Luke Wolf said:
From a previous thread. it was brought up that tattoos are rebellious, unless of culture significance, and could be expressed through alternative methods of display, such as a necklace.
I personally do not think the location changes ones devotion to a cause if a symbolic tattoo is placed on the arm, forehead, or any where else.
My pentagram necklace can be easily removed, by myself, others, or getting it caught in something. A tattoo is not easily removed, and IMO, shows more dedication, as it does involve pain to get, and are permanent (unless you cough up a ton of money to have them removed).
And, I see the body as a temple that should be decorated. A room is decorated with posters, pictures, and other things of interest. An altar is decorated with symbols of patron gods, stones, and items that make it more personalised. Why not 'decorate' your body if desired in a manner to show interests, faith, symbols, etc.?
As you chose to quote my contribution without attribution, I will acknowledge the noted inquiry (and OP topic) as my own, referenced originally
here.
I submit that the location of any "tat"
does matter, which is why most are NOT facial tattoos. A depiction of Tweety Bird inked forever on your forehead makes a "statement"of something that you wish every person you encounter to observe and ponder upon (tho' I confess that I don't fully apreciate what a tat of Tweety Bird on a forehaed "really says" about anything, other that an affection for Looney Tunes art).
I have met and cared to enjoin others in conversation regarding their body art, and fully 95% of them have no "deeper meaning" attached to their inked adornments beyond some "spur of the moment" motivation to indulge an alcohol-induced moment of courage, or careless discard of personal inhibition. It may be fair to observe and conclude that many folks are not especially inhibited in engaging "one-night stands" in sexually promiscuous indulgenges, but few would care to advertise a singualr moment of activity or indiscretion by ingraving/inking "I slept with someone last weekend, whose name escapes me now" on their forehead as some expression of personalized individuality or unique character. Placing such a phrase just above your asscrack is not only more subtle, but seems more appropriate when your proclivities are reserved for that "special someone" in that next expression of one's self in a "one-nighter".
Be it age, wisdom, better discretion, or just dumb luck and fortuitous circumstance, I have never sought to either express or define myself by means of "body art" or extraneous additions of metal-filled holes in my flesh. I would only care to remind all that tats (or bodily piercings) are hardly new to the current generation and culture, and were quite available in my own days of obstinate and carefree youth.
I still say that there remains both capable rationale and discretion in cultural avoidance of electing to have a Celtic rune, Chinese chracter, or favored phrase of philosophical reflection permanently tattooed between one's eyebrows, versus a more discrete placement of same on one's arm, ankle, or immediately above an asscrack.
If one thinks that the Chinese symbol for "love" speaks to the very essence of one's own personal perspective, then why not have such a representative charcater forever emblazoned upon one's forehead as a proclamational testament of one's own philosophy? Would the same sentiment have any less impact or meaning if it were presented in English letters?
Why not have L-O-V-E tattoed on your forehead instead?
After all, who doesn't believe in love?
Say it loud, say it proud!
Decorate yourself with feeling, and pure heart!
Why not?
Why not, indeed?
Maybe it's because even most intemperous youth realize that they are indeed fickle, and prone to influences and ideas that might very well change in time..., and that they do not wish to bear the inequities of thoughtless indulgence as an expression of individuality or self-expression as public testimony of same when their grandchildren inquire of them, "Why do you have tattoos on your forehead, grandma?"
Maybe, just maybe, you'll have enough wisdom and experience to encourage the 14-year-old niece that wants to have her clitoris pierced to accomodate the really cool crucifix-ring that she will insert there, as a matter of "artistic expression" and "individualistic self". No doubt her 24-year old boyfriend with the boa constrictor tattoo on his penis, and chrome-stud piercing though his glans, will be impresed with her developed appreciation of what truly constitutes art, and humanistic free will...at "the altar" of belief.
Perhaps, and this is just a stretch of some nutty opinion here...but maybe people are better defined and identified by what they say and do, instead of what they wear, or care to adorn themselves by means of bodily mutilation...as some sort of meaningful or impactful expression of individuality.
I note and submit Neil Armstrong as example.
Armstrong was a naval aviator, seeing combat during the Korean War. He was a test pilot of experiemental aircraft, until he was chosen to become an astronaut with NASA. Armstrong was the first human to set foot on any firm terrain beyond Earth itself. Armstrong was a soldier, patriot, pioneer, and explorer going where no one had gone before. Courage, honor, integrity, duty, and passion for excellence were his hallmarks and benchmarks for living. Armstrong bears neither tattoo nor bodily piercing as overt testimony of his individuality, his personality, his appreciation of human artistic expression, or inspired pursuit of the unknown. His deeds define his being.
I have to wonder why Neil Armstrong doesn't embellish his body with inked art, or extraneous metallic objects...yet others think themselves as courageous, special, artistic, or extraordinary because they bear at "tat" of Tweety BIrd above their asscrack...on second thought, it's no wonder at all.
But like the OP, I feel that the body is something to be decorated, and I happen to have 3 more tattoo plans in the works 
