March 28, 2007
-
Tattoos
The Marines are about to ban certain kind of tattoos. (This issue was sent to me via the message box by http://www.xanga.com/HEBCHILL).
Starting Sunday, they will ban “new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee.” Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway said “I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values.”
Tattoo artist Jerry Layton at the Body Temple Tattoo Studio in Oceanside said “These are guys that are dying in the war. They can fight, but they can’t get a tattoo? It’s ridiculous.”
Do you think tattoos undermine the “traditional values” of the military?
Comments (171)
haven’t really thought about it…
i <3 tattoos!
no! let them do what they want with their body.
No. That’s stupid.
I don’t know what’s the big deal a bout tatoos. I mean unless you have something that is degrading or foul, then maybe, but if it’s just designs whatever.
.. who cares?
Soldiers are not allowed to wear visible tatoos, although I understand that many soldiers get tatoots that are easily covered by clothing. Excessive tattoos seem to be unprofessional and a sign of indulgence (as opposed to discipline), so I am not surprised that there is a rule against this.
Shouldn’t the military reflect the likes of the demographics it sends off to die? 19-24 year olds are more likely to have “new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee.”
They are in no position to lay out values.
I didn’t realize traditional values had much at all to do with tattoos, but what do I know…
I think it’s their choice to enlist, there fore they should be able to have tatoos.
who are they to tell them what they can and can not have on their body to fight a war in America’s name?
…Eeeh.
I just don’t like alot of tattoos…
Makes someone look scary.
No I personally am not a fan of tattoos but I don’t judge those who have them. My dad’s entire body is covered in tattoos.
While I appreciate morals and values especially coming from the Marine Corps (I was married to a Marine) I view this the same way I view the young men (17-20 yrs old who are enlisted in the Marines) old enough to go to battle & possibly give their life up for the USA but allowed (not old enough) to drink alcohol with their fellow brother in arms? Ridiculous.
no, men are willing to give up their lives for their country, they should be able to show their philosophies. If you go to my website and check out my tattoos, you’ll see that they convey personal philosophies that i feel would be important to me if i were in that situation. Tattoos do more than just hurt and look bad ass
Naw. But I don’t like tattoos very much.
No. I like tattoos, and I think if you want to get one then have at it. That’s pretty ridiculous to make a rule like that.
I am honestly very torn about how I feel about this.
but are not**** (argh I hate it when i mess up typing)
Tattoos have always been an issue in the military. Tattoos can’t be visible while wearing the uniform, ie- hands, neck, etc. This is just expanding now. There you go, what else can you ask for? Get a shitload of tattoos and you won’t have to go risk your life fighting for fake causes. Bonus!
Hmmm… I tried to think of a concise answer, but everytime I started one I would think of an opposing opinion from the other side.
So, I’m not sure. It’s their body, so they should be able to adorn it how they please, but they are supposed to fit certain physical standards, so why should tattoos be exempt?
uh, NO? that’s just stupid.
Wow… how dumb! Its that persons body… let them do what they want with it! It shouldn’t be banned… its not like its on everyone. Gah.
yeah. no!
Jeesh. If they can say what designs we can put on our bodies, what’s nex, saying what genders we can or can’t be with, that we can’t be gay? Oh wait, they alreadyHAVE. . .
If that tattoo is totally covered under clothing anyway, then I don’t see a problem.
They’re just seeing tattoos as this “big bad stigma” which is really judgemental on their part. But whose to say the military/army any of that was ever fair?
Don’t alot of girls like the buff tattooed army/military dude? This could be costly for girls EVERYWHERE!
tattooes have nothing to do with your physicality. it’s INK on your SKIN. if it was something that would interfere with their services, it would be understandable, but it’s idiotic to go that far in conforming soldiers.
hmmm, this could be good.
If a draft is ever instated, and something like this holds true for the Army, everyone can just go out and get tattoos!
that’s really dumb. its just… UGH THIS IS BUGGING ME.
“the perfect american” is not just from one type of background.
i think its insane.
Its the Marines, they pride themselves on their discipline. A body covered in ink looks more barbaric than disciplined. The Marines can and do set the standards for being a Marine. This is no big deal.
If they are in the Military, they need to submit to their rules. I do think tattoos are excessive and unnecessary though.
