Poll re. good tattoo artist career for a Christian woman - Part 2

[farouk]

Originally Posted by for_his_glory
The gender aspect should be the same for a women or a man, but since you did say a women then I would have no problem with that of a women owning her own parlor..

As @for_his_glory in her post said a while back, it's quite reasonable really to see it as a matter of equality for women to receive them and give them (if desired).

Blessings.

PS: It's become a widespread and natural thing for women, if they wish, to go under the needle for ink, as well as men (it used to be almost a male preserve but in North America now 59% of parlor clients are female, apparently, with some areas reporting 70%).

This is not particularly to argue in favor of it, but simply to mention just how widespread it is, as [MENTION=71712]for_his_glory[/MENTION] reminded us.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

well farouk with the evils of tats being a stronger pull then say the evils of secular music or other things in that grey area. im going to disagree. a simple shirt that can be made to your liking with the same thing is just as EFFECTIVE.i can put my own things on my shirts at a local shop here. I can put bible verses on it or what not. my body doesn't have to be a template for art. yes I could also argue about that I could put sinful things on my shirts but with shirts I can simply throw then out. its a bit harder to undue at a tattoo as even when gone they still have that shape to them and can be seen. I have a Christian friend who is very christlike and is having her tattoo removed.its faded but its still there. she has had all but one color removed. its painful as they "burn" it out.

@jasoncran :

Well, I'm not really talking at all about specifically sinful designs, but rather ones that are either neutral or actually God honoring in their content.

And yes, I do understand that after a person has been converted s/he may wish to have a particular, unsuitable tattoo removed. Often it's not easy and I'm wondering also if it might ultimately be just as God honoring or more God honoring to have an unsuitable tattoo modified, rather than try - partly unsuccessfully - to have it obliterated.

For example, a woman with an ex-bf called 'Bill' might have gotten a tattoo of his name, but after conversion she might choose to have a tattooist change the 'Bill' to read 'Bible' instead.

(Two cents'.)

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

farouk this says why I thinks its bad.

ink does this to one's body.

People who have received a tattoo or body piercing must wait one year from the date of body modification. Acupuncture, electrolysis, hepatitis exposure, rape and autologous blood transfusion also have a one-year deferral. Cocaine users must wait one year if they snorted the drug, but if they have ever shot up they are forbidden from donating. Alcohol consumption should have taken place a minimum of 12 hours prior to donation. Dental work varies with cleanings and fillings have a one-day deferral while root canals have a three-day deferral. Anyone that has been held in a correctional facility, whether it's prison, detention or jail, is no longer eligible to donate

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list_7322755_fda-requirements-blood-donors.html#ixzz2YB6ygGTd

now then if they feel its bad for you then why should we do it? while I don't agree with them on all of these restricitions its something to consider. cost of simply getting a shirt with what you want to say is cheaper and healthier. to me its we can be like the world too! and well do the same by redeeming something that doesn't need that to be effective. words are words no matter what the template is! a shirt can have that on it.

 

[farouk]

farouk this says why I thinks its bad.

ink does this to one's body.

People who have received a tattoo or body piercing must wait one year from the date of body modification. Acupuncture, electrolysis, hepatitis exposure, rape and autologous blood transfusion also have a one-year deferral. Cocaine users must wait one year if they snorted the drug, but if they have ever shot up they are forbidden from donating. Alcohol consumption should have taken place a minimum of 12 hours prior to donation. Dental work varies with cleanings and fillings have a one-day deferral while root canals have a three-day deferral. Anyone that has been held in a correctional facility, whether it's prison, detention or jail, is no longer eligible to donate

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list_7322755_fda-requirements-blood-donors.html#ixzz2YB6ygGTd

now then if they feel its bad for you then why should we do it? while I don't agree with them on all of these restricitions its something to consider. cost of simply getting a shirt with what you want to say is cheaper and healthier. to me its we can be like the world too! and well do the same by redeeming something that doesn't need that to be effective. words are words no matter what the template is! a shirt can have that on it.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

I think you'll find that the quality of inks used in tattooing has improved greatly. See Youtube resources from ivillage or about.com, for example.

