# Tattoo Thread - including current policy [MERGED]



## Thaedes (25 Jun 2003)

Just curious what your guys opinion on this is?  

I‘m thinking, that when I do make it fully past my MOC I‘ll get a tat of "Ducimus" across my shoulder blades.  

I have a friend who got a small tat (at basic) right above his boxers across his naval saying "I am" - you can imagine where the Canadian is at I‘m sure. 

I figure I‘ll have the tat on my back to let the REMF‘s know their role while I‘m out pacing them on any ex‘s      :evil:    :mg:  

Take it easy guys!


----------



## combat_medic (25 Jun 2003)

Thaedes; please, for the love of god, wait to get a tattoo. Wait to find something that means something to you, and isn‘t just the first slogan that comes to your mind. Get a few years in, and if there‘s something significant you want to commemorate, by all means go ahead, but wait to find that something.


----------



## Thaedes (25 Jun 2003)

Naturally.  Like I said, I plan to at least wait until I‘ve finished basic and 031 MOC.  

It already means something to me, and successfully making it into Infantry will be a milestone in my life.

I plan to get more then just that as well.  To make it even more memorable and worthwhile.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (25 Jun 2003)

Think ahead. Without going into detail,you may have opportunities further down the road that require you not to have any distinguishing markings on your body.
Just a thought for you.


----------



## Thaedes (25 Jun 2003)

Hey good point Old School.  Though I doubt I‘d ever get into JTF2 or anything that interesting, it‘d sure be nice to try anyways.

Maybe I‘ll just get a cool sure with that on the back, lol.


----------



## D-n-A (26 Jun 2003)

awhile ago, I saw a Reg Force Arty guy, he was covered in tattoos, arms, neck
probly more in other spots, but that was all that was visible


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2003)

3 of us got tattoos to celebrate the passing of our CLC. I got a Taz, one friend got a tiger, and the ding dong got a Tweety bird lol. A buddy nonetheless. (In case he‘s lurking)   :dontpanic:


----------



## Korus (26 Jun 2003)

Actually, Thaedes, if you do a search of the forums, there was a good discussion about this exact topic a while back.


----------



## Thaedes (26 Jun 2003)

Yeah Robert, somehow I doubt that.  Call me crazy, but I‘ve seen my fair share of guys who‘ve done more then their fair share of trials and other such tribulations, with a few scars to remind them - not to mention a few tats here and there.  Don‘t knock peoples personal choices cause you like being clean of the ink.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Jun 2003)

I don‘t know many folks who‘re in the forces, but I do know alot people with tatoos. Usually, they‘ll say something along the lines of "Wait a year before you get it, and start small!!"


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (26 Jun 2003)

So whats the meaning of the spider web on the elbow?


----------



## sgtdixon (26 Jun 2003)

Windwolf will Correct me if im wrong on this one but I think that All Canadian Snipers have a Spider web on their elbows and that each fly is a "kill" but i may be wrong. Windwolf?


----------



## Deleted member 585 (26 Jun 2003)

The pigment in tatoo ink is not retained well in scar tissue...


----------



## WINDWOLF (26 Jun 2003)

Some yanks do that,but in my time you just
kept it to yourself.Things may have changed
since 87 though Dixon.
Tattos for your kills is a poor way to show
how tough you are considering most targets
do not have a chance against you anyways,
unless you overshoot.

There is not enough
booze in the world to get me into a parlor.
I have no tattos,just scars.
Hard enought explaining them to people.

Other units have snipers not just Pats & they may
have diff traditions.


----------



## D-n-A (26 Jun 2003)

if you want a tattoo, like combat_medic said, really think about it and make sure it has meaning, an that you want it for the rest of your life, if you hate it after awhile, it‘s very expensive to get them removed


----------



## Doug VT (26 Jun 2003)

The spider web on the elbow is gay and I personally don‘t know of any sniper with that tatoo.  In fact, I can‘t think of any tatoo that I‘ve ever seen on a sniper.  You shouldn‘t get an army tatoo, I see too many nowadays, new guys getting them before they‘re even in.  They‘ll regret it down the road.  I don‘t have any tatoos, not even my wings. I know I‘m a paratrooper, I don‘t have to advertise...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Jun 2003)

I think the next person to use the term "pickley" should be banned from this site.  They are Patricias.

When I got my tattoo, only soldiers, sailors and bikers had them.  It was a mark of distinction, and in my regiment, a Scottish thistle on the left leg was part of the uniform.  Today it‘s a colossal joke, and every dumbass with 100 dollars burning a hole in his pants runs out to get Woody Woodpecker on his back or something equally retarded and revolting.  Even worse, females feel the need to join the rest of the crowd by getting equally revolvting "artwork" on their bodies.

I don‘t regret that I got mine, I just regret that the rest of the wannabes in the world felt the need to go out and turn what was once a rite of passage into what now passes as yesterday‘s high school fad.

Thanks, losers.


----------



## Gunnar (27 Jun 2003)

I think the next guy to use the term "budding teenage sexuality" should be banned from this site.    

Then, we can all beat on him.

I‘ve noticed a disturbing tendency on this board to threaten people, either with physical violence (yeah, fly across Canada, find out who owns the handle, and personally pick a fight with someone over some dumba$$ thing they said on a public forum) or with removal from the board.  

C‘mon, it‘s discussion group, really.  A discussion group with people you might not otherwise have any reason to meet, or even discuss the time of day.  You‘re gonna meet people you don‘t like, and you‘re gonna hear things you don‘t like.  It‘s kinda hard to hold a "virtual blanket party", so in the meantime, perhaps we could all just shut up and soldier...?

Not to pick on you personally Mike, there are others who are far more deserving of my ire.  Not that what I think matters spit to people I‘ve never met...

Oh, and for the uninitiated, what‘s wrong with Pickley?  I‘ve heard the term before, so obviously it‘s in use.  Is it perjorative in some way?  Sounds like merely a pronunciation of PPCLI.

Now, if the subject of chickens were to come up, THAT might be perjorative...


----------



## Marauder (27 Jun 2003)

For all you older than dirt types, where did the chicken thing start? I have heard there was one cold night in Cypress where a Royal was caught, erhm, in flagrente delecto.....
And I learned never to ask a Van Doo about the goat, only time I was ever shaken up after getting jacked up for a straight half hour. That guy was *VERY* unhappy...


----------



## Gunnar (27 Jun 2003)

I think the story has been around a long, long time.  I heard it from Germany.      Now, as far as the *suggested* behaviour involving a chicken, I would think that extremely unlikely.  But the presence of livestock with a soldier, where gambling is rife, in areas where the locals might want to barter for stuff, where soldiers are eating Imitation Meat Packs or Meals Rejected by Ethiopians suggests "food" to me...

I wonder if there‘s a military version of the Urban Legends site...


----------



## TuRkIsH (25 Oct 2003)

I‘ve looked though the faq for recruiting and all and can‘t seem to find anything on tattoos.  I have probably more tattoos then your average joe, is this allowed or do they even care about them in the army? And yes some are visible even with a jacket and long sleeve shirt on.      :fifty:


----------



## mattoigta (25 Oct 2003)

i think as long as they arent offensive then its ok


----------



## Andrew_Power (25 Oct 2003)

Canada sucks in big letters red and white letters on some guys *** ...lol...now thats offensive


----------



## TuRkIsH (25 Oct 2003)

hahahha i wouldn‘t think twice to punch that fool in the face if i saw that haha.  Yea nothing that would offend anyone on me so great, thx for the input fellas


----------



## Bringer (25 Oct 2003)

One of the guys in my BRT Platoon has over 30 tattoos, so it shouldn‘t be an issue at all.

Most of his are hidden, but he has a bunch on his wrists and forearms.


----------



## Garry (25 Oct 2003)

No tattoos on face or hands.

Not sure what they‘d do if you had them prior to joining, figure it‘s a moot point. 

Don‘t bring it up at the recruiter!

PS- if you are in the habit of punching people for views you don‘t like, I‘d avoid the combat arms...it‘s gonna hurt!

Cheers-Garry


----------



## McInnes (26 Oct 2003)

They have a big book full of tatoos that you can and cannot have. You are not even technically aloud to have a maple leaf on your shoulder as some gang in the east apparently had a maple leaf as their symbol. Hopefully they‘re lenient, and yes,dont mention it.


----------



## D-n-A (27 Oct 2003)

> No tattoos on face or hands.


I‘ve seen a WO with a tattoo on his hand


----------



## combat_medic (27 Oct 2003)

Some of the regulations are newer; while you may find many people who have been in for a while who are in violation, these are recruiting regulations. In other words, you can‘t get in with some of these particular tattoos, but if you have them already before the ban was put in place, you can stay in without being forced to have them removed.


----------



## Edgecrusher (27 Oct 2003)

Do you get fined for getting tattoos?


----------



## McInnes (27 Oct 2003)

I dont know, it‘s a violation however. Summary trial I guess.


----------



## MG34 (27 Oct 2003)

The only restrictions against NEW tattooes while serving is that they cannot be above the neck line and not racist or otherwise offensive.I would imagine a charge and fine/extra duties would be the extent of the punishment for those who break this stupid regulation of tats above the neck line.


----------



## TuRkIsH (27 Oct 2003)

Really cause i have one above the neck line already, so i‘m on unelagable to join or?


----------



## Skull (29 Oct 2003)

Do you think that some JTF-2 operators have tattoos?  Do you think it is accepted?


----------



## mattoigta (29 Oct 2003)

you are NOT permitted to have tattoos in the JTF2


----------



## Skull (29 Oct 2003)

Ok. were did you get that information? So if they see you have a tattoo...dont even think about trying out ?


----------



## MG34 (29 Oct 2003)

There are no restrictions on tats for JTF period end of story provided like the rest of the CF they are not rasist.
 People read the fing posts,if you have a tat above the neck line already you are good to go,if you get a NEW one abve the neck line you are open to administrative or disclipinary action.


----------



## chriscalow (3 Nov 2003)

i got jump wings half way down my arms.  how much flak can I expect?  I did the course in 02 as an army cadet.


----------



## RmeDave (3 Nov 2003)

I see no problem with you joining with numerouse tattoos, my good friend has 33 and they are in good taste and he has not run into any problems.
As for no tattoos on your hand I dont know about that I just got a Maple Leaf tattoo‘d on my left hand and no one said anything to me about it.
I would recommend if you are still unsure to visit your local recruiting office and let thme have a look at what you got, they should help you out.
David
VVV


----------



## groenanthony (22 Mar 2004)

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could send me there army tattoos? I have seen a lot of USMC, and other ameican tattoos, but I havent seen any Canadian Army Tattoos. So if anyone can tell me a site or -email me pics that would be greatly appriciated


----------



## combat_medic (2 Apr 2004)

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, so is getting moved to off topic.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2004)

I bet this in the wrong forum so I assume it will be moved accordingly.  Anyhoo, just got an email today and it basically said that in addition to no vulger, crude etc tats, as of Apri 1 2004 no new tats of any kind will be allowed around the neck, ear area.  They can‘t be viewed with an open collared shirt polo type shirt.  There was no mention of the arm area though.  The CANFORGEN will follow soon.


----------



## scm77 (29 Apr 2004)

****, I won‘t be able to get that ear tattoo I was hoping for.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2004)

Also piercings as per standing orders.  I have seen some guys with tribal art that creeps out there cmbt neck collar.  You will be required to get laser surgery to get it removed after Apr 1 2004.


----------



## jonsey (29 Apr 2004)

What happens if you get CADPAT tatooed on you?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Apr 2004)

This could probably be challenged.  I am all for this ruling, but it isn‘t fair to apply a standard now and demand costly surgery to have artwork removed if the standard wasn‘t enforced in the past - is it?


----------



## atticus (29 Apr 2004)

This sounds the same as the UK‘s rules about no tatoos on the neck or face area. Does it say anything about excessive tattoos on other areas like arms, chest or back?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2004)

Micheal Dorosh:  Grandfather clause.  "Shrug"
Nothing on the arms but if the tats on the back or chest can be seen with an open collared shirt then then no.


----------



## atticus (29 Apr 2004)

Do you mean nothing allowed to be on the arms or do you mean it says nothing about tats on the arms???


----------



## chrisf (29 Apr 2004)

I can‘t see that they‘d expect you to remove existing tatoos... though I don‘t see anything wrong with banning neck tatoos...


----------



## rrr965 (29 Apr 2004)

Atticus: tattoos on the arms are fine as long as they are apropriate and don‘t contain nudity or profanity.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Apr 2004)

They would if you are an active member and was told about the policy which came into effect Apr 1/04


----------



## Slumsofsackville (30 Apr 2004)

pffff, I was going to get a tattoo on my neck this summer   

Meh Still getting my sleeves done.


----------



## atticus (30 Apr 2004)

okay, thanks for clearing that up for me, rocky_infanteer.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Apr 2004)

Well if you weren‘t officially told...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Apr 2004)

I bet it wouldn‘t be a big deal if you were partime either.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (30 Apr 2004)

kool.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (30 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] Also piercings as per standing orders.  I have seen some guys with tribal art that creeps out there cmbt neck collar.  You will be required to get laser surgery to get it removed after Apr 1 2004. [/qb]


From what i have been told Removal is not required unless its extremely vulgar. If its on the arm or an area that can be covered it will be and that if you have a tattoo in those areas before the date you are ok.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (30 Apr 2004)

What About Piercings? Well No Visable Ones? Nipple, Tounge ETC Are they Going make us Remove them?


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Apr 2004)

Hey how about that Price Albert?

In the ADF, piercings on say the nipps, belly buttons, etc must be removed whilst on duty.

Do I have a piercing? HELLL No, but I do have tatts. Three of em, right upper arm, over my heart, and on my back.

Yes my GF hates em! The worst one pain wise was the on on my shoulder blade. Thats was a shocker!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Tpr.Orange (30 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Robert KM:
> [qb] What About Piercings? Well No Visable Ones? Nipple, Tounge ETC Are they Going make us Remove them? [/qb]


If you are a male all earings, and other piercings should have been removed while in uniform.

Females 1 small silver or pearl stud in each ear. That is all


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Apr 2004)

Its not prohibted...you just can‘t wear it on DND property.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 Apr 2004)

I just got that in the O-group yesterday.. you may wear your body piercings on base IF you live on base and are on your way off the base to town. That‘s the only permissible time.

Bzz


----------



## Slumsofsackville (30 Apr 2004)

Guess i‘ll Be going down town alot.


----------



## scm77 (30 Apr 2004)

No man should have body piercings.  Except maybe those gay biker leather guys in San Francisco.  Other then that it should be an international rule.


----------



## combat_medic (30 Apr 2004)

Honestly guys, if you have a PA piercing, do you think anyone is going to check? I know plenty of men and women in the forces who have body piercings below the neck. They certainly aren‘t going to strip you naked to check, but if there‘s a problem with it and it gets infected and you need to go to the MIR, you could get in crap for it then.

But yes, all body piercings are verboten. Women can have a single earring in each ear, and that‘s it. Men are not "supposed" to have any holes in their body that they weren‘t born with.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (30 Apr 2004)

Hmmm Ive had Visable peircings For About A year Now, But I Dont wear Them On duty. 

MAN Im too much of a Civvy Then Military (KICK ME)
Guess I‘l lSee what Trouble I can get into.


----------



## D-n-A (30 Apr 2004)

Question on the piercings, are you allowed to wear a.. I‘m blanked out on the name right now, but its a piece of clear plastic, you put it in your piercings, they cant be seen, but they keep the piercing open, so it wont close up

I‘m assuming right now the answer is no, but just like to confirm it


----------



## Slumsofsackville (30 Apr 2004)

Stud? I Do that now.


----------



## atticus (1 May 2004)

> Originally posted by D-n-A:
> [qb] Question on the piercings, are you allowed to wear a[/qb]


I think your talking about a plug. A girl during my BMQ and in my unit had one but it wasn‘t clear, it was skin colour. It looks kinda funny though too, kind of like a peice of sponge shoved in your ear. I don‘t know why anybody would want something like that, where they would just have to take it out whenever you go to work. Not only do piercings not look good on guys but what if they got ripped out? Ouch  :crybaby:  ! 
I don‘t know about basic in St. Jean but where I took it with the reserves it was communal showers so if you think nobody is going to see a peircing "bellow the neck", think again (not that people would be trying to look)


----------



## combat_medic (1 May 2004)

well Atticus, if you have a prince albert piercings, and one of your buddies notices it when you shower, and then goes up to your instructors and ADMITS he was looking at your bait and tackle in the shower and completely blades you by telling them you have a piercing, you might get in crap. Then again, your buddy will probably get in more crap for turning you in.

As for plugs, no you aren‘t supposed to have one. A girl on my QL2 tried to get away with that on a tongue piercing, and they made her take it out.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2004)

I think plugs would be fine in the girls ears.  Also if buddy has his nips pierced and is taking a bird bath in the field then its not hard to notice.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (1 May 2004)

I think It‘s Silly. I say It Sould Be OK, If you Cannot See It Wile your Dressed. 

I know Plenty of personal With piercings, Nipple, Belly (Guys)And They never have take them out at work, Even there tounge.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2004)

Its all about perception and/or professionalism.


----------



## greymatter (1 May 2004)

i have 00 gauge plugs and a few in my ears, nose, tounge web, belly button and a couple in the dark spot.. do u think ill have to take them out before my interview?


----------



## Spr.Earl (1 May 2004)

Hey if you want to look like you have been caught,tagged and let go that‘s your business.
Just don‘t wear them in Uniform.

Have any of you looked in to the medical problem‘s that peircing can cause?

Do some research!!

The photo‘s are not pretty!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 May 2004)

"do u think ill have to take them out before my interview"


You bet.


----------



## ZipperHead (2 May 2004)

A big part of it is the safety aspect. A piercing is not the same as a tattoo. I have tattoos, but no piercings (no desire, but whatever blows your hair back.....). I heard a story about a female on her Leopard D&M (driving and maintenance) course who couldn‘t disconnect the muff-couplings on the tank (basically disconnect the transmission power to the tracks via pushing in with a long bar) because she had a belly piercing (you have to push fairly hard with either your chest, stomach or legs, etc against the bar) and they still let her pass (sigh.....). Can‘t do, can‘t pass, is my attitude, but I‘m a dinosaur, I guess.

Anyway, if it can be seen (even by a doctor) it can‘t be worn (while on duty). Again, women get the earring exemption (sigh....). Equal, but different. Once the trendiness of piercings goes away, the issue will go away.

Al


----------



## Spr.Earl (2 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Allan Luomala:
> [qb] A big part of it is the safety aspect. A piercing is not the same as a tattoo. I have tattoos, but no piercings (no desire, but whatever blows your hair back.....). I heard a story about a female on her Leopard D&M (driving and maintenance) course who couldn‘t disconnect the muff-couplings on the tank (basically disconnect the transmission power to the tracks via pushing in with a long bar) because she had a belly piercing (you have to push fairly hard with either your chest, stomach or legs, etc against the bar) and they still let her pass (sigh.....). Can‘t do, can‘t pass, is my attitude, but I‘m a dinosaur, I guess.
> 
> Anyway, if it can be seen (even by a doctor) it can‘t be worn (while on duty). Again, women get the earring exemption (sigh....). Equal, but different. Once the trendiness of piercings goes away, the issue will go away.
> ...


Know what your talking about as I helped when in Bosnia with a engine change on the Badger.

I enjoyed it,such a simple method and quick to change a engine.I wish we had the same in the marine world.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 May 2004)

I agree with Hank Hill (King if the Hill)

"I think body piercings are a good thing. That way, you can tell someone ain‘t right, just by lookin at em"


----------



## Spr.Earl (2 May 2004)

> Originally posted by muskrat89:
> [qb] I agree with Hank Hill (King if the Hill)
> 
> "I think body piercings are a good thing. That way, you can tell someone ain‘t right, just by lookin at em" [/qb]


LOL


----------



## Slumsofsackville (2 May 2004)

meh.


----------



## Marauder (2 May 2004)

You know what they say about a guy with a tongue ring...


----------



## Thompson_JM (2 May 2004)

Chris Rock says it best.


----------



## bossi (2 May 2004)

> ... who couldn‘t disconnect the muff-couplings ...


Glad you clarified what THAT means ...


----------



## muskrat89 (2 May 2004)

At first, I thought he was referring to another type of piercing....


----------



## weeze (2 May 2004)

k now this raises some questions,  I am planning on signing up for the reserve infantry in my local town here,  but I have a tat on the back of my neck it is just below the collar of a normal dress shirt (the kind you button up) I had it done that way so it can only be seen in a t-shirt,
ect.

oh, and its a bar-code that says: 

PRODUCT OF 
||||||||||          < KINDA LIKE THAT
||||||||||
||||||||||
CANADA `81


----------



## brin11 (2 May 2004)

> Can‘t do, can‘t pass, is my attitude, but I‘m a dinosaur, I guess.


No, you‘re not a dinosaur.  That‘s the way it should be.  As for the female exemption, shouldn‘t be either.  If females can have earrings, guys should as well.


----------



## ZipperHead (2 May 2004)

> Originally posted by bossi:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


I guess where I put the explanation that vaguely explained it (disconnecting the transmission from the tracks) must have gone over your head. Must be an officer....    

I would have tried to explain it better, but who has the time anymore. As it is, my rant on the watch/compass thing didn‘t win me any friends on this forum, so no point in trying to smooth things over   :sniper:  

Al

Al


----------



## rdschultz (2 May 2004)

I think he was referring to the fact that muff has an entirely different meaning to some people.  i.e. making a subtle joke about the terminology.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (4 May 2004)

Who ever Said Going To work or walking around base for us guys with piercing....Was wrong. I just went to work, IN Civvys, Un-shaven, My peircings In and Said Hi to everybody and went into the office, And Nobody told me I have to take them out.

I think It‘s only When In uniform.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 May 2004)

Reservist???  Nuff said.


----------



## willy (5 May 2004)

9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing.
Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could
be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic,
blasphemous, racist, or containing vulgar language or designs) 
or otherwise reflect discredit on
the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing
adornments, with the exception of women's earrings
and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a.,
shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on
duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term â Å“on
dutyâ ?, for purposes of dress and appearance, is
Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 25.

10.  As of 1 April 2004 CF members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn. Tattoos acquired prior to 1 April 2004 must comply with para 9.

9. Tatouage et perçage. Le personnel ne doit
pas porter de tatouage qui pourrait être perçu comme
offensant (par ex. pornographique, blasphématoire
ou raciste), ou pouvant jeter le discrédit sur les FC.
Les parures corporelles fixées par perçage, qu'elles
soient apparentes ou non, outre les boucles d'oreilles
et boutons perce-oreille portés par les femmes,
comme le décrit le sous-paragraphe 6.a., sont
interdites aux militaires en uniforme ou en tenue
civile en service. Dans les textes traitant de la tenue
et de l'apparence, le terme  « en service  » est
entendu au sens décrit au chapitre 1, paragraphe 25.

Straight from the horse‘s mouth.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2004)

End of discussion. It‘s the rule, it‘s the law. Don‘t like it, don‘t join or pull pin. Simple. (BTW, tattooed and pierced, but within spec)


----------



## meni0n (5 May 2004)

I was just told that we cannot get a tatoo even on the forearms only where it will not be seen. Anyone hear about that?


