Just because no one says anything, it doesn't mean they aren't offended. Those of us with good social graces neither get tattoos nor complain about those who do. However, they are offensive and I would neither hire nor give business to a person knowingly with a tattoo unless I had no other choice.

Flame away. Nothing you say will change my mind.

So....you don't like colored people?

"Whatever", question for you (and this is an honest question): What is it about tattoos and body piercings that offends you? Just wondering, I myself am clean cut, but I've never heard anyone refer to body art as "offensive". To be offended, wouldn't it have to be something that personally affects you? Again, just wondering, this is not a flame just an honest question. Thanks!

Just because no one says anything, it doesn't mean they aren't offended.

Agreed. A lot of people are good at putting on a smiley face to hide their underlying prejudices. However, deep inside, consciously or perhaps unconsciously, they are making judgements about you based on your appearance. If they were raised to believe that a person with tatoos is an irresponsible rebel, this is the judgement they will silently pass on you. Also, companies have to be aware of such prejudices in their clients. A customer may decide not to do business with a company because the sales person had a giant dragon tatoo on their arm when they did the sales presentation.

Are these prejudices correct? Maybe not. But a wise person should realize that, if they make the decision to express their "individuality" in this way, there is a social price to pay for it. Be sure you are willing to pay that price before getting a naked woman wrapped in an American flag riding a motorcycle tatooed on your forearm.

Tundra,

Many "people of the book" (Jews, Christians, Muslims) feel that tattooing defaces God's perfect creation - the human body.

In some sects, getting a tattoo will get you excommunicated and you will be refused burial in holy ground.

(This is not my personal belief, but rather an explanation of why some people are offended by other people getting tattoos.)

You may think that your tattoos are currently acceptable, but higher-ups don't view you as upper management material.

Remember back to the 1982 movie, "An Officer and a Gentleman" where Richard Gere covers his arm tattoo upon arriving at Naval Officer Candidate School? He knew that his wild younger-days ink marks made him unsuitable officer material.

Besides, tattoos look uglier and darker as you age, leaving you with muddy dark blurry splotches when you're middle aged and supposedly smarter. Getting visible tattoos should be left to the drunk and gang-bangers.

Casivella, avoid such ignorant people... you are better of excommunicated than associating with such narrow minded bigots. These are the same people who gave this world 2000 years of religious wars, religious persecution and genocide.

Many people still associate tattoos with being in prison. Hardly something you'd want people to assume about you. . . The fact that people deliberately do something permanent to themselves which would cause others to assume they had been in prison also tends to bring one's judgment into question.

Actually, I was approached recently by one of the Managers to see if I'd be interested in an Assistant Management position, over quite a few other nurses with more experience and more seniority. I really do work in a pretty progressive hospital. In fact, the manager of our Labor&Delivery has her eyebrow pierced.

As far as people putting on a polite face, I'm sure there is the occasional incident. But when you are in my line of work, you get to know people very well very quickly. I can tell when someone is being sincere. And well over 95% of the time, my nose ring just doesn't enter into the equation once the patient realizes that I am kind, caring, knowledgeable, professional, and responsive to needs. That speaks to a person far more than a tiny bit of ink or metal.

I'm proud of my line of work, which is why I got a nursing-related tattoo (which you can see in my profile pic). "Nurses are angels in comfortable shoes." It will never be an untrue statement. Not every tattoo is a sign of poor judgment :)

purpleRN,

While I wouldnt say it's 'offensive' for someone to have visible tats, I would say that your situation is a little different. First, I wouldnt call your area 'Corporate America'. No offense is meant, but a hospital is different than a corporation.

I have no problem with my employees having their own personality and style, but I want them to show up to work looking professional. I know that's a vague term and over used, but true nonetheless. I ask that people that work for me keep their private lives private, show up, do your job to the best of your ability, and go home to their families/friends/whoever. While you are in my office, working for me, I expect you to look and act professionaly. I can honestly say I have never NOT HIRED someone because of visible tats. But I can understand where some people think its not professional.

On a side note, I'm a dad and one thing I tell my teenage daughter is the tweetie bird you get on your hip when youre 20 will look more like big bird when youre 70. If she wants a tattoo, we can discuss it...but she needs to know its permanent.

Tattoo today, regret it in 20 years. That cute little butterfly on your boob is going to look like road kill eventually and the dragonfly on your butt, is eventually going to be draggin down your thigh. I personally don't get it. Be different and stay clean and tattoo free or at least put it in a place you can hide it, because eventually you will want to hide it. Do I care if you tattoo, no, would I do it myself, nope.

PS Excessive visible tattoos look kind of dirty to me.

Dearest "whatever", I have to ask -- what exactly do you think a tattoo says about a person? Those of us with truly good social graces know better than to judge a person by their outward appearance, as it is not necessarily a reflection of their work ethic, morals or otherwise.

Crais - do people melt in your reality?

Max - that's why I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim ;)

As my Master's Degree is in a related discipline (Byzantine History), I felt the need to let Tundra know why some people are offended by tattoos.

Personally, I don't hold that view, as I think we are all imperfect creations of evolution, not some magical creation of a sky god.

I have MANY visible tattoos. I do not cover up my tattoos because I worry how people view me. My tattoos were my choice and are a part of me. I cover them up to limit the amount of "ignorant people expressing their unsolicited opinions on my lifestyle" experiences. When people talk about holding their tongue - do you really want a cookie for not being a jerk in public? Golden Rule anyone? Just because you have the right to have an opinion doesn't mean you have the right to offend others with your words with no consequences....your rights end where mind begin.

I think we should distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate tattoos. A little butterfly or rose on your ankle should not be compared with a large skull and crossbones on an arm or a tramp stamp on your back that shows every time a person bends over or sits down or even a full on body tattoo. Some tattoos do look nice but too much is a turn off and I try not to do business or associate with these people. The same goes for piercings. 1 or 2 in the ear, not gauges, looks nice but more than 2 piercings in the ear, eyebrows, nose rings, lip rings, tongue piercings detract from an otherwise beautiful face and person.

I don't have any nor do I plan on getting any tattoos or piercings. I feel a first impression should be positive and if there are numerous tattoos or piercings that's one strike against you.

Others may disagree but that's just me.

I feel a first impression should be positive and if there are numerous tattoos or piercings that's one strike against you.

I agree completely that first impressions are important. I have many visible tattoos and I am not one of those that says "This is me, deal with it." with a kiss my butt kind of attitude. THAT is unprofessional. When I travel for work, I always show up the first day with all of my tattoos covered. I am a young woman in IT - so I already have that working against me (also a form of accepted discrimination). I do not cover my tattoos because I am scared of what they will think of me, I cover them so they will focus on the matters at hand. After meeting those people, I may slide a sleeve up because I am warm and they see them. We have yet to lose a customer because of my tattoos. My tattoos do not make me unprofessional or unable to do my work well or maintain contracts...

I like for tramps to have their stamps. And for queers to gauge their ears. A belly ring's a racey thing, but further south, you use your mouth. I've seen some kids with riddled lids, and nostril pins, with deformed chins. But the one that's worse than all those man, is the Prince Albert in the glans.