These days, the image of a dingy parlor in an industrial section frequented by Hell's Angels or mariners hardly applies in many cases.

Some parlors are more like salons, that attract their often 60% to 70% female clientele.

In the end the person has to make the judgment, of course, as to whether it's for him or her.

My thing is the sheer pragmatism of the fact that faith based designs do cause conversations.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

uhm that hasn't changed for the fda. I can go to the fda. the fda has now started regulated what the the tat parlors do. nevertheless the ban still is in effect. it has to be bad enough that the ink is in the blood. I mean we have people that complain about food dyes and we pass them quicker then that. and these same people may have tats.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...latoryInformation/Guidances/Blood/default.htm

feel free to see if I am wrong. while I don't think that its harmful but I do wonder why they ban you from one year. for the record I can't donate anyway. Im banned for life. I know that the parlors are better they used to be.

 

[farouk]

uhm that hasn't changed for the fda. I can go to the fda. the fda has now started regulated what the the tat parlors do. nevertheless the ban still is in effect. it has to be bad enough that the ink is in the blood. I mean we have people that complain about food dyes and we pass them quicker then that. and these same people may have tats.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...latoryInformation/Guidances/Blood/default.htm

feel free to see if I am wrong. while I don't think that its harmful but I do wonder why they ban you from one year. for the record I can't donate anyway. Im banned for life. I know that the parlors are better they used to be.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

In a country as large as the US, it's hard for the Feds to be able to cover minutely for every such tattoo parlor contingency, which is why they are basically regulated at a state level. It's the same here in Canada, I think; it's the local provincial level that regulates them.

Given the average 59% female clientele (and in some areas 70%), where many are moms and grammas, I would be hard pressed to say that most female clients are supposedly reckless in their use of parlors, many of which are more like salons.

This is all reasonable to discuss and look at from all sorts of angles; I guess my own approach is based on pragmatism, really, given the useful witness application it can have.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

the fda regulates a lot. so it can do that. we the usda and it regulates what? food! while not perfect they do work. they have research facilities nearby me , in fact two of them. one for fish farming and the other for citrus and pesticides on those types of trees. so I know that they can check.either way the fda doesn't just ask which parlor you went to just asks if you had a tat within a year and you cant donate

 

[farouk]

the fda regulates a lot. so it can do that. we the usda and it regulates what? food! while not perfect they do work. they have research facilities nearby me , in fact two of them. one for fish farming and the other for citrus and pesticides on those types of trees. so I know that they can check.either way the fda doesn't just ask which parlor you went to just asks if you had a tat within a year and you cant donate

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Yes, well this is all reasonable to discuss.

The FDA of course bans a lot of subtances. But it doesn't ban tattoo ink or tattooing.

Some people make the assessment and choose to have it done.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

the fda regulates a lot. so it can do that. we the usda and it regulates what? food! while not perfect they do work. they have research facilities nearby me , in fact two of them. one for fish farming and the other for citrus and pesticides on those types of trees. so I know that they can check.either way the fda doesn't just ask which parlor you went to just asks if you had a tat within a year and you cant donate

@jasoncran :

Yes, well this is all reasonable to discuss.

The FDA of course bans a lot of subtances. But it doesn't ban tattoo ink or tattooing.

Some people make the assessment and choose to have it done.

Blessings.

really? why then does it ban YOU having a tat for one year?just because they are mean? they have a reason.it could be that they need to revisit that but I have donated blood in america and its one year. I know I used to donate every 8 weeks for two years. i was banned later as they redid the ban on gay sex which i wasn't under the old rules. so i know they recheck this stuff.so you don't know because you haven't donated blood in America!

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]: Well, donating blood and getting a tattoo are distinct things, I guess. Only when a person tries to do both within a period of time is there necessarily any question.

I know of some countries where if you need an vaccination, the official will line up people and do them all with the same needle! (Yes, wow!)

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

that is the issue, [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION], if its ok then why do they still ban it? is it the ink or the fact they are still worried about contangents? idk either way its still a health risk that i really don't see the need to put oneself through to do what? make one a template for bible verses when a simple shirt will do just that.

