Lifestyle

TOPICS:

10/15/05

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

275 | 276 | 277

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

googused

googused

Portland, OR
OLD SKOOL

OCT 15, 2005 01:56 PM

The U.S. Coast Guard has tightened its' policies regarding tattoos on applicants. The goal is "a more professional appearance for the military branch that has the most contact with the public". I guess having ink affects your ability to rescue people and chase drug dealers.


Recruiters have found an increasing number of applicants with "near 100 percent coverage on their arms and/or legs," according to the new policy, which went into effect over the summer.

Under the new rules, applicants whose tattoos cover more than 25 percent of an exposed limb will be turned away, the Coast Guard said. The previous standards were more general, prohibiting offensive tattoos but not naming a permissible amount.


The military has always had a policy regarding "offensive" tattoos, but in a time when recruiting is at an all-time low, it seem ridiculous that the government would focus on something so trivial.

Eddie

Eddie

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

OCT 15, 2005 02:03 PM

Or you could move to Canada AND show them your tattoos. Just because.

Anton

Anton

Australia
September 2003

OCT 15, 2005 02:03 PM

'That narc who busted us looked really unprofessional, man.'

BinkyMcQueen

BinkyMcQueen

Philadelphia, PA
December 2002

OCT 15, 2005 02:04 PM

It used to be a symbol of pride and travel to have tats from around the world ( as a naval man) I guess those kids from Laguna beach must be storming the offices these days...or the war on drugs must have been won.....
silly......

DrTchock

DrTchock

Montreal, QC
October 2005

OCT 15, 2005 02:17 PM

I think 25% is too harsh. 35% seems more reasonable whatever

illstabyou

illstabyou

Brooklyn, NY
March 2004

OCT 15, 2005 02:43 PM

I can't but to wonder what happens to those will have more than 25% coverage who are already in there? Do they get thrown out?

[Edited on Oct 15, 2005 5:44PM]

DrTchock

DrTchock

Montreal, QC
October 2005

OCT 15, 2005 02:46 PM

illstabyou said:
I can't but to wonder what happens to those will have more than 25% coverage who are already in there? Do they get thrown out?

[Edited on Oct 15, 2005 5:44PM]



No, their jobs are safe.

Lycoris

Lycoris

Toronto, ON
October 2005

OCT 15, 2005 02:58 PM

Scissorfingers said:
No, their jobs are safe.



For now.

Lemonkid

Lemonkid

Canada
May 2003

OCT 15, 2005 03:25 PM

Anton said:
'That narc who busted us looked really unprofessional, man.'



hahahaha.

Malinko

Malinko

HOPEFUL

Montreal, QC

OCT 15, 2005 03:32 PM

That's very retarded

Liante

Liante

SUICIDEGIRL

Kiribati

OCT 15, 2005 03:38 PM

That's pretty fucking ridiculous. Considering how long tattoos were a sailor thing... yeah.

Rested

Rested

Houston, TX
June 2004

OCT 15, 2005 03:42 PM

Why, even Popeye had tattoos...and sometimes when he made muscles, images seemed to form of battleships or tanks!...I wanna know where to get one of those! biggrin

Jimbo

Jimbo

Dallas, TX
August 2003

OCT 15, 2005 05:11 PM

I know when i was in the Marines they was some talk about tattoos. I thought that was stupid. Its the Marines. Oh well. whatever

Tron_96

Tron_96

Shreveport, LA
February 2005

OCT 15, 2005 05:44 PM

The funny thing is, they tell us to try to blend in as much as possible and not give away the fact that we're military so easily while in uniform. Talk about a double-standard.

Mercie

Mercie

SUICIDEGIRL

Connecticut, USA

OCT 15, 2005 06:20 PM

that is just... retarded.

Kaziklu

Kaziklu

Canada
November 2004

OCT 15, 2005 06:35 PM

I can understand it.. 25% coverage is basicly just a half sleve covering just the outer portion of your upper arm.. still lots of space.

however if you are rescuing a person them feeling safe is important and the fact of the matter is... a good portion of the community.. (particularly those that would be getting into issues where the Coast Guard would be needed or been in contact with) are going to have feel safe and confident in the level of the coast guard ability... fact remains that in portions of society tattoos are still seen as being something to do with a poor element.. particularly when it's heavy converage.

