The Few, the Proud, the Tattooed
March 28th, 2007 - 10:23 pm
The USMC is so desperate to keep people that… they’re tightening the screws on tattoos:
The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps’ spit-and-polish image.
The new policy doesn’t apply just to Marines in uniform. Potential recruits are also being shown the door:
The current USMC crackdown has a lot of do with the marines making their recruiting numbers. They now have to find ways to decide who to accept, and who to reject. Folks with an abundance of tattoos are not welcome.
Don’t worry, though. StrategyPage reports that the Army “has loosened up on tattoos, and will probably get some people the marines turned away just because of the body art.”
Good to see you’re back Martini Boy! Personally I never had much interest in tatoos. Why waist good leave time getting repeatedly stabbed in some grungy back alley hell hole? It’s like the torture of a thousand ninjas I tell you.
No siree bub, not my cup of tea. Now getting one of them oriental gals to walk on my back – that is a whole different bowl of Kimchee! Oh, their marvelous, nimble feet! The dexterity of their toes! Talented gals I tell you, and won’t bust the wallet either. I sure hope the Marines don’t go banning back walking!
Over and out,
X
My uncle got a couple of forearm tatoos when he was in the Marines back in the 1950s. He has since regretted it.
I would have thought only the Army’s top brass would be dumb enough to enact such an assine policy.
Whaaaaat a bunch of maroons…
Navy beat ‘em to it– a Celtic cross tattoo is banned as racially discriminatory. Apparently, some neo-Nazis have used them.
Yeah, I saw on MSNBC, aka “The Prison Channel”, that a Celtic cross is a sign of membership in a white supremacist prison gang. Any non-member displaying one will be killed immediately.
The tattoo rules aren’t new are they? I don’t think it’s the “abundance” of tattoos but the location.
Don’t laugh too much, but I was telling my *daughter* that she had to be careful what she did because she could accidentally disqualify herself for military service or at the very least put off potential employers. Granted, I’m not going to give her permission for a tattoo but eventually she won’t need permission.
Young people don’t always think ahead.
Synova,
I think the same could be said for Rosie O’Donnell.
Tats make gay?
This policy seems silly. I know a few marines. Some with tattoos, some without. One has a tattoo of an elephant on his lower belly, with his pecker as its trunk. I understand the policy, but we’re not talking about athletes competing in public events…we’re talkinfg about elite soldiers armed n’ trained to kill the bad guys. So…why are we even focusing on their tattoos?
It’s a crackdown on gangs more than anything.
Oh, and its waiverable
They’d probably be pissed about my 300 tattoo.
Of course, that’s just when I’m relaxed. When I’m worked up, it goes on “AND 30,000 FREE GREEKS”
In Classic Greek.
110 pt type. Bold.
I guess under the new rules, Medal of Honor winner Sergeant John Basilone would be disqualified from the corps based upon his forearm tattoo, Death Before Dishonor
This isn’t THAT new. Even while I was in the Corps back in the arguably toughest time to get recruits (’79-’82), tats were frowned upon by the brass. I got a smallish one on my upper arm (covered by even the short sleeved summer dress uniform), I found myself standing in front of the company CO for desicrating government property. Being a Marine means more than being a badass. The eagle globe & anchor, and the person wearing it, is often the only contact people around the globe have with our country.
It’s also part of why having the uniform perfect is such a big deal.
And why they don’t want women to look masculine. Last I heard the Marines actually had a beauty class during boot camp for female recruits. “How to put on make-up like a Marine.”
They want men to look clean-cut and women to look feminine.
The gang thing isn’t a minor concern either. I recall hearing something about gangs actually placing some of their members without police records into the military. That’s frightening, considering.
Good to see these people interested in politics.
The reg has always been tattoos were fine as long as they weren’t visible in your Alphas (Long sleeve shirt and dress coat), extending beyond your wrist onto your hand. The bulldog/Eagle, Globe and Anchor/whatever on your forearm is a time honored Jarhead tradition and still allowed. What has happened to change the regs, which now read LARGE (not ‘NONE’) is that nowadays some of these guys/gals in their Charlies (short sleeve shirt) have their entire arm surface festooned in body art ~ maybe even both arms. A design running from the hem of your uniform sleeve to your wrist REALLY looks like CRAP in the uniform of the day. Hence the restrictions on the Miami Ink wanna be’s.
Tattoos are tacky, but they also say something about you. For people who get small tats done like a regimental crest or some motto, that’s one thing. For those who get the full Yakuza treatment or flames on their neck, that kind of thing… that’s a permanent statement of “I will never be part of the normal world again.”
The real intent it to avoid the body art freaks, with tattoos covering their faces, hands, necks, etc.
A couple of my friends at Keesler, just out of basic, got tattoos. On their hips. One got Opus and one got a little black panther with a moon behind it, IIRC.
What was the point of that? It wasn’t an Air Force crest or a memorial to their mothers or anything with meaning and they sure weren’t *decorative*. It was more like getting a birthmark mole on purpose.
Though no doubt it felt naughty to get a tattoo at all.
I *like* body art. Maybe not on me, but… if I ever did, I’d get something meaningful or something that looks good. Something symmetrical that goes up most of my back, maybe.
“The USMC is so desperate to keep people that… they’re tightening the screws on tattoos:…”
How can you describe a policy of restriction as desperate to keep people?
It seems to me that if you were desperate to keep people then you’d lower your standards, not elevate them.
bill