----------



## willy (5 May 2004)

Did you read para 10 of the above?  Learn to get the facts from original sources for yourself, rather than listening to what some dumbass says when he‘s drunk in the mess.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2004)

Bob Km,
Better read your QR&O‘s there bud. You walk into a Military building, Class A or not, you come under the Code of Service Discipline. Doesn‘t say much for your Supervisors, letting you get away with that crap. I‘m sure they‘d love to hear you merde talking their lack of protocol. BTW, if you consider yourself such a gem, why would you even disgrace the Unit, Service or building showing up like that. Guess the cool factor overshadows all that, might be some new recruits or someone wanting to join handy to gaze upon your great example of a Regimental soldier. Bet the Vets just love having a beer with you. Push the envelope and pretty soon it pops, sucking you out into that great vast emptiness of Civieland. Their loss, our gain.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (5 May 2004)

Defind "Duty" Going To work On your own Time, In Civvy To Get Some paperwork isn‘t "Duty". Something Has To Be Done. 

Im Not here To be a Idiot(May Or Not Be), I love My Job Alot, Im just Pro tattoo And Pro Piercings. 

No Harm In That ?? They Were More Happy I did it in Advance Then, Last Min.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2004)

I said nothing about being on "Duty".


----------



## xFusilier (5 May 2004)

What can I say,

You‘re just fortunate that Chocolate Thunder, Green Eggs and Ham, or Warrant Surley are no longer around.  They would have gone down to the RQ drawn a large magnet and removed them for you. The PLO sure ain‘t what it used to be.


----------



## Old Cent Hand (5 May 2004)

Obey orders and regulations , you can‘t go wrong. Even " Off Duty" , one still represents the CF. If one were to get drunk , throw up , and be totally obnoxious , in a bar ,while "off duty", people would say " He‘s an Army Guy".


----------



## The Queen`s Bloggins (5 May 2004)

If you want to see the full lineage of this decision check the DHH website on the DIN. They have the full minutes of the meetings that occur in Ottawa that concern dress, deportment, new clothing acquisition and touchy cultural issues. 

It makes for interesting, and sometimes humourous, reading. It also gives you an idea how they go about making these decisions. If I remember correctly, this decision was heavily lawyered by the JAG before it was passed.

Many of the decisions they make take a year or more, due to the few times they meet per year. The committee is made up of scores of CWO/CPOs and senior officers, with some civilians who carry out the decisions. Check it out if you have time.


----------



## weeze (5 May 2004)

I don‘t mean to milk a dead cow here,  but although i am not in the army yet I do have tats on my neck can I be turned down ?? i received my tat april 24, 2002,  if that matters 
(birthday present)


----------



## combat_medic (6 May 2004)

If you‘re a reservist, you can technically get all the piercings you want as long as they‘re removed whenever you‘re in uniform. However, if you‘re on a class B or C contract, then you cannot acquire any, and cannot wear them at any time, since you‘re on duty 24/7/365. This also applies to the reg force. I‘ve seen plenty of people get busted for facial piercings, and as a medic, have even had to remove a few fresh ones because some stupid kid had something pierced on his weekend off.


----------



## Old Cent Hand (6 May 2004)

Tats on your neck? I know numerous Regs , and Reserves , with tattoes, on their neck , and no one , " Bats an Eye". As long as the tats , are not offensive ( That is often in the eye of the beholder). You are " GOOD TO GO".


----------



## meni0n (6 May 2004)

Willy, it was not by a drunk in the mess it was by a sargeant specifically mentioning new policy at our usual evening briefing.


----------



## willy (6 May 2004)

"Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive".

"As of 1 April 2004 CF members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn".

These two statements, taken together, make no prohibition of any kind so far as tattoos on the arms are concerned, except with regards to potentially offensive tattoos. 

My point was that you should read the reference yourself, rather than listening to what other people have to say on the matter, as other people are often wrong.  It doesn‘t matter if the guy is a Sgt or not.  Just because someone has rank, it doesn‘t mean he‘s neccessarily right.  I, for example, am often wrong.  So don‘t just take my word for anything either.  Look it up for yourself.

In this case, however, I think you‘ll find that I am right.  And your Sgt, if he told you that you aren‘t allowed to get tattoos on your arms, is wrong.

Edit-  I just checked your profile, and found that you are a recruit.  I guess it‘s probably asking a bit much for me to expect that you will know how to look up QR&O‘s yourself.  But my advice still stands: even though your NCOs will usually steer you straight, you should still keep your own eyes open.


----------



## little_mp (6 May 2004)

Boy am I glad on my RCMP week in ottawa in feb that i didn‘t let them mounties tlk me into getting my nip peirced! saved alot of problems! I almost got it done but thenI got lost and yea long story but phww am i glad now!


----------



## Slumsofsackville (7 May 2004)

I just had The Brefing, Today. 

Still Gonna Wear Them.


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2004)

I never realized a little dangly piece of pirate jewelry was so important to some people.


----------



## D-n-A (8 May 2004)

We just got the talk too from our RSM.

Another thing brought up besides piercings an tattoos, no two-tone hair color, it has to be all one color, preferably natural, applies to both men and woman.


----------



## weeze (8 May 2004)

until you have one (tat or piercing) they don‘t seem to make much sense, my first tat was a birthday present, and after I got it done I wanted another the very next day, its kinda like your own personal canvas to display anything you want.

At the risk of sounding sappy I find tat‘s and piercings to be a very strong way of expressing yourself without haveing to verbally do it. 

and they look cool


----------



## commando_wolf63 (8 May 2004)

FYI the correct term for a plug is called a retainer. I can see the regulation for facial piercings as I find them distasteful. However what‘s the big deal if someone were to have a bellybutton or nipple piercing, as they would be covered by the uniform. A good piercer tells the piercee how to take care of their piercing to avoid infection so it is up to the piercee how well they follow the instructions for looking after their piercing.


----------



## Jesse3 (6 Aug 2004)

The army would not care if you have a tattoo on your forearm would they? I didn't think they would but I had somebody tell me they do. The tattoo looks like the one attached only on my forearm


----------



## Jesse3 (6 Aug 2004)

also its the inside forearm


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2004)

Please do a search. The subject has been covered many times.


----------



## Invalesco (8 Jul 2005)

Hey , for all those people that are going to say use the search button, i did already. 


Anyways I have two tattoos above my neck, pretty much below my ears, they are chinese characters that mean Life ( on the left side below ear) and Death  ( right side below ear)

now i'm wondering will i not be able to get in because of these? there not huge letters either.

Thanks


----------



## Inch (8 Jul 2005)

I just searched for Tattoo and this is what I got.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28423/post-185469.html#msg185469


----------



## Gouki (8 Jul 2005)

Funny, because I typed "tattoo" in the search field and got this:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28423.0.html

And this:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32363.0.html

Even funnier, I found the first link in the very first result. How crazy is that?

EDIT: I better make this even easier just in case:



			
				Calculator Jockey from the first linked topic said:
			
		

> _In accordance with the CF Dress Regs Manual Section 2 (page 2-2-6) - Appearance - Body Adornment para 9. it states:
> 
> "Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic,
> blasphemous, racist) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing
> ...


----------



## Invalesco (8 Jul 2005)

Jesus christ, theres alot of smartasses in here. Yeah wow I typed in Tattoos and I found that too. Big Deal. So I guess if it's not offensive it's fine then.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Jul 2005)

Invalesco said:
			
		

> Jesus christ, theres alot of smartasses in here. Yeah wow I typed in Tattoos and I found that too. Big Deal. So I guess if it's not offensive it's fine then.



Well if you found those links, when you searched for Tattoos, why did you bother posting, as your questions were answered in those threads.   If you think people are being "smartassess" now, you are in for a very big culture shock.


----------



## Fry (8 Jul 2005)

LoL... I'd say this thread hasn't long to live.


----------



## Invalesco (8 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well if you found those links, when you searched for Tattoos, why did you bother posting, as your questions were answered in those threads.   If you think people are being "smartassess" now, you are in for a very big culture shock.



Well first off I already searched and found those topics, the answers varied , as I read more people were saying that you can't have any tattoos above the neck anymore. So, I thought hey why not post a new thread and ask the question, hell, who knows maybe the rules changed or something.  So with that, I asked my question. Does that make sense to you? If it doesn't Sorry Can't help you out bud.

Sorry I thought this was a fourm, you know where you make posts and asks questions. Didn't realize this is just a FAQ


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2005)

I'm going to tattoo instructions for the search function right on my head....


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jul 2005)

I see you're new here, Ace - so you get a freebie. Relax, chill out, and read (or re-read) the Conduct guidelines found at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html  People here are generally helpful, if someone can demonstrate that they have tried to help themselves, and ask questions with a smile.


----------



## youravatar (31 Jul 2005)

ok what if i have a piercing that has to stay in for 3 months minimum but i've only had it for two; would they let me keep it until it can be safley removed ( reservist )


----------



## atticus (31 Jul 2005)

safely removed? Just take it out and keep it clean. Why would you get it if you have to take it out in a couple months anyways? Seems kinda pointless.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (31 Jul 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> safely removed? Just take it out and keep it clean. Why would you get it if you have to take it out in a couple months anyways? Seems kinda pointless.



I think you missed something...

Most piercings must remain in for several months before they can be removed after being pierced to give it time to heal. THEN it can be safely removed and regular maintenance performed.

The Army doesnt really care to be honest. If you have a nose ring and it needs to be in for 3 months, then you're out of luck as policy is policy.


----------



## atticus (31 Jul 2005)

No, most must be in for months so you can safely replace the jewelry without having the hole close up on you. If you take it out during the healing process the hole will close.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (31 Jul 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> No, most must be in for months so you can safely replace the jewelry without having the hole close up on you. If you take it out during the healing process the hole will close.



I fail to see what differentiates your statement from mine...


----------



## atticus (31 Jul 2005)

I thought you meant that it is dangerous to remove it during the first few months.


----------



## ChopperHead (1 Aug 2005)

Just to add something here I used to have my eyebrow pierced and It got ripped out  :crybaby:
that hurt but I guess it's my own fault for getting done. I couldn't where it at the school I whent to anyway and Im pretty sure most schools are like that. Thats probably one of the reasons why you can't have piercings while in Uniform is because even tho you can't see them EX your bellybutton
they can still be ripped out or limit you from doing a particular task. Also do you really want your piecing getting all full of dirt and stuff when your training or whatever It will get infected so fast on a tour. I have no problem taking out my other piercings once I get accepted to the army Personally I dont think you should be aloud any so even if you could I would not where them makes you look disrespecful to the uniform and country when you show up with a bunch of steel in your face and also if you just it hide thats just even more disrepctful to the army and your country because you think that somehow rules do not apply to you. This is the army so stop whining about something so stupid I think this thread shoud of been finished awile ago theres no need to keep complaining you dont have achoice so DEAL with it.



Kyle.


----------



## GerryCan (1 Aug 2005)

So has anyone heard of any actions being taken yet to remove tattoos from a member? I'm sure everyone here knows atleast one person in the army with a tattoo above the collar. Did it mention tattoos below the cuff? Hate to see any of the old dogs getting bussed to ottawa for removal of their CDO tats.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Aug 2005)

Inappropriate tattoos can always be covered by bandages while in uniform, removal is not necessary.  If a CO orders you to have it removed then he will have to pay from unit budget or out of his own pockets, uniformed medical folks don't have the cash.


----------



## mover1 (7 Aug 2005)

I think this rule is great. Now we can start looking a little professional again ( in uniform) Nothing i hate more than a neck tattoo. 
It looks like you just walked off the Springer show. What are we all gangsta now. 
 As for the peircings, as long as I don't see them it's OK with me. Heck put a padlock on your meat curtains if you need to. Just don't whine to me when you lost the key.
Read your CFAO's and QR&O's before putting the ink on. Don't rely on hear say and gossip. 
The best rule for a tattoo. (This is for you first timers out there, one people only planning to get one, Ha like you can stop at just one)  Get it in a spot where you wont see it when you wear a short sleeve shirt. (Ladies a strapless dress)


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Aug 2005)

I don't understand what's so difficult to understand....it's pretty self-explanatory.

If you have an open-collar shirt, and you can see your tattoo, nogo...anything above the neckline...nogo

arms (as long as not offensive or involving nudity) good to go..

I personally have several tats, but agree completely with the regs. Never was much for piercings, but whatever floats your boat...

however, i did hear about a guy in the Navy who had his nip pierced, and when doing firefighting training, it heated the piercing to the point where it seared into his nipple....mull that over before you you get a cold piece of metal shot through you.

I also knew a guy who had a piercing in the Nether regions, he said it was tough to piss, as it would spray everywhere, and he had to sit down when he went....seems kind of inconvenient


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

So I guess I have to remove my tongue peircing now?? :crybaby:

I just got it done in October. I also have three tats(my fourth will come very soon!) along with my navel pierced, and my ears twice(I am a girl after all)

Can I keep my tongue ring in if I go get one of those neat little barbells with flat ends on both sides??


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Aug 2005)

As far as regs go, Tongue piercings aren't allowed...(It's visible)

That being said, I've seen members with them, and never seen the reg enforced (that doesnt mean it won't be)

my suggestion, if you should choose to keep your tongue piercing in, get one that's clear, and try to go with the least noticable. but be aware, you may get called on it


----------



## P-Free (7 Aug 2005)

I fail to understand how a neck tattoo makes anyone less professional.


----------



## Chimo (7 Aug 2005)

If the Regs aren't being enforced it is because an NCO isn't doing their job. Many are reluctant to take on things such as female hair standards because they are not very clear, as compared to the male standards.

My opinion is, if you see a breach of dress regs, ( after all they are regulations, not suggestions) fire em up, and the regs will support you. Make sure you arm yourself with the facts, first.

The way to build a stronger NCO Corp is by enforcing existing standards, thats the job of every NCO.


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

Chimo said:
			
		

> If the Regs aren't being enforced it is because an NCO isn't doing their job. Many are reluctant to take on things such as female hair standards because they are not very clear, as compared to the male standards.
> 
> My opinion is, if you see a breach of dress regs, ( after all they are regulations, not suggestions) fire em up, and they regs will support you. Make sure you arm yourself with the facts first.
> 
> The way to build a stronger NCO Corp is by enforcing existing standards, thats the job of every NCO.



Last I heard, female hair regs are very clear. They can wear their hair down if it does not fall below the collar, otherwise it all must be up. Basically, if you have short hair you ahve it easy, if it is long, put it up in a bun, french roll, or a braid that is then tucked under to look professional.

I have a brushg up on my braiding since i haven't done it in years on myself, but buns are the easiest way to go, by far.

I am going to head over to my fav. tattoo and piercing shop and see what they have that will camoflouge my tongue piercing. My navel ring will stay in, but I am going to put in a plastic bar with very small balls on it so that it won't get in the way.....


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Aug 2005)

Let's be honest:

Tatts on the neck cannot be covered by your uniform, if everyone had one on their neck then you would be uniform.  The dress regulations based on the CF Dress committee decision state that it is unprofessional.

If you camo your tongue piercing and one of my medics has to stick in 'breathing tube' to save your life and it gets in the way, it will be your family's loss.  

When you slide across the high rope on the obstacle course and your belly stud cuts you open or hangs you up, I think the blood on your shirt will give you away. 

*If you haven't started training and you are scheming ways to be non-compliant with or debating the regulations, I would not make any long term career plans.*


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

Back in 1984 I worked with a Cpl (who shall remain nameless) who was a real idiot.  He was also somewhat ahead of his time regarding body piercings, etcetera (they weren't popular back then).

We had an RSM who was in AWESOME shape, and was a STICKLER for regulations - especially dress and deportment (as he should have been - he was an RSM after all.)

One day, Cpl Bloggins forgot to remove his earring prior to coming into work.  The RSM spotted it almost immediately.  The RSM grabbed Bloggins by the earlobe containing the offending item, and propelled Bloggins towards the RSM's office.  Naturally, we all kind of congregated in the hallway, hoping to hear what was going to happen.  We were treated to a fairly concise (and LOUD!) dissertation on Dress Regulations, and why they were important.  This dissertation was interspersed with whimpered "Yes, Sirs" and "No, Sirs" originating from Bloggins.

When the RSM had concluded - he dismissed Bloggins with an order to "haul ass down to the MIR and get that damned abortion removed from your ear".  The MIR?  What was the RSM talking about?

Bloggins exited the RSM's office and we saw that the offending earring had been crushed into his ear - the RSM had been SO furious that he had forgotten his own strength and actually crushed the earring beyond recognition.

Am I condoning the RSM's physical action in this case?  I don't think so - although I'm not sure.

I AM, however, offering a cautionary tale regarding the risks of ignoring regulations of any type - ESPECIALLY as "newbies" who haven't even joined yet!

Gunner98 may have said it best.



			
				Gunner98 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> *If you haven't started training and you are scheming ways to be non-compliant with or debating the regulations, I would not make any long term career plans.*


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> If you camo your tongue piercing and one of my medics has to stick in 'breathing tube' to save your life and it gets in the way, it will be your family's loss.



I am talking about a tongue ring that is flat on both top and bottom and is clear plastic. It would not get in the way of a breathing tube....trust me! I have had some large balls on the rod(that sounds so sick) and not even they get in the way of anything I am doing...even my dentist has been ok with it.

After chatting with my hubby, and getting a lecture form him at the same time, I decided I am going to see if I can train my tongue..lol

Basically take it out for set amount of hours and slowly progress in time while putting it back in at bedtime....that may allow me to be able to not wear it at all for 14-16 hours but not have it grow over either...that would make the CF happy and myself happy...


----------



## Cyr (7 Aug 2005)

So my question is why not take it out all together and save yourself the hassle? Also if I am correct that any type of body peircings do not comform to DND dress and deportment? Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am talking about a tongue ring that is flat on both top and bottom and is clear plastic. It would not get in the way of a breathing tube....trust me! I have had some large balls on the rod(that sounds so sick) and not even they get in the way of anything I am doing...even my dentist has been ok with it.
> 
> After chatting with my hubby, and getting a lecture form him at the same time, I decided I am going to see if I can train my tongue..lol
> 
> Basically take it out for set amount of hours and slowly progress in time while putting it back in at bedtime....that may allow me to be able to not wear it at all for 14-16 hours but not have it grow over either...that would make the CF happy and myself happy...



You're missing the point, Springroll.  You're still looking for ways AROUND the regulations, instead of complying with them.

Besides - what makes you think that your training days will only be "14-16" hours long??


----------



## P-Free (7 Aug 2005)

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Let's be honest:
> 
> Tatts on the neck cannot be covered by your uniform, if everyone had one on their neck then you would be uniform.   The dress regulations based on the CF Dress committee decision state that it is unprofessional.



Well some people also wear turbans and other religious head dress in "uniform" and they've never been stopped because not everyone wears one...

I don't have a neck tattoo but I'd never judge someone on their tattoos or their locations. Frankly it's none of my business...


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> Well some people also wear turbans and other religious head dress in "uniform" and they've never been stopped because not everyone wears one...
> 
> I don't have a neck tattoo but I'd never judge someone on their tattoos or their locations. Frankly it's none of my business...



Those alternate headdress are APPROVED within the Dress Regs.  Neck tatts aren't.  You're comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (7 Aug 2005)

If a person has, lets say 2 crossed hammers or an ss or nazi symbol in plain site you wouldn't judge them.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> Well some people also wear turbans and other religious head dress in "uniform" and they've never been stopped because not everyone wears one...
> 
> I don't have a neck tattoo but I'd never judge someone on their tattoos or their locations. Frankly it's none of my business...



Oh, crap.  People put various symbols and pictures on their body to BE noticed.  If you DIDN'T notice them, the purpose would be defeated.

The symbols people choose to display are USUALLY designed to make a statement of some kind.  If I ran around with a t-shirt extolling the virtues of let's say, Beethoven - would you assume I was a Grateful Dead fan??  Of course not.

The same holds true for tattoos.  Although I am not personally opposed to them, I fail to understand the compulsion.  However - the symbols people have inked into their skin are a STATEMENT - of COURSE you can "judge" them based on their tattoos - that's what they're FOR!!!


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> Besides - what makes you think that your training days will only be "14-16" hours long??




That was just an example of a time frame, that is all. 

As for complying with the reg's, yes, I am trying to find a way around it. I have seen so many in the CF with piercings that why should I have to get rid of mine...I will find a solution that will satisfy both the CF reg's and myself, even if it means I have to take it out during working hours and while I am in uniform.

As for tat's, mine can be completely hidden if need be. I have a arm bad with my childrens first initals inside of a daisy, I have a rose on my breast that is coloured red, yellow and orange and it represents me and the type of person I am(fiery at times), and I have a sun on my tailbone which was a representation of my son when it was just him and I.

I also fully intend on getting another tattoo of a specific fairy on my shoulder blade and it will represent the relationship between my sister and I....but I can guarantee that you will never see any of my tat's unless I show you.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> That was just an example of a time frame, that is all.
> 
> As for complying with the reg's, yes, I am trying to find a way around it. I have seen so many in the CF with piercings that why should I have to get rid of mine...I will find a solution that will satisfy both the CF reg's and myself, even if it means I have to take it out during working hours and while I am in uniform.
> 
> ...



_*"I have seen so many in the CF with piercings that why should I have to get rid of mine."*_

To paraphrase my sainted Mother "And if those kids who are breaking the rules jump off a bridge does that mean you would too?"

Or another from Mom "Two wrongs don't make a right".

You're still confused regarding "working hours" (which surprises me, actually - aren't you a current military spouse?).  There ARE no "working hours" in the military.  It's not "a job" - it's a way of life, and what you do, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year reflects upon the military.  This will be true for the entire span of your career - and , to a much reduced degree, after you retire.

As far as your various tatts go - I think the discussion involves "visible neck tattoos", or words to the effect.  The key word is "visible".  What you have tattoo'd on your breasts, or other regions which no one will ever see is irrelevant.

You can't get "around" it Springroll - you're either in compliance with regulations, or you aren't.  Sophistic arguments won't change that basic fact.

Should you choose to ignore those particular regulations you don't agree with, you WILL suffer consequences of some kind.  If that result is satisfactory to you - then fill your boots.


----------



## P-Free (7 Aug 2005)

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> If a person has, lets say 2 crossed hammers or an ss or nazi symbol in plain site you wouldn't judge them.



No, because there are 6 billion people on this planet and I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or believes in.


----------



## P-Free (7 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> Those alternate headdress are APPROVED within the Dress Regs.   Neck tatts aren't.   You're comparing apples and oranges.



I know, I'm not debating the dress regs, just the logic behind them if neck tattoos are really banned because they create individuality. It's a double standard if there is religious individuality but tattoos must be "uniform" in uniform.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> No, because there are 6 billion people on this planet and I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or believes in.



What's it like, being a "island" unto yourself??


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> You're still confused regarding "working hours" (which surprises me, actually - aren't you a current military spouse?).  There ARE no "working hours" in the military.  It's not "a job" - it's a way of life, and what you do, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year reflects upon the military.  This will be true for the entire span of your career - and , to a much reduced degree, after you retire.



I am well aware that I am never really "off duty", but what I chose to do, or wear, when I am not in uniform, is my choice. 
If you want to get really specific, CF members are not permitted to wear jeans when they are "off duty", but I am pretty sure that a good 99% do....there are alot of reg's that are not enforced, that I will never argue, but to say that I can not have my piercing in when I am in the privacy of my home, is ridiculous. 

Now, when I wrote about my tat's, it was in reference to people getting tattoo's to get noticed...if I wanted to be noticed, I would have a huge one on my forehead that said "LOOK HERE!"...hehehe ;D


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> No, because there are 6 billion people on this planet and I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or believes in.



