Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tats? No problem, Uncle Sam still wants you.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
CornField Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 11:05 AM
Original message
Tats? No problem, Uncle Sam still wants you.
You know, it took a war and a national crisis before women were welcomed into the workforce. Maybe history will repeat itself and this war will lead to the welcoming of homosexuals into the military?

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/14231091.htm

To meet recruiting goals, Army relaxes its rules on tattoos

The Army has a message for the growing legions of flamboyantly tattooed American teens: Uncle Sam even wants you.

Facing one of the worst recruiting climates in the all-volunteer military's history, the Army has decided to relax standards that dictate which parts of a soldier's body can be festooned with body art. Specifically, the service will now accept recruits with tattoos on their neck and hands.

The service has long prohibited soldiers from having tattoos on places that are not covered by a dress uniform. But after missing Army recruiting goals last year, commanders are looking for every way possible to expand the pool of candidates.

Over the past year, the Army has begun accepting more recruits who score poorly on mental aptitude tests and more who don't have high school diplomas. It has begun accepting more candidates with criminal records and histories of drug abuse, and it has experimented with raising the maximum age at which a person can enter the Army.

(more)


The article adds that tattoos which are "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist" are still taboo. In addition, tattoos are only allowed on the back of the neck, a bodily region the Army officially defines as the area "under the ear lobe and across the back of the head."

Whoopee! Now I know. Tattoos are easier than whacking off a toe -- and don't have to be as permanent. Now all I have to do is find the military's definition of what is extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lowell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. I haven't thought about this in years
But then I got all my tattoos back in the 1960s while I was in the service. I remember then being warned about any on the neck and face. That left a lot of space open and free for illustration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsN2Wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wish I had a pic
of a Third Class Boatswains Mate I was friends with in the Navy back when. Wasn't a lot of his body not decorated including his neck, hands,earlobes, and a butterfly on his head where his hairline had receded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Extreme piercings are out as well, particularly facial ones
get a spike through your bottom lip or cheek and they will pass you over. I think pierced eyebrows are out too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CornField Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Really?
Even if they are removed or a clear one is in place? Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well I'd advise leaving them in for your draft board interview ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Wait a second...
...so back during Vietnam people could have avoided the draft just by getting a tattoo on their hand or back of their neck? Or would they have been forced to remove it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC