ITA with Trudy (edit: re: tramp stamp). I've gotten used to the term, but it's still shitty. I love my lower-back tattoo, and the placement was pretty damn deliberate for personally meaningful reasons. And I think it looks lovely there.

It's not derogatory to women in particular, I would say, other than the fact that it's making a joke out of something that is seriously not a joking matter.

I don't find it particularly jokey.

I'm in total agreement with everyone on "tramp stamp," but I must say, I'm surprised to see objection of the term "wife beater." I guess I'm coming at it from a different place in my head, but I always considered the term derogatory of men who beat their wives, which is a group I would argue deserve derogation.

which is a group I would argue deserve derogation.

Yes, but - while the term is arguably denigrating men who beat their wives, it's also associating that behavior with a certian class/status marker.

It's a reasonable piece of clothing for its purpose, a sleeveless tank top to wear under other shirts. Why insinuate that it's the preferred wear of men who beat their wives? Every time I hear it assume it's a slam on whomever is wearing such a despicable piece of clothing.

Plus the whole "how funny is it to insinuate you hurt your spouse." I got a store employee fired for telling me to stop beating up my husband when Hubby was going around with crutches.

That's a really good point, brenda. There's certainly plenty of men who beat their wives who wear suits and ties. But I would say as a counter point, it's not like it's the Official Poor Uniform, or anything. Even within that particular associated class, there are other outdoor sartorial choices you can make that won't make people make blind assumptions about you.

And yes, that's a concession that labeling someone who wears a sleeveless tee shirt outside a "wife beater" is an unfair assumption without further evidence.

I'm surprised to see objection of the term "wife beater."

Uh, don't really like to hear/read people talking about inflicting violence upon their spouse, even if the phrase is meant to be a "funny" way of referring to an undershirt. Why WOULDN'T I object?

It's a reasonable piece of clothing for its purpose, a sleeveless tank top to wear under other shirts.

I've always understood a "wife beater" to be a sleeveless tank top worn as a sole upper garment, outside in public. That's not at all the same thing. And that part of what brought it into common usage was its frequency of appearance on COPS and in other police footage. Yes, assuming someone who is poor is a wife beater is unfair. Yes, assuming someone who wears a sleeveless tee shirt as a sole upper garment beats his wife is unfair. And yes, assuming someone who shows up in a police video wearing a sleeveless tank top is a person who commits domestic violence is probably unfair too, but the likelihood is getting pretty high at that point.

Before they were wife beaters, they were dago tees. Yeah, ick. I, for one, think Sean would look hot in a... sleeveless undershirt- doesn't really roll off the tongue, does it?

I don't find it particularly jokey.

I think it's an attempt to be funny in the way rhymey phrases often are. That said, humor FAIL.

And being from the Upper Midwest, I think of the word "beater" alone as an old second car in not-very-good shape that's useful for winter driving because then the road salt won't damage the first (and nicer) car.

Uh, don't really like to hear/read people talking about inflicting violence upon their spouse, even if the phrase is meant to be a "funny" way of referring to an undershirt. Why WOULDN'T I object?

Again, I'm clearly coming at this from a completely different place in my head than, apparently, everybody else here, [unnecessary, deleted, sorry]