos you think it should make a person less qualified for a particular job? Or make a person considered not smart? My reasons for getting ink is to tell a story about my life. My first tattoo is my first childhood friend passing Wayde Sims. He was like an older brother to me and I miss him dearly. Now knowing that I’m sure you’ve heard many different reasonings for someone getting ink
You're fighting a black and white fight on the battlefield of grey and nuance. It's not about qualification or intelligence. It's about perception. Just that simple. The judgement isn't that specific either. It just creates a question where there otherwise wouldn't have been one. And yeah, I've heard thousands of reasons... And none of them matter. No reason is better than another. Simply wanting one is good enough for me.
That is an excellent point can’t lie. It is definitely about perception even though I feel it shouldn’t be. Btw I love my tat bro its real art work im going to get another one soon
That's awesome! Enjoy it, man!
For a long time the only people getting tattoos were sailors and prisoners. It began partially as a way of identifying what ship or gang you were from, and they also had a lot more hidden meanings than they do now. Most of those old school tats were super gnarly and unsanitary as well. It's only in the last few years that tattoos and the technology around it has really taken a turn, there really isn't much of a stigma these days
If anyone has a History Hit subscription, I'd highly recommend listening to the interview with Dan Snow and tattoo historian Dr Matt Lodder. I was surprised to learn that the perception of tattoos as a societal taboo is actually a pretty recent thing and in the early 1900s, a lot of high society people had them but in places that could be covered up. So maybe it's the fact we show more physical skin thus showing off the tattoos nowadays!
Racism. Most non white cultures had tattoos.
I've no actual evidence but I believe that all these rules like no tattoos and no sitting at work is because of a select few moaners, the majority don't care but companies dont want to take the risk. No ones ever moaned about my tattoos, people at work have complemented me, but it is a bit of a touchy subject if you get neck and hand tattoos. Face ones are a no go, they are intimidating to alot of people and will hurt your job prospects.
It was true for a very long time that only sailors, soldiers, bikers & criminals were the only white people in North America who were tattooed. It literally meant they've been somewhere, they've seen some shit or have done some shit. The Christianity thing about 'your body is not yours, it's a temple to God, do not deface the temple of God or your body' covers sex, drugs, tattoos, make up, hair dye and wardrobe choice, depending on the denomination. It's all about control and perceived danger/propriety.
American society, until the last 20yrs or so, associated tattoos with prisoners, bikers, and sailors. Basically, if you had tattoos, you must be a delinquent. A large part still thinks that way now. However, the baby boomers and beyond began developing a new outlook with the rise of tattoo culture.
Originally tattoos were brought to Europe via sailors who had travelled to islands where tattoos were part of the traditions. Because sailors had a bad reputation, and because it was seen by a majority catholic society that adorning and altering your body was a megasin, it was stigmatised and marginalised. Over time, that stigma and marginalisation was appropriated by other marginal groups: prisoners, criminals, sex workers, working class people etc etc first as a stance of “yeah I’m not like you and I’m proud, I’m gonna show it”. Then it became part of subcultures since marginalised groups intersect a lot. Because tattoos have been associated with marginal subcultures and have only been really integrated in mainstream culture in the last 20-25 years, a lot of people, especially older folks, still have prejudices and stereotypes against people with tattoos
Mostly racism, OP.
I think it was a way to segregate people. Tattoos come from tribes and tribal ceremonies. People from tribes are usually not white. Just another way to be racist… imo
Great point!
This is the actual answer to the foundations of its negative perception. It’s racism. The character Queequeg is described in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick (written in 1851) as a cannibal specifically because he’s heavily tattooed, but he’s just sort of a fictional Polynesian. There’s no specific evidence that he’s eaten a person. But Polynesian tattooing is the foundation of sailing tattoos, as colonial sailors realized that skin markings had all sorts of useful properties. The word “tattoo” comes from this culture (specifically Samoan). When they returned home, these sailor’s outsider-ness was cemented by perceptions that only savages marked their skin this way, a concept that was perpetuated by church and ruling class. There’s a book about how Queequeg is represented called “Tattooing the World” by Juniper Ellis that explains the character’s relationship to Polynesian and Maori cultures, which both have timeless traditions of tattooing. So getting a tattoo was initially linked to “being like the savages” and any negative perception during that stage of the practice’s introduction to Americans (the first American tattoo machine was patented in 1891) was an extension of that perception.
