# Parents tattoo kids....



## Bob Hubbard

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/01/04/dnt.parents.tattoo.kids.wtvc

"Police say a couple tattooed their children with home-made device. WTVC reports." - CNN


I don't know what the law is in that part of Georgia, but in NY its illegal to tattoo anyone under 18, and no reputable tattoo artist will do it.  I've got 3 clients who run shops and we've discussed the law in depth.

http://www.everytattoo.com/newyorklaw.shtml Copy of statute posted here (not a client of mine)


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> ATLANTA, GA &#8211; A couple in Georgia have been arrested for tattooing their six children at home!
> Patty Jo Marsh and Jacob Bartels said their children wanted tattoos like they have. So they decided to tattoo 6 of their 7 children, ages 10 to 17, at home!
> After receiving a tattoo machine from a friend, they fixed it up and used guitar strings as a needle. After Thanksgiving, they put small cross tattoos on all but the youngest child.
> &#8220;They weren&#8217;t hurt by them,&#8221; said Marsh. &#8220;We would never do anything to hurt them.&#8221;
> Regardless of how the children felt, it is illegal for anyone besides a license professional to tattoo in Georgia. Children under the age of 18 are prohibited outright.


http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/14817/parents-tattoo-kids/



> "I'm their mother," Marsh said. "Shouldn't I be able to decide if they get one?"
> Under Georgia state law, children under the age of 18 cannot get tattoos and no tattoos can be given by anyone other than a licensed professional.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010...efend-giving-kids-tattoos/UPI-24061262542264/


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Georgia Tattoo Law
http://tattoojoy.com/tattoo_laws/united_states,georgia,1.htm



> *State Of Georgia*
> 
> 
> *GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA*
> 
> *03 LC 33 0018
> 
> House    Bill 183
> By: Representative Borders of    the 142nd
> 
> 
> **A BILL TO  BE ENTITLED
> AN ACT* *
> 
> To amend    Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to    offenses against public health and morals, so as to expand the exception to    the misdemeanor of tattooing near the eye when performed by an osteopath or a    technician under the supervision of a licensed physician or osteopath; to    provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal    conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
> 
> **BE IT  ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
> 
> 
> SECTION 1.* *
> Chapter    12 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to offenses    against public health and morals, is amended by striking Code Section 16_12_5,    relating to tattooing any person near his or her eye, in its entirety and    inserting in its place the following:
> 
> 16_12_5.
> (a) As used in this Code    section, the term 'tattoo' means to mark or color the skin of any person by    pricking in, inserting, or implanting pigments, except when performed by a    physician licensed as such pursuant to Chapter 34 of Title 43.
> (b) It shall be unlawful for    any person, except a physician or osteopath licensed under Chapter 34 of    Title 43 or a technician acting under the general supervision of such licensed    physician or osteopath, to tattoo the body of any person within any area    within one inch of the nearest part of the eye socket of such person. Any    person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
> 
> **SECTION 2.* *
> This Act    shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming    law without such approval.
> 
> **SECTION 3.**
> All laws and parts of laws in conflict with    this Act are repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> *  16-5-71 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 16-5-71. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to *tattoo* the body of any person under the age of 18, except that a physician or osteopath licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43, or a technician acting under the direct supervision of such licensed physician or osteopath, and in compliance with Chapter 9 of Title 31 shall be authorized to mark or color the skin of any person under the age of 18 by pricking in coloring matter or by producing scars for medical or cosmetic purposes. (b) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
> 
> 16-12-5 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 16-12-5. (a) As used in this Code section, the term "*tattoo*" means to mark or color the skin of any person by pricking in, inserting, or implanting pigments, except when performed by a physician licensed as such pursuant to Chapter 34 of Title 43. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to *tattoo* the body of any person within any area within one inch of the nearest part of the eye socket of such person. Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
> 
> 31-40-2 G *** CODE SECTION ***  10/15/99        31-40-2.        It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a *tattoo* studio   without having first obtained a valid permit for such studio.  Such   permits shall be issued by the county board of health or its duly   authorized representative, subject to supervision and direction by   the Department of Human Resources but, where the county board of   health is not functioning, the permit shall be issued by the   department. A permit shall be valid until suspended or revoked and   shall not be transferable with respect to person or location.
> 
> 31-40-5 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 31-40-5. (a) The Department of Human Resources and county boards of health shall have the power to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to ensure the protection of the public health. Such rules and regulations shall prescribe reasonable standards for health and safety of *tattoo* studios with regard to: (1) Location and cleanliness of facilities; (2) Sterilization and Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines for the prevention and spread of infectious diseases by all personnel; (3) Informed consent by the person receiving a *tattoo*; (4) Procedures for ensuring adequate explanation to consumers of the proper subsequent care of a *tattoo*; and (5) Proper use and maintenance of *tattoo* equipment, including dyes and pigments. (b) County boards of health are empowered to adopt and promulgate supplementary rules and regulations consistent with those adopted and promulgated by the department.
> 
> 31-40-6 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 31-40-6. The Department of Human Resources and the county boards of health and their duly authorized agents are authorized and empowered to enforce compliance with this chapter and the rules and regulations adopted and promulgated under this chapter and, in connection therewith, to enter upon and inspect the premises of a *tattoo* studio at any reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, as provided in Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title.
> 
> 31-40-7 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 31-40-7. Any person, firm, or corporation operating a *tattoo* studio without a valid permit or performing *tattoo*ing outside of a licensed *tattoo* studio shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
> 
> 31-40-8 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 31-40-8. The Department of Human Resources is authorized and directed to develop and institute a program of public education for the purpose of alerting the public to the possible side effects and exposure risks of *tattoo*ing.
> 
> 31-40-9 G *** CODE SECTION *** 10/15/99 31-40-9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the governing authority of any county or municipality may enact more stringent laws governing *tattoo*ing.
> 
> 
> *Georgia Code
> TITLE 31 HEALTH
> CHAPTER 40 TATTOO STUDIOS
> *
> 
> *31-40-1. Definitions.*
> 
> As used in this chapter, the term:
> 
> (1) "Tattoo" means to mark or color the skin by pricking in, piercing, or        implanting indelible pigments or dyes under the skin.
> 
> (2) "Tattoo artist" means any person who performs tattooing, except        that the term tattoo artist shall not include in its meaning any        physician or osteopath licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43, nor shall it        include any technician acting under the direct supervision of such        licensed physician or osteopath, pursuant to subsection (a) of Code        Section 16-5-71.
> 
> (3) "Tattoo studio" means any facility or building on a fixed foundation        wherein a tattoo artist performs tattooing.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> *31-40-2. Issuance of permits.
> *
> It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a tattoo studio without        having first obtained a valid permit for such studio. Such permits shall        be issued by the county board of health or its duly authorized        representative, subject to supervision and direction by the Department of        Human Resources but, where the county board of health is not functioning,        the permit shall be issued by the department. A permit shall be valid        until suspended or revoked and shall not be transferable with respect to        person or location.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> *31-40-5. Rules and regulations.*
> 
> (a) The Department of Human Resources and county boards of health shall have the  power to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to ensure the protection of  the public health. Such rules and regulations shall prescribe reasonable  standards for health and safety of tattoo studios with regard to:
> 
> (1) Location and cleanliness of facilities;
> 
> (2) Sterilization and Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines  for the prevention and spread of
> infectious diseases by all personnel;
> 
> (3) Informed consent by the person receiving a tattoo;
> 
> (4) Procedures for ensuring adequate explanation to consumers of the proper  subsequent care of a tattoo; and
> 
> (5) Proper use and maintenance of tattoo equipment, including dyes and  pigments.
> 
> (b) County boards of health are empowered to adopt and promulgate supplementary  rules and regulations consistent with those adopted and promulgated by the  department.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-5, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> * 31-40-6. Enforcement of chapter; inspection of premises.
> *
> The Department of Human Resources and the county boards of health and their duly  authorized agents are authorized and empowered to enforce compliance with this  chapter and the rules and regulations adopted and promulgated under this chapter  and, in connection therewith, to enter upon and inspect the premises of a tattoo  studio at any reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, as provided in Article  2 of Chapter 5 of this title.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> *31-40-7. Criminal penalty.
> *
> Any person, firm, or corporation operating a tattoo studio without a valid  permit or performing tattooing outside of a licensed tattoo studio shall be  guilty of a misdemeanor.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-7, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> *31-40-8. Public education  program.*
> 
> The Department of Human Resources is authorized and directed to develop and  institute a program of public education for the purpose of alerting the public  to the possible side effects and exposure risks of tattooing.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-8, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> *31-40-9. Enactment of  more stringent laws.
> *
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the governing authority of  any county or municipality may enact more stringent laws governing tattooing.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 31-40-9, enacted by Ga. L. 1994, p. 446, §§ 2.)
> 
> 
> 
> *TITLE 16 CRIMES AND OFFENSES
> CHAPTER 5 CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
> ARTICLE 5 CRUELTY TO CHILDREN*
> 
> 16-5-71. Tattooing.
> 
> (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo the body of any person under  the age of 18, except that a physician or osteopath licensed under Chapter 34 of  Title 43, or a technician acting under the direct supervision of such licensed  physician or osteopath, and in compliance with Chapter 9 of Title 31 shall be  authorized to mark or color the skin of any person under the age of 18 by  pricking in coloring matter or by producing scars for medical or cosmetic  purposes.
> 
> (b) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section  shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
> 
> (Code 1981, §§ 16-5-71, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 443, §§ 1; Ga. L. 1994, p.  446, §§ 1.)
> 
> 
> 
> 48-13-9 G *** CODE SECTION ***  10/15/99
> 
> 48-13-9.
> 
> (a) A local government is authorized to require a business or   practitioner of a profession or occupation to pay a regulatory fee   only if the local government customarily performs investigation or   inspection of such businesses or practitioners of such profession or   occupation as protection of the public health, safety, or welfare or   in the course of enforcing a state or local building, health, or   safety code, but no local government is authorized to use regulatory   fees as a means of raising revenue for general purposes; provided   that the amount of a regulatory fee shall approximate the reasonable   cost of the actual regulatory activity performed by the local   government.
> 
> (b) Examples of businesses or practitioners of professions or   occupations which may be subject to regulatory fees of local   governments include, but are expressly not limited to, the   following:
> 
> (1) Building and construction contractors, subcontractors, and     workers;
> (2) Carnivals;
> (3) Taxicab and limousine operators;
> (4) *Tattoo* artists;
> (5) Stables;
> (6) Shooting galleries and firearm ranges;
> (7) Scrap metal processors;
> (8) Pawnbrokers;
> (9) Food service establishments;
> (10) Dealers in precious metals;
> (11) Firearms dealers;
> (12) Peddlers;
> (13) Parking lots;
> (14) Nursing and personal care homes;
> (15) Newspaper vending boxes;
> (16) Modeling agencies;
> (17) Massage parlors;
> (18) Landfills;
> (19) Auto and motorcycle racing;
> (20) Boarding houses;
> (21) Businesses which provide appearance bonds;
> (22) Boxing and wrestling promoters;
> (23) Hotels and motels;
> (24) Hypnotists;
> (25) Handwriting analysts;
> (26) Health clubs, gyms, and spas;
> (27) Fortunetellers;
> (28) Garbage collectors;
> (29) Escort services;
> (30) Burglar and fire alarm installers; and
> (31) Locksmiths.
> (c) Examples of businesses and practitioners of professions and   occupations which local governments are not authorized to subject to   regulatory fees include, but are expressly not limited to, the   following:
> 
> (1) Lawyers;
> (2) Physicians licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43;
> (3) Osteopaths licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43;
> (4) Chiropractors;
> (5) Podiatrists;
> (6) Dentists;
> (7) Optometrists;
> (8) Psychologists;
> (9) Veterinarians;
> (10) Landscape architects;
> (11) Land surveyors;
> (12) Practitioners of physiotherapy;
> (13) Public accountants;
> (14) Embalmers;
> (15) Funeral directors;
> (16) Civil, mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical engineers;
> (17) Architects;
> (18) Marriage and family therapists, social workers, and professional counselors;
> (19) Dealers of motor vehicles, as defined in paragraph (1) of Code Section 10-1-622;
> (20) Owners or operators of bona fide coin operated amusement     machines, as defined in Code Section 48-17-1, and owners or     operators of businesses where bona fide coin operated amusement     machines are available for commercial use and play by the public,     provided that such amusement machines have affixed current     stickers showing payment of annual permit fees, in accordance with     Code Section 48-17-9;
> (21) Merchants or dealers as defined in Code Section 48-5-354 as     to their deliveries to businesses and practitioners of professions     and occupations in areas zoned for commercial use; and
> (22) Any other business, profession, or occupation for which state     licensure or registration is required by state law, unless the     state law regulating such business, profession, or occupation     specifically allows for regulation by local governments.
> (d) This Code section shall not be construed to repeal other general   laws which allow or require regulation of businesses, occupations,   or professions by local governments.


