Page 1 of 4

When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:44 am
by jsilvers
I have no principled objection to tattoos, but I'm always amazed by what people actually select to become a permanent part of their anatomy.

Like a tattoo of a topless woman. On the thigh of the father (presumably) dining with his daughter. At the '50s Prime Time Cafe.

I can only assume that "Mom" didn't notice. She presumably would have required him to do more than stand in the corner?...

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:19 pm
by TechieSidhe
Actually, my husband has a mermaid. It's on his calf. It WAS topless, until he had his two nephews come live with him for a while. Then he went and had the mermaid's breasts covered with a seashell bra covering the entire breasts. It was pretty tasteful to begin with, but he had to make it kid friendly. He also covered one of his other questionable tattoos with a nice Celtic knot design. (I like to trace it out on his arm.)

Interestingly, I don't even notice the tattoos anymore unless I'm looking for them. Maybe it's because I'm so used to seeing them. I DO however, notice them in other people, because I like to see the artwork. I'm a big fan of Japanese artwork. I want a tattoo, but where I want it isn't work approved.

I think that when you get THAT used to it every day, you sometimes forget that it's there, and don't think to cover it, or adjust for it depending on where you are. Yes, there are some people that LIKE the shock value and attention that a certain type of tattoo brings to them. These are the same people that try to come through the turnstyles with expletives and offensive gestures and get mad when they get turned away, even when a "nicer than they should be to them" Disney offers them a clean shirt.

At least for me, tattoos are a personal thing.

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:31 pm
by Cheshire Figment
I think George Reiger now has about 2,000 Disney tattoos.

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:01 pm
by jlowejd5
We were on the Disney Cruise ship about a year ago, and standing right next to Pluto and Goofy on the sports deck was a shirtless dude with a nekkid lady tat that covered about 1/3 of his entire back. I mean, yay boobies, but c'mon, dude, there are kids here.

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:10 pm
by jlowejd5
BTW, I managed to get a great picture of the above-referenced bad ink, with Pluto's foot just visible in the frame. I don't want to break any rules by posting it, though. I'm assuming that's not exactly kosher?

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:29 pm
by drcorey
jlowejd5 wrote:We were on the Disney Cruise ship about a year ago, and standing right next to Pluto and Goofy on the sports deck was a shirtless dude with a nekkid lady tat that covered about 1/3 of his entire back. I mean, yay boobies, but c'mon, dude, there are kids here.
well, boobies love boobies.
its udder fascination or something,

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:42 pm
by Fizzgig
My little sister joined us for a day at WDW a while ago. I looked down at her calf and saw her gorgeous Betty Page pinup tattoo drawing my eyes like a beacon. Great work by her husband, but oi... naked chick on my little sister made a few grey hairs pop out! :o: :p:

I have no problems with beautiful depictions of nudity (pinups, for example, or Donatella's David); I do have a problem with violent imagery, though. If it was a tattoo of another of Betty's *ahem* more colorful depictions, I think I would have said a bit more to my sister about things being "inappropriate for prime time."

I think saying something to a family member and/or removing my kid from the situation is all I think is appropriate, in terms of reactions.

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49 am
by BigMickeyFan
Well, lookie here - my first post!

I'm going to go with "When it's misspelled." H and I had our family at a small local amusement resort in PA a few weeks ago to take in some of their "Fun, Food and Fantasy" ;) While waiting in line with our 5-year-old for the haunted house, I kept passing the same woman (as often happens in those "cattle chute" type queues). Everytime I passed her, I couldn't help but be confronted by the very large tattoo on her bare arm which read "PSYCO B*TCH." Crass, crude and spelled wrong to boot - it's the bad tattoo trifecta, folks!

I have no problem with well done, artistic tattoos in general, but I can't think of one single reason to permanently mark that on yourself, even if you remembered to stick that H in there!

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:24 am
by darph nader
There's a commercial on the local radio station about getting things done right the first time. "You wouldn't want a bad tatoo would you?" (in gruff biker voice),"Uuuhh. How many Os in Bob?" :rolleyes:

Re: When does a tattoo, by itself, become a SGT?

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:38 pm
by BRWombat
BigMickeyFan wrote:I have no problem with well done, artistic tattoos in general, but I can't think of one single reason to permanently mark that on yourself, even if you remembered to stick that H in there!
The only thing that maybe justifies it is... what if someone else knocked her out and gave her that tattoo as a warning to others? Just sayin'. :D:

BigMickeyFan, :welcome: to :sgt: from :wallaby: and :wombat: !!! :D: :D: :D: