New tattoo rules for service men and women.

[CRUE CAB]

Its not an opinion, its a fact. This new policy has nothing to do with Muslims and whatever you've "heard from a friend" which I really think is just code for "I made it up myself" is simply wrong.

It's wrong, there's no if's and's or but's.

Sure, you just keep beating that drum.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Sorry on one hand that the military is getting all ate up with stupid PC.

Since when have tattoos been related to PC? That makes absolutely no sense at all, and in fact should almost be the opposite.

You just don't want to face the fact that they do not appear professional. And that is really what it is all about. If somebody wants to be an individual and mark themselves up with ink, get decorative scars and put holes in their body for decorations, they should not join the military.

 

[American]

Tattoos: Understand risks and precautions - MayoClinic.com

There can be medical risks associated with tattoos, and why should the military be deal with it?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Since when have tattoos been related to PC? That makes absolutely no sense at all, and in fact should almost be the opposite.

You just don't want to face the fact that they do not appear professional. And that is really what it is all about. If somebody wants to be an individual and mark themselves up with ink, get decorative scars and put holes in their body for decorations, they should not join the military.

Yes, mindless drones. That is the soldier of tomorrow.

 

[KevinKohler]

Used to be, you'd go into the military tattoo free, and come out with a few. Not full sleeves, mind, but usually significant. I know a LOT of former military guys with cavalry, infantry, etc tats. Right of passage, really.

 

[KevinKohler]

One day, we'll no longer judge people on appearances.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

There have always been rules and regulations regarding appearance in the military . . . the one thing about this that is constant, is the rules are ever changing. I'm a 2-service veteran (Army and Navy), and in my time I saw the Military Police 6-foot tall requirement tossed out the window post Vietnam, because the Army could not get enough qualified candidates to enlist because of the stigma attached to the military. I also saw the Navy go from no beards for Petty Officers, back to beards, and then back to no beards. I remember a time when the military was so hard up for volunteers they even stopped giving crew cuts in basic and boot camps. Uniform changes never end, and in some cases those changes are directly related to where you are stationed. Appearance is always changing. Besides, I get it.

Personally, and as a retired Corpsman, I never saw the tattoo thing as an option for me. Saw too many faded and collagen free tattoos on WWII vets in the ICU when I was coming up in the Navy to want one. My daughter is tatted up on her entire back and down one arm, my son has a half sleeve (both did over 8-years in the Air Force). I warned them both . . . just wait. That's neither here nor there, because I don't care what you do to your body, but I have to admit, and perhaps it is just my age, but it's hard to look totally professional with a full sleeve tat when wearing a short sleeve uniform. And that's without dealing with what may be some of the questionable subject matter of some tattoos.

Lastly, as everyone knows, a bitchin' soldier is a happy soldier . . . so if a few guys are bitchin' . . . they must be happy.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I can see the ban on neck tats, but forearm and calf tats.
Seriously, does that what makes a good military man now a days?

I've know countless military individuals with tats in all these places. My husband has sleeves, and at the gate the other day some guy had finger tats.

There are regulations which are ignored . . . tats in all places are more socially acceptable. :shrug: Soon it won't matter to anyone at all.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Used to be, you'd go into the military tattoo free, and come out with a few. Not full sleeves, mind, but usually significant. I know a LOT of former military guys with cavalry, infantry, etc tats. Right of passage, really.

Well, somehow I have gone 16 years in the military without getting a single one.

And the closest I ever came to getting one was in 1990 when I was seriously considering getting a "Meat Tag". But needless to say that would not have been visible in any way.

 

[Oozlefinch]

One day, we'll no longer judge people on appearances.

Sorry, that is some kind of Socialistic Fantasyland there.

People will always judge others on their appearance, that is simply human nature. And often times (especially in business) it is the image they want to project to others.

I was once involved in interviewing prospective techs for a contract position, and part of the "unofficial guidelines" we had was no facial tattoos, no hand tattoos, no radical piercings, and be able to talk in a professional manner. This is because this contract was at what was once the largest aerospace company in the world, and we had to present a professional image in that environment.

But hey, if you wanna get teardrops tattooed under your eye, but a dinner plate through your ear lobe and holes all the way around both your ears, go for it. Just do not expect to work at a place like Hughes Aerospace in the 1990's, or the US military today.