----------



## Ken Morgan

"This is crazy. This is blowed up so bad".

They're 10, 11 & 12!! You don't tattoo children!! idiots.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Ken Morgan said:


> "This is crazy. This is blowed up so bad".
> 
> They're 10, 11 & 12!! You don't tattoo children!! idiots.



More on the same story at this link. In this interview, the mother claims the needles had been changed. Needles? They used guitar strings for cryin' out loud. What screams the loudest to me in this story was the mother claiming she gave the kids tattoos because they really wanted them. That's not an argument that an adult should be making.

http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=11766612


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Wire's wire in this case. Bigger issue is, were they sterile?  I doubt it.


----------



## Archangel M

Classy!


----------



## Gary Crawford

Yup, Just another southerner makin the rest of us proud,          NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## celtic_crippler

It's illegal if you're under 18. 

These parents should be flogged.

...again... why isn't a license required to have children?


----------



## Carol

Dear God,

You may have given me trouble and strive with my parents, but you didn't give me parents such as these. 

THANK YOU.

Amen.


----------



## Carol

celtic_crippler said:


> ...again... why isn't a license required to have children?



Um...you'd trust the government to make that determination?


----------



## MA-Caver

Carol said:


> Um...you'd trust the government to make that determination?


Yeeaahh Rrrrriiiggghhht sure... 

NOT!

Stupid, low class mentality and another Foxworthy joke... "if your kids have got more tattoos than an average biker... you might be a redneck!" 

The parents need to have the same type of tattoos applied to their kids on their foreheads reading... "I AM A MORON!"... in big capital letters and written backwards so that they'll be reminded every time they look in the mirror. 

Sheesh!

It's what those kiddie temporary tattoos are for... until they get of age... but of course they probably don't have them in the art that they wanted.


----------



## stone_dragone

Carol said:


> Um...you'd trust the government to make that determination?



While I'm with Crippler on this...you raise an even bigger point!


----------



## terryl965

I cannot believe a mother is saying they wanted one and this is getting blown way out of proportion. So if her kids wanted a shootgun to take to school that would be fine because they wanted one. Some people do not deserve to be parents at all.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

terryl965 said:


> I cannot believe a mother is saying they wanted one and this is getting blown way out of proportion. So if her kids wanted a shootgun to take to school that would be fine because they wanted one. Some people do not deserve to be parents at all.


 
Yeah, and most of THEM are the ones having children.

Ladies and Gentlemen--The Future of America.


----------



## Cryozombie

I'm gonna play devils advocate here...

When my Neices and Nephews were small, their father, a tattooist, tattooed a small pattern of dots on them, which most people would overlook as freckles, but they were done as a means to identify the children if they were ever kidnapped.  

I identify with the difference between that and this case, but even so... It's their family, something that really isn't harmful to the children should probably be the parents choice, even if its a stupid one.  

And as far as "guitar string" and "needle" distinctions go... they are, for all intents and purposes the same thing.  The artificial distinction is mainly made for packaging and marketing.  whatever guage stainless wire, is whatever guage stainless wire.


----------



## Cryozombie

terryl965 said:


> I cannot believe a mother is saying they wanted one and this is getting blown way out of proportion. So if her kids wanted a shootgun to take to school that would be fine because they wanted one. Some people do not deserve to be parents at all.



There is a huge difference.  Thats like saying letting a kid take martial arts because he wants to is like giving them a nuclear bomb to take to school.

A tattoo is NOT the same as a Shotgun in school, and anyone with 1/3 of a brain knows that.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> There is a huge difference. Thats like saying letting a kid take martial arts because he wants to is like giving them a nuclear bomb to take to school.
> 
> A tattoo is NOT the same as a Shotgun in school, and anyone with 1/3 of a brain knows that.


 
Perhaps what Terry is saying is:  A kid probably isn't thinking of the future, but instead, living the moment.  The kid asks, Mom and Dad want to please him/her, perhaps they have tats as well, so...the rest is history.

But what happens down the road, if the kid wakes up one day and doesnt want it anymore?  Now he/she goes thru the long process of having it removed, and it may not fully come off.  Additionally, there are some jobs out there, that may not want tats visable.  So now, when its 90 degrees outside, the kid will have to wear long sleeves to cover the sleeve on his arm, because its not allowed at work.  

I think anyone with 1/3 of a brain would see this as well.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

And those kids got tattoos on their *hands*, which is frowned upon by many segments of society. A hand tattoo _almost_ guarantees that these kids will work minimum wage jobs their entire lives.


----------



## Blade96

Cryozombie said:


> There is a huge difference. Thats like saying letting a kid take martial arts because he wants to is like giving them a nuclear bomb to take to school.


 
I really believe you should be a certain age to start martial arts as well....like you should be a certain age to get a tat.

martial arts is combat.....and  dont think 5 or 6 years olds should be punching each other's lights out via Kumite, no?

and people pointed out the risk on tats. so i dont think I need to start that.

Sick parents. btw.


----------



## Cryozombie

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> And those kids got tattoos on their *hands*, which is frowned upon by many segments of society. A hand tattoo _almost_ guarantees that these kids will work minimum wage jobs their entire lives.



As long as people in our society continue to think that way and to be narrow minded I suppose thats true.  Because people should be judged by how they look.  Black skin, or slanted eyes or red hair and freckles, or a tattoo.


----------



## David43515

Cryozombie said:


> As long as people in our society continue to think that way and to be narrow minded I suppose thats true. Because people should be judged by how they look. Black skin, or slanted eyes or red hair and freckles, or a tattoo.


 
That`s quite a stretch. People still make judgements about tattooes because they are usually there by CHOICE. Race isn`t a choice for most of us. That being said, yes you`re right the world would be a much better place if we were less apt to make snap judgements and try to pigeon-hole people into catagories because of thier appearance. But that`s one of the things most of us do either consiously or unconsiously.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Cryozombie said:


> As long as people in our society continue to think that way and to be narrow minded I suppose thats true.  Because people should be judged by how they look.  Black skin, or slanted eyes or red hair and freckles, or a tattoo.



I had this discussions a while ago.
This is not because how they look. It is because of how they chose to look.







For example, the guys with the full facial tats chose to look like something out of a nightmare.
His choice. His consequences. People are judged by how they look AND what they are like. If a man falls in love with a woman, looks play a role as well, no?


----------



## 72ronin

,
Looks play a role to those who consider others opinions too much.
This guy in the photo, are you sure he is completely independant within his choice of exspresion?
Perhaps he has gone the extra mile to make up for something else.. Has a woman who has ruined her looks with plastic surgery gone too far?

If i cut my hair into a MoHawk tonight, i may not lose my job, but i wouldnt feel as if im just exspressing myself, i would feel as if im making a strong outward statement..

Why make such a strong outward statement? to seek something from others? 
Thats doesnt sound too independant to me.. Just my opinion.

cheers


----------



## Twin Fist

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> And those kids got tattoos on their *hands*, which is frowned upon by many segments of society. A hand tattoo _almost_ guarantees that these kids will work minimum wage jobs their entire lives.




you might wanna tell Vince Neil and Nikki Sixx that..........

a whole lot of you all need to pull the sticks out of your asses, this isnt the 60's anymore, tattoos are not just the markings of sailors, strippers, and criminals anymore, so the tattoo aspect of it is no biggie

plus, HELLO, MOST parents endorse thier kids mutilating themselves by  getting ear piercings and belly button piercings, this isnt THAT different

parents rights is not just a phrase, and here is the thing, would anyone say anything if it was a religious thing? or cultural? like the africans that do the ritual scarification?


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> you might wanna tell Vince Neil and Nikki Sixx that..........
> 
> a whole lot of you all need to pull the sticks out of your asses, this isnt the 60's anymore, tattoos are not just the markings of sailors, strippers, and criminals anymore, so the tattoo aspect of it is no biggie
> 
> plus, HELLO, MOST parents endorse thier kids mutilating themselves by getting ear piercings and belly button piercings, this isnt THAT different
> 
> parents rights is not just a phrase, and here is the thing, would anyone say anything if it was a religious thing? or cultural? like the africans that do the ritual scarification?


 
Well, if the person with the tats decides to follow in the footsteps of Vince and Nikki, then fine, but I think its safe to say that there're jobs out there, that would most likely frown upon tats that're visable and in excess.  In other words....a lawyer could most likely have tats on his arm, but when he's in court, chances are, they wont be seen.  Now, imagine that same lawyer, in a court, with tats all over his face, huge gaping holes in his ears...yeah, that'll look real professional.


----------



## Twin Fist

I get what you are saying, but there is some pretty blatant anti tattoo feeling n this thread, that bothers me as a tattooed dude.

AND like i said, parents rights are something i take seriously


----------



## Bob Hubbard

An adult should be able to do within reason what they want to themselves.  To their kids is a much narrower line though.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> I get what you are saying, but there is some pretty blatant anti tattoo feeling n this thread, that bothers me as a tattooed dude.
> 
> AND like i said, parents rights are something i take seriously


 
I'm not anti tat.  If someone wants to get one, then by all means, go get one, or 2 or 50.  However, I do feel that the person getting them, should know what they're getting themselves into.  While it may seem cool to do it now, the person needs to seriously think about whether or not, a day, month, or year from now, will they regret it?  

And frankly, I'd be pretty pissed if my parents made the decision for me.  The parent may think its cute, cool, whatever, but how do they know the kid will want it?  Is the kid thinking for him/her self?  No, the parent is doing it for them, and IMO, regardles of 'the almighty rights' that so many people toss around, some people just dont have a brain in their head.


