To think there should be a higher minimum age for face tattoos

[salutsandy]

I think a face tattoo is such a huge decision that there should be a higher minimum age, say 25 or 30, for this. AIBU?

In many cultures tattoos are highly important part of life. They date back to ancient Egyptian age, hardly a new phenomenon.
Facial tattoos are really common and highly regarded in many countries - of course it should be illegal though cos Sandra from Milton Keynes “doesn’t see the benefit”

But nobody's saying it should be illegal - just whether an older age to make this decision would be more sensible. Also, we don't live in a culture where facial tattoos are highly regarded, that's the reality.

There was a strong presidential candidate in one eu country with full face tatoos. Iirc he was a well regarded super intelligent professor.

Sure, but each individual drink isn't having those effects

We don't really know this do we. We can't garuntee that there arent undiagnosed underlying conditions that mean drinking at all could cause harm. If your drink is spiked who knows what happens.

Snakebites were banned in pubs because of how sick.they could make.people..in those not used to alcohol it could take very little to give adverse effects many of which wed not know about until it caused an issue could he years down the line.

Cars are a huge cause of accidents but we let 17 year olds drive them but a 24 year old married man with 2 kids would be deemed unable to consent to a face tattoo? if he wasn't mowed down by a 17 year old on the way

Some of us have said it should be illegal.

If it's cultural that's different, but British people of British heritage who get facial tattoos then complain it's affecting their job prospects are idiots.

surely it depends on the tattoo? A huge bat across your forehead is a lot more striking then a small dot on your face or something. My sister has two face tattoos. She works full time in a school as a receptionist.

Am particularly gobsmacked by the idea of psych evaluations before having a facial tattoo and the subtle implication that there is something mentally aberrant about such a choice. Would you suggest that for those who come from a cultural tradition of facial tattoos? Think very carefully about your biases if you would.

Well it's transgressive in some cultures and a status symbol and cultural identifier in others. In the first cultures it is correlated with personality disorders and psychopathy. In the second it's not.

This can't be a huge surprise.

I used to work for an NHS trust which had a uniform policy that forbade all visible tattoos. I bet they’ve had to can that now.

No, of course not. YABU.

18 is the age of majority in the U.K., and on that birthday you assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood, including the rights to vote, marry, die for your country and to deface your own body should you so wish.

The current tendency to infantilise 18-21 year olds is ridiculous. If someone had tried to tell me not to get a tattoo, or whatever else, at that age they would have received a very blunt two word response.

From Google:

Imply means to suggest or to say something in an indirect way. Infer means to suppose or come to a conclusion especially based on an indirect suggestion.

So the inference here is that someone requesting a cosmetic procedure such as a facial tattoo needs psych evaluation with the conclusion they are less likely to be able to make that decision without lots of support and guidance?

Everything that carries a risk should indeed be discussed and explained by the person carrying out the procedure and the client, or patient if it's a medical procedure and all professions, including tattooists do this prior to said procedure.

There is a Tattoist and Piercing Union that campaigns for high industry standards. They liaise with councils around rules and regulations.

Did you know that the procedures around piercings for example, involve making sure ID is authentic, that parental consent is obtained on those wanting piercings who are not 18? That most reputable piercers won't pierce the ears of anyone under secondary school age? That a form has to be filled in with medical and allergen information? (Literally 20 questions if I recall). That every year a First Aid course is undertaken? Because without these things the public liability insurance could be null and void if something did go wrong?

My tattooist friends do similar. It is their livelihood and their art and they want to be safe, responsible and successful.

Extreme body modifications are already outlawed in the UK. As they should be I hear you cry, because tongue splitting and ear pointing is closer to medical procedure than adornment and carries greater risk. You can still go abroad for it though.

Professional tattooists usually have lengthy discussions with their clients about their art before going ahead. And they are within their rights to refuse a client if they are uncomfortable about anything, as are piercers.

