Tattoos are permanent; relationships… not so much
Apparently, people are discouraged from getting their sweetheart’s name inked into their skin. That’s what The Courier News says, at least. While I have always questioned the practicality of self-mutilation as a means to express your love (no matter how romantic it actually is), tattoo artists have their own superstition:
Relationships end six months after a sweetheart tattoo is inked.
That’s a pretty depressing myth. I mean, considering that you just went ahead and permanently (well, you know, without laser treatment) inflicted damage on yourself (no matter how artistic it may be). Six months? Really? Actually, that I understand. Especially if you’re just running out to get a tattoo of someone that you have just met and have fallen madly in love with. Love stories don’t generally happen the way they happen in the movies. Not in my (albeit, limited) experience, anyway.
I know how amazingly sweet the whole tattoo thing sounds. But I can’t imagine my boyfriend pasting my name all over his arm/back/leg/some other part of his body just to show he loves me. And I’d feel a little weirded out, too, considering that he’s more or less branded himself, showing the world that yes, I am someone’s boyfriend, so BACK OFF!
Why is that a bad thing, you ask? Because our relationship comes from knowing what’s right between the two of us, and not broadcasting it to the world. I see nothing wrong with broadcasting relationship details, but I also think a relationship should be fairly private. And I didn’t want to brand him just to show he’s Mr. Boyfriend. That’s silly. Romantic? Maybe. To some people. Just not me.
Of course, if you really must go the sweetheart-tattoo route, you might as do the Jeffrey Sebelia thing. Get your family tattooed across your neck and wear their names proudly for all to see. It’s a sweet gesture. And family is more or less permanent, while relationships can be fleeting.
Posted on February 12th, 2007 by Joy
Filed under: Relationships, Romance
I would never ever get a tattoo, because needles just freak me out.
Second, I would never tattoo my family’s names on my back, because all in all, I don’t like them enough to want to do that.
Finally, I’ve never had a relationship last more than three months, so I’ll never know why people think that six months is a short time (I kid). But really, tattooing my sweetheart’s name on my wrist? When I’m old (around 35ish) I figure that my skin is probably going to deform the tattoo in such a way that it looks absolutely hideous. Instead of a nice “[girlfriend's name here]“, it’d look like one of those optical illusions that you have to tilt sideways to read.
I prefer rings to make the announcement for me. Of course, that brings up the point about right and left ring finger (of which I have no clues as to what is what…). Rings are less painful (assuming it fits) and easier to take off after the (amazing) six months…or longer. Hopefully longer.
Emblazoning “I
Rylan. Well, you know, some people like it.
I know.
If I were a white erase board, I’d do it too.
And Visser…that’s an awesome name. Andalite!
I’m going to need some space. I wrote a reply - and drafted it four times till it was just right - about what I would speculate as the effects of tattoo’s from the opposite sex; ie. girls having tatoo’s of their boyfriends name… this is an excellent topic.
I’m going to try and pull those thoughts back again, good thing I didn’t go to the pub last night…
Rylan, I am not Visser 3 nor related to it or the alien race entailed. I am however building visser.com.au and will try to bring the Australian Visser legion together in one place.
Okay, it’s impossible to do. I give up, all future replies will be drafted in Notepad and spell-checked in Firefox before posting!
Since reading this article again and reading up on the history and industry developments I wanted to let you know of a “temporary” ink that can be used as an alternative that begins to break down naturally just as long as relationships end after getting a tattoo; six months after being stenciled!
I’m a closet-tattoo fan, I was brought up till 2001 in New Zealand and have seen my handful of Ta Moko’s; facial tattoo. That mixed with interest in a digital graffiti culture has spurred all sorts of ideas. Thinking of tattoo’s and mustering the balls to actually get one are two very different stories, the thought of a design aging, fading and eventually looking pathetic while being at one time very reverend also holds me back, yet if given the option of a six month application I’d be down there tomorrow. I think it would be fair to assume that many other people in similar circumstances would too re-consider if given this new option of a tattoo.
A quick summary of my previous reply. Tattoo’s in my view are assumed permanent fixtures both at time of application as well as later in time. They note a major event - be this a person, date or detail - in the wearers life, one that they feel necessary to wear with them to the ditch.
In your topic about men getting the name of their partner - albeit temporary - I expect it is as much a matter of possession - indicating “she” is with me - as it is a sexual repellent acting to the benefit and detriment of the wearer. Explaining this repellent theory further, having a partners name indicates a strong stability in his relationship with his partner so much so that he may have other women as close friends, however a line is drawn that he puts his partner above any other needs and will not be distracted by other women; especially those who are now his closest friends. A precarious dilemma. What are you views on this scenario?
I like the idea that a tattoo represents a man’s commitment and also acts as a sexual repellent (which, to a certain extent, it does). But I also think these are the things that should be thought through.
And I don’t have anything against tattoos, either. I just can’t see myself getting one…