Should 10-Year-Olds Get Tattoos?

Off Topic
61

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think this conversation is slightly confusing because it went from: “Is this child abuse?” To “Should she have done it.” That’s a pretty big difference.

Do those that think she shouldn’t have done it also think that it’s child abuse that she did?[/quote]

Is it child abuse?

Here’s the GA definition:

‘Child abuse’ means:

Physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means; provided, however, physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child;

Neglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof;

Sexual abuse of a child; or

Sexual exploitation of a child.

Is getting tatted a “physical injury”. Given that it takes some time to get one (unlike the fallacious piercing analogy which is over in a second), and it is definitely uncomfortable, it’s a tough question I think. Can a 10 year old “consent” to this? No. That much is clear. Can the child’s mother consent on his behalf? I doubt it. And I cannot think of a good analogy for this situation. Piercing certainly isn’t it. A piercing happens in a second. A tattoo like that was likely an hour or more.

Does the State belong in this affair? I’m not sure. The pain and permanent nature of this event aside, this is not much different than naming your kid some stupid fucking name he’s going to have to “wear” the rest of his/her life. It’s fucking stupid, but is it “criminal”. Is it abuse? He wanted it, he sat for the tat, but he’s 10. Tough question.

In any event, she’s not the mother of the year. That’s for sure. But we need to protect children from themselves, because at some point, it WILL be a spongebob tattoo. It doesn’t matter that the tat was to honor his brother, the issue is the tat.

62

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Also…everyone remember

If your hair is long on top and short on the sides you’re gonna be a felon

Probably a rapist…

[/quote]

… but most definitely being a douche or trying to hard.

Unless you are Iroquois, then you are a filthy conformist.

63

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

TL:DR
-10 y/o kid’s brother died
-asked mom to get a tattoo in remembrance of his bro
-she said o.k.
-he got it done
-mom got arrested for “child cruelty”

note: the kid got the tattoo done at a legit studio.

So, should the kid have the legal right to get a tattoo since his mother consented to it? Would you let your child get a tattoo?
Discus.[/quote]

he’s not old enough to to make that decision, no matter how heartfelt.

no, I would not let my child get tatood. I have also refused mohawks and earrings (my 6 year old has asked for both b/c of the little future felons he goes to school with - because when your parents are letting you get your ears pierced at 5, what kind of parents do you expect they’d be???).[/quote]

What about deadlocks or cornrows…any kind of braid?

[/quote]

my son also wants dreads b/c his older “cousin” has them.

the answer is no.
[/quote]

Tell him can have both or neither.

Plz post pic of Mohawk dreadlocks…

Kthanxbai!

64

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Also…everyone remember

If your hair is long on top and short on the sides you’re gonna be a felon

Probably a rapist…

[/quote]

… but most definitely being a douche or trying to hard.

Unless you are Iroquois, then you are a filthy conformist. [/quote]
No bowl cuts, kids! Leave the 90’s in the 90’s.

65

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I don’t understand why a tattoo like that is cruelty but piercings, which can scar and get infected, are not.[/quote]

piercings are not permanant. They can close up rather quickly. a Tattoo is permanant. and a child doesn’t have any idea what they will want in 15 years. they are a child, incapable of making such a decision.

66

I dont see the problem with it, especially since it was of his late brother. It would be different if it was some real stupid stuff like cartoons or what the mom wanted, but in rememberance if his brother. The kid wanted it and i doubt he it

67

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think this conversation is slightly confusing because it went from: “Is this child abuse?” To “Should she have done it.” That’s a pretty big difference.

Do those that think she shouldn’t have done it also think that it’s child abuse that she did?[/quote]

Is it child abuse?

Here’s the GA definition:

‘Child abuse’ means:

Physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means; provided, however, physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child;

Neglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof;

Sexual abuse of a child; or

Sexual exploitation of a child.

