# The Visible Tatoo



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

More and more individuals have opted to adorn themselves with tatoos and other forms of body art. There was a time when it was not considered appropriate for such designs to be visible when dressed for a business environment. What is the appropriate standard -- if there is one -- in today's business world?


----------



## nmprisons (Mar 20, 2008)

I have multiple tattoos and would never let one show in a business environment.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*appropriate?*

In my business, I guess it depends on if you are the client.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*At my emply...*

I am free to show my body art. I also have one on my hand, which can not be covered (maybe some of you have seen it in waywt). When it gets warmer, and I don short sleeves to work (mostly June and September-as our building itself is unairconditioned-only the rooms are) more of the art shows. I have a sleeve on my entire right arm, and some sanskrit on my lower left arm. On my entire upper left arm, I have a tribute to my family members who braved a long journey and deep persecution to come to America and make a better life for me. I consider it, for me, something spiritual and deeply "religious". All of my work has a strong connection to feelings I hold dear. I know many of you would disagree, but I feel that discriminating against this would be no different than discriminating against someone based on the color of their skin, or their religious affiliation.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

When dressed for a "business environment" I don't see how a tattoo would be visible unless it is on your hands or face. For the most part the typical guy who has tattoos on his hands or face is not the guy you will find in a business environment unless we are talking "gang" business or a meeting of the local Hell's Angels or Outlaws biker groups.

Edit: Sorry rgrossicone, I posted this at about the same time you posted yours. I think I just put you in a gang. I realize that there are exceptions. No offense intended.

Cruiser


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> When dressed for a "business environment" I don't see how a tattoo would be visible unless it is on your hands or face. For the most part the typical guy who has tattoos on his hands or face is not the guy you will find in a business environment unless we are talking "gang" business or a meeting of the local Hell's Angels or Outlaws biker groups.
> 
> Cruiser


I neither belong to any "gangs" or ride a motorcycle, and I have two visible tattoos, one on the back of my neck that comes above even a high shirt collar (and with a short haiorcut is visible) and one on my hand. Also, the two works I have on my arms can at times sneak out if my sleeves are compelled to ride up my arm a bit.

**Gotcha Cruiser..none taken.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While I am not a fan of tatoos, this really seems no different than one trying to dress appropriately for their work group/situation. In your gut you will know if displaying tatoos is acceptable in your situation and you should respond accordingly.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

That you would even ask the question.... I mean, how many of the AAAC admin team have tattoos?! To be honest, it sounds like a furtive question from someone who, having lost a drunken bet the night before, has just woken up to the sight of inappropriate patterns of freshly-etched blue pigment on his arm. :icon_smile:

I would like to think that tattoos, in any case, have already reached their peak in pop culture popularity though you never can be sure of these things.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

LOL...though for the record, I possess no body art (though I did write Brenda Vincent's phone number on my hand in ball-point pen whilst in tenth grade), am most cautious in my wagering, went to bed quite sober last evening, and find my skin very much as I left it last night.


----------



## Bespoken For (Nov 29, 2007)

Mine are and will most likely always be in coverable spots. That's just personal preference and the industry I work in. Some friends have theirs in visible spots because they work in "creative" fields where they don't meet with clients, etc.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

The standard in today's business world varies widely.

But, there is ONE truth to anyone with a visible tattoo - they want to expose and display their unconventional nature... though, it sorta is like wearing one of those lumbering cod pieces when you have something small inside. The visible tattoo most emphatically and colorfully says, 'I'm not part of the system, MAN.' and when arrogantly inscribed says, 'I'm more individual, and better than you are, MAAAN.' At a serious level the tattoo is an unerasable (for the most part) identifier which allows the viewer to ponder the decision making process of the tattooed individual.

I am not against tattoos, but have none. Being 'Gen X' I saw this stuff rise up and become main stream. I understand the need of tattoos as identifiers for gangs, and as an odd inscription of things people believe are immutable and dear in their lives, but since nothing is truly that immutable aside from gigantic rock formations and several serious religions it makes tattoos seem like frivolous decoration. If you want to frivolously decorate, why do it permanently on your flesh? Use clothes; those can change.



Rossini said:


> To be honest, it sounds like a furtive question from someone who, having lost a drunken bet the night before, has just woken up to the sight of inappropriate patterns of freshly-etched blue pigment on his arm.


Hah!


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Having been in a interviewing/hiring position for many years I'll say visible tatoos are not a point in your favor. 

That being said, I'm in the more conservative-midwest-fly over-area of the country.


----------



## s4usea (Jul 10, 2007)

I work in investment banking. I have never hired someone who had visible tatoos, and I have not promoted people who I've found to have them in places that aren't visible in a business environment, but are outside of if depending on what they wear.

Although I grew up in a world where the only people that had them were convicts, sailors, former concentration camp victims and sideshow freaks I don't have a problem with them. However, I never know if my clients do, and I'd rather not find out.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Preu Pummel said:


> Being 'Gen X' I saw this stuff rise up and become main stream. I understand the need of tattoos as identifiers for gangs, and as an odd inscription of things people believe are immutable and dear in their lives, but since nothing is truly that immutable aside from gigantic rock formations and several serious religions it makes tattoos seem like frivolous decoration.


Being Gen X makes you a young fellow I suppose and that might give you a different viewpoint. Back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's tattoos were quite popular in the U.S. Navy and a lot of young guys picked up one or two during their tour for no reason other than they were young guys, perhaps inebriated also. I avoided this but did come close a time or two.

A shipmate of mine got one back in 68 when we were a couple of young sailors roaming lower Broad in San Diego. He was 18 and I thought he was just a big old dumb country boy from Georgia. I happened to meet up with him again 35 years later and this big old dumb country boy has an MBA and is President of a company, but he still has an anchor with a rope around it right there on his forearm acquired late one night in 68.

Cruiser


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Being Gen X makes you a young fellow I suppose and that might give you a different viewpoint. Back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's tattoos were quite popular in the U.S. Navy and a lot of young guys picked up one or two during their tour for no reason other than they were young guys, perhaps inebriated also.


That's flattering - 40 being young, but I am not so young to already understand the tattoo through recent history. Men serving abroad, particularly sailors, were well known for getting tattoos. That has different motives, perhaps being the outcrop of a belief in imminent death, or caught in moments of extreme drunkeness combined with youth.

The shame of modern tattoo lovers is when they consciously decorate themselves up to prove they are unique individuals, then get upset that they aren't taken seriously by stock brokers, investment bankers, and politicians. Then they get whiney. It's truly awful. The hearing aid companies will go bankrupt when my group ages - no one will want to listen to any of the whining.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm Gen X too and have three rather good sized ones, but none that would even remotely show in a business situation. The only way one would show in even a remote business situation is if I wore shorts on the golf course 

That being said, I had my HR people create a policy that all tattoos must be covered at work. If you have yourself "sleeved", you wear long sleeves. If you have a tattoo on your hand, you wear a bandaid over it. Etc. IMO, many people do not want their personal hygiene and/or medical needs attended to by people displaying tattoos.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Preu Pummel said:


> That's flattering - 40 being young, but I am not so young to already understand the tattoo through recent history. Men serving abroad, particularly sailors, were well known for getting tattoos. That has different motives, perhaps being the outcrop of a belief in imminent death, or caught in moments of extreme drunkeness combined with youth.
> 
> The shame of modern tattoo lovers is when they consciously decorate themselves up to prove they are unique individuals, then get upset that they aren't taken seriously by stock brokers, investment bankers, and politicians. Then they get whiney. It's truly awful. The hearing aid companies will go bankrupt when my group ages - no one will want to listen to any of the whining.


Not to appear whiney here but...wasn't it just 50 years ago, in this great land of ours, when you could have substituted African-American (I dare not utter the word that was used 50 years ago) into the argument and be seen as a righteous arguer? if you were black, you wouldn't have been taken seriously by stock brokers, investment bankers, and politicians.

