<p>
</p>
<p>Good point, but certainly my son spends way more on his musical instruments, not to mention guitar strings, then his small, monochromatic $50 tattoo. I found that policing the kid’s discretionary income that they earn makes little sense. I certainly wouldn’t spend money on a tattoo, but I certainly spend more on a haircut than he does.</p>
<p>There are millions of tattoos right here in Seattle. I NEVER have read anything about major problems with them. Find me some real proof or I call fear-mongering BS. I am talking licensed shops–not prison tats.
I have exactly 0 tats and no interest in them but many younger folks in this town sure do. My bet is bike-riding is more dangerous.</p>
<p>Then if I understand Marian(post 296) correctly and Gt agrees, controlling a student as it refers to parental funding based on delaying tattoos is unacceptable, but controlling that refers to college funding for a gpa is acceptable.
I can live with that. I would word that opinion as- controlling for a gpa is controlling for a legitimate, good reason. I agree that few can have uncontrolled: drug use, alcohol use, video game playing or poor attendance and still maintain a 3. gpa. So requiring a 3. would seem to seek to control those potential behaviors/problems. I don’t exactly agree either is “controlling” but I am pleased to see that Marian and Gt are consistent. That makes sense. Thank you.</p>
<p>Right now I’m kind of wishing H had gotten a tattoo rather than ride a bike.</p>
<p>In the spirit of trying to understand the opposing point of view (as younghoss is doing), I do understand and agree that there could be some requests that parents might make as a condition of receiving college money that I would feel to be inappropriately intrusive and controlling. I guess where I differ with some others here is in my belief that asking for a “no tattoo college life” constitutes a minor, rather insignificant restriction. I would put this on the same plane as making it a condition that the student call their grandmother every couple of months: in other words, you might not want to do it, but it’s not that onerous a burden to carry.</p>
<p>Others view it as a more important infringement, and so we disagree. I do, however, understand the principle that causes the objection.</p>