Those of us with good social graces

Funny you claim to have some, just as you demonstrate you don't....

Many people still associate tattoos with being in prison. Hardly something you'd want people to assume about you

Their assumption says far more about them, than it reveals about me.

When I was in my 20's and in college working towards a Bachelor's of Science in Business with a concentration in Management along with minors in Sociology and Business Law I thought seriously about getting ink. Both times I was very interested I got my right ear pierced instead. I also had another hole (just ear-ring size for all) added when I broke a toe while working on my feet all day in a retail clothing establishment. I did this because I knew that five small holes with 4 adorned with small hoops would be more acceptable to employers than a visible tattoo (I always wanted one on my left ankle). This was 20 years ago. This summer at the age of 42 (and disabled) I finally got my ink. I can no longer work, but the ink I received would not be offensive to anyone. It describes who I am spiritually (not Judeo-Christian-Muslim) and even my Southern Baptist mother in law thinks it is attractive and well done (and I explained the meaning to her).

The climate in business has been changing over the past 30 years to allow for more personal expression by their employees. Twenty years ago, multiple small ear-rings (more than 2) was being accepted by most major corporations and more finger rings were also working their way into the mainstream. I currently am a stay at home disabled mom who has started a very micro-business making fine jewelry (diamonds and other gem stones) and selling it online. Because I make jewelry, I tend to wear 5 rings (between the two hands) that I have personally made.

A person having ink is becoming more socially acceptable. Corporate America does tend to lag behind the norms of the society in making changes to allow for personal expression. I believe that my 4" x 3 1/2" tattoo on my left ankle would not hold me back if I were able-bodied and looking for work. As more and more people accept the idea that ink is a personal expression and on women is also a permanent accessory, Corporate America will relax some of their "professional appearance" requirements. I'm not saying that multiple BAD tattoos will become acceptable, but one or two visible or slightly visible well-done tattoos will be less and less frowned upon.

Whatever-231881....I agree, and a lot of others do too. If your goal in life is to flip burgers , do manual labor, etc ( nothing wrong with that either, just limited upward mobility ), then ink and pins are fine, but if you expect to move up in cororate America, you are really handicapping yourself with these self mutilations. Someone should explain this to kids in school before they do things that will hurt their earning ability for life. If you are independently wealthy you can do whatever you want, but don't expect to get far in corp America if your mutilations are very visable. No one said life is fair, reality bites, better face up to it or earn less all your life.

@SLAL: Dude! Did you write that yourself? That was pretty good!

Those of us with truly good social graces know better than to judge a person by their outward appearance, as it is not necessarily a reflection of their work ethic, morals or otherwise.

Bravo! (And this comes from someone who will NEVER get a tattoo and only has two holes in each ear! LOL)

Exactly, tattoos are a "nonconformist" uniform.

I agree and disagree with you. I agree about what you said about those who seem to have tons of tattoos yet need food stamps, etc to live. Makes no sense to me that inking up your skin is more important than food in your belly (Then again that may just speak to new rules to get the food cards/stamps/etc). I can also agree that it doesn't make a person unique anymore.

That being said, I would like a small tatto myself but it wouldn't be distasteful, distracting, or someplace where it is always displayed. It's something that I want to show a part of my likes/beliefs. I know it will be on my body permanently and it costs a good chunk of change so I have held off due to both wanting to perfect the design and making sure I have the disposable income. If I never have the amount I need: I'll never get the tattoo

Jaques - tattoos are permanent but life situations change. It is very possible that a person can get a tattoo at one stage in their lives (like say, college) and then be down and out at another (lol, like getting laid off but still having college loan debt). Same goes for body piercings - give people the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that they could have gotten the body adornment during a completely different time in their life, right?

tundraleigh, but that would require people to not make snap judgements and force them to shed their stereotypes, it seems lots of people, will never be anything but a biggot and will continue to group all people of like visual appearances together and label them this or that. Really is sad that I fought for this country, yet those that I gave my time and put my life on the line for will look at me and think I'm an outcast low life loser. I'm glad that I can raise children for the next generation to not have these shackles of hate so tightly fastened to their necks.

As a person in my 50's, I've often thought how foolish I would feel if I had a tattoo for all to see of something I thought was "cool" in my teens or 20's. I suspect there will be a huge business in the future (if not already) for tattoo removal.

As a business owner, I personally do not want publicly displayed tattoos on my employees. Same with piercings, other than ears. And please, no "gauged" ears. I can't imagine why anyone would do that, considering that once stretched, removal would mean surgery to fix the stretched skin on the ear lobe - unless you are a genuine member of an African tribe that practices this.

Jaques - tattoos are permanent but life situations change.

This is a true story.

My wife & I were waiting on line at the local supermarket. A petite young lady was ahead of us, looking a bit antsy. She turned to us and said it was OK for us to go ahead of her. Her cart was full of stuff, so I asked if she was sure.

She said she was waiting for her boyfriend, and couldn’t pay because he had the food card. That didn’t immediately register with me, but I thanked her anyway and took her spot in line.

A minute or so later appeared her boyfriend.

Now, I’ve seen walking jokes of humanity that only a cat would drag into a public place, but by the looks of him, his particular cat was not very choosey or exceptionally well bred.

The dude looked like he fought a hermit for wearing apparel – and lost. Dirty, ill fitting clothes adorned his rather smelly frame. A frame, by the way that was covered from head to bare legs with ugly-assed tattoos. Face, neck, hands, fingers, arms… and probably places I’d rather not see, even in a fit of morbid curiosity.

It appeared his aversion to soap and water was especially poignant around his facial area – a scruffy, patchwork of blondish beard offset the greasy locks on his unkempt head.

He smiled at his young partner, and handed her the food card – the red white and blue "swipe and eat" piece of plastic - courtesy of my taxes.

Yeah, I know jobs are hard to come by, but why would anyone in their right mind even think of hiring this inked slob for anything at all? The answer is they wouldn’t – so he & his paramour qualify to eat free on me.

C’mon already. If this excuse for a citizen can afford full body tattoos, then he can afford his eats.

J100, the term "gauged" is only used by those that don't know what the hell they are talking about. Anyone that is serious about why they are stretching will NEVER use this term. I stretched my lobes because I grew up watching national geographic and I wanted to know WHY tribes did it.. not just that they did. And I will say it's the BEST thing I've ever done for myself. I've learnt (and yes this is the proper term, not learned) patience, acceptance, that going back a step doesn't mean you are not moving forward, I've been able to break through to people using my lobes, to make them understand quite easy why I've done it. None have had issues. It's only those that still are ~ists (racists, sexist, elitist, ext) that have issues with them, and even all of those, after talking with me, are over it.

My most beloved moment was when I was actually thanked by an older African man for allowing his customs to live on. I mean... that went straight to my heart. Here I was, an outsider that spent most of his life in wonderment about this procedure and I'm being thanked by someone that his customs are allowed to live on through me. That is something you can never experience unless you actually try to walk in someone elses shoes. Until then, you really don't have the right to judge.

Jacques-2757417, you are a sad sad person. What if he got those tattoos BEFORE falling on hard times? What if he just lost everything? You don't know his story, you are a biggot and should be ashamed of yourself. Passing judgment on someone you don't know. Doesn't the bible say judge not, lest you be judged yourself? I'm sick of F'n hypocrites...