 

[farouk]

that is the issue, [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION], if its ok then why do they still ban it? is it the ink or the fact they are still worried about contangents? idk either way its still a health risk that i really don't see the need to put oneself through to do what? make one a template for bible verses when a simple shirt will do just that.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Ban it, referring to giving blood, I suppose?

Well, I guess it must be a precautionary thing, but anyway I reckon those that both give blood and want a tattoo have to choose between one or the other within a given time frame, I suppose.

I don't necessarily buy that tattooing is inherently dangerous, though. (All the moms and grammas that do it can't all be reckless.)

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

while I understand that it is NOT especially dangerous but its should be considered witht the ban and also the lack of need for such risk. I have to work in my truck at both jobs and both require that I don't wear a seatbelt. that is needed risk but many moms and grandparents simply refuse to wear a seat belt. therefore with the same reasoning with tats is it ok to do that too?

I think you get the allusion I just made

 

[farouk]

while I understand that it is especially dangerous but its should be considered witht the ban and also the lack of need for such risk. I have to work in my truck at both jobs and both require that I don't wear a seatbelt. that is needed risk but many moms and grandparents simply refuse to wear a seat belt. therefore with the same reasoning with tats is it ok to do that too?

I think you get the allusion I just made

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]: I see there might be a similarity. But also a difference: ordinarily people are supposed to wear seatbelts. But people are free to get tattoos; there's nothing stopping them.

I'm not saying, go get a tattoo, to people. I'm just saying, it's so widespread, that when Christians are going to have it done as well, why not consider a faith based design? since they are effective conversation-starters.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

sex is free and rampant.so we Christians should just join in? I mean that is what you are almost saying.a law nor taboo stops no one. btw. and no one makes you wear a seatbelt. the cops don't buckle you in.

 

[farouk]

sex is free and rampant.so we Christians should just join in? I mean that is what you are almost saying.a law nor taboo stops no one. btw. and no one makes you wear a seatbelt. the cops don't buckle you in.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

I think it's all a bit apples and oranges, really.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

I think you bias denies you the ability to see that tattoos aren't really needed to make a point. that is what I am alluding to. words . do they mysterious not work on a shirt? or do they work better on skin? I mean really why do YOU as a Christian think that a Christian must have a tattoo and so forth.we don't have to fit in. we don't have to wear skin art with bible verses to get the message. which btw skin art fades and shrinks. I have a friend who has 40 yrs old tats and they were simple hammerhead sharks and he showed me what they looked like when they first were inked. nice job you could see the eyes and gills , the waterline and now you can barely see the shape of it.

with a shirt , it fades go down and get another.hard to do that in the same spot with a tat as the skin is stretches or wrinkles.

 

[farouk]

I think you bias denies you the ability to see that tattoos aren't really needed to make a point. that is what I am alluding to. words . do they mysterious not work on a shirt? or do they work better on skin? I mean really why do YOU as a Christian think that a Christian must have a tattoo and so forth.we don't have to fit in. we don't have to wear skin art with bible verses to get the message.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

I agree with you.

No one needs to get one; and Christian witness will be very active without it.

which btw skin art fades and shrinks. I have a friend who has 40 yrs old tats and they were simple hammerhead sharks and he showed me what they looked like when they first were inked. nice job you could see the eyes and gills , the waterline and now you can barely see the shape of it.

with a shirt , it fades go down and get another.hard to do that in the same spot with a tat as the skin is stretches or wrinkles.

It can also be said though that since many Christians get, and will be getting, tattoos, whatever either of us think, it's just as well to be aware that pragmatically they can be effective conversation-starters if they are faith based.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Re: Poll re. good tattoo artist career for a Christian woman

mygraine said (see OP):

When the artist is a Christian woman, it makes it more accessible for other Christian women. ..
My wife had tatts before Christ.. She states that she prefers the idea of an artist with a set of morals similar to our own. We are friends with two female tattoo artists ..

Seems pretty logical to me, anyway.

Hard to deny the realities.

 

[jasoncran]

ok fine since you have asked. here is a pic of my sil. show me her tattoos that you can find. they aren't hidden but they are on her wrist on the inside and well many a Christians tattoo themselves this way. so I really don't see the point. If its not up and close you will never know.