Quote:
Originally Posted by ///MPhatic
I mean, it really has to depend on so many factors. There is no right answer here.
I would say that in 1960, regardless of the person's skill it just wouldn't happen.
In the 80's it was really frowned upon.
In the 90's it got a looser.
And these days it's almost commonplace.
So it's getting easier and easier for the public to accept, and therefore easier for the employer to accept, as he is catering to his customers.
It just depends on the tat/skill/position.
I also think that underlying this all is the sense that this person is, or has been broken, which can work against you or for you, depending.
It all comes back to "it depends."
|
I'd be curious what kind of people were getting tattoos in the 60s vs 80s vs 90s etc.
I would be willing to bet the further back you go the more unsavory characters were getting tattoos which is what gave tattooed people a bad rap. Were they all unsavory, doubt it, but enough were to create that stigma or stereotype or whatever you want to call it.
As more people started getting tattoos over the years the stigma lessened. I think the same applies now with neck and face tattoos. I think most people wouldn't bat an eye at a regular tattoo, but once you go neck or face it get's more sketchy because that's still more fringe. According to Google like 32% of Americans have tattoos, but how many of those have face or neck tattoos, my guess is a lot smaller percentage. If 32% of Americans had face and neck tattoos then I think it would become more accepted just like regular tattoos.