SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Rachel Feltman writes in the Washington Post that if you've never gotten a tattoo, you might think that a tattoo needle works by "injecting" ink under the skin which is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Tattoo artists don't simply inject ink from some chamber in the machine into your skin. They dip the needles into pots of ink, the same way another artist would dip a brush. The ink is actually held between the needles and the purpose is the needles is to puncture the skin. "There are hundreds of tiny holes leading down to your dermis — the layer of skin between the epidermis (outer layer) and subcutaneous tissues — the ink between the needles is drawn into them by capillary action," writes Kyle Hill. "In short, the surface tension and forces holding the ink together encourages the ink to seep into the holes left by the needles."
So how does tattoo removal work? Although dermabrasion (where skin is "sanded" to remove the surface and middle layers), cryosurgery (where the area is frozen prior to its removal), and excision (where the dermatologic surgeon removes the tattoo with a scalpel and closes the wound with stitches) were the preferred methods before the 1980s, today lasers have become the standard treatment for tattoo removal because they offer a bloodless, low risk, effective alternative with minimal side effects. The type of laser used to remove a tattoo depends on the tattoo's pigment colors. (Yellow and green are the hardest colors to remove; blue and black are the easiest.) By producing short pulses of intense light that pass harmlessly through the top layers of the skin to be selectively absorbed by the tattoo pigment, the laser energy causes the tattoo pigment to fragment into smaller particles that are then removed by the body's immune system. Side effects of laser procedures are generally few but may include hyperpigmentation, or an abundance of color in the skin at the treatment site, and hypopigmentation, where the treated area lacks normal skin color. Other possible side effects include infection of the site, lack of complete pigment removal and a 5 percent chance of permanent scarring.
According to John Tierney the choice to get a tattoo that is later regretted is related to the end-of-history illusion, in which people tend to “underestimate how much they will change in the future.” Teenagers and adults of all ages know that their tastes have changed regularly over the years before the current moment, but believe that their tastes will somehow not continue to grow and mature in the future. As a result, they wrongly believe that any tattoo that appeals to them today will always appeal to them in the future.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @04:03AM
Culture is going to swing the other way, most likely. Employers will simply be unable to hire anyone if they stick to their "no tattoos" rule. I don't have any tattoos myself, and never will, but I wouldn't hold it against someone. It's a silly thing to discriminate against in 2014.
I don't understand the entire body modification subculture. It seems like a variation of self-harm that is just somewhat condoned by society. It does me no harm, though, so I'm fine to leave people to it.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday September 29 2014, @04:58AM
As weird as it looks, it seems to me it wouldn't be a first.
The same seems to apply to education lately: getting an understanding (of what you learn) is no longer the primary goal, obtaining the graduation paper replaced that; which paper only guarantees that you could take the pain of getting through the process of being "educated" (more correct terms: conditioned by training and tamed by the loans you took).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday September 29 2014, @12:26PM
"Employers will simply be unable to hire anyone if they stick to their "no tattoos" rule."
Locally it seems to be a requirement if you want to be hired for face to face customer service to have tattoos. Maybe this varies by region.
Its a conformity thing. Everyone my age (who could afford it or wasn't a weirdo non-conformist) has tattoos, and big corporations find it easier to control or manage people who are deeply conformist, so yeah, tattoo people are preferentially hired.
I mean, think about it from the point of view of a business:
1) Folks without tats could be too poor (for even prison tats?). Anyway ask any neocon small business owner with fox news 24x7 playing in his waiting room what he thinks morally and ethically about poor people vs a guy who obviously dropped thousands on tats
2) Folks without tats could be non-conformist (thats me). Again, ask any true party paladin dead-ender if they think mindless conformity is great.
3) Really old people have stereotypes where they don't like tattoo people but they're poor now (see #1) because of downsizing / housing bubble / stock market or lets just be honest, they're dying off of old age, either way they just don't matter any more.
Something I can only say online is I think most tattoos are really ugly. This is a forbidden thought crime, but unfortunately true. Conceptually if I could stamp a nice piece of fine art that I like on my ass that was aesthetically appealing with skin as a background, MAYBE I'd do it. I wouldn't discourage my family members, anyway. HOWEVER the unavoidable fact is that the same people who think velvet elvis and dale earnhardt collectibles are the absolute pinnacle of fine art, are not going to miraculously have good taste when they select their tattoos. By fine art I don't mean it "has" to be centuries old dead white euro men as the artist, there's ton's of stuff thats awesome, but I do mean it has to look better and mean more than some grade school art project doodlings (I've seen some really awful tats). Also from a dirty old man perspective a woman covered with really bad art doesn't look naked when she's naked, psychologically, "take that ugly thing off and let me get a look at all of you, oh whoops that's a tat, sorry". Sorry ladies but again its the truth, most tats I've seen, both in general and on human female flesh, just don't look GOOD when on human female flesh.
Aesthetically its just like refrigerator doors covered with junk, would it look better without, well then don't apply it, its not rocket science.
(Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Monday September 29 2014, @02:10PM
Huh?
I find it just the opposite but of course, it varies. Older corporate types don't like tatoo people. They view them as ugly and unprofessional. A coworker has full sleeves, ear plugs and a beard (He also lives in the gym). When they promoted him to engineer he had to remove his ear plugs, shave his beard and wear a long sleeve shirt to cover his tattoos. We are given company shirts with a logo, by default everyone has short sleeves save for the president and the manager. He is forced to wear long sleeves to cover his arms. They did lighten up and allow him to regrow his beard but he has to keep it short and neat.
Places of work who don't care are more modern places that are headed by younger people. My brother works for a high end web developer and they dont care how you look or dress, they only care about your work. They work in the same office as a big marketing agency and they also don't mind how people look or dress. And none of them seem to care about conformity or preferring tattoos. They just want to see your work and if you can produce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @03:00PM
Anyway ask any neocon small business owner with fox news 24x7 playing in his waiting room what he thinks morally and ethically about poor people vs a guy who obviously dropped thousands on tats
Dude that was the best agism rant I have read in months. /sarc...
When you grow up (maybe you are older, but have not grown up). You will see that others have different views than you. Most small business owners have a clue that people with tattoos lower repeat business (where you make real money). They may not even care about the TV in the front room. But they know they serve a mostly 'conservative' crowd and they enjoy watching that garbage. They want repeat business. Not political statements. Any business that does not give their customers what the need and want are usually quickly out of business in 1-2 years.
Like it or not people are judged by how they look. Dont judge a book by its cover and all that, but we do. Even you did it with your 'fox news' comment. You pre judged someone because of what they had on tv. In a service business you have about 3 seconds for someone to make up their minds about you. If you are covered head to toe in tattoos with crap that someone may not believe in they are going to judge you. Just as you judged a business by what they had on tv (maybe one of the other customers put it on? or maybe they have to listen to the stupid TV far longer than you are there).
But basically if you dress the part of a heroin junkie you will get treated as one. Much like little girls who dress like sluts suddenly find they get treated like one. Then dont understand because 'all their friends/group does it'. Then yell 'dont judge me'. Sorry thats life.
You may be covered head to toe in tattoos and do savant level of work. But I can not put you in front of my customers. THEY will judge you and I do not get the business because you had poor impulse control a few years ago. If they thought only tattooed covered people can do this job I would put you there.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @05:53PM
Nope, that's about 30 times too long actually:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/july-06/how-many-seconds-to-a-first-impression.html [psychologicalscience.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:20PM
Marry little girls! (female children)
Then they won't be sluts....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:17PM
Marry a little/young girl child. They don't got tattoos. Might even be nice to you.
Was good enough for moses' men.