Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge Tattoo Eeeyoo

I don't have any tattoos and I will admit I sometimes wonder why people cover their bodies with them but, generally, I'm a live and let live sort. However, sometimes things go too far (IMHO) so I find leaving a tattoo in your estate to be a bit bizarre.

Naaah! (Not to say, though, that I haven't come up with one or two similarly bizarre ideas, myself.)

I don't get that 32 year old woman's paying $60/year for the rest of her life for what amounts to insurance that she won't die suddenly.

How about a funerary urn with "skindows" so people's ashes can be surrounded by their tattoos? Sounds more appealing to me than hanging them on the wall.

(Remember "Tan me hide when I'm dead, Ted"? )

Ya, that wall hanging part is very weird. I can see it all now..."Here we have our Ansel Adams print, and this is the Bev Doolittle we got last year, and over here we have Uncle Frank's 'Death Before Dishonor' tattoo still on his forearm skin."

Why not his entire forearm?

Heck, why not just take Uncle Frank home with you after his funeral?

There's a scene in the John Belushi movie The Neighbors in which a man with an undertaker's demeanor is advertising a transparent coffin "So you can view the object of your grief forever"...maybe soon come.

You may laugh, but this service already exists in some parts of the country. The tattoo is "saved" and preserved prior to internment or cremation.

Would I be assuming too much to say "down South"?

Sure, you could have the tattooed relative stuffed, mounted and parked in the parlor....the way Roy Rogers did with Trigger. The only problem, of course, is the concern that it causes for remaining relatives.

Does anyone doubt that Dale Evans spent the rest of her life praying that she would out-live Roy?

The only things that come to mind in this exchange are:
(1) The Nazis and their penchant for functional memorabilia, such as lamp shades made of human skin
(2) Another screenplay for Criminal Minds and such ilk.

Moving on ...

Oh puh-leeeze. One of the responders to the original column made the same suggestion. I thought it was a stretch then, and I still do. Lighten up....the thread is nothing more than having fun with what seems to be a generally goofy idea.

I thought it was lightened up.
That said, there are large segments of the population (read: ethnic groups) which would definitely consider the notion in very poor taste and/or extremely offensive on a very personal level, even if of a bygone era.

There are many in every ethnic group who would find that reference offensive. Those who forget or do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Humanity is in a continual process of moderation. Today's moderates will be tomorrow's conservatives, without having changed views. It will never end.

Hmmm? I'm not sure I agree with your proposition. I started out as a moderate Republican and while my views have changed very little since then, today I am considered by many to be a far left wing liberal. (Personally I prefer the sobriquet "progressive".)

The gist of it is that today's views that are considered very progressive and not widely accepted, will become more widely accepted over time and will be more of "the accepted norm" and join the smaller subset of values that the conservatives restrict themselves to. During that time, new values will grow to be accepted by only the progressive, seeding the future values for the conservatives.

So as a general (though certainly not absolute) rule, today's conservatives will be tomorrow's moderates, without changing opinion or view. They don't need to change becase the world changes around them. (they don't need to "step over the line" because the line is constantly moving and will eventually pass under their feet)

Looking back at my original statement, I think I may have said that backward Today's conservatives will be tomorrow's moderates , without having changed views.