And for the record, the art that I have on me is no less important TO ME than the art sailors get with the fear of "imminent death" in their heads. I believe that there is no greater canvas than the human body for art and the permanance of tattoos makes them something that should not be done for "fashion reasons". All of my art are tributes to Higher Powers and people who have allowed me to become the man that I am now, and to me, no canvas aside from myself would do.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I regard tattoos as primarily a fashion statement, much like a mohawk or Ivy league haircut.

A fashion not currently appreciated in many (if not most) business settings, ok in others.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> Not to appear whiney here but...wasn't it just 50 years ago, in this great land of ours, when you could have substituted African-American (I dare not utter the word that was used 50 years ago) into the argument and be seen as a righteous arguer? if you were black, you wouldn't have been taken seriously by stock brokers, investment bankers, and politicians.
> 
> And for the record, the art that I have on me is no less important TO ME than the art sailors get with the fear of "imminent death" in their heads. I believe that there is no greater canvas than the human body for art and the permanance of tattoos makes them something that should not be done for "fashion reasons". All of my art are tributes to Higher Powers and people who have allowed me to become the man that I am now, and to me, no canvas aside from myself would do.


I am sorry to conclude that *rgrossicone* makes a specious argument, indeed. Generally speaking, African-Americans have not chosen their skin color and would be hard pressed to exercise any choice in that regard. If one chooses to have a tattoo, I believe one is, ipso facto, choosing to abide the consequences and peoples' prejudices.

Buzz


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I am sorry to conclude that *rgrossicone* makes a specious argument, indeed. Generally speaking, African-Americans have not chosen their skin color and would be hard pressed to exercise any choice in that regard. If one chooses to have a tattoo, I believe one is, ipso facto, choosing to abide the consequences and peoples' prejudices.
> 
> Buzz


Beautiful. Thank you for answering for me. I was just going to make your point.

As I said before, it is about the choices we make. If you make questionable or privately integral choices, don't display them on your sleeve(neck, hands, face, etc). As a wise man once said; opinions are like assholes- everyone has one, we just don't want to hear it all the time. There are proper places for everything. If someone finds your tattoos improper, that's their tough luck, and yours if you want them to hire/accept you.

The art on you might be very important to you. Is it so important you MUST display it publicly? If so, the negatives you incur should be accepted with relish- it deters those who don't like what you really are inside... or what shows through from inside via your skin.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I might hire someone with a tattoo that is visible; if it is really big and garish, it would be a true turnoff. (However, since the real estate downturn in Michigan has cost me my staff, except for someone who can come in a few days a month, my thoughts will not mean much to anyone with a tattoo, at least in the near future.

I guess I don't mind small ones, but when they have stuff covering their entire forearm, it is a bit much for me. Our office is not business formal, so I will see a lot of the forearm tattoo in the summer, probably. I'll admit that I probably would not see that in the interview. If the person is a good employee, I'll probably be so grateful for the good service that I'll bond with the person and work with him anyway.


----------



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

I would consider a tattoo a major negative in interview decision making. I also consider smoking a major negative--and yes, I don't care what you do, I can smell the smoke. Just my view.


----------



## s4usea (Jul 10, 2007)

rgrossicone said:


> Not to appear whiney here but...wasn't it just 50 years ago, in this great land of ours, when you could have substituted African-American (I dare not utter the word that was used 50 years ago) into the argument and be seen as a righteous arguer? if you were black, you wouldn't have been taken seriously by stock brokers, investment bankers, and politicians.
> 
> And for the record, the art that I have on me is no less important TO ME than the art sailors get with the fear of "imminent death" in their heads. I believe that there is no greater canvas than the human body for art and the permanance of tattoos makes them something that should not be done for "fashion reasons". All of my art are tributes to Higher Powers and people who have allowed me to become the man that I am now, and to me, no canvas aside from myself would do.


