Tattoo Bans in the Military; Why?

I find this ridiculous, American citizens who are willing to sacrifice their lives for this country and willing to fight for our rights and freedoms are being subjected to some really stupid demands from the military.

Marines Ban Big, Garish Tattoos
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway announced the policy change last week.

"Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us," he said. "I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values."

The ban is aimed primarily at "sleeve" tattoos, the large and often elaborate designs on the biceps and forearms of many Marines. Similar designs on the lower legs will be forbidden as well. So will very large tattoos on the upper arm, if they are visible when a Marine wears his workout T-shirt. Small, individual tattoos will still be allowed on the arms and legs. (The Marines already ban them on the hands.)

Marines already tattooed are exempt from the ban but cannot add to their designs; anyone caught with fresh ink in the wrong places could be barred from re-enlistment or face disciplinary action. Getting a prohibited tattoo could constitute a violation of a lawful order, punishable by up to two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge, Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Brian Donnelly said.

Unit commanders must photograph and document sleeve tattoos to ensure Marines do not add to their ink.

The Marines and the other branches of the military already ban tattoos that could be offensive or disruptive, such as images that are sexist, vulgar, gang-related or extremist.

The Army, which has been doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and is struggling to fill its ranks, actually relaxed its tattoo restrictions last year. Soldiers can now get ink on the back of their hands and the lower back of the neck.

The Navy last year decreed that tattoos visible while in short-sleeve uniform cannot be larger than the wearer's hand. The Air Force says tattoos should be covered up if they are bigger than one-quarter the size of the exposed body part.

first of all, who decides what is garish and what isn't? I think this is crazy, these men and women are fighting to spread democracy and freedom, but have to deal with restraints on their personal rights.

Maybe brandishing those 'very' tattoos while holding a cigar and an M-16 are bringing bad publicity to the 'democracy spreading' the Americans are carrying out!

Wow O.K where to start? Well first off with the spreading of democracy and freedom. I really wish the would spread it at home where it is needed. I know what a democracy is, but I don't see it here. We don't live in a democracy we live in a Republic. I wish I lived in a democracy then maybe I would feel free. And what's this Freedom stuff you type of? Ya know I think I heard of that once. I don't know about you but with 80% of my income going to some form of taxes is not freedom. Makes me feel like a classy slave. You know like in the old days you got to take care of the masters kids, got to sleep in a real bed and eat good food. Got to wear shoes and have nice dresses.

Oh yeah back to the topic. Once you sign that paper you are done. You now belong to said ( place some random military name here ) they can do anything they want with you now. You don't belong to you anymore. So there for you can not do what you want to do with your own skin.

i can just imagine it now
people queing up for tats so they dont get inlisted for the next conflict

Former Maori warriors need not apply


It's my understanding that military personal maintain certain rights guaranteed by the constitution, while others may be subject to military regulations, or congressional law.

By way of illustration, specific military rules lawfully place conditions on 'freedom of expression' as defined by the first amendment i.e...a soldier can lawfully attend a demonstration, but not while in uniform, or while on duty, or outside of the United States etc.

Tattoos as a matter of personal expression, would be subject to the whims of the regulating brass.

Tatoos were pretty common back when I was in (particularly the Marine Corp Devil Dog...right out of boot camp) and it was never an issue...but styles have changed and nowadays they tend to cover a lot of real estate.

While I personally agree with the sentiments already expressed here, once in uniform, we're considered property of US government...or GI...government issue.

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

Sistinas, nice to see that Mario Savio quote...didn't think anyone remembered him. My girlfriend (a 60's Berkeley alumna) spotted him working quietly in the back of a small Berkeley bookstore in the mid 70's...all but forgotten...even then.

'Bout time they banned 'tabboo's' in the Military. I tire often of seeing some funny bunny trying to cut in the mag's as a crossover from their web site.

This is an issue that should have been brought up long ago. Do we really need to know how the rank was achieved? I think not. Who cares of fatigued women/men. Go bother, elsewhere.

This is a bit ridiculous. If nothing else, it's your body, and if you want to ink your skin it's your business.

Maybe all soldiers should have this on their head.



The enemy won't know if you're coming or going, and even in retreat you'll scare the crap out of them.

When I served in the Army this policy as many are to protect the government's assets (soldier), each base has "off limit" establishments that are deemed too dangerous, illegal etc. So once a possible disruption to the fighting force is identified, it is much easier to just ban it in a blanket policy than to say well you could be there at this time and not that time.

Same thing with the tattoo policy, a chance of contracting an infection (hepatitus) while receiving a tat is enough for them to initiate a blanket policy for the ban.

