Here's a fun one sure to stir the pot: Tattoos. Like them or no?

[MassHavoc]

Here's a more recent one.



All participants were college age adult undergraduate students 18-22 I'd assume. Same correllations drawn.

Actually that's from June 2002.... ::duck::

 

[Pez68]

What percentage of teens with tatts got parental consent for it? I'd assume negligible until someone provided a reliabe evidence otherwise (ie not my friend's daughter).

That's not the point. The point is, when you're doing a study like that, whether or not the tattoo was obtained illegally, or without parental consent, is a pretty huge fucking factor. Don't you think? Context is everything in studies of behavior. If you're sampling a large number of kids that participated in breaking the law(likely for kids that age with tattoos, at least when this study was done), chances are they exhibit other high risk behaviors as well. It's just common sense. Hell, the numbers for that adolescent study are from 1995-1996. How many states was it even legal to get a tattoo as a minor in back then? Even with parental consent? I can count the number of kids I went to high school with, who had a tattoo, on one hand. As far as I know, it's still illegal in a bunch of states to get a tattoo as a minor. Period. Regardless of parental consent. It's why studies like this are always so flawed. They are done with the intention of proving a preconceived notion, and tailored to do exactly that.

 

[MassHavoc]

That's not the point. The point is, when you're doing a study like that, whether or not the tattoo was obtained illegally, or without parental consent, is a pretty huge fucking factor. Don't you think? Context is everything in studies of behavior. If you're sampling a large number of kids that participated in breaking the law(likely for kids that age with tattoos, at least when this study was done), chances are they exhibit other high risk behaviors as well. It's just common sense. Hell, the numbers for that adolescent study are from 1995-1996. How many states was it even legal to get a tattoo as a minor in back then? Even with parental consent? I can count the number of kids I went to high school with, who had a tattoo, on one hand. As far as I know, it's still illegal in a bunch of states to get a tattoo as a minor. Period. Regardless of parental consent. It's why studies like this are always so flawed. They are done with the intention of proving a preconceived notion, and tailored to do exactly that.

From the study I posted only 16% of the people they got responses from were under 18. Which makes the number who did or didn't get consent even less. While it could be as high as 100% of teens under the age of 18 got tattoos without consent, that would still be only 16% total and while still a big number, not really significant enough to move trends around I don't believe.

 

[winos5]

Now had you sited something more along the lines of....



Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: a …



Then we can talk

By the way, this is an article everyone should read before continuing the conversation.

I was getting ready to link that one next....

 

[winos5]

Actually that's from June 2002.... ::duck::

But more recent than the one done on military recruits which I believe was in the 90s.

 

[Pez68]

From the study I posted only 16% of the people they got responses from were under 18. Which makes the number who did or didn't get consent even less. While it could be as high as 100% of teens under the age of 18 got tattoos without consent, that would still be only 16% total and while still a big number, not really significant enough to move trends around I don't believe.

I didn't look at your article much. Sorry. I was referring to the other articles. I did notice that the article you posted only used like 120 tattooed or pierced individuals though. Pretty small number, don't you think? What data did they use to come to their conclusion, and what exactly are "risk-taking activities"? Getting a tattoo is a risk in and of itself, so is it surprising that those with tattoos were more likely to participate in "risk-taking activities"? Is that not common sense? lol

 

[winos5]

Find one peer reviewed scientific study/article on the subject ot tattoos/body modification that shows no association with health adverse/risky behavior. Then I will happily stop linking to article after article showing clear correlations to said behaviors.

 

[MassHavoc]

I didn't look at your article much. Sorry. I was referring to the other articles. I did notice that the article you posted only used like 120 tattooed or pierced individuals though. Pretty small number, don't you think? What data did they use to come to their conclusion, and what exactly are "risk-taking activities"? Getting a tattoo is a risk in and of itself, so is it surprising that those with tattoos were more likely to participate in "risk-taking activities"? Is that not common sense? lol

Read the article. All the answers are in there.



And sample size is not a huge deal if it's done correctly. There are many statistical algorithms to adjust for certain variables.

 

[MassHavoc]

Find one peer reviewed scientific study/article on the subject ot tattoos/body modification that shows no association with health adverse/risky behavior. Then I will happily stop linking to article after article showing clear correlations to said behaviors.

My main response to that is to remember that correlation is not causation.

 

[Pez68]

Find one peer reviewed scientific study/article on the subject ot tattoos/body modification that shows no association with health adverse/risky behavior. Then I will happily stop linking to article after article showing clear correlations to said behaviors.

And you can find just as much information on the subject of crime and race, that shows a correlation between being Black, and being more prone to committing violent crimes than others. Being Black does not mean you are more likely to be violent, just like being tattooed does not mean you are more likely to make poor decisions, or exhibit risky behavior.



It is STEREOTYPING, and IGNORANCE. Any way you want to look at it. As Mass said, correlation is not causation.

 

[winos5]

My main response to that is to remember that correlation is not causation.

