In recent times, there has been a surge in conflicting views when it comes to tattoos and their significance in society

today. Helen Day, a popular internet blogger, argues that the power of inkthat is, tattoos, have lost their value as more and more people adopt the fashion statement. Helens point of view, of course, is just one of many. The comments section at the end of the blog show the many different conflicting views that the public has towards this controversial subject. Day begins her blog by mentioning how the significance of tattoos has changed over time. She mentions that tattoos used to be a sign of deviance and criminality, but now theyre just a fashion statement. This suggests to the reader that tattoos were, once upon a time ago, more than just a fashion statement; they had a deeper meaning other than just being another accessory. In an attempt to highlight just how abundant tattoos are, Day uses herself in her generalisation that everyone has a tattoo these days: even me. She then goes on to write, moving to more of a mocking tone, that I see enough ink on suburban housewives to outdo the collection in any Australian prison. The reader is shown that ordinary people, such as suburban housewives, have enough tattoos to match those of criminals in prisons, where tattoos are much more strongly embraced. This also suggests that tattoos have lost their value and may well become a fashion statement. In an attack on upper class citizens, Day announces that ever since newsreaders, sitcom stars and upmarket shoppers began to embed symbols and images on their flesh, the power of ink has diminished. It is implied to the reader that the wealthier citizens began the fashion trend by spending excessive amounts of money on unnecessary things such as tattoos, thus demeaning the deviant nature of the tattoo. In a change of approach, Day begins to write in the expositive style to perhaps give young or uninformed readers a bit of knowledge on the history of tattoos and what they were associated with. By using very image-evoking language such as the prison tattoo can still be seen living in the flesh of those who survived the concentration camps, Day almost paints a picture in the readers mind of the horrors that these numbered tattoos bought with them and their significance in representing the act of genocide during WWII. Also, with the association of terms such as cruelty, horror and brutality with tattoos, Day cleverly manipulates the emotions of the reader in order to deliberately make tattoos seem darker and more sinister than what they really are. Moving to a new point, Day explains that there was a time where convicts began to mock the King with the use of tattoos. Possibly aimed towards those who currently possess a tattoo, Day sheds some light on how tattoos were first founded and created by those that were deemed deviant. By using a personal experience from her younger years, Day explains how she and many other young women dared to defile their femininity. As well as retelling a memory she had, Day also indicates to the reader that tattoos were quite popular even back then, as many others apart from herself also fancied the idea of having symbols of gender affixed to their bodies. By admitting that she was still young at the time, the image of No tattoos before youre 30 suggests to the reader that at the age of 30, we are able to think things through more rationally instead of making spur of the moment decisions. In this case, it would be whether or not to get a tattoo. Day writes that tattoos have even adorned the ankle of the British Prime Ministers wife, suggesting that tattoos have become so infectious as to belong on the ankle of a wife to one of the most important political figures in the world. Using a dissatisfied tone, Day writes now I look at the symbol of my rebellion and I see an ornament as ordinary as any other cosmetic quirk. By contrasting rebellion with ordinary, Day shows how something of much more meaning can reduced to just plain ordinary. In this case the tattoo becomes just any other cosmetic quirk.

The Post a comment section of the blog shows four differing views by four very dissimilar people. The first comment, by Tash, uses a very energetic and positive tone in telling her story of how she got her first tattoo. In contrast with Tash, Cleanskin, Kiwi and Dr AB all use very distinct tones or styles to present their point of view. Dr AB uses his profession along with a serious tone to explain the negative impacts that getting a tattoo done may have on someones health. Using sense-evoking language, he lets the reader imagine the pain of needles piercing the skin repeatedly and pus-like drainage. This also allows the reader to mentally picture the process. Cleanskin makes clever use of imagery and logic, writing how tattoos of dolphins, over time, stretched into whales. Furthermore, Cleanskin writes that if you wouldnt put the picture on your wall why pay some hack to needle it into your body?. This reasons with the readers logic and common sense. Kiwi, in an angry tone, rants about how tattooists steal the Ta Moko because it appeals to the eye. The image of the man with visible tattoos on his arm represents the Ta Moko, and helps the reader to see why tattooists like the look of it. By contrasting flattery with disgraceful and immoral, Kiwi shows the reader what people that steal the Ta Moko identity believe as opposed to what the Maori community sees as identity theft. By stating that Ta Moko is as unique as finger prints, Kiwi asks rhetorically how you would feel if someone stole those from you. The reader is not left with much choice of an answer if if he/she values the unique identity every individual holds dear. Finally, Helen Day leaves the reader to debate whether tattoos have lost their true meaning and whether they have indeed become a fashion statement whereas the authors of the comment section each present their own point of view on why tattoos should or should not be adopted.