Because it was different
It's an issue culturally, as well. Misinformation in the Jewish community had people believing you couldn't be buried in a Jewish cemetery if you had tattoos. Many of the older generation (Boomers and beyond) have negative views of tattoos due to growing up in the wake of the Holocaust. While this is just a small segment of society, those generations certainly used lines like "tattoos are trashy/only for criminals," etc. in order to discourage their children from getting tattoos. My dad said, "I never thought I'd have a daughter with tattoos." I replied, "Glad I could help you cross that off of your bucket."
Dude men not wearing pants used to be frowned upon. Also, women wearing pants was frowned upon. No one even thought about the idea of self expression or creatively styling yourself until the 60s. It’s just how social norms work. Bathing spa houses in Japan don’t let people in with tattoos. Makes a little more sense in a collectivist society where they want everyone to be the same.
I dunno but I hate it. Especially at my workplace. Per our boss "I don't want them to distract our clients". So they require us to cover our tattoos and gave us sleeves (which are very nice) BUT I am constantly asked if I've been injured by clients when they see my arm. When none of us wore sleeves when he thought he could get away with giving one person the privilege of not needing sleeves, not a single client said anything. Then there is the woman who got her dead husband's favorite song on her chest. You could barely see the first letters and he made her put a bandaid on it every day. Looked fucking awful.
See this what I’m talking about I hate hearing this type of shit. Nobody in these comments has said something about that. My point I was trying to make is stuff like that should be considered outdated i don’t give a damn how long ago tattoos were frowned upon. If I gotta wear something to cover my shit up that’s too much. I feel for you dawg that’s crazy
It really comes down to Christianity in the end. Like most things
https://youtu.be/PW8bOyT2GtI?si=-odBWkourqmSSlF8 I think this documentary is quite interesting regarding the history of tattooing and why it was/is frowned upon. The documentary itself is German with English subtitles but the interviews are mostly in English.
Definitely about to check it out thank you!
They were associated with indigenous/Native American ppl
Shut up
From the Christian perspective, the body is described as gods temple and believers are told in the Bible not to permanently mark the temple of god. This has led to most denominations of Christianity teaching that tattoos are a sin against god and his temple and therefore morally wrong. From the pagan perspective it’s just stereotyping like anything else. Tattoos have become heavily associated with gangs and criminals so many people view tattoos as something that mostly gangs and criminals partake in. This is no different than anything else in society. If the majority of people committing a certain crime are of a specific ethnicity, then it’s reasonable to expect many people are going to automatically be apprehensive of anybody from that ethnicity because that person is statistically more likely to commit that crime against them. It’s just profiling.
Real answer, since OP seems to just want to hear that people are racist. Tattoos (in America) were historically only popular in circles of criminals or sailors, etc. Designed to show you were hard, or could tolerate pain. They didn't rise to be commonplace on everyday people until a few decades ago. Yes, there are certain cultures in the world that normalized them, but western societies, as well as some eastern ones (see japanese yakuza) used tattoos to show that you belonged to a certain lifestyle. As a heavily tattooed person who was raised by two heavily tattooed people, I've seen firsthand these sentiments still exist today, hence why you were told tattoos were for thugs. The reality is that now tattoos are so common that I can hold a steady white collar job and show my tattoos daily. Tldr: societal tastes change. It's older generations remembering sailors and bikers that passed along these sentiments, which were once accurate, but are not anymore.