Many soldiers get them regardless and for the most part I haven't seen this policy enforced to the max. If the tat was not visible when in uniform, then there was no problem.

I did hear of a few who were reprimanded for offensive tats, like gang symbols and swastikas and that sort.

For reference my time of service was the late 80's thru 2001, so my post reflects that period of time.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
If nothing else, it's your body, and if you want to ink your skin it's your business.

This question has been answered...

Originally posted by OBE1
once in uniform, we're considered property of US government...or GI...government issue.

Another great reason not to join the military.

This is ridiculous, for sure, AND, what OBE1 says is true. I'm not sure civilians really understand that. When you join the military, for all intents and purposes, you give yourself to your country.

Maybe the offending tattoos said "Mission Accomplished, My Ass" or something like that.

Easy, it's to keep the gangbangers out.

Tattoo's are a form of freedom of expression.

The Navy was famous for tattooing themselves. I think this is sad - what is the big deal?

I am glad my tattoo shop is not near a base - business would be negatively effected.

Originally posted by Sistinas
......So there for you can not do what you want to do with your own skin.

First off......It is NOT your skin anymore once you have signed on the dotted line and are a full-fledged military. Your whole body is now the property of the U.S. Government and they dictate what you can do with "their" property !! Even when I was in the army 20 years ago they had a "no-tattoo" policy and no-one followed it BUT if you got a tattoo and someone higher-ranking saw it and had the case of the ass for you...you had better have a damn good explanation or you could get into some serious trouble over it.

Also......YOU WILL NEVER GET ACCEPTED FOR ANY SPECIAL FORCES, SEALS OR ANY OTHER ELITE FORCES EVER IF YOU HAVE A TATTOO (which is an identifying mark...like a scar) and identifying marks are a serious no-no when trying to join said units.

Also......YOU WILL NEVER GET ACCEPTED FOR ANY SPECIAL FORCES, SEALS OR ANY OTHER ELITE FORCES EVER IF YOU HAVE A TATTOO (which is an identifying mark...like a scar) and identifying marks are a serious no-no when trying to join said units.

THat is odd, when I was in the military, I had tattoo's - many of them and I was asked to join the SEALS. I turned it down, but I was asked several times. THis was in the mid 80's.

I have 2 shoulder to wrist full length tribal sleeves. Why did i get them??

To cover up all the nasty little tattoos i got whilst serving in the military

Military service and tattoos go hand in hand i say its part of the culture.

I got out at 25 and was walking round with som serious regimental tats that didnt look right on a 25 year old young man so now i got some serious tribal designs instead.

Over here in UK we can get tattoos aslong as they are not facial or offensive but its a definite no go area if you want to join SF

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Easy, it's to keep the gangbangers out.

My husband said something about this. He suggested that the military is taking more and more people (high-school dropouts, druggies, etc.) because of their low recruitment numbers and likely, they're also taking more of the 'criminal element' including gang members. Once they're in, the rival gang issue could become more of a problem, especially if they were all getting rival gang tattoos.

That might be the reasoning behind this new resurgence of tattoo taboo.

I see the original article mentions that gang tattoos are already banned, but what are they going to do about new members who already have gang tattoos?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I think they are banning large tattoos because when pictures of dead soldiers are posted on the internets, the families of those dead soldiers won't be able to identify them from the tattoos...

Originally posted by godservant
That is odd, when I was in the military, I had tattoo's - many of them and I was asked to join the SEALS. I turned it down, but I was asked several times. THis was in the mid 80's.

My best freind in the Marines was denied Presidential Duty for having a tattoo and a scar bigger than 3 inches.......you can have NO identifying marks on your body for that anyway....maybe not so for the seals.

When my husband was a young Marine he said that they used to come ashore from oversea and get drunk and wake up with a tattoo

He never got one.

But In 22 years that I was a marine wife I saw almost every other soldier with a symbol of the marines tattoo somewhere in the back, arms or legs.

The problem now a days is that tattoos has gone from the art form that was intended to become silence expressions of personal value.

And like the article say it can become offensive to others.

Specially when they are of gang nature or supremacy nature.

Also many sexy or sexual tattoos are passed as art and to me they are more of pornographic nature.

Well then that means that if a draft comes and people are forced into the military they can just get a tattoo to avoid having to kill others against their wills for a cause they don't even stand for.

Sure beats cutting your hand off to avoid being drafted in order not to be a slave to the army, hehe :0

A friend, former Ranger couldn't join the Navy SEALs because he's got so many tattoos on his arms, legs, practically everywhere except his face.