I'm not saying Bobby Sue's tattoo piercing is directly responsibly for her heroin overdose. I'm saying there are multiple studies that clearly show adolescents and adults that are tatted or pierced are statistically significantly more likely to also participate in health adverse risky behavior. Some examples from the articles are smoking, substance abuse, unsafe sexual habits, DWI, criminal activity or violence. Some posters challaneged the original post in this thread saying it was bullshit. When presented with actual peer reviewed scientific medical studies/articles the response was circular arguments about the validity of said articles. I'm waiting for a scientific article/study that shows the opposite.

 

[Pez68]

So what you are saying is, stereotyping and profiling are ok?

 

[Tater]

And you can find just as much information on the subject of crime and race, that shows a correlation between being Black, and being more prone to committing violent crimes than others. Being Black does not mean you are more likely to be violent, just like being tattooed does not mean you are more likely to make poor decisions, or exhibit risky behavior.



It is STEREOTYPING, and IGNORANCE. Any way you want to look at it. As Mass said, correlation is not causation.

Getting a tattoo is a choice. Being of a certain race is not.

Probably not the best comparison.

 

[Pez68]

I don't see the difference, actually. You're judging somebody by their appearance, and labeling them as more prone to "risky behavior" or "poor decision making" or being "more sexually active". It's still stereotyping.



How about this? Neo-nazis, Skinheads, Ayran Brotherhood, they all shave their head. So people with shaved heads are more likely to be racist scumbags than those with a full head of hair. I guess that's fair, right? After all, how you wear your hair is a choice too.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

I don't have any tattoo's, but pretty much all of my friends do, female and male as the kind of crowd I've hung out with most of my life always seemed to be of the punk rocker variety. My ears were pierced at one time (they still are, I just dont wear anything in them) and I used to sport hair that ran the colors of the rainbow, I've become more conservative in my appearance as I've gotten older. Although casually I still tend to wear cargo pants/shorts and skate shoes hoodies and I'll still wear band shirts and stuff. But the days of sporting a wacked out blue spike are over (that and my ever receding hair wouldnt allow me too).



I've just never had a desire to get a tattoo myself.



and I believe Jax asked the significance of the "star" its generally a rockabilly symbol but I see plenty of girls getting them these days that probably dont even know that musical genre.



One of my buddies has a ton of tattoo's his first tattoo was a strait edge tattoo on his wrist. Considering he started drinking he had it converted ironically enough into a liquor bottle.

Kind of funny to read this, but you and I sound alot alike with various things. Just was the way of things with how I grew up, I lived so many different places until my Dad finally decided Florida was it. If i had ever been thrown into a category, it would have been the surfer with rocker leanings, with my dress and the rest. Even in my 40s, van's make up more then half my sneaker collection. ....which really isn't saying much.



I agree, assuming someone is not responsible simply because they have tattoos is beyond ignorant. However, I understand most big business and the reasoning that tattoos can become a distraction in a normal business setting.

 

[winos5]

So what you are saying is, stereotyping and profiling are ok?

You wanted proof tatts/piercing are associated with risky behavior. It was provided ad nauseum. Stereotyping people for hateful, racist, discrimantory reasons is never okay. Profiling people to perform warrantless searches/seizures is never okay.



I don't think identifying a person's health risks based on variables like age, sex, race, sexual habits, substance abuse, or having tattoos/piercings qualifies as either stereotyping or profiling the way you allude to it. Another circular argument.

 

[MassHavoc]

Problem with any of these study's is that it's hard to take into account the context for the tattoos. Such as initiations and gang activity. The tattoo is merely a result of high risk activity, not an indicator of it.



I guess my example of this would be, that if all gang members had to buy a pink backpack in order to be in the gang. A pink backpack they may not have otherwise bought. You can't correlate buying a pink backpack to high-risk behaviors.



The problem with a lot of these studies are the definition of high risk behaviors. Some of them list alcohol as a high risk behavior, without listing quantities or frequency. So it's possible that the results are slanted toward whatever the responds definition of high-risk behavior is.

 

[Pez68]

You wanted proof tatts/piercing are associated with risky behavior. It was provide ad nauseum. Stereotyping people for hateful, racist, discrimantory reasons is never okay. Profiling people to perform warrantless searches/seizures is never okay.



I don't think identifying a persons health risks based on variables like age, sex, race, sexual habits, substance abuse, presence of tattoos/piercings qualifies as either stereotyping or profiling the way you allude to it. Another circular argument.

So saying people with tattoos make poor decisions in life and don't think through the consequences of their actions isn't discriminatory huh? lol

 

[bubbleheadchief]

So saying people with tattoos make poor decisions in life and don't think through the consequences of their actions isn't discriminatory huh? lol

I dont think it is discriminatory, simply think it is a grossly Special person statement. And shows how simpleminded the person making the statement is.

 

[MassHavoc]

I don't know why you guys are over generalizing what he's saying. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that study's have show that people who have tattoo's have shown to also have a significantly higher rate of instance of participating in other high-risk activities.



If you can't even follow the argument, I'm not sure how you can respond intelligently. He's not saying that all people with tattoos are even and make more life decisions.