MJZ, while you may have learned about stretched ears (or whatever you would prefer to call them), you seem to have learned little about tolerance for others opinions. You seem to demand we respect yours, while having none for ours. You may also want to learn to understand the words you use as well, since Jacques and I are willing to express our opinions, I do not think that makes us hypocrites.

MJ I like those initials but that's another story Anyway I agree 100% these holier than thou folks are so judgmental, I live in a small town in TX talking about some stereotyping Rednecks. Unless you wear a ten gallon hat and some Sh*t Kicking boots and a belt buckle the size of a VW hubcap you are considered a freak, drug user...etc. I don't have any tat's or piercings and don't have issues with those that do. Try talking to some of these folks probably the most engaging and helpful people you will ever meet. But instead of seeing what's on the inside they go by one's physical appearance which is SAD. I constantly got hassled called names etc.. because I always had long hair as a teenager and that is a guarantee you will be labeled as a drug user. When the GQ Aqua Velva looking guys were the ones doing the drugs and getting all the DUI's. These antiquated, redneck, propaganda believing narrow minded hypocrites will be around for awhile until they all DIE OFF and that won't be soon enough.

J100,thank you for helping me prove my point by your offense to my statment. No one likes to be pre-judged. I through in a pre-judgement that you both must be hypocrites... I don't know you, any of you, nor do you know me, nor do any of you know those you are pre-judging.

MJZeigler

tundraleigh, but that would require people to not make snap judgements

You mean the kind of snap judgments that result in tattoos or ill-advised piercings?

(BTW, the past tense of the word throw is spelled "threw." Not "through." And, yes, this is the proper term. Seems you might have learnt that by now, you being so smart and all.)

Piercings can be removed -- and I certainly hope would be removed -- long before a person ages beyond all semblance of beauty. However, you are right on one account: tattoos will age right along with you and will lose their charms just as quickly as you will. But I guess, what does it matter at that point anyway? For most people, getting tattoos isn't about being unique, its about being yourself. Perhaps for some people, tattoos simply aren't part of who they are, and that's ok. But for others, tattoos are a way of expressing their personalities and carrying memories with them long beyond what the actual faculties of their brain will allow. And that is ok too. :)

MJZ

In English, the words "learned" and "learnt" are completely interchangeable.

In American, the word "learnt" is considered obsolete.

Thankfully, language is a living, evolving thing. If you've ever read Beowulf, you would agree with this statement.

And, since you like to point out the grammatical errors of others, you also spelled the word "bigot" incorrectly.

Regardless of your reasoning for deforming your ears, the reality is that the culture within which you live will not consider you normal.

Your defensiveness in this matter points out to us that you did not consider this fact prior to causing your deformity.

I don't judge you for stretching your earlobes. I judge you on how you've presented your character.

As the reactions of others would be easy to anticipate, the fact that you are angry and defensive about how others perceive you shows an utter lack of maturity and socialization.

But, of course, that was for what you were aiming when you stretched your ears.

I have no need for tramp stamps, piercings, or any other of that stuff. Many of my Navy pals did not understand it. Its not my thing, thats all. I saw the older Chiefs with bad sunburned skin and tats that once cost them a lot of money (usually gotten while drunk in another country) that nowadays are a source of embarassment. There is nothing like a saggy American flag that is so run away and bad that you can hardly tell what it is.

I have no problem with some ink that is minimal, and hidden for decent public. Same with some body jewelry. I even had a GF with a tongue stud - I sure as heck didn't complain about that.

I think that the 'over the top' types are the "I'm special, I'm a non-conformist" and all of that mess. Do it if you want to, but don't expect me to treat you as some sort of specialty. I know who I am, and that I'm unique - I do not need some ink to prove it.

Do it if you want to, but don't expect me to treat you as some sort of specialty. I know who I am, and that I'm unique - I do not need some ink to prove it.

That is exactly how i feel...thanks for posting

Do it if you want to, but don't expect me to treat you as some sort of specialty. I know who I am, and that I'm unique - I do not need some ink to prove it.

That is exactly how i feel...thanks for posting

Do it if you want to, but don't expect me to treat you as some sort of specialty. I know who I am, and that I'm unique - I do not need some ink to prove it.

That is exactly how i feel...thanks for posting

delete

delete

sorry about the multiple posts it would not post then it did xo left computer on and now it is working weird.

delete

delete

When they see the US Navy on your resume, the tatoos probably take on a whole new meaning for them. You looks less like a redneck with bad judgement and more like Steve McGarret on the new Hawaii Five-O.

Even if i wanted a tattoo. which i don't not buying one allows me more cash for all those nice coffee mugs they sell at the exchange. Different styles come out often and there not sold everywhere.

Kent-I'm a former squid who made a couple of WestPac cruises on the USS Ranger (CVA-61). I have a tattoo of an old time sailing ship on my left shoulder (went to Kowloon a couple of times). My upper arms are decorated, also. For clarification purposes, the tattoos came after my time in the Navy; I used the GI Bill to put myself through college (earned a Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice).

Congrats on getting that Master's degree. That is no small accomplishment.

Me, I would like to get another tattoo (right shoulder) and could care less what the "corporate look" is. And yes, I am employed. I think that I get more reactions to my hair which I keep in a braid (reaches almost to my waist). The tattoos are mostly hidden under the shirt sleeves.

Keep up the good work, Kent. Good post.

That's the issue, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm a veteran, but I do not have any service related tattoos, my tattoos however do mark events in my life and mean a great deal to me. You either have to learn to look past the skin color and adornment and see the real person inside, or you don't. But you cannot do both.

MJ, except that you choose these colors and this way of presenting yourself so in the case of tattoos and peircing they do reflect on the person inside as you put it.

I've had a wealth of experiences all over the planet that have made me the person I am - for better or worse. I don't have any need to advertise those or carry souvenirs of those experiences or events with me to display to people who neither understand nor care.

If your experiences are meaningful enough, they'll be within you - not an ink stain on you.

I don't see any reason to have a tattoo as it is another way for the police to ID me if the police decide I am on some wanted list.

I respectfully disagree. All of my tattoos are easily covered up. And many of them are on my shoulders, and are not seen by anyone else. And that is ok. Because I did not get them for anyone else. I got them for me. And all of them have a very strong personal meaning to me. I feel the same way about the multitude of piercings that I have. I would say that 90% of the time I do not wear clothing that would allow my body art to show. Because people do judge. I try not to share my pearls with the swine.

Same here BeamServer, all my ink is coverable, but I am very proud of my custom artwork. My lobes are not coverable being stretched to 1 5/8ths of an inch. But let us not forget that merely 30 years ago, if you had long hair as a male you would not be given a job, yet no I see CEO's with pony tails. It's just a matter of time until we get accepted for our skills not our outward appearance. I know that I'm bringing my kids up to look past skin color, be that by birth or by personal choice to change it. But it still comes down to.. my skin color is my skin color, even if it's green,black,blue,orange,red,yellow,black,white,uv it's still the color of my skin and last I checked, you cannot discriminate against skin color.

