Friend's Friend's 1 Year Old Nephew Given Tattoo [Archive]

Greenday

05-22-2009, 02:07 PM

Wasn't sure where to put this, but I guess clash of cultures fits best.

I was sitting at work, doing my thing, and I decided it had been too long (a couple minutes) since I last checked facebook. I saw that one of my friends wrote on my wall. Here's the conversation that followed:

Friend "btw, my friends nephew just turned 1 and he has the same tatoo as you lol"
Me "Your one year old newphew has a tattoo?"
Friend "nooo...my friends nephew...but its on his right arm lol"
Me "Your friend's 1 year old nephew has a tattoo?"
Friend "yeah..."
Me "Why?"

Then she sent me a picture of the baby's tattoo. I'm not posting it because it's not a friend of mine, nor is it a relative so I don't feel it's right for me to post pictures of some random person's kid like that. But the baby does clearly have a heart that says MOM on it. Now I'm hoping this is either A.) a joke or B.) a fake tattoo. In the pic it's kinda shiney so either it's brand new or it's fake.

But if it's real, am I the only one who sees a problem with this? (I have a feeling I already know the answer to this, but I'm curious as to if there is anyone that thinks it's ok and finding out why)

Edit: Now that I'm thinking about it, even if it's not real, I still wouldn't be surprised to see it actually happen. I've seen pictures of toddlers in the news that have faces with more metal from piercings than skin. I guess that'd go on here too.

AdminAssistant

05-22-2009, 03:08 PM

I don't think any body mod should be done to a child until he or she is old enough to give consent. I didn't get my ears pierced until I was 5, and even then it was a big discussion with Mom. (I had it done for Kindergarten Graduation).

Boozy

05-22-2009, 03:47 PM

I'm against tattooing infants for the obvious reasons, but here's something else that Moron Mom and Moron Dad didn't consider: That tattoo is going to become incredibly deformed as the child grows. The kid's likely to have an unrecognizable blob on his arm within a year or two.

Edited to add: The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to believe that it was a fake tattoo. I can't imagine a tattoo artist actually agreeing to such a thing.

smileyeagle1021

05-22-2009, 04:05 PM

Edited to add: The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to believe that it was a fake tattoo. I can't imagine a tattoo artist actually agreeing to such a thing.

I'm going to go with Boozy on this one... I really doubt any legit tattoo parlor is going to give a 1 year old a tattoo. They aren't stupid... they know that it will deform beyond recognition before the kid is even old enough to know what it is... that aside, my understanding is that tattooing can be painful, doing that to a child who is not old enough to consent could easily be construed as child abuse.

Greenday

05-22-2009, 04:50 PM

I talked to my friend and she said that it is real and he just got it.

I'm going to have to agree and say it's pretty much child abuse.

DesignFox

05-22-2009, 05:22 PM

I am far too shocked for words.

I really hope your friends are playing a sick joke on everyone....I am in total disbelief.

kiwi

05-22-2009, 05:24 PM

Is there anyway you can crop everything but the tattoo out of the photo?

without seeing it (and even then) I think someone is yanking your chain

Greenday

05-22-2009, 05:30 PM

When I get home in about an hour, I'll crop it down and post it. But while at work, I prefer not to save pictures on my computer, especially if it's a 1 year old with no shirt on. I don't want to take any chances. The government is really strict about that kind of stuff.

DesignFox

05-22-2009, 05:50 PM

Yea, honestly, unless they drugged the kid, any 1 year old I've ever dealt with wouldn't sit still long enough to get a real tattoo...... and then I'm sure the discomfort, the noise, etc. would drive the poor thing to hysterics...

I can't see how it's possible, let alone anything else.

If it is real, shame on those parents. I guess there's a first time for everything...

Greenday

05-22-2009, 05:54 PM

Don't you guys remember that story that was on CS about how some kid kept pissing the dog off and the mother wouldn't stop him, so finally the dog fought back? Remember that kid? LOADED with piercings all over his face. How is that any different? It's stuff like that that makes me able to believe my friend.

DesignFox

05-22-2009, 06:05 PM

Ugh. you do have a point there Greenday...

lordlundar

05-22-2009, 06:31 PM

I honestly can't think of a better example of my point of view on tattoos. (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=19575&postcount=4)

Greenday

05-22-2009, 07:45 PM

Picture is off my facebook wall. I can't find it. But I thought about other reasons it could be shiney and the obvious hit me. When you first get a tattoo, you have to rub lotion on it all the time. So that'd make it shiney.

the_std

05-22-2009, 08:19 PM

I'm not doubting you, Greenday, but I have a very hard time believing that these people were dense enough to get their one-year old tattooed, if only for the fact that children grow, tattoos do not.