----------



## Twin Fist

rights have to apply to everyone or they are not rights at all, and who the hell are you to call them stupid?

how do you know that you are not the stupid one?

if it was some bastard from some 3rd world crap hole doing it and claiming it was a religious thing, would you still object?

now mind you, i think in this case the parents are wrong, but it doesnt rise to child abuse IMO

naming thier kids poindexter is gonna cause them more emotional pain than a tattoo.

first it is you cant tattoo your kids
then it is you can spank your kids
then it is you cant teach them your version of right or wrong if it differs from the official version


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Maybe we should let patents brand their kids?


----------



## Twin Fist

i am perfectly k with letting parents install a Lojack chip in thier kids.

as long as the parents do not HARM thier kids, the parents have the right to raise them as they see fit without government interference.


----------



## Twin Fist

and you know as well as anyone Bob that the government cant be trusted, with anything


----------



## Bob Hubbard

We're talking about it being ok for parents to permanently disfigure their kids. Then again, we let them believe the invisible man will heal their kids rather than proven medicine and surgery.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Twin Fist said:


> if it was some bastard from some 3rd world crap hole doing it and claiming it was a religious thing, would you still object?



Yes.



Twin Fist said:


> first it is you cant tattoo your kids
> then it is you can spank your kids
> then it is you cant teach them your version of right or wrong if it differs from the official version



Just because they're your kids doesn't mean they're your property.
I could reverse your reasoning:
first you can't rape your daughters
then you can't cane them
then you can't send them directly to the cotton mills when they're old enough to crawl between the machines, but you have to let them get an education.

where will it all end?

There has to be a reasonable line somewhere. We can debate on where that line is, but kids are not property and they should have some level of protection against idiot parent.


----------



## Carol

I think the mother of the children, who currently appears to just have visitation and not joint custody, has every right to be upset when she found out the stepmother tattooed her children's hands.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Carol said:


> I think the mother of the children, who currently appears to just have visitation and not joint custody, has every right to be upset when she found out the stepmother tattooed her children's hands.



The mom in the video says, essentially, that she sees his kids or hers and her kids as his. Nice sentiment, but if it's not backed by the courts, the other parents do indeed have every right to be upset.

I don't see social views of tattooing to be the issue here. Whether or not tattoos on the hands or elsewhere are stigmatizing and lead to low wage jobs, it was *illegal *for these adults to tattoo their kids. Also, if the kids want tattoos, maybe they should wait until they are of age. My own son, wanted a tat, and I was prepared to sign off on it when he was sixteen (16 & 17 y/o need signed parental consent in Ontario.) He held off until he was seventeen, and got it as a high school graduation present.


----------



## Carol

Gordon Nore said:


> The mom in the video says, essentially, that she sees his kids or hers and her kids as his. Nice sentiment, but if it's not backed by the courts, the other parents do indeed have every right to be upset.
> 
> I don't see social views of tattooing to be the issue here. Whether or not tattoos on the hands or elsewhere are stigmatizing and lead to low wage jobs, it was *illegal *for these adults to tattoo their kids. Also, if the kids want tattoos, maybe they should wait until they are of age. My own son, wanted a tat, and I was prepared to sign off on it when he was sixteen (16 & 17 y/o need signed parental consent in Ontario.) He held off until he was seventeen, and got it as a high school graduation present.



I agree completely.  The couple was charged with "cruelty to children", and based on Bob's citation, "cruelty to children" is precisely what the law spells out regarding an underage person getting tattooed.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> rights have to apply to everyone or they are not rights at all, and who the hell are you to call them stupid?
> 
> how do you know that you are not the stupid one?
> 
> if it was some bastard from some 3rd world crap hole doing it and claiming it was a religious thing, would you still object?
> 
> now mind you, i think in this case the parents are wrong, but it doesnt rise to child abuse IMO
> 
> naming thier kids poindexter is gonna cause them more emotional pain than a tattoo.
> 
> first it is you cant tattoo your kids
> then it is you can spank your kids
> then it is you cant teach them your version of right or wrong if it differs from the official version


 
Dude, chill out and calm down.  Yeah, they are the stupid ones, IMO, because anyone that a) is a parent that would think about doing something like that and b) any artist who does something like that, doesnt have a brain.  A tat is something that you gotta live with for a long time, unless you want to go thru the pain and long process to get it removed.  How does the parent know the kid wants one?  Why because mommy and daddy have one?  Maybe they should wait for the kid to think for themselves.  

Kids aren't thinking long term, they're thinking at the moment.  Dude, come on, I know you're smart enough to understand this.  How many times do we see some new game or toy come out, geared towards kids, and everyone wants one.  Its the newest, hottest, flavor of the month.  But eventually thye grow tired of it, when the fad wears off.  So they toy gets tossed to the side, rarely played with, until the next flavor of the month comes out.  

So, little Johnny or Suzie, sees mom and dad covered in ink, thinks its the **** and next thing ya know.....

As I said, the kid isn't thinking that maybe, just maybe, down the road, they'll be kicking themselves in the ***.  The kid isn't thinking that maybe, just maybe, when its time to enter the real world, their choice of jobs will be limited, because of whats showing on their body.  

I'm not anti-tattoo dude.  But I do feel that people should seriously think about what they're doing, before they do it.  I went with my sister a few years ago, as she was getting something on her ankle.  I saw some awesome designs, some martial arts related stuff, and thought it'd be cool to get something, but never have, because I can't quite convince myself that its something I want on me for life.

As far as it being some religious thing....if it is, then it is, again, as long as that person understands that not everyone will share their views.  There're terrorists and various groups that teach their kids to hate Americans or blacks, give them a gun at a young age and tell them to shoot Americans and blacks.  Doesn't make it right, and yes, those people are just as stupid as the ones that tat a young child.

You have your opinion, and I have mine, and frankly, I could care less if you like mine or not.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> i am perfectly k with letting parents install a Lojack chip in thier kids.
> 
> as long as the parents do not HARM thier kids, the parents have the right to raise them as they see fit without government interference.


 
Just because they may not physically harm their kid, ie: beating/abusing them, doesn't mean that the after effect of the tat will not mentally harm the kid.  So, going by what you're saying, you'd see nothing wrong with a parent letting their young kid stay up all night, no sleep and then sending them off to school?  So, when the kid ****s up, fails, drops out and becomes a total loser, thats ok...because they're not HARMing them?

"Would you like fries and a coke with that burger sir?"

Ahh..yes....thank God for job security! LOL! LOL!


----------



## Ken Morgan

I always told my kids that they can anything they want to their hair and bodies before theyre 18 just so long as its not permanent. My daughter has traditional earrings, nothing out of the norm. My son had hair down to his ***. A couple of months after he turned 18 he got a tat of our Scottish family crest on his shoulder, and cut his hair to normal length. No problem, hes legally an adult.

Bruno is correct, children are by definition not property.

If children had their way, if we allowed them to fulfill their every whim, theyd all stay away from school, eat crap food, watch TV all day and play on the computer. We know that they are kids, and as such do not have the life skills to make judgment calls regarding decisions today that will have consequences years down the road.

I know many people who got tattoos years ago when they were younger and regret the decision today.          

I think we are all in agreement that the parents were wrong in this situation. If the kids are so hell bent on getting tattoos, a six year wait isnt so long for something you truly want.


----------



## Twin Fist

Bob Hubbard said:


> We're talking about it being ok for parents to permanently disfigure their kids.



did your parents have you circumcized?


----------



## Twin Fist

the world needs burger flippers too, and dont tell me to chill out, i am perfectly calm. I dont need to calm down OR chill out, DUDE

I just dont think the government needs to get into the people business.


And how we raise our kids is NOT the governments concern.

and following your logic, you cant name your kid something stupid, because it might make life harder for them

following your logic, you cant home school, since it might make it harder on them later..

following your logic, a case could be made for not allowing people to raise thier kids as christians, since it might make it harder on them later

see where it is going?

you are setting yourself up for the government to come in and rule every aspect of your life.

screw that

that isnt what america is about.

I do not agree with these parents, but i damned sure dont think the government needs to be involved in how we raise our kids.





MJS said:


> Just because they may not physically harm their kid, ie: beating/abusing them, doesn't mean that the after effect of the tat will not mentally harm the kid.  So, going by what you're saying, you'd see nothing wrong with a parent letting their young kid stay up all night, no sleep and then sending them off to school?  So, when the kid ****s up, fails, drops out and becomes a total loser, thats ok...because they're not HARMing them?
> 
> "Would you like fries and a coke with that burger sir?"
> 
> Ahh..yes....thank God for job security! LOL! LOL!


----------



## MJS

Perhaps this is another option.
http://www.earthhenna.com/

Wears off, and it may be a good trail period for someone who's considering getting a permanent one.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> the world needs burger flippers too, and dont tell me to chill out, i am perfectly calm. I dont need to calm down OR chill out, DUDE


 
Actually, I think you do.  Frankly, you're getting your panties in a wad, and IIRC, you've already been spanked for actions like these before, so keep it up Dude!   Funny, how you can't seem to participate in a discussion without causing disruption.  I'll be sure to RTM some of your recent posts.  Let the non involved mods decide whether you need a time out or if you can act like the adult you claim to be. 



> I just dont think the government needs to get into the people business.


 
Has nothing to do with the govt, but instead some common sense, which is obviously lacking with these people.




> And how we raise our kids is NOT the governments concern.
> 
> and following your logic, you cant name your kid something stupid, because it might make life harder for them
> 
> following your logic, you cant home school, since it might make it harder on them later..
> 
> following your logic, a case could be made for not allowing people to raise thier kids as christians, since it might make it harder on them later
> 
> see where it is going?
> 
> you are setting yourself up for the government to come in and rule every aspect of your life.
> 
> screw that
> 
> that isnt what america is about.


 
Then perhaps you should move to some deserted island in the middle of nowhere, where you can run things the way YOU think they should be.  Like it or not pal, the govt. tells us what to do all the time.  As I said, if someone wants to be dumb, and tat their kid, who can't think for themselves, then so be it, as long as the parent is willing to accept the fact that they will be dictating how their child survives in the world, once they're old enough to go out in it, on their own.



> I do not agree with these parents, but i damned sure dont think the government needs to be involved in how we raise our kids.


 
Whatever.

Oh, and as far as the burger flippers go...LOL, LOL, sure, thats right, God knows we need people to work in DQ, BK, and McDonalds...but if thats the extent of the career that that person wants, because they look like they do, then so be it.  They'll move from burger flipper, to fry monitor, to shake mixer. LOL!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Twin Fist said:


> did your parents have you circumcized?


Yeah. Had no choice in that one. Interesting how many men wish they hadn't been mutilated by their parents over a fad.

Kids don't make the most rational of decisions. Neither it seems do parents. Sorry, but I'm in agreement with the LAW here, that tattooing minors isn't a smart thing to do.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Twin Fist said:


> did your parents have you circumcized?


I was too.  Post your email, I'll send you pictures.


----------



## Twin Fist

now YOU are starting with the personal attacks, which i have not done, and that WILL get some panties in a wad, DUDE.


