Tattoo Bans in the Military; Why?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Easy, it's to keep the gangbangers out.

My husband said something about this. He suggested that the military is taking more and more people (high-school dropouts, druggies, etc.) because of their low recruitment numbers and likely, they're also taking more of the 'criminal element' including gang members. Once they're in, the rival gang issue could become more of a problem, especially if they were all getting rival gang tattoos.

That might be the reasoning behind this new resurgence of tattoo taboo.

I see the original article mentions that gang tattoos are already banned, but what are they going to do about new members who already have gang tattoos?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I'm with you on this one - keep out criminal gang memebers. However, they may have to revise this if they continue to wage war in the middle east. They may just need all the warm bodies they can get.

Your question about members who already have tatoos - they get transferred to the private contractors.

I could be completely wrong on this one but I think it comes down to the military wanting soldiers to have a "neutral" appearance. Neutral might not be the correct term but what I mean the US military is often sent into places to help out or to secure locations. These areas around the world have people who look to those soldiers for protection and help. There are many different cultures around the world and in many places people with skulls and other "scary" images tattooed all over their body are going to be seen as “evil or demonic.” These people might not trust these tattooed soldiers.

As far as carrying about this issue, I don’t care at all. I think most soldiers realize they can’t do whatever they want, even with their own bodies. They can’t have long hair; they can’t wear a horde of jewelry and piecings, they do not have the rule rights because they are in the military. If anything the military is doing them a favor. The kids love their tattoos these days but give that 20 years when their bodies look like ink blots.

JackatMtn,

Correct if I am wrong, but when you the drill sergeant says on the first day, your ass is his he is not kidding. Once you have signed up you are bound by Military Laws and court not the Constitution.

You are property of Uncle Sam and no longer a civilian.

You body is completely 100% government property. The military can tell you to do what ever they want according to military laws and if you disobey, that is a whole different nightmarish can of worms.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
When I served in the Army this policy as many are to protect the government's assets (soldier), each base has "off limit" establishments that are deemed too dangerous, illegal etc. So once a possible disruption to the fighting force is identified, it is much easier to just ban it in a blanket policy than to say well you could be there at this time and not that time.

Same thing with the tattoo policy, a chance of contracting an infection (hepatitus) while receiving a tat is enough for them to initiate a blanket policy for the ban.

Many soldiers get them regardless and for the most part I haven't seen this policy enforced to the max. If the tat was not visible when in uniform, then there was no problem.

I did hear of a few who were reprimanded for offensive tats, like gang symbols and swastikas and that sort.

For reference my time of service was the late 80's thru 2001, so my post reflects that period of time.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Easy, it's to keep the gangbangers out.

My husband said something about this. He suggested that the military is taking more and more people (high-school dropouts, druggies, etc.) because of their low recruitment numbers and likely, they're also taking more of the 'criminal element' including gang members. Once they're in, the rival gang issue could become more of a problem, especially if they were all getting rival gang tattoos.

That might be the reasoning behind this new resurgence of tattoo taboo.

I see the original article mentions that gang tattoos are already banned, but what are they going to do about new members who already have gang tattoos?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

The gang crap is a major issue that doesn't really get covergae on the news. There are a number of lowlife scum who managed to get in. Infact there was case recently here in Germany where a soldier was beat to death in an "initiation".

The military as a whole isn't banning ALL tattoos. The marines are banning NEW tattoos that would be visible when you are wearing any uniform. Doing this helps with the image of profesionalism.

Also, I wouldn't try to get a tat just to get out of a draft. IF the time comes that America needs a draft, they will take anyone regaurdless of ink.

Originally posted by secret titan

Also, I wouldn't try to get a tat just to get out of a draft. IF the time comes that America needs a draft, they will take anyone regaurdless of ink.

It was a joke for humor :0

The thing is, you know the rules and policies before you go in. If you really want to serve, can't most tattoos be removed except those in the color green fairly easily (if not costly?) The disease argument makes sense too. There was a Dateline or 20/20 or one of those kinds of shows once that claimed around 30% of people with tattoos had some kind of STD - I believe they suggested "chicken or the egg reasoning" - do people get the STD from the dirty needles, or is it dirty people getting the tattoos. Plus, since you need to be 18 to legally get a tattoo absent parental permission, you probably already know whether you'd like to join the military in the future.

It says so much for professionalism, and you're not going to get much of a job as a civilian if you're covered in visible tattoos/piercings either. I know I cringe whenever I see tattoos and would certainly avoid working with an inked person when presented with a non-inked alternative. I know I'm not alone. Whether I'm buying a car from them in the civilian world or, like another member suggested, requesting their aid in a conflict zone.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana

I know I cringe whenever I see tattoos and would certainly avoid working with an inked person when presented with a non-inked alternative.