I don’t think it’s that big a deal to be banning the tattoos in those places. There is plenty of space elsewhere to tattoo.
Well lets see, in the military your life is the property of the government. That is a good place to start. The military has uniforms and requires everyone to look as identical as possible including hair cuts. I fail to see how this is any different than the hair requirements.
If a person has a problem with this then they probably do not belong in the military anyway. I believe they got rid of the draft so that only those who want to be in the military join up.
I hope some Marine defies this rule and gets a big
I LOVE THE MARINES tattoo or something. And then you get the Marines fighting saying you can’t have a tattoo saying your love for them, lol. That would be fun!
thats so stupid -_-
No, they just make you look like a twonk.
No, tattoos are awesome.
Double you tee effff.
So, they can go and fight and get their bodies blown up, but they can’t get a tattoo?
Values. Riiiight.
the military almost revolves around tattooing but i understand the hopes to restrict visibility of them, and present a more professional look.
I don’t know, but the military has the right to make the rules they want to. This is not an excessive or unfair rule. We Americans need to stop harping about our individual rights and be willing to submit to authority for once. Wait until you get out of the Marines, then get your big bad tattoo.
Each branch of the military has its own individual requirements. The marines are an elite unit and therefore have stricter requirements for joining than do other forces.
If the Marines are not allowed to make rules for entry then Harvard should not be allowed to be selective.
Hm. Not sure, but I think Jerry Layton is just scared that he will be losing some business.
that is retarted…i agree with the tatoo guy. thats like saying you are old enough to vote, but you can buy beer. that is so retarted. *sigh*. a tattoo is not going to change a man’s reverance,loyalty, and love for his country and that is only thing i care about when hes gunning down terrorists. so. let them have their fun. its the least we can do.
It doesn’t say that they can’t have tattoos. They just do not want visible tattoos. A soldiers entire life is regulated, including hair, schedule, weight, etc… How does this differ? In fact, this is fairly lieniant (and I can’t spell tonight)
No, that’s old fashioned. If they’re serving the country they should be able to do whatever they want to their body. I know they have an image to uphold but come on, if it’s important enough to tattoo all over their body, I think they can allow some leniancy.
Dan, you undermine my traditional values
The tattoos in the picture would still be allowed, since they aren’t below the elbow or the knee.
It sounds as if the tattoo artist doesn’t understand military service.
Being in uniform involves a certain amount of sacrifice, giving up personal freedoms that other Americans have. It is simply part of the life. I’m not really against tattoo’s but I have no problem if they believe that it compromises our professional image.
A soldier is not an individual. They are first a tool, a representative of our nation. It is not my body, but my countries. I gave my body away of my own free will. When my time is up it will be mine again. Until then I walk the line and I do not begrudge it. You might as well be a Christian and begrudge the Bible for saying don’t have sex outside of marriage. If it really bothers you that much you have a larger problem.
Why are they worried about tattoos? They should be worried about the people dying in war.
excessive tat’s are unprofessional in any area-unless you are a tattoo artist. When you enlist you belong to uncle sam 24/7. get the tat when you get out.
They should be able to have a tattoo if they want!
That guy is right..
..ridiculous
it all depends on what these ‘traditional values of the army’ are. honestly, unless you mean protecting us, i dont know what the tradtional values of the army are.
i can understand that visible tatoos are offensive to some people…but theyre in the army! its not like theyve never been offended before. honestly, if theyre willing to die for citizens (and illegal imigrants) of the usa, then they should be allowed to have a little freedom. it is what theyre fighting for, after all.
peace, love, hummer
JP
Soldiers are supposed to be uniform. The military operates as one. There is no individual, only the team or unit.
Tattoos are a symbol of individuality and the expression thereof, I find it no wonder that the military does not find this in line with their values.
Based on that view, I can say yes, I do believe that large and visible tattoos do undermine the values and mindset of a military organization.
On the other hand, soldiers have been identified by their tattoos because no other part of their body was able to be used. I see no problem with the military’s view that tattoos
that are covered by the uniform itself are acceptable.
LOL! Um, no… I think I know more people in the military with a tattoo than without!
Personally I think it should be up to the individual. But, then again… it is the military, and they have their own set of strict rules. That’s what makes our military work… so it’s really not my place to say anything.