----------



## The Last Legionary

So, do you have a 9" frame? I'm sending lifesized.


----------



## Twin Fist

I agree with that too bob, but i (1) dont like the double standard and (2) dont like the anti-tattoo bias i saw here and (3) some people are getting into my **** and I dont like that since I have been perfectly calm and reasonable and (4) this country was founded on the idea that the government was to be kept on a tight rein, OUT of the lives of the people as much as possible.

I think these parents are prob idiots, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT

if it isnt harmfull, it isnt the governments business.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Yeah. Had no choice in that one. Interesting how many men wish they hadn't been mutilated by their parents over a fad.
> 
> Kids don't make the most rational of decisions. Neither it seems do parents. Sorry, but I'm in agreement with the LAW here, that tattooing minors isn't a smart thing to do.


----------



## Twin Fist

The Last Legionary said:


> So, do you have a 9" frame? I'm sending lifesized.




ok, now you are clearly getting delusional.......


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> now YOU are starting with the personal attacks, which i have not done, and that WILL get some panties in a wad, DUDE.


 
Personal attacks?  Really?  Hmm...then RTM my posts, if they're so out of line.  Sorry, but that wasn't a personal attack, that was fact stating.  I can see that you're getting a bit hot under the collar....then again, typical par for the course I suppose.  

As I said, you're entitled to your opinions, as I am mine.  Difference is, you're getting soooo upset, because I disagree with you.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Twin Fist said:


> ok, now you are clearly getting delusional.......


Naw, the question here is, if we put my pic next to yours, would your mamma be able to tell which one was her son, and the other a really big dick?


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> I agree with that too bob, but i (1) dont like the double standard and (2) dont like the anti-tattoo bias i saw here and (3) some people are getting into my **** and I dont like that since I have been perfectly calm and reasonable and (4) this country was founded on the idea that the government was to be kept on a tight rein, OUT of the lives of the people as much as possible.
> 
> I think these parents are prob idiots, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT
> 
> if it isnt harmfull, it isnt the governments business.


 
Sigh....once again, I'm not anti tattoo.  As long as the person getting them understands that it very well may have an effect on the rest of their life.  As for the parents....I'm not the only one thinking those people are a few donuts short of a dozen, so....

And as for the govt...sigh...once again John...can I call you John, or will that offend you too.....if you're so unhappy with the govt., then move away to somewhere, where YOU can be your own boss, and wont have to listen to authority. Hmmm...then again....oh, never mind...what I was about to say may have been a personal attack.


----------



## Twin Fist

since you clearly dont know what a "persoanl attack" is let me help you out.

this:



MJS said:


> then again, typical par for the course I suppose.



is one

Let me spell it out for you REALLY simply

I could not care less if you agree with me or not, you NOT agreeing with me? that gives me a happy.

I am not hot about anything, but you are starting to get on my nerves.

Not because you disagree, but because of your comments towards tattoos and people that have jobs you consider for "losers"


----------



## Twin Fist

I qualify both ways



The Last Legionary said:


> Naw, the question here is, if we put my pic next to yours, would your mamma be able to tell which one was her son, and the other a really big dick?


----------



## Carol

Anyone who wants to have a minor tattooed is welcome to bring their minor to Massachusetts, where it is legal to tattoo someone underage with the parent's permission.   We could use the tourism dollars here in New England.  :idunno:


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> I'm not the only one thinking those people are a few donuts short of a dozen, so....



as do i, but that again, ISNT THE POINT

government interferrence in the lives of the people isnt what this country is about.

civics 101


----------



## Twin Fist

sorry cant help you there, apparently the roads are covered with snow and ice and John dont drive on snow and ice



Carol said:


> Anyone who wants to have a minor tattooed is welcome to bring their minor to Massachusetts, where it is legal to tattoo someone underage with the parent's permission.   We could use the tourism dollars here in New England.  :idunno:


----------



## The Last Legionary

Twin Fist said:


> I qualify both ways


:rofl:  me too.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> since you clearly dont know what a "persoanl attack" is let me help you out.
> 
> this:
> 
> 
> 
> is one


 
LMAO! Then RTM it!  I didn't call you a name, I stated fact...fact that there is record of YOUR posts, in which you've displayed the same history that you're doing right here.  



> Let me spell it out for you REALLY simply
> 
> I could not care less if you agree with me or not, you NOT agreeing with me? that gives me a happy.


 
Good, glad to hear that you're a happy guy.   Of course, I find it just as laughable that you let the comments on an online forum, get you so edgy. 



> I am not hot about anything, but you are starting to get on my nerves.


 
Hmm...should I be scared?  Just be careful John.....I'd hate to see you get your *** booted from here, for making threats, challenges, and the like.  



> Not because you disagree, but because of your comments towards tattoos and people that have jobs you consider for "losers"


 
Like I said John, if someone wants to be stuck in a burger factory, because they look like the poster child for LA Ink, then go for it.


----------



## Twin Fist

giggity



The Last Legionary said:


> :rofl:  me too.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> as do i, but that again, ISNT THE POINT
> 
> government interferrence in the lives of the people isnt what this country is about.
> 
> civics 101


 
Can I ask you a serious question?  Is it just me, or do you seem to have an issue with people telling you what to do?  I mean, you do work right?  So, assuming you do, then you must have a boss, unless you're self employed, in which case, unless you want to get the boot from your job, do you tell your boss off all the time?  If a cop were to pull you over for speeding, are you a jerk towards him?  I mean, afterall, the govt dictates the speed limit, you disagree with govt, so you must disagree with the cop.  

Like I said John....I can still call you John right?   If you're not happy with things, create your own colony.  But until then, no other choice but to suck it up.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Gents, relax eh?


Tattoos aren't a big obstacle in some parts of the US.
http://mag.rankmytattoos.com/ink-meets-inc-20-tattooed-executive-and-white-collar-professionals.html

Neither is weird hair.

Some companies do have hangups about it. Hell, I got crap at McD for my goatee when I worked maintenance there. I left, my choice.

But, a 10 yr old can't weigh out the life long decisions, and an adult shouldn't make that call.  Just because an 8yr old like Pickachu now, doesn't mean when he's 28 he'll cherish that piece. He'll probably end up covering it up, or spending lots of $$ on removal.

I have 2 tats, plan on more too.  If that prevents someone from hiring me, I see it as their loss, not mine. But, at 39 I can make that decision. At 9 I doubt I would understand the situation.


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> LMAO! Then RTM it!  I didn't call you a name, I stated fact...fact that there is record of YOUR posts, in which you've displayed the same history that you're doing right here.



you are doing it again Oh, and I am not really an RTM crybaby. I have done it, but i try to avoid doing that, since I am not 12. Crying cuz there is some sand in my ladyparts isnt really my thing.





MJS said:


> Hmm...should I be scared?  Just be careful John.....I'd hate to see you get your *** booted from here, for making threats, challenges, and the like.



ok, thats a SERIOUS jump, carefull, you are gonna pull a muscle. Nowhere did I say anything about challenge, or threats, YOU are pulling that out of YOUR ***. it is interesting tho that you went there.




MJS said:


> Like I said John, if someone wants to be stuck in a burger factory, because they look like the poster child for LA Ink, then go for it.



and there is that condescending attitude again.

Do you even realize how that sounds?


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> Can I ask you a serious question?  Is it just me, or do you seem to have an issue with people telling you what to do?  I mean, you do work right?  So, assuming you do, then you must have a boss, unless you're self employed, in which case, unless you want to get the boot from your job, do you tell your boss off all the time?  If a cop were to pull you over for speeding, are you a jerk towards him?  I mean, afterall, the govt dictates the speed limit, you disagree with govt, so you must disagree with the cop.
> 
> Like I said John....I can still call you John right?   If you're not happy with things, create your own colony.  But until then, no other choice but to suck it up.




let me know when you are my boss, and this might be relevant. Untill then it is just some passive aggressive way of slinging mud without getting in trouble for doing it. And I am done with you, expect no more replies.


----------



## Twin Fist

I cant disagree Bob, but the continued "tats = burger factory loser" from some posters is getting old for one thing.

For another, and again, this is the point: this country wasnt founded on intrusive government.

In this day and age, shouldnt the government be spending its time working on the big stuff?




Bob Hubbard said:


> Gents, relax eh?
> 
> 
> Tattoos aren't a big obstacle in some parts of the US.
> http://mag.rankmytattoos.com/ink-meets-inc-20-tattooed-executive-and-white-collar-professionals.html
> 
> Neither is weird hair.
> 
> Some companies do have hangups about it. Hell, I got crap at McD for my goatee when I worked maintenance there. I left, my choice.
> 
> But, a 10 yr old can't weigh out the life long decisions, and an adult shouldn't make that call.  Just because an 8yr old like Pickachu now, doesn't mean when he's 28 he'll cherish that piece. He'll probably end up covering it up, or spending lots of $$ on removal.
> 
> I have 2 tats, plan on more too.  If that prevents someone from hiring me, I see it as their loss, not mine. But, at 39 I can make that decision. At 9 I doubt I would understand the situation.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> you are doing it again Oh, and I am not really an RTM crybaby. I have done it, but i try to avoid doing that, since I am not 12. Crying cuz there is some sand in my ladyparts isnt really my thing.


 
No, but you'll cry because someone has differing opinions of you?  Yeah, that makes sense. 







> ok, thats a SERIOUS jump, carefull, you are gonna pull a muscle. Nowhere did I say anything about challenge, or threats, YOU are pulling that out of YOUR ***. it is interesting tho that you went there.


 
From the forum rules:

Section 1.8

*1.8 Threats, Racism, Sexism, and Challenges:


*Messages that are openly hostile, defamatory, sexual, vulgar, or harassing, will not be tolerated, and may be in violation of the law. Threads or replies promoting or expressing intolerant views towards any group (race, religion, sexual preference, interracial couples, etc.) will not be tolerated. 

No "physical challenge" posts are allowed. If there is a threat or physical challenge, real or perceived, issued, the person making said threat will be immediately banned from this board with no warning or recourse. 

That could fall into the perceived category John.  Careful, think before you speak. 
 







> and there is that condescending attitude again.
> 
> Do you even realize how that sounds?


 
Simply an opinion.  Apparently one that YOU dont like. 



Twin Fist said:


> let me know when you are my boss, and this might be relevant. Untill then it is just some passive aggressive way of slinging mud without getting in trouble for doing it. And I am done with you, expect no more replies.


 
Hmm...no John, I'm not your boss in RL.  However, as an Admin on the forum, I do help to enforce the rules that Bob put in place.  That being said, in some way, shape or form, I do tell you what you can/can't do. 

And you not replying to me, is no sweat off my back.  I could care less.  Frankly, I find it laughable that you can't engage in a discussion, without getting upset, rude, etc.  Its a simple opinion that I expressed, and you flipped out.  BTW, I could easily go thru a few threads and point out examples, if you'd like.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> I cant disagree Bob, but the continued "tats = burger factory loser" from some posters is getting old for one thing.


 
I dont expect a reply, seeing that you can't talk civil with others that disagree with you, but anyways....fact is John, you are judged by the way you look.  Show up at a job interview smelling like you havent showered in the past 3 weeks, hair looking like a family of mice made their new home on your head, breath smelling like ***, and dressed less than professional, or should I say, dressed to meet the job description, then no, chances are you will end up slinging hash for min. wage.  

