Discrimination - Hotels Banning People With Tattoos

Referring to me as a "tattooed cretin" isn't an ad hominem attack? Do you even read your own posts?!

I did read the article on the "study"...it does not seem to indicate that people with tattoos are dirtbags. Rather, it seems to indicate that dirtbags often have tattoos.

If you live to be 150, you will not do as much good as Tina does in three months. Even knowing what a judgmental twit you are, she would still save your life without hesitation.

 

Let's review...

My post...

Your response....

Now who made the conversation personal? Now who attacked whom? Who is being judgmental?
I made a general comment on tattoos, later backed up by a Sociological study which confirms that folks with multiple tattoos have a 10 fold increase in the likelihood of a criminal record. Never stating that all people with tattoos have a propensity towards crime, just that indeed there is a correlation between deviant behavior and multiple tattoos...

You then proceed to talk about this "fictitious" Tina person, who I do not know, and for all I know doesn't exist...then wishing my "fictitious" child should appear on a Tattoo magazine...and then espouse how this "fictitious" Tina person is so much better than I am in all ways...a regular Mother Teresa, saving lives...a tattooed Wonder Woman.

Yeah, I think Cretin pretty much applies to you....

A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins.

My hope is that you and "Tina" both take a long walk off a short pier.

do have a nice day...

 

Back to the original OP, why is it people are so upset with private businesses doing what they want to do? The hotel(s) could be making these rules for a number of reasons, all of which, to them, are perfectly valid. The market will determine whether or not it was a good business choice.

Is it discrimination? Yes. But is that necessarily a bad thing? What if a bar wanted to open up that specialized in tattoos and said you had to have and display at least one tattoo to enter? I would be just as OK with that as I am with the hotel. It is the people who will determine if that business decision was a wise one or not. The hotel may get such a bad rep from their discrimination that they have to shut their doors or reverse their policy. They could just as likely get MORE business from people who are happy to pay extra not to have to look at what they deem offensive.

I think the governments should stay out of the way of private businesses and let the market dictate what is good or "bad" behaviour. I am not talking about deregulation. I am talking about the government making arbitrary choices for business that it really has no right and / or business making. You see government sticking their nose in more and more using "the public good" as an excuse. It isn't about freedom; it is about slavery.

 

Study links tattoos to personality disorders
July, 2008

Read more...http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/07/study-links-tat.html

Tattoos don't cause the disorder, but those with it tend to gravitate towards getting tattoos...
hence this is why discriminating against the multiple "inked" is often valid.

 

lol, quite pathetic how some are so condescending over what other put on their bodies.

 

Typically if I see folks with multiple tattoos, entire arms covered, or the large tattoo in the small of the back that women are so fond of...I deduct about 30 IQ points from them...I'm rarely disappointed or proved wrong.

It's a free country last time I checked...that applies to both America and Australia...a person can walk into any tattoo shop and get inked...but if these tattoos are visible you're going to get both positive and negative views on that. Particularly among those of us 40 or older who grew up with the notion that tattoos were for sailors and criminals.

The hotels can choose a no visible tattoo policy if they want, it's their business...much like the Boy Scouts of America do not allow atheists in their organization. At least in America, policies like this have withstood legal scrutiny.

In Japan, the government bans tattooed people on beaches and many other public places because of the association tattooing has with the Japanese mafia....

The ancient Greeks and Romans looked about tattoos negatively also...typically tattoos are associated with pagan cultures...

Now in the Western World, the trend and fads have been to get all inked up...the "rebellious" soccer Mom getting a rose on her calf...regular folks trying to look more "sexy" and/or "cool"...to me it's pathetic, but to each their own. Having been in the military, I've seen my share of ink..but military officers and ink...do not mix.

There has always been, and will always be a negative connotation associated with tattoos and piercings by some people...some of it valid and some of it based on individual bias...

Though removing tattoos is expensive and even more painful than getting the actual tattoo, the business is thriving...because people are realizing that visible tattoos are keeping them from getting jobs.

 

These are unfair generalizations...

I know several very successful people with a bunch of tattoos...

I, myself, only have three, but, they haven't made me less intelligent, nor have they made me more prone to committing crimes...

Stereotypes don't do anybody any good...

 

Unfair or not, that's reality.

We're all judged on some level on our physical appearance. I'm overweight for example...people will look at me and within 15-30 seconds have an opinion on that.

Same applies to visible tattoos, people will look at that and within 15-30 seconds have an opinion on it.

We're judged all the time, by how we dress, how we comb our hair, whether we have facial hair...instantaneous judgements....

