To bloody old

[Steve Cassani]

This spring I stopped at a gift and record store in Bozeman. Having selected several off-beat greeting cards I walked to the desk. A charming young lady greeted me, prepared the bill and turned to me, in my sixties, with a hesitant look on her face. She carried a number of colorful tatoos and she dressed cleverly, displaying all that she might while at work. Silver was everywhere: eyebrows, nose, cheeks, lip and, to my wandering eye, tongue. She anticipated disapproval but I sought to return the suprise. Without warning, I invited, "Walk with me a moment" and held out my hand. She returned the gesture, more out of instinct than interest. I led her to the morning sun in the doorway to the shop.

A ray spilled over her face. The silver shone, then twinkled as she caught on to what this old guy was up to. Flattered, she relaxed to make the smile one she meant me to see. "Magnificent." Crushed, she wrapped me in a hug and whispered in my ear, "Steady your heart old guy. You've already made room for mine."

Sometimes, if I you think how others in your generation act in a situation and strive hard to present something original, you get a special reward.

[Tommy]

A few year ago I saw a young female shop clerk gushing with "honey" and "sweetheart" for a very old man checking out just ahead of me. He grinned and enjoyed the attention. When I approached, she was back to the business-like demeanor ordinary customers get. That's when it occurred to me that she felt comfortable flirting with the old man because she sensed that he was unable/unwilling to respond in any real way. It also occurred to me to dread the time when young women flirt with me because I am deemed to be so old I am safe. I like to think that time has not arrived quite yet.

[Jamo]

Blackjack you ol sumbitc....how you doing? Well wait, if you're still chasing 25-year old tail, you must be doing something right.

[Jamo]

Bernie...I'm the same way. Something small on an ankle, etc....barely raises an eyebrow. A whole damn arm...well, that's a whole different thing.

Then again...to each his own.

[HI Cobra]

Great to see the return of Blackjack - been awhile. I too have nothing against
small tats here and there but wonder about the large ones or all the body piercings. For me - I came into this world with no tats and that's how I plan to leave it. I have way more than enough scars to provide any id!

Merry Christmas all!

[Jerry Clayton]

Remember when almost any application/paper work asked race, religion,scars, tattoos,
sex(not yes or no) height, weight, hair color, eye color??????????????

I heard that the CIA was tattooing id marking codes in the crack near the anus ----------

[DanEC]

I visited China last year and 12 million is a medium size city. Every place we went there were wall to wall young people. I think they spend all of their free time out looking for some fresh air, meeting friends, shopping, dating, picnicing, whatever - all pretty clean cut and nice looking, but not a whole lot of obvious striving for uniqueness in the masses. I couldn't help thinking that as crowded as they are, once they get more exposure to western culture and the urge to each do something to themselves to become a unique individual - Katy bar the door. There will probably be some real interesting looks that start appearing over there.

[olddog]

In theory, I believe anyone is free to do whatever they want, provided it has no impact on anyone else. Along with that comes my freedom to not associate with people who mark and pierce themselves to excesses that only an idiot with an agenda would do.

However I have two requests:
1) When someone tattoos pornography (or other vial disgusting things) where it is not covered, thus rendering themselves unemployable (for the most part), they be exempted from all forms of welfare type government subsidies.

2) When a reasonable and prudent citizen is so offended by said tattoos that they punch the idiot in the nose, no legal charges can be filed against the prudent citizen.

In other words, let their be natural consequences to the choices people make, and the problem will go away.

[bliss]

The real problem is that the tattoo girl is limiting her options as she faces real life - life after being real young. It won't be so bad if all the tattoos can be covered up by clothing.

One word comes to mind when I see a tattoo on a girl - easy.

[Nedsel]

I'm not sure many young people are aware of the employment limitations tattoos can cause. Here in San Diego, for example, one can not work for the city if any tattoo can't be covered with clothing. If anything shows, you can not be hired. Simple as that. And lots of prospective employees are shocked to learn this.

[DanEC]

Here is a lovely role model:



If you're too old for this you will have a lot of company.

[DanEC]

Unfortunately he has relatives:

[Steve Cassani]

Ned writes "...you cannot be hired."