As long as they are covered up by clothing , i feel its okay. They make the body ugly.
No, I think that’s a ridiculous, antiquated notion born of ignorant old-fashioned minds.
What, the values of killing people?
By the way… what exactly are they going to do with the marines who ALREADY have tattoos like that?? Kick them out??
What??
lol, my brother’s a Marine and he has plenty of tattoos. I don’t think they undermine traditional values, though, they just violate the “clean cut” look.
I don’t have any tatoos, but I don’t think it is right of them to tell them they can’t have them when they are fighting for our country.
certainly not! what if the tattoo was to be of an american flag with an eagle over it and a bulldog under it and the words “fuck terrorism” scrawled across the whole thing??? i think you’d be hard pressed to find a marine who would tell you to cover it up. (or a wife who wouldn’t)
hmmm, this could be good.
If a draft is ever instated, and something like this holds true for the Army, everyone can just go out and get tattoos!
Posted 3/28/2007 8:44 PM by PacifismPlease
lol.
no, i think that is dumb.
not at all…
the fuck
uniformity… you can still get a tatoo, it just can’t show when you are in uniform. i’d like to say “deal” but it is the millitary, so i sort of can’t say that, because it would make me an asshole.
I mean, it’s obvious; it’s the same way gays undermine family values.
Absolutely not! What a stupid…gah I can’t believe this is even an issue! Like the guy said, they’re DYING for this country and yet they can’t decorate their body a little bit? What bullshit.
These people make me sick.
Who cares what they get done.. they have to spend their lives fighting battles no one else wants to! Let them be tattooed
Yes, speaking from many years of first-hand military experience in and out of combat. At the very least they are unprofessional and childish, at worst they are distracting and a human eye sore.
Tattoos are fine, as long as it isn’t a swastika.
Oh my fucking god….
first women, then gay people, then tattoos?
James T. Conway, you are an closed-minded, arrogent (forgive my redundancy), ignorant, CONSERVATIVE, hoebag.
I’m moving to Sweden.
-Jacob
Okay…
This is just one of the less elaborate comments where I’ll just exclaim,
THAT’S FUCKING DUMB!
Ugh.
Did anyone say yes? Because I am. Small tatoos are ok because most of the time they actually mean something, but anything excessive is pretty much un-gentleman like. Ever heard of conduct unbecoming a United States Marine?
not at all. my grandfather was in the navy during world war 2 and korea. every little village or town he went to, he got some sort of tattoo, as did many other people. it doesnt undermine the traditional value of the military. it IS a tradition of the military.
I’m not a fan of tatoos, but I do not think that anyone involved in the administration of this war, as opposed to the soldiers who have nothing to do with the decisions and should be supported and brought home safely, is in a position to be holding forth about values.
No doubt this is their lame attempt to make the military look less threatening with the rapes and tortures and all, but this is so not connected and unless they are willing to look at the actual problems, like overwhelmed, scared, improperly supervised guys who have been taught to hate and fear a people they really know nothing about who may very well resent the invasion of their home, a few tatoos more or less is not even on the list of things going wrong right now.
I agree that personal values are important, but it also seems important to allow someone who could potentially die for his/her country to have a little extra freedom. I think that they should (at the very least) allow long-sleeved uniforms for people who want tattoos.
So if a guy gets a tattoo on his wrist, does that mean he can’t be in the military?
That seems like a way easier way to get out of going to war than breaking your leg on purpose. :]
I really like tattoos and I think it’s a beautiful form of self-expression. I realize that the military is very traditional in dress and that their uniforms are very strict and important, but Jerry Layton makes an excellent point.
As long as they aren’t gang-related tattoos. I would “assume” that if you are in the military you wouldn’t be associated with a gang – your squad maybe, but not a gang.
All that aside, I just noticed the paper. Sorry, I must have missed it before. I don’t know how you did that, but I like it.
nothing says “im a marine” that a marine with tats.
It the fucking marines can guarantee that their bodies will come out of their time in the military as unmarked by bullets and shrapnel and shit as they went in, then super. Otherwise, they can shove their fucking “traditional values” up their military ass.
