Do tattoos really define you as a bad Soldier?

"Possibly" a bad idea...or a good one.  Hard to decide until released. ;)

Tattoos do not make a bad Soldier at all.  I am a leader and Soldier with no tattoos and I feel tattoos are a big part of the military. Services members get the to remember there fallen brothers and sisters in arms, and it also represents who they really are. With the way the regulation is now about no tattoos on neck or faces is they way it should stay,  but I would add no tattoos on hands. So with that being said the Military should let the Soldiers, Airman, Marines, and Sailors be them selfs and  express them selfs, but with in limits. 

There are many thing that we use to express ourselves. Some people express themselves through their hairstyles. (Go to a highschool and look around, yikes) But just because I want to express myself in the Army doesnt mean I get to wear a pink mohawk. It doesnt have to be that extreme but I think I made my point.

Tattoos are really not that bad. It is an expression of who you are. Now if you go and get a distasteful tattoo, then I think there are problems that will follow.

Tattoos alone do not make a "bad" Sailor, Marine, Soldier, or Airman.  It is perception that colors our belief in what people are not the reality of who they are.  If tattoos are visible in uniform, then others view the tats, and not the professionals wearing them.  As we leave the military and begin to try to find jobs, many of us will find that there is a prejudice against people who sport visible tattoos.  I am not even talking about piercings here, just tats.  As a Sailor with 30 years in the Sea Service, I should be a big supporter of tattoos and do enjoy looking at some of them, however, there has never been enough liquor in any port to allow a tattoo artist to sink a needle into my flesh.  Sorry, Tattoos do not make military members bad, but visible ones give the wrong impression in a Professional Military.

Yes SGT Keen, This SPC will vote down your response if it does not go with his opinion.<br>

Ratios have been controlled in the Army since at least post WWII. Tattoos often represent something and often nothing. Like spoken language some are offensive to others. Unlike the spoken word you cannot stop the message of an exposed tattoo. The rules were as refined in the 90s, tattoos not to be visible above the collar, or on the arms below the sleeve.

What this will come to is offensive exposed tattoos will be the issue. Next it will be that if X cannot be viewed than neither can Y. Therefore all must not be visible based on Z.

The SMA is a great leader and very principled man who is even keeled and decisive. I am sure whatever he and his boss decide will be best for the forces.

So attacking tattoos is okay but saying that a person who can’t decide what sex they are is wrong? I am so over this new army and these social experiments! If you can’t control your emotions or mentally figure out that biology 101 states tgere are only two genders but omg tattoo guy is bad gtfo! Seems to me we need a change in leadership!

It did with me and my past...but no regrets other than I could wear the uniform and hopefully help someone some were

16,000 signatures just prompted a look into the recently changed regulation on grooming standards. What the signatures pertained to doesn't matter, what does is the fact that people keep going on about this, but aren't doing anything about it. I'm sure there are more than 16,000 service members with tattoos... just my two cents.