I really, really hope that you're being yanked.

(PS. You can check back through older Wall posts with a little button at the bottom of it.)

Greenday

05-22-2009, 08:23 PM

Not if the person who posted it deletes it.

I'm talking to her on AIM, and she just admitted she made it up.

But this thread can still go on. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if people did do it. But the issue still involves piercings with young kids and we know it happens. We've seen it happens. I know people who had their ears pierced when they were only a month old.

DesignFox

05-22-2009, 08:29 PM

Well, I'm relieved at least that the story was fake.

But I tend to agree with everyone here that you shouldn't give your kid a body mod until they are old enough to consent.

I knew many young girls who had their ears pierced when they were infants, though. My Dad wouldn't let my Mom take me to get my ears pierced until I was 10. Even then, he wasn't too happy about it, but he was ok with it because at least I had a choice in the matter.

Sylvia727

05-23-2009, 12:51 AM

All of the females in my extended family had their ears pierced as an infant. My cousin, myself, and my sister all had our earlobes double-pierced for our sweet sixteens. Assuming my future co-parent's family isn't of a radically climate, I will probably pierce my infant daughters' ears. Because in my family and in our localized subculture, pierced ears are normal, and unpierced ears would make my daughter the weirdo of the family. I know my siblings and cousins will be piercing their daughters' ears. I don't think it will do her/them much, if any, harm and continuing our family traditions and participating in our family's culture will do her/them a lot of good.

However, as far as mainstream culture goes, the child's informed consent is essential, and a child simply isn't able to give consent until a certain age. Ear piercings are relatively unobstructive and can heal over. Even in mainstream culture, a female with single pierced earlobes isn't going to draw second looks. But tattoos? I can't imagine any way of justifying that. Even without the deformity issue, a tattoo is something obvious. No parent should do that.

IDrinkaRum

05-23-2009, 12:57 AM

I was 17 when I got my ears pierced. I am the only girl in my family with pierced ears. You'd think I had consorted with the Devil himself in full view of the Pope while wearing absolutely nothing on Easter Sunday if you talked to my mom about it! :rolleyes:

I made my own decision about the piercing. I also found out that I'm allergic to nickel. *le sigh* Oh well.

But yeah, my daughter isn't getting her ears pierced until she can tell me that she wants them pierced. She's seen the holes in my ears, and she thinks my ears have been hurt so I don't think she understands the concept yet.

the_std

05-23-2009, 03:35 AM

In the tone of this thread, here is an article about ridiculous baby products (http://www.cracked.com/article_16475_20-baby-products-great-traumatizing-infants.html) and, if you go to the second page, voila. Baby tattoos.

AFPheonix

05-23-2009, 04:13 AM

Rubystars

06-16-2009, 04:13 AM

I did see a child with a genuine tattoo once on the back of his neck. He looked like he was around 11 or 12 years old. I think his family was from Mexico, so the laws might be different there.

lovlybones

06-29-2009, 04:42 PM

here is a situation where a kid was forced to get a tatoo...and the parent will face charges for it

Police in Fresno, Calif., said April 22 they were searching for Enrique Gonzalez. He is accused of holding down his 7-year-old son while another man tattooed a dog paw on the child's belly. The paw is a symbol of the Bulldogs, Fresno's largest street gang. (Aol.com parent criminal cases)

AFPheonix

06-29-2009, 10:20 PM

You have to be 18 in order to get a tattoo in Oregon regardless of parental consent. I suspect other states may have similar statutes as well.

Having said that, home scratchers are still complete idiots (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12380269?source=most_viewed) and do occasionally disregard laws that keep kids from getting tattooed, even if they don't want them.

here is a situation where a kid was forced to get a tatoo...and the parent will face charges for it

Police in Fresno, Calif., said April 22 they were searching for Enrique Gonzalez. He is accused of holding down his 7-year-old son while another man tattooed a dog paw on the child's belly. The paw is a symbol of the Bulldogs, Fresno's largest street gang. (Aol.com parent criminal cases)

Already posted about that.

lovlybones

06-30-2009, 03:21 AM

ehh....so sorry :p

anriana

07-10-2009, 05:26 AM

But this thread can still go on. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if people did do it. But the issue still involves piercings with young kids and we know it happens. We've seen it happens. I know people who had their ears pierced when they were only a month old.

