Tattoos in the Workplace. Your Thoughts?

TATTOOS IN THE WORK PLACE! WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THEM??? I HAVE 14 TATTOOS MOST OF THEM ON MY ARMS IS THAT BAD????

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tanner Eskra on May 3, 2011 at 9:47am

You can buy arm sleeves to cover up your tats, hardly notice they are there.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Akins on May 3, 2011 at 10:08am

I am an old guy with 32 years on the job. I believe that tattoos are not a big deal anymore.

It is 2011 and I personally believe that they are so socially accepted that the public is not the one that has the problem. It is usually the Chiefs that have the problem with the tattoos.

I have tattoos, and they are visible while I am in uniform, and I have receieved many compliments on them. No one has ever told me they did not like them.

So to end the rant Tattoos are fine as long as they are not distasteful.

Mark

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on May 3, 2011 at 10:13am

What is the big deal about covering them up while you are at work? While your tatoos may be tasteful to you, they could be offensive to someone else. When you are in uniform be respectful of others around you and just cover them up, when you are off duty who cares?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on May 3, 2011 at 10:13am

Tattoos = bumper stickers for your body.
a) I could care less what opinion you think enough of to put on your car bumper, much less on your body.
b) Tattoos are little more than ink masturbation. You may enjoy the hell out of it but do you really think most of us want to see that?
c) For those of you that like to compare and discuss your tats with other tat fans, well, I guess that's little different than an ink orgy.

Have fun, enjoy, be safe and clean up after yourself when you're done.
I prefer not to get any on me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on May 3, 2011 at 1:21pm

LMAO, that's a way of looking at them that I hadn't thought of.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bubba a hendrickson on May 4, 2011 at 11:25am

I THINK IT ALRIGHT I HAVE A FEW MYSELF.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on May 4, 2011 at 12:56pm

Tattooing is truly a form of art. While I agree that a lot of tattoos are idiotic in nature, some of them hold true and profound meaning to others.

Tattoos of cartoon characters and tribal patterns are stupid - they hold no significance (usually), whereas a tattoo of maybe a mother/father/brother/sister/son/daughter's name holds a deep meaning. A specific symbol may hold meaning. A flag may hold meaning.

I think it's worth it. I want my daughter's name on me eventually. But to each their own.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on May 4, 2011 at 12:58pm

I am assuming you're one of those individuals that believe in most art anyway.

Art can be anything - music is art, painting is art, and, believe it or not, graffiti can be considered art, although it is generally more abstract.

Tattoos are definitely art. They take creativity (usually) and hold meaning. I'd like to see you try and draw up a tattoo on someone, or even create beautiful imagery utilizing some spray paint cans - I doubt you could do it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on May 4, 2011 at 2:07pm

"Tattoos of...tribal patterns are stupid "
How chauvinistic of you to have decided that tribal tattoos (or any tattoo that fails your 'art' test) are stupid. Tattoos (as introduced to western culture) originated in the South Pacific Islands and were significant as identifiers of tribal and familial membership as well as an indication of manhood.

"A specific symbol may hold meaning."
How is that different from a tribal pattern?

I suspect that to anyone that gets a tattoo, it holds a true and profound meaning to them...unless you're implying that everyone needs to run past you their tattoo choice for your approval?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on May 4, 2011 at 2:14pm

"Tattoos are definitely art."
I wouldn't necessarily dispute that statement but, for something to be considered art it is usually something that is created for ALL to enjoy. I think tattoo's are much less for public enjoyment and much more for personal enjoyment (see my earlier post on page 1)

It's interesting that, in your definition of 'art' you include painting and graffiti, both of which require a substrate upon which the art is created. So really, even accepting that tattoos are indeed art, the wearer is little more than canvas upon which the 'artist' displays his work. Why not just rent out flesh space and advertise coca cola or trojan condoms?

If an argument needs to be made to justify tattoos then most likely, tattoos fail the art test. It's a form of self-mutilation wherein the person with the tattoo wants everyone else to admire their masochistic desires. Maybe it's performance art?