WARNING! OFF TOPIC, BUT RELATED!

At one point in time tattoos were tied in many ways to sailors. As we shift away from traditions, I think the pride sailors have in being sailors dies a slow death. I am 95% sleeved and I am an A school instructor now. It doesn't seem to have any adverse effects on the EM's of the future; But I know it's an appearance issue, not competence. I just got a swallow tattooed with some hash marks denoting the nautical mileage I have sailed........ There are fewer and fewer sailors who appreciate and understand tradition these days, hopefully you guys can keep them alive....

On a side note........ Why do we still salute officers? When it began, wasn't it to show allegiance and/or respect to the person who accompished enough/gained enough experience and education, etc. to be commisioned? Why carry the tradition when all they have done thus far is complete 4 years of college, or a few months of OCS?

Just food for thought.

I like it!

quote:

On a side note........ Why do we still salute officers? When it began, wasn't it to show allegiance and/or respect to the person who accompished enough/gained enough experience and education, etc. to be commisioned? Why carry the tradition when all they have done thus far is complete 4 years of college, or a few months of OCS?

Just food for thought.

I don't know....why did you get a tat of a swallow?

Tradition!

Good to see your flag again FTG! Maybe secretly I am hinting at a massive Officer conspiracy against enlisted traditions!

Either way, keep the traditions alive brother! 5 months 2 days sends...........

quote:

Why do we still salute officers? When it began, wasn't it to show allegiance and/or respect to the person who accompished enough/gained enough experience and education, etc. to be commisioned?

Salutes started as exchanges between potential combatants, showing an empty weapon hand and exposing the face from underneath the armor to show that there was no ill intention (weaponless) and no fear (exposure of the face.) That gesture has evolved a fair deal, but the body movements of the hand to the face (forehead) is still there. Now, we don't 'salute officers' realy, we exchange salutes with them. Someone has to be required to go first and that is the junior of the two. That is part of the earliest traditions too! The 'junior' or 'weaker' if you will of the two combatants would start the process. (When they couldn't figure out who was 'junior,' well they usually battled to determine that)

So, the shorter answer is NO, it was not alegiance to a senior, but mutual respect between two people.

Thanks Master Chief! I heard the same deal today from another fella.

i had a little over a half sleeve close to a 3/4 sleeve when joining the CG...i think the policy now is kind of lame in a way...like said earlier we are sailors for one...and for two the army is in the public eye a lot too and they can have full sleeves and anything else they want...now im not saying we should be able to have any tattoo or anywhere...but i do think that having sleeves is not a big issue...if you are still able to do you job the same why does it matter? i dont see the public not wanting CG assistance or thinking less of the CG if people had sleeves...i like tattoos and i want more and it seems odd that the CG admits that tattoos are more accepted these days so they change the policy on that fact and make it more strict then it was before...i dont know it just frustrates me...especially being on a ship...there are tons of tattoos that i want to get on my forearms to kind of show what i enjoy and traditions as well....

The second paragraph of the Uniform Manual says that Coast Guard members will carry on a proud and professional appearance. Having your exposed body parts covered in tattoos is simply not professional looking. That is the reason for the policy.

Some have mentioned that tattoos are a seafaring tradition. That is correct, once upon a time, tattoos were the exclusive property of sailors, bikers and criminals (to go along with some other "traditions", such as drunkenness, arrest records, the clap. . .). They were a sign of rebellion. But in today's fashion, the only sign of rebellion they represent is one's desire to upset their parents (even that is questionable, as I have known a few people taken to the parlor by their mommy because they were too young to get inked). Fashionable as they may be today, they still are not professional, and we aren't in the business of changing societal standards. And the tradition is pretty much diluted by style.

The argument that people should have the right to do what they want to their body is invalid. We are in the military, and we have to follow the rules. Deny it as much as you want, but your butt belongs to the Guard. Nobody held a gun to our heads to enlist, if you don't like the Guard, don't re-enlist.

And before anyone says asks, yes, I do have tats, and no, not all of them are above the elbow.

I have 5 tattoos. The newest is about 35 years old.

That being said, it really doesn't matter whether or not you feel the tattoo policy is fair. Nor does it matter if you like the policy or not. Nor does it matter that tattoos are part of the tradition of being a sailor (although I've known many 30 year sailors that had none).

What matters is the policy is what the policy is. You can live with it or you can get out and tattoo your entire body.

Those appear to be the only two choices.

quote:

Nobody held a gun to our heads to enlist, if you don't like the Guard, don't re-enlist.

....even better solution, go and get the full sleeve now and you won't have to wait until your enlistment is over to find another job.

..and yes, I have them too.

quote:

Having your exposed body parts covered in tattoos is simply not professional looking.

This truly depends on where you're trying to be professional. Assumption of professionalism based on appearance is only one part of APPEARING to be professional IMO. If you carry yourself like a degenerate and have tattoos that plainly offend someone, then that is a different story.

Stereotyping those with tattoos by saying the ink itself is unprofessional is ignorant imo. Like bikers are rough and rude people because that's the appearance they keep.

I have been instructing in Yorktown for almost four years and not once have my sleeves impeded my professionalism. Some older Coasties (none that I have instructed) believe I shouldn't be an instructor because of my "unprofessional" appearance in Trops and ODU's (sleeves up), but my professionalism is not affected by my tattoos. In my next career, my new bosses and coworkers have never made any mention or pre-concieved notion that my tattoos are unprofessional.

I'm not going to wear a tank top to instruct and I (as well as most any tattooed person) know there are some situations where putting the sleeves down might be a good idea, simply because some people don't know any better than to relate tattoos and debauchery. I for one enjoy proving my worth to people like that, as it helps open peoples eyes to the insignificance of tattoos as they relate to professionalism and quashes stereotypes.

The policy is in place for whatever reason the CG chooses to put it in place for. I comply and my subordinates comply with the regulations. Everyone has there opinion about tattoos, as they should. The tattoo policy, IMO, was created based on personal opinions of tattooed peoples appearance. That should not be the driving force for CG policy.

I have nearly 100% coverage from my short sleeves down. Most of which has some sort of nautical meaning behind it. (And I don't have the clap )The only thing that has changed since I didn't have this much ink is now some people stereotype me before they get to know me, presumably because they don't understand or have had bad experiences with someone tattooed.

quote:

The tattoo policy, IMO, was created based on personal opinions of tattooed peoples appearance. That should not be the driving force for CG policy.

FS;
The Tat policy is not the only one based on appearance. A person with a high and tight that happens to be BLOCKED instead of tapered s not following policy. Fucia fingernails. Red-light district make-up. The entire uniform manual. I could go on. Good to see you enforce the ones you like and don't like!
MC

It is all about appearance.

Ask anyone with over 22 years continuous service in the CG. They'll let you know that the CG instantly became a more professional organization on June 16, 1986 the day after beards went away.

The Commandant said you could not be a professional if you sported whiskers, so out comes Mr Gillette or Mr Schick and Mr.Foamy, and viola !!! instant professionalism.

Maybe it wasn't the beards after all, it was them damned tattoos.

For those with tattoos, what's your experience been when donating blood? The Armed Services Blood program (as well as the American Red Cross) is supposed to turn down blood donors if they've had a tattoo within 12 months, unless they can prove they got it at a state-regulated parlor.

I haven't been able to donate blood for some time now...... The red cross eased their requirements for a second and I donated about 2 years ago. I've never heard the state-regulated tattoo deal though. Personally I don't get ink from artists who haven't been licensed, and trained in the ways of bloodborne pathogens. Safety first!