What is it with women in my age group with tattoos on their lower back? It seems like every woman I've dated, met, whored around with is sporting a large tattoo.
Generally it's on their lower back or sometimes from shoulder blade to shoulder blade all the way down to their buttocks. I have to admit that some of them are rather attractive, but I'm getting a bit bored by the trend. It's almost to the point that I get kind of turned on when I see a woman who doesn't have the tattoo back there. It's almost as if not getting a tattoo is an expression of individuality.
Now if you are a woman and you know me and you have a tattoo on your lower back, this rant is not about you. No, really, it isn't. It's about the fact that I keep meeting women that are so proud of their tattoo, they have to show it off. Which makes me wonder, why not just get it on your breasts? You'll hold the attention of every guy you show it to far longer than you could possibly imagine.
I think what truly bugs me about this whole idea is that you, the person spending $600 or $3,000 on a tattoo on your back, WILL NEVER SEE IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Never. I have seen giant dragon fly, I have seen a giant scorpion, I have seen a giant orchid, but you know who hasn't? The person that forked out the cash and suffered through hours and hours of inking.
The best reason I have heard yet for getting a tattoo on the back was from a friend who said, "I had to get it because my Dad thought it was a really bad idea."
This is where I am torn.
Part of me thinks that doing something just because your Dad thinks it is a dumb idea, is a dumb idea. But then I start thinking about my own Dad who came up with the brilliant plan of moving to Australia because Americans were subsidizing Australians through relief aid and he wanted to get his tax money back. What made it rather funny is that my Dad used to hang out with people who owned real estate companies and if he had listened to any of their ideas, he would be worth tens of millions of dollars through investments that would have cost him tens of thousands of dollars. So I can see the idea of not following the advice of a Dad.
What I find rather bizarre is that almost every one of these people would like their tattoo to live on after they have died. They want the skin of the tattoo to be preserved as either a painting or perhaps something like a lamp shade. Which means that 30 years from now unless they sober up, we could see a resurgence in human skin lamps we haven't seen since the Nazis were in power in Germany, which ironically enough will be almost exactly 100 years after that disgusting craze got started the first time.
I know I am creeped out by the entire idea. It's not just that friends will be willing friends human skinned lampshades, but that people will have to figure out what the heck to do with a human skin lampshade. It would certainly be a conversation starter, but it's also going to be a conversation ender where people get up and flee your home. It's not so bad if you are being visited by the Mormons or the Dursleys, but in the future you may want to preserve friendships, but your now saddled with the legacy of Charlene and her dragon fly. Trust me, this will be worse than admitting you have original Patrick Nagel lithographs.
Of course, 40-50 years from now, like it or not, these lamps and paintings and perhaps an odd drum will end up in an estate sale. Or worse, taken to Goodwill or Value Village where future counter culture types will be looking at picking up Charlene's dragon fly at a yard sale for two dollars.
And a Patrick Nagel for four dollars, but you'll have take a six pack of Billy Beer from the stack with it.
