Said Marisa Kakoulas, "a lawyer based in New York City who has written a series of books on tattoos and consults with artists on tattoo law," quoted in "A 10-Year-Old Got a Tattoo. His Mother Was Arrested. In New York State, you must be at least 18 to get a tattoo. Elsewhere, the rules are different — and perceptions are changing" (NYT).
The 10-year-old's tattoo was "a crude rendering of his name in large block letters on the inside of his forearm.”
And here's a quote from "a tattoo anthropologist" named Lars Krutak: "Maybe decolonizing the Western thought concept of ‘age-appropriate’ tattoos could be enlightening. But I am not saying that children should be tattooed at 10 and 11 years old, because they still have a lot to learn about the world."
A hyphen between "Western" and "thought" would be helpful. I was distracted into thinking about the idea of a "thought concept."
But Krutak alerts us to something important: Laws protecting children can be undermined by left-wing ideology. And yet, left-wing ideology also cuts the other way. Krutak speaks of "Indigenous tribes... [f]rom Japan to Kenya to Borneo." But one might say you shouldn't appropriate their culture.
Even with New York's strong law, this boy got permanently marked up with a very bad and stupid tattoo. Liberalize these laws, and what awful mistakes will children make?
Anyway... tattoos... what a mess! So many scribbled-up blue-green arms out there. Why hasn't it gone out of style yet?
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
Lautreamont on indigenous culture
The radiant past has made brilliant promises to the future: it will keep them. To scrape together my sentences I needs must employ the natural method, regressing to the savages so they may give me lessons. Simple and majestic gentlemen, their gracious mouths ennoble all that flows from their tattooed lips...
I'm sure I won't be the first to say: No tattoos, but breast removal or castration is just fine.
Does the article note anywhere that these cultures that include tattoos for children are not free-for-alls, but in fact have well established, widely accepted rules about tattoos for minors? They're just social rules rather than legal rules.
Ann:
All - and I mean all - tattoos are bad and stupid.
So, NY bans tats on kids under 18 but you can bet that NY allows kids under 18 to change their sexes with powerful drugs and surgery. Reasons.
You cannot allow kids to make a life decision like getting a tattoo which will mark them forever. They may wake up at age 20 and look down at their arm or leg and think, "My God, what have I done to myself?"
On the other hand, if they want to get puberty blockers, or have their breasts removed, or their penis inverted, no problem. You don't even have to tell the parent. Just be prah-grah-sahv.
Tattoos = Aposematism
"Warning coloration". Doubly for women.
So long as it freaks parents out it will have an following.
So long as it it a badge identifying you as a member of the correct tribe it will have a following.
The "I'm a rebel" base for tattoos is long gone since it went so mainstream. But that was a small base.
Me? Uninked, though it surprises many of my fellow motorcyclists. I don't even get bumper stickers because they are too permanent.
I’m willing to draw a bright line here and recommend no permanent modifications for minors other than piercings for jewelry. There may be exceptions, I’m not sure if Hindus apply their mark on such young people for example, that are faith-based. Let’s let children be children until majority age then they can make their own decisions. At some point we should decide if 21 or 18 is the best one for adult decisions.
"Why hasn't it gone out of style yet?"
Because many people are very stupid, especially when they are young. It's almost as though children shouldn't be getting tattoos.
Tattoos, hormones, gender re-assignment surgery..
Whatever the kids want. We want to make sure they are happy.
"Krutak speaks of "Indigenous tribes... [f]rom Japan to Kenya to Borneo."
Why in the world should Americans emulate these savages?
There is a reality TV show called Ink Masters. It is hilarious. Dopes volunteer to be "human canvasses." How degrading is that!
The tattoo vandals then compete in a contest and ink up the volunteers. The judges then evaluate the tats and point out all the problems and mistakes that are permanently on the bodies of these idiots.
I really can't believe how stupid some people are.
From what I see one of the latest trends for broke 18- to 25-year-olds is they have a friend who does tattoos. Isn’t licensed. And isn’t very good. But, they are cheap. The work looks cheap.
My daughter with her mental health issues is now covered with them. At 22 years old. Now she is living on the lower east side in Milwaukee. She likes dogs, so she walks dogs. I don’t blame her. I think I like dogs better than people too.
Saddest tattoo on her arm is a simple black drawing. It’s a ghost walking a dog. She feels invisible in the world. She has another of a drawing my son made.
