No they won’t, only when they personally aren’t hurt, or lose money. This is exactly a luxury belief aesthetic. See who they choose as neighbors whenever the college educated Dems move, it’s always to the least tattooed neighborhood near their job that they can afford.
No they won’t, only when they personally aren’t hurt, or lose money. This is exactly a luxury belief aesthetic. See who they choose as neighbors whenever the college educated Dems move, it’s always to the least tattooed neighborhood near their job that they can afford.
You’d have a long search, in many locales, to find an American woman not tattooed in the manner of - the kind of dude in prison for rape//murder of women. This is too commonplace to not include many fairly normal women, some of my friends even, back when my friends tended to be people I worked with. Not to mention virtually all Hollywood actresses, etc.
Sure, it’s still a class marker, to an extent - but it is the unmarked who are the irrelevant and vanishing class.
It does depend a bit on the place. Tattoos have become very common, but then in upper middle class areas they are still pretty rare (or easily covered up.) It is mostly the under 30 crowd that seems to have a lot that are foolishly visible, and the lower class.
I wonder if tattoo removal businesses are a good business investment going forward :D Even my young kids look at most young people with tattoos today and comment on how ugly they are.
I was being sarcastic (that's what /s means, in case you don't know). My point was that this particular belief is actually very costly for its holders and imposes real hardships such as ridiculous commutes in bad traffic, and can only be called a luxury belief in the sense that far from everybody can afford it. It is not in any way like a Gucci bag or a Lambo.
No they won’t, only when they personally aren’t hurt, or lose money. This is exactly a luxury belief aesthetic. See who they choose as neighbors whenever the college educated Dems move, it’s always to the least tattooed neighborhood near their job that they can afford.
You’d have a long search, in many locales, to find an American woman not tattooed in the manner of - the kind of dude in prison for rape//murder of women. This is too commonplace to not include many fairly normal women, some of my friends even, back when my friends tended to be people I worked with. Not to mention virtually all Hollywood actresses, etc.
Sure, it’s still a class marker, to an extent - but it is the unmarked who are the irrelevant and vanishing class.
It does depend a bit on the place. Tattoos have become very common, but then in upper middle class areas they are still pretty rare (or easily covered up.) It is mostly the under 30 crowd that seems to have a lot that are foolishly visible, and the lower class.
I wonder if tattoo removal businesses are a good business investment going forward :D Even my young kids look at most young people with tattoos today and comment on how ugly they are.
Of course the least tattooed neighborhoods near their jobs also tend to be the cheapest, so they personally don't lose any money. /s
[up*. Oops, didn’t register the /s . Thought is was just a typo, and am busy with long reply to Arnold.]
I’m sure the least tattooed places are more expensive, more tattooed are cheapest.
I was being sarcastic (that's what /s means, in case you don't know). My point was that this particular belief is actually very costly for its holders and imposes real hardships such as ridiculous commutes in bad traffic, and can only be called a luxury belief in the sense that far from everybody can afford it. It is not in any way like a Gucci bag or a Lambo.