<p>
</p>
<p>Tattoo aside, I would have been upset if the $1000 had been spent in some other frivolous way on a want instead of a need. I don’t like the thought that I’m eating tuna fish while my kid is feasting on caviar.</p>
<p>OP, I am in full support of your position. I guess I think very differently than many of the posters here. I think $1,000 is absurd for a tattoo; it wouldn’t matter if it was for a fancy purse, a vacation, or anything else “frivolous”. When the parents are struggling to foot the bill, I think it’s reasonable to expect the same frugality of the young adult. I wonder when was the last time the OP spent $1,000 on herself? It’s time for the daughter to mature, and to realize that her mother has feelings and needs as well.</p>
<p>I think it’s interesting that there seems to be an underlying theme that it’s a requirement for parents to pay for their children’s college. I do not think that paying for a child’s highe education is a “given”. Many parents in our area of the country simply do not have the means to cover these types of costs (but make too much for financial aid other than loans), and I do not think it should be an expectation of any child regardless of financial means. My parents did not contribute a dime for my higher education, and I never had any expectation that they would do so. I realize that college costs have risen dramatically since that time, and I do provide support to my younger son who is still in college. However, there are strings attached to that support, and he is well aware of it. One of those strings is that I will pay his living expenses, but only if he lives at home. He is also required to pay a portion of his costs, and maintain his scholarships. My older son is a master’s student, and managed most of his costs on his own since he was 20 years old(admittedly, he had a very nice scholarship).</p>
<p>blankmind(post 98), have you been reading this thread? No you are not the only one. Far far, from it. Many have objected to the additional tatt, many have objected to the cost of the tatt, and many have objected to the ultimatum from 3 yrs ago.</p>
<p>I also think some here are confused about what is “control”. It wasn’t an unfair attempt to control, but rather a choice of total freedom. The student chose total freedom. The parent is in no way saying the student can or cannot go to school; the when, why, how, or course of study. The parent is not controlling how or where the student lives. Quite the contrary; the parent has paid money to facilitate the student’s desire to attend school on the condition that the student obtain no more tatts until the student is self-supporting.
The opposite of being controlled, the student has chosen liberation! The student is now permitted to attend or not attend any school at any cost in any location she can afford. The student can no longer control the money that the parent is expected to donate toward the student’s education. As I see it, that was the control issue. The student felt the parent HAD to continue giving money for the student’s education no matter what the student did. The student does not have the right to control what gift a parent wants to give.</p>
<p>Nice to see justamom reiterate my position that money/time/efforts for a child’s higher ed is a gift not a requirement. Some are more willing/able than others to give the gift. At 18, most children want to argue they are now an adult, I did. The op’s D is well past 18, and has been warned of behavior that could lead to the end of the gift-giving but chose that behavior anyway.
Theoretically, now the D must be so happy! She is an adult! She is out from under parent’s thumb! Now she can make all her own decisions! Now she can pay all her own bills! Yippee! Although, in real life I expect the student feels parent was unfair to stop giving the cash gift, despite the specific warning. That’s how children think.