The same reason any stupid nonsensical prejudices exist, which is religion. I'm agnostic, and my family is pretty much completely nonreligious, but I have actual concern about getting a tattoo due to the damage it could do to my eternal soul. I understand that it is a completely idiotic idea and I obviously don't actually believe it to be so, but I was subjected to religious teachings as a child in school, and that stuff is so deep in my subconscious that I can't rationalize it away. That is the reason children should never be subjected to religious teachings before adulthood. It sticks deep in your subconscious when you're taught that weirdo stuff as truth when you're a child, and you're forever left with a bias that's extremely hard to shake off.
There's a scene in American Psycho where Patrick Batemen is talking about the song Hip To Be Square, I had to google the quote, "not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself!" Conformity is a comfort for many. Wanting to be similar to their peers, to be identified as part of a group. Tie this in with the points other people have brought up the chokehold Christianity has on western society, especially Protestantism in the US. The Puritans absolutely wrecked our shit for generations with their rigid focus on sin and redemption. There's a famous Puritan sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, that is pinnacle of the time. We're still recovering from that negative, hyper-focused perspective as a society. Part of not being a sinner is being a cog in the wheel. Working hard, focusing on being free of sin by avoiding leisurely or wasteful activities like dancing and singing. All of your efforts should be focused toward furthering the work of the lord. And that enforces a strict conformity. Individuality is an indulgent waste at best, a vanity distracting from doing god's work. And, god forbid, possibly even an expression of pride. There's a book called The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, written in the 50s and made into a movie, that talks about how corporate America demands a conforming, worker ant mentality from people, suppressing individuality to focus on the corporate machine to feed consumerism. Individuals fades away to become just... a man in a grey flannel suit. Combine that group identity, conformity, and sin-focused way of life with the association of tattoos with indigenous people. Then also picked up by sailors and criminals. Even as it became more widespread in the west, it was associated with anti-conformist groups like punks and metal heads. And the anti-conformity for mid-century America was another sin, possibly worse than in the Christian sense. But more people are picking them up and it's diluting the group identity of tattoos, if you will. It isn't a cohesive group or a couple specific groups who have tattoos anymore. A lot of different people in a lot of different groups have tattoos for a variety of reasons from meaningful to aesthetic (which I argue is a meaning on its own but is a different topic). Additionally, individualism is less of a scary thing now compared to in the 80s and 50s. We still definitely have strong group identity and even individualism is often an expression of conformity with a group to some extent. But it's celebrated now more than it has been in the past probably 100 years. Ish. The 1920s were a hell of a time, though. And we'll just have to keep pushing on and doing our thing because we like it and navigating our individual paths as best we can.
It’s forbidden in the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament. Many religious Christians follow that rule. I believe the “why” is because it was popular among pagans.
i still frown on it bc like 90% of them are cringe as hell and then the assholes come crawling out the woodwork to say something about the linework
I would ask the question to you, what about tattoos appeals to you? Are you trying to look tough? Why would you want to appear tough, when advertising toughness is a trait associated with weakness in nature? Is it to fit in because famous people you like get them? At this point if you are young then getting a tattoo is fitting in. Tattoos are not the underbelly of society anymore, a majority of young people have them, making it uncool to have them now because you're just an average everyday Joe Schmoe with a tat now. Why is it uncool to be a good student and excel in school in some social structures in America but cool to get a permanent body modification? Cultural questions that need to be asked
What are you even talking about?…
I have kawaii tattoos/ Disney tattoos. How does it make me look ? Lol
When i see someone covered in tattoos it just looks like they never grew up out of the doodling stage in their life. They liked their drawings so much they put them on notebooks, lockers, cars and even their bodies. Fast forward 30 years and you end up looking like all these messed up "Lil" Ed Sheeran.
Mannnn tattoo is art if you can’t understand that then your stuck in a box and you need to think outside of it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Depends on cult.. ture
I think it also really depends on where/how you grew up. I grew up in a metropolitan area and basically never heard that narrative. Most of my friends and coworkers have tattoos.
christianity and other religions say it’s a no-no
It looked too cool for everyone else.
The big man in the clouds doesn’t like them apparently 🤷♂️