I'm with you on that one. I do not judge people based on their chosen ink or piecrings, or hair colour.


----------



## P-Free (7 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> What's it like, being a "island" unto yourself??



CC, let's stick to the topic and not throw insults at each other. I am sure we could both sit here all day and dream up witty ways to bash each other, but it would get us nowhere.

Life is too complicated to worry about what people walking down the street got inked, especially when you don't even know the meaning behind it.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> If you want to get really specific, CF members are not permitted to wear jeans when they are "off duty", but I am pretty sure that a good 99% do



I would love to see you provide the reference that backs your statement up.....i'll be waiting !


----------



## beach_bum (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I am well aware that I am never really "off duty", but what I chose to do, or wear, when I am not in uniform, is my choice.
> If you want to get really specific, CF members are not permitted to wear jeans when they are "off duty", but I am pretty sure that a good 99% do....there are alot of reg's that are not enforced, that I will never argue, but to say that I can not have my piercing in when I am in the privacy of my home, is ridiculous.
> 
> Now, when I wrote about my tat's, it was in reference to people getting tattoo's to get noticed...if I wanted to be noticed, I would have a huge one on my forehead that said "LOOK HERE!"...hehehe ;D



Can't wear jeans?  Really?  Can you show me that one in the books?  I've seen the dress regs a number of times and I've never seen anything that talks about jeans off duty.   :

As for your piercings.  Yes, what you choose to impale yourself with in the privacy of your own home is your business.  However, from what I've heard about tongue piercings you can't remove them for long periods of time.  What are you going to do when you are away on your BMQ etc?  As for the people who have never seen that enforced.....I have.  I have seen several people get ordered to (in a not nice manner!  LOL) remove piercings immediately.


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I would love to see you provide the reference that backs your statement up.....i'll be waiting !



As soon as my hubby gets home, I will get his help with digging it up.
He was actually the one that pointed out to me today while we were out on our walk.

Give me a bit though, I have no clue when he is gonna be home tonight.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> As soon as my hubby gets home, I will get his help with digging it up.
> He was actually the one that pointed out to me today while we were out on our walk.
> 
> Give me a bit though, I have no clue when he is gonna be home tonight.



Beleive me..i'll be checking


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Aug 2005)

This thread is getting stupid. Are there any more comments or questions related to the original topic? If not, I believe it has run its course.....


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Beleive me..i'll be checking



Hubby actually just got in and said he will check tomorrow since he has a copy there, but when he joined 9 or so years ago, it was in the dress reg's. He also said the dress reg's are changed as often as people changing their underwear, so it is quite possible that it is no longer in there. 

Regardless of if I am right or wrong, I will post the findings tomorrow...


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Aug 2005)

BITTER PPCLI CPL said:
			
		

> If a person has, lets say 2 crossed hammers in plain site you wouldn't judge them.



I would think he is one hardcore Pink Floyd fan


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll et al

Before you get too cocky, I suggest you become aware of the NDA (National Defence Act) for example:

1. (alternate to charge 2) s. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
2. (alternate to charge 1) s. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. 

It might find you as the accused at court martial,  get you $900 fine and a criminal record that would take 5 years before you could get a pardon.

Not my idea of great way to begin service to my country.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (7 Aug 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I would think he is one hardcore Pink Floyd fan



I saw a guy in pet last week with a huge "the Wall screaming face" on his elbow that spread down his forearm and up his tricep. it was pretty cool...


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Springroll et al
> 
> Before you get too cocky, I suggest you become aware of the NDA (National Defence Act) for example:
> 
> ...



Gunner98, you crack me up!  To the point, no BS, and factual - outstanding!!

Springroll - although the above scenario may SEEM heavy handed, it is definitely within the realm of possibility should you actually carry out your planned "avoidance" of the rules.  It is, in fact, one of the possible "consequences" I earlier asked if you were willing to accept.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2005)

Take your tongue ring out - they'll give you those ID disks to wear for a fashion statement instead (the guys who wear them *outside* of their shirt at the bar are by far the coolest....).


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Take your tongue ring out - they'll give you those ID disks to wear for a fashion statement instead (the guys who wear them *outside* of their shirt at the bar are by far the coolest....).



lol, especially outside those wicked cool tshirts that say canadian army on the front and ninjasniper on the back


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Aug 2005)

or a CADPAT T-shirt...sweet


----------



## Acorn (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Hubby actually just got in and said he will check tomorrow since he has a copy there, but when he joined 9 or so years ago, it was in the dress reg's. He also said the dress reg's are changed as often as people changing their underwear, so it is quite possible that it is no longer in there.
> 
> Regardless of if I am right or wrong, I will post the findings tomorrow...



It's not in dress regs, take my word for it (and dress regs haven't substantially changed in about 10 years, BTW). It *may* be in unit Standing Orders though a "no jeans" reg is very rare these days and usually confined to mess or school regulations. Back in the day (ca. 25 years ago) we were not permitted in the mess (dining) hall with anything other than a button-front shirt with collar, pressed slacks and proper shoes, but we could still wear jeans and t-shirts in the "snake pit" of the Jr Ranks mess.

To my recollection dress regs don't even try to regulate non-duty wear. Don't mix them up with Standing and Routine Orders.

Acorn


----------



## IPC10 (7 Aug 2005)

I am going to second Acorn here - Please let me say that in no way am I getting involved in the right and wrongs of dress as an officer that would be somewhat out of my lane...

Anyhow a lot of Officer's Messes have the usual rules for what is acceptable dress in different areas of the mess.  It is curious to note in refernce to this particular thread that jeans are not usually considered as 'casual wear' and that when they are allowed they are typically classed under 'sports wear' - same as PT kit.

I seem to remember there were occasions in the JRs that we could wear jeans....but that period of my life seems to be clouded by various beverages that came out of something called 'kegs.'


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> Gunner98, you crack me up!   To the point, no BS, and factual - outstanding!!
> 
> Springroll - although the above scenario may SEEM heavy handed, it is definitely within the realm of possibility should you actually carry out your planned "avoidance" of the rules.   It is, in fact, one of the possible "consequences" I earlier asked if you were willing to accept.



I have already said what I am going to do...

I am going to remove my tongue ring when I am in class, training or whatever, but come nighty-night time, it is going back in.
When it is in, it will be as un-noticable as possible. 

That is what I am going to do, and if they are going to charge me for what I choose to wear in bed, then by all means, go for it.
I wish them luck....


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I have already said what I am going to do...
> 
> I am going to remove my tongue ring when I am in class, training or whatever, but come nighty-night time, it is going back in.
> When it is in, it will be as un-noticable as possible.
> ...



As I said in an earlier post - fill your boots!!


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> As I said in an earlier post - fill your boots!!



I will..preferably with gin and tonic though..hehehe ;D


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I have already said what I am going to do...
> 
> I am going to remove my tongue ring when I am in class, training or whatever, but come nighty-night time, it is going back in.
> When it is in, it will be as un-noticable as possible.
> ...



Springroll,

If you wish to keep it in at night thats fine.   I know the instructors you will have at CFSME.   The only thing i would say on that is to be ready to remove it in a hurry when the doors come knocking   at 2am for some " unscheduled training".

"i wish them luck"

Can i just give you one peice of advice ?   You may think you know it all now....but you years as a service spouse are not military experience.   May i suggest that before you   arrive at CFSME, you lose the attitude i see in some ( note i said "some") of your posts.   You will have enough thrown at you by the instructors as a matter of regular training without causing yourself any added greif.


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> "i wish them luck"
> 
> Can i just give you one peice of advice ?  You may think you know it all now....but you years as a service spouse are not military experience.  May i suggest that before you  arrive at CFSME, you lose the attitude i see in some ( note i said "some") of your posts.  You will have enough thrown at you by the instructors as a matter of regular training without causing yourself any added greif.



Exactly - thanks for saying that aesop081, I was trying to think of a tactful/nonconfrontational way of saying the same thing, but gave it up as a bad job.

Springroll - what he said.


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

I fully understand what you guys were saying, but to charge someone for having their piercing in when their sleeping is ridiculous, and I can thnk of a few other more important things they should be worrying about then my tongue when I am sleeping. 

I can drop the "attitude" at the drop of a hat, if needed, that is no problem for me, and I appreciate what you guys have been saying, but I am also a stubborn chick who has dealt with the military all her life(daddy was navy, gramps and uncle both army, NUMEROUS boyfriends military  ;D)

I do appreciate what you guys have said though, don't get me wrong, I do, but there are always options that many people don't consider, such as what I am doing etc.

Now a tip for those with neck tat's...buy a really good all day cover-up or concealer, and that should do the trick with hiding any of it that is exposed. Be willing to spend some bucks on the good all day stuff though....you don't want it wearing off onto your collars.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I fully understand what you guys were saying, but to charge someone for having their piercing in when their sleeping is ridiculous, and I can thnk of a few other more important things they should be worrying about then my tongue when I am sleeping.
> 
> I can drop the "attitude" at the drop of a hat, if needed, that is no problem for me, and I appreciate what you guys have been saying, but I am also a stubborn chick who has dealt with the military all her life(daddy was navy, gramps and uncle both army, NUMEROUS boyfriends military   ;D)
> 
> ...



And beleive me....my former cohorts at CFSME know all too well how to deal with the " i was a cadet/my dad was army/my hubby is military/i was reserves therfore i know it all attitude.  between you and the staff......can you guess who is going to lose ?  If you can turn your attitude on and off easy....do it now....alot of your future instructors are members here.


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> If you can turn your attitude on and off easy....do it now....alot of your future instructors are members here.



Maybe I can bribe them with a few brews??? hehehe ;D

Just kidding...or was I???


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Maybe I can bribe them with a few brews??? hehehe ;D
> 
> Just kidding...or was I???



We cannot be bribed

And also, those army.ca members i refered to also have freinds who are members and e-mail back-and-forth regularly  ;D

seriously...turn it off, it'll show and it will make your life that much harder than it needs to be


----------



## Springroll (7 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> We cannot be bribed
> 
> And also, those army.ca members i refered to also have freinds who are members and e-mail back-and-forth regularly   ;D
> 
> seriously...turn it off, it'll show and it will make your life that much harder than it needs to be



Well, if they are going to make my life hell because of some things that I have posted on the net, then I will roll with the punches when I get there and deal with whatever they hand me and move on to be a better person...that is the type of person I am.

Take that as you will, but I am also not a kiss-arse type of person....I will buck up and take whatever they dish out while smiling and asking for seconds.  ;D

I appreciate the advice


----------



## Roy Harding (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I fully understand what you guys were saying, but to charge someone for having their piercing in when their sleeping is ridiculous, and I can thnk of a few other more important things they should be worrying about then my tongue when I am sleeping.
> 
> I can drop the "attitude" at the drop of a hat, if needed, that is no problem for me, and I appreciate what you guys have been saying, but I am also a stubborn chick who has dealt with the military all her life(daddy was navy, gramps and uncle both army, NUMEROUS boyfriends military  ;D)
> 
> ...



You think a charge for disobeying Regulations is ridiculous??  When I was a Corporal, I was charged for asking a Master Corporal "Why".  And I was NOT confrontational, or belligerent while doing it (and I was one of the "rising star" Corporals at the time - my promotion three months later proves the point).  Cost me 7 extras, and I just sucked it up - 'cause that's what you did, then (and in most cases - do, now).

You'd be surprised what your instructors (and later, your Section/Platoon leaders) spend their time worrying about - one of those worries is whether they've instructed/lead their troops sufficiently well that those troops understand and obey the various Regulations and Orders they're subject to - including Dress Regulations.

As far as a "buy a really good all day cover-up or concealer" to cover tatts - aside from child birth, have you ever REALLY SWEATED??  No, I mean REALLY SWEATED - when the PMeds are demanding to know when was the last time you peed, and what colour it was, and insisting that you pour yet ANOTHER litre of water down your throat - take these salt pills, too.  If you HAVE, then you know that whatever crap you put on your skin (including cam paint) isn't going to stay there - if you HAVEN'T, then you're talking through your hat.

At any rate - I will not be posting here again, it is, apparently, a losing battle - if you have anything to add that you think needs a response from me, you'll have to PM me.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Well, if they are going to make my life hell because of some things that I have posted on the net, then I will roll with the punches when I get there and deal with whatever they hand me and move on to be a better person...that is the type of person I am.



I'm just picking on you now.   just bear in mind they do hang around here.



> Take that as you will, but I am also not a kiss-arse type of person....I will buck up and take whatever they dish out while smiling and asking for seconds.   ;D



Good to hear because suck-ups are not a welcomed type either.


----------



## Springroll (8 Aug 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> As far as a "buy a really good all day cover-up or concealer" to cover tatts - aside from child birth, have you ever REALLY SWEATED??   No, I mean REALLY SWEATED - when the PMeds are demanding to know when was the last time you peed, and what colour it was, and insisting that you pour yet ANOTHER litre of water down your throat - take these salt pills, too.   If you HAVE, then you know that whatever crap you put on your skin (including cam paint) isn't going to stay there - if you HAVEN'T, then you're talking through your hat.
> 
> At any rate - I will not be posting here again, it is, apparently, a losing battle - if you have anything to add that you think needs a response from me, you'll have to PM me.



It was a suggestion not meant for the field but for everyday wear. 

To answer your question, yes I have really sweated aside from childbirth, that is why i suggested a more expensive one then those cheap drug store ones that don't do much.

Sorry if I have ticked you off, but I do enjoy conversing with you


----------



## Springroll (8 Aug 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I'm just picking on you now.   just bear in mind they do hang around here.
> 
> Good to hear because suck-ups are not a welcomed type either.



I'm sure there are quite a few lurking in here....nothing surprises me anymore.
Suck-ups really suck anyways!!  ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Aug 2005)

Anyway, I think the intricacies of the CF Tattoo policy have been sufficiently explored.


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

Wow i am bringing a topic old from 2 years on this forum wow i am proud of my self hahha. Well anyways my question is will tattoos be a problem for the secret   military organisations like JTF2 or Pathfinders or any other that are consider like secret ?

THX For the reply

Word for the mods: i did a search about tattos and when i reply i got this message Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 100 days. Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic. so well i am not starting just continuing.

Cheers Lads


----------



## reccecrewman (1 Sep 2005)

On the tattoo topic, I would definitely wait until you get to Battalion for starters.  I've seen in the past course instructors who have a field day with such tattoos on their recruits.  Second, there's always the chance for whatever reason, you don't complete your MOC training and either leave the Army or OT to some other trade. (Always fun to try and explain WHY you have "DUCIMUS" or some other cbt. arm insignia on your body when you never even completed your course)  There was a new guy come to my unit 2 years ago with the Armoured Fist on his forearm and there was many a senior Corporal that endlessly got on his case for it.  He ultimately had another tattoo inked over it so you couldn't see it anymore.  For whatever reason, many people in units frown on such tattoos.  Like a particular paratrooper said back there a ways "I know I'm a paratrooper, I don't need to advertise it".  Thats right on.  He has a distinction that the bulk of people in the Army don't have, and I'm sure he's justifyably proud of the fact that he wears jump wings, but he didn't ink them on his body.  He knows what he's accomplished.  On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with having your wings inked on your body if you want that.  It's a very tough course and the pride I'm sure you feel when you've completed it (I never have - don't care for heights, kudos to anyone who can do it) may give you the desire to show that you're a part of that brotherhood on your body.  The whole point of this message is wait to get your tat until you make it to Battalion, then decide.  If you still want it - by all means, go get it!  It is your body to ink up.  If the pride you feel as being an Infanteer in our Army is something you want to show, then thats what you should do.


----------



## reccecrewman (1 Sep 2005)

Now onto the RCR thing..................... A couple of years ago, I saw an old photo of some guys from the RCR in South Africa.  They were in a line up and several were holding live chickens that they were going to cook up.  However, one of the men holding the chickens had his down around his nether regions and by the photo appeared to be............. well, you get the idea.  Anyhow, I would venture a guess to say an infanteer from another Regiment saw this photo and the name stuck.  This is just my guess on the whole matter, but it makes sense.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Sep 2005)

> On the tattoo topic, I would definitely wait until you get to Battalion for starters.



Probably the best advice when it comes to tatoo's in the military you can get. 

Wait a little while after you join to get one.  Your opinion of whats cool and whats cheesy will change in a major way.


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

Well for sure i am gonna wait IF i want to put a tattoo from the army, but my question is, if i already have a tattoo doesn't matter what kind of tattoo except ( the conditions about tattoos in the military ) will it be a problem for the secret military organisations like the jtf2 or the pathfinders ?


Cheers


----------



## Ranman (1 Sep 2005)

Wolfe said:
			
		

> Well for sure i am gonna wait IF i want to put a tattoo from the army, but my question is, if i already have a tattoo doesn't matter what kind of tattoo except ( the conditions about tattoos in the military ) will it be a problem for the secret military organisations like the jtf2 or the pathfinders ?
> 
> 
> Cheers



Not if your wearing a secret decoder ring while having "I am a whore" tattooed on your butt.


----------



## Roger (1 Sep 2005)

I alway's think in terms of if I ever get taken prisoner, I would not want the enemy to know who I was or what qualifications I had. Wether I was recce, jump, pathfinder, ex-airborene or JTF2.


----------



## Glorified Ape (1 Sep 2005)

I had an interview with my platoon commander (22er captain) on BOTC (the getting-to-know-you meeting) and he suggested, after seeing my parent's initials on my forearms, that any further tattoos be in places covered by combats - the implication being that visible tattoos are inappropriate for officers. I'm not sure I necessarily agree... any comments? Would respect an officer LESS (all other things being equal) if he had tattoos? Seems kind of ridiculous, especially in the military.


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

So with what i read it shouldn't be a problem having a tattoo and join the jtf2 or pathfinders. right ?


Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Sep 2005)

No probs at all. Send in 5 orange crush caps and get the JTF2 decoder ring before you join up.


----------



## Ranman (1 Sep 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> No probs at all. Send in 5 orange crush caps and get the JTF2 decoder ring before you join up.



See this is the kink of stuff I live for!


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> No probs at all. Send in 5 orange crush caps and get the JTF2 decoder ring before you join up.



Ok that's nice but one think i don't understand, sorry English is not my first language, can you please explain me in other words this sentence thx : Send in 5 orange crush caps and get the JTF2 decoder ring before you join up.

THX LADS


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Sep 2005)

just a joke, skip it


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

Wolfe said:
			
		

> So with what i read it shouldn't be a problem having a tattoo and join the jtf2 or pathfinders. right ?
> 
> 
> Cheers



AHAHHAHHA ok well please without joking i am serious here   is it a problem or no ?????????


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> I alway's think in terms of if I ever get taken prisoner, I would not want the enemy to know who I was or what qualifications I had. Wether I was recce, jump, pathfinder, ex-airborene or JTF2.



I think if you read all the posts THIS ONE may stand out......especially for Ninjasniperjtfwannabees


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

Ok look guys i am not some Ninjasniperjtfwannabees ( funny word tough i like it ) i have a tattoo and i just wanted to know if its a problem i don't have my whole military career on my body lol. THX anyways guys.

Cheers


----------



## watson (1 Sep 2005)

What about if I had got a tattoo in the time after I did my medical and I show up at basic with a huge tattoo....


----------



## Wolfe (1 Sep 2005)

hhahha well i think you wont have problems depends what you tattoos is...but you should be ok with a huge tattoo  ;D
but for the special forces i don't have a clue.


Wolf


----------



## reccecrewman (1 Sep 2005)

Well, I'd have to say that anybody in JTF2 wouldn't go around with a tattoo on their body advertising the fact that they're special forces.......... Part of the whole idea is that you don't know who they are.  Not only that, if you did ever get taken prisoner with that tattoo........... Well, good luck with your interrogators buds, lord knows the bulk of people who want us dead are Geneva Convention abiding folk..............  ;D


----------



## canadiantrooper87 (6 Sep 2005)

i was wandering if i get a tattoo what is the policy and where 
so if its hidden by uniform


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Sep 2005)

If you do a search, I know that has been covered somewhere...


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Sep 2005)

canadiantrooper87 said:
			
		

> i was wandering if i get a tattoo what is the policy and where
> so if its hidden by uniform



go here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

enter "tattoo" in the search words box

press enter

If you feel this answer isn't direct enough, go here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (6 Sep 2005)

Its simple, you can get tattoos, have tattoos, they just cant be on the neck or above, and they cannot be derogatory to other people, race, or religion.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2005)

This thread is really getting to me....but I will keep it polite....the questions have already been answered at the beginning of this thread....read them!


----------



## hayterowensound (6 Sep 2005)

I am in the process of getting back in. been out 6 years. When I first joined, I had one tattoo at the time, now my right arm is sleeved wrist to shoulder. Nobody at the recruiting center or the unit I would like to join has said anything other than "Nice tats"


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Sep 2005)

This has been beat to death. I'm locking it.


----------



## MED_BCMC (19 Sep 2005)

I've done a search already, and didnt find the answer I was looking for so... If I missed it, please direct me to where it would be.

I've heard rumors and that regarding Officers and having visible tattoos. Is there a policy specific for officers having visible tattoos?


----------



## D-n-A (19 Sep 2005)

Officers and NCMs follow the same rules on tattoos. Search the for tattoo regs on the forums an you should find all the info on the subject you need.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Sep 2005)

MED_BCMC said:
			
		

> I've heard rumors and that regarding Officers and having visible tattoos.


rule #1 when dealing with the Military: ignore all rumours.
MikeL is correct.


----------



## MED_BCMC (19 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> rule #1 when dealing with the Military: ignore all rumours.
> MikeL is correct.



Ack. Thank you for the quick replies.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Sep 2005)

While the regulations may not be explicit, it is NOT common for officers to have tattoos that push the boundaries of the regs, or of societal custom. There's no "street cred" in the Officers' Mess for flagrant visible tattoos.


----------



## Gramps (20 Sep 2005)

Come to think of it, I do not ever remember meeting or dealing with an Officer who had a visible tattoo. It is an interesting question thought. Well, now since my evening had been completely destroyed, I now have something to ponder over a river of Scotch and a barrel of beer. I have myself, dilusions of grandure and am planning on attempting to get a comission someday. Now I ask myself, since I have three visible tattoos (at least with rolled up or short sleeves) would there be a spot for a tattoooed 200Lb PAFFO who is fuelled by anger and propelled by rage?


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Sep 2005)

Many former airborne/para officers have jump wing tats on their hands or words tattooed across their knuckles.   

The SSM folks (Honest John missiles) had blue star tats on their earlobes, really cool when they were a SSM Ptes and a constant visible reminder of the past when they became a C/M/WO A/IGs.

I know of at least one LCol in Ottawa who has a panther on his shoulder/neck and the tail is clearly visible below his ear in all forms of dress. His entire upper and lower body resembles a canvas painting of knights, castles and damsels in distress.

I saw a Sig O on BTE with the VP - his arms, back and neck resembled a bright rainbow of of psychedelic colours. 

The latest tats for female soldiers seems to be middle of the neck just below hair bun - it can be hidden with pony tail but quite visible in DEU 3+.