Is getting tatted a “physical injury”. Given that it takes some time to get one (unlike the fallacious piercing analogy which is over in a second), and it is definitely uncomfortable, it’s a tough question I think. Can a 10 year old “consent” to this? No. That much is clear. Can the child’s mother consent on his behalf? I doubt it. And I cannot think of a good analogy for this situation. Piercing certainly isn’t it. A piercing happens in a second. A tattoo like that was likely an hour or more.

Does the State belong in this affair? I’m not sure. The pain and permanent nature of this event aside, this is not much different than naming your kid some stupid fucking name he’s going to have to “wear” the rest of his/her life. It’s fucking stupid, but is it “criminal”. Is it abuse? He wanted it, he sat for the tat, but he’s 10. Tough question.

In any event, she’s not the mother of the year. That’s for sure. But we need to protect children from themselves, because at some point, it WILL be a spongebob tattoo. It doesn’t matter that the tat was to honor his brother, the issue is the tat. [/quote]

I think your second paragraph raises an interesting point and I tend to hope that she is convicted for the maximum penalty and then appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to see how the Justices might look at things.

I’m not totally familiar with SC case law in this area, but I suspect you’d see some sort of 14th Amendment issue here. It would depend on how they classify the “right” to a tattoo. They’v gone as far as allowing someone to commit virtual suicide by refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the unwanted treatment constitutes a battery (Cruzan). That case basically established more than most in recent history that control over one’s body, short of actual suicide, was the most fundamental of rights.

Does this then extend to tattoos and are all decisions about one’s body, regardless of what it is, of SO fundamental a nature that they cannot be denied to children either? I don’t know how that argument would go. It could go anywhere, really.

I think the Court could argue that a tattoo represents a much more potentially-damaging result upon a child who gets it than say, a piercing, based on social stigmas he may suffer from at an age where he’s too young to properly handle such encounters. There is also the physical potential for some sort of injury that is small, but one that exists nonetheless. There is also the chance that the kid pulls out halfway through or something due to the pain and now he has a difficult decision to make regarding getting it finished or not that he may not have anticipated at such a young age.

Part of it is contract law and part of it may be some sort of Equal Protection issue. If kids at say, 16 or 17 can get a tattoo with parental consent then is that a right of theirs and if so, to what age does it go back to? 10? 6? 5? Is there perhaps some sort of test that can be applied? And of course, does the parent’s consent really mean anything? If the Court were to rule that at the age of 10 a child is not competent to make this decision then parental consent is moot.

Is there some sort of test that states can enact in the form of mandatory educational literature or other such media that must be provided beforehand, such as with some states and abortions? Or is it strictly a state matter? Should it be left up to states to decide the laws on this so that in one state NO ONE under the age of 18 can get a tattoo, period, and in another anyone over the age of 13 can get one with parental consent?

68

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think this conversation is slightly confusing because it went from: “Is this child abuse?” To “Should she have done it.” That’s a pretty big difference.

Do those that think she shouldn’t have done it also think that it’s child abuse that she did?[/quote]

Is it child abuse?

Here’s the GA definition:

‘Child abuse’ means:

Physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means; provided, however, physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child;

Neglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof;

Sexual abuse of a child; or

Sexual exploitation of a child.

Is getting tatted a “physical injury”. Given that it takes some time to get one (unlike the fallacious piercing analogy which is over in a second), and it is definitely uncomfortable, it’s a tough question I think. Can a 10 year old “consent” to this? No. That much is clear. Can the child’s mother consent on his behalf? I doubt it. And I cannot think of a good analogy for this situation. Piercing certainly isn’t it. A piercing happens in a second. A tattoo like that was likely an hour or more.

Does the State belong in this affair? I’m not sure. The pain and permanent nature of this event aside, this is not much different than naming your kid some stupid fucking name he’s going to have to “wear” the rest of his/her life. It’s fucking stupid, but is it “criminal”. Is it abuse? He wanted it, he sat for the tat, but he’s 10. Tough question.

In any event, she’s not the mother of the year. That’s for sure. But we need to protect children from themselves, because at some point, it WILL be a spongebob tattoo. It doesn’t matter that the tat was to honor his brother, the issue is the tat. [/quote]

I think your second paragraph raises an interesting point and I tend to hope that she is convicted for the maximum penalty and then appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to see how the Justices might look at things.

