Who said anything about a “fissy hit”? Saying that the recipient is an adult and should be given some discretion in their discretionary spending is hardly a tantrum!</p>
<p>
It is distasteful to me because you planned the reduced/cancelled gift and because I cannot see the distinction between the things you would allow (like Muse tickets) and the things you would not (like tattoos or second hand shoes). If you give someone $100 a month (or whatever) because you want them to do things that make them happy*, why be so upset that the things that make them happy are different than the things that make you happy. Wasn’t the point that they be happy? That’s why I personally find it distasteful - instead of being a gift meant to bring happiness, it becomes a tool of control.</p>
<p>**: To differentiate, as I mentioned earlier, from money to spent on necessities of life like school supplies and Ramen noodles. *</p>
<p>If I tell my kid, “The money I give you is not for frivolous stuff; the money is to be used for bus, fruit and healthy food, and school supplies,” it is one story. Things could be different if I had told my kid, “If you keep your skin clear of tattoos until your 25th birthday, I will pay you $10,000.” Now, tell me why I would be on the hook for what looks like a conditional gift in the latter case! ;)</p>
<p>I look at my everyday jewelry all the time…no I can’t see my earrings unless Im looking in the mirror, but I tend to feel them a lot. I don’t’ wear any costume jewelry . The point is , we adorn ourselves with what we like or what has meaning to us. I dislike ink because of the appearance. I don’t judge the people who choose to permanently mark their bodies , but I don’t find it appealing either… I think the very busy tattoos that cover a lot of skin look messy and I don’t like disorder. </p>
Absolutely. I would take action if they spent said monies on things like tattoos or Muse tickets.</p>
<p>
While that is (I think) rather odd, I would not say you were “on the hook”. But I also think that this is a different case than telling your kid “I am going to give you some money each month, mostly for the bus, fruit and healthy food, and school supplies, but you can use some of it for fun so it isn’t all work, work, work.” and then getting upset because they saved $10 a month and used it to get a tattoo.</p>
<p>"While that is (I think) rather odd, I would not say you were “on the hook”</p>
<p>Well, a court could find that in this case there was a contract between us, since the kid gave up what he was legally entitled to.</p>
<p>Emily, of course that is an exaggeration. I know that there would be some spending on junk (in my specific case, I know that the kid does not drink soda and is not much into chips, but she could gorge herself on Ben and Jerry to the point of hypothermia - exaggerating, of course). A $300 lump sum spending on a tatttoo or shoes indicates that I’m giving the kid too much.</p>
<p>^ Ok. I guess I just don’t get how one knows what their kids are spending their allowances on. They are away 10 months of the year and I assume when you visit you don’t look their closet and personal things (at least I hope not!) </p>
<p>“It is distasteful to me because you planned the reduced/cancelled gift and because I cannot see the distinction between the things you would allow (like Muse tickets) and the things you would not (like tattoos or second hand shoes). If you give someone $100 a month (or whatever) because you want them to do things that make them happy*, why be so upset that the things that make them happy are different than the things that make you happy. Wasn’t the point that they be happy? That’s why I personally find it distasteful - instead of being a gift meant to bring happiness, it becomes a tool of control.”</p>
<p>When my kids (twins) turned 21, H and I had the idea of sending them on a long weekend someplace. We considered destinations like NYC, San Francisco, Disney World, etc. Someone suggested Las Vegas to us. We were perfectly willing to spend money on a gift to these other places, but not Las Vegas – if they wanted to do their 21st birthday there, that was perfectly fine, but that had to be on their own dime. I’m perfectly willing to fund things that I think are good and be hesitant to fund things I don’t think are good. </p>
How do you judge the amount of the reduction - ask them how much a month they had been using for this, or just guess? And what faith would you have that any remaining allowance would not be used for tattoo #2?</p>
<p>This whole thing just sounds like a great way to alienate your kids. Bearing in mind that this only becomes an issue after the tattoo is in place!</p>
<p>“But I also think that this is a different case than telling your kid “I am going to give you some money each month, mostly for the bus, fruit and healthy food, and school supplies, but you can use some of it for fun so it isn’t all work, work, work.” and then getting upset because they saved $10 a month and used it to get a tattoo.”|</p>
<p>It’s not the actual amount of the money that BB is objecting to. It doesn’t change anything if the tattoo parlor is running a special so that the $150 tattoo is on sale for $10, or whether her D won a contest for a free tattoo. She’s objecting to the tattoo, and the fact that her hard-earned money went towards it is even more of a kicker. </p>