That's nice but not really relevant to the argument. You can do anything you want. You can have any attitude you want. You can make yourself a walking version of the Sistine Chapel as long as you're willing to accept the consequences and not expect the rest of the world to stop turning and doing the things it does as it circles the sun because of the choices you made.

Like I said, I won't hire someone with them. It's not personal, it's perception, and perception drives business. Will perception change? Probably not. It has the weight of history behind it.

When I was a certain age my father, who at the time was the Captain of a destroyer out of San Diego sat me down and pointed out that I was about to start down a road where all doors were open to my future, and moving forward if doors closed it would be because of choices I made. Tatoos close doors to your future. It's your choice, and if you're cool with it, fine. Just don't expect everyone else to take the consequences of your choice onto themselves.

Oh, and when I was in the service I almost got one, but since I was last in line I had sobered up by the time it was my turn. Looking back had I got one it'd been a poor decision, born not by inebriation and fear of death but by inebriation and the stupidity of youth.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I recall the first time I saw a man with a tattoo, as a young boy I waited until the man had left and asked my father. He explained the convict's FTW ritual to me.

He never expressed an opinion if I should or should not indulge in a tattoo but instead told me one day to pay special attention to who "wore" a tattoo and who did not on an afternoon we were spending at a work related function.

As my brother and I wondered around with almost free reign of the complex it became clear by the end of the evening.

My father was a member of the Officer's Mess and no one there showed a tattoo.

My mother was a member of the Warrant Officers' & Sergeants' Mess (she was a M.W.O.) and only one man showed a tattoo.

My brother and I would prefer to play table shuffleboard in the Officer's Mess but would rather play darts in the soldier's (or men's) canteen located in the basement. 
Tattoos were ablaze.

I was still a long way from finishing elementary school at that time, but the answer was clear and the lesson learned!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I don't like tattoo's. I find it quite unattractive on women as well.


----------



## Jumbie (Nov 30, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> I find it quite unattractive on women as well.


Agreed. Especially the now almost ubiquitous "tramp stamp".


----------



## jlmwrite (Dec 27, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> I know many of you would disagree, but I feel that discriminating against this would be no different than discriminating against someone based on the color of their skin


I'm sorry, but I also have to disagree on this point. Tats in modern society represent a fashion statement, just the same as a choice in clothes and haistyles, and in no way fall into the same category as race. Should I also not "discriminate" against a potential employee who has multiple facial piercings? I'm not allowing a nurse to come to work sporting a blue mohawk, nor giant earlobe stretching things, nor studs thru the nose and chin; our hospital's HR policy clearly defines what is and isn't acceptable anyway.

Professional dress precludes such fashion statements. Would you come to work in a professional environment (ie, hospital, bank, law firm, etc) in a ratty "Eat me" t-shirt worn over baggy cargo shorts and flip-flops? Those are fashion choices (albeit piss-poor ones) just the same as tats. Got a tat? Good for you! But if you're going to work in a professional environment, it shouldn't be visible, any more than your nipple rings or your purple spiked hairdo, or cheek piercings.

It's your right to tattoo any part of your body you like, but it's MY right as an employer to not hire you if you look as if you should be employed in a Harley shop, a tattoo parlor, or a Starbucks.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Jumbie said:


> Agreed. Especially the now almost ubiquitous "tramp stamp".


In Germany, they called those scrolls above the rear pelvis ASS ANTLERS... they seemed to stick out of jeans everywhere in Berlin.








Nothing better than a bit of light reading while waiting to complete my task.


----------



## &Son (Feb 18, 2008)

In my business environment I see ink on far more women than men. Perhaps because the women sometimes get away with showing more skin, or perhaps because they simply have more tattoos now than the men, I'm unsure of which it might be.


----------



## Slim Portly (Mar 30, 2008)

Preu Pummel said:


> Nothing better than a bit of light reading while waiting to complete my task.


"There is no limit to it's faith." Hope she got a discount.


----------



## The Other Andy (Jan 9, 2008)

I hadn't even thought about it before reading this thread, but I'm much less likely to hire a smoker than a person with visible tats. People with tattoos don't typically step out for a "tattoo break" every couple of hours.

I have quite a few tattoos, including a 1/2 sleeve that goes below my elbow, but they don't show at work (not that it matters now since I'm the boss). I did specifically get them in places where they would be covered by typical business wear, but never had a burning desire to get a tat on my hand or neck anyway. 

I have noticed the tattoo on rgrossicone's hand and wondered if that caused him any grief at his teaching job, but I would never make a hiring decision based on visible tattoos. I would, however, request that they were covered during meetings with certain clients - just as I cover my own with long sleeves, etc.

P.S. - I love the Tramp Stamp!!!


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Preu Pummel said:


> Beautiful. Thank you for answering for me. I was just going to make your point.
> 
> As I said before, it is about the choices we make. If you make questionable or privately integral choices, don't display them on your sleeve(neck, hands, face, etc). As a wise man once said; opinions are like assholes- everyone has one, we just don't want to hear it all the time. There are proper places for everything. If someone finds your tattoos improper, that's their tough luck, and yours if you want them to hire/accept you.
> 
> The art on you might be very important to you. Is it so important you MUST display it publicly? If so, the negatives you incur should be accepted with relish- it deters those who don't like what you really are inside... or what shows through from inside via your skin.


So then if you are persecuted based on your religious beliefs that would be acceptable? I have seen first hand the disgusting treatment of Muslims in my neighborhood in the days after 9/11, simply because they "choose" to display their spirituality outwardly. Was/is that their "tough luck"? I don't pretend to argue that many, if not most, people do have tattoos for "fashionable" reasons, but not ALL do. Admittedly, the race comparison was a poor one.

I do not get grief at my job for the ink on my hand and neck. I would be able to file a discrimination suit if it ever came out that I was denied promotion or a job because of it as I work for the City of New York.

Anyway, my gripe isn't with your opinions, or even policies regarding how you expect your employees to look, but the general assumption that people with tattoos should "suck it up and stop whining" when they are denied equal opportunity based on outward appearance, which comes down to plain old prejudice.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jumbie said:


> Agreed. Especially the now almost ubiquitous "tramp stamp".


I must have been living under a rock, but I just heard that term a few weeks ago, and I must have heard it about a dozen times since. I agree though, it is not attractive.



rgrossicone said:


> Anyway, my gripe isn't with your opinions, or even policies regarding how you expect your employees to look, but the general assumption that people with tattoos should "suck it up and stop whining" when they are denied equal opportunity based on outward appearance, which comes down to plain old prejudice.


People make judgments on appearance all the time. Do you think that is going to stop? Heck, there are people on this forum who answered that they "look down on people" who wear Windsor knots.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> So then if you are persecuted based on your religious beliefs that would be acceptable? I have seen first hand the disgusting treatment of Muslims in my neighborhood in the days after 9/11, simply because they "choose" to display their spirituality outwardly. Was/is that their "tough luck"? I don't pretend to argue that many, if not most, people do have tattoos for "fashionable" reasons, but not ALL do. Admittedly, the race comparison was a poor one.
> 
> I do not get grief at my job for the ink on my hand and neck. I would be able to file a discrimination suit if it ever came out that I was denied promotion or a job because of it as I work for the City of New York.
> 
> Anyway, my gripe isn't with your opinions, or even policies regarding how you expect your employees to look, but the general assumption that people with tattoos should "suck it up and stop whining" when they are denied equal opportunity based on outward appearance, which comes down to plain old prejudice.


I for one am at a loss regarding how to distinguish between people who have tattoos as a fashion statement and those who have them for noble reasons. Also, I am unaware of people with tattoos as a protected class under any non-discrimination act, but I am most eager to learn more about it if *rgrossicone* can provide a reference. Finally, I humbly object to comparing people with tattoos to a religous group. There are in this world societies which require tattoos as a prerequisit to enjoyment of those societies' benefits; unfortunately, we do not live in one of those societies.

Buzz


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I must have been living under a rock, but I just heard that term a few weeks ago, and I must have heard it about a dozen times since. I agree though, it is not attractive...


The tramp or the stamp? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## tnsquire (Mar 3, 2008)

Visible ink is not appropriate in a business setting. If you can't hide it I would not want you working for me. That may be prejudice or whatever but I don't like it.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wizard said:


> The tramp or the stamp?


If your sister or your daughter got a tattoo would you call her a tramp? Or allow me to call her a tramp?

Cruiser


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Wizard said:


> The tramp or the stamp? :icon_smile_big:


Both.



Cruiser said:


> If your sister or your daughter got a tattoo would you call her a tramp? Or allow me to call her a tramp?
> 
> Cruiser


I don't have a sister, nor do I plan on having kids. But I would allow you to call them whatever you want, it is a free country after-all. And I would probably doing the same to boot.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> I don't have a sister, nor do I plan on having kids. But I would allow you to call them whatever you want, it is a free country after-all. And I would probably doing the same to boot.


I probably would have said the same thing BEFORE I had a daughter. It's odd how being a parent changes one's perspective on things.

There I was, a former Parrothead, hiding my Jimmy Buffett tapes so my little girl wouldn't be influenced by the drug and alchohol related lyrics that I partied to for so long. I just wish I could go back in time and take back all of the parenting "advice" I so freely gave to my friends before I was a parent myself. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Anyway, my gripe isn't with your opinions, or even policies regarding how you expect your employees to look, but the general assumption that people with tattoos should "suck it up and stop whining" when they are denied equal opportunity based on outward appearance, which comes down to plain old prejudice.


I think it should be easy to discern that something one does to themselves are of a different class of characteristics vs. those attributes that nature has bestowed on one. For instance, blue eyes we are born with. Freaky contact lenses than make a person look like a Marilyn Manson reject are choices. I am surprised an educated educator like yourself cannot discern between the two classes and is perseverating on things the way you are.

And keep in mind, this is coming from someone with three rather large pieces of ink.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> I think it should be easy to discern that something one does to themselves are of a different class of characteristics vs. those attributes that nature has bestowed on one. For instance, blue eyes we are born with. Freaky contact lenses than make a person look like a Marilyn Manson reject are choices. I am surprised an educated educator like yourself cannot discern between the two classes and is perseverating on things the way you are.
> 
> And keep in mind, this is coming from someone with three rather large pieces of ink.


I hear you, but for me personally, each piece, and its location was chosen for a very spiritual reason. I don't distinguish between "spiritual" and "religious". You are right about things that you are born with, and things you choose to adorn yourself with. I just feel that when it comes to a persons inner beliefs, that no one should be judged, even if those beliefs are outwardly exhibited.

Having said that, I do understand how and why people are perceived based on the way they look on the outside. I even catch myself at times judging people on outward appearance when I know I shouldn't. I guess my point is that I hope all of us (who appear to be well educated and informed individuals) learn to judge each person on their merits, rather than their appearance. Imagine not hiring the next "big thing" in your industry because he or she had a tattoo visible, or because they had long hair, or a poorly matched wardrobe. We can only benefit as a society by eliminating judgement and being a more accepting people.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Slim Portly said:


> "There is no limit to it's faith." Hope she got a discount.


Haha. Indeed so.


----------



## burton (Nov 11, 2007)

I have a couple of tattoos from my teenage years, and I don't regret them one bit. Some of them are highly visible if I'm wearing a t-shirt, but at the time I got them, I always assumed I would be able to cover them up with a shirt and tie when I entered the professional world. Then the business casual dress code started to take hold, and ironically, the guy with the tattoos now has to wear ties to keep things covered, while everyone else walks around open-collared. 

I'm willing to deal with that small loss of liberty, since I understand that people may (unjustly) perceive me as a ruffian based on my ink, and I need to meet certain appearance-based expectations in my line of work. 

But the viewpoints of some of the posters above, suggesting that people with tattoos look like convicts or fast food workers, reek of arrogance. The baseline proposition that I hear from this faction is, "I can't tolerate it if you don't look like me" - assuming, probably under the cover of the terms "mainstream," or "normal," or "traditional," that their own preferences are "correct," and that any deviation from them is, well, "deviant." I know this is a clothing forum, so obviously, the people who post here are concerned about appearances - but why jump to negative sociological conclusions the minute someone decorates their skin? I like to think the ink on my resume has far more to say about me than a few incidental decorations on my skin - is that an unreasonable proposition?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

sorry, if you have a tatoo on your hand or on your neck, I wouldn't hire you. aside from the fact that it may hamper you to sell (which is what the people who work for me do) it would display a huge lack or judgement or of adequate socialization. 



a lot of people who work with me have tats that can be covered as do I.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> So then if you are persecuted based on your religious beliefs that would be acceptable? ....(and so forth)


I think that just summed up one TITANIC lack of understanding on your part.
It took this thread, and entire discussion off into some dark alley where strange things lurk; things called non-sequiturs.

If you aren't aware of how choices you make influence your life, you aren't well connected to reality. Every choice is a label on you in everyone else's eyes. And there is NO way around that, not even in the deepest fairy tale world envisioned in a marxist sugar plum dream two centuries back.

The more visible and permanently displayed those choices are, the worse for a person who might need ambiguity to get by in life. You don't look like some wild eyed drug addled criminal on a rampage to get his own and screw over an employer, but a tattoo STILL does allow people to see into your decision making process. Imaging coming into an interview with cigarette burns on their hand. When asked what that's about the guy says, 'oh, i got drunk last night and WHEW! was that a wild time.' It's a visible mark that opens up a can of worms. And if that guy gets bellicose about it, 'THESE BURNS MEEEEEEN THINGS TO ME MAN!' ... what do you think is going to happen in the employer's mind? The potential date's mind? The average person's head?

This discussion had nothing to do with religion or race, but you wanted to make it about that repeatedly. This is all about what tattoos trigger in others, which is primarily a questioning of the wearer's decision making process. Most employers wouldn't hire a near perfect person if they found some displayed flaw on first meeting, a flaw that might be a door to disaster during employment. That stuff is smoothed over once you've proved your worth to an employer. Ambiguity is one of the greatest strategic necessities in the human social world, always has been, unless you are pinpointing some subculture you want to stay within. That's the way of the world, always has been, always will be unless humans get lobotomies. If it isn't a tattoo it will be the angle you wear your hat, or how you walk on cracked pavement, or the kind of food you eat; decisions displayed.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I probably would have said the same thing BEFORE I had a daughter. It's odd how being a parent changes one's perspective on things.
> Cruiser


I have 3 daughters and I would tell each one of them that this particular tattoo is well known as a "tramp stamp". It's not necessarily calling them a tramp, but that is how this tattoo generally known.


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> If your sister or your daughter got a tattoo would you call her a tramp? Or allow me to call her a tramp?
> 
> Cruiser


First, related to the picture posted above I was commenting, obviously not well, on 1) the attractiveness of the 'tramp' to use the phrasing of the thread and 2) on the content of the 'stamp'. I like them both SEPERATELY but agree that together they are not attractive.
Secondly, yes, if my sister or daughter got a tattoo I WOULD call them a tramp. Both of them know my objections and I know my sister would never and my daughter had better not get one.
Third, no, I would NOT allow YOU (or anyone else) to call them a tramp in my presence. That is a family matter and no matter what our internal family disagreements may be I will defend them to the outside world to whatever extent deemed necessary.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wizard said:


> no, I would NOT allow YOU (or anyone else) to call them a tramp in my presence. That is a family matter and no matter what our internal family disagreements may be I will defend them to the outside world to whatever extent deemed necessary.


That's my point. I think that's why we should refrain from calling someone else's sister or daughter names like "tramp". Of course it's easy to get away with a lot of things in cyberspace that one wouldn't do in person.