The rules and tolerance are no different regardless of rank.   But what's a CO gonna do when the tats already on the person (the ink has dried so to speak).   In the case of the LCol avec visible tail, what can he say to his subordinates about the policy when his visibly violates the spirit of the dress regulations.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (20 Sep 2005)

It could be, that in some cases (granted not all cases), that the officer or NCM in question had the visible tattoo before joining. That is the case of several officers I know. My hubby has tattoos, had them before he joined...it is just coincidence (and personal preference) that they are not visible and, therefore, follow the regs. This may be more prevelant with the increase in people joining at older ages.

just my $.02

edited for spelling


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Sep 2005)

MED_BCMC said:
			
		

> I've done a search already, and didnt find the answer I was looking for so... If I missed it, please direct me to where it would be.
> 
> I've heard rumors and that regarding Officers and having visible tattoos. Is there a policy specific for officers having visible tattoos?


This is under th old Q @ R.O.'s if you got at a tattoo and it got infected,it was a self inflected wound and you could be charged for it,same as getting the dose.Oops I for got we are kinder caring Military now,no one gets a case of the dose any more.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2005)

It used to be a policy (perhaps an unwritten policy) that "officers did not have tattoos".  Times and demographics have changed.  It still boils down to old stereotypes and appearances of professionalism.  Do you have more respect for someone of authority who may be tattooless or do you have more respect for a guy covered in tattoos looking like a "bad @ss Biker"?  What image does that project to others?  Is it an image we want to project, especially overseas?  Just because a person is comfortable with their own tattoos, doesn't mean that others are.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Hate to sound like the sudo-newbie I am but does this apply as well to hand tattoos? I have seen a large numbers of NCM's walking around with tattoos on their hands and I have a specific one in mind I wanted to get. However, I have been told a number of different stories, most of which say officers follow the tattoo regs but cannot under any circumstances have hand tattoos (I believe it is against the tattoo regs period but I still see numerous NCM's with them).


your body, your money. You want ink? Get ink. As for respect from the troops, as one of them - couldn't care less. And as for stereotyping and such from others, even overseas, it don't happen much any more. Tattoos are mainstream, now.
Now, as for what happens in the Officer's mess, and how such tats are discussed over tea and scones, or on the crickett field, I dunno.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> So it IS against the regs but people flaunt them anyways?


I wouldn't say "flaunt". Most of those with ink on their hands, neck, etc, got them before the Reg came into effect/was enforced. I've seen troops face administrative action for doing it now. 
You want the ink that bad, go ahead. But, you called the tune. Pony up when the piper demands his fee.
(See what I did there? Clever, no?)


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2005)

As well, you may want to consider the fact that on previous medicals, you said "NO" to tatoos, and now you have one on your hand.   If somebody does decide to make an issue out of it, it can be shown that you violated a policy while as a member of the CF.   Get a backpiece or a half-sleeve or somthing....


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Wait, so I can't get a tattoo period now because when I joined I simply told the med staff that I didn't have any on me at the time? I'm lost.



No, you can get a tattoo, it is just that it will be documented on your next medical.  Tattoo's aren't a problem per se, but if you get one that violates the current CF policy on visible tattoos, your med file can prove that you got it after getting in the Forces and can be evidence that you willingly disobeyed an order.


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2005)

There was a message cut last year (I believe it was a CANFORGEN) announcing that eff 01 Apr 2004 Officers and members of the CF could no longer obtain tattoos on their hands or on the back of the neck. I'll pull up the message at work tomorrow to get the DTG off it. That being said, I have a number of tattoos...don't recall being asked at my last medical whether or not I had got any more and don't recall that being a question on the sheet that we have to fill out when reporting for the medical. Perhaps a Medic out there could advise as to whether or not that's part of our medical questionnaire.

With all that....Have you had a medical since 01 Apr 04???  ???


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2005)

Is that important?


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2005)

Nope...not important...just that...

Well if it is on the medical questionnaire and he hasn't had a medical since 01 Apr 04....then what does reporting a tattoo say...next month during a medical prove?


----------



## George Wallace (21 Sep 2005)

I guess, along with Scars and such, it would be listed as "Identifying Marks".


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2005)

2332piper,

One of my tattoos is on my tummy and after a pregnancy it still looks mighty fine so I don't think you need to worry about growing your arms first!!! They aren't gonna get any bigger than my tummy did I guarantee you!!! And if they do....please do us gals a favour and post a pic in the "Chicks did a guy in Uniform thread!!"


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess, along with Scars and such, it would be listed as "Identifying Marks".


only if you volunteer it, from my experiences. Nobody has ever written down any of my scars, tats, or other deformities without asking me what I have.


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2005)

Agreed...I don't recall it being on the medical questionnaire.... the only times I've ever been asked was when I've renewed the old ID card..."Any visible tattoos or identifying marks?" At my last girlie checkup the MO said something like "$%$@# nice tat on your back" but didn't write it down anywhere or check my questionnaire out. I think only my visible tattoos are recorded and them only on my ID card.


----------



## Gunner98 (22 Sep 2005)

The only tatts medical folk are concerned about come from recent tours in countries which have a high risk of Hep or HIV.   Always get tats when you are sober and only if the artist answers all of your relevant safety-conscious questions.   Finally remember to look both ways before you cross the street.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2005)

WHATEVER you do, don't get a tattoo in Croatia because you're knee-deep in Pivo, and the counter-chick has a huge rack.  :
Thankfully, the shop had been inspected by medics from the US Navy a week prior. As I the story-teller discovered half-way through the process.


----------



## Guy. E (12 Dec 2005)

i would like to know about the regulations regarding tattoos in the CF.

i have herd of stories where guys were forced to cover them up because of "Offecnive Images" (usually nude-ish women) and i now some who have no problem at all.

i would like to know if this is more of a BMQ issue then later on.

i have "Canada" in old style writing on my right wrist and a skull on my left shoulder.

i cant see allot of issues arising form these, and if there are i guess theres not allot i can do about it except cover them up and have a F* ed tan at the end of basic.

i did a search, no tats above the neck line or on your hands wile your in. if i get something before I'm sworn in, I'm cool? would a pin-up of an angel on a forearm be "Offencive"?


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Dec 2005)

There has been a gazillion threads on tattoos, and the regulations pertaining to them. Please do a search, and I'm sure you'll find the answers you are looking for.

Good luck.


----------



## wulfzbane (21 Feb 2006)

I have multiple tattoos and peircings and i know that i have to take the percings out while im in uniform.... but how about when im not can i put them back in ? and as for the tattoos, are new ones strongly discouraged?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (21 Feb 2006)

A Search for piercings;

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2

I suggest the first thread, that will clear things up for you.


As for tattoos;

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2

That topic will keep you busy for a while...


----------



## xmarcx (17 Mar 2006)

Not to beat a dead horse here, I know questions re: tattoos have been already been answered a few times on the forum, but I have a unique question.

I'm applying for DEO Infantry, and I have half sleeve tattoos on both my arms, complete coverage from shoulder to right above my elbows. They are by no means offensive, and although I am clearly biased, they are of extremely high quality and artistic merit - I didn't just wander down to the local shop, I've been travelling for and working on them for years.

What concerns me though is a conversation I had with a reg force artillery major a few weeks back who told me that tattoos on officers are very rare, and that they may jeopardize my career or even my enrollment prospects. 

Is this BS or a legitimate concern? Or is the worst I'm likely to face a bit of mockery during BOTP for wasting my time and money on getting pretty colours pounded into my skin?


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2006)

I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm sure there is some human rights clause that you can whip out suggesting the CF is violating some kinda right of yours.

Us people with tattoo's are visible minorities!


----------



## elminister (17 Mar 2006)

I don't see why they would have a problem with it, non-commissioned members have them. But hey I don't know so.


----------



## twohig (17 Mar 2006)

I know of several officers with tattoos, and one in particular has several and is enjoying his rank as an artilery major.  So it all depends more on how you project yourself as a leader.  I would'nt worry about it.

Ubique.


----------



## jc5778 (17 Mar 2006)

Should not be a problem.  An officer from my old unit was all "sleeved up" ATT58 is dead on with his resonse.  Also think about this, during your application faze, testing, and interviews, wear long sleeves if you think it may hurt your chances.  Once your in, your in.  Just nothing visable and offensive and nothing above the coller from now on.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (17 Mar 2006)

Below is an excert from an article written in "The Lookout" which is a CFB Esquimalt publication.  They did a segment on tat's and how they relate to the regs.  The general jist seems to be that forearm tattoos are okay, but no head, face or neck that are visible when wearing an open collared shirt.  



> Specifically, as of April 2004 the CF policy forbids tattooing/body art/brands that will be visible on the head, face and neck, ears or chest of the individual when an open collared shirt is worn. It also prohibits tattoos that are of a pornographic, blasphemous, or racist nature, or containing vulgar language or designs. As well, any tattoo symbol that denotes gang affiliation, supremacist or extremist groups or drug use, or otherwise reflects discredit to the CF is forbidden.


Tattoos that were acquired before April 1, 2004, must also comply with the regulations. Additionally, other visible and non-visible body piercing adornments such as rings, pins, nuts and bolts, etc (except for women’s earrings and ear sleepers) shall not be worn by members of the CF in uniform or on duty while in civilian clothing.[/quote]

The link to the full article can be seen at:  http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/20060306_4.htm


----------



## xmarcx (17 Mar 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> I'm sure there is some human rights clause that you can whip out suggesting the CF is violating some kinda right of yours.
> 
> Us people with tattoo's are visible minorities!



That's perfect, my university degree is actually in Human Rights, they'll never know what hit them!  ;D

Thanks all for the replies! I will not worry...mostly because I'll be wearing long sleeve shirts.


----------



## Jimmy C (18 Mar 2006)

Just to add to make you feel better, I came across a picture on combatcamera that shows a Lt-Col with a neck tattoo as well as one on his wrist:







http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=11010&site=combatcamera


----------



## Big Foot (18 Mar 2006)

On another note, what is up with that LCol's sleeves? It looks like they're rolled under. I've never see that before.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Mar 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> I'm sure there is some human rights clause that you can whip out suggesting the CF is violating some kinda right of yours.
> 
> Us people with tattoo's are visible minorities!



Well considering 14 year old girls now get them as birthday presents from their mommies, I wonder if tattooed people really are a minority anymore?


----------



## BKells (18 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well considering 14 year old girls now get them as birthday presents from their mommies, I wonder if tattooed people really are a minority anymore?



What an unsubstantiated claim.


----------



## Scott (18 Mar 2006)

I'm with Michael, when I got my ink I was a minority, now every soccer mom I see has a dolphin on her ankle or a butterfly on her calf or a great big bejesus tramp stamp  ;D

I got my ink on my shoulders, I got it for me and don't need to flash it. In fact some of my closest friends are amazed to find out that I do have a couple of tats - they usually never see them and I rarely talk about them.

Piper, choose wisely, they are on you for life. And drink lots of water before your session, it helps. Also, avoid going if you've had any booze in the preceding 48 hours. Just some things that helped me from first to second session.


----------



## Scott (18 Mar 2006)

BKells said:
			
		

> What an unsubstantiated claim.



And you can prove what you just said? I think Mike is right, in fact I know he is damn close. A friend of mine got a tat as a gift from her son, the young fella was 15 at the time.

Hmmm, that makes Mike's claim a hell of a lot better than yours.


----------



## Scott (18 Mar 2006)

And it's not just bad as far as judgement goes. You'll bleed like hell even if you're just suffering a hangover, also, and I got this from my artist, some guys puke in the chair when they're hungover. Something to do with the natural painkillers in your body being released and interacting with an already queasy gut. My first one I was suffering pretty bad but I decided to go through with it anyway. The whole thing sucked because I felt sooooo bad. Thank God the guy had been tattooing for years and had probably seen guys like me a million times before.


----------



## kincanucks (18 Mar 2006)

Jimmy C said:
			
		

> Just to add to make you feel better, I came across a picture on combatcamera that shows a Lt-Col with a neck tattoo as well as one on his wrist:



Yes isn't that special.


----------



## Jimmy C (18 Mar 2006)

Yes, it makes me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Mar 2006)

> Well considering 14 year old girls now get them as birthday presents from their mommies, I wonder if tattooed people really are a minority anymore?



Yes, still are.  

My advice is stay away from 'army' tattoos.  Your service number, a canadian flag with the words go army. The canadian forces badge/cornflake.  Most people who get that stuff done seem to regret it later.


----------



## Rad (19 Mar 2006)

I can't see that, as long as the info dosen't change.  I sometimes used to forgot my SN, so maybe they should tattoo it all all recruits ;D.

R.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Mar 2006)

Rad said:
			
		

> I can't see that, as long as the info dosen't change.  I sometimes used to forgot my SN, so maybe they should tattoo it all all recruits ;D.



No, it changes. 

Once you reach a unit, and realise "hey, I share this capbadge on my forearm with brand new recruits, sewer techs, PAffOs and reservists, I sure wish I'd gotten a PPCLI cap badge"

Wait until you are in a unit for at least a year before you get inked. There is one knob I met who got the WATC crest tattooed on him - he was on PAT platoon for that long. I've never seen so many guys in the shower point and laugh!!


----------



## davidk (20 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Once you reach a unit, and realise "hey, I share this capbadge on my forearm with brand new recruits, sewer techs, PAffOs and reservists, I sure wish I'd gotten a PPCLI cap badge"



So now we're below sewer techs?  What's their MOC number, I guess I need to remuster...


----------



## GO!!! (20 Mar 2006)

Pte D. Krystal said:
			
		

> So now we're below sewer techs?  What's their MOC number, I guess I need to remuster...



Give it up, I was making a point.  :

Unit tattoos are usually indicative of the smallest and best group you were a part of, not the whole organisation.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I've never seen so many guys in the shower point and laugh!!



I gotta love a guy who lobs us softballs once in awhile, but frankly, I'm too tired...


----------



## Jimmy C (20 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> No, it changes.
> 
> Once you reach a unit, and realise "hey, I share this capbadge on my forearm with brand new recruits, sewer techs, PAffOs and reservists, I sure wish I'd gotten a PPCLI cap badge"
> 
> Wait until you are in a unit for at least a year before you get inked. *There is one knob I met who got the WATC crest tattooed on him * - he was on PAT platoon for that long. I've never seen so many guys in the shower point and laugh!!



Hahaha, the poor bugger!  

Maybe I should get the 31 CBG crest tattooed on my arm before I go out to battleschool.


----------



## q_1966 (20 Mar 2006)

My mother said I should get a tatoo of a saftey pin on the space between the thumb and pointer finger, to always remind me "Safety First" so she doesnt have to remind me,  how well do you think it would go in the army?


----------



## BKells (20 Mar 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> And you can prove what you just said? I think Mike is right, in fact I know he is damn close. A friend of mine got a tat as a gift from her son, the young fella was 15 at the time.
> 
> Hmmm, that makes Mike's claim a hell of a lot better than yours.



I didn't make any claim. I refuted the accuracy of his.

One, or two, personal anecdotes now serve as empirical evidence? What have I been spending all this time researching and sourcing things for... I never knew it was so easy.


----------



## Scott (20 Mar 2006)

BKells said:
			
		

> I didn't make any claim. I refuted the accuracy of his.
> 
> One, or two, personal anecdotes now serve as empirical evidence? What have I been spending all this time researching and sourcing things for... I never knew it was so easy.



You stated that his claim was unsubstantiated.



			
				BKells said:
			
		

> What an unsubstantiated claim.


 
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Needles and pins, pins and needles. But if you felt it to be false then why didn't you provide some supporting evidence instead of trying to drop flames on the topic? Maybe it was an attempt at humour? 

Maybe it was a statement to what society tolerates now vis a vis body art compared to a few years ago, that's what I read into it. I read nothing but a swipe into your statement.

Point may be, and I won't presume to speak for Michael, that this day in age things like body art, piercings, etc. have become more acceptable, to some, to the point that a 15 year old girl would give one to her Mom as a gift. I provided my story about it happening to someone I knew.


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Mar 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> You stated that his claim was unsubstantiated.
> 
> Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Needles and pins, pins and needles. But if you felt it to be false then why didn't you provide some supporting evidence instead of trying to drop flames on the topic?



Saying a claim is unsubstantiated isn't the same as saying it's false.


----------



## Scott (24 Mar 2006)

> Point may be, and I won't presume to speak for Michael, that this day in age things like body art, piercings, etc. have become more acceptable, to some, to the point that a 15 year old girl would give one to her Mom as a gift. I provided my story about it happening to someone I knew.



I think I explained myslef enough there. This topic has been dead for 4 days and you contribute the above?


----------



## ethan (6 Apr 2006)

I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the tattoo regulations. I have a tattoo on both of my arms and on my upperback and lower neck.
If that helps


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Apr 2006)

Did you read the post just before yours??


----------



## ThainC (24 Jul 2006)

Submitted all my paperwork, and beginning the journey to becoming an Infantry Officer.  Been tinkering with the idea of getting a tattoo for a few years, and decided just last Thursday to get it done before starting this new phase in my life.  Just thought I'd share a picture of it.

http://s95.photobucket.com/albums/l135/C_Thain/?action=view&current=175420.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1

Yes... the calf is smooth... The GF has been having endless fun making comments about the fact they shaved it for the tattoo!


----------



## MacIsaac (26 Jul 2006)

Ok so I did do a search before I asked this

So my birthday just passed and my parents wanted to get me a tattoo. My question is should I get it before BMQ or wait until after? The reason I ask is I know you can't give blood for a year after you get a tattoo and I didn't know if we have to give blood or not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jul 2006)

Giving blood for transfusion, is voluntary. Do what you want.


----------



## Hopkins (14 Jun 2007)

I'm with the 5th BC Field Regiment, and we just had a applicant DENIED because of a chinese tatoo located on the right front of his neck.  Is this a new law in the CF?  Would like some help quick so I can get back to him before he goes and spends 125$ for 3 sessions to get it removed.


----------



## Yrys (14 Jun 2007)

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. He was denied by people whose job it is to know the rules
and applied them. Seem to me it's either going with the DENIED OR removing the tattoo,
if people that DENIED him told him that without it, he could enter...


----------



## Hopkins (14 Jun 2007)

Is it a new law though is more or less what i'm asking.  We have guys with visible tatoos, hell on of our guys has full sleeves.  Just wondering if this is a new thing


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Jun 2007)

CFP 265 Chap 2 Section 2 Para 9.A.


> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing.
> Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in
> civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 25.
> 
> 9A. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open  collared shirt is worn. Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9.


----------



## Hopkins (14 Jun 2007)

Thank you.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jun 2007)

If the ink is green, laser's not going to remove it (just so he/she/it knows before spending cash).


----------



## Munxcub (14 Jun 2007)

I think that's if you are already a member. I doubt the grandfather there would apply to new recruits.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jun 2007)

Jonny Silver said:
			
		

> "Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive" and "Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9."
> 
> Sounds like if it's a pre-existing tattoo and it's not offensive (Chinese character for what??) it shouldn't be a problem...



That's members who were already serving on 01 Apr 2004 buckaroo.

The rule was in place when this guy applied...so he needs to have no visible tattoos. (ie...do not approve for service any applicants who do not meet the standard which has been in effect since 01 Apr 2004). Clear enough?


----------



## scoutfinch (14 Jun 2007)

Let me first preface this by saying that I have absolutely no idea how the rule is applied.... but a reading of the plain language would lead one to believe that it is the date that the tattoo is acquired that is significant.... which would be ludicrous and leads me to believe that what Vern says is how the rule actually applies and is likely what the drafter of this rule meant to say.  Unfortunately, who ever wrote this did a very poor job.

(That might just be the lawyer coming out in me again!)


----------



## ZipperHead (14 Jun 2007)

Hopkins said:
			
		

> I'm with the 5th BC Field Regiment, and we just had a applicant DENIED because of a chinese tatoo located on the right front of his neck.  Is this a new law in the CF?  Would like some help quick so I can get back to him before he goes and spends 125$ for 3 sessions to get it removed.



IIRC, they (recruiters) check with local police forces to see if any of the tattoos have gang, racist organization affiliations, etc. This might be the case here, or maybe they checked with a person who can read Chinese (assuming it was Chinese writing, and not art), and the character's spelled out something that fits the profane, vulgar, offensive, etc bill. I recall reading somewhere that there was a tattoo artist (Chinese) who didn't like the fact that it was trendy for Caucasians to get Chinese characters tattooed on themselves, so he changed their "Sweetheart" to "Ass-head" or something along that lines. To them I say "Ha! Ha!".  Nearest link I could be bothered to find on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_tattoos

AL


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Jun 2007)

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> Let me first preface this by saying that I have absolutely no idea how the rule is applied.... but a reading of the plain language would lead one to believe that it is the date that the tattoo is acquired that is significant.... which would be ludicrous and leads me to believe that what Vern says is how the rule actually applies and is likely what the drafter of this rule meant to say.  Unfortunately, who ever wrote this did a very poor job.
> 
> (That might just be the lawyer coming out in me again!)



That may be the plain language interpretation, but Canadian Forces Dress Regulations apply to serving members, not civilians standing outside the recruiting centre.  The regulation which is really required to explore this question is the one which is used by the CFRC and defines what is acceptable for applicants.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Jun 2007)

Okay, aside from visible racist or vulgar tattoos is the CF really going to throw away a prospective applicant for the sake of some visible body art?

This makes my head hurt.  Here the CF is crying out loud for recruits on one hand and denying them entry on the other because some uptight, pencil necked bureaucrat or overly officious serviceman/woman with a ram rod keeping their spine erect doesn't like their tatts?

There are a lot of serious kick a**, hard core MF that I personally know that wouldn't even have been given the opportunity to serve their country today because of the colours on their skin and this rampant PC tomfoolery.  What a crock!


----------



## mover1 (14 Jun 2007)

no its all about being and looking professional instead of looking like a prison yard reject.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Jun 2007)

mover1 said:
			
		

> no its all about being and looking professional instead of looking like a prison yard reject.



Yeah, riiiight.

I'd rather soldier with a competent prison yard reject than an incompetent "professional" any day.


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Jun 2007)

silver said:
			
		

> "Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive" and "Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9."
> 
> Sounds like if it's a pre-existing tattoo and it's not offensive (Chinese character for what??) it shouldn't be a problem...


You should of kept reading to para 9.A..


----------



## Chris The Pirate (14 Jun 2007)

Question:

Would a wedding ring tattoo on the ring finger be allowed? I don't have that tattoo, but I'm considering getting my wedding ring tattoo'd on my ring finger. 

From what I read:
I understand that if you have a visable tattoo, and you were already a member of the CF prior to 2004, and it isn't offensive you can keep it. 

Since this law is in place, I understand that no 'offensive' visable tattoo's are allowed; correct? If the tattoo is visable, but isn't considered offensive, is it allowed? (such as the wedding ring tattoo)

Thanks in advance - and please try to refrain from blasting me about the many regrets I may have about the ring finger idea, I've thought about it many many times and am only considering it, and it's my idea to consider.

Thanks again. 

Chris


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Jun 2007)

Chris The Pirate said:
			
		

> Question:
> 
> Would a wedding ring tattoo on the ring finger be allowed? I don't have that tattoo, but I'm considering getting my wedding ring tattoo'd on my ring finger.
> 
> ...



Very good friend of mine got his wedding ring tattooed on in Greece at the end of our KFOR tour, very well and tastefully done.  It's not a stupid idea at all especially if you work around heavy machinery.


----------



## KrissyJ (14 Jun 2007)

I just spoke to the Recruiter about this last week as I have a few and plan on getting more. He said as long as they are tasteful and not derogatory then its OK! If the military decides its innappropriate you will have to 

a: Alter it at your cost
b: Remove it at your cost 
c: If you refuse the above: Consider yourself a civilian (his words)


----------



## Hunteroffortune (14 Jun 2007)

How would it look if members of the military, had nose rings, and eyebrow rings, while in uniform? It's just not very professional. College students wear them all the time, but you can bet that they take them out for a job interview, and that companies will not allow them to be worn during work hours. So, tattoo all you want, just make sure it's not visible when you are in your uniform, that seems to be the rule here. 