I’m not totally familiar with SC case law in this area, but I suspect you’d see some sort of 14th Amendment issue here. It would depend on how they classify the “right” to a tattoo. They’v gone as far as allowing someone to commit virtual suicide by refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the unwanted treatment constitutes a battery (Cruzan). That case basically established more than most in recent history that control over one’s body, short of actual suicide, was the most fundamental of rights.

Does this then extend to tattoos and are all decisions about one’s body, regardless of what it is, of SO fundamental a nature that they cannot be denied to children either? I don’t know how that argument would go. It could go anywhere, really.

I think the Court could argue that a tattoo represents a much more potentially-damaging result upon a child who gets it than say, a piercing, based on social stigmas he may suffer from at an age where he’s too young to properly handle such encounters. There is also the physical potential for some sort of injury that is small, but one that exists nonetheless. There is also the chance that the kid pulls out halfway through or something due to the pain and now he has a difficult decision to make regarding getting it finished or not that he may not have anticipated at such a young age.

Part of it is contract law and part of it may be some sort of Equal Protection issue. If kids at say, 16 or 17 can get a tattoo with parental consent then is that a right of theirs and if so, to what age does it go back to? 10? 6? 5? Is there perhaps some sort of test that can be applied? And of course, does the parent’s consent really mean anything? If the Court were to rule that at the age of 10 a child is not competent to make this decision then parental consent is moot.

Is there some sort of test that states can enact in the form of mandatory educational literature or other such media that must be provided beforehand, such as with some states and abortions? Or is it strictly a state matter? Should it be left up to states to decide the laws on this so that in one state NO ONE under the age of 18 can get a tattoo, period, and in another anyone over the age of 13 can get one with parental consent?[/quote]

Great discussion!

69

[quote]Nards wrote:
Law shouldn’t be involved but also no, 10 year-olds shouldn’t get tattoos.[/quote]

This.

Why must there be a law for everything??? Why not exercise common sense? Can a tattoo parlor not have the right to tell a 10-year-old, “Sorry, kid. You’re too young. Come back and see us when you’re old enough to shave.”

What is wrong with that?

70

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
Law shouldn’t be involved but also no, 10 year-olds shouldn’t get tattoos.[/quote]

This.

Why must there be a law for everything??? Why not exercise common sense? Can a tattoo parlor not have the right to tell a 10-year-old, “Sorry, kid. You’re too young. Come back and see us when you’re old enough to shave.”

What is wrong with that?

[/quote]

Nothing if they also have the right TO sell one to a ten year old with parental consent.

This isn’t “abuse”…except to really conservative people who likely think all tattoos are bad.

I agree that I personally would never let a 10 year old in my custody get one…but it isn’t MY kid…and it wasn’t my brother who died.

Let parents raise their own kids outside of real harm.

71

[quote]Christine wrote:

I don’t understand why the mother got arrested though. The tattoo artist should know the law and if anyone should be in trouble it should be him.
[/quote]

Based on the quality I don’t think this was done by a professional.

72

I’m just impressed a 10 year old sat still long enough to get a tat like that. Also impressed he didn’t wusss out after 10 mins.

I wonder if the mother even knew it was illegal in the first place. While I wouldn’t let a 10 year old get a tattoo, I wouldn’t think to check the law books to get a ruling before proceeding with allowing a kid to get one either.

I would think the parlor would have known the law and wouldn’t have allowed it. I’m guessing it is illegal for anyone under 18, and parental consent isn’t allowed to over ride being under age.

It’s not the state’s place to decide IMO, but there are far more fucked up laws than this on the books.

73

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I don’t understand why a tattoo like that is cruelty but piercings, which can scar and get infected, are not.[/quote]

piercings are not permanant. They can close up rather quickly. a Tattoo is permanant. and a child doesn’t have any idea what they will want in 15 years. they are a child, incapable of making such a decision. [/quote]

Holy fucking shit vampire…you wrote a cogent, reasonable and measured thought. You’re going to lose troll status.