These judgements are based on eons of evolution wherein a creature had to decide whether to fight or flee based upon an assessment of danger...

To expect folks to "accept" tattoos and piercings as "normal" is what is ridiculous...
bias will always exist...this is not Utopia, this is reality and human beings are no different than any other of God's creatures...we make quick assessments of situations based upon preconceived and sub-conscious biases. I grew up with a negative association of tattoos....that is my personal bias...just because the younger generation has their fads and trends, does not mean I follow like a flock of sheep.

Check out the average prison population of inmates...typically covered in ink.

Does this mean that every person with a tattoo is a convict? NO...but there is often a core truth to bias...and that is that for many years, before the trend of tattooing caught on with "regular" folks...tattoos were for sailors and criminals. Decent folks would never consider getting inked.

 

Your post was completely rational until right here...

I'm a pretty decent person, and, like I said, I have tattoos...

You can't fit everyone into a neat little box...

 

People get tattoos for any number of reasons. Some reasons are good, some reasons are just silly. A sixteen year old running around with skulls and spiders is just silly, someone getting a tattoo for a deep felt idea or feeling is something else. I have a tattoo, I have a guitar pick shaped yin yang (drawn by my own hand, not from a generic book) surrounded by solar rays, not just because it is cool, but because music is a part of me. Music is my balance. My release. Music is how I handle the issues inside of my head. The rays represent the light given by such balance, light in a world that is dark... a world that is largely black.

I find your shallow and judgmental nature quite pathetic.

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Fallacy much?

Tattoos on "criminals" often differ from tattoos on Average Joe. I have worked with plenty of inmates, I have seen plenty of tattoos, they are far removed from an elk antler arm band.

 

I qualified my comment that this is how I was raised, and I'm 47. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I can recall a business associate of my Dads wearing a bandage to cover his tattoo whenever wearing short sleeve shirts. I would say this was in the mid-1970's. Tattoos were associated with a rougher element and in the business world a tattoo was a big no-no. Times change obviously and in the past 20 or so years, tattoos have gained a wider mainstream acceptance.

Nevertheless, getting inked was considered a rebellious act, counter-mainstream...not all that long ago. A visible tattoo was not met with widespread approval, because again this was associated with a rougher element.

I've never said that every person who sports a tattoo has a criminal record or is a n'er do well...just the bias against them has been ingrained for many years.

Younger folks, say under 40...have no clue as to prior cultural reference points...they think those who don't fully accept tattoos are "dinosaurs"...and the friction here is two-fold: it is the judgmental of the tattoos as well as the judgmental of another's cultural reference point.

I was raised viewing tattoos as a counter-culture statement, often associated with a criminal element and minimally, with the rougher elements of society....and this was reinforced even in my service career, I was told in no uncertain terms, that military officers and ink are not a good mix. Certainly in terms of visible tattoos.

 

I know lots of folks in the military with tats...

Myself included, although, like I said, I don't have many, but, that's me...

Though, of course, the visibility of said tattoos coupled with the amount that a person has is still an issue...

And being judgmental of folks with tattoos, simply because they have tattoos, is far different than being judgmental of an antiquated ideology that holds the idea that folks with tattoos are part of a "rough crowd..."

 

Among the enlisted, tattoos are commonplace, but among officers, well let's just say that a visible tattoo is strongly discouraged...in fact the military is now getting stricter rather than relaxing it's tattoo policies...and that's true for all the branches. Emphasis on visible tattoos, and the theme of the tattoo is also considered, even those hidden while in uniform.

To me ink showing while in uniform, looks unprofessional; but that's just me.

I've provided a couple articles, that indicate that a multiple tattooed person has a 10-fold increase in the likelihood of having a criminal record. The basis for a bias against "ink" has some validity. Whether it applies to the general population, probably not...but more often than not, a criminal element is attracted to the notion of getting inked. More often than not, someone with multiple visible tattoos has some sort of criminal history.

 

That's probably more or less because dumb ass criminals feel the need to try to bolster their image by getting tattoos...

Not because tattoos actually increase the likelihood that a person will commit crimes...

 

Yes, someone who gets "I love Mom" on their bicep and then being compelled to go out and rob a bank..would be incorrect.

However those with a propensity towards counter-mainstream, anti-authority types of behavior are also attracted to the idea of visible ink on their skin...kind of as a badge as it were.

A Dentist can also get a tattoo, I've never said otherwise....I think one article mentioned that the tipping point seems to be 4 or more tattoos.

