Military Tattoo Policy: Do the rules and regulations keep warfighters from being unprofessional or are the policies outdated?

I currently have no tats, and I have no objection. But there needs to be a limit. If you are good with sleeves and hands, how about face? And the what about content? I do believe as with most things in life common sense must prevail and un fortunately that's not in abundance

My only concern is for military professionals an special ops who might someday need to blend in to the “community” where they are operating. Careers also can take off after the military in working for certain agencies. IMO, it’s not to one’s advantage to have certain tats.

When words like unprofessional are bandied around it frustrates me, it's utter nonsense. Are all of the former servicemembers with tattoos that fought in all of our previous wars unprofessional? No, of course not. I heard the same thing regarding hair length and beards to name two, that means that Delta, SF etc... are all obviously unprofessional right? Again, no.
Tattoos are cultural to certain peoples, so in our time of diversity and inclusiveness maybe we should think about that before labels like unprofessional are thrown about (this is not directed at anyone here, but to our Military community as a whole).
Now all that said, (and I am tattooed) I never had a problem with the no hands, no head tattoo policy, do I think it's a little outdated now? Yes, but from a uniformed standpoint it made sense to a certain degree. It's a little moot now I believe with beards, long hair, religious headdress all allowed now, so what is uniformity? Is the uniform alone enough? It may have to be with all the changes taking place. However I'm just a JNCO and my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it!

I enlisted later in life than most in my generation. I had tats when I joined. One of my drills had one similar, and pointed it out while I was in the FLR position. He laid down next to Me so I could see his and then expounded on it for several minutes. I had my back done over the course of several consecutive weeks. I never had a problem with the "Chain". All of my tats were covered while I was in uniform. When ever Uncle Sugar sent Me somewhere new, I got a new tat, at least one. I was TDY a lot. As long as You don't cause an issue with a tat I see no reason not to get them.

I have no tattoos. Here is my take. The military reminds of a soldier in a bar 3/4 drunk and horney. Any gal will do as closing time approaches. He wins the lottery and only the best looking trophy wife is good enough. When time is running out any troop will do. When little is going on the military becomes more discriminating. Unfortunately really visible tattoos can hurt you as they become a discriminating factor.

I knew of an Enlisted Member (EM) who was a SSG at the time. She was personally known by the commander of the installation. One day she got a tattoo. It was on her right arm, facing forward, you might have guessed it, as she saluted. The installation commander, a two-star, bemoaned this by saying "Really?! On your RIGHT arm?"

I respected the heak out of both the SSG and the MG, at the time I knew each one of them. His comment, however, kind of sums up what the issue might have been. Tats might be okay, but one needs a modicum of common sense about where to put them.

I have been working in the civilain medical community for the last 20+. My employer requiers that tatoos be no larger than 1 inch or must be covered by clothing.

People are always going to be judgmental and it is best to be able to cover up all your ink with gender norm clothing. I think the coolest tattoos are sleeves with so much fore though that they end at the wrist and really there is so much surface area available to decorate yourself as you feel pleased that you can avoid the judgmental areas. My neighbor is a mental health counselor and he can go shirt and tie for some clients or short sleeves and bond better with other patients. He has this incredible flexibility with his ink and in the medical profession, there are times you need both options to make a challenging connection with a patient work.

You bring up very valid points and some of the nicest, most respectable people have tons of ink. The end of the day though no matter how much we agree, there will still be people out there that discriminate against ink.

Tats have become much more commonplace in society. I know several people who have tats that simply cannot be covered short of a full body stocking, gloves, and balaclava. They're not for me, but you do you, civilian.
The military can't be dependent on what society does, particularly society at home. What might work stateside and be anywhere from unnoticed to "yeah, whatever" turns into what could be a serious readiness issue if it means your tats make you undeployable or unable to be assigned to certain positions in another country's society. What may start as a statement of unit cohesion or individual permanent remembrance of a person or event suddenly becomes a hindrance to assigning the most qualified individual to a sensitive liaison position during a crisis. Even trigger pullers end up in other duties where the ability to carry a buddy off the battlefield takes second seat to making sure that buddy never gets injured at all.

I like your points on diversity - people are judged by their tattoos the same way others are judged.
However, we are not born with tattoos, so there is that. One day I do want a beard again in uniform and that will probably happen before tattoos are less controversial.