you are Dave correct?
Grab the pebble from my hand.:grin:
you are Dave correct?
FWIW. Even though I have no Tats, I have no issue with others having them. I actually find that a well done tattoo or group of tats can be very attractive on men or women.
However, IMHO, unrelated tats placed willy nilly all over the body are not attractive to me, but that's what makes this country great everyone can express themselves in anyway they wish.
I would love to see this bird take a crap on my windshield, and so would all the rest of you. :smile:
I will go out and buy a scanner to post my DD 214. I will do this NOT for you but for Joey A and others I care about on here. Johnnyt
Here you go. They've been sighted.
Tattoo's traditionally have been a cultural identification and self-expression statement in tribes, prisons, gangs, servicemen, etc. previously dominated by males.
What I find interesting and different about the current tattoo trend is that so many women are getting them. Then there is the general acceptance and the millennial's "no big deal" attitude towards even extensive body art. Although this is arguable, I believe the current trend is a generational fad, no different than other forms of generational rebellion. I predict once it reaches wide acceptance, the rebel aspect will disappear and the interest will wane.
It's happened before. My Italian immigrant grandfather was a tough as nails. He was a cement worker and immigrated with my grandmother to the US during the rise of Mussolini and Fascism in Italy. As a young man, he got a tattoo on his outer bicep - an anchor and chain, as did many of his working class brethren.
At family gatherings, all of us grandchildren wanted to see the tattoo. He told us he always regretted it and wished he never had it. He always warned everyone not to get drunk and get tattooed. He made his point. None of his children or grandchildren got tattoos.
So, just a new form of self-expression that's here to stay, a different canvas for art, or a generational craze? Only time will tell.
Some people don't know that the ICEMAN (not Mika), the original one that they dug out of the ice a few years back, had tattoos on his fingers. Egyptians from thousands of years ago had tattoos also.
The main thing about tattoos that one should consider before getting one is, THEY ARE PERMANENT. No they don't look quite as nice as when they were first inked, especially after 40 years.
I have one, on my shoulder. It reads USMC in red and blue, but you wouldn't recognize the letters and the red ink has almost disappeared altogether.
Ok, here's a question for both sides, should I get it spruced up (re-inked). Maybe that's a better question for those that have had their tats re-done. I wouldn't think of adding anything to it or changing it. But when I am in the gym sweating like a bull moose, I sometimes think about that tattoo and like someone in this thread said, tattoos are about "see me" and that's not really me but I also think that tattoos are an expression and for me the USMC is relatively small and to the point.
When we were getting tattoos just before shipping out to Vietnam, most of my buddies were getting the Marine Corps World and Anchors with daggers and "Death before dishonor" on their forearms. That was just a too bit much for JoeyA but pride in the Corps got me the small one and even though it is blurred with time, I still like it.
When Johnnyt comes through with his DD214 (and he will) maybe we should all post photos of our tats.
JoeyA
This thread is making me wish I had USMC on my arm, even though I never served.
You're into the stuff on the weird side of the Internet. That's fine, just keep her away from my windshield!
Don't tell me what I am, or am not into, on the internet.
The photo was a sarcastic comment on the veracity of this dumb ass thread.
You, however, weren't smart enough to see it.