@ Sarg: I totally agree. In fact, I feel the same way about the T-shirts. If H-D Motorcycles, Budweiser, or any other company wants me to do their advertising, they can PAY me. At the very least, they can GIVE me the T-shirt for FREE. Otherwise, no deal. I'm damn sure not tattooing their logo or name on my body at my expense!

If God would have wanted me to have a tattoo he would have given me a birthmark.

Does he stop your hair or nails from growing? No? Then why do you cut them if that is not his plan? Does he have you come from the womb wearing clothing? No? Then why wear it? And in wearing that clothing, why do you choose different colors and styles? Is it because of preference/free will - of which God also instilled....

I could literally go on all day...When you take one idea/one verse/one passage, you are not creating a correct image of what the Christian God is...God gave you hate, but he also gave you compassion and acceptance too....

Its the same with the other corporate no-nos . Honesty , Integrity and ethics . Soooo 1950s .

You are exactly correct. A happy employee is a productive employee. However, if that employee appears to be unprofessional because of the tattoos, then you risk giving the wrong impression to a paying customer. Without customers there are no need for jobs. The more progressive companies like Google or Apple market to a different demographic than the standard "tight ass" company who legitimately risk alienating a key portion of their customer base with what could be considered un-professional attire.

While happy employees are more productive, happy customers assure the success of the business. If you are in the service industry, you need to make sure you do not offend the customer. While you are free to disagree with the customer (and me), if the customer is offended by the ink or piercings he or she may not return. As a tattooed and pierced happy, productive employee, you may still be having a negative effect on the business.

For every Google or Apple, there are thousands of "tight ass" companies. You may criticize if you wish, but it doesn't change their dress code/appearance requirements. Ultimately, it's not about you, it is about the success of the business.

Not to mention that "happy employees" includes those employees who may find tattoos unprofessional or otherwise objectionable.

I'd have a hard time working with or around someone who was unable to refrain from having lightening bolts tattooed on their face or whose earlobes were artificially stretched to their shoulders. . .

I bet you are delightful to be around and (gasp) work with. I find it objectionable (and quite miserable) to have to work with people that want me to live by their narrow minded, judgemental, and general snobbish standards. Hey bud, live and let live. No one is forcing you to get tattooed. Why are you so passionate about hating it anyway? Your negative comments are all over this forum...psycho.

I don't think you'd ever have to worry about working around me or people like me. I had to have an actual education and some cred's to get my job. You'd never have to worry about working for me as it sounds highly unlikely your resume would even find its way to my desk.

I don't really hate tattoos. I actually wanted one. When I was 16. Now I'm all grown up and have a real job.

What I have a problem with is people - apparently like yourself - who think that everyone except themselves should overlook appearances and accept people for qualities that are generally unknown and unknowable until a relationship has been established.

I don't hate tattoos, psycho. I actually wanted one once. When I was 16. But, now I'm all grown up and have a real job.

What I have a problem with are people - evidently like yourself - who believe that everyone but themselves should overlook outward appearances and accept people for who they are based on qualities which are unknown and unknowable without first establishing a relationship.

Surprise, surprise - people with tattoos can be college educated too! I also had to have an education and "creds" to get the job I have. And I agree, you should get to know a person before passing any kind of judgement on them. But that completely contradicts your previous comments. I'm not going to justify why I got tattoos - it doesn't really matter to anyone else, and frankly, I don't have to explain a personal decision that literally affects no one else in any way. But I certainly do not appreciate my character (or level of education) being questioned because of my personal style. THAT, is not very intelligent my friend. And you would probably be surprised by how many people you work with that may have hidden tattoos...indeed, we walk among you.

Got tats on your face, do you?

Look back at my previous post at #8.3 and then tell me if you're offended. I think you let your emotions get the better of your judgment. I actually DO happen to work with at least one guy who has far more tats than I'd like and he happens to be one of my closest friends here. None of his are on his face or neck. All can be covered with a shirt. And, none indicate that he aligns himself with any questionable organizations or values. Do I think he was wise to get them? No. Not especially. And, frankly, he can be a little more impetuous than is good for him.

The point was that keeping employees happy doesn't mean just keeping employees who want tattoos happy. I don't particularly appreciate being characterized as narrow minded, judgemental, and general(ly) snobbish by someone who has never met me any more than you do. But, I hadn't characterized anyone prior to your jabs; I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of expecting everyone else to accept you and your preferences when you are unwilling to recognize others as just as valid.

Yeah, I'm offended, Miker, and if you find that you can't work with your fellow employees because you have problems with something that doesn't affect you, you are more than welcome to seek employment elsewhere. I'll point out on my recommendation for you that despite your degrees and creds, you were not a team player and had difficulty focusing.

Oh, and nice, "Some of my best friends have tattoos!" comment. If you have to say that, then we know you really have a problem. If you don't like being characterized as narrow-minded, judgmental, or snobbish, then stop behaving in such a narrow-minded, judgmental, snobbish fashion. You're trying to play the "intolerance of intolerance is intolerant" card and that has never worked.

Get over yourself, B-ry. And, stop voting up your own comments to make it appear that someone else actually might agree with you. That's pretty lame.

As far as finding employment elsewhere, same goes for anyone who can't accept the dress codes and other unspoken rules regarding appearance in the workplace. Except, you know, that people who can't play by the team's rules tend to not have jobs, which was the entire point of the article, wasn't it?

Can't say I'm sorry you were offended because I'm not. Now, if my comment had been directed at you and you hadn't just jumped into a conversation between two other people to insert your unsolicited remarks, that might be different.

(*chuckle*) If you didn't want the public to comment on your post, perhaps you shouldn't have made it in a public forum. "Voting up my own comments." Cute. I bet you really believe that. That's precious.

I'm sorry you are having such a hard time ignoring things that don't affect you. The point you are failing to grasp is that rules that don't accomplish anything are inappropriate. The issue is not the existence of a dress code. It's the justification for the specifics of the code. "To look professional," in and of itself, is fine, but we need to be able to discuss what that means without going into apoplexy. "Tats on your face"? "All grown up"? "Real job"? Please.

When you have decided to live up to your claim of having grown up, we'll still be here.

Sad but true. Also, a lot of guys might think a tattoo is "hot" on a girl they meet in a bar and take home for a quick shag, but a lot of guys wouldn't want their wife to have one.

(NOTE I said "a lot." Not "all.")

I agree Rick. There's nothing wrong with wearing a suit of armor around town announcing, "Hey, you don't understand. It's an expression of who I am." Well, to most of us in the business world, who you are is a dumbass, wearing a suit of armor for no real reason other than to continue to announce that you are indeed a dumbass. George and the Destroyers sang, "Get a haircut, and get a real job." All people do dumbass things, but don't expect me to hire you with a nose piercing when I have to trim my nose hair every damn day because it drives me crazy! And excuse me if your resume goes in the trash when you walk in wearing a ball cap. Don't waste my time, or yours.

Bank of America has VERY relaxed dress codes, I know for a fact as I used to work for them before I got my GOV job... and last I checked, BOA is making billions.

I seriously doubt that BoA's tellers or branch managers operate under a "very relaxed dress code."

