There is an interesting dilema associated with tattoos. Most people who have them claim some sort of significance or meaning associated with the tattoo, rather than it just being some sort of doodle, but then they get a little unhappy when other people also assign a wider meaning to them.
I think part of the 'problem' 'issue' or whatever you want to call it is that to the person with the tattoo, the tattoo (usually) has some sort of specific event or personal experience liked with it, whereas to everyone else they just look like some ugly tat of a dog/rose/skull/anchor, whatever. To those of us who have been around a little longer, you can also see the link between certain groups in society and the kinds of tattoos they get (or don't get), which kind of contradicts the whole 'personal expression' idea.
Nowadays lots of trendy middle class kids (in Christchurch, anyway) have got celtic or japanese derived tattoos in the small of their back or on their shoulder, and in doing so they have (perhaps unwittingly) joined a group that will be judged by other groups in society whether they like it or not, because it can't all be about personal expression - in fact to other groups it looks a lot like conformity. More than that, some people get tattoos exactly because they want to conform and will be judged by them - why else get a cultural tattoo unless you want to be associated with that culture?
Tattoos have always been social markers - some cultural, some of class. To older generations tattoos were only worn by criminals or military men (there were no tattoo parlours on the corner), and it was fairly obvious to which group you belonged. I don't think people should be suprised or offended if older people still view them that way. In fact the link between certain tattoos and certain groups in society is as strong as it ever was, regardless of any personal significance they might have to particular individuals within that group. I think open mindedness means people with tattoos need to be aware of the significance they might have to others, not just themselves. Isn't that what 'each to their own' really means?