They just want to rip away every shred of individuality the person has and make them into their hive-mentality killing machines. KILL FOR EXXON> DIE FOR EXXON> But don’t have a fucking tattoo of a dragon on your arm while you do it.
Right.
Dare you to leave the military without a tat!
you body, your choice.
Dare you to leave the military without a tat!
you body, your choice.
“Who Cares?” well I care, being in the military, and no, it doesn’t, provided that the tattoos aren’t offensive…”Kill Whitey” across your back would fall into that category.
That’s kind of funny since the Army recently changed its rules and now allows tatts on the neck and hands. But hell, I don’t see why it’s a big deal to any of the armed services. You can “Rape, Kill, Pillage and Burn” (Army and Marine running cadence, not vicious slander of the military) with or without tattoos.
if you mean like the traditional values of raping young girls from the enemies country and then killing her and her entire family… then yeah, i guess tattoos are a little tame.
considering it was the military during WWI & II that even brought tattoos into style in american culture i find it a little obsurd that they would now ban them…
especially if you think about everything these people are risking and giving up to “protect freedom…” you’d think they’d be left with a little freedom of their own – but hey, when has the military ever done anything that made sense?
no. people have way too much bad stigma around tattoos.
I thought the traditional values of the military was kill whoever was trying to kill you?
Tattoo’s don’t stop you from doing that.
Getting a tat below your elbow or knee looks kind of stupid regardless, but srsly if they can die for the country they should sure as fuck be able to get inked.
what if the tattoo was to be of an american flag with an eagle over it and a bulldog under it and the words “fuck terrorism” scrawled across the whole thing??? i think you’d be hard pressed to find a marine who would tell you to cover it up. (or a wife who wouldn’t)
Posted 3/28/2007 9:24 PM by ana4jackirose
That actually sounds like a retarded tattoo. If I was a marine wife or girlfriend I would never allow my husband / boyfriend to get something that stupid.
Let them have tattoos. As far as I know, they are allowed to indulge in alcohol and pornography. Aren’t those against “traditional values”? (I think they should be allowed to indulge in all three. They’re adults.) Of course, I think they should also be able to grow facial hair. But that’s just me.
thats dumb.. lol
As a 23-year Army veteran who has done two wars and a boring peacekeeping mission, plus a lot of stops in between, the big tatoos can be a problem. They make somebody stand out. The Marines don’t want standouts, they want conformity. The Army has to screen applicants a lot for tatoos that represent extremist organizations. What’s really sad is when you find a kid who would be a good soldier and who needs a place to go, but we can’t take him because he got drunk and got himself tatooed with something he had no idea what it meant.
They are slowly taking away every right we have.
I could understand why the army wouldn’t want their whole “traditional founding” damaged but it seems as if that whole traditional aspect of the army would be outdated, no? It’s almost like how when America was founded “religious freedom” meant whatever form of Christianity you wanted to follow instead of true religious freedom. While I respect the professionalism of the army– and them wanting to preserve their past– honestly…give me a break. Tattoos? They have bigger things to worry about.
By the way, I’m a fan of your website but I’ve always been too scared to comment on any of the topics! There need to be more websites like this.
Yes.
No. That’s total BS.
If the Marines didn’t accept such morons, they wouldn’t have to worry about gross tattos.
Man seriously. They need to stop being so picky. They need all the people they can get right now.
It has always been traditional for warriors to get tattoos.
so now commiting murder is considered more traditional than tattoos….how sad..