They may be a little more liberal with regard to employees whom are never seen by customers or contacts outside the company.

There was a bank teller of Chaucers. Whose earlobes were sized like two saucers. She was fired last week, and she said with a shriek, "Am I fired for looking a whore"? Her boss led her out, and they all heard him shout, "No, it's because your ear lobes keep jamming the drawers."

SLAL - You're on a ROLL!

And not nearly a troll.

Your comments are apt

I await the next - I'm rapt!

Just curious; do you believe that nurses should not have pierced ears, then? Not trying to start anything, just want to know. I find it interesting how people differentiate between "normal" piercings and "strange" ones.

Also, what if your nurse was Indian, where it is the cultural norm for women to have pierced noses?

Normal to me is normal to me. Don't care what anyone else thinks is normal. Are the libs trying to taek away my right to my own feelings as well?

PS....tats and piercings disgust me...

Ok.. tattoo's have NOTHING to do with a sterile enviroment and if you had half a brain to fill with the truth, you would know that tattoo and piercing studios are held to a higher sterility standard than most doctors offices, clinics and exam rooms with the ONLY exception being a surgical room.

As far as piercings, I can sort of see where your idea is coming from, but the fact that a human sheds skin constantly negates your sterility concern, having your nose/ears/brows pierced does not decrease an enviroments sterility. You are simply an undereducated biggot. But hey, I'm a tattooed and pierced veteran, so I fought for your right to your opinion. The problem is, is that people are taking away others rights to express themselves as they see fit. No one gets to tell anyone what they can or can not do to their own body or what they can or can not say. Have we forgotten what this country was founded for and what liberties we value?

Actually, people with tattoos have a significantly greater chance of being infected with blood-bourne pathogens such as hepatitis.

That's why you cannot donate blood when you've had a recent tattoo.

When I worked in hospital, we were given hepatitis tests prior to being allowed patient contact, but I don't remember ever being tested again.

So, a nurse or other patient care employee could be getting new tattoos during employment, getting infected with hepatitis, then transmitting the disease to a patient.

People worry so much about HIV transmission, but hepatitis is so much more easily transmitted.

Cassivella, that's not true either. Might want to do your homework. Anyone that gets a tattoo from a department of health registered tattoo studio is exempt from the "have to way 6 months/weeks" regulations for blood donation. I know this for a fact. And anyone that gets anything injected into their skin, including flu shots at your local market are at increased risk of blood-bourne pathogens. Do some research before you make comments from a standpoint that you are a professional. Registered Tattoo and Piercing studios are held to a much higher sterility standard than 90% of your hospital rooms. I have several friends that own their own Tattoo and Piercing studios and I have family that is the head of his department at the Veterans Hospital, So I know what I'm talking about as well.

Given the number of people who have contracted hepatitis from dirty tattoo needles. . . I'd have to pass on a nurse with a bunch of tat's. Interestingly, you don't see a lot of people mentioning actual DOCTORS with tattoos.

(Head of any department at a VA hospital is not exactly glowing endorsement of anyone's credentials. Being merely related to someone who is the head of "a department" at a VA hospital is even less meaningful.)

@Miker - Per the World Health Organization: "Hepatitis A and E are typically caused by ingestion of contaminated food or water. Hepatitis B, C and D usually occur as a result of parenteral contact with infected body fluids. Common modes of transmission for these viruses include receipt of contaminated blood or blood products, invasive medical procedures using contaminated equipment and for hepatitis B transmission from mother to baby at birth, from family member to child, and also by sexual contact." For some reason - they left out dirty tattoo needles as a main cause...

@All - Many Hepatitis outbreaks in the tattoo world were because of lax or absolute absence of tattoo/piercing regulation. The act of tattooing was illegal in some states as recent as 2006. Until the laws were passed, people were receiving tattoos in home shops that were not regulated and the actual act of tattooing was illegal. Because it was illegal – there were no public knowledge classes about blood borne illnesses that could result from tattoos or proper sterilization techniques. In states that regulate tattoo and piercing facilities there is no wait to donate blood. ONLY in states that DO NOT regulate is there a 12 month waiting period. (PS: People with colds cannot donate for a certain time period and some foreign travel also makes you ineligible for a time.) I know this because of research and the fact that I both worked at a tattoo shop after the law was passed in my state after the regulations were put in place and volunteer for the Red Cross...

I feel that a lot of people are passing on incorrect information and therefore continuing the harmful stigma that has been tied to tattoos and the world of tattooing. It takes five minutes on snopes.com, redcrossblood.org, who.int to figure out that most of these posters are very ignorant by choice. Just because something is floating through your head doesn't mean you should share it with the world. It's irresponsible.

MJZ,

As a health professional with a doctorate, I think I have a much better idea of the health consequences of tattoos than you or your friends who own a tattoo parlour.

Perhaps you should do your homework before you start insinuating that people who are much better educated than you are not informed.

You thinking something a fact does not make it so.

Nearly half of the states in the U.S., as well as most countries in the world, do not register Tattoo parlours.

Should we really ask our healthcare providers to show us proof that their tattoos were done in one of the very few geographic areas on Earth where there just happens to be a small amount of regulation?

If you are in a state without licensing for tattoo parlours, even if you received your tattoo at a regulated parlour, you will still be asked to not give blood at the Red Cross.

Why don't we take the Red Cross's word at it, instead of yours?

"Wait 12 months after a tattoo if the tattoo was applied in a state that does not regulate tattoo facilities. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis. Learn more about hepatitis and blood donation.

"Acceptable if the tattoo was applied by a state-regulated entity using sterile needles and ink that is not reused. There are 32 states that currently regulate tattoo facilities. You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation."

@jg626: From the Mayo Clinic. You may not be familiar with them or their work. The are, after all, just a small, relatively unknown facility.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/tattoos-and-piercings/MC00020

@Miker - I don't understand your point? All of those things are common complications or hazards of ANY type of injection or invasive procedure or injury. Any time the skin barrier is compromised there are risks. You say these are the risks? Allergic reactions: This is your body's natural reaction to anything foreign...You can have an allergic reaction to dust big guy. Skin infections and keloid scars can occur on any break in the skin or large injury. Bloodborne diseases: Per the CDC (big, well known group of pretty smart people...) you can be exposed to blood through needlestick AND other sharps injuries, mucous membrane, and skin exposures. MRI complications: A person can develop complications from the VERY DYES they use in the MRI process...

You may want to click a few more times on that Mayo Clinic site....maybe you missed that Hepatitis A is spread primarily through food or water contaminated by an infected person. So every time you go out to eat, you run the risk. But like one person said earlier - people are more accepting of their waitress having tattoos vs their DR. Who do you think out of those two practices sanitation properly...

Just think of all the people with no tattoos that don't wash their hands after they use the bathroom or how many door knobs they touch after sneezing on their hands. Or what other disgusting things they do but you have no way of knowing they are disgusting because they aren't branded with offensive or visible ink!!! Give me a break... Stop acting like people with tattoos are so repulsive and disease infested.

The point was that statistically a nurse with tattoos was more likely to have Hepatitis B - H than a nurse without tattoos.