I don’t know what she’ll will think of the permanent ink she plastered all over her beautiful skin when she’s 40 or 50.
I detest tattoos, but know of many otherwise excellent people who have them.
Hate the sin, love the sinner, and a bit of rearranging my personal Overton Window, so as not to miss out on some good (young) people.
One of my favorite young women has a meaningful string of numbers tattooed on her forearm.
I have not told her that the very first tattoo I remember was a string of numbers on the forearm of one of my grandmother's friends.
A millennial would sat that he is triggered by that sight.
'So many scribbled-up blue-green arms out there. Why hasn't it gone out of style yet?'
So many middle-age women with tangled up (in) blue-green hair out there...
At least it warns you up front that you're dealing with a liberal ditz...
Garland will be tattooing numbers on the forearms of Republican "election deniers" soon.
Do we really need a law about this?
Tattoos are mostly ugly. Nobody who has them looks better for it. They are appallingly unattractive on women and make men look like thugs.
I feel bad for the tattoo 'artist' though. "I thought if you got your parents’ permission, you could get a tattoo" is a very reasonable thing to think.
Actually, tats are helpful as a class and intelligence indicator. A signal to the world, "I'm an idiot and low life. Stay away!"
Tats are bad enough on men, but a complete abomination on women; especially older women. The older women should know better.
I have no tattoos and want no tattoos. They show up too well on security camera footage.
“Decolonizing Western thought” means rejecting the whole mission of civilization for human development. It means welcoming a new dark age of inverted values, in which ugly is the new pretty, obscenity and sexual deviance are normalized, and ignorance is celebrated as “authenticity.” It means dissonance instead of harmony, the primacy of human desire as sole arbiter of morality. It means the end of Father, Mother, Child as the fundamental cell of civilization. Back to the primordial ooze, but all your needs will be furnished, and your drug of choice subsidised and plentiful.
Again Rusty's law applies. Which states; Approximately 2% of the population look good in Spandex, piercings or tattoos. The chance that you are part of that 2% is virtually nil. Proceed accordingly.
I see others consider tattoos low class. To me, on hierarchy of needs, I see tattoos as a signal of substantial excess wealth. If you can afford it, then you don’t need subsidy, I made this clear to my children, and they never got tattoos.
Oh, shall we adopt non-Western mores on tattoos? Right, banned except for medical necessity (Korea) and cover them up in shared spaces like locker rooms or baths (Japan). And totally banned for minors (China). Lots of young people in the US genuinely seem to believe that non-Western cultures are more permissive about everything. You can cherry-pick particular practices and particular cultures, but for most of the wacky stuff Westerners do, they simply are not. And the stuff Westerners do get bizarrely uptight about (like "appropriation"), people mostly don't care about outside of some narrow exceptions, e.g. religious symbols (like pagans stealing communion wafers).
Tattoos have lost their meaning and usefulness.
In the 'old days' they meant 'I am a bad-ass, a criminal, a member of a biker gang, ex-military, or a holocaust survivor.'
Now they mean...nothing.
1. Tattoos in the US were historically reliable predictors poor impulse control and bad life outcomes. Before they became fashionable circa the 1980s, they were indeed associated with criminals and mentally unstable people. But cultures do vary and they've been a "not big deal" among college women. To the extent that they are common and unremarkable, the life impact might be modest.
2. Humans have routinely put children to work on farms or in mines, and put girls into brothels upon reaching puberty. Humans are selfish predators and can exploit the weakest and most vulnerable. "Rob banks because that's where the money is." Tattoos are relatively mild versus what adults also do to them.
3. Evolution finds a way. The old 'straight and narrow' morality persisted and inhabits all cultures because it works and keeps children alive and making future generations. Watch as those with tattoos and those who've sterilized themselves die off. It won't be the first failed subculture nor will it be the last. Evolution is random and there are always many experiments that fail. Those with poor guides/teachers/parents speed the cultural demise.
Do we live just 20 years to die for 60 more?
A tattoo is better for kids than chemical castration or chopping off their balls.
"Why hasn't it gone out of style yet?"
Because beautiful art doesn't go out of style. Full disclosure: my wife is heavily tatted, and her artists were great. I don't have a single spot of ink on me. I kind of regret that.