I see the wedding ring tattoo as a great way to show you are married, without the risk of wearing the ring, and maybe getting it caught in some machinery, that one makes sense, just don't know if it would be allowed, but it should be.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 Jun 2007)

Chris The Pirate said:
			
		

> Question:
> 
> Would a wedding ring tattoo on the ring finger be allowed? I don't have that tattoo, but I'm considering getting my wedding ring tattoo'd on my ring finger.
> 
> ...



Visible tats are permissible (as long as they comply with the no sexist, racist stuff), on your hands and arms.  Visible tats are not permisible on your chest, neck and head.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jun 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> *I see the wedding ring tattoo as a great way to show you are married... *



"True love lasts forever; a tattoo lasts six months longer"

That was funny...until the training marriage ended.


----------



## Hopkins (15 Jun 2007)

His tatoo is the Chinese symbol for "Mother" dedicated to his mother obviously.  And it needs to be removed...


----------



## Chris The Pirate (15 Jun 2007)

Thanks for the answers and opinions. 

Chris


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 Jun 2007)

Hatchett Man is correct, and am re-posting the ref as some people either did not see it or did not read it.

CFP 265 Chap 2 Section 2 Para 9.A.


> 9A. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open  collared shirt is worn. Tattoos acquired prior to April 1st, 2004 must comply with paragraph 9.



A “Wedding Ring” Tattoo is perfectly acceptable, as it is not listed as an unacceptable location.



			
				Chris The Pirate said:
			
		

> Since this law is in place, I understand that no 'offensive' visable tattoo's are allowed; correct? If the tattoo is visable, but isn't considered offensive, is it allowed? (such as the wedding ring tattoo)


Laws are passed by parliaments; this is a regulation & policy but certainly not a law. Anything on the head, neck, chest or ears acquired after 01 Apr 04 is not acceptable, regardless of what it may be. It really is that simple and para 9.A. quoted above explains quite adequately IMHO.


----------



## mike1234 (15 Jun 2007)

It's odd to me that the chest is mentioned as a place you can't have tattoos.

I have my entire chest tattooed and across my collar bone.  I was just accepted a couple months ago and all I was told was to keep the tats off my hands and neck and nothing profane etc.  The chest didn't seem to be an issue.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jun 2007)

I didn't suggest that a wedding band tattoo was not _acceptable_, merely that it might be _regrettable._ 

Of course, if you're getting married, divorce details aren't likely ones' primary thoughts.


----------



## mover1 (15 Jun 2007)

remember when getting a girls name covered up there is the cost of the tattoo plus a 100 dollar stupidity tax!


----------



## RetiredRoyal (15 Jun 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> I see the wedding ring tattoo as a great way to show you are married



Wonder if I should have gotten one tattoo'd on the first, second or third time I got married?

During the process of my re-enrollment the Med Tech very carefully scrutinized my tattoo's. All which were applied while I was in the military. He also asked about my body piercing and if I'd be willing to remove it if necessary.

The interviewing officer also had a look at all the tattoo's that he could see when I rolled up my sleeves for him. He was satisfied when I told him they were all applied while I was in the first time round.

Geez, tattoo's, body piercing...I gotta start acting 42 some day.


----------



## 284_226 (15 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Anything on the head, neck, chest or ears acquired after 01 Apr 04 is not acceptable, regardless of what it may be. It really is that simple and para 9.A. quoted above explains quite adequately IMHO.



There seems to be a bit of confusion on the "chest" issue.  The regulation states:



> 9A. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears *when an open collared shirt is worn*.



Tattoos on the chest that aren't visible when wearing an open collared shirt are acceptable.


----------



## Yrys (15 Jun 2007)

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> Geez, tattoo's, body piercing...I gotta _start acting 42_ some day.



Well, as you turn 42 today, that can wait for tomorrow .

Happy Birthday !


----------



## RetiredRoyal (15 Jun 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Well, as you turn 42 today, that can wait for tomorrow .
> 
> Happy Birthday !



Hey, thanks.

As for the whole tattoo thing. I don't remember off hand what the old reg read like. But I know from experience that neck, face, ear tattoo's were always a no-no. Piercings, exept on the ear lobe, for women, that would show could not be worn on duty. I even remember a young lady being sent back to the shacks from the mess hall for not wearing a bra in civvy clothes. I mean, you could really, really tell she wasn't wearing a bra and it wasn't even cold.

It was pretty common for some of us grunts and airborne guys to get them on their hands and it seemed to be ok, but we were always told, i say again 'told' as I don't know how the old reg read, not to get them anywhere off the arms that would show wearing an open collar long sleeve shirt.


----------



## mover1 (15 Jun 2007)

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> Hey, thanks.
> 
> . I mean, you could really, really tell she wasn't wearing a bra and it wasn't even cold.
> 
> It was pretty common for some of us grunts and airborne guys to get them on their hands and it seemed to be ok,



taken out of context its quite funny


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Jun 2007)

:rofl:

Oh, what a mental picture you just gave me!

"hey soldier, is that a nipple on your hand or are you just happy to see me?"


----------



## RetiredRoyal (15 Jun 2007)

mover1 said:
			
		

> taken out of context its quite funny



what do you mean out of context?? that's what i meant...lol. too funny. I did notice the 'lack of clarity' when I was writing it, but thought...what da heck....


----------



## LoKe (6 Oct 2008)

I've searched several times and can't find anything within the past the year that covers the current policy on tattoo's.  My question is simple:

What CAN'T I do?  As far as I'm aware, we're not allowed tattoo's above the collar (anything visible from neck up) but what about anything from the wrist down?  Though most people try to convince me not to get it done, I'd like to get a tattoo on my hand.  There are no words, pictures, or anything that could be considered racist or offend anyone.  It's simply a tribal type tattoo.  I realize that this could make it difficult to get a job if I ever go civi-side, but unless I'm kicked out, I plan on sticking with the CF for the long haul.

So...any recent changes in the policy?


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Oct 2008)

Someone feel free to correct me, but I don't think that you are supposed to have get new tattoos that are visible when in uniform (long or short sleeved).


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2008)

I read a CANFORGEN some years ago that stated no tattoos on the neck or hands.

That may have been rescinded. I'm sure someone on here will correct us.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2008)

No Tattoo's below the long sleeve cuff and none above the collar. If you have them pre entery to thr CF or had them before the date of the CANFORGEN you are fine.

It's only Long sleeve DEU Moe


----------



## Run away gun (6 Oct 2008)

I know of multiple people who have gotten their handed inked in the past 1-2 years while in the service, and have yet to hear anything about any new CANFORGENs coming out barring it since that time. Maybe some people just had lenient RSMs.


----------



## LoKe (6 Oct 2008)

I can't seem to get a clear answer.

I've asked members, instructors, other staff, DSM's, CSM's, no one seems to have a solid answer on this topic, and I can't seem to find a canforgen saying anything of it.  The only thing I'm sure of is that I can't get anything above the neck.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2008)

Oh no trust me there is a CANFORGEN about it, they are just lucky they either haven't been caught or people assume it was done prior....

There is a Member who after TF3-06 had a tattoo done on his neck, he was charged for being in contrivention of the standing order and is now forced to either cover it with makeup or a bandage. After that the CANFORGEN was was posted on all the bulletin boards and in the Coy lines.


----------



## LoKe (6 Oct 2008)

That's for a neck and above tattoo.  All I can find is this:


> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing.
> *Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could
> be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic,
> blasphemous, racist) or otherwise reflect discredit on
> ...



http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Downloads/cfp265.pdf


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2008)

I thought so. I guess my brain isn`t mush after all!!
I have 4 tattoos. Three are on arms, one on upper left shoulder blade.....anyone want to see them send me a PM.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2008)

LoKe said:
			
		

> That's for a neck and above tattoo.  All I can find is this:
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Downloads/cfp265.pdf



As you have the references, you know the answer.  Those Regs will remain in affect until new Regs are made that will supercede these ones.  That does not happen on a regular basis.  It may be ten or fifty years before such a Regulation is amended.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Oct 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> No Tattoo's below the long sleeve cuff and none above the collar. If you have them pre entery to thr CF or had them before the date of the CANFORGEN you are fine.
> 
> It's only Long sleeve DEU Moe



I must have been thinking about the offensive ones.  Thanks.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Oct 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I must have been thinking about the offensive ones.  Thanks.



You can get tattoo's on your hands/arms (provided they aren't offensive).  The above link is the current policy.  I am suprised, Mr. Wallace, didn't provide the link to the already large thread on this same topic, as this has been beaten to death.


----------



## militarygirl88 (23 May 2009)

OK, I did use the search function and most of the topics that came up haven't been posted in in either years or they are locked, so I can't really respond.


I currently have 9 tattoos and 11 piercings. All my tattoos can be covered by uniform and I don't believe any are offensive in anyway. My tattoos are on my back, chest, ankle, calf, both forearms and both wrists. Also, most of my piercings are noticeable, except for maybe 2. The piercings that show are in my ears and lip. I'm assuming I'd have to take out at least my ear piercings and my lip piercing for sure. I'm not sure about tongue or the other piercing which is below the neck....


Now, my questions in regards to tattoos and piercings are: how will they affect the application process?? And which piercings would have to be removed?? Also, would I only have to remove my piercings while I'm on duty (should I be accepted) or would they have to be removed permanently??


Thanks for any answers.

MilitaryGirl88


----------



## MikeL (23 May 2009)

Aslong as the tattoos are non offensive you shouldn't have any issues. 


When on duty you would have to remove your lip an tongue piercing. Off duty wear what you want.  If you are off duty, on course an on base I'd recommend staying in line with the on duty standard.

Also; I dunno what other piercings you have but you may have to remove them during training/field for hygeine issues, etc.


You can most likely find more info on this subject by searching the forums too. Aswell as talking to the people at whatever CFRC you are dealing with.


----------



## Bianca (23 May 2009)

I may not be the most informed on the subject but I have definitely read multiple times that the only piercings allowed (and jewelry in general, other than a wedding band and watch) are simple studs in the ears for women (1 piercing in each ear.) At least when you're on duty... not sure about when you're not in uniform.

I think if all your tattoos aren't visible you should be good, but I guess you should check with your CFRC. Also, the CF Dress Instructions (don't have a link unfortunately but it's been posted here a bunch of times) answer a lot of questions about appearances. 

ETA: and the recruiters I have spoken with have mentioned a bunch of times that if they want you to change something, they will tell you. I don't think they expect you to walk into the CFRC knowing all the rules. From what I've heard, the Forces will tell you what they want, there's no need to assume anything.


----------



## MikeL (23 May 2009)

Bianca said:
			
		

> I think if all your tattoos aren't visible you should be good



Uh.. you can have visible tattoos in the CF.. lots of people with hand tattoos, tattoos on forearms an even full sleeves, etc.


----------



## militarygirl88 (23 May 2009)

I didn't think I'd have too much of a problem from my tattoos.

It's more so the piercings... Like I have 8 in my ears, 1 in my tongue, 1 in my lip and 1 below the waist (I just got that one a couple days ago). The recruiters or medical staff would never know unless they gave me a full physical, however I'm not about to lie on my application. 

Also, you can't really see my tongue ring unless I'm yawning or yelling, lol. And it hasn't been taken out in 4 years, but if that's the requirement while on duty then I'll take it out. As for my lip ring, is it possible to put a clear plastic one in so the hole doesn't close over??? And the one below the waist would that have to come out?? 

Thanks

MilitaryGirl88


----------



## Bianca (23 May 2009)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Uh.. you can have visible tattoos in the CF.. lots of people with hand tattoos, tattoos on forearms an even full sleeves, etc.



Oops I guess I didn't finish my thought. I was going to add that if they are visible they shouldn't be offensive. (Obviously since I've seen Van Doos with their knuckles tattooed.) Sorry, still new, still learning.


----------



## PMedMoe (23 May 2009)

_Technically_, you are only allowed to have your ears pierced (one only, centered in the lobe) in the military.  As far as the other piercings, you will have to remove the visible ones while in uniform.  Including the tongue.  You may not be able to see it, but some people can tell if you have one, just by the way you talk.


----------



## MikeL (23 May 2009)

MilitaryGirl69 said:
			
		

> I didn't think I'd have too much of a problem from my tattoos.
> 
> It's more so the piercings... Like I have 8 in my ears, 1 in my tongue, 1 in my lip and 1 below the waist (I just got that one a couple days ago). The recruiters or medical staff would never know unless they gave me a full physical, however I'm not about to lie on my application.
> 
> ...



If you want to join you will be giving up some of your "individualism".    You can put the clear plastic one in sure.. but if your instructors see it an they don't like it you will hear about it.. regardless if its clear or steel you are still wearing a piece of jewlerry/piercing that isn't authorized in uniform. An even you don't think your tongue ring is visible would you really want to take the chance of your staff, etc seeing it. Also again.. professionalism.. if you know you shouldn't have something in while in uniform why not just follow the rules.. makes life a bit easier especially on course.   As for the one "below the belt".. keep it in but if it gets infected during the field or whatever.. might cause issues.   

When you show up at the CFRC the Recruiters an Medical staff will be more than willing to explain the rules an pros of cons of these things.


----------



## militarygirl88 (23 May 2009)

Skeletor, 

I don't have a problem with giving up some of my individuality or taking out the piercings that would be more noticeable. I was just wondering if I could put the clear plastic one in my lip because I haven't had it that long and I don't want to have to re-pierce it a 3rd time, lol. And I think by the time I apply and hopefully get accepted into the military the one below the waist will be fully healed. But again, I'll take out all the piercings they tell me I have to take out, I have no intention of breaking rules as simple as this, or any for that matter.

Back to my tattoos though, I read somewhere that tattoos on the chest are not permitted?? Is that true??


----------



## MikeL (23 May 2009)

MilitaryGirl69 said:
			
		

> Back to my tattoos though, I read somewhere that tattoos on the chest are not permitted?? Is that true??



Chest tattoos are fine. I have a tattoo on my chest an my ribcage an they are all allowed.


----------



## hanson1636 (23 May 2009)

I had to take out my piercings (ears,tounge,nipples). I've never seen my dad so happy. Tounge Ring might not be noticable for some people, mine was definitly not but I would not want to be on the recieving end when instructors happened to notice it. My Tattoos are not a issue and I have full sleeve and a half sleeve on the other arm,including my hands. Losing the jewelery was a small change in life, time for me to grow up.


----------



## militarygirl88 (23 May 2009)

Hmm..... Would a Canadian Military Personnel find my tattoo of the United States Marine Corps Emblem and Motto on my back offensive?? It's a memorial tattoo for friends I've lost over seas that served in the USMC.... The tattoo has the USMC Eagle Globe and Anchor with the motto "semper fi" and phrase "I love you always and forever" around it.....


----------



## MikeL (23 May 2009)

No.. CF pers would not be offended by an EGA..    things like swastikas, etc are the "offensive" tattoos.


But be ready to explain that tattoo though as it will most likely draw some attention an questions.


----------



## militarygirl88 (23 May 2009)

Ok, good to know.... I also have the rebel flag as a tattoo. However, I am NOT racist. I did have to explain that tattoo when I first applied years ago, I'm sure I'll have to explain the meaning behind it again.... But it shouldn't cause a problem??? It's always covered by clothing....


----------



## MikeL (23 May 2009)

Ok.. I know you're anxious, nervous, etc about joining but RELAX stop sweating these things. Just wait out untill you show up at the CFRC, show them your tattoos, etc answer their questions give them your honest answers an so forth.

Theres so much better things to be thinking about an doing before enlisting like PT.. making sure you're life is shorted out so if you do get picked up an get sent off to Basic things won't fall apart back home or whatever.


----------



## militarygirl88 (23 May 2009)

Thanks, Skeletor.

I have most things sorted out here in the event that I don't get accepted. And I am working on my PT, as I know I have to strengthen my ankle up again before I can re-apply, (torn ligaments). 

I was just curious about the tattoos and piercings. Thanks again for you're help.


MilitaryGirl88


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 May 2009)

The regs say one stud in the centre of each lobe. That's it. No clear plastic keepers and no tongue stud. 

You are joining the military. Regs are to be followed, not skirted and not open to individual interpretation.

Show your tats to the RC and ask if they think your tattoos are offensive.

The RC are the ones that are going to decide, not us. Ask them.


----------



## militarygirl88 (25 May 2009)

Thanks, recceguy, there wasn't any reason to be so rude. 

I'm pretty sure I said I had NO problem taking out my piercings. I was merely curious as to whether or not I could keep a clear plastic one in my lip, I haven't seen anywhere in the regs that I can't. 

As for my tattoos, I was just curious as to what others thought. My only tattoo of concern is my rebel flag. I know for a fact that my other tattoos are far from offensive.

MilitaryGirl88


----------



## aesop081 (25 May 2009)

MilitaryGirl69 said:
			
		

> I haven't seen anywhere in the regs that I can't.



You certainly have. The regs state one stud earing in each ear and even specify the permited location of it. That is all that is allowed. The regulations tell you what you CAN have, it doesnt need to say what you cant.


----------



## Scott (25 May 2009)

MilitaryGirl69 said:
			
		

> Thanks, recceguy, there wasn't any reason to be so rude.



??? You mistake a factual post that is straight to the point and gives you exactly the advice that you were looking for for rude? I don't see it but whatever. 

I think we're done here.

Usual caveats


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2009)

MilitaryGirl69 said:
			
		

> Thanks, recceguy, there wasn't any reason to be so rude.
> 
> MilitaryGirl88



Like Scott said. I just gave you bare facts. If you are so easily offended by straight talk that doesn't cater to your senses, you are in for a real shock when you get to training.

I certainly wasn't rude and I don't think you really want to see me rude.

Sorry for posting over the lock Scott


----------



## Hazard696 (23 Aug 2009)

I've read the FAQ and the rules about tattoos in the army, but I'm still not quite sure if my tattoo is acceptable. I have the letters "CFH" in a custom font, tattood on the inside of my upper forearm. It stands for "Cowboys From Hell" which is a heavy metal song and album title. I had this done before I thought about joining the military. From what I understand after reading the rules though, that shouldn't be a problem. But I'm slightly worried about the "Hell" part, and it being a band tattoo. I'm certain that I'd get a hard time for it regardless though, I can just imagine what my superiors would be thinking after I explained this.

If I were rejected because of this tattoo that would be extremely dissapointing, because believe it or not the tattoo does mean something to me. But if it means scraping it out of my skin with a cheese grater to get in the army, I'll do it.  >


----------



## CFR FCS (23 Aug 2009)

It shouldn't be an issue. The CF are mostly concerned with racial or gang tattoos. The CFRC will advise you more. 

You can always say the CFH stands for Canadian Forces Hopeful!


----------



## Hazard696 (23 Aug 2009)

CFR FCS said:
			
		

> It shouldn't be an issue. The CF are mostly concerned with racial or gang tattoos. The CFRC will advise you more.
> 
> You can always say the CFH stands for Canadian Forces Hopeful!



Haha, well I wouldn't want to lie to them. That would slip up sooner or later for sure anyways, but thanks for your input, I think I'm in the clear I just want to see some opinions before I walked into the RC.


----------



## mariomike (23 Aug 2009)

CFR FCS said:
			
		

> You can always say the CFH stands for Canadian Forces Hopeful!



Very good!  ;D


----------



## FDO (23 Aug 2009)

Your right, we look for tattoos that could be discriminatory or offensive. If you had Nazi or tats or something like that it would be an issue. Also we look for tats that are on your face, neck or hands. As long as they can be covered when your in 1As (Dress uniform) then your OK. Someting like the one you have won't be a problem.


----------



## Steve_D (23 Aug 2009)

Hands? That could be a problem for me.  In anticipation of joining the Navy, I advised my wife that I would not be wearing my wedding band while on board ship for safety reasons.  So we went and got wedding bands tatooed on our fingers.  They are a simple celtic knot pattern.  I guess that I could cover it up with my regular wedding band, but that would defeat the purpose of getting it in the first place.

FDO. Do you see that as an issue?

Thanks

Steve


----------



## Occam (23 Aug 2009)

Steve_D said:
			
		

> Hands? That could be a problem for me.  In anticipation of joining the Navy, I advised my wife that I would not be wearing my wedding band while on board ship for safety reasons.  So we went and got wedding bands tatooed on our fingers.  They are a simple celtic knot pattern.  I guess that I could cover it up with my regular wedding band, but that would defeat the purpose of getting it in the first place.
> 
> FDO. Do you see that as an issue?



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/4024/post-686255.html#msg686255


----------



## Steve_D (23 Aug 2009)

Thanks. Works for me.  Based on this information, I am good to go.

Cheers and have a great day.

Steve
 ;D


----------



## DBark (3 Jan 2010)

Wondering if any can shed some light on what the recruitment policies are for tattoos when applying for CSOR?

I know the usual, no hands - no face - no neck, but are the policies for CSOR a little more strict? The website doesn't even seem to touch it.

Cheers in advance!


----------



## MikeL (3 Jan 2010)

Um have you tried emailing the CSOR Recruiter? Surprisingly enough, they are helpfull an can answer your questions within reason ie nothing OPSEC.

AFAIK the regulations they follow are the standard CF ones, nothing special for them.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2010)

While CSOR recruiting doesn't specifically address tattoos, there are no additional restrictions.

CF Dress Regs, Chap 2 - Policy and Appearance, state:
*Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. * 

Another component of CANSOFCOM, JTF-2, has elaborated on their website


> *Myth 8 - You cannot have any tattoos to be eligible for service with JTF 2.*
> Answer - Tattoos or other physical identifiers do not have any bearing on a Canadian Forces member’s eligibility for service with JTF 2. A prospective candidate who successfully completes the JTF 2 selection process and is deemed eligible for service may be given an opportunity to serve with the unit.



Same union rules as CSOR


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2010)

.......and another tattoo thread gets put to bed.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Major_Malfunction (9 Apr 2010)

So, the search function is broken and I'd like some advice. Apologies if you've answered tattoo questions till you're blue in the face... 

The docs saw all my tattoos and didn't really make a big fuss about them because they weren't offenssive in any way. I got "Hey, that's one's nice" from one of the guys...

Should i make them aware of any more that I get between now and BMQ or am I being too cautious? I mean, they're not going on my face, neck, or hands... 

normally I'd wait till Monday and just call the recruiting center and ask, but my appointment is on Sunday. Just one of those things you never think of until someone say "Hey, think the CF are going to like you doing that before you get there?"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Apr 2010)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80362.0
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91428.0
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/869.0.html


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Apr 2010)

Major_Malfunction said:
			
		

> So, the search function is broken .....




When you find problems with the search function use Google as an alternative.  Add *site:army.ca* to your search to limit results to the forum.

This will also work for site:navy.ca, site:air-force.ca, or other versions of the Milnet.ca url.


----------



## SteveT (2 Mar 2011)

Hi all, I've been seriously considering joining the armed forces, but the only things that I am concerned about are whether I'll get overlooked due to my tattoos/piercings, I took out my gauged ears and my lip piercings for this, all that remains are two that I am able to hide and I know this is may not an issue but it still worries me. I have been reading the Canadian Forces website and I've downloaded the application forms and everything but I am worried about my physical appearance because I am very interested in joining and am willing to do whatever it takes just as much as the next guy. I read the jobs that are offered in the land armed forces and I was considering going for Materials Technician because of my background in Welding, Auto-body and Auto mechanics in high school. I'm just looking for any information regarding this at all, anything at all will be helpful and I'd really appreciate it I'm just confused in the whole process and am just looking for a bit of guidance. Thanks alot!