Please read what you just said here over and over again, do you see anything wrong with that sentence?

Aye...


Edited: What if you would see someone with long hair and unconventional none mainstream style of clothes would you judge him or her as well?...

What if your non tattooed alternative turns out to be a serial killer and the tattooed person is actually one of the nicest person you could ever meet?

It's not wise to judge a person like this.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by selfless]

I don't understand why some of you think this is "New" tattoos have Never been military issue, and getting ANY tattoo can get you brought up on charges under the UCMJ ( Uniform code of military justice) that your commanding office turns a blind eye to it is fine, but like has been stated your heath and well being is a military concern, tattoos parlors are alot cleaner now then they used to be ( since aids) but back in the 40's, 50's 60's and 70's tattoos were done with One needle not new needles like now.

www.au.af.mil...

908. ART. 108. MILITARY PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES-LOSS, DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION, OR WRONGFUL DISPOSITION

Usually it results in NJP ( Non Judicial Punishment )

www.jag.navy.mil...

[edit on 29-3-2007 by thedigirati]

Originally posted by thedigirati
your heath and well being is a military concern

That is the best joke Ive read all day, thanks for that.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by thedigirati
your heath and well being is a military concern

That is the best joke Ive read all day, thanks for that.

you have to be in good heath to catch as many bullets a possible

well maybe they just want theyr soldiers to look decent and to be a inspiration for others...still i dont think one small tattoo should not be a problem...maybe they have to make a comition or sometin^^

Originally posted by thedigirati

you have to be in good heath to catch as many bullets a possible

Ha ha, even better.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by AlphaHumana

I know I cringe whenever I see tattoos and would certainly avoid working with an inked person when presented with a non-inked alternative.

Please read what you just said here over and over again, do you see anything wrong with that sentence?

Aye...


Edited: What if you would see someone with long hair and unconventional none mainstream style of clothes would you judge him or her as well?...

What if your non tattooed alternative turns out to be a serial killer and the tattooed person is actually one of the nicest person you could ever meet?

It's not wise to judge a person like this.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by selfless]

Right, it's not right to judge a person themself based on that, and hey - I actually had long-hair (only unconventional because I'm a guy) back in high-school. I was not a professional back then, and I knew people made some judgments based upon my appearance. But that was kind of the point in keeping my hair like that. Just like I know people do certain things like wear their hair in wild unnatural colors, facial piercings, tattoos, etc. - they want to elicit a certain reaction from people, and that reaction is not, "hey s/he looks like a consummate professional devoted to what they're doing" So, I judge their judgment. Image projection has a huge psychological impact both consciously and subconsciouly.

But yeah, I understand your point - hey, Ted Bundy was the most normal, professional-looking guy in the world.

well as we sayd one tatto should not be a problem if its not some religious or insulting kind of tatto...
but well u gotta look atleast decent...
i dont remember seeing santa as a navy seal...^^
and santa dosnt have tattoos...right^^

[edit on 29/3/07 by Unisol]

my wife got inked on hte forearm last year, but it wasnt a sleeve by any means and so no one cared. the tat is not visable save when she's in civies/pt uniform or class b's. its on the inside of the forearm so unless her arm is not at her side, its not visable. its not visable when she's saluting.

net effect on her career=0 she's in MI (mil intel not michigan) and is unlikely to go work for spec ops (they still dont let girls play with them)

and if it keeps her out of working for the CIA when she's done then im all for it

This whole thing is just ridiculous!
These men and women, who put their very lives on the line for this country, are now subject to sanctions about where they get tattooed?
I've known a few Marines, and to them, besides coming home (obviously), getting a visible arm or leg tattoo is like a right of passage.
Not to mention all of the "Fallen Brother" tattoos they get to honor the ones who didn't come back.

And on a side note, worldwatcher, is that avatar really you?
Will you marry me?
And if not, do you happen to have a twin sister who would?

(ooooo, please don't ban me for that!! I'll be good, I promise!!)

Maybe they don't want the identifying tatoos/marks so after a soldier dies and is used for the reanimated army of the undead they won't be recognized.

Tats may be an issue for the military now but very soon when the shyte hits the fan big time (and they get what they want - WW3) the US military and government will be begging for all the tattooed flesh they can get their hands on to fight their phukked up bogus war on terror.

They will even take old men and women.

I do not think that getting a large outrageous or distasteful tat will prevent anyone from becoming fodder when the time comes.

just my ramblings


[edit on 29-3-2007 by resistancia]

The military screens for tattoos that would offend someone. They also don't want anything visible like on the arms or neck and whatnot. When your four to six years are up, get all the tats you want. but don't complain because you didn't read the contract.