Will that always be the case?  Guess that depends on the person doing the hiring and what they are looking for.


----------



## Twin Fist

you are trying to bait me, with sly, underhanded and not so underhanded insults, and I am not gonna rise to the bait. And since there is nothing to be gained from continued discussion with you, I am not gonna try.

so even though you AGAIN used personal attacks and insults, I am gonna let it go.

you aint worth disturbing my mellow.

Bob disagrees with me, but I am perfectly civil with him. think on that.


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> I dont expect a reply, seeing that you can't talk civil with others that disagree with you, but anyways....fact is John, you are judged by the way you look.  Show up at a job interview smelling like you havent showered in the past 3 weeks, hair looking like a family of mice made their new home on your head, breath smelling like ***, and dressed less than professional, or should I say, dressed to meet the job description, then no, chances are you will end up slinging hash for min. wage.
> 
> Will that always be the case?  Guess that depends on the person doing the hiring and what they are looking for.



While I get your point and don't disagree, I think some of us with ink just *have* to point out that we're talking about ink, not lack of hygiene, and it's a mistake to confuse the two. I can understand why those with visible ink would be offended at this statement thrust into the middle of a TATTOO discussion.

That said ... I think some employers in certain business have the right to ask for a certain image to be portrayed - just look at Disney's exacting restrictions on visible park employees.  Why can't they have facial hair, long hair on their heads, etcetera? Because people have very concrete ideas on what is friendly and non-threatening.  While those ideas are changing with virtually everyone becoming inked and pierced, there is a certain power in a person feeling so confident in who they are that they require no physical alteration.

I don't know how I feel about inking one's children.  I won't allow it and know others that do.  My worry with it is the fact that it's now so common to find people with ink - more common than it is to find people with no ink.  This, however, is likely a fad and many will likely regret having gotten as many as they did when the fad runs out.  The permanency for the children bothers me.


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> you are trying to bait me, with sly, underhanded and not so underhanded insults, and I am not gonna rise to the bait. And since there is nothing to be gained from continued discussion with you, I am not gonna try.
> 
> so even though you AGAIN used personal attacks and insults, I am gonna let it go.
> 
> you aint worth disturbing my mellow.
> 
> Bob disagrees with me, but I am perfectly civil with him. think on that.


 
Please, please dont make me make you look silly, by linking numerous posts, in which others have been civil, and you came in and stirred the pot. Please dont John.  

Fact is, I voiced an opinion.  You didn't like what I said.  So, instead of simply accepting the differeing opinion, you come on and state that people need to pull the sticks out of their ***.  Nice, John, real nice.  

And as for the personal shots/insults you claim I'm making...again, RTM them, if they're that bad.  Of course, dont throw stones John, when you live in a glass house, because you are the king of rude posts and personal shots.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> While I get your point and don't disagree, I think some of us with ink just *have* to point out that we're talking about ink, not lack of hygiene, and it's a mistake to confuse the two. I can understand why those with visible ink would be offended at this statement thrust into the middle of a TATTOO discussion.


 
Come on Geo, I think you know that was simply an example.  Anything could be put in, in place of lack of hygiene.  For example....an office job.  Person shows up with full sleeves on their arms, huge holes in their ears, and ink on their face...they may not get that job.  Again, to each their own.  I'm not against tats, despite what some may think.  



> That said ... I think some employers in certain business have the right to ask for a certain image to be portrayed - just look at Disney's exacting restrictions on visible park employees. Why can't they have facial hair, long hair on their heads, etcetera? Because people have very concrete ideas on what is friendly and non-threatening. While those ideas are changing with virtually everyone becoming inked and pierced, there is a certain power in a person feeling so confident in who they are that they require no physical alteration.
> 
> I don't know how I feel about inking one's children. I won't allow it and know others that do. My worry with it is the fact that it's now so common to find people with ink - more common than it is to find people with no ink. This, however, is likely a fad and many will likely regret having gotten as many as they did when the fad runs out. The permanency for the children bothers me.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Archangel M

My opinion and only mine follows.

Reasonable ink wont influence my immediate opinion of you one way or another. If you have sleeve tats with face and neck ink/brands and piercings, those huge barrel earnings and tongue studs...well  then it does. For right or wrong it sort of does.

I have a little ink. You will only see it if I decide to roll up my sleeves or wear a short sleeve shirt. Many of my co-workers have the same. However we have a policy that less than one third of a showing limb can show ink or the whole limb must be covered and no facial tats or brands. It has become a serious concern with hiring of the new generation of officers.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Twin Fist said:


> I agree with that too bob, but i (1) dont like the double standard and (2) dont like the anti-tattoo bias i saw here and



Talking about double standards, I recall having a discussions with you, quite a while ago, about gays in the military. And IIRC you supported the military in their discrimination of gay people (You used the words 'it is what it is').
So is it ok to discriminate against gays but not against people with tats? Because even if you argue that being gay is a choice, so is having a tattoo.

Btw, I don't mind tattoos if they are skillfully done, have some sort of meaning to you, and are reasonable. The guy with the dozens of studs and face mask does not fall under that category however.


----------



## Twin Fist

a tattoo is an inanimate decoration

not a behavior

no puddle of ink ever assaulted anyone, a gay man on my ship tried to rape one of the other crewmen..

apples and oranges bruno

oh, BTW, I agree with you, I think facial tats are silly, and a really bad idea. The guy dozens of studs WILL pay a price for that choice.  

not the point, but just putting it out there.


----------



## Archangel M

At some point, the volume of ink and the physical appearance issue sort of becomes a statement of "screw conventions man! Im an original...I can look however I want...I don't care what you or society think of me..."

Which is all well and good. But I then find it odd that these people take offense when they are treated differently. 

Not saying that that is a "fact" or that anybody here is saying this. It's just my.02. 

We ALL have some responsibility for the way we "read" others AND for how we present ourselves to others.


----------



## Twin Fist

i dont think anyone can disagree with that Arch.


----------



## Grenadier

I know that this is the "Horror Stores" area, but this is going beyond the boundaries allowed even for this forum. 

That being said...

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
_Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. 

Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. 

Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). 

Thank you.

Ronald Shin
MT Supermoderator


----------



## Blade96

maybe everyone could take a little chill pill, huh?

Pwetty pweeeese? The heat is getting a high level =]

i dont think that the example given by twin fist about naming your kids anything is a good one.

Incidentally, there was a couple last year or so who named their kid Adolf Hitler. No joke look it up!

There was a huge pandemonium over it because the store wouldnt decorate his birthday cake for his 3rd birthday because they didnt wanna write that name.

Thing is, names can affect a child for life.

ah here it is

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468250,00.html

I dont believe minors should get tattooed. I do believe you should be a certain age to have it. But I think I already said that. 

You need to be a certain age to vote, drink, drive, smoke, etc. This tattoo industry can be dangerous too. and as someone else wrote, Kids often dont think about long term.


----------



## terryl965

Naming your kid after Hitler is one of the stupiest things I have ever heard. Sorry I know lets stay on topic but someone needed to say it.


----------



## Cryozombie

Ok, so let me ask this:

You run a Successful... i dunno... accounting firm.  You lose an employee for whatever reason, and need someone fast.  Your local headhunter says "Good news!  We have a guy, just came back on the market, he has 20 years experience, some of his clients are fortune 500 companies and he draws more and more in everyday because his knowledge of tax laws is exemplary... he got bored with his last company and came to me looking for somthing new"

He sounds great, but walks in to your office to interview and has a slew of earrings and two full tattoo sleeves and they bleed over onto his hands.  Do you do the foolish thing and turn him down?


----------



## Cryozombie

shesulsa said:


> While those ideas are changing with virtually everyone becoming inked and pierced, there is a certain power in a person feeling so confident in who they are that they require no physical alteration.



I don't always think it's about confidence.  While for some people it may be, just like driving a fast sportscar or owning a gun might be a "phallic substitute" for some people... there are other reasons that go beyond confidence and a desire to show off.


----------



## Blade96

terryl965 said:


> Naming your kid after Hitler is one of the stupiest things I have ever heard. Sorry I know lets stay on topic but someone needed to say it.


 
i know =]

another case of a parent who's brain is a couple cards short of a full deck.


----------



## Twin Fist

Blade96 said:


> i know =]
> 
> another case of a parent who's brain is a couple cards short of a full deck.




sure, but should that be illegal?

does that constitute abuse?

I dont think so.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

There's a thread in the Study on that Hitler kid issue I think.


----------



## Blade96

Twin Fist said:


> sure, but should that be illegal?
> 
> does that constitute abuse?
> 
> I dont think so.


 
I think it could be yes. There is a stigma attached to having the name of the worlds poster child for the word evil.

Consider that German's today still have to live with their history. I knew a young german woman I went to university with, she told me once it was only in the last five years or so that people had stopped calling her nazi.

I just think there are some things that simply should not be done. and sometimes the government does need to get involved (even though politicians are known for screwing up a lot lol) Some things minors shouldnt do. I do believe that.

We all were kids once. Were we capable of thinking ahead, into the future, of possible consequences? 

Thats one reason we have parents

and even parents can have few brain cells, which is why we have to havegovernments and laws despite what anarchists say =]


----------



## Twin Fist

once they can tell you what you can or cant name your kids, it is a small step to them being able to decide what you can teach your kids.


----------



## Gordon Nore

As for the folks who named their kid Adolf Hitler, the issue was that staff at a cake store refused to put the name on a birthday cake, not that the government was deciding how children should be named. Ultimately, it was a matter between those parents and that store.

Cake request for 3-year-old Hitler namesake denied


----------



## Drac

I tell the young cadets in the academy to avoid getting additional tats until they get appointed and the Chief explains the departments tat policy...Many departments have a policy that forbids tats below the level of a shirt sleeve shirt...


----------



## shesulsa

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, so let me ask this:
> 
> You run a Successful... i dunno... accounting firm.  You lose an employee for whatever reason, and need someone fast.  Your local headhunter says "Good news!  We have a guy, just came back on the market, he has 20 years experience, some of his clients are fortune 500 companies and he draws more and more in everyday because his knowledge of tax laws is exemplary... he got bored with his last company and came to me looking for somthing new"
> 
> He sounds great, but walks in to your office to interview and has a slew of earrings and two full tattoo sleeves and they bleed over onto his hands.  Do you do the foolish thing and turn him down?



Me? No. But that's ... _*ME*_.



Cryozombie said:


> I don't always think it's about confidence.  While for some people it may be, just like driving a fast sportscar or owning a gun might be a "phallic substitute" for some people... there are other reasons that go beyond confidence and a desire to show off.



Agreed - and part of my point was that it's all in the perception of the *assuming* viewer (beauty in the eye of the beholder?).



MJS said:


> Come on Geo, I think you know that was simply an example.  Anything could be put in, in place of lack of hygiene.  For example....an office job.  Person shows up with full sleeves on their arms, huge holes in their ears, and ink on their face...they may not get that job.  Again, to each their own.  I'm not against tats, despite what some may think.


