Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Galen

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @El Dolmago, I don't know if my dermatologist is gonna be all that helpful if I decide to go the removal route. Not even sure if she'll have any info about the efficacy (or lack thereof) or potential dangers of laser removal, especially UV tattoo removal, even though her specialty is in laser therapies. As for surgical removal ... I haven't really thought about that at all. I guess if there are health risks associated with early UV inks, it might be something to consider. Thanks for your thoughts. Wow, @omeletta,thanks for the link to the other thread. Really appreciate you digging
  2. Hey, this info actually kicked off a search that ended up making some plausible sense out of why the thing wasn't visible at the derma exam, so, yeah -- many thanks!
  3. I'm trying to focus more on the logistics than the backstory, but, yeah, basically someone did this without my knowledge or consent. I know who, and roughly when, but I was pretty young and there was a lot of other crazy stuff going on for me. I guess getting poked in the neck just didn't register as memorable in comparison to the more flamboyantly weird things that were happening in my life at the time, lol! I had a bit of a wild ride up until my mid-twenties, but since then I've kinda had the perfect life: small, uneventful, and full of love, laughter, and contentment. You know what the
  4. Apparently it really is a UV tattoo, at least insofar as it's a deliberate, permanent mark, with discernible meaning, made by injecting some sort of UV-reactive ink under the skin. Certainly not a tattoo in the sense of a tattoo being a piece of art that one chooses to receive from a tattoo artist, though, heh. Funny you should suggest the dermatologist, since this whole thing started with her seeing a faint scar on the back of my neck. Interestingly, it didn't fluoresce under the fancy dermatological black-light, but it does become visible under a cheap "party" black-light. Hav
  5. You know, I came to this forum from what I thought was a really respectful place, knowing that I was knocking at the door of a tight-knit community and culture, and that I'd be putting out questions that would probably seem stupid and weird. I tried to be as open as I could about the reasons that brought me here, without crossing the line into TMI, hoping that by doing so I'd be able to convey why it would be worth your time to consider them. I tried to keep the desperation out of my tone, although in truth the only reason I was willing to step out of my super boring, middle-aged, non-tattooed
  6. Thanks for the welcome, and lol, yeah, I was stupid to have started with the story behind why I'm asking the questions. It completely derails attention away from the questions themselves. (A belated thanks to Dan for helping me realize this, ha.) Ah well, live and learn, right? I think from now on I'll go with the alien abduction explanation!
  7. So embarrassing to have to edit out my own double-post. Ayiyi.
  8. Edited out because I'm going about this the wrong way, lol. Sorry!
  9. Edited out because I'm going about this the wrong way, lol. Sorry!
  10. Hi all, At the risk of being one of those annoying people who only come here seeking information and have little to offer in the way of anything intelligent to say about tattoos, I joined this forum in order to ask a few odd questions about UV tattoos. I've edited my original post in hopes of keeping the focus on these questions: Does anyone know if UV tattooing was something people did or knew about back in the mid-80s? Is it possible for a UV tattoo to remain visible under UV light thirty years after being applied? Or ... inked? I don't know the best verb, sorry! Are ther
  • Create New...