<p>I am not arguing about testing!. Just that the actual risk is low. I hate tattoos and hate tattoo shops and everything about the tattoo culture. I am just offering some reassurance that her risk was low.</p>
<p>Some employers do not like men with long hair or women with funny colored hair, and sometimes it is a stipulation for employment, we don’t seem to have any problem with it. </p>
<p>I do not like large tattoos, but have no problem with people having small tasteful tattoos on some private spot that could be covered up. I have been so vocal about it, my kids wouldn’t even think about having one. I just asked D1 if any of her friend has one, she said only one girl, with a very small one.</p>
<p>yes gt (post 272)I see a big difference. But so what? All through this thread I have maintained the biggest issue imo isn’t the tattoo. Small? Artful? Hidden? Legal right? Not my biggest concern. I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but please read my posts so you can be more clear on my position first.</p>
<p>A young adult so flagrantly breaking her promise is my biggest issue. Some have felt the parents were too controlling to pay such school funding in exchange for delaying a tattoo. That is what I was comparing, a conditional scholarship compared to the parents conditional funding as it referred to those that used the word controlling.</p>
<p>I hate tattoos and have been very vocal about it. But my son still got several. Hate them. Still love him though. Did at least convince him to never have any that are visible when wearing a short sleeved shirt.</p>
<p>Have to admit I was annoyed that we were sacrificing to help him financially while he was in college and he was taking his earnings from his job and spending it on tattoos. They can be extremely expensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I agree with you. I find it hard to believe that many here painted the parents as villains without knowing the the full story for placing restrictions on their money. Unfortunately, some people jump to conclusions and others build on it. For me, it was the cover-up after the fact that was most damaging as apparently the father thought so too. I do believe the remorsefulness of the daughter gave them sufficient excuse to back off. If she had remained defiant, I know I would cut her off. I’m glad she took responsibility for all of her actions and was willing to make amends for it.</p>
<p>If you are willing to deny college to a kid because of a tattoo you have issues. What if she ends up pole-dancing to pay for college (and lots do) after you cut her off for such a small dispute? How you gonna feel then? Making up a stupid rule just because you think you can over such a trivial thing is being a petty dictator and not a parent. </p>
<p>So cut her off and then what big guy/gal?? Go on a cruise with the money you saved? Maybe when your wearing adult diapers she can start making nonsense demands on you and the shoe will be on the other foot.</p>
<p>barrons, to me, there is a big difference between getting a small tattoo of the Olympic Rings on one’s shoulder after making the national Olympic team and a 3-inch tattoo of the [former] BF initials which was done under the influence of alcohol. My first reaction to a tattoo would be: get your butt into the doctor’s office and get your blood checked for every blood-borne disease one can contract in a tattoo salon. What other people do with their money is their personal decision. Some buy Lexuses (Lexi?) for their college-bound offspring, some think a Corolla is too luxurious for the kiddos…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go back and read the first post. Things have changed significantly since then. Many reactions, including mine, were to the information in that post. The mom was painted as being afraid to tell her husband because she was worried about his reaction because the “consequences will be dire.” The mother was questioning her stand on the tattoo and knew that questioning it would not go over well with her husband. She was “between and rock and a hard spot.” </p>
<p>My concern was that, based on that post, the husband sounded like a controlling bully. When it comes to dealing with a child, you should not feel as though you’re between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to your husband. </p>
<p>However, as soon as some of us questioned the relationship between the wife and the husband, the OP was quick to jump to their defense. Now that we know they are Ward and June Cleaver, it’s just a big “never mind.”</p>
<p>I can’t believe how much emotion is going into this thread. As someone who initially wonderedif the FA was controlling, I have a need to apologize. At the time, I thought it was a tiny, pretty tatoo. When I heard it was b/f’s initials, large, then i questioned the maturity of this girl. I’d have misgivings about sending her out of state.</p>
<p>My second thought concerns the private college. FL colleges are good, but–don’t flame me for this!–there are OOS colleges superior in certain fields. For the worm, CMU, MIT & Caltech were the IT schools. (In MT, the list would be different) Other OOS places may not be better academically for this student, but be in a fun location. Were they indulging her by letting her apply?<br>
If I was concerned about her maturity, I’d be writing a list of reasonable expectations for wherever she goes.</p>
<p>Wow, harsh. These parents are certainly not Ward and June Cleaver, but neither are they a control freak husband with a cowering wife. There is a middle ground. My initial post was after my first conversation with my friend about this issue. At that point, all that had transpired was the discovery of the tattoo by the mom and the meltdown of the daughter. I never said the mom was afraid of her husband, I said she was afraid of the consequences of her daughter’s stupid decision. Since this was right after the argument with her daughter, she was worried about damaging her relationship with her daughter by telling the father against her wishes. She also knew that the husband had to be told and if the daughter wasn’t going to tell him, she had to.</p>
<p>The next day, cooler heads prevailed. The daughter apologized for her behavior and they were able to talk about things in a more rational manner and my friend was able to get more information from her daughter. I don’t know about anybody else, but this is usually how things work in my family. We need a little time to wrap our brains around these kinds of things.</p>
