Tattoos are, I suppose, decorative but I'm not similarly inclined to discover the rationale behind, say, necklaces. The difference being that tattoos are more or less permanent, True, they can be removed, but the process is said to be far more painful than the original needlework.
Are they meant to be seen? Given that some tattoos are imprinted on faces, I'd say yes. Only the need for a broader canvas had led to their appearance on arms and chests, thereby spending most of their existence covered up by clothing. Yesterday, my regular hair-dresser, S - source of many interesting revelations - obligingly pulled down the back of her blouse collar to reveal a religious symbol between her shoulder blades, to which an unexplained mandela had been recently added. In blue. Obviously for private viewing.
But I return to the permanence of tattoos. Might one justification be that the wearer was dissatisfied with mere bare skin?
And there's the the risk about tattoos being invalidated by the passage of time. During one's impulsive youth one might wish to celebrate falling in love with X, then later marrying Y. And being forced to wear pyjamas even on very hot nights.
Tastes change. In my teens I admired the pop singer Guy Mitchell; remember him? But I'm glad my admiration didn't run to submitting my flesh to the needle.
Once, under the influence of my High Tory Dad, I thought Conservatism was the way to go. Had I recorded this on my right arm amputation wouldn't have been too high a price to pay in 2025.
And yet I am no nearer to finding a plausible answer: Why tattoo? Please help.