Thus if you have a full sleve or even a full lower half sleve that can cause some apprehension. It's not something that would occur more then 2 or 3 times a year through out the whole of the coast guard.. but it's not unreasonable to request that.

joe_crooke

joe_crooke

Oak Harbor, WA
July 2004

OCT 16, 2005 12:43 AM

fyi the navy has been uptight about these type of restrictions too. no excessive tattoos, nothing on hands or neck.face etc... I had two on my hands when I came in two 1/2 yrs ago and had to get a special chit. but at the same time it's the responcability of the chain of command to report violaters,... so if you do your job you know, if you aint a shitbag, and keep your nose clean you have nothing to worry about. I have had two half sleeves since I came in and no issues. why u ask, the navy, cg and af have no prob recuiting and are infact overmanned, the army (and jarheads to some extent) are recruiting any-mutherfukin-body they can get there hands on. sand lubbers. shitty deployment schedules are the main reason though. army and mc dont have set dep schedules. they are as needed. the above being said, we could not have what we have or do what we do daily with out the protection that the services have provided in the past and/or the projection we provide now. I personally never agreed with the war in Iraq, "like attacking kenya after Dec 7, 1941" but I do my job, just like yall and more often than not,... dont agree with my boss. Thank you site for letting me get this out.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

OCT 16, 2005 01:07 AM

Like that guy just said before me...the Navy made this rule for existing service members a few years ago...right when I decided I wanted to get a sleeve. Fuckers.

Tawnya

Tawnya

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

OCT 16, 2005 01:13 AM

I went through navy boot camp with a guy who had to get a waiver for the tattoo he had on the front of his neck. It was olde english lettering that spelled "suicidal". That was in '96.

Blueberries

Blueberries

I'm lost
September 2005

OCT 16, 2005 01:29 AM

surreal

3s3

3s3

United Kingdom
October 2004

OCT 16, 2005 01:49 AM

reminds me of when I was in the army

the whole platoon had to wear long sleeves all the time because a couple of guys had tatts on their arms.... whatever

mind you, there were a lot less tattooed people around in the 80s!

waldo

waldo

I'm lost
June 2004

OCT 16, 2005 01:41 PM

Lycoris said:

Scissorfingers said:
No, their jobs are safe.



For now.



"Don't show, don't tell" ? Too weird.

Anissa

Anissa

Detroit, MI
March 2004

OCT 16, 2005 02:40 PM

This is a wee of an understatement but... puke

tattooed_sask

tattooed_sask

Saskatoon, SK
August 2005

OCT 16, 2005 04:40 PM

I am waving my "nearly 100% covered arms" from North of the border. Come join us!

Bring coats though it's cold

Rin

Rin

SUICIDEGIRL

British Columbia, Canada

OCT 16, 2005 05:50 PM

Kaziklu said:
I can understand it.. 25% coverage is basicly just a half sleve covering just the outer portion of your upper arm.. still lots of space.

however if you are rescuing a person them feeling safe is important and the fact of the matter is... a good portion of the community.. (particularly those that would be getting into issues where the Coast Guard would be needed or been in contact with) are going to have feel safe and confident in the level of the coast guard ability... fact remains that in portions of society tattoos are still seen as being something to do with a poor element.. particularly when it's heavy converage.

Thus if you have a full sleve or even a full lower half sleve that can cause some apprehension. It's not something that would occur more then 2 or 3 times a year through out the whole of the coast guard.. but it's not unreasonable to request that.




bullshit.

edit:
i think that people put their confidence in the uniform. i think you may be right if it came down to to citizens on the street--people might be more comfortable with one who doesn't have sleeves as opposed to one who does, but i think your argument in regard to the military is completely bunk.

[Edited on Oct 16, 2005 6:52PM]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next