A tattoo is for many an aspirational thing. Kids reach too early, and they get it wrong. Neither of our twins has expressed any interest in skin art (boy and girl, 15) but if they did we'd let them know that this is a rest-of-their-lives thing.
My daughter is shy but she actually sells her art online. We were talking about this recently and I asked her to design a tattoo for me for my upcoming birthday. Her art isn't breaking any boundaries but she's good and there's an edge to it.
(She's tested beyond the scale of standard math assessments - welcome to the wonderful world of COVID lockdown, where we had to find out why she was doing so poorly in her classes. Ask me if I'm angry.)
So anchors. A tattoo is an anchor. Call me Ishmael.
'From what I see one of the latest trends for broke 18- to 25-year-olds is they have a friend who does tattoos. Isn’t licensed. And isn’t very good. But, they are cheap. The work looks cheap.'
There was (and maybe still is) a trend of 'bad on purpose' tattoos.
Part of it is to mimic the look of a tattoo a San Quentin prisoner might get with a Bic pen.
Kind of silly if you're Buffy from the 'burbs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBmvfW7WOUc
There is a weird double-speak I have noticed. On the one hand, progressives are saying (for example when a juvenile commits a shocking crime), "The brain is not fully developed, especially in terms of impulse control and forward thinking until age 25." But on the other hand when it comes to PERMANENT surgical/hormonal sex/gender changes - on that topic, the youngest child 'truly knows' who they are and are capable of making that type of decision. I don't see how both can be true but maybe I'm not even supposed to be asking that question.
"idea of a "thought concept."
Isn't a "thought concept" just an idea.
idea
ī-dē′ə
noun
Something, such as a thought or conception, that is the product of mental activity.
Lars is a Professor though.
Anybody who uses the word "decolonize" unironically automatically loses 10 credibility points.
At least he was willing to say that tatting ten-year-olds is a bad idea.
you can bet that NY allows kids under 18 to change their sexes with powerful drugs and surgery.
California is a sanctuary state. NY claims to be, too, until they are confronted with the "burden" of their choice. That said, sex cannot be changed through medical, surgical, or psychiatric (e.g. "influencer") corruption. Gender is sex-correlated attributes (e.g. orientation). Gender can be simulated or stimulated through carving, affixing, intimidation, steering. A model of Mengele's clinical experiments. Gender affirmation through corruption of health tissue was proven at Johns Hopkins decades ago to either fail or exacerbate gender dysphoria, particularly in children who are in state of mental flux, and, apparently, girls especially who undergo far more extreme sustained changes. Sex expression can be masked early in a baby's development, but Her Choice... choice is exceedingly rare. Perhaps with MRNA (i.e. viral vector) treatments there is hope for change. Clothing is a social construct selected in a society with the purpose of normalizing a favorable juxtaposition of the sexes.
Rusty said...
Again Rusty's law applies. Which states; Approximately 2% of the population look good in Spandex, piercings or tattoos. The chance that you are part of that 2% is virtually nil. Proceed accordingly.
I hold with Rusty's Law. I would include beards and shaved heads in the 2% enumeration.
Tattoos should be discouraged; but, unlike elective abortion, do not produce a terminal product. That is to say, painting the body with semi-indelible dye does not force dysfunctional progress, including commoditization of human life. It is more distracting than anything.
Elsewhere? Portland? Where? NYT is publishing to effect.
Double-speak, double-standards, double-voting. If the Left can't do it right one time they'll double up every time.
I vividly remember the day 15 or so years ago when the handsome teen cashier at Barnes & Noble had a ring in his nose. I resisted the urge to ask him the reason for the uglification. But then I noticed the rise of the tattoo parlors and the normalization of bizarre body modifications, and so realized that the end times were coming.
'A tattoo is better for kids than chemical castration or chopping off their balls.'
Democrats (liberals) want to have both.
And why shouldn't they?
They know what they want and know how to win.
So they will castrate your heavily-tatted 12-year-old.
And if he's white, they'll tell him what a racist piece of shit he is while they do it.
You're not paying attention...
To be honest this seems to be just another thrust to groom children and separate them from their parents. Along with the puberty blockers you discuss in the above article.
“Isn't a "thought concept" just an idea.”
It’s a large idea the size of a small idea.
so, we are All Agreed, that 10 years old is TOO Young to permanently disfigure your body?
Even With Parental consent?
But a 10 year old taking chemical castration pills, and getting a mastectomy is Still Okay, Right?