 
Then, with all due respect, let's please use comparable analogies rather than converse comparisons, such as wild hair color/style, clean but different clothing, audacious makeup, etcetera - things that are more geared to a non-traditional appearance rather than a lack of personal hygiene.  I'm sorry you can't see the problem in comparing someone with ink to a dirty, stinking mental case, but others *do.* I will concede, however, that is this very comparison we have to deal with on a very real level. :asian:


----------



## Ken Morgan

As a libertarian I understand the need to keep government out of our lives as much as possible. However I dont believe in some huge government conspiracy wanting to take our rights away a little bit at a time, until we live in a communist society. The government just doesnt care enough about you, to want to. That being said, yes we must remain vigilant against any limitations of our basic rights. The government may not be your friend, but they are not your enemy. 

The greatest enemy of the government and of the people equally, are a bloated bureaucracy in my opinion.

Anything you do to your children physically, emotionally or physiologically that can damage or hinder them when they are older can be construed as abuse. Naming your child Adolph Hitler falls into that category, tattooing your children fall into that category, not educating or staving your children fall into that category. Some think that religion can be construed as abuse, while I sympathize with the sediment, I disagree with that one.

We have to give up a certain percentage of our freedom to our government, to live reasonably harmoniously in a society with others. That was political science 101 during my first year of school.

We all know whack jobs, we all know people who should not be parents, but until everyone is willing to stand up and raise those children as their own in a loving home, we pass the ball to the government to take care of the nuts and their children. Part of raising a child properly is rules, and that is what the government does best.


----------



## Blade96

Gordon Nore said:


> As for the folks who named their kid Adolf Hitler, the issue was that staff at a cake store refused to put the name on a birthday cake, not that the government was deciding how children should be named. Ultimately, it was a matter between those parents and that store.
> 
> Cake request for 3-year-old Hitler namesake denied


 
I know.  twin fist though brought it up as a 'what if' kind of thing, what if the gov decided what u could name your kids, and i just used it as a potentially harmful example as that kid is going to have a hard time in life because of his name and the stigma attached to it.


----------



## MJS

Archangel M said:


> My opinion and only mine follows.
> 
> Reasonable ink wont influence my immediate opinion of you one way or another. If you have sleeve tats with face and neck ink/brands and piercings, those huge barrel earnings and tongue studs...well then it does. For right or wrong it sort of does.
> 
> I have a little ink. You will only see it if I decide to roll up my sleeves or wear a short sleeve shirt. Many of my co-workers have the same. However we have a policy that less than one third of a showing limb can show ink or the whole limb must be covered and no facial tats or brands. It has become a serious concern with hiring of the new generation of officers.


 


Archangel M said:


> At some point, the volume of ink and the physical appearance issue sort of becomes a statement of "screw conventions man! Im an original...I can look however I want...I don't care what you or society think of me..."
> 
> Which is all well and good. But I then find it odd that these people take offense when they are treated differently.
> 
> Not saying that that is a "fact" or that anybody here is saying this. It's just my.02.
> 
> We ALL have some responsibility for the way we "read" others AND for how we present ourselves to others.


 
My thoughts exactly.  This is what I've been trying to get at, however, I think some of this may have been lost in traslation, as we so often see on message boards.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, so let me ask this:
> 
> You run a Successful... i dunno... accounting firm. You lose an employee for whatever reason, and need someone fast. Your local headhunter says "Good news! We have a guy, just came back on the market, he has 20 years experience, some of his clients are fortune 500 companies and he draws more and more in everyday because his knowledge of tax laws is exemplary... he got bored with his last company and came to me looking for somthing new"
> 
> He sounds great, but walks in to your office to interview and has a slew of earrings and two full tattoo sleeves and they bleed over onto his hands. Do you do the foolish thing and turn him down?


 
Yup, I'd probably turn him down.  Why?  For reasons I've already listed.  Many companies have some sort of dress code policy.  Does this company have one?  If so, and how this person looks, violates that, then I guess he wouldn't be hired.  

Is that the popular view?  Probably not.  Is that the reality?  In some cases yes.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Then, with all due respect, let's please use comparable analogies rather than converse comparisons, such as wild hair color/style, clean but different clothing, audacious makeup, etcetera - things that are more geared to a non-traditional appearance rather than a lack of personal hygiene. I'm sorry you can't see the problem in comparing someone with ink to a dirty, stinking mental case, but others *do.* I will concede, however, that is this very comparison we have to deal with on a very real level. :asian:


 
I think people are reading a bit too much into it, but sure, I'll try.   Again, as I said, it was a simple example.  IIRC, I think I've also been clear that I am not anti tattoo.  I believe I've simply said that anyone is free to do what they want with their body, as long as they're willing to accept the after effects of whatever it is that they do.


----------



## MJS

Ken Morgan said:


> Anything you do to your children physically, emotionally or physiologically that can damage or hinder them when they are older can be construed as abuse. Naming your child Adolph Hitler falls into that category, tattooing your children fall into that category, not educating or staving your children fall into that category. Some think that religion can be construed as abuse, while I sympathize with the sediment, I disagree with that one.



QFT!! This is what I touched on in an earlier post. TF made some interesting points here:

"as long as the parents do not HARM thier kids, the parents have the right to raise them as they see fit without government interference."

So, here, we can look at what falls into the 'harm' category.  So, while calling your kid Hitler may not physically hamr then...then again, he may get his *** kicked...or while doing, shall I say, stupid things such as tattooing their child, may not physically harm them, the mental harm very well may be there.


----------



## Twin Fist

you know what would have to be outlawed if "it might cause the kid some mental angina later on" is the standard?


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> you know what would have to be outlawed if "it might cause the kid some mental angina later on" is the standard?


 
So, am I safe to assume that as long as the tats dont physically harm the kid, then its ok in your eyes?  Is it ok, as long as there's no physical harm, to name your kid Hitler, as long as it doesnt physically harm the kid?  And seeing that kids can be cruel, what happens when the kid gets his *** kicked because of his name, how he looks, what he's wearing, etc.?  So, now, you have a kid, who goes thru life, with a ****ed up name, and ink all over him...all because the parents think its cool and that they should be able to do whatever they choose.


----------



## Archangel M

I don't know how far I want to stretch individual rights into the ability to do something TO another human being. Even your own kid. I can see the slippery slope, but there needs to be some reasonable limitations.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Wow, this thread has caught fire like a bad case of the clap.

I think I was the first person to say that giving the kids hand tattoos was dooming them to a life at minimum wage jobs. I stand by that statement. Whether we like it or not, mainstream society has unwritten rules about what you "can" and "can't" do if you want to be taken seriously. I'm not anti-tattoo, for the record, I think that guys with tattoos are hot. I've dated guys with tattoos on their faces, necks, hands and *inside lower lips*. So I'm pretty open to innovative ways of decorating one's body with ink. But guess what? I suspect that all of those guys are constrained with respect to their career choices. It isn't necessarily kind or fair, but that is the way of the world.

With respect to raising kids: let's separate "government" from "society" in this discussion. As a civilized society, we all agree that we have a responsibility toward protecting the physical and mental well-being of children...all children, nt just our own. That means that I personally have a responsibility toward the kids living down the street. If their parents are abusing them, it is my duty as a member of society to do something about it. "Government" is the official arm of society, and it is necessary because we no longer live in tiny tribes and can't take our personal gripes to a single person for a solution. We imbue the government with certain powers, so that the rules we all agree to live by can be administered fairly. So we allow the government to step in and interfere in cases where we as a society agree that it is desirable. In essence, we create a middleman between individual members of society and society as a whole. So instead of me walking down the street and punching someone in the melon for abusing their children, I call Child Protective Services and report the abuse. We as a society have agreed that children are people with limited power and in a unique state of vulnerability, and although parents should be allowed to exercise a large amount of freedom in how they are raised, they aren't allowed to do everything they want. In this case, irrespective of the "harm" that the kids may experience years down the road from having hand tattoos, it cannot be denied that the parents stabbed them with a needle multiple times. That is abuse by anyone's definition.


----------



## Carol

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, so let me ask this:
> 
> You run a Successful... i dunno... accounting firm.  You lose an employee for whatever reason, and need someone fast.  Your local headhunter says "Good news!  We have a guy, just came back on the market, he has 20 years experience, some of his clients are fortune 500 companies and he draws more and more in everyday because his knowledge of tax laws is exemplary... he got bored with his last company and came to me looking for somthing new"
> 
> He sounds great, but walks in to your office to interview and has a slew of earrings and two full tattoo sleeves and they bleed over onto his hands.  Do you do the foolish thing and turn him down?



This implies that the body mods are an unpleasant surprise at arrival time.  In that case, I'd likely sack the headhunter for not knowing the industry or my company's needs.


----------



## MJS

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Wow, this thread has caught fire like a bad case of the clap.
> 
> I think I was the first person to say that giving the kids hand tattoos was dooming them to a life at minimum wage jobs. I stand by that statement. Whether we like it or not, mainstream society has unwritten rules about what you "can" and "can't" do if you want to be taken seriously. I'm not anti-tattoo, for the record, I think that guys with tattoos are hot. I've dated guys with tattoos on their faces, necks, hands and *inside lower lips*. So I'm pretty open to innovative ways of decorating one's body with ink. But guess what? I suspect that all of those guys are constrained with respect to their career choices. It isn't necessarily kind or fair, but that is the way of the world.
> 
> With respect to raising kids: let's separate "government" from "society" in this discussion. As a civilized society, we all agree that we have a responsibility toward protecting the physical and mental well-being of children...all children, nt just our own. That means that I personally have a responsibility toward the kids living down the street. If their parents are abusing them, it is my duty as a member of society to do something about it. "Government" is the official arm of society, and it is necessary because we no longer live in tiny tribes and can't take our personal gripes to a single person for a solution. We imbue the government with certain powers, so that the rules we all agree to live by can be administered fairly. So we allow the government to step in and interfere in cases where we as a society agree that it is desirable. In essence, we create a middleman between individual members of society and society as a whole. So instead of me walking down the street and punching someone in the melon for abusing their children, I call Child Protective Services and report the abuse. We as a society have agreed that children are people with limited power and in a unique state of vulnerability, and although parents should be allowed to exercise a large amount of freedom in how they are raised, they aren't allowed to do everything they want. In this case, irrespective of the "harm" that the kids may experience years down the road from having hand tattoos, it cannot be denied that the parents stabbed them with a needle multiple times. That is abuse by anyone's definition.


 
Nice post.  Likewise, again, I'm not anti tat either.  My sister has a few, as well as other male and female friends of mine.  It was mentioned earlier, about ear piercing and belly piercing.  IMO, those 2 things, compared to a few tats, tastefully done, compared to a walking inkman, are all very different things.  

Fact of the matter is, is that society will view you for what they see.  Right or wrong, be it as it may, it happens.


