Joco's comments are in italics
First of all , i do understand a tattoo is kinda a way of expression, it's a part that belongs to your body... it's part of you.
But imagine, someone who is not yet 16 years old, going into a tattoo shop getting tattoo's and piercing that will remain for the rest of their lives.
Getting a tattoo is not a decission you make in 5 minutes, it's something you have tyo think bout, think about the concequences....
Children younger as 16 do not have the mentallity, the life expirience you need to make that kinda descission.
Why not forbit ppl younger as 16/18tattoo's ? Imo, thats a good step forward; although i know even ppl in their40's don't really think about concequences when getting tattoo's.
I seem to remember writing "I do support the fact that in some cases it's not wise to get tattooed or pierced that young, but there is no way to let age alone be the deciding factor."
This means exactly what you said... age is no guarantee to have achieved the necessary wisdom and experience to make such permanent decisions, neither is being young a guarantee not to have achieved all that. It depends on various factors.
Therefore I'm not in favor of an age-restricted law, but would prefer to have the artist decide whether or not they see it fit to do the procedure. Parents signing a release form for minors would be a solution too. This is the situation in a lot of countries btw.
And about tattoo's in public : A tattoo is something personal that you get for yourself, not for showing off, but for yourself.
While I do agree that they are personal for most people, that would not mean they have to cover them up. Everyone should have to accept others as they are, even if that includes someone wants to show their work of art in public.
Tattoo's should NOT be forbidden in public, but... if it's shocking, or whatever.. they should indeed be forbidden....
Imagine i'm judish, and you have a tattoo telling me judish ppl should get killed, or you have a hitler sign tattoo'd on your arm and you show that in public.
Is that freedom of expression ? no.. it's a vioolation, cause if you would write that down on in a paper, you would get into trouble....
The case where you put tattoos to reflect a certain belief that might (or will) shock others has got nothing to do with the tattoo itself, does it? Those cases come down to plain common sense, the same goes for writing, publications, records and such. Where does one's individual freedom start, and where does it end? Allowing someone their personal freedom might result in others having less.
I'm not saying that everything should be allowed to be visible anywhere and anytime. The bearer of whatever body modification they have, should realize that it might shock others, and be prepared to act accordingly. If getting mods for the sole purpose to shock, you are obviously not wise enough to realize that what shocks today, may not do so in 5 or 10 years.
freedom of expression: Oke... but withing certain limits of age, morality and ethics!
True. So, where did you think we might get into a discussion? :) I just wished everyone looked at it this way and so mature.