<p>Gouged out ear? </p>
<p>PG, settle down! The comment is not made directly at you - it is for all participating on this thread. It was a question posed not a judgement made. It was a wonder, not a finger pointing! </p>
<p>I suspect that I am right for “some” people here. But I also suspect (and I do understand this) that some who do would take tattoos personally, aren’t going to admit it. </p>
<p>I’m settled :-). I wish I could convey tone better, because I’m truly questioning, not yelling 
</p>
<p>Jym - google ear gauge. The big holes in the ears. Fwiw, I had an employee with those, for a back office job. </p>
<p>Oh those things. Used to see them a lot on National Geographic. </p>
<p>I would feel <em>better</em> if my kids had their hypothetical tattoos on covered parts than uncovered parts, sure. </p>
<p>S just came home from school and is sleeping in the other room. I’ll see how he reacts to the idea of mom doing a body check, haha. </p>
<p>But seriously - we’d be annoyed, we’d express disappointment, then we would probably just razz him over it goodnaturedly for years to come, which is all the punishment needed </p>
<p>And if it had been out of our allowance money, I could see expecting to be paid back, sure. </p>
<p>Count me as someone else who doesn’t like tattoos and wouldn’t want my child to get one (although she’s 25 now, so she can spend her money on it if she wants! It’s her $$ and her life.)</p>
<p>The reason for my feelings has nothing to do with my supposed status in the eyes of other parents/people - that’s silly. And I don’t think my distaste for tattoos can be correlated to my opposition to “something else” (post 45), whatever that ominously vague “something else” is supposed to be. </p>
<p>I just don’t like the way they look. It’s fine if others disagree, it’s fine if others love tattoos, but it should also be fine if there are some of us who think differently. </p>
<p>"I’ve known a lot of kids from rigid families. For most of them, the point where they get out from under mommy’s thumb, THAT’S where they get wild, whether it’s at 13 or 30. Hard drinkers, heavy tattoos, drugs, you name it. Because living under those kind of rigid controls denies them the opportunity to ease into adulthood, denies them the chance to make small mistakes without it killing them. "</p>
<p>I don’t think “I don’t want you to get a tattoo while you’re underage and still dependent on me; of course, you will be free when you are a self-sufficient adult to spend your money however you like and that’ll be on you” falls even remotely under the definition of *“rigid control.” * “Rigid control” would be not letting an 18-22 date or go out with friends, require frequent check-ins and status updates if he does go out, require straight A’s or else, insist on access to the kid’s Facebook / phone / texts, etc. “You’re not getting a tattoo on my dime, you can wait” ain’t rigid control. </p>
<p>I agree with Scout59 in post 207, and I’d add that all of the “but look, there are plenty of business people / really good people / whatever who have these things!” and “but these things are really personally meaningful!” just doesn’t make me <em>like</em> them one bit more. My own subjective taste is my own subjective taste. </p>
<p>I am in 100% agreement with emilybee. I will add that unless a parent who insists on such extreme control has a tracking chip in their child, DOES do full-body inspections, and has their child live at home and not go anywhere alone, that parent really has no idea if their child is violating any of their rules. CC (and any other place where parents gather) is littered with stories of “good kids” making bad decisions, even with all kinds of rules and safeguards in place, while other kids seemingly headed for disaster do amazing things with themselves. The point is, you really can’t control everything. Better to keep the lines of communication open and hope for the best.</p>
<p>Being willing to let a good kid face a lifetime of hardship to prove a point seems short-sighted, cruel and unrealistic. I wonder how many who say they’d do this have actually gone through with it.</p>
<p>
I think that depends on the clientele and the tattoo. That’s my point - it shouldn’t be a binary yes/no based solely on the presence of a tattoo, it should honestly take into account the tattoo itself and the projected impact on business. My bank has a teller with a visible tattoo and I doubt that even in this conservative town that it has been any problem. I know some lawyers with tattoos but not that are visible under the conservative dress code that profession follows. My wife has a visible tattoo (as well as others that might be visible depending on what she wears), and at the time she was hired there was an outright ban on visible tattoos - they changed that ban because they decided it made no sense without looking at the tattoos in context, and have been happy they hired her!</p>
<p>I can imagine a company where someone having a visible tattoo could cost them business (a tattoo removal business being the obvious one!), but those scenarios are fewer and fewer every day. So presuming that the tattoo is not in and of itself problematic (swastika, “thug life”, spelling error, etc) and presuming that the bank or law office does not operate in an exceptionally conservative circles (like lawyers for the Christian Coalition, etc) I would not say that they are justified. But you would really have to look at things closely. It should not be an automatic rejection.</p>
<p>
It is not the existence of the prohibition but rather the potential nature of the punishment that makes it “rigid control”. Let me give you a comparison:</p>
<p>In Washington State possession of a small amount of marijuana is a $500 fine. This is what I would consider “control”.</p>
<p>In the United Arab Emirates, possession of a small amount of marijuana carries a minimum 4 year prison sentence. This is what I would consider “rigid control”.</p>
<p>And again, “adult” is a binary state only in a legal sense. the kids in question are of legal age to get a tattoo, and are exercising a number of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood - that they are not financially independent yetis a relatively small issue to me.</p>
<p>I am curious as to how those who say “not with my money!!” would react to their kids receiving a tattoo that they did not use the parents’ money for? I do have a friend whose first tattoo was paid for by others as a birthday present. Do you still impose a financial penalty when there has been no misappropriation of funds?</p>
<p>Just wondering if you all watched the Modern Family episode last week about Haley’s 21st bday, her desire for getting a tattoo and what transpired with her mom (Claire)??? </p>
<p>^^ Nope.</p>
<p>I did. </p>
<p>“I will add that unless a parent who insists on such extreme control has a tracking chip in their child, DOES do full-body inspections, and has their child live at home and not go anywhere alone, that parent really has no idea if their child is violating any of their rules.”</p>
<p>Of course. For all I know, my kids smoke when they are away at school, too, and don’t tell me. (I highly doubt it, but anything’s possible.) That doesn’t mean that I can’t express my opinion to them that smoking is a bad thing and not something I want them to do, and it won’t be done on my dime in my home. I’m also not going to pay for them to go to tanning beds, either. </p>
<p>“I am curious as to how those who say “not with my money!!” would react to their kids receiving a tattoo that they did not use the parents’ money for? I do have a friend whose first tattoo was paid for by others as a birthday present. Do you still impose a financial penalty when there has been no misappropriation of funds?”</p>
<p>The “not with my money” is secondary. I strongly object to tattoos <em>on my own kids.</em> It would be immaterial if it had been bought as a present or they’d won a contest for a free tattoo.</p>
<p>Many people, myself included, don’t care for ear piercings on girl babies. I recognize some other people like to do that, and that’s their business, whatever. But I don’t / didn’t want my girl baby to have her ears pierced. Same difference.</p>
<p>“So presuming that the tattoo is not in and of itself problematic (swastika, “thug life”, spelling error, etc) and presuming that the bank or law office does not operate in an exceptionally conservative circles (like lawyers for the Christian Coalition, etc) I would not say that they are justified. But you would really have to look at things closely. It should not be an automatic rejection.”</p>
<p>I can hire based on any criteria I want, though, as long as I don’t discriminate against a protected class, of which being tattooed isn’t one. </p>