Do tattoos really define you as a bad Soldier?

<p>To answer the question&nbsp;(Do tattoos really define you as a bad Soldier?), point blank: No. A Soldier's actions define weather they are "good" or "bad" at being a Soldier. If the regulation states that a Soldier is not to get any tattoos that are visible in a long sleeve shirt, and he/she does so any way, then they are in violation of the regulation. Period. Regardless of content or intent.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The thing that bothers me the most about this discussion is that Soldiers (of all ranks) take what they read in the Army Times and other media outlets as regulation. Nothing is official until it comes out in an ALARACT or MILPER msg. This is especially troubling when leaders are guilty of this.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>When and if the Army changes the tattoo policy, it is almost certain that Soldiers who are already in, and have tattoos in violation of the new regulation, would be "grandfathered", meaning they would not be forced out or into an tattoo removal process. They would, however, be prohibited from getting new tattoos in the restricted areas. New recruits would not be allowed to enter service if they do not meet regulations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As for the whole "professionalism" arguement, as a Soldier who has deployed mulitple times to combat (and otherwise), I can atest to the valor, courage and professional excellence of Soldiers who have tattoos and have&nbsp;an appearance that would have the average civilian crossing the street to avoid them. I am also certain that&nbsp; when a Soldier lie bleeding on a stretcher, he/she is not in the least concerned with the number of tattoos below the elbow on the medic who is caring for him/her. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I understand that the military, in general is trying to convey a more professional, clean image, but the bottom line is that we are the nation's warriors and trying to fit us into the mold of civilians will do nothing but deteriorate the warrior mentality. Just my thoughts. </p>

So what defines professionalism? In ADRP 1 - The Army Profession, it states that what is considered professional is determined by the culture. The next question is what defines our culture in the military? Is it top driven or led by the masses?
You may not like the answer but from where I sit, it is top driven through the use of regulations. It changes as the years go by through lessons learned and the culture shift from the general population (and some political decisions too).

Tatoos do not define who you are unless you want them to. Otherwise getting a tatoo is like going to a party an drinking whats there.
I have 3. The last done in 92. I want more as does my wife who has 3 but family and life trump ink.
Right arm is MILITARY left is musician.
Ill be not fond of for this but I dont like sleeves. Too much. And less than half I know who have them is in definition to them versus I want a sleeve.
Worse is foot and ankles and any thing neck throat and behind the ears along with tear drops are a "really" moment. Drop your pants below your buttocks while your at it.
Tats define you and stay with you. Bad choice now makes the blob 40 years later worse. Some regret it. Its a choice, be sure its the right one because unlike a summer tan that goes away, ta5s dont nor do the scars after chosen removal.
My 2 Bits

I do not think they are "bad" and are not so much unprofessional as "indicative". Depending on the artwork, words and colors used, and placement/visibility a tattoo certainly "marks" the wearer/owner. The problem is not the tattoo but what others think about it. I have met professionals (military and civilian) with horrid "works of art/expression" that permanently mark their bodies but have little impact on their ability to perform their assigned and personal tasks. Hell, a uniform "marks" a person but cannot make them good at what they are expected to do.
Bottom line is, the military is to follow orders; that means a haircut twice a month for most of us and what we are to wear on duty. If we are restricted from getting a tattoo or piercings, that's the way it is. Drive on!

Question with a question: Does the LACK of tattoos define you as a GOOD soldier?

I do not have tattoos. I do not believe in them. I do not think having them makes you a bad Soldier. I do take them on a case by case basis when I see them on Soldiers. I have to believe that because people say perception is everything, that it can be deemed as unprofessional in a lot of situations on the Soldier wearing them. Officers probably should be held to a higher standard where they are concerned in my opinion.

No, having Tattoos doesn't and shouldn't define you as being good or bad. And I personally feel it is disgusting that the Army is subjecting Soldiers to the humiliation of having their tattoos photographed and uploaded for "identification purposes". And the attitude of many people is "what's the big deal". well, how big of a deal would it be if the Army decided that for the safety of those Soldiers that have come out as Gay, Lesbian or Bi; that they need to have them identified in a special file, and their records annotated as such. You know, just to be able to identify them in case some sort of violence is directed at them, so the command can more easily direct any potential investigation. Or, maybe we should identify those children whose parents are gay; that way if they are picked on at school we will have a better idea as to why they were targeted; you know just for the kids safety. And of course we should have photos and identify those Soldiers who are members of organizations like the Masons, or Demolays, or other "secret" organizations so we as an Army can better ensure that people who are involved in underground organizations are known to their commands. I was looking at a WWII site and it showed pictures of members of the SS doing the same thing; taking pictures of Tattoos on Jews, so that they would be easier to identify if they needed to pick them up. So, I guess we should be glad that at least our leadership is taking its cues for "how to best identify people" from another highly professional organization.

Let me try to answer this as a former civilian employer who hired vets. Your tattoos are an individual choice and albeit very personal to many however I must consider the public view. You as an employee represent my company to the public and that image portrayed must be professional. Do I agree with the tattoo stigma? No, but it is there regardless and when I need someone to represent my company professionally to customers their view of you matters.

When I first joined in '88 the same policy was in affect and was until the standards had to be lightened to get numbers up for the War on Terror. No one complained or argued back then about! It was how it was and if you didn't like you didn't need to join. Now with the draw down it back to how it was, at least you're grandfathered in if you have a sleeve. But again if you want it now and don't like the regs, get out.
People seem to forget this is not a new policy! It's just BACK in effect.

I dont think tattoos affects anyones ability to lead. The Army keeps beating the drum about image, image, image. But like the camera commercial w/ Andre Agassi once stated, "IMAGE IS NOTHING". I can understand the importance of a professional image and all, but clean cut image will not make you smarter, and shoot, move, and communicate better. Why cant the Army apply this much effort into more important things such as updating body-fat measurements, and updating AR 600-9