tattos and percings

[packsaddle]

OK, a serious comment. If you want to give blood, assuming you're 17 and weigh more than 110 pounds (some programs will let you in at 100lbs), you'll be turned away if you've had a tattoo within the last 12 months. It's one of the critical questions, right there with the ones about sex, drugs, and disease. But it's your choice.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/donateblood/faqs.html

That alone would stop me from getting a tattoo if I were so inclined. It represents as many as 6 pints.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So, some might not hire you due to wrongful placement and some would be stopped in their tracks due to wrongful thinking. Knowing that should alert you to something else about yourself.

 

Know your abilities and interests. Know what you have that is important to offer. Speak well, and positively, gain the respect of the interviewer with your personality. Wear long pants and a long sleeved shirt, tie is cautiously optional.

 

FB

 

[Twocubdad]

I thought it is fairly universal that you have to be 18 to get a tattoo. Are there states where that isn't the law? How are Scouts getting tattoed then?

 

Assuming it's legal, or even a parental permission thing, it shouldn't affect how a Scout is treated. Like it or not, tattos are becoming pretty mainstream these days -- well not with me, but you know what I mean.

[dsteele]

I like tatoos and body piercings -- the next generation learns from the mistake and eschews them.

 

In spite of my opinion, I don't think anyone should be judged adversely because of them. What one does is one's own choice.

 

Unc.

[Eamonn]

Sorry Unc

While I try not to judge people and have almost accepted guys with the odd ear ring. I don't like tattoos and body art. Nose rings, make me want to pass the person with this thing hanging out of their nose a Kleenex and that stupid eyebrow ring looks really dumb.

OJ can't wait till he gets a tattoo and his ear pierced. I have said that he can tattoo and pierce what he likes when he moves away. I wouldn't hire people with this junk when I was hiring people.

I don't put Scouts down for having this stuff. I do have a hard time believing that parents would allow it.

Eamonn

[Fat Old Guy]

"In spite of my opinion, I don't think anyone should be judged adversely because of them."

 

Why not? It goes to character. Just like whether a person goes to church or likes cats.

[baschram645]

I spent almost 22 years in the USN and the culture then was that tattoos were okay. I knew that they weren't for me, but I never thought any less of shipmates that got them. As far a piercings go, Pirates wore a gold ear ring so that upon death their burial could be paid for. I personally have no problem with them or tattoos but counsel anybody against both for all the obvious health issues that go along with being poked with a needle that might be sterile or not.

[packsaddle]

Twocubdad, this might give you the info you asked about:

http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/1996/WJ960903.html

I think there are three states in which it is illegal to perform tattoos. MA and SC come to mind, I'm not sure about the other. The public health issues (not to mention personal preferences) make this controversial. Laws are likely to change in the near future.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I just got to thinking about pirates and their gold earrings and their funeral's being paid for and such. 1. Since their death would most likely be at sea, then their earrings were probably small. 2. Pirates most likely were not finicky about purchasing caskets and burial plots for their brother pirates, so the earrings most likely paid for their wake. (*a good time was had by all!) 3. If a not so bright pirate just happened to wear a large earring in hopes that everyone would feel sympathy and give him a nice "Cristin" burial, most likely his matey would knock him in the noggin and make off to the nearest Grog shop for a evening of hearty laughter, spirited grog, and a wench. 4. Real pirates probably made believe that death would sidestep them and they would quietly retire in the Bahamas with a treasure chest of doubloons. Maybe if they did die, someone would take the last bit from the treasure, extract the small earring, and bury the poor guy in the chest.

(*Aeee matey!, one eye winked and the other with eye patch)

 

FB

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[Fat Old Guy]

The simple "USMC" or "Mom" tatoo is one thing. I think that people that decorate 50% of their body with injected ink have something wrong in their head. Problably the same issues had by people who have repeated cosmetic surgery.

[SR540Beaver]

Tattoo "parlors" are illegal in Oklahoma. I was thinking we were the only state. Evidently not. It does not seem to keep people from getting them though. I remember about 5 years ago going to the state fair and almost every 20 something person I saw was sporting some sort of tattoo. Even yuppie looking couples pushing their baby in a stroller had them. I couldn't help but chuckle to myself while thinking how regrettful they will be in another 10 years that they have them plastered all over their arms and legs. Bodies tend to start expanding in their 30's and 40's and those cool tatts are going to spread a little thin!