I'm allowed to be gobsmacked that the old trope that tattoos / piercings indicate mental weakness is still being trotted out despite the fact that they have been mainstream since the 90s.

As for Botox (a poison) and fake tans from sun beds (cancer risk?) or anything else if that nature - your body, your choice, risks explained, professional indemnity in place, all hunkydory.

The question of what age someone should get a facial tattoo is down to them once they are 18, already enshrined in law, and they have to live with the consequences.

Just because other people don't like it doesn't mean it should be pathologised and considered the downfall of civilisation 🙄

Pragmatically, having excessively large breasts crushes your entire body and causes untold pain and medical issues. Pragmatically, breast reduction should be a higher priority than tattoo removal because it’s not self-inflicted, isn’t solely cosmetic and can’t be covered up by makeup. But I guess men are the ones with tattoos on their faces more often than women and women are the ones with unbearable pain caused by large breasts (whilst men get their breasts reduced with no medical need whatsoever) so I guess that’s why, pragmatically, breast reduction doesn’t get funding.

Am particularly gobsmacked by the idea of psych evaluations before having a facial tattoo and the subtle implication that there is something mentally aberrant about such a choice.

My DM had to have a psych evaluation before she was allowed a mastectomy when she had breast cancer. Does that give you a little bit of perspective?

100% agree. There's just no reason for it. I have a tattoo on my wrist, which I got in my teen years, I deeply regret this and will soon be starting the process to remove it. I think if it was on my face, I would be severely depressed.

I'm sorry, but I find that comparison in extremely poor taste.

There is a world of difference between the two things.

And I say that as someone who has supported several family members through cancer, with everything it implies.

I assume you're talking to me?

I think it's good she had to have the evaluation, and I think anyone who's having anything done to their body that's going to affect them for the rest of their lives should have the same.

The difference is she was forced to have the evaluation for something that was going to save her life, yet morons can have their whole face coloured a different colour without any intervention.

If you think the comparison is in bad taste that's fine.

I am shocked by number of posts like "I don't see the value, so it should be illegal" or "there is no reason for it". Why should your personal opinion restrict someone else in their personal matters?

People have a right to decide about their bodies and I definitely see pregnancy & raising a child or joining an army as more life changing decisions. Tattoo is just an image on a skin, not a missing organ.

I don't have any tattoo, I just don't want the law to limit people's freedom when it isn't necessary to do so.

Yes, morons as you so charmingly describe them can have their whole face coloured if they do choose - choice being the operative word here - and they pay for it both monetarily and through any consequences that might make them think twice down the line.

It's not remotely comparable to the turmoil of a cancer patient's situation where it's clear the impact is far greater and not reversible.

Tattoos can be covered by make-up or removed.

They are not life threatening nor traumatic. They affect no-one other than the person making the choice.

These comparisons are a world apart and not relevant to each other.

I have tattoos and I don't know any decent artist who will tattoo someone's face who isn't already heavily tattooed.

Face tattoos aren't my thing.

However people pierce babies ears and that is bloody horrific

I don't have any tattoo, I just don't want the law to limit people's freedom when it isn't necessary to do so

Yes its all very well to say X Y Z shouldn't happen when its not something that would personally affect you but rights don't work like that. If you'd seen any civid threads and the number if people who thought there should be a legal mandate to have a vaccine was disturbing. Becyase the flip side is that if they can do it for one thing they can do it for some thing else and what if its something that does effect you next time.

The cost to having the rights to do what you want with your body. Have a tattoo or piercing or choose whether or not to take a medical treatment is, that someone else also has that right and may well choose something you disagree with. It doesn't just apply to things that randoms on the Internet agree with. It applies to everything. For every person who gets a stupid offensive tattoo on their face there will be many others who get something sensible/discreet or whatever. Its admirable to want to save everyone from themselves all the time
.God knows we have all needed it and may well do again. But we cant/shouldn't screw everyone else over in the process.