Tattoos don't create the criminal history, just those with the personality to commit a crime are often attracted to the idea of extensive body art.

 

I'd think that article would have to be skewed...

I don't see any legitimate way one could prove that having 4 or more tattoos is directly correlated to a likelihood to commit crime...

I think that's more or less due to an antiquated mindset, very akin to people who clutch their purses or cross to the other side of the road when they see someone that looks different than they do...

 

If the hotel is a privately owned entity, who is big brother to tell them what they can do? If a hotel wants to ban smokers, tattoos, and drugs, they should be allowed to. But also suffer the consequences of it.

 

I think the link is more in the personality type that decides to get 4 or more tattoos...
Impulsive?

Is that the proper word?

Crime is often an impulsive act.

 

Some people have multiple that all or most mean something specific...

Impulsive behavior is not necessarily the case, nor is getting an impulsive tattoo similar to impulsively committing a crime...

 

C'mon, the vast majority of tattoed folks don't think 20-30 years in the future and think about how ink fades...how skin sags...how our bodies change...they get the tattoo based on how at looks at the moment. It's "cool" in the moment...

It's an impulsive act.

That is not to say the non-tattooed are non-impulsive.

I actually gave brief consideration to getting a tattoo of my Dad's infantry unit on my shoulder as a memorial to his passing..but I decided memories are just as valid if they are internalized. Ink does not validate a memory anymore than a photo or other momento.

Ink is permanent for the most part.

Fads change, trends change...

I figured plain old skin, is what I was born with, and it's what I'll die with.

Most "normal" folks who get tattoos do so because it seemed cool at the time.

Imagine some 80 year old woman in a senior home with a fading tattoo in the small of her back...
Dude it ain't sexy any more, and I don't care if it's Rihanna or Megan Fox....we all get old and lose virility...tattoos start to look ridiculous at some point.

 

I got my kids names tattooed on both of my forearms...

Not impulsive at all...

Not because it seemed cool...

Sure, when I get old, my skin will probably sag, and the appearance of my tattoos will change, but, those will my kids forever...

Is it fair to stereotype me for the fact that I have my kids names on my arms?

 

Are you afraid at some point you'll forget their names?

Whatever happened to keeping a family photo in your wallet?

To each their own, you like an ink memorial of your children, and that's fine...guessing that they don't violate Air Force regs..and I'm fine with it.

I'm not the one with the hotel banning patrons with uncovered tattoos, to me that's a bit extreme...I'm only defending the notion that indeed certain "riff-raff" sport tattoos with offensive themes...they do so to get a shock from folks and then are surprised when folks are offended?

I wouldn't think a child's name would offend anyone nor would I think that qualifies you as "riff-raff."

Let's just say, ink is not for me...I'm not calling for government intervention as Japan has done, it's just something I normally associate negative things with.

 

Of course I wouldn't forget their names, and I also carry pics with me...

I'm extraordinarily proud of my kids...

And, of course, they're within regs...

I'm just not a huge tattoo hound, though I don't mind people that have quite a few...

I do like getting them though, and, I'll probably get more later...

Now, of course an offensive tattoo would earn you the side-eye, but, one would be stupid to not expect that...

But, I was under the impression that all tattoos were the subject, not just offensive ones...

Now, if you had just said "ink is not for me" and that was it, then, there wouldn't be any discussion, as we are all entitled to our own opinion...

But, the implication that there is some link between tattoos and any criminal element, other than those that are done for the purpose of identifying oneself with a criminal element, is highly suspect, to say the least...

 

Well, not really...really.

Little pun there.

The topic is considering why a hotel would ban patrons with uncovered tattoos. The defense of the hotel is that tattoos are associated with a bad element. I went on to provide a few studies that indicate that indeed at some point, 4+ tattoos...those with multiple tattoos also have a 10-times greater likelihood of having a criminal record.

Coincidence? or indeed do those who seek out many visible tattoos and/or piercings, also have a predilection for criminal activities.

The statistics themselves seem valid enough, to indicate there is a basis in truth to some who have tattoos...to also be regarded with suspicion.

What this equates to is profiling by tattoos. I can understand why some folks find that objectionable, yet as with any profiling, there is a basis in trurth that warrants
consideration. Of course for those being profiled, it's probably not a positive experience. You have tattoos, and I understand your point of view looking upon being judged and profiled because of it...with no other considerations as to your character...strictly a physical profile..

Uncovered tattoo(s) = bad guy

Ok..uncovered tattoo...we don't want your business. Yes, I understand why that might offend you and others who find this as discriminatory, but I also see the point of view of the hotel/business owners.