I think, my inane thoughts from the North…. that the image and type of beings who come from the marines fit a standard, they fight, train, and go through the hell of Boot Camp to produce a type of person, a Soldier who has training, self control and pride on what they have endure, can endure and their abilities… I know thats what my Great Uncle Tommy Prince and my Grandfather on my Mother’s side felt when they were in the Army. Now my Father worked in Prisons for many years, worked with Probation and Parolees, and they all had something in common…they all had tattoos…to me and to so many others, their life style shows in what they have done to their bodies…I know tatoos are becoming more main stream but they still have the negative stigma of being associated with Prisons and convicts….. Can you see why the Military would not want that type of stigma attached to it especially with all the scandals they’re enduring right now…. my thoughts… ‘Til The Next
Only visible “anti-military” tats should bother the military…
i think it’s ridiculous that they aren’t allowed to have what they want…a good majority of the tatoos show their pride in being a marine….not to mention they are fighting for America…you know a country that is suposed to be equal to freedom and they should have the freedom to do as they chose with their bodies…if they are able to put their lives on the lines for their country then they should be allowed to have any tattoo they chose…
you dont seem to understand what those ‘traditional values’ stand for. we’re talking about a section of the armed forces. those traidtinal values are conformity, we’re going to brainwash our troops into protoplasmic sludge but let them be UNIQUE …bullshit
I never knew that they were allowed visible tattoos..I always thought that the visible ones were banded from the getgo. My husband was in the air force for four years and is now in the Air National Gaurd, he has two tattoos on his back and I find them interesting, they kind of tell a story about him. It would be wrong to take away an identity from a solder like that, they are dieing in a dumb ass war anyway, what the hell is a few tattoos going to do. do you think the people living in Iraq care what our solders have tattooed on there arms,legs,back,ect…I also find it shitty that men & women can go off to war at 18 and die for their country, yet they can’t drink. What is this world coming to??
It’s probably a good idea, as they would be a rather identifying feature. The smaller, hidden ones are okay because, casually, no one would see it.
I thought it was part of the military. LOL.
>> Its the Marines, they pride themselves on their discipline. A body covered in ink looks more barbaric than disciplined. <<
Well first remember that killing, which is what the marines are trained to do, IS barbaric. But at any rate, whether or not tattoos per se are barbaric is really a matter of personal taste and I don’t think you can make a universal assertion one way or the other.
>> The Marines can and do set the standards for being a Marine. This is no big deal. <<
It’s needlessly arbitrary and bordering on excessive. If they recruit based on whether a person’s skin has ART work on it — in essence: if they recruit based on skin appearance — then they could also turn away albinos or burn victims whose skin has been deformed.
I think it’s disgraceful to list skin appearance as a criterion for marine selection.
– Pat
>> Its the Marines, they pride themselves on their discipline. A body covered in ink looks more barbaric than disciplined. <
Well first remember that killing, which is what the marines are trained to do, IS barbaric. But at any rate, whether or not tattoos per se are barbaric is really a matter of personal taste and I don’t think you can make a universal assertion one way or the other.
>> The Marines can and do set the standards for being a Marine. This is no big deal. <
It’s needlessly arbitrary and bordering on excessive. If they recruit based on whether a person’s skin has ART work on it — in essence: if they recruit based on skin appearance — then they could also turn away albinos or burn victims whose skin has been deformed.
I think it’s disgraceful to list skin appearance as a criterion for marine selection.
— Pat
damn it… why the hell are my replies showing up like that? ^
>> As a 23-year Army veteran who has done two wars and a boring peacekeeping mission, plus a lot of stops in between, the big tatoos can be a problem. They make somebody stand out. The Marines don’t want standouts, they want conformity. <<
Again, this is placing too great of an emphasis on a person’s skin appearance. If artwork on skin is unacceptable then what about huge/grostesque birth marks? They also make a person stand out (as far as appearance goes) but that doesn’t mean they should be denied. Also note that, as far as skin appearance goes, there is *no* conformity in the military because albinos, blacks, whites, asians, etc. are all allowed to serve. And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the “conformity” issue really relate to discipline (physical and mental) and how soldiers treat/view each other??
>> The Army has to screen applicants a lot for tatoos that represent extremist organizations. What’s really sad is when you find a kid who would be a good soldier and who needs a place to go, but we can’t take him because he got drunk and got himself tatooed with something he had no idea what it meant. <<
Well he could always have it removed or painted over.
best wishes
– Pat
No, that’s ridiculous.
I am a Navy Wife. I don’t think that tattoos should be a factor. If you are old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to decide whether or not to get a tattoo.
its silly. tattoos not fitting the military image. who cares?
Yes. Tatoos look unprofessional.
Lol, I remember growing up that alot of the men that came incontact with my family were retired servicemen. Most of them had tatoo’s of somekind or another. I understood it was once a tradition to get tatooed…a rite of manhood.
People in the military are told what to do. This really is not much different from any other regulation or order. What the hell does ones age have to do with it?
No, I don’t.
This is interesting because the Army is just starting to allow people who have these kinds of tattoos to join. It used to be that they had to have them completely covered by the uniform or PT clothing, but not anymore.