When I was in the US Navy tattoos were strongly discouraged. A Chief explained that a tattoo is the sort of identifying characteristic that makes it much easier to pick you out of a line-up.
Joe Smith said...
In the 'old days' they meant 'I am a bad-ass, a criminal, a member of a biker gang, ex-military, or a holocaust survivor.'
Now they mean...nothing.
To be fair, they mean; You are a sheep, you are part of the flock
Okay, technically; it might meant that you are a cow, and part of the herd
Didn't The Who cover this back in, what, 1967?
I have 3 tattoos, all plain Celtic knots. I got the first when I was 50, commemorating my kids and the importance of motherhood in my life and identity; the second was when I was 51 and had to do with my love of travel but perpetual intent to return home; the third was when I was 52 and honors my husband and our marriage. And that's it, forever.
The circumstances around my getting the first one are private and didn't have to do with me - I was supporting someone else. I figured, eh, I'm 50 - what do I have to lose? All 3 are easily covered, but I don't take special pains most of the time.
No US minor should get a tattoo; it's not part of our culture. The tattoos that minors get in cultures who do tattoo kids have religious or cultural meaning that everyone in that culture understands, and they tend to be non-optional - commemorating culturally recognized milestones in their lives, for instance. They are NOT Pokemon characters or boyfriends' names or bumper stickers.
""It seems the gut reaction should be, ‘No, minors should not get tattoos,’ but minors will get tattoos.""
It seems the gut reaction should be, "No, minors should not take action permanently to affect their fertility," but minors - now that they're given the opportunity - are taking action permanently to affect their fertility.
It seems the gut reaction should be, "No, women and girls should not use abortion as contraception," but women and girls - since they've been given the opportunity - have been using and continue to use abortion as contraception.
It seems the gut reaction should be, "No, Democrat electoral officials should not use a radical loosening of electoral rules and procedures to hide fraud and game elections," but - having created and seized the opportunity...
Remove mutually culturally accepted controls on risky behavior, and people tend to do the thing.
" I resisted the urge to ask him the reason for the uglification."
To express his uniqueness. Just like everybody else.
Do social science "experts" on something really ever want less of it?
That goes for experts on really horrible things.
Tattooing around the world is a rite of passage, isn't it?
Our culture can say that the rite can be practiced when one reaches 18 or 21 or 50 or whatever age one is when one no longer wants a tattoo.
Neuter/sterilize them with puberty blockers and such, then tattoo them with sex-cult branding.
Americans actually wonder why the rest of the world is increasingly turning away with revulsion at our so-called "culture"???
Tattoo no. Genital mutilation OK. The State of New York should have arrested itself.
Alcohol 21, driving 16, gender affirmation/mutilation whenever, tatts ___.
Decide when one is a legal adult and stick to it. Under that, require parental consent.
When my youngest son was 5 we were changing at a dojo. A new student came in and started to change - he had an enormous tattoo on his arm. My son stared, pointed at it and asked, "What's that?" ... "A tattoo." ... "What's it mean?" I said, "It means either he was with in the Navy or he got really drunk one night." The guy looked at me and my son, and said, "Drunk. Really drunk."
My dad, a WWII vet, had an small eagle head tattoo on his right forearm. When I was a kid I asked him why he had gotten it. His answer was simple - "because I was stupid".
Years later, I got a longer version of the story. Back in 42, when he and his buddies had finished basic training, they went off base to celebrate, got drunk, and ended up at a tatoo parlor. His two buddies went first, and picked the biggest, gaudiest designs available.
By the time it was my Dad's turn, the alcohol had started to wear off. He couldn't back out entirely, but he asked the artist for the smallest, least obtrusive design in his oeuvre - and hence, the eagle.
I dated a mortician. One day she called and ask me to lunch. After lunch she ask me for a favor, would I come to her place of business and help her unload a body from a shipping crate. The dead guy was old and had what looked like someone had wacked him on the arm with a baseball bat. According to the paper work it was a large tiger. Old wrinkles skin and streech maker do't mix well with tats.
Tats are like skinny jeans, bad taste.
I've told my 2 kids, "NO TATTOOS" all their lives. When I got prostate cancer this year, I also got 3 alignment dots each 1mm in size inked on my belly & hips for use in radiation treatments. Now I have moderated my tattoo rule to demand the kids have no more ink than I've gotten.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा