Comments´┐Ż

| 2 Comments

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.

2 Comments

In New Zealand you aren't allowed a tattoo under 18 unless you have your parents permission. Which I think is how it should be, because your parents know you much better than some random tattoo artist.

If it was up to the tattoo artist then if a parent finds out their child has been tattoo'd while too young and are mad (and since a parent is responsible for their child at that age they have the right to get pissed) it's the artist who would bear the brunt of that. And if the child regretted it, it would be the artists fault for thinking they were old enough. I don't think it's really fair to force the artist into making that kind of judgement call.

Let the parents decide, they are the ones who should be responsible. Oh, and of course any tattoo artist is allowed to turn down any customer, so if they don't agree with the parents judgement they are still allowed to say no. All of which is how it should be in my opinion.

As for having them visible in public, we all have to take resonsibility for how we look each day anyway. I'm aware that dressing a certain way would get me attention I don't want. eg if I go to a job interview looking ike a slut I'm not liklely to get it, or if I wear an offensive teeshirt I might get yelled at. So it all just becomes part of that. Look however you want, just be prepared to take responsibilty for the consequenses of your actions.

I like a nice tattoo and think they can add an extra interest to the way a person looks. I have also seen many many tacky ones which just look yucky.

Shelley, you are correct. Putting the responsability with the artist is indeed a bad idea, and I wonder how I could overlook it. I'm convinced that parents should know their kids better as a 'random' artist. Yet I think that when one wants a tattoo, and they have the right set of mind, they'd get to know their artist first.

I knew my artist before I decided to get a tattoo. Actually, she is not the shop owner, and has less experience as he has, but I always make an appointement with her, not with him. Letting somebody ink you for life requires trust.

I don't think I could have put it any better as you did regarding personal look and the responsability that comes with it.

Monthly Archives

Pages

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 5.04

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by ServMe published on November 16, 2002 9:59 PM.

What the fuck? was the previous entry in this blog.

Nitty gritty perverted things is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.