The only thing I really have to say against tattoos in the military is that gang symbol tattoos should NOT be allowed because those do undermine traditional values. Everything else is a go.
Yea, and you can’t shave your legs either.
Jack Asses!
No.
I think its stupid but now you know what to do to avoid being drafted if they have a draft. Get big tattoos
The armed forces just wanna crush people’s individuality and make them easier to mold into something that would be a good soldier.
Tattoos express a person’s individuality..
They shouldn’t be banned.
Absolutely not… especially not if the tattoo means something to the person. I understand that its stupid to have a tat just for the sake of having one… but I think guys in the Marines are usually not going to be that flippant about stuff. Honor is everything to them.
I’m not sure that the American military practices the traditional values of the military on a regular basis, therefore I don’t think it is tattoos we should be concerned with at this point.
I don’t understand where people get off saying that tattoos (and piercings, brightly dyed hair or unusual hair styles, for that matter) look “unprofessional.” I’ve never understood it. Just what about that kind of alternative look do people find so unattractive for jobs?
It’s almost impossible to get a job anywhere outside of a music store or some place in the mall if you have visible tattoos, piercings or colored hair. It’s not just in the business world either; Fast food restraunts, places that don’t even require uniforms, and even beauty supply stores will turn you down.Why?
I believe that I have traditional values (I am a stay at home mom of four whose family attends church weekly and whose husband supports the family)…..but I have a tattoo. I did not get it as a sign of disrespect or bad morals…..I got it because I wanted it. It is a symbol of my husband and children and I. Sure, it is small but had I wanted it bigger I would have gotten it bigger. If that makes me not good enough to fight for our country then so be it. I hope we never have a draft again…..I am sure everyone will rush out to get giant tattoos so they can stay home.
The military has certain standards about all kinds of things – your medical profile and conditions, hairstyle you must wear, weight standards, etc etc….this is just another one. They want everyone to be healthy and fit, and for everyone to appear to be UNIFORM while in uniform. They can make up whatever rules they want…if people don’t want to follow them, they shouldn’t sign up.
Hell no!
I don’t like tatoos, but banning people with tattoos from the Army is NOT a realistic idea.
No, that’s a stupid military policy. Oh wait, it’s the military, that explains it..
I don’t think that tatoos undermine the traditional values of the military, but I also don’t think that this policy is that big of a deal — for most careers today, you can’t have visible tattoos.
I always hear the argument that underage soldiers should be able to drink legally in the US. I am really proud of our soldiers and I could never do what they have done for us, but I don’t think thats a free ticket to do whatever, either.
From a biblical standpoint… (I think its in Leviticus…) scripture says not to “mark the body with tattoos, and piercings”…
Doesnt the Marines’ pledge say something like “TO REMAIN ALWAYS FAITHFUL TO THESE VALUES AND TO GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY, CORPS. OUR CORE VALUES REMAIN THE VERY SOUL OF OUR INSTITUTION, UNDERLYING ALL THAT IS BEST IN MARINES, AND MUST CONTINUE TO FRAME THE WAY WE LIVE AND ACT AS MARINES.”?
They call themselves “the ELITE” …So, according to their standards- they hold themselves higher then the others…excessive tatoos should not be allowed.
IF the men and women who chose to be Marines know this in advance, and are willing to abide by it…(they say so by signing their name to the dotted line), then tattoos DO undermine the “traditional values” of the military.
In today’s society a large number of people say they are ok.
I, personally do NOT like a LOT of tattoos… HOWEVER, If a person is willing to put their life on the line for ME, MY CHILDREN, and OUR COUNTRY… Then I think that they can choose to tattoo whatever the heck they want!
What happened to America being the country that stand up for freedom of expression. These “traditional values” they are enforcing are squelching that freedom and therefore against everything america stands for. America’s values are not only those set down by the ultra conservative bible belt.
Seems strange, especially since uniforms usually cover up most of the body anyway. Also seems like a very strange thing for them to be worrying about, instead of say war and famine and violence towards women (inside the military), etc…
Haha. If they keep baning things there won’t be anyone left who’s allowed to be in the military.
now that is just stupid. they can die in battle but can’t have a tatoo? it’s their own body and they’re over 18, by law they are allow to tattoo themselves wherever the hell they want.
oh please…do they have a rule that states how many times a week your allowed to get drunk???
