| olebat |
08-13-2011 01:43 AM |
As I drive around the country, I notice more tattoos in the lower economic ares. Yet tattoos are expensive. Is there any research on this? Do the more affluent have tats under cover of clothing for professional reasons? Are the lower economic individuals, the ones who can least afford the ornamentation, sporting their art to present a financial statement of "extra cash"? Or, perhaps they are below poverty level because they can't get respectable jobs with tattoos? In my early lifetime, tattoos were that of sailors and Marines, now it seems to be a fashion trend. What has changed?
About 10 years ago, I went to a wedding where all of the attendants had tattoos. The males had spiderwebs or or something on their necks. The maids & maidens had roses, hummingbirds, or some other colorful something on their shoulders or boobs. I later learned that the bride didn't want her parents to know that she had a tattoo on her breast, so everyone had a temporary "support" tattoo. The mother of the bride did not attend the reception because she was so turned off by the cheep look of what could have been an elegant affair. Last I heard, (several years ago) she would still not acknowledge her daughter for that stunt. Had the bride worn a higher cut gown, or covered her ornamentation with makeup, they may be on talking terms, but to have the entire wedding party deface themselves, was to this mother, an unpardonable sin.
|