74

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think this conversation is slightly confusing because it went from: “Is this child abuse?” To “Should she have done it.” That’s a pretty big difference.

Do those that think she shouldn’t have done it also think that it’s child abuse that she did?[/quote]

Is it child abuse?

Here’s the GA definition:

‘Child abuse’ means:

Physical injury or death inflicted upon a child by a parent or caretaker thereof by other than accidental means; provided, however, physical forms of discipline may be used as long as there is no physical injury to the child;

Neglect or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker thereof;

Sexual abuse of a child; or

Sexual exploitation of a child.

Is getting tatted a “physical injury”. Given that it takes some time to get one (unlike the fallacious piercing analogy which is over in a second), and it is definitely uncomfortable, it’s a tough question I think. Can a 10 year old “consent” to this? No. That much is clear. Can the child’s mother consent on his behalf? I doubt it. And I cannot think of a good analogy for this situation. Piercing certainly isn’t it. A piercing happens in a second. A tattoo like that was likely an hour or more.

Does the State belong in this affair? I’m not sure. The pain and permanent nature of this event aside, this is not much different than naming your kid some stupid fucking name he’s going to have to “wear” the rest of his/her life. It’s fucking stupid, but is it “criminal”. Is it abuse? He wanted it, he sat for the tat, but he’s 10. Tough question.

In any event, she’s not the mother of the year. That’s for sure. But we need to protect children from themselves, because at some point, it WILL be a spongebob tattoo. It doesn’t matter that the tat was to honor his brother, the issue is the tat. [/quote]

I think your second paragraph raises an interesting point and I tend to hope that she is convicted for the maximum penalty and then appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to see how the Justices might look at things.

I’m not totally familiar with SC case law in this area, but I suspect you’d see some sort of 14th Amendment issue here. It would depend on how they classify the “right” to a tattoo. They’v gone as far as allowing someone to commit virtual suicide by refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the unwanted treatment constitutes a battery (Cruzan). That case basically established more than most in recent history that control over one’s body, short of actual suicide, was the most fundamental of rights.

Does this then extend to tattoos and are all decisions about one’s body, regardless of what it is, of SO fundamental a nature that they cannot be denied to children either? I don’t know how that argument would go. It could go anywhere, really.

I think the Court could argue that a tattoo represents a much more potentially-damaging result upon a child who gets it than say, a piercing, based on social stigmas he may suffer from at an age where he’s too young to properly handle such encounters. There is also the physical potential for some sort of injury that is small, but one that exists nonetheless. There is also the chance that the kid pulls out halfway through or something due to the pain and now he has a difficult decision to make regarding getting it finished or not that he may not have anticipated at such a young age.

Part of it is contract law and part of it may be some sort of Equal Protection issue. If kids at say, 16 or 17 can get a tattoo with parental consent then is that a right of theirs and if so, to what age does it go back to? 10? 6? 5? Is there perhaps some sort of test that can be applied? And of course, does the parent’s consent really mean anything? If the Court were to rule that at the age of 10 a child is not competent to make this decision then parental consent is moot.

Is there some sort of test that states can enact in the form of mandatory educational literature or other such media that must be provided beforehand, such as with some states and abortions? Or is it strictly a state matter? Should it be left up to states to decide the laws on this so that in one state NO ONE under the age of 18 can get a tattoo, period, and in another anyone over the age of 13 can get one with parental consent?[/quote]

Although your post is well thought out, you’re passing by the major issue; this kid is indeed a child and under no legal analysis yet old enough to choose or consent to anything. He cannot decide to get a tattoo anymore than he can decide to drop out of school, which will not allow us to embark on such “personal right” issues. And your musings cannot pass that simple legal point.

In a nutshell, this is why parents have legal responsibility for their MINOR children. The issues become more cloudy as a child begins to reach majority, even mid-teens, but there is simply no such tortured analysis to apply to a 10 year old.