No one really cares too much about Hep A in the "civilized" world - it is usually self-limiting and doesn't cause life-long problems. The only time people bother to notice is when they get "bad seafood" in the Caribbean.

However, Hepatitis B, for example, can be spread simply by sharing a finger nail file.

On day one in my hospital, the blood-bourne pathogens folks came in with an insulin syringe (less than a cc - smaller than your pinky) and a 200-cc flushing syringe (over 6 ounces - or about a regular coffee cup).

They said (and note, this is based on statistics and not something suggested) that you could fill the 200cc syringe full of blood from an HIV patient, inject it into your bloodstream, and you would still only have about a 40% chance of getting HIV.

You could take the insulin syringe, use it to inject insulin into a Hepatitis B patient (which only transfers less than a drop of blood), then prick your finger - not enough to draw visible blood - and you would have about a 80% chance of getting Hep B.

So, statistically, when comparing two nurses, who presumably have similar socioeconomic lifestyles, you are more likely to get hepatitis from a nurse with tattoos than you are from a nurse without tattoos.

That said, you are more likely to get hepatitis from an IV drug abusing nurse than you are from a nurse with tattoos.

It is about level of risk.

If I were given the chance to pick between two nurses without them knowing I did the picking, I would always choose the non-tattooed nurse.

However, I wouldn't see enough risk to actually embarrass a tattooed nurse and send him/her away after he/she was already assigned to my care.

However, I probably would make sure that he/she put on clean gloves in my presence, just as I always do.

If I were immune-compromised, however, I may feel differently.

That said, you are more likely to get hepatitis from an IV drug abusing nurse than you are from a nurse with tattoos.

Quite. And, right or wrong, I'd be more inclined to assume that a tattoo-ed nurse was likely to abuse drugs than a non-tattoo-ed nurse. Simply because the willingness to have a tattoo indicates (to me) a somewhat more casual attitude toward life than my own. Apparently I'm not entitled to feel that way. But, I do. And, I will continue.

I'm not saying you're a bad, evil person unworthy of my time or attention if you have a tattoo. I have several friends with tattoos. I also have several friends who skydive and bungee jump. I don't write off friends for exercising bad judgment. Medical professionals whom I pay to take care of my health are another category altogether.

I know many very intelligent and professional people with tattoos and piercings, but they were smart enough to put them where it's not a huge distraction in the workplace. Companies that dismiss someone based on their professional appearance may be risking losing a valuable employee, but they leverage that against the risk they may lose a valuable client.

What I don't get is why people who heavily tattoo or pierce themselves complain about not being taken seriously. It's all just a matter of personal accountability, a notion that this modern society tries to tell us is no longer important. After all, the universe revolves around each of us individually, right?

The simple truth is, if you want to be taken seriously, don't make yourself look like a clown. If you want tattoos, put them somewhere where they are discreet and keep them classy. If you want piercings, put them somewhere where they aren't going to be a distraction in a professional situation.

Moderation...discretion. It sounds "reasonable". But then corporate policies, like individual tats or piercings...are not always "reasonable".

My wife, an RN...has a small dolphin tattooed on her ankle. Corporate required that she wear a bandage over her tattoo. The bandage generated more attention and concern then her small tattoo. It becomes one more avenue where corporate america can dictate and define social "norm" and convention.

When speaking about "moderation"...for every person who is "offended" by a tattoo or piercing...there is another who appreciates the art or adornment. Then there are the bulk in the middle who don't give a flip one way or the other.

The difficulty lies in the definition of "tasteful" and "moderation". The easy answer is to impose a black and white zero tolerance policy. Reality is..."life, living and the pursuit of happiness" is a "gray" spectrum.

Stupid question perhaps, but why couldn't she just wear slacks and trouser socks? This coming from another woman who works in a corporation.

Huh? Why does a doctor's appearance affect his ability to perform surgery?

Brian: I'm only attempting to explain this as an exercise in clarifying my own position on it - not to persuade you.

The simple answer is: It doesn't. A tattoo does not affect anyone's ability to do anything. It simply reflects an attitude, an outlook, an intentional outward presentation which many people consider "unprofessional." It is suggestive of the sort of devil-may-care, live-for-today attitude that most people would find very objectionable in a doctor. Or a banker. Or financial manager. Or any of a number of other professional or pseudo-professionals.

Doesn't mean that's really how they are. But, if you see someone wearing a crucifix, do you not presume them to be a Catholic and a believer in at least the basic tenets of the Catholic church? If you see someone wearing a wedding ring, do you not presume them to be married and to hold certain attitudes about their relationship to their spouse and others? If you see someone wearing a turban, do you not presume them to be a Sikh? Etc. The fact is, despite their becoming trendy, many people in the upper levels of corporations associate tattoos with ex-cons, bikers, and other people who would not generally make good employees.

Not saying that's right. But, I'd rather be employed than "right." Does that make me a brown nose kiss ass? Hardly. It makes me. . . well. . . employed, for one thing. And, I'd rather have a job than a tattoo.

...Except it doesn't.

Or doesn't that matter? No, I don't presume that somebody wearing a crucifix is Catholic. Lots of non-Catholics were such jewelry. For all I know, it was an heirloom the person likes.

I presume someone wearing a wedding ring on the appropriate finger is married, but I wouldn't presume to think anything about what that means for them. After all, Ms. Kardashian was married for two-and-a-half months. Am I really supposed to presume something about the "seriousness" by which someone enters marriage just because they have a ring on?

As for turbans, there's a lot more to it than that. Since we're talking about doctors, I just might presume the wearer is undergoing chemotherapy. Or if we're in certain areas of the country, a rich socialite.

You presume that being employed and being right are mutually exclusive and seem to be trying to shut down the discussion that would allow us to be both.

I applaud that you acknowledge that the tattoos and piercings do not define you, as anyone who takes the time to know you would most likely find out. However, in the professional business world, it is more often than not that a customers snap decision of your company's abilities can and will be based on the half second that the customer sees an employee's appearance. Sure, if they got to know the individual for their abilities, it might change their mindset, but it hardly gets to that point. It isn't a sound factor to base a business decision on, and it doesn't make it right; however, it happens and employers have every right to decide to not hire someone based on that individuals decisions on their appearance, unlike a company's inability to hire someone based on gender, race or religion.

Beam, I'm with you on this. I tell all my friends that want ink to make sure they REALLY want it, to make sure it's personal, to make sure that it's "them" and not just some flash off the wall. It's the "lick and stick" folks that make those of us that are serious look bad. I have several friends that are tattoo artists, and all of them have zero flash in their studio, if you want something, it's going to be custom. I've seen more than my share of people that want something quick and for the wrong reasons turned away. Good art isn't cheap and cheap art isn't good.

My ink on the outside of my left ankle/calf area is custom. I brought a picture of a piece of jewelry for reference and a piece of flash also only for reference (I didn't want the flash exactly, but it was the best representation of what I wanted that I could find) and my artist and I came up with my personal flash together. I guarantee nobody else has the same ink that I have. I thought about my design for over a year and continually tinkered with it until I had the design firmly in my mind before I went to a studio that had been recommended to me by more than one person. My artist took the needles out of the steri-pack (think IV needle or syringe packets at the Dr's office) and poured small amounts of ink into individual disposable containers to use.

