At what age would you let your child get a tattoo?

[shortbun]

18. I will allow piercings but no ink until he is able to 1. pay for it himself and 2. live in an apartment without my support

 

[kilee]

I'm in the minority here because we let me son get his on his 17th birthday. If he would of had his way it would of been years earlier. The rules were it had to be what he talked about getting for years and it had to be small and where it would not be seen in at school or affect his future career. Which meant not on his arms anywhere. It's on his back, it looks good actually. I have no regrets that I let him do it, and I'm okay w/ people who judge me for it.

DH is pretty covered on his arms, back and chest (some on the legs) while you've got me who has NONE. I don't mind them, they're just not for me.

 

[golfgal]

Never. As long as we are paying any kids of support for them, college, health insurance, anything, no tattoos. So far our kids think they are stupid so we are good there.

 

[Pigeon]

I am with you. I think withholding support over a tat is about much more than the tat. It is about maintaining control over the decisions of an adult child. Taht never works out well.


That is one of the most prejudical discriptions of a person I have heard in a long time. I have flashes of sit ins and civil rights marches. It scares me that this kind of prejudice still exists, but sadly it does.

Civil rights sit-ins? Hardly.

If a person chooses to go to significant lengths to make themselves a spectacle, it should come as no surprise that their appearance is noted.

 

[MushyMushy]

I'm in the minority here because we let me son get his on his 17th birthday. If he would of had his way it would of been years earlier. The rules were it had to be what he talked about getting for years and it had to be small and where it would not be seen in at school or affect his future career. Which meant not on his arms anywhere. It's on his back, it looks good actually. I have no regrets that I let him do it, and I'm okay w/ people who judge me for it.

DH is pretty covered on his arms, back and chest (some on the legs) while you've got me who has NONE. I don't mind them, they're just not for me.

Somehow I'm just not nearly as bothered by a 17 year old getting one as I am about an 8th grader, especially the content of hers. If she'd gotten something small and symbolic, I would have raised an eyebrow and shook my head but wouldn't be nearly as disgusted as I am by the one her mother allowed her to get.

 

[Shmily1]

DD19 got her first one at 16 when I signed for it. It's on her back and is a really pretty butterfly. She got her second one at 18. I didn't know about it until she texted me a picture. It's just her DS's name on her foot and it's really pretty. Since I paid for the first one, I got some say in what it was and who did it. To me, it's more important that I teach her to go to a reputable place rather than condemning what she's doing. I actually wanted to get one of Mickey Mouse on my hip when she got hers but It's just too easy for me to get queasy. I almost got sick when she got hers!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

18

I don't wish to provide permission prior to then.

I'm not against them as in I'd disown them or anything if they got one.

But it isn't permission that I am willing to give as long as they legally require my permission.

At 18--I couldn't give two flips as they are old enough to not need me to go get it. My sis, mom, and step-dad have one and I have several friends that have one (or more). But they all obtained them when they were old enough to get it themselves.

 

[PatsMom]

As someone has already mentioned, in NH it is illegal to tattoo a minor. So the kids go to Vermont if they have a parent who will consent. I was OK with my daughter getting a tattoo since she wasn't going to have to pay for it. Her sister and brother in law own a tattoo parlor. She designs custom work and he is a darn good tattoo artist. So for ther 18th birthday, they gave her a custom tattoo. She thinks that she wants more and is already planning them. She plans to hit them up once a year for a Christmas present!

I went with her to get her tattoo and was quite pleased with the design. It can be hidden for work if necessary (on her ankle). She knew what she was getting into by having a tattoo. Her sister is pretty heavily tattoo'd, including on the hands. She's seen shopkeepers follow her sister around the store like a criminal just because of her tattoos. And she's seen how narrow minded people look at her sister and brother in law (who is quite heavily tattoo'd.)

It was a family event when DD got her first tattoo. We had pizza and visited. My grandson came (he's only 2 so he didn't have much to say about the artwork).

I see nothing wrong with tattoos but I do think that under 18 is too young to decide on something so permanent. One other thing that my step-daughter emphasized to my DD was that the only thing that hurts more and costs more than getting a tattoo applied is having it lasered off!

 

[Scurvy]

I wouldn't ever let my child get a tattoo. When he's an adult he can make his own decision about that sort of thing; while he's a child it is not an option. Children are not mature enough to make decisions about something that permanent, they simply do not have that capacity. Until kids turn 18, their parents have a responsibility to keep them from making mistakes that will affect them for the rest of their lives. After that, it's up to the individuals to decide what permanent changes they want to make to their bodies.

 

[jodifla]

18.

But once he's an adult, I wouldn't withhold college money or anything like that.

 

[mickeylove2]

I would grant permission to my DDs when they are 16...as long as I get MAJOR say in what and where it is and who does it! I have tattoos but all of mine are coverable, so I don't see the problem in helping my child make that decision. Trust me, this would not be taken lightly and there would be a lot of considerations going into it before it was done. It's not something that she could just wake up 1 morning and say hey mom can you take me to get a tat today??? That's definitely not going to happen, but if it was something that she and I discussed at length, I'm talking months and months of discussions, and we planned every detail involved, and it was something that she still wanter after all that, then sure why not.

 

[MickeyMomOfThree]

My oldest is on HS and there are tattoos in obvious places on the kids. We are in NY where I believe a PP said it is illegal, but they got them somewhere. My kids are not allowed to do anyhing premanent till they are adults. I'd like to make it longer too, since I think 18 can be pretty immature, but I will at least say no as long as I can (though it is not even a thought with my kids yet.)