<p>I guess I am just too close to be objective. These are good people who hit a bump in the road with their daughter, who has always been a good kid. And I defend their right to put whatever conditions they see fit on an expensive private education. There was never, ever a question about this child being able to attend an excellent school, our state flagship is ranked 53rd of National Universities. The agreement was made for a very expensive private school. I am just happy that they were able to work things out.</p>
<p>Fishymom, I never meant to be harsh to you. You’ve been a terrific friend. I’m saying that I have more compassion for the parents now than I did at he start of the thread. My concern is with the maturity of the girl.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand that you were talking about two instances of a conditional scholarship. But the difference between the conditions; a tattoo vs maintaining a certain GPA, are so dissimilar that the sarcasm is lost on me. Of course the parents can put any conditions on their funding that they would like. It just seems to me that an condition that asks the student to maintain a certain GPA seems reasonable where as forbidding a body decoration IMO is not. Obviously many disagree and think it’s a reasonable condition. It’s certainly been surprising and interesting to hear the other side.</p>
<p>I apologize if the OP has previously addressed this, but I can’t help wondering if she knows whether not getting the tattoo was the only condition stipulated or simply one on a list, and, if the former, was there any particular reason why that was the parents’ concern, out of all the conceivable concerns any parent might have? I’m glad it all seems to have turned out as well as anyone might expect under the circumstances, but it would still seem strange to me if, in fact, that was the sole condition (as opposed to conditions directly related to academics).</p>
<p>@DonnaL, the parents set three conditions on paying for the private school. The daughter was asked to maintain a decent gpa, work at least part-time during the summer for her spending money and no tattoos or piercings until she graduated from college. The tattoo stipulation came about because of the parents strong feelings about tattoos, particularly the father. Also, there is a cousin who had gone through a rebellious stage and gotten several tattoos and piercings. Now in her 20’s, she is having them removed, at considerable expense.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you’re still looking at justifying the condition, as if it were what my example was to show, gt. You and some others here are saying it is unfair to require tattoos, and find it difficult to justify a parent withholding funding based on that. Might be a point fun debating, but it isn’t what I am talking about. I will try to be more clear.</p>
<p>A parent offers a conditional gift of money toward a students’ education.
A college offers a conditional gift of money discounted toward a students’ education.
In the first example the student accepts the conditional gift and both parties are expected to comply with their end of the bargain.
In the second one, the student accepts the conditional gift and both parties are expected to comply with their end of their bargain.
And in both examples, if the student reneges on his/her bargain then he/she risks losing funding.</p>
<p>So here lies the comparison I am trying to make that you say was lost on you:
Some called the first example controlling, to tie a gift to a condition.
I wonder if those people see the similarities here, and do they object to it? The second example is a much more common one, and maybe more often accepted; but both are conditional gifts.</p>
<p>Whether one likes the particular condition or not isn’t at issue when we are looking only at “controlling”. In both examples, both parties enter this in good faith; each expecting the other to comply. My example does not seek justification for some controlling- as in: well, in example 1 its bad, but in example 2 its ok. Imo those that would say example 1 is controlling(unfairly) should also agree example 2 is controlling, or else they would seem inconsistent; and more swayed by the condition/outcome rather than the principle of “control”. That difference is why I do not see this as “control” in either case, but more as encouragement or persuasion in both cases.</p>
<p>So I’m not trying to state if delaying a tatt is a good idea or not; but rather that tying a conditional gift to that delay is the same encouragement as a college offering an academic scholarship tied to gpa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the nature of the condition is important.</p>
<p>The condition of a 3.0 GPA is related to the gift (scholarship) the student is going to receive, and this condition does not violate the student’s autonomy as an adult or require an unacceptable invasion of privacy to verify compliance.</p>
<p>The condition of “no tattoos or body piercings” is unrelated to the gift (parental financial support for college expenses) that the student is going to receive, the condition interferes with autonomy that adults expect to have (the freedom to have legal cosmetic procedures performed on their bodies), and verification of compliance would require a strip search.</p>
<p>Marian is much more well spoken than I. </p>
<p>I am quite clear that “no tatts” and “maintain a GPA of 3.0” can be conditions of scholarship or financial aid for college. Anything can be placed as conditions (no cutting hair, no sex, no drugs, no alcohol, in your room before midnight…) of financial assistance by the parents. It’s just that some conditions just seem silly and random and unnecessarily “controlling,” while a requirement of maintaining a GPA of 3.0 is an attempt to control behavior, but related to the purpose of the gift and is logical condition. </p>
<p>I think we have such a debate on this topic because some of us feel “no tattoos” are not negatively related to school success or individual growth. In fact, my son’s grades and behavior have been the same before and after his tattoo. It certainly didn’t change him as a person. The fact that some feel it’s important is what I find interesting.</p>
<p>For me, it would mostly be about “How come YOU have disposable income and I don’t?”</p>
<p>The health risks of any legit tattoo parlor are minor.</p>
<p>[Tattoos</a> and Health Risk: What the Statistics Say](<a href=“http://www.tattooartist.com/health.html]Tattoos”>http://www.tattooartist.com/health.html)</p>
<p>Of course, barrons, what else can a website devoted to tattoo art say?</p>