[mmhardy]

I knew a guy who had a tattoo. He got it right after college while he was in Europe. It was about an inch high and it was the number "8" with wings on each side. After coming home in 1945 he went on to become an brilliant surgeon and family doctor for 30 years.

 

Yes you guessed it. It was my grandfather. In 1942 he was in the 8th Army Air Corps and was a flight surgeon stationed in England.

 

From the Fieldbook..."As I grow older I pay attention to less what men say then what they do."

[scoutmom]

Personally I am not a fan of tattoos. Would not get one for myself. I might look twice at someone with tattoos up and down both arms and legs, but if that is what makes them happy that's great. I do tend to wonder where people who have tattoos to that extreme work.

 

As far as piercings go, I have both ears pierced twice. Have had them since I was 21. If I was going to get another piercing, (which I don't plan on doing) I sort of like the eyebrow thing. (Sorry Eamonn) My son (12) thinks piercings are gross. My threat to him when he gets out of line is that I'll go get my eyebrow pierced. He straightens up pretty quick, but one of these days he's going to call my bluff!

[NJCubScouter]

I am not a big fan of tatoos or piercings of any kind. I even protested to my wife when she allowed each of our daughters to get their ears pierced, back in a bygone and more innocent era. In more recent days, both girls have "threatened" to get a tatoo, but I don't think they were that serious because when I objected, they backed down pretty quickly. One is an adult though still subject to the "as long as you're living under my roof" rule, though the fact is (shhh don't tell her) I would not actually kick her out if she got a tatoo as long as it was not ridiculous. The other one would still need our signature (though only for a few more months), and she's not getting it. I don't think it's an issue with my son (of course I say that now, in 3 years he'll come home with spiked green hair and a pierced eyebrow -- which I have to say, sorry scoutmom, I find to be an utterly ludicrous thing to do. Maybe the pierced tongue is even more ludicrous, but at least it's not as "on public display" as the pierced eyebrow. My stomach turns when I see that.)

 

As for the Boy Scouts, no there is no national rule though I believe a unit (the CO) could adopt a rule. My son's troop has no rule and for the past year or so, there have been one boy and one ASM (who not coincidentally are father and son) who have one small earring each (just a stud in each case, I think.) It doesn't seem to bother anybody, nor does it seem to have started any trend. It doesn't really bother me either, because it is on other people and not my family, and because it is really kind of minimal. I could see that if a boy came in with multiple tatoos and a pieced eyebrow, tongue, etc. it might be kind of disruptive. At some point I suppose it could be so disruptive that the needs of the troop would require that the boy be required to remove at least some items during troop events, but I don't know where that point is. In past threads on this, some have mentioned safety, I think that is a legitimate concern also, though if one is going to require that something be removed, I would limit that to specific activities where the item is likely to cause a problem. I wouldn't just say "no jewelry at troop meetings."

 

Though I keep coming back to, why anyone wants to do this to themself, is puzzling to me. But I'm not going to impose my aesthetic standards on others, it has to be an issue of disruption or safety before I think any action should be considered.

[packsaddle]

As a devoted fan of public places for the purpose of watching phenotypes, this discussion is interesting. We seem to be the only animals who engage in self-mutilation for any reason. I wonder if it is because an instinctive behavior requires an adaptive advantage, whereas a conscious behavior doesn't necessarily.

So I am fascinated by these acts. I suppose I could justify self-mutilation if it endowed the 'carrier' with some advantage in choice of mates, and this very well could be the case. However, if such advantage exists, that means that a sufficient number of potential mates actually view these self-mutilations as attractive so as to make the practice advantageous. This circularity is the really interesting part. How did it begin and how far will it go?

I doubt that I will ever be granted the necessary observations to answer the second question, at least not at the airport. But it is possible that it began with smears of dirt (cosmetics) to make us more attractive.??? Just a few thoughts on this topic of self-mutilation.