I find it sad, especially since I am also active on Yahoo Answers, mostly in answering questions of those who want to join the military. Hardly a day goes by because some kid asks if there is any way they can join, and the answer is no because of things they have done to themselves. Tattoos, piercings, ear lobe stretching, tribal scaring, skin implants, every day some ask questions about how they can get in.

And all I can do 95% of the time is tell them they have destroyed any chance of joining the military, and good luck with their life. Although on occasion there is one or two that can be helped (surgical removing of a small tattoo, covering a gang one, or surgical closing of the holes). But most of the times they kids are pissed off because nobody else appreciates their "art".

Well, then let them apply to work hanging themselves on the wall in a museum so others can appreciate it, I largely see it as unprofessional myself. And I certainly would not hire many of the freaks I see wandering around (including my own son).

 

[Surtr]

Tattoos: Understand risks and precautions - MayoClinic.com

There can be medical risks associated with tattoos, and why should the military be deal with it?

Primary reason why USFK has a strict prohibition on tattoos from local parlors. I can't imagine that Korea is the only place where they're banned.

 

[Navy Pride]

Most people who get tattoos when they are young regret doing it later in life when they grow up.

 

[Navy Pride]

One day, we'll no longer judge people on appearances.

Judge is a strong word.

 

[PirateMk1]

The Military is a professional organization. If you want to look like a circus freak, do it somewhere else.

Actually having been in the sandbox, the soldiers I would prefer to see and have watching my back are the ones who look like and give off the very strong vibes of the badass muther ****er civilized people cross the street to get away from. Professional looking is all fine and dandy on a parade ground, I prefer competent. That's not to say you can judge competent based on looks, far from it, but generally I have found, the competent ones have a certain vibe and look to them that just screams "Don't screw with me or I will rip your head off and place it on a pike." Most looked like fricken pirates and outlaws, with just a very professional looking ones. The professional looking ones that gave that vibe were the scariest in my opinion. Cold blooded operators to be sure. Brrrrr. Don't exactly know why that is but I found it to be for the most part true.

 

[Surtr]

Actually having been in the sandbox, the soldiers I would prefer to see and have watching my back are the ones who look like and give off the very strong vibes of the badass muther ****er civilized people cross the street to get away from. Professional looking is all fine and dandy on a parade ground, I prefer competent. That's not to say you can judge competent based on looks, far from it, but generally I have found, the competent ones have a certain vibe and look to them that just screams "Don't screw with me or I will rip your head off and place it on a pike." Most looked like fricken pirates and outlaws, with just a very professional looking ones. The professional looking ones that gave that vibe were the scariest in my opinion. Cold blooded operators to be sure. Brrrrr. Don't exactly know why that is but I found it to be for the most part true.

Looks don't mean **** when it comes to combat proficiency.

 

[PirateMk1]

Looks don't mean **** when it comes to combat proficiency.

That's what I said.

 

[Surtr]

That's what I said.

Well, unfortunately for the ink happy teens, the Military prefers people who will not look like crap in uniform.

 

[American]

One day, we'll no longer judge people on appearances.

Yeah, let's do away with uniforms and just where street clothes. Imagine styling stelletos on the 5" gun. :thumbs:

 

[mak2]

I know when I was in the USMC, tatoos past the short sleeves were not banned, but I was told I would never get embassy duty and other duty but I dont remember which ones. tat's were not encouraged even in 1980.

 

[APACHERAT]

I know when I was in the USMC, tattoos past the short sleeves were not banned, but I was told I would never get embassy duty and other duty but I don't remember which ones. tat's were not encouraged even in 1980.

I remember back when I served, Vietnam war era. There were no regulations against tattoo's. There were state laws that it was a crime for someone to tattoo someone below the wrist or above the neck.

Back during the day, society looked at only sailors, bikers, criminals and carnival freaks had tats. Which was true,

The criminal element had their "jail house" tats which were done with a needle, cotton and Indian Head Ink.

1% outlaw bikers had tats.

There were Marine lifers who would have a tat or two, usually the Marine Corps emblem or a bull dog on the arm or forearm.

You didn't see soldiers with tats that much back then.

But sailors, every navy town had numerous tattoo parlors. Every port of call in the Orient had tattoo parlors.

And the sailors were tatted down with typical sailor tattoo's. A tattoo of a rooster on your lower leg would prevent you from drowning. Tattoo's of anchors, sailing ships, eagles, the stars and stripes, naked women, mermaids seem to be the tradition.

Many navy tattoo's had more to do with traditions and nautical superstitions.