Seems like a stupid rule to me. I might ask them to keep all the tattoos in spots that can be covered by the uniform but otherwise who cares?
You people are forgetting one thing. When you sign up for the military THEY OWN YOU. You can’t complain about the rules once you sign up. Technically tattoos have been forbidden in the military for a very long time and you can get in trouble for getting one of any nature anywhere on your body. They don’t go to extremes to enforce it, but they could if they wanted. Just like they can tell you to wear a helmet on base if you are on a motorcycle even though the laws in your state might say they don’t have to wear one. If you don’t like the rules, don’t join the military!
And I say that as a person with tattoos, who also has a brother in the military with *gasp shock horror* tattoos.
those tattoos look awesome!
No more than homosexuals would if they were allowed to serve. So no, not that much.
what are the “traditional values” of the military anyway? enlisting kids from lesser privileged households by enticing them with opportunity that they would otherwise not be able to afford (e.g. a college education) and then throwing them into the turmoil of the middle east without, in any way, providing these very young adults with the tools to live life after such heartache and trauma? then, yeah, prohibiting tatoos on certain parts of the body….yeah, that’s important. goodness.
yeah because the morale in the navy is so great….i’ve heard stories about men gettin off the boats in the ports and finding a woman for the night. *rolls eyes* I’m not saying EVERY man. I’m saying, some.
let them have their damn tattoos…they aren’t hurtin anything.
The military, no. But the Marine Corp, yes. They are a whole different breed….
Really, recruitment is so dire right now, you’d think they’d be REVERSING this decision and saying anything goes.
I’m really tired of people saying that because I’m “dying for my country” I can do whatever the hell I want to. I’m not dying for my country, I live for it. I don’t get more self expression, I get less. You get more, and I’m not your argument for whatever sounds good to you.
Don’t you dare use me as an excuse to bash our government. I made a free choice to surrender some of my self expression. When my time is up I will have it back. Service is a choice only a few make, dying is something none of us can avoid, and I think it is an utterly superfluous argument.
The military is rather out of touch with reality and actual values.
It doesn’t really matter what I think about tattoos. IT’s not my body. They can do with it want they want.
>> I’m really tired of people saying that because I’m “dying for my country” I can do whatever the hell I want to. I’m not dying for my country, I live for it. <<
I don’t think anybody is making that argument. Instead, people seem to be saying that marines — people who risk their lives for the sake of others — ought to be able to have tattoos if they want.
I prefer my own argument: that listing skin appearance as a criterion (and that is exactly what this ban does) is scary and arbitrary. There is no such thing as appearance conformity in the military because everybody already looks so different, from the tall to the short, from blacks to white albinos, and so on. I can’t thing of a single rational reason for rejecting tattoos per se.
>> I don’t get more self expression, I get less. <<
Yes, but the issue here is wether that’s acceptable. So far nobody has offered a good defense for the tattoo ban. The argument that tattoos are distracting doesn’t work because if a marine is *that* easily distracted then he or she has no business being a marine in the first place.
>> I made a free choice to surrender some of my self expression. <<
Yes, but the issue here is whether service in the marines should entail loss of that expression. Again, we’re just talking about skin appearance — that is all this ban boils down to and I find it to be appalling and prejudiced.
– Pat
I’m surprised any branch of the military is being so picky these days.
well, when i think of traditional value I think of guys swearing up a storm with explosives in their belt a knife on their body and automatic machine guns loaded and ready to kill anything that moves when word is given.
With those being my traditional value I find tattoos as repugnant. I think that anyone with a tattoo or piercing should be immediately kicked out of the military.
“Traditional values”
My
ass!
There is no such thing as appearance conformity in the military because everybody already looks so different, from the tall to the short, from blacks to white albinos, and so on.
Actually you are incorrect on that. A woman I went to high school with served in the Navy for three years. Her job was to stand on the White House lawn during certain events. The men and women did have to be a certain heighth to maintain conformity. There are also heighth restrictions for pilots etc. in the military. Also, how many men in the military have you seen who DO NOT have the standard military hair cut, and how many women have you seen in uniform with their hair hanging below the collar? You won’t see it because of the standards of apparance they have. If you want to go even further look up the requirements for the soliders who guard the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. THAT is living insanely strict.