So far the kids don't even mention them, including my teenager really. I do not have any, DH has one, no desire for more, that he got with all his Army buddies when they returned from the Gulf War. Thankfully he was wise and has it high on his shoulder and cannot be seen in a tshirt, and more importantly a work shirt. His boss has a real issue with people with tattoos and there is no question in my mind he would not have the job he has if his boss would have seen it. Right or wrong it is a fact. He has been with the company 7 years and the boss has made several comments about people with tattoos. BTW, he doesn't regret it, it is symbolic for him and is on his arm where his combat patch was on his uniform.

It is funny I read something earlier in the thread about someone saying that they wouldn't sign for anything for their kids tattoos or marriage before they were 18. I was married at 17, and needed parental consent. I was 15 when I started dating my DH, engaged at 16, married at 17, got pregnant at 18 and had our first baby at 19. We have been married for just short of 17 years and are blissfully in love, but now we have a 15 year old DD and I think !!! No way would I want her to even think about a boy that serious let alone one 4.5 year older! I got realllllly lucky! I met the most amazing man and we grew up together and not apart, but man I know how rare we are! Thankfully my DD15 hasn't even started dating. She mentions cute boys but that is about it.

 

[CathrynRose]

Somehow I'm just not nearly as bothered by a 17 year old getting one as I am about an 8th grader, especially the content of hers. If she'd gotten something small and symbolic, I would have raised an eyebrow and shook my head but wouldn't be nearly as disgusted as I am by the one her mother allowed her to get.

Everything you said.

 

[princessmom29]

Civil rights sit-ins? Hardly.

If a person chooses to go to significant lengths to make themselves a spectacle, it should come as no surprise that their appearance is noted.

I still think it is horrible to judge anyone based on appearance. It doesn't matter if you agree with what they are doing or would choose that for yourself. I don't think we have the right to judge others based on thier appearence. Sorry, but it is the same thing as judging based on the color of ones skin, or someone's weight, and it is wrong.

 

[Pigeon]

I still think it is horrible to judge anyone based on appearance. It doesn't matter if you agree with what they are doing or would choose that for yourself. I don't think we have the right to judge others based on thier appearence. Sorry, but it is the same thing as judging based on the color of ones skin, or someone's weight, and it is wrong.

No, it's not the same thing at all. You are comparing natural characteristics to actively mutilating one's body with the express desire of changing one's appearance so as to attract attention.

 

[locolala]

I agree that you have no right to judge someone based on physical appearence. I think it's cruel and immature, to be honest. Would you judge someone who had scars on their arms from self mutilation? I would certainly hope not. What about people who wear overtly relgious shirts (any religion included in this) for attention? It happens, I promise you that.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

No, it's not the same thing at all. You are comparing natural characteristics to actively mutilating one's body with the express desire of changing one's appearance so as to attract attention.

Mutilating????

Yes, some people do it for attention. Like some people wear certain clothes for attention, or do their hair a certain way for attention. Most people I know get them for much more than attention. They may be symbolic of a special time, a loved one, or an event that was monumental in their lives. I have three tattoos. No one can see them unless I'm in a bathing suit. So, in no way did I get tattoos to attract attention when no one sees them except myself and husband the majority of the time.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I agree that you have no right to judge someone based on physical appearence. I think it's cruel and immature, to be honest. Would you judge someone who had scars on their arms from self mutilation? I would certainly hope not. What about people who wear overtly relgious shirts (any religion included in this) for attention? It happens, I promise you that.

Sorry, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think people don't judge others based on how they dress or otherwise adorn themselves. How many threads have we seen here with people making fun of "mom jeans", high heels at WDW, tons of makeup to the gym or pajama pants to the grocery store?

I have nothing against those who modify their bodies. Heck, I know people that have done it and they are some of the nicest people around. But I do think they look strange and I know they aren't going to get hired by a vast majority of mainstream businesses because of how they look. Right or wrong, that's life and they know it, too. They are adults, and it doesn't affect the career paths some of them have chosen. For others, it has, and they have had to spend lots of time and money repairing what they have done to themselves.

And please note, I'm not talking about a few visible tattoos and a couple of small nose or eyebrow piercings. I'm thinking of the giant grommets in the ears that pigeon described, split tongues, facial scarification, etc. Some people take it too far and that's the vision I got from pigeon's description of her niece and her husband.

 

[FireDancer]

I agree that you have no right to judge someone based on physical appearence. I think it's cruel and immature, to be honest. Would you judge someone who had scars on their arms from self mutilation? I would certainly hope not. What about people who wear overtly relgious shirts (any religion included in this) for attention? It happens, I promise you that.

Yes, I judge that as incredibly stupid.

Anyone who thinks that appearance doesn't matter is kidding themselves.

 

[locolala]

Yes, I judge that as incredibly stupid.

Anyone who thinks that appearance doesn't matter is kidding themselves.

Mental illness is stupid? Wow.. that's just messed up. You obviously have had a wonderful life, lucky you.

Yes, appearance DOES matter in some circumstances, but I refuse to judge people I see on the streets because of what they look like. I currently have bright blue hair, and don't really give a rat's patookie what people think about it. I'm a 4.0 avg grad student in a very hard course of study, appearances can be deceiving.