----------



## jwtg (2 Mar 2011)

Having piercings and tattoos is usually fine, within reason.  A giant swastika on your face could be a problem.  Typical tattoos are usually not too problematic.  My interviewing officer had one on his arm, and I have an armband.  I also have piercings.  None of them were problems, provided I conform to dress regulations when in uniform.

That being said, you've been pretty vague in describing what it is you're worried about.  I have no idea how many/what type/what location of tattoos you have.  
Only place to get a good answer is to go down and speak to a recruiter (also giving them the opportunity to see you face to face) and ask your questions about your particular tattoos/piercings.


----------



## SteveT (2 Mar 2011)

I have letters on my knuckles and large lettering on my forearm and a tattoo on my left bi-cep and I have my septum pierced but that can be hidden/taken out if need be. I checked the CF site and the closest recruiter to me is in Hamilton I believe.


----------



## Mudshuvel (2 Mar 2011)

What jwtg said.

As long as you don't have offensive or racially charged tattoos visible and you are willing to remove any visible piercings while in uniform, there _shouldn't_ be a problem. Depending on the letters on your knuckles, as long as they don't say something like F your Mom or F the system (you catch my drift) I can't see there being a problem.


----------



## Gravja (2 Mar 2011)




----------



## RCollins04 (1 Apr 2011)

Hey there, I brought this question up in a previous thread, and got one answer. I was hoping to get a clear answer for someone who knows this.

I have a forearm tattoo which is acceptable with the CF tattoo policy. Do MP's have a higher standard for the Tattoo policy? Also, wearing a short sleeve uniform shirt..would I have to cover the tattoo up? Maybe by wearing a long-sleeve?


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Apr 2011)

So, I guess you didn't see reply #3 of your previous thread:



			
				TN2IC said:
			
		

> No, it applies to all CF members. Regardless of what trade.
> 
> 
> TN2IC



 :

To answer the second question, as long as it is "acceptable with the CF tattoo policy", then no.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Apr 2011)

I was just on CFP 265....no mention of tattoo policy for MPs only.


----------



## 2010newbie (1 Apr 2011)

You were already provided the answer (as you admitted) in the other post here:

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/100132/post-1031207.html#msg1031207

Here it is in a slightly lengthier version, straight from Section 2 of the Dress Regs.....



> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing.
> Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could
> be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic,
> blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language
> ...



There is no metion of differing standards for different trades; all are CF members.

Maybe a merge is in order?


----------



## kawa11 (9 Jun 2011)

Could someone please point me in the direction of the official policy of the CF regarding tattoos?

I've been sifting through the US policy, the Canadian drum parade and somehow found a site debunking JTF2 myths without much luck finding what I was actually looking for.
All I've been told so far is, "not on the face." So with the Mike Tyson tattoo on hold (  : ) is there anything else that is off limits or could end in not being allowed to re-enlist?


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

Have you tried the Search function ?


----------



## Strike (9 Jun 2011)

> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing.
> Members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could
> be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic,
> blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language
> ...


----------



## kawa11 (9 Jun 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Have you tried the Search function ?


All I got on milnet was a 3 conversations with the word tattoo in it.
On Yahoo! all I found was info about the US Forces "grandfathered tattoo" policy, the Military Tattoo [drum parade] & a site debunking JTF2 myths (#8 is: "tattoos prevent you from joining JTF)


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jun 2011)

site:army.ca tattoo policy


----------



## Strike (9 Jun 2011)

Yes, the search function can be a bit like the DIN search tool, unless you know the ins and outs of it.

The portion I quoted is from the dress regs, which I have on a memory stick.  No idea where you would be able to find it online.


----------



## kawa11 (9 Jun 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Yes, the search function can be a bit like the DIN search tool, unless you know the ins and outs of it.
> 
> The portion I quoted is from the dress regs, which I have on a memory stick.  No idea where you would be able to find it online.


http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Downloads/cfp265.pdf *2001
*http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/downloads-telechargements/reserve/dress-tenue/cfp265_6.pdf *2005
*
Think this is it.

Thanks.


----------



## Occam (9 Jun 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/downloads-telechargements/reserve/dress-tenue/cfp265_6.pdf *2005* 2008 (includes change 6, which is the most recent version)



Minor correction above.


----------



## jemcgrg (9 Jun 2011)

I was told when I went in for my medical that an arabic writing tattoo on my back might be required to be covered up at some point in my career in the military which I thought was interesting.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> I was told when I went in for my medical that an arabic writing tattoo on my back might be required to be covered up at some point in my career in the military which I thought was interesting.



That sounds like someone's personal opinion. I would not pay much attention to it.


----------



## Strike (9 Jun 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That sounds like someone's personal opinion. I would not pay much attention to it.



It a depends what it says.  If the tattoo says, "Kill the infidels," I can see them wanting you to get rid of it.  If it says, "God is great," or ,"I like bunnies," well, nothing really offensive about that is there?


----------



## jemcgrg (9 Jun 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That sounds like someone's personal opinion. I would not pay much attention to it.



Yeah, I thought that was a little weird. 
Thanks


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

What if the tattoo, which is in Arabic (I don't know any Arabic and I don't know many people that do) said "I am an infidel"

Just sayin.....


----------



## Strike (9 Jun 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> What if the tattoo, which is in Arabic (I don't know any Arabic and I don't know many people that do) said "I am an infidel"
> 
> Just sayin.....



Hey, we're all infidels according to one religion or another.


----------



## jemcgrg (9 Jun 2011)

Haha, there are no references to infidels in it I can assure you. But it isn't in any place anyone would have any reason to see while in uniform and as Jim mentioned, I don't know many people that read arabic anyway.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Hey, we're all infidels according to one religion or another.


I'm an infidel in every religion, including Satanism.  >


----------



## Strike (9 Jun 2011)

jemcgrg said:
			
		

> Haha, there are no references to infidels in it I can assure you. But it isn't in any place anyone would have any reason to see while in uniform and as Jim mentioned, I don't know many people that read arabic anyway.



What does it say?  Or, should I ask, what do you THINK it says?  Most tattoos in foreign languages don't actually say anything.  They just look good.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

Strike is correct. People that think their Chinese characters say "The Dragon is Great" but actually say "your aunt has a big huge nose" or something similar.


----------



## jemcgrg (9 Jun 2011)

Oh believe me, I'm under no false impression that it says what I think it does. It is supposed to say "soulmate" I was young and ridiculous and my EX  got the same one. It does look cool so I don't want to get rid of it, but even him and I joked around about it that it said applesauce.


----------



## jemcgrg (9 Jun 2011)

I actually went with him to get his covered up. Lol


----------



## Pusser (9 Jun 2011)

I've always been curious as to how we enforce the non-visible piercings rule.  

"Good morning Corporal.  Are you wearing a Prince Albert or any nipple rings today?"

"No Sergeant."

"Very well. Carry on marching up and down the square."


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've always been curious as to how we enforce the non-visible piercings rule.
> 
> "Good morning Corporal.  Are you wearing a Prince Albert or any nipple rings today?"
> 
> ...



OK......what is a Prince Albert? I'm from the place...and just wondering WTF a "Prince Albert" is....


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Jun 2011)

Penis Piercing lol


----------



## Strike (9 Jun 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/3njfj2d

Yes, it's work safe.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jun 2011)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Penis Piercing lol



 :facepalm: I had to ask didn't I?

 :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Jun 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :facepalm:I had to ask didn't I?



  :facepalm: ;D  Its ok Jim happens to the best of them lol


----------



## jemcgrg (9 Jun 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've always been curious as to how we enforce the non-visible piercings rule.
> 
> "Good morning Corporal.  Are you wearing a Prince Albert or any nipple rings today?"
> 
> ...



I always wondered this as well. lol


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jun 2011)

Here's another, slightly more explicit worksafe one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0


----------



## Tollis (16 Jun 2011)

I'm thinking of starting a Tattoo Pictures thread.  Did a search and couldn't really find a definite thread just for people to post.  It would likely be in one of the other areas that's more appropriate NOT the recruiting thread.  Would anyone be interested in somehing like that?


----------



## kawa11 (16 Jun 2011)

Tollis said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of starting a Tattoo Pictures thread.  Did a search and couldn't really find a definite thread just for people to post.  It would likely be in one of the other areas that's more appropriate NOT the recruiting thread.  Would anyone be interested in somehing like that?


I'm in as soon as I can be pointed to a good photo hosting site..


----------



## Tollis (16 Jun 2011)

So I started it up  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/101322.0.html  

P.S. Imageshack is a good site for Forum picture hosting.


----------



## NRobichaud (13 Dec 2012)

wondering if anyone here can help me out. I have looked all over but didn't find anything to directly answer my question. 
What is the CF's policy on tattoos? From my research, my understanding is nothing above the collar bone or below the wrist line, nothing offensive, racist or sexual. The reason I am asking is I have a tattoo on my back that goes about mid-way up the back of my neck, and is visible when I'm wearing casual shirts, and a bit visible with a collared shirt. My recruiter has seen it and I informed him of it, the medical examiner has seen it, and I was still offered a job as ACISS and am leaving for BMQ in a few weeks. 

I know I'm most likelt over-analyzing this and worrying too muc, but will the tattoo be an issue when I arrive to CFLRS? 
I want nothing more but to join the CF and would hate to be turned away when I walk into BMQ.


----------



## Occam (13 Dec 2012)

Search?


----------



## hotei (13 Dec 2012)

Dude -- 

I am by no means being a dick here, but let's analyze this situation (from your own post):

a) You informed the recruiter (and he saw it);
b) You informed the medical examiner (and her saw it);
c) They offered you a job.

If you haven't gathered where I am going with this, its fine. There are quite a few soldiers who have tattoos that extend above the collar bone and onto the hands. The policy states that you won't get any such tattoos once you are in the military. What you did before (with regards to your tattoos) is irrelevant at this point. Put your head down and focus on getting through basic, and try not to worry about the little things.

-Hotei


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2012)

It's no problem, there's a small and mostly overlooked building behind the mega where tattoos are removed with a 4" angle grinder and a sanding disk.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2012)

Kat, that post is going to cause mass anic: and OMG! WTF! HELP! threads in the Recruiting forums.   ;D


----------



## ps387 (12 Apr 2013)

I did a search and couldn't find anything recent (or outside of recruiting), so I'll ask the question see what happens...

To the best of my knowledge, the tattoo policy states no new tattoos above the collar or below the cuffs. A co-worker says she saw a (she thinks) CANFORGEN last year saying the policy had been updated to include no new tattoos below the elbow. Anyone know anything about that?

I don't have access to DWAN for a couple more months so I can't look anything up that way either.

TIA


----------



## dimsum (12 Apr 2013)

The way I've always read it was that "cuffs" included the short-sleeved shirt.  So, a "no new tattoos below the elbow" policy would be already in place.  

That being said, I'm not planning to have any tattoos so I haven't been paying attention.


----------



## slayer/raptor (12 Apr 2013)

I've NEVER seen this rule implemented or anyone receiving consequences for getting tattoos.  There are many VanDoos who have R22eR on their fingers, and I don't exactly think they knew they would be VanDoos before joining the army.  I think the main one is the above the neck rule.


----------



## pross182 (12 Apr 2013)

People in my unit have received extras for getting new tattoos like that. Naturally there are others who have tats in those places but they had them on enrollment so that's ok.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Apr 2013)

There was a CANFORGEN published last year that prohibited tattoos below the elbow or on the neck. I don't have access to it now, perhaps someone will post it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Apr 2013)

I just looked for it in 2010/11/12 and didn't see a CANFORGEN. 

From 265, Section 2 - Appearance, Para 9:

9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or
ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g.,
pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 20.


----------



## ARMY_101 (12 Apr 2013)

I can't seem to find a CANFORGEN on tattoos looking far back as 2009, which would seem to suggest this (as of 2011) is still current:



> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of
> April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any
> tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or
> ears when an open collared shirt is worn.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2013)

> non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members
> either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing.


  

Guess I'll have to cancel the appointment for the Prince Albert and nipple rings until after retirement then :blotto:


----------



## Haggis (12 Apr 2013)

I checked the minutes of the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee back to early 2009 and there is no new mention of tattoos.


----------



## SentryMAn (12 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Guess I'll have to cancel the appointment for the Prince Albert and nipple rings until after retirement then :blotto:



I know more then one guy who is currently serving that claim to have the PA and more then one that have nipples done.

I've also been present when 3 individuals were charged for wearing a tongue ring while on duty after being ordered not too.

Interesting times!

haha


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2013)

I have never heard of the no tattoos below the elbow rule. 

Seems to me I have violated that one myself.....


----------



## AmmoTech90 (12 Apr 2013)

I had a soldier who worked for me get a tattoo on his hand, queried it, and there is no regulation, barring the offensive one, prohibiting it.

The Dress Regulations are fairly clear, they make reference to an open collar, not cuffs.


----------



## Osotogari (12 Apr 2013)

So the rantings of a certain Calgary-based brigadier in the early 1990s were mis-informed?
At least now my wife has one less reason to object to my getting sleeved!


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2013)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> So the rantings of a certain Calgary-based brigadier in the early 1990s were mis-informed?
> At least now my wife has one less reason to object to my getting sleeved!



There was no policy prior to that, until jjjjjjjjimmmy came on the scene.


----------



## Container (12 Apr 2013)

2012- when I was going through enrollment my hands, fingers and neck we re not a big deal.

It was explained at the CFRC that I wouldnt be able to get anymore above the collar once I swore in. But hands etc were fine according to "the rules".

On the recruiting website in the faqs it also says that you can enroll with neck and hands. Just no more neck and collar line tattoos after enrollment.

No face tattoos however....so my Tyson plans are out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Apr 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> No face tattoos however....so my Tyson plans are out.



Be a man.


----------



## Container (12 Apr 2013)

Screw it. Im going for it.

An O/cdt stripe under my eye. That way people will know Im clueless in and out of uniform.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Apr 2013)

pross182 said:
			
		

> People in my unit have received extras for getting new tattoos like that. Naturally there are others who have tats in those places but they had them on enrollment so that's ok.



Seems some people are over stepping their bounds, and aren't reading the regs properly (still).  If I was one of those members (barring that the extra's weren't for other included reasons) I would be re-dressing that.


----------



## Ostrozac (12 Apr 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I checked the minutes of the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee back to early 2009 and there is no new mention of tattoos.



Actually, look again at the 2012 minutes. MILPERSCOM has proposed _relaxing _the tattoo standards to allow neck tattoos. The minutes say it's approved, but I personally wouldn't recommend getting any neck ink until the Dress Pam is updated.

And forearm and hand tattoos are still good to go (as long as they don't violate the offensive/discredit to the CF restriction).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Apr 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Seems some people are over stepping their bounds, and aren't reading the regs properly (still).  If I was one of those members (barring that the extra's weren't for other included reasons) I would be re-dressing that.



Or not doing the extras and seeing what _that_ dice roll comes up with.   :blotto:


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Apr 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or not doing the extras and seeing what _that_ dice roll comes up with.   :blotto:



If I was still in and this came up (I have tattoo's on my forearms and designs for full sleeves), I would be that guy to say go ahead charge me   Got into an argument with a Sgt-Major when I was on work up, he was over hearing a conversation myself and others about what ink is legal, he waded in with the assumption that below wrist/hands are no go.  I didn't like him anyways, so I told him point blank he was wrong.  He didn't like that.  Went on about I am Sgt-Maj blah, blah.  I said that's fine sir, you are still wrong and I will show you.  Gave him a copy of the dress regs, he spent 2 weeks trying to find something to refute me, eventually came up empty, and begrudgingly admitted he was wrong (choose his words carefully, I wasn't right, he was just wrong).


----------



## KELL711 (6 May 2013)

From 265, Section 2 - Appearance, Para 9:

9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or
ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g.,
pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 20.


Where can I find this actual document? Or if someone could save me more time, when writing a memo for permission to get a tattoo what is used for the reference number at the top of the memo?


----------



## Occam (6 May 2013)

KELL711 said:
			
		

> Or if someone could save me more time, when writing a memo for permission to get a tattoo what is used for the reference number at the top of the memo?



People write memos to request permission for a tattoo?


----------



## ARMY_101 (6 May 2013)

KELL711 said:
			
		

> Where can I find this actual document? Or if someone could save me more time, when writing a memo for permission to get a tattoo what is used for the reference number at the top of the memo?



A-DH-265-000/AG-001

CANADIAN FORCES DRESS INSTRUCTIONS

Issued on Authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff

01 June 2011


----------



## KELL711 (6 May 2013)

Perfect. Thank you


----------



## The_Falcon (6 May 2013)

KELL711 said:
			
		

> From 265, Section 2 - Appearance, Para 9:
> 
> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or
> ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g.,
> ...



You don't need permission to get inked.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 May 2013)

Gee, guess those four I have (soon to be five) are illegal....   :-\



Just had to add this:


----------



## SentryMAn (8 May 2013)

So my thoughts of getting my first tattoo of an ice cream cone on my face wouldn't be allowed?

lol


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 May 2013)

SentryMAn said:
			
		

> So my thoughts of getting my first tattoo of an ice cream cone on my face wouldn't be allowed?
> 
> lol



There are enough examples of self licking ice cream cones in the military without you turning yourself into one.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (9 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There are enough examples of self licking ice cream cones in the military without you turning yourself into one.


But are they visually amusing examples?


----------



## McG (9 May 2013)

I recall seeing an individual with the red maple leaf and crossed swords used as a logo by the Army.  It was huge, starting below the collar, coming up one side and the back of his neck, and reaching out well onto a cheek.
It was spectacularly stupid looking.


----------



## JorgSlice (10 May 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> I recall seeing an individual with the red maple leaf and crossed swords used as a logo by the Army.  It was huge, starting below the collar, coming up one side and the back of his neck, and reaching out well onto a cheek.
> It was spectacularly stupid looking.



I know someone with that covering his entire back, and another individual with the tri-service badge filling his entire back. I think in those sizes it's just overkill.


----------



## inkme (9 Oct 2013)

Hello,

I tried looking for an answer to this, but seem to get mixed answers through my searches. Either saying it's okay unless it's not racist/profane/offensive, or it's not okay no matter what.


While in the forces, I got 2 full sleeve tattoos without any problems. I'm just wondering if there will be problems if I continue them into my hands and neck a bit. I see people all the time at different places I work with tattoos on their neck and hands, so I don't see the problem. Whether they got them while they were in or before they joined is a different story. The fact of the matter is they still have them on their neck and hands and are still in.

What if I'm posted to a different base and I get my work done before I show up, how will they know if I got them now or before I joined? (when apparently it's okay then).


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Oct 2013)

I searched "tattoos" and this was the 9th result.

Here's the pertinent bit:



> members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.





			
				inkme said:
			
		

> What if I'm posted to a different base and I get my work done before I show up, how will they know if I got them now or before I joined? (when apparently it's okay then).



So, you plan on lying about it, if asked?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2013)

inkme said:
			
		

> What if I'm posted to a different base and I get my work done before I show up, how will they know if I got them now or before I joined? (when apparently it's okay then).



Are you willing to risk being ordered to have them removed?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2013)

inkme said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I tried looking for an answer to this, but seem to get mixed answers through my searches. Either saying it's okay unless it's not racist/profane/offensive, or it's not okay no matter what.
> 
> ...



Tattoos are awesome (especially when spelt right) but consider this.  There may come a time in your career when you want to try out something a little out of the box.
A job which requires you to not instantly look like you're military.  You can grow long hair and play dress up but if you're physically fit and covered in visible tattoos it's a very big tip off about military service or connections.  JTF2, source handler, working in plain clothes with the public (even OPP or CSIS or something down the road)- having the ol paratrooper wings on your wrist , a PPCLI tattoo on your hand or stuff up your neck might make you stand out in places you don't want to.


----------



## GreenMarine (9 Oct 2013)

In trying to sreach for your effort I found this Para about Tattoo in a Message 

B. BODY TATTOOS AND BODY-PIERCING: MEMBERS SHALL NOT ACQUIRE VISIBLE
TATTOOS THAT COULD BE DEEMED TO BE OFFENSIVE (EG. PORNOGRAPHIC,
BLASPHEMOUS, RACIST OR CONTAING VULGAR LANGUAGE) OR OTHERWISE
REFLECT DISCREDIT ON THE CF. VISIBLE AND NON-VISIBLE BODY PIERCING
ADORNMENTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WOMENS EARRINGS AND EAR SLEEPERS
DESCRIBED IN PARA 4, SHALL NOT BE WORN BY MEMBERS EITHER IN UNIFORM
OR ON DUTY IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING.  AS OF 01 APRIL 2004, MEMBERS ARE
NOT TO ACQUIRE ANY TATTOOS THAT ARE VISIBLE ON THE HEAD, NECK, CHEST

I recall being in Wainwright and saw some posters advising members that as of 1 Apr 2004 not to acquire tattoos that woud be visible.

Though I couldn't find any direct referances IE QR&O, DAODs, or CANFORGENS, I would suggest talking with your supervisor to play safe.

As for being posted to a different base, remember others (former boss's) may be posted there as well whom may rat on you, like wise the old Chiefs and Sgt Mjrs have been around the block they would be able to tell a fresh tattoo from one that could be a few years old.  If in doubt there is or should be some paper work to log when you got the tattoo or declared it to your unit security. I do believe it's required to list all tattoos, scars and any other identifilable marks on your body.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Oct 2013)

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> I do believe it's required to list all tattoos, scars and any other identifilable marks on your body.



Nope, not anymore.


----------



## inkme (9 Oct 2013)

[quote author=PMedMoe]
So, you plan on lying about it, if asked?
[/quote]

Yes. I'm pretty sure I won't be the only person ever to have told a white lie in the CF.

[quote author=PuckChaser]
Are you willing to risk being ordered to have them removed?
[/quote]

Yes. But I don't see it going nearly that far. Having to get something removed that's not even remotely racist/offensive? Never heard of that before.

[quote author=ObedientiaZelum] 
Tattoos are awesome (especially when spelt right) but consider this.  There may come a time in your career when you want to try out something a little out of the box.
A job which requires you to not instantly look like you're military.  You can grow long hair and play dress up but if you're physically fit and covered in visible tattoos it's a very big tip off about military service or connections.  JTF2, source handler, working in plain clothes with the public (even OPP or CSIS or something down the road)- having the ol paratrooper wings on your wrist , a PPCLI tattoo on your hand or stuff up your neck might make you stand out in places you don't want to.
[/quote]

Not a problem for me, all my tattoos are not military related and don't plan on doing anything that requires me to not have tattoos.

[quote author=GreenMarine]As for being posted to a different base, remember others (former boss's) may be posted there as well whom may rat on you, like wise the old Chiefs and Sgt Mjrs have been around the block they would be able to tell a fresh tattoo from one that could be a few years old.  If in doubt there is or should be some paper work to log when you got the tattoo or declared it to your unit security. I do believe it's required to list all tattoos, scars and any other identifilable marks on your body.
[/quote]

I get asked all the time if my tattoos are new but I keep telling them they are years old. I hold ink pretty well so I'm not concerned if they think it's fresh or not. Also, I never had to say if I had tattoos or not.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (9 Oct 2013)

A guy at my unit got a sleeve tattoo that went down over his knuckles onto his fingers. He wasn't ordered to have it removed, nor did he face any disciplinary action for it.

But we all made fun of him for having it.

Take that as you will.


----------



## Sunnyns (9 Oct 2013)

As far as I know if you have them before joining then you can keep them, but don't get them after.  If you do get one because Bloggins did it last weekend and got away with it, is it worth the risk to you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2013)

You've been given the directive.

Do with it as you will, at your own peril.

We're done here.

---Staff---


----------



## adamius (11 Oct 2013)

Long story short...got two small circles with stars in them on each hand and a tribal tat that can be seen just above the collar while i was in the army and i got out in August 2008..never heard a word from anyone about them. Tried to join the reserves here in my city and did all the paper wrk..guy calls me in and says "ok you did everything we need..but a new rule came out in 2011 that there is no tattoos on the neck or hands...sorry" 

Now I know..that rule didnt just come out in 2011..cause i read the same thing years ago...he had no clue about it i think..

Wondering if it has changed and also..

 On the cf recruiting website under FAQs it only states "Non-offensive visible tattoos, with the exception of tattoos on the face, are allowed."
and that is it...
  Also i read that you will be allowed in with them...but cannot get any more once in.

and thoughts?

Kind of a kick in the ass when ive been in for 12 years before that and cant even get in the reserves afterwards...because of that.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2013)

adamius said:
			
		

> and thoughts?



Some here.

New (2012/2013) Tattoo Policy?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/110180.0


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Oct 2013)

Everyone who throws in the part about no tats on hands is either willfully ignorant of the what the regs actually say, or they have piss poor reading comprehension skills.  As long as you aren't getting a swaztika or something in that vein, have at'er.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Oct 2013)

adamius said:
			
		

> and thoughts?
> 
> Kind of a kick in the *** when ive been in for 12 years before that and cant even get in the reserves afterwards...because of that.



I'm going to presume this comes from the recruiting centre. If it's the reserve unit, ignore him and go to the recruiting centre.

If you're getting stymied from the recruiting center, then ask him to show you the regulation.

If he still gives you grief, write a letter to the CO of the recruiting station outlining your complaint. Ensure you include the reference from the dress manual, and point out that it doesn't say anything about enrollment. Keep pushing. This guy doesn't have the authority to prevent your application from going forward.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm going to presume this comes from the recruiting centre. If it's the reserve unit, ignore him and go to the recruiting centre.
> 
> If you're getting stymied from the recruiting center, then ask him to show you the regulation.
> 
> If he still gives you grief, write a letter to the CO of the recruiting station outlining your complaint. Ensure you include the reference from the dress manual, and point out that it doesn't say anything about enrollment. Keep pushing. This guy doesn't have the authority to prevent your application from going forward.



Unfortunately, Reserve units can be selective, as any employer, to hire whom they think are the best candidates.  They are also restricted as to numbers that they can hire.  Thus, they will select the Prospects with the most potential to meet the criteria they have set for hiring.

The Recruiting Center has no input as to whom the Reserve unit may want to hire/enroll.  They only process the Prospects applications to join the CAF as a Reservist.  

If one Reserve unit does not want or can not hire you; try another.


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Nope, not anymore.



I was required to declare any tattoos upon enrolment and was required to document what they were and their location.

I have also heard from a friend that on the annual medical, they require you to redeclare, document, and apparently they photograph them so that in the event you're blown to smithereens they can identify you using the tattooed chunk of flesh.

Is it still the case? Do you know when it was changed?


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Oct 2013)

Not a clue.  When I got my first one, I asked at the Ident Sect (as that is where they used to be recorded) and they said they didn't need to know.  I've never been asked about them (I now have five) during a medical and they've never been documented or photographed during one either.

No offense, but either your friend is full of crap or whoever did his medical is.

Yes, they can be used as a means of identification.  If you were decapitated.  ID from a single "tattooed chunk of flesh"?  I doubt it.  It's not like we have Gil Grissom or Sara Sidle working for us.


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not a clue.  When I got my first one, I asked at the Ident Sect (as that is where they used to be recorded) and they said they didn't need to know.  I've never been asked about them (I now have five) during a medical and they've never been documented or photographed during one either.
> 
> No offense, but either your friend is full of crap or whoever did his medical is.
> 
> Yes, they can be used as a means of identification.  If you were decapitated.  ID from a single "tattooed chunk of flesh"?  I doubt it.  It's not like we have Gil Grissom or Sara Sidle working for us.



Interesting. I haven't had issues or interrogations about mine either so I really didn't care for what he said.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Oct 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I was required to declare any tattoos upon enrolment and was required to document what they were and their location.
> 
> I have also heard from a friend that on the annual medical, they require you to redeclare, document, and apparently they photograph them so that in the event you're blown to smithereens they can identify you using the tattooed chunk of flesh.
> 
> Is it still the case? Do you know when it was changed?


A load of BS.


----------



## TCM621 (21 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not a clue.  When I got my first one, I asked at the Ident Sect (as that is where they used to be recorded) and they said they didn't need to know.  I've never been asked about them (I now have five) during a medical and they've never been documented or photographed during one either.
> 
> No offense, but either your friend is full of crap or whoever did his medical is.
> 
> Yes, they can be used as a means of identification.  If you were decapitated.  ID from a single "tattooed chunk of flesh"?  I doubt it.  It's not like we have Gil Grissom or Sara Sidle working for us.



My tattoos and visible scars used to be on my ID but then they just stopped doing it for some reason. The TEMP ID card still has the spot for it. As for declaring tattoos, I have had a number of buddies who have had their tattoos questioned. Mainly to ensure they were not gang or racist tattoos (because often they have been co-opted by these groups eg irish tats and skinheads).


----------



## Goose15 (21 Oct 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> My tattoos and visible scars used to be on my ID but then they just stopped doing it for some reason. The TEMP ID card still has the spot for it. As for declaring tattoos, I have had a number of buddies who have had their tattoos questioned. Mainly to ensure they were not gang or racist tattoos (because often they have been co-opted by these groups eg irish tats and skinheads).



This is correct. Speaking with an MCC he told me that checking for tattoos is mostly to check for gang affiliations. There was actually a guy at the recruiting centre I am affiliated with who was turned away because he had not removed his Crips (I believe) tattoo even though he had been out for 8 years.

Edit: He was turned away at the interview stage as that was when he was asked.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (21 Oct 2013)

I've found this thread particularly interesting and would like to add what I was instructed (as an applicant) regarding 'ink', both in my initial interview in 2011, as well as my update interview this past Winter/Spring.

In both instances I was asked _where_ my ink was and _what_ it was. After I informed the MCCs, I was asked if it held meaning to me/nature of it. Once they ascertained that it was non-offensive in any way (a butterfly on my ankle), I was then told that if I wished to get more tattoos I would have to seek permission first. To clarify, not 'notify' them, but to actually seek _permission_.

I didn't get the impression that the MCCs were speaking in terms of after I am enrolled. It was definitely implied that they meant from that point forward.

They didn't get into locations that would be off limits, but I would assume that's why they wanted to know my intentions beforehand should I choose to get any more.


----------



## Goose15 (21 Oct 2013)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I was then told that if I wished to get more tattoos I would have to seek permission first. To clarify, not 'notify' them, but to actually seek _permission_.
> 
> I didn't get the impression that the MCCs were speaking in terms of after I am enrolled. It was definitely implied that they meant from that point forward.
> 
> They didn't get into locations that would be off limits, but I would assume that's why they wanted to know my intentions beforehand should I choose to get any more.



Really? My MCC just said that as long as they adhered to the current standards of placement (nothing below wrist and ankle and not above collar of a shirt) and were not offensive or gang-related ,new tattoos were a non-issue.

Edit: This was July 2013.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (21 Oct 2013)

Goose15 said:
			
		

> Really? My MCC just said that as long as they adhered to the current standards of placement (nothing below wrist and ankle and not above collar of a shirt) and were not offensive or gang-related ,new tattoos were a non-issue.
> 
> Edit: This was July 2013.



Yep, that's why I've found this thread so interesting, and I'm aware of others being told what you were informed as well.


----------



## Goose15 (21 Oct 2013)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Yep, that's why I've found this thread so interesting, and I'm aware of others being told what you were informed as well.



Gotcha, yeah that is interesting and rather odd.


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2013)

There is nothing in the policy regarding wrist or ankle and below tattoos.

Nor is there is a prohibition on enrolling with throat/neck tattoos. 

I have all of those tattoos and was enrolled without issue. The policy was checked and I was fine. It was this year.

The policy was again checked as recently as this week regarding my neck and it was fine. I was not allowed to obtain any other throat/neck tattoos once I was enrolled. Those that were present prior to enrollment were fine.


----------



## Goose15 (21 Oct 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> There is nothing in the policy regarding wrist or ankle and below tattoos.
> 
> Nor is there is a prohibition on enrolling with throat/neck tattoos.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. Did not mean to give misinformation, that is simply what I was told by a recruiter.


----------



## Container (21 Oct 2013)

Goose15 said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Did not mean to give misinformation, that is simply what I was told by a recruiter.



I wasn't trying to be a dick. It was just an internet tone thing- it can be confusing out there for sure.

When in doubt.....just do as the recruiter asks. And really- looking back. Do you need your hands and throat tattood? I dont regret them- but they will haunt my career.


----------



## Goose15 (21 Oct 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> I wasn't trying to be a dick. It was just an internet tone thing- it can be confusing out there for sure.


Oh no worries I didn't think you were :cheers:



			
				Container said:
			
		

> When in doubt.....just do as the recruiter asks. And really- looking back. Do you need your hands and throat tattood? I dont regret them- but they will haunt my career.


Yeah that is what I would do as well. Always easier to go for broke. Oh well as long as you don't regret them.


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Oct 2013)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I've found this thread particularly interesting and would like to add what I was instructed (as an applicant) regarding 'ink', both in my initial interview in 2011, as well as my update interview this past Winter/Spring.
> 
> In both instances I was asked _where_ my ink was and _what_ it was. After I informed the MCCs, I was asked if it held meaning to me/nature of it. Once they ascertained that it was non-offensive in any way (a butterfly on my ankle), I was then told that if I wished to get more tattoos I would have to seek permission first. To clarify, not 'notify' them, but to actually seek _permission_.
> 
> ...



The MCC was wrong about seeking permission plain and simple.  The tattoo policy is readily available and is fairly clear in what it says.


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Oct 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The MCC was wrong about seeking permission plain and simple.  The tattoo policy is readily available and is fairly clear in what it says.



Yeah, I was going to say it sounded like he was on a power trip....


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was going to say it sounded like he was on a power trip....



I dunno, about going that far (although it is a possibilty), just another example of the CAF's version of broken telephone.  People seem to have this fascination with re-interpreting orders, policies, directives etc. to suit themselves and then others re-interpret those re-interpretations etc.  There is no need, when all those things are in electronic format and readily available, and in pretty simple and plain language.  But I guess ego and rank, prevent people from realizing they were misinformed from the outset..... :facepalm:


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Oct 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I dunno, about going that far (although it is a possibilty), just another example of the CAF's version of broken telephone.  People seem to have this fascination with re-interpreting orders, policies, directives etc. to suit themselves and then others re-interpret those re-interpretations etc.  There is no need, when all those things are in electronic format and readily available, and in pretty simple and plain language.  But I guess ego and rank, prevent people from realizing they were misinformed from the outset..... :facepalm:



Agreed. You still see a lot of people demanding that "you need a leave pass for weekend leave" if you are outside of the geographical area, or outside of the province, or outside 100km from the base, or whatever made up rule. All this even though the CF leave policy manual is extremely clear that "No CF100 is required for a member proceeding exclusively on weekend leave and/or designated holiday, except:  when travelling to a foreign country, or to a country other than the one where the member is employed; when travel benefits are requested (eg. LTA); or when required for ration accounting purposes for members authorized to draw rations on a continuous basis." If your average soldier wants to hop on his Harley and head off to Quebec City, Toronto, or Windsor on a Friday afternoon, he is well within his arcs of fire, and doesn't need a leave pass.

People see a strange need to make up fake rules on leave, and have a reluctance to actually read the rules on leave. It's the same for tattoos. Maybe I should reiterate the two key references for ink.

This is the POLICY: (from CF Dress Instructions)

Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 20.

This is the PROPOSED CHANGE: (from National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee 2012)

Proposal was made by CMP CCWO to change the wording of existing policy to permit the tattooing of the neck and forbid tattoos on the ears face and head.


----------



## TCM621 (28 Oct 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Agreed. You still see a lot of people demanding that "you need a leave pass for weekend leave" if you are outside of the geographical area, or outside of the province, or outside 100km from the base, or whatever made up rule. All this even though the CF leave policy manual is extremely clear that "No CF100 is required for a member proceeding exclusively on weekend leave and/or designated holiday, except:  when travelling to a foreign country, or to a country other than the one where the member is employed; when travel benefits are requested (eg. LTA); or when required for ration accounting purposes for members authorized to draw rations on a continuous basis." If your average soldier wants to hop on his Harley and head off to Quebec City, Toronto, or Windsor on a Friday afternoon, he is well within his arcs of fire, and doesn't need a leave pass.
> 
> People see a strange need to make up fake rules on leave, and have a reluctance to actually read the rules on leave. It's the same for tattoos. Maybe I should reiterate the two key references for ink.



Yet when you point out policy you are a baracks lawyer or "like to cause trouble". No wonder people keep fucking this stuff up.

The best one I heard was from a Maj who said policy is for senior officers not lower ranks.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Oct 2013)

A Commanding Officer has a lot of leeway. The words shall (will), may (can if he/she wants) or should (Strongly suggested) often creep up in CFAOs, DAODs etc.

You can quote policy all day long and all Niner has to say is:

Get on with it.


----------



## TCM621 (28 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A Commanding Officer has a lot of leeway. The words shall (will), may (can if he/she wants) or should (Strongly suggested) often creep up in CFAOs, DAODs etc.
> 
> You can quote policy all day long and all Niner has to say is:
> 
> Get on with it.


Its rarely the CO though, isnt it?


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Oct 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Its rarely the CO though, isnt it?


 If you are talking about a leave pass, yes it most likely is a COs policy.


----------



## TCM621 (29 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> If you are talking about a leave pass, yes it most likely is a COs policy.


Not really talking about leave passes specifically.  But to use this an example, I would ask:
Is there a written policy in place?
If not what would you be doing wrong if you didn't put in a leave pass? Ie what could they charge you with?
At the court martial (because if you are willing to go this far why not take it to a court martial) if you presented the  fact that you simply followed CF leave policy IAW the policy manual, would you get off?

I understand that sometimes it is easier just to go with the flow and there is a time for questions and a time for just following orders. However, I think it is our duty to due what we can to ensure policy is followed. I can think of a half a dozen examples in my recent memory where fighting (within the system and professionally) has resulted in proper benefits for troops who had wrongly been denied them. Personally if you can prove me wrong, I am happy because I have just gotten better at my job.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A Commanding Officer has a lot of leeway. The words shall (will), may (can if he/she wants) or should (Strongly suggested) often creep up in CFAOs, DAODs etc.
> 
> You can quote policy all day long and all Niner has to say is:
> 
> Get on with it.



All that is true, however, there are plenty of people at various senior rank levels, who use some of phrases to contort written policies to their own whims, and usually state something to effect of its COs/base/unit etc policy, when in fact there is no policy verbally or more important written down.  And while several orders/directives have phrases that permit discretion many others do not, nor do they permit delegation of authority.  Can a "barracks lawyer" be a pain, sure but they can also be correct,  and then it becomes a failure in the leadership and chain to properly comprehend and implement those orders and regs.   It's a two way street.


----------



## TCM621 (30 Oct 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> All that is true, however, there are plenty of people at various senior rank levels, who use some of phrases to contort written policies to their own whims, and usually state something to effect of its COs/base/unit etc policy, when in fact there is no policy verbally or more important written down.  And while several orders/directives have phrases that permit discretion many others do not, nor do they permit delegation of authority.  Can a "barracks lawyer" be a pain, sure but they can also be correct,  and then it becomes a failure in the leadership and chain to properly comprehend and implement those orders and regs.   It's a two way street.



I have found that 8/9 times out of 10 the person is simply not aware they are wrong. They think they are applying policy correctly and not doing it to be jerks. The problems tend to be when someone gets pissy because they feel that they shouldn't be questioned due to their rank or position. As long as one is polite about pointing out the issue, and the other person willing to listen there should never be a problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Oct 2013)

OK folks, this is starting to go down the rabbit hole.

Be mindful of the thread topic and stay on track please.

---Staff---


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Oct 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> OK folks, this is starting to go down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Be mindful of the thread topic and stay on track please.
> 
> ---Staff---



Might as well merge/lock/split, since the policies haven't changed since the last time dress were updated almost a decade ago.  And neither have peoples errenonius application of said policies.


----------



## Chris Wiley (3 Oct 2014)

I have searched and read a number of posts about tattoos but my question I have not found.

I was wondering, if I get a tattoo while still in the recruitment process who would I have to notify that I have a tattoo that I did not have during my interview or medical?

I'm aware of the policies regarding non-offensive tattoos and locations.

Thank you in advance,

Chris


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Oct 2014)

If you have already found and read the existing threads, then you have your answer already.

locked.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (6 Jun 2015)

Can someone shed light on the tattoo policy for this fiscal year and how tattoo waivers work?


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Can someone shed light on the tattoo policy for this fiscal year and how tattoo waivers work?



The tattoo policy hasn't changed in over 10 years. I remember that it was briefed in my old rifle company back in 2004 as "you guys have until the end of March to get any neck ink, then you're done".

_As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF._

Now, as to a waiver, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you want to get a giant racist tattoo in violation of the policy? That's a chargeable offense. And kind of a dumb idea.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (6 Jun 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The tattoo policy hasn't changed in over 10 years. I remember that it was briefed in my old rifle company back in 2004 as "you guys have until the end of March to get any neck ink, then you're done".
> 
> _As of April 1st, 2004, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, neck, chest or ears when an open collared shirt is worn.  Additionally, members shall not acquire visible tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF._
> 
> Now, as to a waiver, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you want to get a giant racist tattoo in violation of the policy? That's a chargeable offense. And kind of a dumb idea.



I need a waiver for my application process. I have two grim reapers that apparently, according to my MCC, may be deemed offensive


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> I need a waiver for my application process. I have two grim reapers that apparently, according to my MCC, may be deemed offensive



Well, if you're a civilian and you already have a tattoo that is in violation of the policy, I can't help you out. I have no experience with the current recruiting process.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2015)

Blowtorch..............as per Sons of Anarchy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDSjo553oII


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (6 Jun 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Blowtorch..............as per Sons of Anarchy.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDSjo553oII



Only if you hold my hand


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jun 2015)

The Grim Reaper is offensive....really? 

Any tattoo can offend someone. If you have one that proclaims your a Christian, someone somewhere will take offence.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jun 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The Grim Reaper is offensive....really?
> 
> Any tattoo can offend someone. If you have one that proclaims your a Christian, someone somewhere will take offence.



They're called "damn near everyone else".


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (7 Jun 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The Grim Reaper is offensive....really?
> 
> Any tattoo can offend someone. If you have one that proclaims your a Christian, someone somewhere will take offence.



I was told it may be considered "blasphemous" and when I took pictures of them and sent them along with explanations I wrote what was essentially an essay explaining why they weren't, what they meant, my experience in public with them (which has been nothing as you can't see them unless I'm shirtless) and why I shouldn't be denied based on having them. Apparently a lot of people are being denied this year due to "offensive, blasphemous, vulgar" tattoos. The funny thing is and the thing that actually pissed me off was another guy I had my medical with had a naked girl tattoo on his shoulder but said he didn't need a waiver because he never told the Interviewing Officer he had one. So for being honest I may lose out on a career


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> I was told it may be considered "blasphemous" and when I took pictures of them and sent them along with explanations I wrote what was essentially an essay explaining why they weren't, what they meant, my experience in public with them (which has been nothing as you can't see them unless I'm shirtless) and why I shouldn't be denied based on having them. Apparently a lot of people are being denied this year due to "offensive, blasphemous, vulgar" tattoos. The funny thing is and the thing that actually pissed me off was another guy I had my medical with had a naked girl tattoo on his shoulder but said he didn't need a waiver because he never told the Interviewing Officer he had one. So for being honest I may lose out on a career



You realize you're fighting a mindless bureaucracy right?  You have learned your first very important lesson of your military career, COA, otherwise known as Cover Your A##.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (7 Jun 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You realize you're fighting a mindless bureaucracy right?  You have learned your first very important lesson of your military career, COA, otherwise known as Cover Your A##.



And here I thought being honest and forthcoming was seen as honorable.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> And here I thought being honest and forthcoming was seen as honorable.



Good luck with your application. Should you later release from the CAF and seek employment with another organization, you may wish to read this,

"Tattoos: A Word of Warning"
http://firelink.monster.com/benefits/articles/929-tattoos-a-word-of-warning

"A candidate should understand that having a tattoo may affect his or her chances of getting hired."


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (7 Jun 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Good luck with your application. Should you later release from the CAF and seek employment with another organization, you may wish to read this,
> 
> "Tattoos: A Word of Warning"
> http://firelink.monster.com/benefits/articles/929-tattoos-a-word-of-warning
> ...



There is no list that was presented to me stating that my particular tattoos were offensive, just that "they may be deemed offensive" and I need a waiver. What is the standard? How can they justify that they are blasphemous, vulgar, offensive etc?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> There is no list that was presented to me stating that my particular tattoos were offensive, just that "they may be deemed offensive" and I need a waiver. What is the standard? How can they justify that they are blasphemous, vulgar, offensive etc?



If they're likely to discredit the CAF if shown on CBC, then that's the test. No one here is going to be able to give you an answer on whether the recruiting center is out to lunch until we can see the specific tattoo in question. Otherwise its a lot of hypotheticals.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (7 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If they're likely to discredit the CAF if shown on CBC, then that's the test. No one here is going to be able to give you an answer on whether the recruiting center is out to lunch until we can see the specific tattoo in question. Otherwise its a lot of hypotheticals.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2015)

While I can't see anything offensive in the low quality and blurry pictures, I also can't make out what is written. Care to enlighten us?


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (7 Jun 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> While I can't see anything offensive in the low quality and blurry pictures, I also can't make out what is written. Care to enlighten us?



The first picture is just the reaper with text unrelated, while the second reads at the bottom "These violent delights have violent ends", a quote from Romeo + Juliet


----------



## mariomike (8 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> The first picture is just the reaper with text unrelated, while the second reads at the bottom "These violent delights have violent ends", a quote from Romeo + Juliet



FYR, you may wish to add, and compare, the pics of your tattoo(s) to this 15-page photo topic,

Tattoo Photo Thread  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/4024.0.html


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (8 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If they're likely to discredit the CAF if shown on CBC, then that's the test. No one here is going to be able to give you an answer on whether the recruiting center is out to lunch until we can see the specific tattoo in question. Otherwise its a lot of hypotheticals.



According to my MCC, it doesn't matter where the placement of the tattoos are. Both of the my tattoos that are deemed "maybe offensive" can be covered up and are usually covered up with just a short sleeve shirt. So its unlikely anyone will see it unless I am shirtless. I imagine the tattoo policy has changed for this fiscal year because when I joined the Reserves in 2012 the Grim Reapers were not an issue


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jun 2015)

I think your MCC is being a knucklehead.

