Do tattoos really define you as a bad Soldier?

Professionalism is defined by us as a society. Generally in the military big decisions that change the way we are supposed to think are made by people who are not exactly in touch with what the societal norms are and have had too much exposure to whatever it is that the Good Idea Fairy seems to secrete. That's part of why things like the new changes to 670-1 take so long. They have to be evaluated and discussed with the people who they are actually affecting. Given the option based solely on appearance between a short haired clean shaven person with no tattoos, versus a long haired bearded person with visible tattoos; what image do you want impressed on the enemy? The question answers itself. Baby faced and wearing starched BDU's seems good for the people who start stories with "Back in my day..." and I fear as though we as a military fall into a perpetual cycle of "well that's the way I had to do it", which is the wrong answer. Professionalism is not and should not be defined as how little hair or ink your body possesses. It is however, in my humble opinion defined by your actions and ability to accomplish a mission. Opera non verba, deeds not words.

I do not have many tattoos. Not because I am against them, but the cost to get a good one. I see the direction that the Army is taking. As we are shrinking down from the war and the force is shrinking, the senior leaders are trying to keep the american people invested in the Army. By limiting the areas where Soldiers can have tattoos they are ensuring that Soldiers have the professional look of a Soldier on and off duty, in and out of uniform. It is the same thought behind having Soldiers clean shaven while off duty.  

My father had a tattoo and he was in both the Navy and Air Force.   He also had a tattoo of a Sailor on his forearm and yet,  that didn't make him bad.   If the military has changed their policy then there probably is a reason,  even if we do not agree because we cannot pick and choose the rules and regulations that we follow.

I would not say they are bad, I would say you should not be able to see them when in uniform. I have several and none are visible when in uniform. The biggest problem is the perception that is you have tattoo you are a thug, this is wrong for most people. However, it only takes one to ruin it for others.  

Tattoos by no means define a service member as "bad". &nbsp;The decision of what to get and where to get it can get the service member in trouble sure but just because you have ink doesn't mean you are a bad Soldier. &nbsp;As stated earlier, the history of tattoos and military service goes way back. &nbsp;Roman soldiers were branded with the letters SPQR and this tradition carries on to this day. &nbsp;I for one, have 14 tattoos. &nbsp;Half of them are related to my time in the service. &nbsp;They are not raciest, sexiest or any of the other "ists". &nbsp;Does that mean I'm was a bad Soldier? &nbsp;No, it means I have pride in my service and pride in the units I served with. &nbsp;<div><br></div><div>I think the change in regulation is meant to deter those with facial, neck and other visible tattoos. &nbsp;These could be considered as "unprofessional" by some. &nbsp;I think the same idea can go towards the idea of ear gauging. &nbsp;Would you really want a recruit with huge holes in their lower ear on your line? &nbsp;The possible injuries that can result from that could be very bad.</div>

<p>NOT even... truth be known it's a lot of people who have recently come under some major fire, been fired, or imprisoned and they're INK-LESS.&nbsp; So again, not even.&nbsp; Your bad tendencies have nothing to do with a tattoo.&nbsp; That's inner evil you haven't disciplined and me inking a BB's name who I&nbsp;lost downrange have no semblance whatsoever, IMO.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Now visible tattoos for SOME may present an unprofessional APPEARANCE (which of course can be judged at face value), but for me I see it as more of a distraction from your military appearance.&nbsp; Instead of someone seeing you, they're paying attention to the 5 tattoos they see crawling out beneath your sleeves and your collar, so again distraction-yes.&nbsp; </p>

Hell be gone soon.
My opinion but he tried to make the army too much in the way he imaginged it despite popular opinion.
Imagine if he was Gen Shinsekis (SP) SMA.
Ill shut up now:)

Tattoos do not make us bad soldiers. Not being able to follow regulation after its been published, and not documenting like we are supposed is whats making us bad soldiers due to a lack of discipline.

I think as long as it doesn't show in your ASU/ACU and isn't hateful to another group, it shouldn't matter.

i bet the sma would have felt intimidated if he was to go back to the late 69 early 70's military
we were mostly high school dropouts that the courts had ordered to go in the military
rowdy drank hard smoked pot and fought like dogs in the barracks we werent politically correct sma but we had your back if need be