Cruiser


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> That's my point. I think that's why we should refrain from calling someone else's sister or daughter names like "tramp". Of course it's easy to get away with a lot of things in cyberspace that one wouldn't do in person.
> 
> Cruiser


Maybe while we are at it, you should add calling someone's wife a gold digger to this list!!


----------



## NewYorker30 (Mar 20, 2008)

I'm a Gen-Xer and I have two tattoos that do not show while wearing business attire. My tatoos are on my upper arms and don't even show with short sleeves on. I never wear short sleeves publically anyway (not even in summer) since they are low class. So no one ever practically sees my tatoos unless I go to the beach (which I rarely do). I guess only a wife or girlfriend would ever really know whether or not I even had tatoos. 

_


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

zegnamtl said:


> Maybe while we are at it, you should add calling someone's wife a gold digger to this list!!


Why don't you repeat what else I said in that post? Repeating something out of context is about what I would expect from you.

I did refer to a man's wife as a gold digger. I then immediately said in the next paragraph that I did not mean that and I was only saying it for illustrative purposes so he would know how it feels to have someone act toward him the way he was acting toward others. I said that as far as I know his wife is a fine lady. Is there some reason you left this out of your post?

The man in question made some really obnoxious comments about people who in his opinion did not dress to his standards. He ultimately went so far as to say that he actually had thoughts that the world would be a better place if folks who didn't dress to his standards would all die. What horrible sin did those folks commit? They wore shorts and t-shirts to the grocery store on a Saturday morning completely ruining his morning out in his new sport coat and ascot.

Cruiser


----------



## Wyoming Shooter (Dec 12, 2007)

Give me strength! Last I heard, tattoos were not protected by the Constitution. Yes, I have one. No, it's not visible unless I want it to be. Yes, I hire people. Yes, I care how they look and how they dress. Yes, people make judgments on the basis of personal appearance. Yes, those with visible tats who are not hired for professional jobs should "suck it up" just as those without visible tats who are not hired at the local H/D shop should do likewise. My gawd!



rgrossicone said:


> ...I do not get grief at my job for the ink on my hand and neck. I would be able to file a discrimination suit if it ever came out that I was denied promotion or a job because of it as I work for the City of New York.
> 
> Anyway, my gripe isn't with your opinions, or even policies regarding how you expect your employees to look, but the general assumption that people with tattoos should "suck it up and stop whining" when they are denied equal opportunity based on outward appearance, which comes down to plain old prejudice.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

NewYorker30 said:


> I'm a Gen-Xer and I have two tattoos that do not show while wearing business attire. My tatoos are on my upper arms and don't even show with short sleeves on. I never wear short sleeves publically anyway (not even in summer) since they are low class. So no one ever practically sees my tatoos unless I go to the beach (which I rarely do). I guess only a wife or girlfriend would ever really know whether or not I even had tatoos.
> 
> _


Wow... if that isn't bigoted. So do you wear long sleeve shirts while working out or running?


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Tattoos have really become acceptable nowadays, even tattoo artists have become celebrities themselves! I suppose these days there is a mild acceptance of tattoos in the workplace, at least most of them. Of course, we have to bear in mind that there are tattoos....... and there are terrible ideas....


----------



## d95035 (Feb 9, 2008)

In an effort to make this thread extra-controversial, let's compare the visible tattoo to...the black suit :devil:

Neither is automatically in poor taste (I say), but both are highly likely to be prole "markers".

If I remember right, John Stuart Mill once said something like "it's not that conservatives are stupid - it's that stupid people are so very likely to be conservative".

For the record, I have no tattoos, do own a black suit (w/ windowpane) pattern, and do tend to vote Republican.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Charming!

It would take a lot of guts to do that to yourself.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Oh Grampa, I love you too!


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

Now that tattoo speaks to me! :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Wizard said:


> Now that tattoo speaks to me! :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


Do you mow the lawn, or are you bald?


----------

