Military Tattoo Policy: Do the rules and regulations keep warfighters from being unprofessional or are the policies outdated?

You raise an interesting question. I, personally, don't have any tattoos, don't want one. Many, many Marines I served with did have at least one, several had more. The tattoo had to be completely coverable and that seemed to be about it. Today many more people accept tattoos as no big deal. So I cannot answer except as an opinion. Here it is: have your tats, as long as it is not visible so as to prevent an uniform and professional appearance.

I think the issue comes down to perception. Perception of the military by the populace. Think about it, in the civilian job market, it is the perception of visible tattoos that will get the sans tattoo person a better shot at a job than someone with tats. Especially if they are distinctly visible on the hands and/or face. Some folks just don't want the general populace perceiving us military folk as mindless ruffians, hooligans and heathens because of visible tattoos. People see tats (especially facial) and instantly think uneducated. But, this is just my opinion.

Right off the bat -- the "HOLD FAST" tattoo shown is "bassakwards". It was a good reminder to a Sailor up in the rigging, but this version is being broadcast to the public.
I have no tattoos, and I recall that if you don't get one in your first hitch, you are not likely to get one later.

Do anyone think the military use the tattoo policy when the military is sizing down? My NCOs that have been in 10+ years have tats on their hand, back of the neck and side. It always draws my attention because I love tats and currently have 4. When I ask about them they said they received waivers during the enlistment process. It seems as though when the country needs bodies they do not care about tats being unprofessional. When they don't need bodies it becomes unprofessional. Just my two sense.

My humble opinion regarding permanent body markings? People don’t seem to understand the meaning of “permanent”.

Granted, I’m a 70 year-old retired Navy guy who never chose to waste my money on “decorating” my skin with any sort of artwork. However, many of the guys I served with regretted their choice at one time or another, and either lived with the decision, covering as necessary, or spending lots of $$$ for removal procedures.

Then again, the “younger” generations tend to look upon their permanent body scarring as some sort of self expression, so it’s really none of my business. My wife has a 51 year-old niece who has covered a large amount of her skin with some very colorful (“LOUD”) tats she has been collecting since the age of 20, and still claims to be “proud” of them. They look disgusting and atrocious, and the woman would have to wear a burka in order to appropriately conceal them. As a result, my wife has refused to appear anywhere in public with her. Yeah, they ARE that bad…

If you want to “express” yourself, get a freakin’ bumper sticker…

Sorry The continued rantings of an old guy who absolutely cannot understand things anymore-LOL!!!!!

The rules are the rules.

As someone who had ink before I enlisted and got some while in uniform I will say the most obvious thing. A great many rules and regulations are around because of "Someone" taking things to far. Appearance has always been a high priority in uniform and given that some folks tend to put anything they see on the wall in the shop on their bodies without any real thought and not fully understanding the end results is one reason why there are limits. I have seen some troops that have taken to neck, head and hand tattoos while in dress uniforms at funerals, weddings etc and it does detract from the uniform. We have had that whole back and forth thing about what was allowed during relaxed enforcement and what should be removed at Soldiers expense etc.
The Military has a standard set of rules and regulations that everyone knows about before they enlist and while they serve. There are ways to modify and change them, but there are steps to do so. Sometimes it takes years if not decades to affect change and not all change is good for the order. I for one understood why we had TATTOO checks to see what the troops were putting on their bodies but I was also tired of them by the end. What was once a simple tattoo that was for motivation can later morph into and affiliation with a restricted group and can lead to removal from service or unofficial pressures to have it removed. It used to be a small subset that had ink and even then not much ink. Now Tattoos are the norm and those with no ink are the exception.

Huh..seems like I’m going to be the odd man out for this one. I personally don’t have an issue with tattoos in general but like that one Marine commandant said “show me the tattoo that’s going to help you kill more effectively”.

I remember when i first saw sailors with hand tattoos and I was amazed they could do that. Then within 5 minutes I no longer cared. When they changed the policy in the Air Force everyone got trees tattooed on their arm for some reason.

So just like tattoos don’t impede performance they also don’t improve it. The one problem I see is that is just another thing to regulate. What’s professional to one person maybe unprofessional to another and offensive to another. Not to mention people don’t always make smart decisions when it comes to tattoos.

While I don’t think it would make a significant impact one way or another, I’d imagine it being a few ruining it for the many

My dad, a hard-core marine, advised me if I ever showed up with a tattoo I would get my ass kicked by him. His reasoning was tattoos get less admirable as we age. He had a tattoo of a woman on his bicep that expanded when he flexed. As he got older, she just drooped

What about the neck, the face, why not. That’s why not. There have to be lines for everything, or there are no standards, subsequently no discipline.