My opinion of course.

75

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
Law shouldn’t be involved but also no, 10 year-olds shouldn’t get tattoos.[/quote]

This.

Why must there be a law for everything??? Why not exercise common sense? Can a tattoo parlor not have the right to tell a 10-year-old, “Sorry, kid. You’re too young. Come back and see us when you’re old enough to shave.”

What is wrong with that?

[/quote]

Nothing if they also have the right TO sell one to a ten year old with parental consent.

This isn’t “abuse”…except to really conservative people who likely think all tattoos are bad.

I agree that I personally would never let a 10 year old in my custody get one…but it isn’t MY kid…and it wasn’t my brother who died.

Let parents raise their own kids outside of real harm.[/quote]

Define “real harm”.

Because there are those that would argue there is no “real harm” to letting your 10 year old stay home alone. Or letting your 12 year old quit school.

I can continue with such examples.

Is a tattoo on the periphery of what might constitute “real harm”? Perhaps. But it’s certainly not an outrageous encroachment of a parent’s right to raise their children.

76

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
Law shouldn’t be involved but also no, 10 year-olds shouldn’t get tattoos.[/quote]

This.

Why must there be a law for everything??? Why not exercise common sense? Can a tattoo parlor not have the right to tell a 10-year-old, “Sorry, kid. You’re too young. Come back and see us when you’re old enough to shave.”

What is wrong with that?

[/quote]

Nothing if they also have the right TO sell one to a ten year old with parental consent.

This isn’t “abuse”…except to really conservative people who likely think all tattoos are bad.

I agree that I personally would never let a 10 year old in my custody get one…but it isn’t MY kid…and it wasn’t my brother who died.

Let parents raise their own kids outside of real harm.[/quote]

Define “real harm”.

Because there are those that would argue there is no “real harm” to letting your 10 year old stay home alone. Or letting your 12 year old quit school.

I can continue with such examples.

Is a tattoo on the periphery of what might constitute “real harm”? Perhaps. But it’s certainly not an outrageous encroachment of a parent’s right to raise their children.
[/quote]

I stayed home alone at 10. Nothing happened. I was a smart kid and my parents knew that so no issue.

Who knew they should have gone to jail.

Letting a 12 year old quit school is doing harm because that means no basic education which is pretty much required to perform in society at an acceptable level. If you home school them, no problem.

We live in a day and age where tattoos are so common I am shocked to see someone my age or younger without one. It is a different day and age than the 1950’s and 60’s where it might cause little old ladies to gasp and clutch their purses tighter.

I wouldn’t want MY 10 year old to do that…but I can’t say it is my place to tell everyone else how to raise their kids.

My only gripe here is the location of that tat and how “prison issue” it looks. That kid’s mother should have taught him some style and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

77

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]LessTraveled wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]LessTraveled wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

TL:DR
-10 y/o kid’s brother died
-asked mom to get a tattoo in remembrance of his bro
-she said o.k.
-he got it done
-mom got arrested for “child cruelty”

note: the kid got the tattoo done at a legit studio.

So, should the kid have the legal right to get a tattoo since his mother consented to it? Would you let your child get a tattoo?
Discus.[/quote]

he’s not old enough to to make that decision, no matter how heartfelt.

no, I would not let my child get tatood. I have also refused mohawks and earrings (my 6 year old has asked for both b/c of the little future felons he goes to school with - because when your parents are letting you get your ears pierced at 5, what kind of parents do you expect they’d be???).[/quote]

Right because Mohawks make you a felon…wow, awesome stereotype bud. oh while your at it you mind as well just say that Older White guys always wear plaid pants and Golf 24-7 right? (see mirror).

So if I shave my kids head because in summer its hot or because he does Brazilian Ju-jitsu 4 times a weak and he like his hair short for that then my kids going to grow up to be a Skinhead???

I do agree on the ear piercing deal, some people get their INFANT girls pierced, that’s a little scary for me, I would not allow that.

