Is Tattooing A Form Of Self-Mutilation In The Three Texts

1. Write an outline of the different views on ink tattoos presented in the 3 texts.
All the texts concern tattoos, and the signal they send. The first text named “Is Tattooing a Form of Self-Mutilation?” by Andy Carrington, and is an article written on his personal website. He states that tattoos now can have multiple symbolic or different meanings, and are not limited to being for the “working-class male” (p.1, l.3). What his text is most focused on, is that if one person has multiple tattoos, said person may be in danger of being self-destructive. The claim that tattoos could possibly be a form of self-destruction, contradicts the third’s texts point of view. “In Defense of ink” a column in the Temple News by Alexiz Sachdev, which expresses

She was so excited to have her favourite piece of art permanently on her body. From articles perspective, a tattoo is a type of art; a form of self-expression. People can wear their favourite artwork on their body, truly cherish it, and see it every day. She states that it’s like an accessory (p.7, l.33). This contradicts the first text, in which it states - yes - that it is an art form, that it is also a method of self-harm or mutilation. Bring uo the fact that people have to go through pain to get the end result, and how many people get more and more tattoos, even though they know what pain they have in stall, and what some parts of society looks down on it. In text two we learn that Osaka has banned tattooed people from getting a job within local government. The same mentality that inspired this law to be made is the same one, which judges people for having tattoos. I would say that text 3 has the best argument. That tattoos are an art form, and a another way to express yourself, your beliefs, and forever carry the art that has a symbolic meaning for you, on your