Would these rules about evaluation pre act include sex and subsequent pregnancies?
Now, that would benefit many

This.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Precisely. Well said.

I don’t have any tattoos but really do like some of the ones I see on others and can appreciate them for what they are -very clever body art. That’s not to say though that there aren’t others I see and think ‘more money than sense’ and wonder about the mindset of the person who has it and what it will look like in future years when body shape has changed, skin wrinkled and colour faded (if it does)

Facial tattoos are on another level again. I have never seen one that doesn’t make me think unfavourably about the person and feel a little scared. My problem I know, and perhaps not helped by the fact that I can’t help wondering what those born with facial disfigurements must feel when they see people who have chosen to intentionally disfigure their face in this way.

I have friends and some family members who have 2 or 3 body and limb tattoos, and I think that all of theirs look very pretty. But when I think back to my dear babies clear and beautiful skin, and now look at my delicious Grandbabies clear and beautiful skin, I wouldn't want anything marking their skin other than what nature intended.

Having said that, if they were to only have 2 or three colourful tattoos in quite indistinct places, and if they weren't huge, then I don't think that that would upset me. But the people who absolutely cover their skins with dark squiggles (that is all that they look like to me when they are squashed together, with maybe a smudge of dark red - once a rose or a heart? - or some other indistinguishable colour) look to me like they have just finished work down the coal mine, and are in need of a good soapy shower... People covered in tattoos also make me feel sorry for them, as I imagine that they are actually trying to hide from something, whether it is themselves, society, or even life in general.

As for facial tattoos, no, sorry, but they really should be banned. I have heard too many stories of people getting to hate their facial tattoos, some have apparently and tragically, even led to them killing themselves. Probably the best way to ban them would be a definite custodial sentence for whoever put the tattoo on the person's face, whether that was a qualified tattoo artist - they should also lose their licence - a friend, or the person themselves. If not a total ban, then I think that people wanting face tattoos should have to be at least 35 years of age, but preferably more like 50 or 60, before it would be allowed legally. Hopefully those at the later ages, might realise that their increasingly wrinkled skin is unlikely to enhance the look!

@MistressoftheDarkSide — this entire thread is about whether (facial) tattoos are something that should be restricted in availability to those who are (presumed to be) more able to think through the consequences of getting them. It's all about informed consent and capacity, which happens to be something we already have mechanisms for within healthcare.

Discussing theoretical mechanisms by which we as a society could, if we wanted to, restrict the availability of facial tattoos to those who can understand the consequences and have the capacity to choose them has absolutely nothing to do with your imagined implications about people who have tattoos. I personally don't have much of an opinion about tattoos per se, but I am interested in what responsibility, if any, society has towards its more vulnerable members and what we allow others to do to/for them if they ask.

All I did was hypothesise a potential mechanism via which getting tattoos could be subject to the same capacity/informed consent standards as body modifications carried out by medical personnel, without requiring all tattooists to train as nurses or something. It's far less authoritarian than banning everyone under 25 from having facial tattoos, and I didn't even advocate for it because I don't want to advocate for it — I don't have a solid position on body modification.

I just think it's an interesting area, where longlasting or permanent physical procedures are carried out on people under a different framework to most other procedures. I didn't say everyone with tats is a loony or mentally defective or whatever it is your persecution complex is telling you, any more than everyone getting a smear test is a mentally defective loony because the nurse is trained to make sure they understand and can consent to the procedure. And you're the one choosing the loaded language of "psych evaluations" to refer to a perfectly normal, commonplace part of getting any kind of physical procedures if it's from a healthcare professional.

@JarByTheDoor

Those mechanisms already exist and are practised by professional tattooists.

Fuck off with your persecution complex comment though.

Theorising about how much extra protection the vulnerable need in the context of body art is rather indulgent when mental health and vulnerability is ignored and underfunded in the general population without tattoos.