I Don’t think Id stop my kid from wearing his hair like he wanted and I do not. If my kid grows up to be a felon then it has notning to do with his fucking hair and everything to do with my failure as a parent to teach love, respect, and acceptance.

Now Im going to be a hypocrite here and say that I do not allow my boys to walk around with their pants hanging off their asses like a gangsta…I guess that would imply that I believe thier style of pants is going to influence how they grow up…I just hate baggy jeans and I don’t want to walk around seeing other peoples asses in public, its fucking disrespectful.
[/quote]

calm down sugar britches. i don’t have to reply b/c you’re all over the place here contradicting yourself.

and i don’t play golf or own plaid pants. lol[/quote]

Sugar Britches…awesome!.

Anyway, I guess I do sound all over the place and I guess its only because I was speaking about things that bug the shit out of me and of things that I don’t think are a big deal. SO yeah I guess I am contradicting myself, my apologies.

I guess I don’t think a mohawk is going to influence my kid to be a criminal…but I wouldn’t allow cornrolls, braids etc etc. SO I guess Im fucked up and the hypocrite.

Also to chime in on the subject of the thread…NO I wouldn’t allow my 10 year old to get a tattoo.

Also BG, don’t lie man, we know your closet full of plaid bro, don’t be mad.[/quote]

dude, you live in Alasaka, I live in NJ. I bet your whole wardrobe is flannel.

There are a few kids in my son’s school with earrings and mohawks. Grade school. Without exception, their parents are uneducated, and in dead end jobs. It is absolutely largely a class issue. You don’t generally see the children of college educated, high wage earning parents, wearing earrings and mohawks in GRADE SCHOOL.

[/quote]
I’m just curious, but what is wrong with a mohawk? Also, are you talking about a real mohawk with liberty spikes? Nowadays they are pretty common to see someone with one that isn’t the liberty spikes one. I wouldn’t care if my kid wanted a mohawk.

78

I thought about this some more over dinner and the obvious occurred to me: if you’re too fucking stupid not to let your 10 YEAR OLD get a tattoo, well then you DO need the State to come along and interfere.

It was a dumb fucking decision, and any defense of the mother is is pretty weak.

79

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BobParr wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
Law shouldn’t be involved but also no, 10 year-olds shouldn’t get tattoos.[/quote]

This.

Why must there be a law for everything??? Why not exercise common sense? Can a tattoo parlor not have the right to tell a 10-year-old, “Sorry, kid. You’re too young. Come back and see us when you’re old enough to shave.”

What is wrong with that?

[/quote]

Nothing if they also have the right TO sell one to a ten year old with parental consent.

This isn’t “abuse”…except to really conservative people who likely think all tattoos are bad.

I agree that I personally would never let a 10 year old in my custody get one…but it isn’t MY kid…and it wasn’t my brother who died.

Let parents raise their own kids outside of real harm.[/quote]

Define “real harm”.

Because there are those that would argue there is no “real harm” to letting your 10 year old stay home alone. Or letting your 12 year old quit school.

I can continue with such examples.

Is a tattoo on the periphery of what might constitute “real harm”? Perhaps. But it’s certainly not an outrageous encroachment of a parent’s right to raise their children.
[/quote]

I stayed home alone at 10. Nothing happened. I was a smart kid and my parents knew that so no issue.

Who knew they should have gone to jail.

Letting a 12 year old quit school is doing harm because that means no basic education which is pretty much required to perform in society at an acceptable level. If you home school them, no problem.

We live in a day and age where tattoos are so common I am shocked to see someone my age or younger without one. It is a different day and age than the 1950’s and 60’s where it might cause little old ladies to gasp and clutch their purses tighter.

I wouldn’t want MY 10 year old to do that…but I can’t say it is my place to tell everyone else how to raise their kids.

My only gripe here is the location of that tat and how “prison issue” it looks. That kid’s mother should have taught him some style and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.[/quote]

Letting a 10 year old stay home alone is neglect under every definition of neglect I’ve seen. And it’s not a matter of “how smart” you are, it’s a matter of things that can occur that a 10 year old - no 10 year old, is equipped to handle. Anyway…

So your closing is that if this was a great tattoo no one would object? We only object b/c it’s a bad (in your opinion) tattoo?