That's different; it's so everyone will know the genderless blob is FEMALE and treat it accordingly.

Lady_Foxfire

07-12-2009, 12:43 AM

AdminAssistant

07-12-2009, 04:32 AM

That's different; it's so everyone will know the genderless blob is FEMALE and treat it accordingly.

Then tape a pink bow on her head and put her in a pink frilly dress. That should remove all doubt.

BroomJockey

07-12-2009, 04:38 AM

Then tape a pink bow

I dunno what kind of tape you use, but in my experience, it comes in two types:

1) Won't stick to skin for more than 5 minutes.
2) removes skin when taken off.

Which is why I vote for staples ;)

Flyndaran

07-12-2009, 06:15 AM

anriana

07-12-2009, 08:52 PM

I don't have a problem with having your baby's ears pierced, even though I wouldn't do it myself. Ear piercings are overwhelmingly common, relatively painless, uncontroversial (for the most part), can be adjusted easily to match the person's style (when they get old enough to have their own style), and can be allowed to heal over if the person doesn't want pierced ears.

Tattoos are none of these things.

Maybe earring holes scar over if you remove them within a certain timeframe. I had my lobes pierced as an infant then added one more at 13 and one at 16. When I stopped wearing earrings from ~17-19, the holes I got at 13 and 16 closed up completely but were still visible at a distance. The ones I got as an infant never closed up (when I started wearing earrings again they slid right in) and were just as visible the entire time.

Greenday

07-12-2009, 09:48 PM

I don't have a problem with having your baby's ears pierced, even though I wouldn't do it myself. Ear piercings are overwhelmingly common, relatively painless, uncontroversial (for the most part), can be adjusted easily to match the person's style (when they get old enough to have their own style), and can be allowed to heal over if the person doesn't want pierced ears.

Tattoos are none of these things.

Wait, tattoos aren't overwhelmingly common these days? Honestly, when I got mine done, it wasn't that painful. Heck, after a couple minutes, you barely notice. I just sat there and watched Cribs while the guy did it. Most aren't controversial. You can get rid of it if you want to.

Which one do tattoos not apply to again?

DesignFox

07-12-2009, 11:38 PM

Wait, tattoos aren't overwhelmingly common these days? Honestly, when I got mine done, it wasn't that painful. Heck, after a couple minutes, you barely notice. I just sat there and watched Cribs while the guy did it. Most aren't controversial. You can get rid of it if you want to.

Which one do tattoos not apply to again?

Tattoos are not easily change-able. They are costly to remove and they do not 100% disappear.

You can choose not to wear earrings and the holes will very likely close over. You can change what type of earrings you are wearing very easily to match your dress.

While I agree a lot of the stigma attached to having a tattoo has disappeared, this is not true in all parts of the country/world.

There are few areas of the planet that condemn or judge women if they have their ears pierced- it's pretty standard practice. In fact, I'd say it's hard for me to name a woman friend who doesn't have her ears pierced.

Lady_Foxfire

07-13-2009, 07:51 PM

Wait, tattoos aren't overwhelmingly common these days? Honestly, when I got mine done, it wasn't that painful. Heck, after a couple minutes, you barely notice. I just sat there and watched Cribs while the guy did it. Most aren't controversial. You can get rid of it if you want to.

Which one do tattoos not apply to again?

When I said "overwhelmingly common", I meant that almost every female over the age of 16 has pierced ears. Tattoos aren't exactly rare, but they're not practically universal, either.

Getting a tattoo is far more painful than getting your ears pierced, especially if you are a small child who doesn't understand what's happening.

Tattoos may not be controversial in the areas or with the people that you're used to, but a lot of companies won't hire people with visible tattoos because many people do judge people by their tattoos. I'm not saying it's right, but it's true.

Tattoos are not easily removed at all. Yes, you can get laser treatment, but it's expensive, painful, and not completely effective.

IDrinkaRum

07-13-2009, 09:21 PM

Then tape a pink bow on her head and put her in a pink frilly dress. That should remove all doubt.

Nope, doesn't work.

I took Child Rum to physical therapy when she was about 9 months old (for her shoulder that needed to be readjusted and such).