Well, yes. To answer your question.
But that doesn’t mean they have the right to ban tattoos of any size. It impedes on the person’s rights.
thats icky. they fight for us in the war
they deserve to have all the tatoos they want
Evidently.
If you don’t like it, don’t join the Marines.
I think that the marines should be allowed to have excessive tattoos unless they work in the counter intellegence area
i think it’s ridiculous. marines are notorious for tattoos.
the only restriction there should be on tattoos is no tattoos that are gang related, etc.
i have until sunday to get my sleeves!! ….kidding.
as for the guy trying to avoid a possible draft, you’re a pussy & should move to canada.
God forbit you believe in and serve your country, right??
reach down and grab a pair you bitch.
personaly, i don’t think anyone should get a tatoo. but if you want me to answer the question, i say no.
tattoos represent individuality. now for a cold and analytical perspective all soldiers are to act as a body and not individuals. would a tattoo really affect performance? probably not. bring out the clones.
I wrote:
>> There is no such thing as appearance conformity in the military because everybody already looks so different, from the tall to the short, from blacks to white albinos, and so on. <<
And then momentkeeper rebutted one of those points by saying:
>> Actually you are incorrect on that. A woman I went to high school with served in the Navy for three years. Her job was to stand on the White House lawn during certain events. The men and women did have to be a certain heighth to maintain conformity. There are also heighth restrictions for pilots etc. in the military. <<
Interesting. In that case I was wrong about the tall-VS-short argument, unless things are different in the marines. But anyway, my point about skin appearance remains unrefuted. And I certainly hope there is no height conformity rule for the marines.
>> Also, how many men in the military have you seen who DO NOT have the standard military hair cut, and how many women have you seen in uniform with their hair hanging below the collar? <<
Again, the ban on tattoos is focusing too much on skin appearance and my main (and original) point was that there is *no* such thing as skin appearance conformity given that people of all races are allowed to serve. And presumably, people with “weird” birth marks, burns, and skin deformities are allowed to serve too. So my beef is with listing skin appearance as a criterion for selection.
The excess conformity ignores and denigrates the beauty of diversity. In my view there definitely should be conformity, but *only* for behavior and discipline, not appearance.
>> If you want to go even further look up the requirements for the soliders who guard the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. THAT is living insanely strict.<<
I’ll do that. Thanks
No. Personally, I don’t get what the hype is about tattoos. But if someone is interested in them, that should be their personal choice.
I think it’s totally rediculous. If someone wants to go die for their country before they’re even old enough to DRINK, then why should our ‘government’ say where we can and cant tattoo ourselves?
Government: n; another way to say better than you.
well I can say that I will now promote getting large and visible tattoos to as many young people as possible!
and some the people posting here might want to remember the armed forces includes women – why are you talking as if this only affects men?
): If they’re willing to go off and fight for their country, does it really matter what they look like?
control
control
control
these damn pple have such an issue with control …. why must they control every single aspect of their lives holy shit let them get their damn tattos…. its not harming anyone.fuck traditions … no follows them anyway. damn
They cant be shown so who cares….
Tattoos are a personal choice. So is enlisting at this time. If one wants to enlist, one needs to fit the requirements, just as they wish to enter into any employment. The thing we do not like to recognize about the military structure is the necessity of blurring the differences so that the group can work better as a team. Just like uniforms in school blur the lines of student social classes, military conformity keeps the focus on the individual and rank, not personal statements in order to establish and maintain chain-of-command. Someone with significant alterations in their appearance would be a distraction from the required focus. And, in a deployment or barracks situation, they are not always in full uniform while around each other. The more they “conform” to the expected “norm”, the easier it is to maintain the focus in stressful situations. We don’t have to like it, but this is fact. And, I am not biased against tats because I have a nice-sized, colorful one of my own. However, to conform to my “conservative uniform” for the workplace, it is easily hidden. If I wish to expose it socially I can and do.
I WANT TO SEE MORE OF YOUR TATTOES! DUDE
THE QUESTION, IS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THAT BODY OF YOURS?
no..
Hey, those tattoos ain’t hurting nobody