Journal #5

I think the three most important things we've learned are place/scene, the rhetorical situation calling for response, and how everyday writing is something non-institutionalized. The article on Tattoo's involved all of these things.  
First I'd like to focus on the place/scene and how that plays into our idea of someones tattoo. For instance, in a professional setting many people may feel a tattoo inappropriate whereas at a concert setting, tattoos are cool, and may gain you respect. When people see the tattoo will influence their idea of the tattooed person.
Then there is the rhetorical situation. In the article the situation is HIV Aids and if people should wear a tattoo to worn others that they have it. A person responses to the exigency of Aids is getting the tattoo, and then, by wearing their tattoo, that person calls for a response from the public. This response is often negative, thus creating a "Stigma". Also a person may get a positive response, like being praised for being responsible by warning perspective partners about their disease, as discussed in the article.
Finally, tattoos are non-institutionalized. People don't tell you how, where, or when to get your tattoo. It is a personal decision, even though in this article entertains the possibility of making HIV infected people get tattoos. Though well intended, I see making people get tattoos as a violation of personal rights, and corrupts the art of tattoos into something as dehumanizing and institutional as branding.