In the gym where i am a member i have been surprised at how many people have tattoo's nowadays..especially younger people.

I aren't talking about small ones either some have them all up their arms and on their necks, i know a lot of players in S.L have them and there isn't many "celebs" who don't have them now.

Thing is how many people will regret having them done when they get older?...we aren't talking about the "mum & dad" or the "swallow bird" one's that were about in the 70's, some have up to a quarter of their bodies inked up (or more).

If they wanted them removing in the future should they pay for it?

Random question.


Why wouldn't they?

Of course they should pay for any removal themselves.

Personally, I have 3 tattoos, all of which are a personal thing and all are in places where they can't be seen in everyday life, which was a decision I made deliberately, as I personally find overly visible tattoos very tacky.

I must admit I find the whole RL player/boxer/working class person sleeve and neck tattoos almost cringeworthy....It has almost become a badge of honour for these people to make themselves look chavvy.

Quite agree, its sounds snobby but its not, I just don't "get" the tattoo thing at all but especially not the craze for a "sleeve" or a full back tattoo etc - to hold one up as an example, David Beckham, to me he just looks foolish.

Its a personal thing though, I'm sure that Beckham loves his tattoos as much as I'd hate them on myself but if it wasn't David Beckham and instead was just a bloke in your pub then I'd cetainly judge him in a certain way because of his addiction to tattooing.

Which probably says more about you than it does about him, I'm sure you'd agree?

I'm completely unmoved by how other people choose to decorate their bodies - having a tattoo is an entirely personal choice that has absolutely no impact on anyone else in any meaningful way; in short, what does it have to do with us?

If it turns out later to be a matter of regret for the individual concerned, I understand there are private procedures than can be undertaken to remove them, at no small financial cost and with some scarring.

Yes, I'd go with that.....I must admit when you see the likes of Jamie Peacock and Paul Wood being interviewed after a match on Sky, and you have their tattoos coupled with their broad northern accents, you can't help but cringe a little and think to yourself that it is little surprise that the middle class media look down on our sport.

It seems the excessive tattoos have almost replaced the flat cap and whippet as the calling card of Rugby League....

Its called human nature and we all do it, even when we deny that we do it - we all judge other people on first impressions, in fact its not human nature, its an animal instinct.

If you've ever worked in sales or an industry where you're making eyeball contact with your clients, when your job relies on you winning the trust of complete strangers then you soon come to understand that first impressions actually count for an awful lot and any little thing you do to add to or subtract from your first impression is going to affect your success, or otherwise.

Its the reason why (for instance) during the summer when short sleeved shirts are in order, you'll rarely see "full sleeve" tattoos on display from the sales staff in furniture showrooms, or prestige car salesrooms, if they've got them, they'll hide them - why ?

I had been told by someone who had one removed by laser that it cost five times more to remove the tattoo than it was to have it put on (not sure if this is B S though).

The one thing he did say which i can believe is the laser pulsing (on his arm) was like having a giant elastic band stretched to its maximum then released on target repeatedlyicon_eek.gif

Out of interest who do people think has the worst tatts in regard to style and design in S.L?

Thank you for the impromptu lessons in both cod-psychology and business.

My point however, remains.

Fully respect your point, but be honest, if David Cameron or Ed Milliband turned up in parliament with a prominent tattoo on their necks, then they'd be an absolute laughing stock (not that ain't already... ).

Similarly, if interviews were being carried out for a high profile job, a heavily tattooed individual would inevitably be seen in a negative light....It might not be right, but it is human nature, as Jerry points out.

Prominent tattoos (and piercings) are still a social taboo to a certain extent - I don't think it will ever change.

Young people see it as a way of looking more attractive to the opposite sex. It's supposed to convey the image that you are an interesting person who challenges the rules.

Of course, if you aren't actually an interesting person then you just look like a fool that has paid money to let someone draw on you.

Of course it does, because its your opinion.

Which is exactly what I mean, you can't control someone else's opinion of you all you can do is present an image to them that you wish to be judged by, if you wished to be judged by an arm full of blue ink then they will do just that.

Some may - obviously you do, but you're assuming that everyone else is as judgemental?

Personally, I respect people who choose to express themselves and I don't de-select anyone based on being tattooed or otherwise; that would be shallow and might be to my cost.

The guy who inked my tattoo, over 20 years ago, would not tattoo outside of 't-shirt area' nor would he ink a woman's name on a man and vice versa. He knew it cost him business but stuck with those principles