Not sure when soldiers started getting into tats maybe in the late 80's but with all who got inked while serving, the tattoo's were either military or patriotic tats.

I have no problem with a member of the service having one tat below the elbow of a tat of the emblem of the service they are serving in.
All other tats should be hidden while wearing the uniform.

But I guess when tattoo's were finally excepted by society and young adults went crazy with plastering stupid looking tats all over their bodies I suppose those serving in the military also started going out of control and you can't have soldiers looking like civilian punkers.

Anyone with a gang tat should be drummed out of the service.

 

[Oozlefinch]

There were Marine lifers who would have a tat or two, usually the Marine Corps emblem or a bull dog on the arm or forearm.

When I was in from 1983-1993, tattoos were a rare thing to see.

I think the first time I remember really seeing a lot of guys get them was in 1990, in the lead-up to the Gulf War. The expectations at the time (I was Infantry remember) was that this was going to be a bloody conflict, with high casualties. So I knew a lot of guys that got "Meat Tags", which at that time was just basically a copy of your dog tag information under your left arm.

Even I almost got one, until I was injured in a motorcycle accident and had to sit out that conflict on Fort Couch.

But today, even that meat tag is a lot more elaborate.

But I do not have a real issue against these, because nobody sees them at all when you are in uniform, and they do fulfill a real purpose.

And I think a lot of Marines still avoid them (especially Infantry) because having one as mak2 stated, they really kill your chances to get those privileged "B Billets" like Embassy Duty, Sea Duty, and Barracks Duty (the later I was able to do twice during my career). With tats, you are stuck your entire career in "The Fleet", doing grunt games and getting eaten up by chiggers and ticks.

Without them, you get to be stationed in places like Guam, Spain, England, and a great many other privileged locations. And while there are some slots for non-grunts at these duty stations, 90% of the slots are for 0300 MOS only. And with the advent of FAST Company, that is probably the second most elite unit in the Marines (next to Force Recon).

 

[Surtr]

When I was in from 1983-1993, tattoos were a rare thing to see.

I think the first time I remember really seeing a lot of guys get them was in 1990, in the lead-up to the Gulf War. The expectations at the time (I was Infantry remember) was that this was going to be a bloody conflict, with high casualties. So I knew a lot of guys that got "Meat Tags", which at that time was just basically a copy of your dog tag information under your left arm.

Guess it must be a Marine thing. Those were considered bad luck in both of my units.

 

[APACHERAT]

When I was in from 1983-1993, tattoos were a rare thing to see.

I think the first time I remember really seeing a lot of guys get them was in 1990, in the lead-up to the Gulf War. The expectations at the time (I was Infantry remember) was that this was going to be a bloody conflict, with high casualties. So I knew a lot of guys that got "Meat Tags", which at that time was just basically a copy of your dog tag information under your left arm.

Even I almost got one, until I was injured in a motorcycle accident and had to sit out that conflict on Fort Couch.

But today, even that meat tag is a lot more elaborate.

But I do not have a real issue against these, because nobody sees them at all when you are in uniform, and they do fulfill a real purpose.

And I think a lot of Marines still avoid them (especially Infantry) because having one as mak2 stated, they really kill your chances to get those privileged "B Billets" like Embassy Duty, Sea Duty, and Barracks Duty (the later I was able to do twice during my career). With tats, you are stuck your entire career in "The Fleet", doing grunt games and getting eaten up by chiggers and ticks.

Without them, you get to be stationed in places like Guam, Spain, England, and a great many other privileged locations. And while there are some slots for non-grunts at these duty stations, 90% of the slots are for 0300 MOS only. And with the advent of FAST Company, that is probably the second most elite unit in the Marines (next to Force Recon).

Tattoo's use to be really a navy thing. There were old salts, lifers, career Marines who were 30 year Marines who might had the Marine Corps emblem on their arm or forearm. No color, just blue ink.

I wonder what kind of tattoo roguenuke has ?

Real sailors have tattoos don't they ?

Probably some electrons orbiting around neutrons and protons.
Or she went all Navy with the radiation hazard symbol.

 

[solletica]

The Military is a professional organization. If you want to look like a circus freak, do it somewhere else.

But the circus freaks control the military.

 

[APACHERAT]

But the circus freaks control the military.

I've never heard Obama and PC liberals being referred to as circus freaks before.

I've heard the Democrat Party being called a circus or a carnival and most carnivals do have freaks.