Yes, the D may have “cut her nose off to…”, by deliberately choosing behavior that she had every expectation would make an end to to gifts. Her wanting to choose a tatt NOW rather than later was evidently of greater importance to her than continued financial support. I may not agree with her reasoning or her decision, but I believe that at 21 she has the right to make that decision. And, she can now reap the benefits or pay the consequences for that decision, however she views it.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but didn’t the issue of ‘control’ come up before the $1,000 violation? It was initiated w/a blanket, hard-line prohibition after the original $75 tattoo. I think it could be a mistake to evaluate this entirely in terms of “she spent my hard-earned grand” (while certainly, understandably upsetting!) and ignore the original attempt by the parent to control the daughter’s personal expression before any such exorbitant fee was spent (and, which likely caused such an over-reaction).</p>
<p>The daughter could fully express herself after she is financially independent. I personally wouldn’t have even cared so much about the $1000. It’s only money. It’s getting the tattoo after the mother told her not to get it (especially on her dime). The daughter had a choice, and she fully exercised it. As an adult, she could live with the consequence.</p>
<p>OP sounds like a fairly calm and reasonable person (a lot calmer than I would have been), so I don’t think she would have taken a hard line on this issue with her daughter if it wasn’t important to her. The daughter should have respected it. What makes it worse is the daughter didn’t discuss it with her mother first. Why? Because she knew exactly how mother felt about it, and she still went ahead with it. There was no attempt on her part to have an adult:adult discussion with her mother.</p>
<p>I guess I just think that even if you are helping out your child financially there is a certain limit to the concessions it’s useful/helpful/respectful to expect them to make in return. Certainly the mom deserves respect and appreciation for working so hard to fund her daughter’s education. Do those very admirable efforts mean that it is appropriate that the mother dictate how the daughter expresses herself on her own body? Apparently the daughter didn’t think so, and went to unproductive extremes to (perhaps) prove that she still had the right to express herself that way.</p>
<p>It just might be helpful for the OP to re-examine the original prohibition (no matter how strongly felt) and see if it is really worth precipitating such a rift. As for the independent value of ‘following through on your threat!’ and showing that you have ‘integrity’ by cutting off funding…there is nothing wrong with a parent re-evalating a previous statement/ultimatum to determine if it was really in everyone’s long-term interest. That shows sensitivity and growth, not lack of integrity.</p>
<p>Jolynne, the OP said that the tattoo is not the major issue. </p>
<p>If I were in her shoes I would just be so infuriated because to me spending 1k on something unnecessary represents a lack of consideration and appreciation of her mother’s hard work and generosity. To me, it demonstrates selfishness in return of her mother’s giving out of love and caring 'til it hurts.</p>
<p>northeastmom - I guess I don’t think that’s the case. If it’s all about money, then she wouldn’t have made that threat when the daughter got a tattoo the first time for $75. The cost of it just made it a lot worst. I could be wrong, but if the daughter had spent $1000 on a handbag (which I could see my daughter doing), OP would have just asked the daughter to pay her back and be done with it.</p>
<p>oldfort, you might be right, but I want to believe what the OP is saying. Sure, the OP admits to being annoyed about a tattoo, but she says that the tattoo is the more minor issue.</p>
<p>oldfort - if my D had a spending habit that far exceeded our means ($1000 purses, $250 jeans, etc.)…I would be just as PO’d if she had spent a grand on a flippin’ purse. However…there might be a chance that said purse could be returned.</p>
<p>I don’t have enough money to spend $1000 on a purse. If my kid – who I was scrimping to put through college – spent $1000 on a purse, I would assume she has more money than she needs, and cut the amount of financial assistance I provide to her. It’s not just the tattoo that is the issue. A $1,000 tattoo (or purse) would be a huge splurge for most people. If a college student receiving financial support from a single parent feels entitled to spend that kind of money on something that’s clearly a luxury, it is a statement of disregard for the sacrifices the parent is making for the child.</p>
<p>Yes, people can choose how they want to spend their own money. That includes a parent.</p>
<p>Well, I know conflictedmom mentioned in her initial post, after her daughter got the first tattoo:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This seems like a pretty clear, direct and exceptionally strong response to that initial tattoo. It certainly has to be galling to have the child then call her on that by getting a second tattoo worth more than 10x the first. But, it also might be worth examining whether that initial response was appropriate, neccessary or productive.</p>
<p>We ultimately want our children to make useful decisions which honor themselves and others because they know inside that it’s the right thing to do. Not because we hold a financial (or any other) threat over their heads.</p>
