Thinking about a tattoo, but is it what good girls did in the 1940's?

[Miss 1940's]

I have a problem,
I really want a tattoo, on either my wrist or ankle;I want a star or a vintage Pin up girl? But I have this whole Vintage Glamour Gal going on......I didnt see Rosalind Russell or Bette Davis with a Tattoo. I guess what I am trying to get at is, I think it would throw off my whole vintage Look. I am not rockabilly so yeah?

 

[The Shirt]

I understand your dilemma. I've chosen not to get one. I love the look of tatoos on other people -but I don't think it suits me or the look I am going for. (Now I reserve the right to change my mind in the coming years.) But I have a hard time coming to terms with how I might feel about an armful of tattoos when I'm 60 I suppose. When I want to wear an evening gown - I'm not sure how I'd feel. I don't think that it detracts from the attractiveness of dressing vintage by any means - it seems to me it just seems to look a little more rockabilly as you stated.

 

[KittyT]

I think you can pull off any look you want with tattoos. It's all a matter of your personal preference and your personal expression. If you're comfortable with it, you can pull it off. I don't believe there are any hard and fast rules for any look.

 

[Blondie]

If you are having a hard time deciding then i wouldnt get one,
having said that if you do decide to get one look into this new tattoo ink.........

There is a new ink that once zapped by a laser will just disolve and your body absorbs it, it will mean if you change your mind down the track it can be removed with one session of laser, unlike current inks that take many sessions, making it very costly
The new ink is called Freedom-2 LLC.
"Freedom-2's ink is removable because it is encapsulated in tiny beads made of polymethylmethacrylate, a synthetic material commonly used in surgical glue and in many types of artificial joints"
"Because of the way the beads are constructed, they fall apart when laser energy is applied, Schmieg said. Unpublished tests on humans and animals show that only one laser treatment is typically needed to fully remove a Freedom-2 tattoo and that most Q-switched lasers that doctors use for tattoo removal can be used for the job. A one-time laser treatment to remove a tattoo should cost less than $1,000 "
Anyway just some food for thought !!!!!!!!

 

[ShortClara]

Who says it has to be in a place which shows all the time. Mine doesn't.

 

[Paisley]

If you decide to get one, it would be better to get it where your clothes will cover it up. A lot of employers won't hire someone with visible tattoos.

I agree with you, Miss 1940's, that a tattoo doesn't exactly say "vintage glamour gal." But with everyone and their mother getting a tattoo now, it doesn't have the edge it did when pretty much only sailors and bikers got them.

 

[pretty faythe]

How about this food for thought, just to be a pain in the rear...how do you know for sure they didn't have one? They could have just been covered up? Back then not as much flesh was showed as freely, and it could have been srategically placed, as most of mine are.

 

[KittyT]

How about this food for thought, just to be a pain in the rear...how do you know for sure they didn't have one? They could have just been covered up? Back then not as much flesh was showed as freely, and it could have been srategically placed, as most of mine are.

Yes, it is a common myth that only bikers and sailors had tattoos.

Queen Victoria had a tattoo. So did Winston Churchill's mother, Lady Randolph. Many members of European aristocracy and royalty had tattoos and the British royal family in particular has an interesting history of both tattooing and piercing. More at http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattooed_royalty.htm, a copy of an 1898 article on tattooing in the upper echelons of society.

 

[The Shirt]

That's so interesting

Thanks for posting the article KittyT.

Lady Randolph, not only had a tattoo of a snake around her wrist, which she covered when the need arose with a specially crafted diamond bracelet...

This part in particular makes me ready to change my mind! I'll simply sport a nice diamond cuff whenerever I deem it necessary. lol I've always wanted a reason to buy me some diamonds (non-conflict of course!).

