
Indelible Ink: The Deep History of Tattoo Removal (2013) - benbreen
http://theappendix.net/issues/2013/10/indelible-ink-the-deep-history-of-tattoo-removal
======
weeksie
As a guy who had a bit of a delinquent streak and was sleeved with homemade
tattoos by my late teens (in the mid 90s) I am SO happy that tattoos have
become socially acceptable. Through an accident of fashion all of those
warnings about never being able to get a job or be taken seriously have been
rendered moot. Now most of my original tattoos have been covered with much
nicer, less embarrassing work and I blend in with every other vaguely edgy
middle aged adult.

The tattoos I had when I was young meant something, but only in the sense that
they were meant to signal a teenager's rebellious and dangerous nature. In a
way you could say that the tattoos didn't have to be physically removed since
the surrounding culture did that for me. The effect of the big sea change in
fashion meant that the permanent marks on my body no longer kept me outside of
polite society. Far less involved than lasers, that's for sure.

~~~
mbauman
This feels especially true in the areas where I work (mostly backend web dev.)
In an office where the dress code is jeans and a t-shirt or hoodie anyway,
having some tattoos doesn't seem especially unprofessional. I had always been
warned as a kid that I would never find a job if I got tattoos and have been
relieved to find after nearly two full sleeves that this is not the case.

~~~
lostlogin
Slightly edgier tattoos still cause problems apparently, though there are
other aspects to this guy that might make him a less-than-ideal employee
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11889732)

------
Theodores
This story is still being written.

The removal business is 'medical', a different set of laws, liabilities and
standards apply to tattooing. Because of this it means that the way removal
gets done is not a fast moving, innovative business. A while ago it was worked
out that if you put a glass slide on the skin and press hard then the blood
cells get forced out of the way meaning the laser doesn't zap them and the
trauma to the skin is minimised. Healing is quicker, the 'patient' is also
more likely to return for follow up work. The pain is also a lot less.

However, despite these benefits, the removal business sticks to doing things
the painful way where the blood vessels get zapped too. This is because of the
'medical' aspect and how experimentation with the better technique potentially
opens up a world of medical liabilities.

~~~
exikyut
I honestly wish people could just sign waivers and sidestep the red tape.
There needs to be a bit of a precedent set in that area IMO.

Reminds me of a current-affairs segment I saw on Australian TV many years (~a
decade) ago on someone who was pursuing an alternative cancer therapy for
their young son.

It took me a couple of days to properly digest the slightly
disorientating/uncharacteristic format/presentation used by this particular
episode: I eventually realized there was no explanation other than that the
presenter had been told to "bad cop"-interrogate the person on the show in
order to get footage to make them look weak, and on further thought (just now)
I reckon they probably didn't crumble as much as the show had hoped and the
resulting edited-together footage was a bit cacophonic/disjointed, heheh.

Learned a bit about the media (and that presenters really have no rights if
they want to keep their jobs) that week.

I don't even remember what the therapy was in question (or the country the
family had traveled to to pursue it), but the person on the show was more or
less close to demonized for their choices. I decided it was suspicious that
this had been put on TV for whatever reason; why did I need to see this?

I mention this example to point out that setting the aforementioned precedent
seems like it will generally be _very_ hard. :(