What compelling public interest is served by denying the opportunity of public service to persons who have had pigment introduced within their skin? Sometimes a community will cite a need to apply a 'higher standard' to persons who will be paid from tax dollars. By implication, employers in the private sector settle on an individual who is one of several to apply. They take what they get.

Citing a 'standard' for hiring an applicant who might design an intersection 'higher' than what we demand of the person fixing the brakes on a car is, I believe, a form of self-flattery. Unlike paying a mechanic to fix the brakes, tax dollars accumulate in a general fund. Tax dollars are disbursed from the fund; a taxpayer cannot, as a taxpayer, do city business with Edddie's brake shop because several friends recommend Eddie to him. This leaves a void talk of a 'higher standard' fills. Unable to direct expenditures from the general fund in the way I spend my dollars on a mechanic, we want to choose who works for the City instead. The standard says who will not be a public employee. Here, too, friends with whom we discuss such things agree - clean skin is a pre-requisite to employment from our dollars. Since all of those who apply for work to support a common good are strangers to us, the authority to impose such a requirement on job applicants has to flow from the nature of tax dollars. They are public. This entitles those who provide the dollars to say how a stranger will not look if I am to pay for his or her time.

One need only review several of the contributions to this post to discern what those who are prompted to speak to its subject have to say regarding the character of persons who display themselves. But is this a basis to claiming a compelling public need that such persons be debarred from public service? Suppose you approach a tollroad. The person manning the collection station reaches towards you. Her arm is tattooed, making you uncomfortable that you should be made to see such a thing as a condition of continuing your journey. You glance to her face. Are you looking for further confirmation of who you take her to be? Already things are unpleasant; they could be made worse. "Ah, just as I thought. And I will see it again and again. Indeed I will be subject to anger everytime I travel this road." If somone is riding with you, you cannot put down the urge to comment out loud at her expense. Rather than demand you plan to avoid the sight that provokes trouble for you, the anonymity of regulation will assure you never have to put a face on the anger to begin with. The community will be less our community but those who are admitted will take comfort that we present ourselves just so.

If such a regulation serves a public interest, I fail to discern it. It does impose a standard. But that is not the issue. It's the claim to something higher that gravels my gut. Nothing more is going on here than using the public power to regulate for the purpose of validating and so creating common cause in a belief you came to from things said to you in friendly conversation now forgotton. Thanks to the regulation, anyone who might work for the City looks to be someone you might befriend.

[bliss]

No tattoos showing is part of employer grooming policies with lots of employers maintaining that policy....

Employers With Tattoo Policies | Tat2X.com

[Nedsel]

Steve's points may all have some validity, but the bottom line is, the employer - in the case I referred to, the City of San Diego - sets the standards for how they expect their employees to look, based on criteria they alone control. If one can't meet these standards, they are out of luck. No doubt there are plenty of other employers who do not require guidelines as strict, and the decorated people can work for them.

[Dimis]

I'm sure there are vocations where they are perhaps more employable.
I dont have anything against them.
It's just not for me.

[BMK]

Our State Police Commissioner is currently in an Equal Opportunity Commission with his staff as he has introduced new hair and facial hair standards - whilst not tattoo related - it is interesting to hear the out of session comments made by him.

"I am not discriminating at all, I am just setting standards if member or prospective members don't like it move on to a career that allows them long hair, beards other facial hair" Ken Lay Chief Commissioner Victorian Police.

It appears discrimination is against a person for religion, race, beliefs and appearance. However if everyone is treated the same way it is not discrimination.

In Australia we often see adds for careers or positions that have the words "aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders only". These positions are in particular areas serving the aboriginal community. No doubt the Indian community have similar positions within their community.

As the standard, requirements are set up front, with Equal Opportunity Commission
approval the employer can accordingly advertise this way. No different to the add for the Women's Refuge that states the position would suit a woman with experience etc etc.

Guess the employer is able to state that tattoos cannot be visible. I know of other Councils and Government Departments that have a similiar requirement.

Mmmm and I thought it was against the law to tattoo a face..

... Sorry I will be the first to admit it I am getting too bloody old..