----------



## Twin Fist

MJS said:


> So, am I safe to assume that as long as the tats dont physically harm the kid, then its ok in your eyes?




no, i think it is stupid, but i dont think it ought to be illegal.

stupid aint illegal


----------



## Twin Fist

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I think I was the first person to say that giving the kids hand tattoos was dooming them to a life at minimum wage jobs. I stand by that statement.




and you would be wrong

I know a LOT of welders that have hand tats.

they make more than YOU, ME and both of us combined, same with mechanics i know. Hell I know a couple bikers that are COVERED with tats, and run thier own custom cycle shop, they cleared almost 500K EACH last year in a crappy economy

you MIGHT have a point in the suit world, but that is a small, SMALL portion of the world.

there is more of us than there are suits in the world


----------



## MJS

Twin Fist said:


> and you dont know what you are talking about.
> 
> I know a LOT of welders that have hand tats.
> 
> they make more than YOU, ME and both of us combined, same with mechanics i know. Hell I know a couple bikers that are COVERED with tats, and run thier own custom cycle shop, they cleared almost 500K EACH last year in a crappy economy
> 
> you MIGHT have a point in the suit world, but that is a small, SMALL portion of the world.
> 
> there is more of us than there are of you


 
See, you just said the same thing that I, and a few others did, when we spoke of jobs.  Depending on the job, the tats may very well be accepted.  If the person wishes to be a cycle shop owner, mechanic, welder, etc., compared to a doc., lawyer, or 'white collar' worker, then yes, that look will probably be more accepted.  But again, it all goes back to the person being limited to those areas.  Can we assume that facial tats, piercings, etc. will be accepted in the white collar world?

On another note...I did a quick google search on the payscale of welders.  The pay is there, but I noticed that it varied, depending on what type of welder you are, where you work, etc.


----------



## Twin Fist

most of the welders I know are oilfield guys, they BANK


----------



## Ken Morgan

I would bet that their parents didn't tattoo them when they were kids though. They had the work done to themselves when they were older.


----------



## Twin Fist

thats irellevant, the assertion was that hand tats force someone to a life of minimum wage jobs, which has been proven to be not true


----------



## Cryozombie

Carol said:


> This implies that the body mods are an unpleasant surprise at arrival time.  In that case, I'd likely sack the headhunter for not knowing the industry or my company's needs.



Really?  So you would let your personal prejudice cost your company major clients and big deals, AND turn away the recruiter that found that source, and let both of them work for your competition?  

Carol, I like you, but that's just stupid, and LOUSY business sense.


----------



## Cryozombie

Twin Fist said:


> thats irellevant, the assertion was that hand tats force someone to a life of minimum wage jobs, which has been proven to be not true



True.  I have tattoos on my arms and hand, and often display them at work.  I don't work a minimum wage job (although it feels that way sometimes).


----------



## MJS

Ken Morgan said:


> I would bet that their parents didn't tattoo them when they were kids though. They had the work done to themselves when they were older.


 


Twin Fist said:


> thats irellevant, the assertion was that hand tats force someone to a life of minimum wage jobs, which has been proven to be not true


 
Actually, I think Kens point is valid, as we are discussing at least 2 topics in this one thread.  The first is the OP, which is parents who tattoo kids.  The second being whether or not tats have an effect on the type of job that you'll get.

While there may be jobs out there that aren't min. wage, I still maintain the notion that the person with a ton of tats, will be limited as to what they can do.  What if the person doesnt want to be a mechanic, cycle shop owner or welder?  Then what?  Will it be easy for them to get a job, in a corporate setting, where excessive or visable tats is frowned upon?

This is why, once again, I'll say...I'm not against tattoos, however, anyone who takes stuff like that on, needs to seriously think about it.  Is it something they really want, something they really want to live with, etc.?  If the person can't be 100% sure this is something they want, that it wont effect them job wise, down the road, then why do it?


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Really? So you would let your personal prejudice cost your company major clients and big deals, AND turn away the recruiter that found that source, and let both of them work for your competition?
> 
> Carol, I like you, but that's just stupid, and LOUSY business sense.


 
Would you feel the same way, if you, as the person doing the hiring or you as the headhunter, knew that the way the person looked, would not be accepted by the company?


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> True. I have tattoos on my arms and hand, and often display them at work. I don't work a minimum wage job (although it feels that way sometimes).


 
Out of curiosity and for the sake of the thread, what do you do for work?


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> What if the person doesnt want to be a mechanic, cycle shop owner or welder?  Then what?  Will it be easy for them to get a job, in a corporate setting, where excessive or visable tats is frowned upon?



Then they get a job in I.T., Programming, Televison, Broadcasting, Film, Phone Sales, Print News Reporting, Writing, Art, Fabrication, Gunsmithing, Should I continue?

Not every decent job is at a big corporation.


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity and for the sake of the thread, what do you do for work?



I.T. in a Hospital



MJS said:


> Would you feel the same way, if you, as the person doing the hiring or you as the headhunter, knew that the way the person looked, would not be accepted by the company?



Assuming I knew... but knew they were on top of their game, I would present them anyhow, and let the employer know.  If I did not know and I presented them and the employer balked, I would remind them results count for more, and if they still said no, Id sell the person to their competition.


----------



## Carol

Cryozombie said:


> Really?  So you would let your personal prejudice cost your company major clients and big deals, AND turn away the recruiter that found that source, and let both of them work for your competition?
> 
> Carol, I like you, but that's just stupid, and LOUSY business sense.




Point out to where my reasons are based in personal prejudice?


----------



## Cryozombie

Carol said:


> Point out to where my reasons are based in personal prejudice?



Hypothetically, since we are talking an accountant who can bring in major players in the business world and you said that if their appearance was an unpleasant surprise you would fire the headhunter for not knowing the buisness' needs... when the need for someone Physically Appealing should come behind someone who can make the company *** loads of money... therefore it sounds to me as if you are putting personal prejudice ahead of what is best for the company.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Then they get a job in I.T., Programming, Televison, Broadcasting, Film, Phone Sales, Print News Reporting, Writing, Art, Fabrication, Gunsmithing, Should I continue?
> 
> Not every decent job is at a big corporation.


 
I agree.  Of course, this is all contingent on whether or not that look is acceptable at that company.  



Cryozombie said:


> I.T. in a Hospital


 
Cool.  So I'm assuming your boss, the hospital, have no issues with your tats?  





> Assuming I knew... but knew they were on top of their game, I would present them anyhow, and let the employer know. If I did not know and I presented them and the employer balked, I would remind them results count for more, and if they still said no, Id sell the person to their competition.


 
Ok.

One more question for you.  Isnt the idea of the headhunter, to get something that the person using them, wants?  I mean, if I wanted to buy a new car, I'm relying on the salesman, to get me the vehicle that meets my needs.  If I said that I didn't want a blue car and I wanted it to be an automatic, and he tried to sell me a blue standard, telling me that that car is just as good....

See where I'm going with this?


----------



## Cryozombie

Thats a slightly different scenario, but I see where you are coming from.  Lets put it in perspective from a reverse angle tho.

One of my duties back when I was working for Hot Topic was management recruiting and training for stores all over the U.S., in addition to recruiting and hiring sales staff for my store.  Of course, being the type of store that they are (and especially at the time I worked there when the store's focus was still heavily goth and not so pop-trendy) they WANTED people who worked there to have a "look" that included piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, and an overall gothy/punky/rivethead look to them.  However, when recruiting, knowing that yes, the look sold the atmosphere and generally made the managers and employees familiar with and more able to sell the products than a "normal" person... It never stopped me from recruiting in stores like Abercrombie, Journeys, Franks, or any of those places... because management and sales skills were the truly important part of that job.  I doubt I would have been as successful if I had stuck to finding people with "the look".   Know what I mean?  

Sometimes you have just know that what you think appearance-wise isn't the best thing for your business.  

Or: How well would an undercover vice cop do with a spotless uniform and regulation cop haircut?

And:



MJS said:


> Cool.  So I'm assuming your boss, the hospital, have no issues with your tats?



That is correct.  I also push the limits of the dress code on most days, and have even sat in on meetings with the CEO and VP of operations for the Hospital, as well as done work in their office in loud, cartoony button down shirts and black jeans (denim of any color is supposed to be against the dress code) and they don't seem to care.  I think its probably about the quality of my work.


----------



## Carol

Cryozombie said:


> Hypothetically, since we are talking an accountant who can bring in major players in the business world and you said that if their appearance was an unpleasant surprise you would fire the headhunter for not knowing the buisness' needs... when the need for someone Physically Appealing should come behind someone who can make the company *** loads of money... therefore it sounds to me as if you are putting personal prejudice ahead of what is best for the company.



Incorrect.

Here is why I would object.  

There was no mention made of what I need as an employer, but lets say for sake of example that I do need someone that is very senior in the accounting field. 

To start...there is a reason why many companies take a long time to hire people.   Hiring managers are rarely given time to...actually  hire and interview.  Hiring isn't our job, its...something else.  Accounting, enigneering, etc.  An  agency's job is to sell a candidate.  There is a reason why we pay them  the cash.  I expect them to find good candidates and tell us their  strengths and weaknesses _*before *_I have to take time out of  my day.  If they can't understand that, then how can they understand a  complex fit of a senior candidate?  

I can't even do a basic reference check on an agency  candidate...that is all done by the headhunter.  That is why I am paying them.

Headhunters charge a lot of money.  Skilled professional contractors are typically billed at twice their hourly rate, a permanent placement comes at the cost of at least 20% of salary at hire.  Why would I hire someone through an agency instead of using my HR folks that are already on staff?  They are faster.  Period.

This is a head hunter that expects at least a 20% take of a senior professional, and he can't even be bothered to chat with him in advance to see what he is like, what he wants (other than "something new") and why he's a fit for my team?   If the agency can't take a senior candidate seriously then why should I?  What are they doing to earn my trust or to understand my needs?   Remember, I don't have time to hire people.  I'm paying someone to sort and screen my candidates for me.  

There are plenty of reasons why a skilled professional can be a wrong match.  Accounting is a very complex field.  The specialties could be wrong, the goals could be wrong, the personality could be wrong.  He could be too quiet and shy for the boisterous bunch he's going to be working with, for example.

 Companies/managers tend to stick with good headhunters, and good headhunters tend to stick around as long as their is money flowing through the account.  Chances are, the individual been placing people at the company for  longer than I have been there.  The ones that I have done business with have worked the hardest to earn  my trust.  They have spent a day in the office with me seeing where my  deficits are.  They know my atmosphere.  They know the environment, they are the ones that are consistently bring a very good match across my desk.   

None of this has anything to do with the person's appearance.   It has  to do with the flow of business, and why the choice was made to bear the  extra expense of a headhunter, and the efficiency at which that headhunter works.

Candidates have their choice as to who represents them.  I would hope that someone with 20 years experience in their field cares  enough about their career to carefully choose who they work with, and  how they are going to be presented.


----------



## Cryozombie

Carol.

You are hiding a simple question behind a lot of technical jargon unrelated to the actuall issue. So Lets simplify with a Yes/No question.

Would you refuse to hire the most potentially profitable candidate for your company because he had visible tattoos or piercings?


----------



## Archangel M

The whole "answer my theoretical question" game is pointless. First off... I doubt that you are going to find many candidates who fit your little "what if". Like it or not, the odds of someone like that  being able to move up through the corporate structure to have that kind of experience are slim to none.

