U.S. Army Set to Ban Tattoos Below the Elbow or Knees

reply to post by odd1out


If the tattooed don't like to be judged or stereotyped maybe they should consider the social consequences before they get the tattoo(s).

Personally, I don't respect people with tattoos and piercings. To me, tattoos and piercings are evidence of a lack of self-control. People who inflict pain on themselves for purposes of self-expression have a screw loose.

Haha... British Army here.. If that happened with us no-one would safe.. I literally don't know anyone of my guys who does not have tatts me included..

Restricted
reply to post by odd1out

 

If the tattooed don't like to be judged or stereotyped maybe they should consider the social consequences before they get the tattoo(s).

Personally, I don't respect people with tattoos and piercings. To me, tattoos and piercings are evidence of a lack of self-control. People who inflict pain on themselves for purposes of self-expression have a screw loose.

edit on 9/24/2013 by Restricted because: clarification

Wow....thanks for reminding me that some people in this world actually DO think like that.

You don't respect people who have piercings or tattoes? Does that go for women, too? You don't respect any women who has her ears pierced? That SURE is a lot of women you don't respect, pal. Or is there a double standard, here, too? It is 'okay' for women to 'inflict pain upon themselves' but not men?

For the record, tattoos and piercings don't really hurt at all. No one is inflicting pain on themselves.

What about bodybuilders? I'm not talking about people who exercise for fitness....what about bodybuilders who 'inflict pain upon themselves' merely to look better. They work out obsessively, to tear their muscles, so that their muscles build back bigger. Do you lose respect for them, too?

I can totally understand people not liking tattoos, or piercings, or bodybuilders, or whatever you choose to 'dislike' on this planet. What I DON'T understand, is people who say "I have NO respect for ____".

You choose to go above and beyond just disliking something. You actually view people who take part is something you don't like as DIFFERENT THEN YOU. LESS than you. That, I will never understand.

It does help later down the line if the soldier wants to branch out into other areas than the front line.
Too many people have tattoos these days (me included)

there is still some prejudice.

Can you imagine the chief of staff of the US army having tattoos on his hands and neck. even though i have tattoos i still have a little prejudice which is weird i know.

I wonder if you can have a Prince Albert in the Army?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Please file that under "don't ask, don't tell".

Please.

paraphi
Well, I totally agree.

Professional soldiers need to look like professionals and not yobs, even if they are called upon to act like yobs when the trigger needs to be squeezed.

Regards

----

Just as an aside to illustrate the meaning of a new technical term ..... "yob" is a British/Canadian
acronym term for "Youth On Benefits" which is a snide put-down for someone young who
doesn't work, stays home all day playing video games and wears nothing but hoodies
and "slacker" pants trying to look and act like someone from DA HOOD but still receiving
Government Benefits (or Welfare is it is known in the USA)

I can't see why anyone would want a tattoo in the first place , no matter who you are?

My Grandad's tattoo's used to fascinate me as a kid, but then he was a Desert Rat and miles away from home in a pow camp when my Mother was born. He only had a few on his arms, not smothered in them like they are today. They were all mottled and faded, but they truly meant something. Again this was in the old days, when it would have taken him days, if not weeks to get home, not like today.

Today it seems to be a representation of how hard you are. No one comes close to my Grandad and what he went through in the war. He came back fluent in several languages too, bless him. He said that was the only reason was to remind him of his wife, child and home. It wasn't done for fashion back then.


hx

Restricted
reply to post by odd1out

 

If the tattooed don't like to be judged or stereotyped maybe they should consider the social consequences before they get the tattoo(s).

Personally, I don't respect people with tattoos and piercings. To me, tattoos and piercings are evidence of a lack of self-control. People who inflict pain on themselves for purposes of self-expression have a screw loose.

You are entitled to you opinions on the subject, but it is apparent that they are based on ignorance. Tattoos are a matter of self-expression and mine are here for me...not you. And the pain factor is incidental. I'd suggest you have a chat with someone who sports some ink. Sure, you'll find some dolts who do it because 'it's cool"...but you can finds dolts anywhere, and in any social strata. Just the same, some of the folks with tats might surprise you. Enough of derailing the thread, though...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


This is Great News!

This will keep thousands of young boys from enlisting in a corrupt army run by a corrupt government that's only going to get the boys killed for someones stupid private agenda

(as opposed to defending the country - they wont be there for that - haven't been any American military that was sent to defend this country since WW II)

Oh. Does that mean this guy won't get in?

I do not agree with this change in policy.

From what I have seen, the armed forces have a strong tradition with tattoo's.

Many a evening spent conversing with parents/grandparents who served in previous conflicts and have them describe the meanings and the importance of each tattoo that marked them.

I do not see tattoo's as a means for conveying hate or breaking the code of discipline. I see it has promoting unity between brothers in arms, marking memorable moments and essentially marking you as a unique individual within the larger machine.

reply to post by schuyler


That man is mentally ill.

Restricted
reply to post by schuyler

 

That man is mentally ill.

Well, everything in moderation, I always say.

What a dumb thing to do.

Doesn't the army have better things to do than worry about what's on the skin of their soldiers?

Like maybe the psychological damage, or the actual physical trauma sustained? That they aren't really treated for by the VA when they come back?

Another win for puritan America.

~Tenth

Restricted
reply to post by schuyler

 

That man is mentally ill.

Oh no. If you won't hire him or let him in the military, you are stifling his right to creative expression! It's his "right" to alter his appearance and if you don't treat him "normally" in every respect then you are discriminating against him.

Of course I'm kidding, but the point is, where do you draw the line and why there? And if you can draw a line anywhere, why can't the military?

P.S. I have a tat myself of the Zig Zag man. It meets the regs in terms of placement, but if anyone recognized what it was it might not fly because of the reference to certain unmentionable substances. The doctor who did my flight physical quizzed me very carefully about it. I told him in exasperation that it was really a French farmer and was the cheapest tat I could get when "us guys" in the Navy all went off base to get one. He could have denied me a pilot's license on the basis of the tat. I'm quite sure he knew what it was, but he chose not to press the point after my "explanation." Cost me a whole $10 bucks.

The guys at work (three of them fresh out of the military and full of tats) were talking about this today. They said that it's considered destruction of government property. Apparently when you're in the military all of you belongs to them.