To those that follow me on Twitter it will come as no surprise that I recently added to my ever increasing, albeit slowly, collection of tattoos.  Sorry Dad. Sorry God.

There seems to be such a divide in attitudes to tattoos, take my parents for instance they find them utterly abhorrent.  When getting my sixth The Father implored to The Mother 'Well?! what are you going to do about it?!' to which she replied resignedly '[The Father], she's in her thirties and besides, she's bigger than me...what do you expect me to do?'  Do you see what I have to deal with?  They have yet to have the pleasure of seeing number seven, yet.  I find it terribly irksome when those who are anti-tattoo's seem intent on preaching about their utter disgust of them to those with them yet I know not of a single inked person who tries to convert and admonish those against them.  I don't expect everybody for one moment to appreciate and like tattoos yet what gives them the right to openly criticise them?  It reeks of self-righteousness and is reminiscent of street preachers desperate to convert you.  If one is so convinced by their belief and choices and confident within it why feel the need to have everyone agree with you?  Is your own opinion that fickle and weak?

Body modification is such a personal thing, believe it or not the majority of us don't do it to irk society or sleight their parents.  It's a form of self expression when one can claim their body, their skin, as their own.  It's empowering.  Even amongst those with ink one persons beauty is another's ugliness with the spectrum of the inked ranging from those with the small subtle hidden fashionable flash designs to those with what can only be described as works of art, from the obvious to the obscure.  It's not always about making a statement or a visible rebellion, often it runs deeper than that with many tattoos embodying and representing meaningful events and feelings.

It's no longer reserved for criminals and tantrumming teenagers with the likes of professionals and  respected individuals within social power sporting them too.  So that old adage of 'you'll never get a decent job with those' is not only grossly outdated but also utterly incorrect.

Tattoos hurt.  Yes, really.  Some more than others granted yet to those with more than one they must be invested in it to get them.  So people saying 'yes, but what will you look like when you're older?!' is a mute point.  Few people get multiple tattoos merely on a whim, it is insulting to assume we neither think about them nor understand their longevity.  Nobody is terrifically pretty when old, we all have bits that go south, we all wrinkle and resemble crepe paper, we all sprout hairs in places we really shouldn't and lose hair in the places we'd quite like to keep it.  Tattoo's aren't a fashionable accessory they're an extension of self; an exhibit of our soul.  A pictorial autobiography of our soul.  Each one tell a story or represents ourselves at a point in time.  To regret it all would be to regret oneself; to regret life.  So what? we'll look old and tattooed, others will be old and fat or old and stooped or old and hairy.  The Mother In Law only started getting tattoos a few years ago, small token tattoos that she loves, is she going to regret them? No.  She's had a lifetime to contemplate them.

Being tattooed doesn't maker you less of a person or a substandard member of society.  It is neither a reflection of your morals, ability nor intelligence.

Most of all it's not a reflection of you.  They're neither for you nor about you.  Taking them as a personal sleight is merely a sign or your own arrogance and egocentricity. If you don't like them that's fine, really it is, you don't have to get any.  You don't have to like them yet you have no right to judge them or worse, the person beneath them.  Tattoos on others have no affect on your life.  One day, the person who saves your life, may have tattoos.  Bare that in mind.....

Of long hair and assumptions

If ever there's two false assumptions that are made by Joe Public about The Toddler it would be that he is a girl and that he should be at nursery.  The prior based merely upon the fact he happens to have long hair, not anything as extraordinary as him possessing a vagina or anything.  The latter being based purely on the fact he's over three and I shall rant about this in my next blog post.

The Husband has long hair, as in I'm jealous of it , yes...that type of long.  Regardless of beard status he's never been mistaken for a woman (good job, he has crap tits)  The Toddler however, must be a girl because evidently boys simply don't have long hair.  His hair is gorgeous, like spun golden silk and reaches to his mid back.  I'd sell internal organs to have hair like his.  Despite his love of nail polish, makeup, heels and tutu's he's also very stereotypical boyish as well loving the usual cars and fire engines and what have you.  When out and about he is dressed either boyish or gender neutral yet Thing Two who is a girl adores pink, purples, flowers, butterflies and glitter so it's not as if they could label us one of those families that insist on gender neutrality.  I'd like to think it's his devastating beauty that marvels people and skewers their judgement but we've been here before, with Thing One.  He too had long hair until he started school as the thought of glue, paint, food and nits outweighed the pro's of keeping his lustrous locks.  However, we aren't at all offended by it, so what if they think he's a girl, it's usually commented on in a complimentary fashion accompanied by a comment on how beautiful he is, so really, what's to be offended about?  If it's a health official or whatnot we do correct them however, often correcting some random just makes them feel bad all for the sake of a label, and not even a derogatory one at that.  We merely accept the compliment and smile certain that when/if The Toddler wanted to he wouldn't be shy of saying 'I'm not a girl!' something, as of yet, he too hasn't felt the need to interject with.  If that isn't being comfortable in your on skin, what is?  Then we get to My Father, he who was utterly horrified when at Thing Two's birthday, The Toddler took possession of Thing Two's new pink haired doll and has similar distaste when The Toddler chooses to dress up Thing Two's princess dresses, play heels and make-up.  It's as if he takes personal offence at The Toddlers lack of society defined masculinity.  This is the same man who for years has refused to kiss and hug Thing One and insists on just shaking his hand.  Yes, really.  Out in public should anyone dare to refer to The Toddler as a girl, he feels the undying need to immediately correct them in a reprimanding tone, and to what purpose really?  Surely a compliment is a compliment?

It would appear that he is terrified that liking anything stereotypically girly would turn him gay.  As if you could turn or make someone gay, he fails to accept the notion that people are who they are and will be who they will be.  If someone is gay, they'd be gay regardless of whether they played with dolls or trains.  Then there's the big, so what?  Being a serial killer or rapist would be a problem.  Abusing animals would be a problem.  Being a  fascist bigot would be a problem.  Being gay? Hardly a problem.  Oh no, my child has decided to be himself! Call the parenting police.  Gay or straight, blonde hair or brown....whatever.  He's THREE years old and enjoying exercising his natural curiosity and freedom of choice. Hopefully with this organic curiosity and choices our funny, cheeky, imaginative little cretins will simply grow up to be emotionally healthy adults.

If I got a pound for every time he asked when we're getting The Toddlers hair cut, I'd be rich. Thing Two could demand a short back and sides, insist on wearing a football kit all the time and be obsessed with cars and it would be cute and quirky, The Toddler having long hair and occasionally having fun with his sisters toys however is obviously an utter catastrophe and the end of the world as we know it.  Hair is just hair, toys are just toys as I previously ranted at length about (Does Pink Stink?)

We're not even keeping his hair long to make some grande social statement, we're not doing it to purposefully make people reassess their stereotyping, we do it because we like it, he likes it and it looks cute.

However, on the flip side, I have to ask myself would I be so laid back if it was Thing Two in question?  In the name of honesty I have to shamefacedly admit, on some level, I'd be a tad miffed should someone assume Thing Two was male.  Why is that? Would it really be such a sleight on her beauty?  Can't boys be beautiful too? Is it a greater faux pas to overlook femininity in gender identity than to overlook masculinity?  Is mistaking or removing gender stereotype as potentially dangerous as enforcing it?

All I know is that as The Toddler lies blissfully asleep next to me with his gorgeous long locks mermaided around his cherubic face, I will miss his hair when it finally gets chopped off (for the same reasons as Thing One) but he'll still be the same beautiful little boy....because it's only hair.