My ink is very personal to me. When I explained the symbolism behind my ink to the artist who was my partner in making the design, he expressed that he liked it and asked questions about what was behind it. It describes my spirituality as well as my heritage as a Celtic-Native American (both of which have their own inked history).

My advice to people who want to get ink is to THINK about what they want for at least six months to make sure that 1) they actually understand that it is permanent 2) they really want a permanent body modification, 3) the design is EXACTLY what they want. I have more respect for people who have more unique designs than those who have the "pick and stick" types. I personally would never have ink on my neck or my face - I like them just fine the way that they are. I personally would never stretch my ear lobes, but I don't pass judgement on those who do.

I see how the tats are conversation starters, an opportunity to tell her story, to express her feelings.

A bit like the gushy poetry written by angst-filled teenagers. . . Or the "R.I.P. So-and-So" decals on the back windows of cars.

That makes no sense. How can being so comfortable with yourself that you don't mind letting the world in on your inner life be a sign of "insecurity"? On the contrary, it's proof positive that the person is completely at ease.

It's when you hide yourself from the world that you show you are insecure.

Just like teenagers who are so "at ease" that they feel the need to gush their "inner selves" for all to see. . . yeah, very mature and centered. Some people are secure enough about who they are that they don't need to wear their hearts on their sleeves and beg the world to love them for it.

I never said otherwise. You are arguing against a strawman.

What was asked of you was how one could interpret someone being so comfortable with themselves that they have no problem with letting the world see their joy as a sign of "insecurity."

There are lots of ways a person can be secure in their person. I'm confused why being open and honest is being touted as "insecure."

JG, by the defined "codes" above, Jesus couldn't get a job these days. And to think, if, as many thing, he will return, they didn't have soap when he was alive, it wasn't invented yet, neither was deoderant. If Jesus were to show up walking the streets, people would just assume he was a homeless person and pay no attention.

If you feel that a doctor that has tattoos and has completed more years of college than most of these posters have completed in any type of schooling are unprofessional. . .

As yet, I've seen a lot of posts on here from nurses. But not a single one by a doctor who claims to have a tattoo. . .

@MJZ - Precisely. Why say you follow a man's words when you would judge him in this day as unprofessional in appearance and as someone you would turn away from healing you...

@Miker – What does a doctor have to prove to any of you? They have gone to school for years, are perfecting treatments, and healing people indiscriminately while you are posting on boards about people with tattoos. I would love to see just ONE poster on here turn down a doctor in the midst of an emergency. "Help, my wife is with child and we were in a car accident and she and the baby could die!!...wait!! Don't you touch her Doctor, you have a tattoo!! Nurse!! WAIT YOU HAVE A TATTOO TOO! " Ya, I really see that going down. Give me a break.

The point being that I seriously doubt that's a decision any of us would ever need to make. Because I've never seen or met or been treated by a doctor who had a visible tattoo. And, to further the point, there is probably a reason for that.

As far as what doctors are doing while we're posting on comment boards, keep in mind that it's Wednesday. The day that, historically, most doctors played golf.

Those without tattoo's can not and will not be able to understand those that do.

Did everyone with a tattoo get it for good reasons? Of course not, the reason's vary greatly.

Every group has members that define the group as well as those that give that group a bad name. This goes for every single defineable group in the world.

The fact alone that someone would judge someone else at sight alone is just sad, and shows if nothing else, that Humans just still don't get it.

Tattoo-ing is ancient. The only thing remotely "new" about it is its fad-status in our society.

Unlike being black, having a tattoo is a conscious decision. What most of the negative comments about tattoos are really addressing is not the tattoo itself but the mindset or attitude represented by it.

I'd argue that as long as people remain human animals, there will always be preconceptions about others based on appearance. It's a pre-programmed instinct of survival and self-preservation.

Indeed - tattooing, scarification, and all manner of body-modification are not only ancient traditions, but also (were) highly regarded and respected, as these became recognized as marks of great bravery, heroism, honor and distinction.

And while yes, there IS a difference between how one is born and what choices one makes, it is the similarity in attitudes I use as the basis for comparison.

And yes, in today's day and age, much of the tradition, ritual and meaning behind tattooing and body-modification has been lost. A "Tweety Bird" on your tailbone could never hope to rise to the recognition as a mark of honor - though it could serve as a warning to a potential mate... ;-)

Much of the negativity associated with these art forms, and forms of expression come from older generations - largely conservative (and sadly often very narrow-minded) upbringings perpetuating the connotations associated with them.

And I have no doubt many of those who have a modification have gotten them in their youth, with little thought to their seemingly distant futures and careers, and are now paying an undue price for the folly of youth.

And while most of us do not think of the human as an animal, you're pretty dead-on, Miker. And yet it is the clinging to these instincts that, in many ways, holds the race back from being able to advance and evolve socially.

Someday, maybe, but we're definitely not there yet.

Indigo: You raise a very interesting point and I think you've helped me identify another thing that I find troubling about tattoos. As you say, in days gone by tattoos were earned - not bought. I have a problem with buying things that should be earned. Like the Fender guitars you can get now that - for an extra $200 or so - look like they've been on the road for 10 years or more. Or the jeans that - for an extra $30 or so - look like they've been around. When they haven't. It's a form of dishonesty to me.

I am probably one of those somewhat older, definitely more conservative, and admittedly slightly narrower-of-mind folks who tend to associate tats primarily with prison, gangs, etc. OR, in a more positive light, military service. To me, if you haven't "been there," you shouldn't wear the badge that indicates you have. Again, as you say, that's a product of my upbringing and the facts in play when I came up. But, on that point I would argue that this doesn't invalidate MY point of view in the face of other points of view. (Not an argument directed at you, Indigo, but certainly an argument apropos to other posts on this board.)

Tattooed/Pierced
is not the "new 'black'". Miker-3057253 has it right: Getting a tattoo is a choice. Being black is something out of a person’s
own control.

If someone chooses to not hire you because they disagree with your
choice of getting a tattoo – that is quite different than someone choosing to
not hire you because of the color of your skin.
The former is within a hiring manager’s discretion just as the
tattooing/piercing is usually at the discretion of the tattooed/pierced. The latter will subject the hiring manager to
a discrimination lawsuit because it is, in our society, unacceptable to use
skin color as a means of choosing employees.

Tattoos and piercings are symbols that have meaning. Because all
meaning is context dependent, the meaning changes context as the environment
around the display of the symbol changes. The same piercing or tattoo may have a positive
meaning in one context and different, even opposite, meaning in a different
context. Unfortunately, many people,
especially the young and/or under-educated, fail to realize that, like anything
else where we exercise choice, others may not like our choice and that my limit
our opportunities. Most choices can be
undone. At this time, unfortunately, the
cost and risk of tattoo removal is prohibitive.

Tattoos and piercings make it more difficult to follow that age
old wisdom regarding cultures: When in
Rome, do as the Romans do. To put it
into more useable terms, if you want to be part of a culture you are going to
have to dress and act like part of that culture. Oh, there is the rare exception where a
person is so highly skilled or talented that his/her deviance from the cultures
norms is tolerated because he/she has something the culture fancies or needs. It is unfortunate that many more people find
themselves excluded from cultures based upon past choices rather than current
desire.