 

[lyburnum]

I've been thinking about the same thing. My fiance and I are thinking of getting tattoos while we're on our honeymoon, to mark the end of our overseas relationship and the beginning of our marriage. One thing I know is that I want a traditional style tattoo, probably in a nautical theme. I've worried about whether it would look wrong with all my lovely evening gowns but then I realised that to be honest, the 1940s and 50s don't dictate what I do or wear - they're simply something I'm passionate about. Wether or not they were commonplace in that era shouldn't be a concern - it should be more about what I feel comfortable with, what I like, and what reflects me as a person. I've seen plenty of authentic looking 40s/50s dressers with tattoos that don't detract from what they're wearing.

Example:

Angelique Houtkamp does some great 1920s-30s style tattoo designs, which is very much the style (though not the imagery) I'm looking at for myself.

www.salonserpent.com

 

[Snookie]

Queen Victoria had a tattoo. So did Winston Churchill's mother, Lady Randolph.

Kind of the exceptions that prove the rule, right? It was so rare that people STILL remember these instances? And of course, it wasn't so acceptable, as those folks had to be able to conceal their tattoos.

No good girl in the 1940's would have a tattoo. They also wouldn't pierce their ears or go to the movies without a male escort. We can do all these things and that's a good thing.

How about a trial? It might be cheesy, but how about getting some henna or a temp tattoo in the location you're thinking of, to see how it affects your look? You might love it or hate it...only you can judge.

I used to have a nose ring, and downsized to a screw when I got more into vintage. It's still pierced, but it doesn't show up in pictures!

Ooh, a wrist tattoo might be a good excuse for a really great glove collection...

 

[Paisley]

No good girl in the 1940's would have a tattoo. They also wouldn't pierce their ears or go to the movies without a male escort. We can do all these things and that's a good thing.

No nice girl in 1940 would have even used the word "escort" as a noun.

 

[Lauren]

The thing that worries me about tattoos is how "permanant" they are. I'd say if you're playing with the idea and haven't really given in to it, wait a month or two, or six, and if you still desire the same thing, consider it again.

If I wasn't so squirmish (and I could get rid of it in a few years) it would be pretty cool to get stocking seams...

 

[JupitersDarling]

Kind of the exceptions that prove the rule, right? It was so rare that people STILL remember these instances? And of course, it wasn't so acceptable, as those folks had to be able to conceal their tattoos.

No good girl in the 1940's would have a tattoo. They also wouldn't pierce their ears or go to the movies without a male escort. We can do all these things and that's a good thing.

LOL. My grandma apparently got herself a tattoo of a flower on her ankle in her twenties (somewhere around late 40's- very early 50's). She was a "good girl" as far as I know, but hey even good girls like naughty thrills. Unfortunately my grandfather did not like it even though it probably was not that obvious from the ankle, and later made her get it removed.

 

[Miss Dottie]

If I wasn't so squirmish (and I could get rid of it in a few years) it would be pretty cool to get stocking seams...

I always loved the idea of stocking seams tattoo, but then I saw a woman in running shorts jogging on the beach with sneakers and it kinda ruined it for me.

But I still think the look cool the other 90 percent of the time.

 

[Serafina]

Who says it has to be in a place which shows all the time. Mine doesn't.

Nor does mine! Yes, it depends where you want to have it.

One of my girlfriends had pin stripes tattooed on the backs of her ankles in black, red and white. My only concern is that it would limit her color choices for her outfits!

 

[Miss Brill]

No good girl in the 1940's would have a tattoo. They also wouldn't pierce their ears

That is odd to me. Before the invention of screw backs in the early 1900s, earrings were for pierced ears.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

I have very visable tattoos and I go for the 20s/30s/schoolmarm look, but I like the clashing of the two "looks." If you're more of a 1940s glamour purist and you're questioning whether to even get a tattoo, don't get one.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Josephine]

That is odd to me. Before the invention of screw backs in the early 1900s, earrings were for pierced ears.

My mother got her ears pierced after she was married (1966), and my father told her it was "against his better judgment". He got that line of thinking from his mom. @@ She didn't think ladies needed any kind of adornment like that. Whatever, Nana.

 

[NoirDame]

Personally, I took my lip piercing out for my vintage look. It's since closed up, but I see your issue with permanence. I could get it pierced again, should I want it.

My two cents....the star is SO overdone.