<p>The reason I see the price as an issue is just because it plays into your ability to control using money. If the tattoo only cost a fraction of the monthly stipend, then it is hard to reduce it sufficiently to stop another similar expenditure. Plus, while I agree that this is something that should be discussed (and the parent’s ire explained), I think going after the money will just make things worse. If they are getting ANY stipend, it becomes too easy to set aside that minimal amount, and besides, the cat is out of the bag, so to say - they already have a tattoo, and their decision to get another one is not (at college age) likely to be determined by parental approval!</p>
<p>I am wondering about the posts that argue that one gets a tattoo only for themselves and for the special significance that it holds for them. I can see that in cases where the tattoo is discrete. But when I see whole arms and backs covered and the person just always happens to wearing clothes that prominently display the tattoos, one does conclude that people are trying to make a statement - and a powerful one. I just have never figured out what the statement is supposed to be - bad ass? anti-establishment? biker? artistic? free-thinker? I don’t get it.</p>
<p>“This whole thing just sounds like a great way to alienate your kids. Bearing in mind that this only becomes an issue after the tattoo is in place!”</p>
<p>it’s a great way to alienate your parents, to choose to do something that they object to when you could just wait til you were 21 / self-supporting and go do it then. </p>
<p>Though I agree different people have to figure out which different hills they want to die on. To me, a tattoo is a silly hill to die on on either direction, because it’s not something that’s sooooo critical that it couldn’t wait. It would seem silly to me to deliberately alienate your tattoo-disliking parents (unless that’s your goal - to alienate them), but it would also seem silly to me to lose a relationship over it. </p>
<p>Harvestmoon - I think it’s just “body jewelry” for some people that happens to be permanent in nature. Our receptionist has lots of tattoos, wrists, arms, neck, legs. Each one individually is small. She’s an artist who makes jewelry on the side and I really think it’s no different <em>conceptually</em> than if I wear a piece of jewelry I like – it’s just that it boxes her into something permanent whereas I can change my look tomorrow with different jewelry, etc.</p>
<p>Harvest-it probably means each of those to different people. Some probably ARE thinking “bad-ass”, others might be artists, and others something else. Just as high end jewelry might signify “beauty” to one person might be as a statement of wealth for another. Or someone who chooses a certain flooring might be trying to follow a trend while another might hope it relieves allergies. There’s never any one answer.</p>
<p>As for people who want to control their kids’ spending-tattoos aside for a moment-so if the kid has even $10 leftover at the end of the month, this means they are getting too much, rather than they are especially frugal that month? Do you really check their bank balances and/or get a specific accounting of exactly what they bought and how much it cost? Like, what if feminine products were on sale one month so they have $5 extra? You would cut that? Or what if, instead of the usual coffee, they got a store brand and had an extra sawbuck? Is anyone here really that extreme in controlling what their kids do?</p>
<p>What if a kid DOES save $10/month for a say 3 months and buys a ticket to some play, or an extra sweater or something by eating ramen more often or by clipping coupons? Isn’t this a sign they can manage their account rather than NOT doing so? Where does one draw the line in allowing their ADULT child decide how to live their everyday life?</p>
<p>Maybe those above are being extreme for the sake of debate. I hope so.</p>
People get tattoos for all kinds of reasons, the same as any type of decision made in life. There are good and bad and dumb tattoos, and good and bad and dumb reasons to get tattoos. But there is no real virtue in presuming a bad reason why person A got tattoo B. If I see a young kid in a sports car I might presume all kinds of bad things about them (or their parents), but does it really help anyone?</p>
<p>
Some are, and those statements vary all over the place. But a lot of people’s tattoos are more discrete, and a lot of other people may well have liked revealing clothing long before they ever had tattoos!</p>
<p>This argument goes on and on. Those who have tattoos think they’re the greatest. Those who dislike them will never accept them.</p>
<p>Personally, I have never seen a tattoo that IMHO is attractive. Most tattoo art seems to have a decidedly kitschy lowbrow aesthetic (i.e. stars and roses, or comic book/cartoony images), and I can’t understand the appeal. When I see one, I generally think, “This person is a) a credulous trendmonger or b) a member of a marginal subculture.” The cute ankle or shoulder tattoo is going to look like a skin cancer blotch in 15 years. They’re just plain ugly to me. There are far better ways to express one’s individuality or mark the importance of rites of passage. Of course I realize that I am not the intended audience for most of the people who get tattoos, and they don’t care what I think, which is fine.</p>
<p>Fashion, hair color, etc. are not in the same category because they are not permanent body alterations.</p>
A $300 lump sum spending on a tatttoo or shoes indicates that I’m giving the kid too much.</p>