While reading this article and the responses, I could not help but
think of this article that was on MSNBC’s home page, just yesterday: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45095048/ns/today-today_health/t/reformed-skinhead-endures-agony-remove-tattoos. I strongly suspect this man would counsel
others to only get tattoos that could be easily hidden wearing a polo shirt and
shorts.

I am a Veteran. I served overseas in time of imminent danger. I qualify to join the Veterans of Foreign
Wars. I am member of the American
Legion. I went served in the Army
Reserves and the active duty Navy. I
have travelled the world. I have lived
in two countries, outside of the Americas for more than a year each. I think some ink is beautiful art and other
just detracts from the art that was already there. By choice, to date, I have no tattoos or
piercings though I reserve the right to do with my body as I please – knowing full
well that whatever choices I make, the consequences are mine.

@Miker:

No argument at all from me, I agree with you. Purchasing what should be earned only "cheapens" the item, and removes the meaning. And I agree, if you've not "been there, done that", and earned the right to a particular "badge", you shouldn't wear it, simply because you can afford it. Imitation is not always the highest form of flattery - sometimes it is demeaning when it's not meant to be.

@Alnico:

Just a touch of over-analysis - and there was a time, not really all that long ago, when signs reading "[People of this sort] need not apply" did hang in windows. Yes, laws have changed, and most of society has grown beyond that, but the underlying "I'm not hiring someone" based on appearance, rather than merit remains the same.

Somewhere along the line in my military career I read a "guideline" which has served me well in this regard:

"Extremes in grooming or dress are seldom in good taste."

So I should stick with the closeminded, hateful, judgmental, and clear skinned majority? Gotchya...Didn't realize that by going against what was the "norm" and being able to handle change in an mature manner was so bad. MAN! Who thought that idea through about ending segregation?! What a jerk face!

....

Sorry about being close minded, but it's not advisable in this world to be so different to an employer that they have the freedom not to like what they see. I suspect that most people with tattoos will be looking for ways to get rid of them in 5 to 10 years after they acquire them. In 30 years they won't look anything like the way they do now anyway.

I suspect that most people with tattoos will be looking for ways to get rid of them in 5 to 10 years after they acquire them.

I have tattoos that have been in my skin for over 8 years. They look the same as the day I got them because I take care of them. You can't just go walking around grouping everyone in this category of "post-tattoo" regret. I do not regret a single tattoo I have. There are those that will regret their tattoos because not everyone that walks this earth has a grasp on the concept or consequence of "forever" or have basic common sense.

And its ok if you are close minded. There are those of us in my generation willing to see through the BS and fight for change. There will always be "grey men" and there will always be those that stand up for their rights, beliefs, and freedoms. Just because it's the norm does not mean it is right.

The fact that you use 5 to 10 (or, specifically, 8) years as a basis for your response sort of supports some of the arguments against tattoos. Eight years is hardly the sort of timeframe people are talking about when they speak of getting older. Post again and let us know how cool you and your tats look in 35 years.

Wait. I can almost hear a chorus of replies from many (NOT ALL - MANY) tattooed folks now: But we don't plan to live that long!

Again, hardly the attitude employers are seeking. Which was the whole point of this article.

The fact that you use 5 to 10 (or, specifically, 8) years as a basis for your response sort of supports some of the arguments against tattoos. Eight years is hardly the sort of timeframe people are talking about when they speak of getting older. Post again and let us know how cool you and your tats look in 35 years.

5-10 years WAS the time frame used in the statement I quoted and responded to above. I'm actually sticking to the topic and not just reaching to make a point. 8 years is more than enough time to come to the conclusion or the feeling of regret about a tattoo - we aren't talking about needing the knowledge of 85 year old man sitting on their porch talking about the good ol days and staring at the discolored blobs on their arms.There are many people who do things that feel instant regret, so how is 8 years not long enough to feel an emotion?

Wait. I can almost hear a chorus of replies from many (NOT ALL - MANY) tattooed folks now: But we don't plan to live that long!

After reading many of your posts, I am realizing that you can not get your point across in a manner that can be understood without needing further clarification. THAT is a vital skill in todays job market... Why do you assume that people (many or all) who have tattoos have the mindset that they will not live for another 35 years? And do you know a lot of 60-80 year olds walking around in midriff bearing shirts and short skirts Miker? In 35 years, if I am wearing those types of things and trying to be "cool" - I doubt people will be judging me based on my tattoo blobs.

After reading many of your posts, I am realizing that you can not get your point across in a manner that can be understood without needing further clarification.

Yeah, you're right. I often make the mistake of assuming people can and will actually READ. Yet, there's always someone who comes along to remind me that I'm incorrect in many cases. Fortunately, most of the people I deal with at work are highly educated so it's not an issue.

You simply made my point for me. Many people with tattoos are not long-term thinkers. I know plenty of 60-year olds who prefer to wear short-sleeve shirts when it's 95 degrees in the shade - but whose oh-so-cool when they were 20 tattoo-ed forearms look a bit sorry and depressing now.

Miker,

Nice name ya got there! I can see your sense of morality doesn't include using your real name. Probably afraid of that inevitable bullet in your back, being the brown-nosing kiss-a$$ you obviously are. Just because you and corporate America are a bunch of bigots (are tattoos allowed if they are a registration number like the Nazi's put on the Jews). Yes, I am accusing you and corporate America of being no better than the Nazis. "If they're not like us, they must be bad, stupid, or not worthy of your precious time." Works for me! I'd just as soon spit in your face as work for or in the same company you work for (if bending over is considered work).

Kiss my rosy red! You are the exact reason that I question the 20 years I gave to my country, preserving the freedom of a$$holes like you.

Charles: Only an idiot would use his real name - including surname - on the Internet. It's not a question of morality. It's a question of wisdom. You may notice that even people who disagree with me on every other single issue would agree with me on that one.

LOL. I get accused of a lot of things at work, but being a brown nose kiss ass isn't one of them! You'd be hilarious. Except that you're so sad. I'm a nazi and an a55hole because - well, because of what? Because I'm willing to state why tattoos are often viewed in a negative light? You may also note that I really haven't come out all that strongly against tattoos. I don't happen to like them, but I'm not nearly as pig-headed about my position as you and many others are about defending them.

Don't think you'll need to worry about working for the company I work for. If you managed to get hired, you wouldn't last long with your attitude.

@Miker - Attacking my intelligence, work status, or ability to read is illogical as you are obviously ignorant to who I am outside of this comment page. However, gauging only by your posts, it is reasonable for any reader to come to the conclusion that your inability to participate in a mature adult conversation and remain on topic without insulting others could perhaps be caused by your failure to properly socialize yourself beyond the world of comment trolling.

You believe that people with disgusting mutilations will never make it as far in life or in their career as you have... yet you have stated that you "work" with at least one person who has numerous tattoos. So from your previous posts I'm guessing you work in a filthy, inane, hepatitis infested environment full of rash, deadbeat, uneducated drug users who somehow managed to get the same education and "creds" as you??!