I had her decked out from head to toe pink. She was born with hair and I put one of those headbands for infants on her head. It was pink. Pink little sweat pants, pink matching shirt, pink socks. Pink coat. Pink, pink, and more pink!

The couple sitting next to me asked if she was a boy or a girl. :rolleyes:

BroomJockey

07-13-2009, 09:28 PM

The couple sitting next to me asked if she was a boy or a girl. :rolleyes:

Maybe... they... were... colour...blind? Err. No. They don't like to assume? No... aHA! They were dumb! :D

DesignFox

07-13-2009, 10:26 PM

<snip>
I had her decked out from head to toe pink. She was born with hair and I put one of those headbands for infants on her head. It was pink. Pink little sweat pants, pink matching shirt, pink socks. Pink coat. Pink, pink, and more pink!

The couple sitting next to me asked if she was a boy or a girl. :rolleyes:

So, only girls are allowed to wear pink, now? :p

I'm kidding!

Although it could open up a can of worms about color and gender role assignment...maybe this couple was trying to think progressively?

And then of course there's all the metro guys who wear all sorts of traditionally "girlie" colors...

(I'd assume a baby in any overly frilly outfit, especially if it were pink, was a girl..I mean, duh!)

Even if you're color blind, I think it's safe to assume that a boy would not be dressed in frills and bows...could be a good way to mess with people though. :D

Flyndaran

07-13-2009, 11:46 PM

My girlfriend has hated pink with a passion as hot as a thousand suns since her birth. Any toy colored pink would get tossed onto her local freeway to get crushed by passing semis.
I, male, was born loving pink.

IoRamona

07-19-2009, 02:49 AM

When my brother was a baby he was often dressed in hand-me-downs from when I was little, some of them were pink. He was often mistaken for a girl. :p

Lace Neil Singer

07-19-2009, 10:57 AM

As a child I often wore my older brother's handmedowns. I hated frills and girly stuff like dolls; if given dolls, they'd be destroyed in a variety of different ways. My fave toys were a cuddly frog and a plastic Triceratops.

However, I never was mistaken for a boy. Not sure why; then again, I had hair down to my butt for ages, and often had it in plaits.

Flyndaran

07-19-2009, 07:59 PM

My dad made sure all of use boys got dolls. He didn't want to force over-masculinization like his father did. The dolls also gave me a reason to play with the neighbor girls. :)

AdminAssistant

07-20-2009, 03:47 AM

My dad made sure all of use boys got dolls. He didn't want to force over-masculinization like his father did. The dolls also gave me a reason to play with the neighbor girls. :)

And Dad made sure my sister and me had all the tractors, trucks, and cars any little girl could ask for. :) I wanted a tractor big enough my Barbies could ride in it, but alas..... Hey, that's an idea Mattel! Anyway...

And Mom has oft regaled me with stories of what a time she had with me as a baby, since I didn't have much hair to speak of for a couple of years. It was so fine that bows and barrettes wouldn't stay...so she just used headbands or taped bows to my head for pictures. Of course, I was one of those wonderful children who preferred to not wear any clothes, so there ya go.

Shangri-laschild

07-24-2009, 06:34 PM

The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to believe that it was a fake tattoo. I can't imagine a tattoo artist actually agreeing to such a thing.

While in this specific case we know it's a fake, as far as the general subject goes...not everyone gets tattoos done in parlors. There are people who get their own tattoo kits and then will proceed to tattoo themselves or any friends who ask or are willing. I've known plenty of people who have gotten tattoos like that or from people who used to be tattoo artists or who still are but only follow certain standards while in their shop. It would not be impossible, nor really hard, to get a tattoo done even if it's something like this. I'm not saying it's a safe or quality way to get a tattoo done, just that it's very possible.

Boozy

07-24-2009, 09:48 PM

I hadn't really thought of that. Of course someone could find an amateur tattoo artist with no affiliation to a licensed parlour.

But I still don't see this happening in reality. Child cruelty aside, I'd think someone would say "Hey, this kid's still growing...."

Nyoibo

07-25-2009, 07:50 AM

Didn't a guy get charged with getting his kid tatooed with gang symboly not that long ago?

Flyndaran

07-25-2009, 03:45 PM

...
But I still don't see this happening in reality. Child cruelty aside, I'd think someone would say "Hey, this kid's still growing...."

You could say nearly the same thing aboud adults.
To paraphrase a comic.
It started out as a lovely unicorn on the breast, and years later it's now a giraffe with a bump on its head.