<p>The purse was just a silly comparison relative to tattoo, as purse is something that could be undone. As for my daughter, after I posted, she called from Sydney to ask me if she could spend $400 to go to Melbourne (her own money) for 4 days. I told her that I thought it was reasonable and I would pay for half of it (if I approved of the trip while she is studying abroad I would pay for half, otherwise she’s on her own). But she has done some stupid things and had to live with the consequence. She also knows tattoo is a deal breaker for me too, even though she and her dad have talked about it in front of me (probably just to see if I’ve changed my position).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our kids will make useful decisions only after we have REPEATEDLY taught them how to make useful decisions. They are not born with that ability, and that’s what makes parenting difficult. It is so much easier to just let them do what they want, then to say no to them after a very long busy day. We use all kinds of methods to try to make them do the right thing. When they were little it was time out, then grounding them, and finally financial control. With some kids it maybe 15, 18, 21, or even 30 before they could start to make reasonable decisions, and it’s up to each parent to decide when that point would come “as long as he/she is still financially responsible for his/her kid.” Obviously, this is my view.</p>
<p>
When the body expression costs $1000, and the daughter could not possibly pay for it without the mom’s major financial contribution, the answer is: absolutely.</p>
<p>
This merely points out the thoughtlessness of a 21 year old, who by that age, ought to have a better appreciation for the sacrifices her mom has made for her. This is behavior I would accept as normal for a 15 year old, but at 21, it seems very immature and self-centered.</p>
<p>And I don’t believe that a normal mother/daughter relationship would be seriously impacted by the mom acting as she is. If this causes some major lifetime rift, there must be a whole lot more going on than this.</p>
<p>oldfort – I’m not saying that children are born with an intrinsic ability to know right from wrong. Of course, that is our job as parents to elucidate it to them, demonstrate, enforce, remind (repeatedly), etc. It’s just that – especially when a child is 18, 19 etc. — it’s important to evaluate how/when it’s appropriate to use controling/punative methods. By that time, when it comes to something so personal as one’s artistic expression on the body – it might be more helpful to something more creative than a direct prohibition/severe punishment. </p>
<p>My son floated the idea of a tattoo when he was 17. He even had ‘favorited’ on the internet several selections. I do not like tattoos for myself and didn’t think it would be in his best interest to get one, either. But, instead of flatly forbidding him (I kept thinking back to the concept that doing so would make him cling to the idea w/ferocity) I asked him: “What is your favorite poster, now?” He told me. I then said: “What if you had to put that poster on the wall in every place you lived, until you died? To college, to your first apartment after college, your home with your family, on and on.” I told him that – personally – I didn’t have enough trust in my own artistic judgment to believe that I would like anything I chose to put on my body such that I would still like looking at it (daily!) 5, 10, 15, 30 years from now.</p>
<p>When I didn’t forbid him, I could see (I think) some of the enthusiasm for and edgy-cachet of the tattoo idea drain away. He still might get one…but I think at least I’ve presented some alternative considerations re: the decision…and if he does, the choice will at least not be in reaction to me.</p>
<p>Jolynne. THANK YOU! I am in need of that persuasive tactic on this very day.</p>
<p>Jolynne Smyth - but…imagine that your S DID get the tattoo, and spent nearly a thousand dollars of YOUR money on it…you would be hard-pressed to be so so calm and matter of fact about it being his “artistic expression”. </p>
<p>Again, please be clear, she spent MY money and she spent a LOT of it. This was not chump change.</p>
<p>Jolynne and I disagree on 2 points.
First, I don’t see a conditional gift as control. The student can make any choice of college she wanted. The student can choose tatts or no tatts, and the cost of any if she chooses yes. If the student chooses to have parent fund her education however, then she must make other choices that go along with it. All that is the student’s choice, and not what I call control. Just as if I choose to drive, I must obey traffic laws or risk the consequences. Parent attempt to control would be giving the student NO choice; and that simply isn’t what occurred.
Secondly, I disagree that this is the time to re-evaluate the ultimatum. Since the ultimatum was delivered 3 yrs ago, during that span was the time to re-evaluate, and make changes if appropriate. I don’t like the idea of(example here) a dog owner being cautioned about the penalties if his dog bites a second time; then when it happens complaining about the penalty as too harsh. The time for student or parent to take action, or to re-negotiate the ultimatum was before student chose to forego further subsidizing by getting a tatt; not after.
The control issue; if any, as I see it, is that the D believes she has the right to dictate what gift the parent must donate no what the behavior of the D.</p>
<p>I agree with younghoss on this. If the daughter didn’t like the ultimatum, she could/should have renegotiated it with her mother before she went ahead with it, as an adult. She behaved like a 15 yr old.</p>