It would be like asking me if I would turn down the best cop in the world for hiting simply because he has a facial tattoo and a mokawk.  There just isnt one because no dept would pay to send one through the academy.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> The whole "answer my theoretical question" game is pointless. First off... I doubt that you are going to find many candidates who fit your little "what if". Like it or not, the odds of someone like that  being able to move up through the corporate structure to have that kind of experience are slim to none.
> 
> It would be like asking me if I would turn down the best cop in the world for hiting simply because he has a facial tattoo and a mokawk.  There just isnt one because no dept would pay to send one through the academy.



So what you are saying is that how someone looks is how someone looks, and they never change it?  An experienced cop would never get fed up, burned out and change his appearance radically or an Executive would never get his hands tattooed while drunk and on the town with some former Fratboys from Yale?

Good to know! 

The only reason to cry foul and say "but but but, its unlikey, it will never happen" is because you are afraid to admit that given the right circumstances, you have to admit either I am right, or you have prejudice against people with Tattoos and Piercings. Period.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Twin Fist said:


> and you would be wrong
> 
> I know a LOT of welders that have hand tats.
> 
> they make more than YOU, ME and both of us combined, same with mechanics i know. Hell I know a couple bikers that are COVERED with tats, and run thier own custom cycle shop, they cleared almost 500K EACH last year in a crappy economy
> 
> you MIGHT have a point in the suit world, but that is a small, SMALL portion of the world.
> 
> there is more of us than there are suits in the world


 
Ahh...point taken. You're right, these are certainly money-making enterprises, and they are open to people covered in tattoos.


----------



## Carol

Cryozombie said:


> Carol.
> 
> You are hiding a simple question behind a lot of technical jargon unrelated to the actuall issue. So Lets simplify with a Yes/No question.
> 
> Would you refuse to hire the most potentially profitable candidate for your company because he had visible tattoos or piercings?




Prolly not.  I've hired people with tats...most of the folks I have hired are guys that have served, and many guys that have served have ink.  

However, a hiring decision is never that simple.


----------



## Drac

I had an excellent student in one Academy class..He would be a fine addition to any department. However he covered the tops of his hands with tats, and not even good looking professionally applied ones, they look like " jailhouse" tats..I tried to explain that he wouldn't get past the interview with the Chief unless he gets them removed, he just laughed saying that most people are not as small minded as I would like to think..He graduated with honors and 6 months of fruitless interviews later is in the process of having them removed..


----------



## Twin Fist

what kind of academy?


----------



## Drac

Twin Fist said:


> what kind of academy?


 
Sorry,The police academy...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Bottom line here is the bulk of America is still conservative.  If it wasn't, you'd see pink haired girls and mohawked guys behind the counter everywhere, not just Hot Topics, Spencers, Tattoo shops and the odd junk store.

Yes, one of the most powerful men in Hollywood sports blue hair. He can get away with it. (Dont remember the name, saw it on an insider show a while back).

I've gotten crap over my earrings, and they are small loops. I've gotten crap over my bicep tats showing just a sliver under short sleeve shirts and been told to wear long sleeves in 90' weather or don't bother showing up for work. I got **** over a mustache for petes sake. A discrete well kept stash.

Labor Class, it doesn't matter much. You can haul wood or dig a ditch, or pull crab, you can be the tattooed man, no one cares.

Banking, that's a different story.  I knew a gal once, mohawk, tats, piercings, etc.  Cleaned up real nice. Saw her bank manager portrait once, barely recognized her.  Key here was, everything the bank cared about was where she could hide it easily, and her hairdoo was flexible.  Punk on the weekends, exec by day.    She wouldn't have had that option if someone had inked her where she couldn't cover it.

Some fields do care, and unless you are a real superstar (and be honest, most people aren't.) appearance matters significantly, more so during the interview process.

Lets add to this....age.
You walk into a store and ask for the manager, and you get a 18, 19 yr old. Older people do not see that as a good thing.  Add piercings, ink and a "goofy hair style" and you've got a PR headache there.   

Do I agree? No.  I prefer to be judged on what I can do.  My work speaks for itself.
But I've lost job opportunities over something as stupid as my hair was too long.

So, if you are going to compete, you need to understand the rules of engagement and comply.  Today, that still means that the clean cut will have an advantage over the "unique".

What sane person would start their kids out with a disadvantage?


----------



## Twin Fist

Drac said:


> Sorry,The police academy...



that makes sense, I have never seen a cop with hand tats. The little old ladies that police have to deal with would NOT look on that well.


----------



## Twin Fist

Bob Hubbard said:


> What sane person would start their kids out with a disadvantage?




absolutely, but should it be illegal?

being stupid isnt a crime


----------



## Drac

Twin Fist said:


> being stupid isnt a crime


 
If it was I would hold the record for issuing citations for Aggressive Stupidity..LOL


----------



## Blade96

My bro once had long hair, and when he was in his late teens/early 20's he used to work at a wendy's restaurant in st john's. The dress code there was that girls could have long hair as long as it was in a hair net or something. pony tail. But guys werent allowed to have long hair. My bro got fired because he wouldnt cut it. He then went to human rights comission, sued, and won. 

If something so insignificant as long hair (thats a normal color like brown which is my bro's real hair color and my bro had gorgeous hair btw, it was so beautiful!) could lose out, in a RESTAURANT, a minimum wage job, you can imagine how some would feel about some tats.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Ohio man accused of tattooing toddler's rear end*



> Police say an Ohio man tattooed the letter "A" on the rear end of a  1-year-old girl visiting his home.Twenty-year-old Lee Deitrick of  Louisville (LOO'-ihs-vihl) was arraigned Wednesday on a felony child  endangering charge in Canton Municipal Court.
> Authorities say  there's no evidence the toddler's mother permitted the November  tattooing. It's not clear what the letter "A" signifies.


http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/952105.html


----------



## Carol

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Ohio man accused of tattooing toddler's rear end*
> 
> 
> http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/952105.html



OK, that's just sick.


----------



## Twin Fist

oh, he's pretty. If he gets jail time, he is in for some FUN nights..


----------



## Gordon Nore

Carol said:


> OK, that's just sick.



But what if the toddler really, really wanted the tattoo?


----------



## shesulsa

Gordon Nore said:


> But what if the toddler really, really wanted the tattoo?



I wonder how many future sex partner candidates will reject her because of it?


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Thats a slightly different scenario, but I see where you are coming from. Lets put it in perspective from a reverse angle tho.
> 
> One of my duties back when I was working for Hot Topic was management recruiting and training for stores all over the U.S., in addition to recruiting and hiring sales staff for my store. Of course, being the type of store that they are (and especially at the time I worked there when the store's focus was still heavily goth and not so pop-trendy) they WANTED people who worked there to have a "look" that included piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, and an overall gothy/punky/rivethead look to them. However, when recruiting, knowing that yes, the look sold the atmosphere and generally made the managers and employees familiar with and more able to sell the products than a "normal" person... It never stopped me from recruiting in stores like Abercrombie, Journeys, Franks, or any of those places... because management and sales skills were the truly important part of that job. I doubt I would have been as successful if I had stuck to finding people with "the look". Know what I mean?
> 
> Sometimes you have just know that what you think appearance-wise isn't the best thing for your business.


 
Points taken.  Now, you said that it never stopped you from recruiting in places like A&F, etc., so in your opinion, having tats, excessives piercings, etc., would fly in stores like that, as long as the skills were there?  



> Or: How well would an undercover vice cop do with a spotless uniform and regulation cop haircut?


 
Its interesting, because one of the narc. guys, at the PD, looks nothing like the typical cop.  Long hair, scruffy face, wears clothing that doesnt give the 'clean cut' look, etc.  Another has a shaved head and long goatee.



> And:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I also push the limits of the dress code on most days, and have even sat in on meetings with the CEO and VP of operations for the Hospital, as well as done work in their office in loud, cartoony button down shirts and black jeans (denim of any color is supposed to be against the dress code) and they don't seem to care. I think its probably about the quality of my work.


 
Possibly.  Of course, could it be...(and I dont know, just asking) because its a different dept.?  In other words...a few years ago, to pick up some extra cash around the holidays, my wife got a job at WalMart.  She worked in the womens dept and on the registers when needed.  A nice shirt and slacks was the attire.  No jeans, no tshirts, etc.  Yet, the guys who worked the stock room, the garden center, etc. wore jeans, and had half their *** hanging out.  Same store, 2 different depts., 2 different dress codes.


----------



## MJS

Archangel M said:


> The whole "answer my theoretical question" game is pointless. First off... I doubt that you are going to find many candidates who fit your little "what if". Like it or not, the odds of someone like that being able to move up through the corporate structure to have that kind of experience are slim to none.
> 
> It would be like asking me if I would turn down the best cop in the world for hiting simply because he has a facial tattoo and a mokawk. There just isnt one because no dept would pay to send one through the academy.


 


Cryozombie said:


> So what you are saying is that how someone looks is how someone looks, and they never change it? An experienced cop would never get fed up, burned out and change his appearance radically or an Executive would never get his hands tattooed while drunk and on the town with some former Fratboys from Yale?
> 
> Good to know!
> 
> The only reason to cry foul and say "but but but, its unlikey, it will never happen" is because you are afraid to admit that given the right circumstances, you have to admit either I am right, or you have prejudice against people with Tattoos and Piercings. Period.


 
See, AA pretty much said what I've been saying all along here.  People dont necessarily put the experience before the appearance.  This is why I was saying that its possible that depending on your look, you may be limited to certain jobs.  I used a burger joint as a simple example, but really anything could be substituted.  

Sure, a tattooed, pierced 22yo male, may show up at the agility test for the local PD, and pass with flying colors.  He may show up at the written test and score a high mark.  I'd be willing to bet that IF, he was asked to show up for an interview, that would most likely be as far as he went.


----------



## Gordon Nore

There's been an abundance of speculation on the lasting social and economic effects of having a tattoo. It's really not the point, is it? The parents in this story have not been charged with interfering with their children's potential career paths. They've been charged with inflicting pain on their children and violating licensing laws with regard to tattooing.

As to whether or not this was painful to the kids, I don't know. On the latter point, we have two parents who have done something they are not licensed to do minors who are not legally allowed to have tattoos. Further, they have made this decision without consulting the children's other parents.

This story, out of Calgary, Alberta, illustrates the real seriousness of what the parents did. They are not licensed tattooists; therefore, no matter how much they insist the procedures were safe and sanitary, they cannot satisfy the requirements of a licensed tattoo op. See below...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100211/tattoo_100211/20100211?hub=TopStoriesV2



> Health officials in Alberta are urging anyone who received a tattoo or piercing at a home-run parlour in Calgary to get tested for HIV as well as hepatitis B and C.
> 
> The warning this week came after seven unlicensed tattoo and piercing parlours were closed down by Alberta Health Services.


In tattooing their children in this fashion, the parents in the OP of this thread have made choices for other people without and concern for the consequences. That, to me, is the real point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I'm sure all these do it yourself tattooists follow full health care procedures, right down to getting their autoclaves inspected annually and following full sterility guidelines when they whip out the guns and have ink parties.

When I got mine done, I asked for the documentation. I got it but was told most people never ask for it.  Funny.  You're popping holes in me, you damn well better be 110% clean. 

Looking at finishing my one arm this summer if cash flow is there.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Ohio man accused of tattooing toddler's rear end*
> 
> 
> http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/952105.html


 
"A" is for "***". Clearly he was teaching the child to read.


----------