And if we allow one tattoo, where do we stop (since we don’t want to interfere how someone “raises” their kids - never mind this isn’t an issue of how you “rear” your children, but I’ll play along). One tat okay? How about an entire sleeve? Spongebob tats okay too?

Please tell me when, if ever, it becomes an issue.

80

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]LessTraveled wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]LessTraveled wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

TL:DR
-10 y/o kid’s brother died
-asked mom to get a tattoo in remembrance of his bro
-she said o.k.
-he got it done
-mom got arrested for “child cruelty”

note: the kid got the tattoo done at a legit studio.

So, should the kid have the legal right to get a tattoo since his mother consented to it? Would you let your child get a tattoo?
Discus.[/quote]

he’s not old enough to to make that decision, no matter how heartfelt.

no, I would not let my child get tatood. I have also refused mohawks and earrings (my 6 year old has asked for both b/c of the little future felons he goes to school with - because when your parents are letting you get your ears pierced at 5, what kind of parents do you expect they’d be???).[/quote]

Right because Mohawks make you a felon…wow, awesome stereotype bud. oh while your at it you mind as well just say that Older White guys always wear plaid pants and Golf 24-7 right? (see mirror).

So if I shave my kids head because in summer its hot or because he does Brazilian Ju-jitsu 4 times a weak and he like his hair short for that then my kids going to grow up to be a Skinhead???

I do agree on the ear piercing deal, some people get their INFANT girls pierced, that’s a little scary for me, I would not allow that.

I Don’t think Id stop my kid from wearing his hair like he wanted and I do not. If my kid grows up to be a felon then it has notning to do with his fucking hair and everything to do with my failure as a parent to teach love, respect, and acceptance.

Now Im going to be a hypocrite here and say that I do not allow my boys to walk around with their pants hanging off their asses like a gangsta…I guess that would imply that I believe thier style of pants is going to influence how they grow up…I just hate baggy jeans and I don’t want to walk around seeing other peoples asses in public, its fucking disrespectful.
[/quote]

calm down sugar britches. i don’t have to reply b/c you’re all over the place here contradicting yourself.

and i don’t play golf or own plaid pants. lol[/quote]

Sugar Britches…awesome!.

Anyway, I guess I do sound all over the place and I guess its only because I was speaking about things that bug the shit out of me and of things that I don’t think are a big deal. SO yeah I guess I am contradicting myself, my apologies.

I guess I don’t think a mohawk is going to influence my kid to be a criminal…but I wouldn’t allow cornrolls, braids etc etc. SO I guess Im fucked up and the hypocrite.

Also to chime in on the subject of the thread…NO I wouldn’t allow my 10 year old to get a tattoo.

Also BG, don’t lie man, we know your closet full of plaid bro, don’t be mad.[/quote]

dude, you live in Alasaka, I live in NJ. I bet your whole wardrobe is flannel.

There are a few kids in my son’s school with earrings and mohawks. Grade school. Without exception, their parents are uneducated, and in dead end jobs. It is absolutely largely a class issue. You don’t generally see the children of college educated, high wage earning parents, wearing earrings and mohawks in GRADE SCHOOL.

[/quote]
I’m just curious, but what is wrong with a mohawk? Also, are you talking about a real mohawk with liberty spikes? Nowadays they are pretty common to see someone with one that isn’t the liberty spikes one. I wouldn’t care if my kid wanted a mohawk.[/quote]

you’re talking about “faux-hawks” I’d guess. My son had one last haircut. meh.

but there are kids in his school with 2 inch or better Mohawks with coloring. give me a fucking break.

what is “wrong” with them? well, i’m not sure i can say anything is “wrong” with them, but maybe you might want to address my observation that the parents of these kids are invariably lower income, not college educated, and that you just don’t see this from higher income, educated parents. and remember, i’m talking K-3 grade here.