I would interpret the tattoo policy to mean those that are clearly offensive. Any tattoo "may" offend somebody, but some tattoos will offend everybody. I'm sure it's the latter that we're on the lookout for.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (8 Jun 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think your MCC is being a knucklehead.
> 
> I would interpret the tattoo policy to mean those that are clearly offensive. Any tattoo "may" offend somebody, but some tattoos will offend everybody. I'm sure it's the latter that we're on the lookout for.



I hope the PSO who he's sending the pictures to sees it that way. I want to believe they'll see the two tattoos in question as not being "vulgar, blasphemous, racist, sexist". My worry is I get a PSO who interprets it that way.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Jun 2015)

I understand neck tattoos, for the most part they are pretty bad looking anything above the collarbone. What I find silly though is I can have full sleeve tattoos showing while my combat sleeves are rolled or wearing No. 3 Dress in short sleeve but if I have a chest tattoo visible through my open collar... it's big no-no (which sucks because I'm going to have unfinished work on my chest until my CRA).


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (8 Jun 2015)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> I understand neck tattoos, for the most part they are pretty bad looking anything above the collarbone. What I find silly though is I can have full sleeve tattoos showing while my combat sleeves are rolled or wearing No. 3 Dress in short sleeve but if I have a chest tattoo visible through my open collar... it's big no-no (which sucks because I'm going to have unfinished work on my chest until my CRA).



 :facepalm:


----------



## Sparkplugs (9 Jun 2015)

I read back and don't remember seeing this posted, but whenever they next update the 265, this looks like it'll be in it, at least that was my interpretation, correct me if I'm wrong, please. Found this file with minutes from the dress meetings while I was looking for tattoo related stuff. The update is simple, it will change the current regs to one allowing neck tattoos, while keeping them forbidden on the face, head or ears. I had heard this before, but finding the actual minutes was good. Doesn't mean you can run out and cover the neck with ink, still have to wait for the amendments, but it'll happen someday. (And who knew once stuff was approved, it could still take years to get put in the book?) 

Ok, so the initial file was too big, so I extracted the paragraph concerning tattoos, as well as the initial identifier, so one could find the file if they want. If anyone wants the full file, or the French translation of this stuff, let me know and I can send it by DIN to you.

Edit: I lied, it was posted about in the past few pages, but in case anyone is wondering, this is from the document itself. Cheers!


----------



## CountDC (9 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> According to my MCC, it doesn't matter where the placement of the tattoos are. Both of the my tattoos that are deemed "maybe offensive" can be covered up and are usually covered up with just a short sleeve shirt. So its unlikely anyone will see it unless I am shirtless. I imagine the tattoo policy has changed for this fiscal year because when I joined the Reserves in 2012 the Grim Reapers were not an issue



Gotta ask - how long are your arms and the short sleeve shirt you are covering these with?  Looking at the photo it looks to me like these tattoos are covering a fair length of arm, more than a normal tshirt would cover.  

I think the issue would be the image and wording combined not passing the CBC test for displaying the military in a positive light.  Most people wouldn't know the quote and some would view it as a statement by another blood thirsty member of the military looking for babies to kill.    Nice to have to be so touchy feel good about everything and walk on eggs for the public.  I'm sure someone would be offended by my dragon too.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (9 Jun 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Gotta ask - how long are your arms and the short sleeve shirt you are covering these with?  Looking at the photo it looks to me like these tattoos are covering a fair length of arm, more than a normal tshirt would cover.
> 
> I think the issue would be the image and wording combined not passing the CBC test for displaying the military in a positive light.  Most people wouldn't know the quote and some would view it as a statement by another blood thirsty member of the military looking for babies to kill.    Nice to have to be so touchy feel good about everything and walk on eggs for the public.  I'm sure someone would be offended by my dragon too.



Any short sleeve shirt can cover the grim reapers which are located on my bicep and and tricep; when I was in the Reserves and had the combats rolled up you couldn't see either of them. I have two full sleeves and everything below the elbow is "PC" apparently. The issue is just the reapers which, according to my MCC, may be associated with biker gangs and/or blasphemous. He claims PSOs are denying a lot of people with "offensive, vulgar, blasphemous" tattoos so I have no idea what my fate is. I'm not removing or covering up anything as I believe it actually insults myself and the CAF; the reason I got them hasn't changed and I personally know they are not meant to be offensive while the CAF fails to understand that a) people with actual offensive tattoos like the guy I did my medical with can just lie and say they don't have such things and b) just having tattoos is offensive to some people whether they be Christians, Muslims etc or those who feel its a stupid thing to get. 

Had I lied I wouldn't be here waiting which makes me lose respect for the CAF.


----------



## CountDC (9 Jun 2015)

"Any short sleeve shirt can cover the grim reapers which are located on my bicep and and tricep"

Mine don't cover the bicep/tricep, not even the military issued. 

Don't blame all the CAF - most of us don't care what you have for a tatto other than if it is a cool one we wish we had gone for first.  It is the extreme PC movement at work again.

I am sure in no time they will go back to the old "strip off" medicals to catch all the tattoos someone may be hiding.  

Hopefully it will work out in the end for you and you can get pass that outer public ring.


----------



## Loachman (9 Jun 2015)

Art, and offence, are matters of personal taste, or lack thereof.

While I am not a fan of tattoos in general, especially what I consider to be excessive ones, I think that the MCC in question would fit into the offensive category were he to be transformed into a tattoo. His opinion is just that, and of no more value than anybody else's.

A grim reaper is not normally considered to be offensive, nor blasphemous.

One of our Chinooks in Kandahar had a red, and very obviously female, winged devil painted on it. Nobody seemed to complain about that.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (9 Jun 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Art, and offence, are matters of personal taste, or lack thereof.
> 
> While I am not a fan of tattoos in general, especially what I consider to be excessive ones, I think that the MCC in question would fit into the offensive category were he to be transformed into a tattoo. His opinion is just that, and of no more value than anybody else's.
> 
> ...



The MCC is currently on a course so I won't know whether it'll be granted until the end of the month, according to him. Should I be denied what can I do to fight this? The CF Ombudsman?


----------



## mariomike (9 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> The CF Ombudsman?



No guarantee it will get you in, but apparently applicants "may bring a complaint to the Ombudsman".

"Any of the following people may bring a complaint to the Ombudsman when the matter is directly related to the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Forces."

•A current or former member of the Canadian Forces 

•A current or former member of the Cadets 

•A current or former employee of the Department of National Defence 

•A current or former non public fund employee 

•A person applying to become a member  

•A member of the immediate family of any of the above-mentioned 

•An individual on an exchange or secondment with the Canadian Forces 
http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-about-us/mission-mandate.page


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (9 Jun 2015)

The two applicants my MCC said were denied waivers both had "offensive tattoos"; one had a decapitated Geisha head while the other had a Pentagram. I can _sort of_ see why they would be offensive but Grim Reapers? Really? His argument was it can be associated with biker gangs and I said any tattoo can be associated with gangs/organized crime. I said the two tattoos in question can be covered up but apparently it doesn't matter; fellow service members can still see them when I take a shower etc. So my impression is he's concerned I'm offending fellow soldiers, not civilians both home and abroad.


----------



## ballz (9 Jun 2015)

Denied for having a pentagram?   :worms:

We are letting Wiccans (and any other religion for that matter) wear a beard despite it not being "fundamental" to their beliefs, but we are denying applicants because they have a pentagram tattoo???

I really hope this is all just a bad dream.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (9 Jun 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Denied for having a pentagram?   :worms:
> 
> We are letting Wiccans (and any other religion for that matter) wear a beard despite it not being "fundamental" to their beliefs, but we are denying applicants because they have a pentagram tattoo???
> 
> I really hope this is all just a bad dream.



Unfortunately, it's not. People high up in the CAF must not have much to do if they're making non-sense policies like this. Sometimes I feel like closing my file and trying my luck with the French Foreign Legion.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jun 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Sometimes I feel like closing my file and trying my luck with the French Foreign Legion.



Some awesome tats in the FFL:
http://foreignlegion.info/french-foreign-legion-tattoo-policy/


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (20 Jul 2015)

To update you all my re-enrollment waiver has been granted and my medical files were sent to Ottawa and returned and looks good to go. Still no word on my tattoo waiver as my MCC stated he hasn't heard anything yet.


----------



## MJLANT (21 Jul 2015)

I read some of the comments/posts on here about tattoos and I must admit that I don't quite understand...

I am a woman with multiple tattoos (foot, lower back, belly button, ribs/sides and shoulders) would that be much of a problem?  I don't think my tattoos are offensive unless a cupcake, some stars and some flowers are offensive...

Someone could give me some information please?

Thank you  :camo:


----------



## mariomike (21 Jul 2015)

MJLANT said:
			
		

> I read some of the comments/posts on here about tattoos and I must admit that I don't quite understand...
> 
> I am a woman with multiple tattoos (foot, lower back, belly button, ribs/sides and shoulders) would that be much of a problem?  I don't think my tattoos are offensive unless a cupcake, some stars and some flowers are offensive...
> 
> ...



From the Recruiting website:

"Are Forces members allowed to have tattoos and/or piercings? 

Yes. Forces members can have non-offensive tattoos anywhere on the body except for the face, neck and ears. Offensive tattoos (anything pornographic, racist, containing vulgar language/design, etc.) are not acceptable in the Forces. Forces members are not allowed to wear any piercings while in uniform or in the work environment, except for women’s stud earrings."
http://www.forces.ca/en/page/faq-220


----------



## MJLANT (21 Jul 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Are Forces members allowed to have tattoos and/or piercings?
> Yes. Forces members can have non-offensive tattoos anywhere on the body except for the face, neck and ears. Offensive tattoos (anything pornographic, racist, containing vulgar language/design, etc.) are not acceptable in the Forces. Forces members are not allowed to wear any piercings while in uniform or in the work environment, except for women’s stud earrings.



Thank you but I had that information already.  I read something here about a waiver or something like that?


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jul 2015)

If you need a waiver you'll be told at the recruiting center. You've already got the tattoos, so nothing is going to change based on internet posts. You have the information that everyone else has, nobody can give you a specific answer except for the recruiting center.


----------



## MJLANT (21 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you need a waiver you'll be told at the recruiting center. You've already got the tattoos, so nothing is going to change based on internet posts. You have the information that everyone else has, nobody can give you a specific answer except for the recruiting center.



Awesome!!  Thank you very much.

MJ


----------



## JesseRandall (17 Dec 2015)

My name is Jesse Randall and I was denied the opportunity today to join the Canadian Armed Forces under the pretense of an offensive tattoo. It was 11 years ago that this tattoo was done and I was 15 years old. It's in the form of an acronym... "FTS". 

I was honest about its true meaning at the time that it was drawn on me. I told the recruiters that it had meant "**** the system".

I also told them that the current meaning to me was of sentimental and nostalgic value for a specific time in my life.

I was a rebellious kid and a want to be badass. It was mostly for show and to prove I had the guts to get a tattoo at 15 years old. What kind of 15 year old kid even understands the "system"? I don't even understand most of it now. I was told it went through several layers of authority before the eventual dismissal, and that under the current policies, I will have to wait a year for them to even consider accepting me again, and only if the policies change. Even if I remove it or black it out... I'm told that the initial tattoo (whether it is currently present or not) is a sealed door for life unless said policies change.

All I want is a chance to prove myself and serve my country as a member of the infantry. I'm not a kid any more.

Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2015)

The Merged Tattoo Thread (including 2012-13 policy):  http://army.ca/forums/threads/869.500.html

See if there's anything helpful in there while awaiting a response from one of our Recruiters..

I, personally, do not see anything offensive but my opinion does not count.


----------



## mseopsid (17 Dec 2015)

As a heavily tattooed member of the CF I feel I have quite a bit of experience on this subject. I have heard all kinds of stoys and opinions about the subject from people trying to get in the CF,  ncm's, officers, recruiter's, ect...
for people already in the Forces you are allowed to get tattoos anywhere except you neck, head, and face. Also exercise common sense and DO NOT get a swastika or a naked woman on any bodypart that can be seen in uniform. Also keep in mind swimming PT is a thing.
For those of you trying to get into the forces...lissen carefully. 
You can be kept out because of your tattoos even if they are not offence in you opinion.
when you are speaking to a recruiter keep in mind their job is to fill positions. Not to give a shit if you have a skull tattooed on your chest so if you think the recruiter is going to think your hard core and give you a job because of a tattoo you are wrong and it may in fact keep you out.
If you go to a recruitment office with pants and a long sleeve or t- shirt on and have no visible tattoos then keep yoir mouth shut about your ink.
I very much doubt a recruiter is going to ask you to disrobe to see if you have tattoos.
I know a guy who was kept out and pretty much told to stop applying because of his tattoos, his dream of being im the military is gonna because of his tattoos and it is mostly his fault for disclosing that information to the recruiter. Once you get in no one cares as Lon as you exercise common sense with what you get and where you get it.


----------



## LightFighter (17 Dec 2015)

mseopsid said:
			
		

> As a heavily tattooed member of the CF I feel I have quite a bit of experience on this subject.



Any experience in recruiting?



			
				mseopsid said:
			
		

> If you go to a recruitment office with pants and a long sleeve or t- shirt on and have no visible tattoos then keep yoir mouth shut about your ink.



Or how about applicants be truthful and honestly answer questions concerning tattoos, etc.


----------



## TCM621 (17 Dec 2015)

Bottom line is that if you really want to serve you need to fight it. There are a lot of routes to go but get it in writing if you can. I would probably start by writing a letter to get an explanation as to the nature of the offensiveness. It seems to me that the letters  FTS could mean anything.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2015)

If you really care enough to serve, get it covered up. Justifying what it is won't help you. The letters on their own aren't offensive, but your explanation makes them subversive and counter to the CAF values. Covering it will show that you were willing to do what you can to fit in with the CAF culture when you appeal.


----------



## JesseRandall (17 Dec 2015)

I stated that I was more than willing to black it out or laser it off. Honestly, I'd probably take a cheese grater to it too...

That doesn't appear to mean anything to the recruiters.

"We might entertain the idea in a year or so regardless of what you do"

Simply put... that's the message I received.


----------



## mariomike (17 Dec 2015)

mseopsid said:
			
		

> Once you get in no one cares as Lon as you exercise common sense with what you get and where you get it.



That would likely apply to most union jobs. Once you get in. As per arbitration, "This was a unionized workplace, so the union was able to file a grievance under the collective agreement challenging the new policy. No human rights argument was raised. A unionized employer cannot impose dress and appearance codes based on the personal views and biases of managers."

"Non-union employers can usually impose whatever dress or appearance code they wish, subject to any human rights issues that could arise. Unionized workers clearly have a greater right to personal expression at work."
http://lawofwork.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/OttawaHospital.pdf
"The union’s challenge focussed on the requirement that employees cover up large tattoos while at work"

If you release from the CAF and apply for a job in emergency services, you may wish to read this,

"Tattoos: A Word of Warning"
http://firelink.monster.com/benefits/articles/929-tattoos-a-word-of-warning
"A candidate should understand that having a tattoo may affect his or her chances of getting hired."

OPP tat spat up in air
Provincial police still don’t have an official tattoo policy, two years after Commissioner Chris Lewis imposed a ban on ink when a senior member mistook a constable with tats on his forearms for a gang member,
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/07/08/opp-tat-spat-up-in-air

Studying Public Perceptions of Police Grooming Standards,
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=152&issue_id=112003

Where I used to work, Paramedics were required to keep tattoos covered by a long-sleeve Departmental shirt. Regardless of the season. This was grieved by the union. It went to arbitration and the City lost. But, I would delay getting any ( new ) tattoos until after you get hired, and after you complete probation.



			
				JesseRandall said:
			
		

> I stated that I was more than willing to black it out or laser it off. Honestly, I'd probably take a cheese grater to it too...



I read that people who bought stock ten years ago in companies that do that are getting rich now.  

Good luck with your application.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (17 Dec 2015)

JesseRandall said:
			
		

> I stated that I was more than willing to black it out or laser it off. Honestly, I'd probably take a cheese grater to it too...
> 
> That doesn't appear to mean anything to the recruiters.
> 
> ...



Just go get it covered up.  Problem solved.


----------



## JesseRandall (17 Dec 2015)

I realize now that this might be a giant misunderstanding...

The Military Career Counsellor wasn't allowed to discuss ways around the policy so he couldn't tell me when I asked if I could remove it and still get in.

He also told me that my tattoo would still likely preclude me a year from now as well after I said I would remove it so I thought he meant that after it was gone.

“In accordance with the policy and directives of the Canadian Armed Forces, a member is not allowed to acquire any tattoos that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflecting discredit on the Canadian Armed Forces.”

This suggests that any member of the Canadian Armed Forces could not acquire any offensive tattoos at any point.

If all I have to do is get a cover-up... I am seriously sorry for all of this.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Dec 2015)

JesseRandall said:
			
		

> It's in the form of an acronym... "FTS".


I assumed that it was in memory of the Full Throttle Saloon -- the world's biggest biker bar that burned down in Sturgis, South Dakota, this September.   :'(








....although Emmett was saved.   :nod:


----------



## JesseWZ (18 Dec 2015)

mseopsid said:
			
		

> As a heavily tattooed member of the CF I feel I have quite a bit of experience on this subject. I have heard all kinds of stoys and opinions about the subject from people trying to get in the CF,  ncm's, officers, recruiter's, ect...
> for people already in the Forces you are allowed to get tattoos anywhere except you neck, head, and face. Also exercise common sense and DO NOT get a swastika or a naked woman on any bodypart that can be seen in uniform. Also keep in mind swimming PT is a thing.
> For those of you trying to get into the forces...lissen carefully.
> You can be kept out because of your tattoos even if they are not offence in you opinion.
> ...



What a load of horse manure.

1. We don't want liars, even if they are liars of omission. You are actively counseling someone to lie to their recruiter. Would you also counsel them to lie about previous drug use? 
Who would have thought those ethics presentations were difficult to understand...

2. Part of the recruiting process involves a medical. Preeeetty sure one has to disrobe for that occasion. 

3. I wouldn't take any advice from someone on the internet who told me to "lissen carefully". If you are kept out because of your tattoos, there are options to get rid of them. If they were significant enough to warrant being denied entry, then maybe we are better off as an organization without you.


----------



## Loachman (18 Dec 2015)

This is the "Ask a CAF Recruiter" forum. Only Recruiters and DS are supposed to post herein. I have moved the other posts to the Merged Tattoo Thread (including 2012-13 policy): http://army.ca/forums/threads/869.500.html. I shall merge this thread with that one once a Recruiter has responded to JesseRandall.


----------



## Warrant Officer Robert (18 Dec 2015)

Please see the READ FIRST posting in our Ask a CAF Recruiter forum --->   http://army.ca/forums/threads/115341.0.html   (We will not answer questions about difficulties contacting your recruiting centre or general inquires with regards to your current application or file.)

Topic moved and available for open discussion.


----------



## CountDC (18 Dec 2015)

I agree Jesse, can we say possible release as an irregular enrolment.  If you lie to the recruiter and it is found out later that is what you could be facing.  Who really wants that on their record when they could have told the truth and dealt with it.  If you do lie then you have to be careful that you never ever slip up and reveal it because if the wrong person is around you could be screwed.  Want to see an MP perk right up - mention having used drugs prior to joining the military.  You better have mentioned it on enrolment (and yes somewhere out there this stuff is kept for some time from my personal experience).


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2015)

Saw this in Ask a CAF Recruiter,



			
				Angus6369 said:
			
		

> for Christmas my sister wants to get me the tattoo I've wanted on my forearm. Should I just wait till after basic, or take the picture of it into the recruiter and see what he thinks?



This may help,

Tattoos


			
				Major_Malfunction said:
			
		

> Should i make them aware of any more that I get between now and BMQ or am I being too cautious?



Getting a Tattoo while in recruiting process 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/116522/post-1330950.html#msg1330950
"I was wondering, if I get a tattoo while still in the recruitment process who would I have to notify that I have a tattoo that I did not have during my interview or medical?"

Question?
"So my birthday just passed and my parents wanted to get me a tattoo. My question is should I get it before BMQ or wait until after?"
https://army.ca/forums/threads/48001/post-418050.html#msg418050


----------



## hoping.for.the.best (7 Apr 2016)

Hello,

 I was just wondering if it was okay to get a tattoo before basic training or if it would cause problems. Thank you so much


----------



## Loachman (7 Apr 2016)

Welcome to Army.ca, comrade94

We have a twenty-two page thread regarding tattoos, as you can now plainly see as I have merged your new thread into it.

There is a ton of information about almost everything CF-related here on this Site already. Please read through older threads and use the Search Function before asking questions that have been asked before, often many times. In doing so, you will likely find answers to questions that have not even occurred to you yet.

Edited to add: The links in mariomike's post above no longer function, as those threads were previously merged into this one.


----------



## Pusser (7 Apr 2016)

comrade94 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I was just wondering if it was okay to get a tattoo before basic training or if it would cause problems. Thank you so much



What's the rush?  Never rush into getting a tattoo.  Life will just be simpler if you wait until after BMQ (and you may even find like-minded course-mates to go with you).

The movie "An Officer and a Gentleman" addresses this briefly.  It's not a big deal (as long as your tattoo is within regulation), but I would still suggest waiting.  BMQ is not the place to stand out and be "unique."


----------



## mariomike (7 Apr 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It's not a big deal (as long as your tattoo is within regulation), but I would still suggest waiting.



Also, to consider if there is a possibility you may have to go through a hiring process with a future employer should you ever leave the military.

eg: "Tattoos: A Word of Warning"
http://firelink.monster.com/benefits/articles/929-tattoos-a-word-of-warning?page=2


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Also, to consider if there is a possibility you may have to go through a hiring process with a future employer should you ever leave the military.
> 
> eg: "Tattoos: A Word of Warning"
> http://firelink.monster.com/benefits/articles/929-tattoos-a-word-of-warning?page=2



To counter though, I would say my tattoos have helped my work more than harmed it. They have given me common ground in an environment where primary care providers are often accused of being aloof and elitist.


----------



## mariomike (7 Apr 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> To counter though, I would say my tattoos have helped my work more than harmed it. They have given me common ground in an environment where primary care providers are often accused of being aloof and elitist.



All we had to offer was a smile and a shoeshine.  ( And a few bad jokes.  )

But, CUPE took it to arbitration, and won,

'Tattoos no longer confined to sailors': The Ottawa Hospital told it can't force nurses to hide body art or remove piercings
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tattoos-no-longer-confined-to-sailors-ottawa-hospital-told-it-cant-force-nurses-to-hide-body-art-or-remove-piercings
"In 2011, an arbitrator similarly ruled the Ontario Provincial Police could not order officers to cover up their tattoos."

Prior to the CUPE arbitration, we had the same policy as above where I used to work. Even on the hottest days of summer.

Since the CUPE arbitration, the general advice to candidates is to consider waiting until after they are in the union, and off probation. 

After that, because of the successful arbitration, there is nothing the department can do about it.

January 21, 2016 
Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?
http://www.stewartmckelvey.com/en/home/resources/publications/cananemployerprohibittattoosandpiercings.aspx

Tattoos in non-union versus unionized workplaces are discussed.

See also,

Tattoos and employment
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=BOUHV_uYLYKN8Qey6LuIDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=tattoos+employment


----------



## LJBenoit (7 Jun 2016)

Hi! I read the policy about tattoos and piercings, but had more specific questions, since I'm thinking of joinging this year or the next.

First, I have tattoos on my fingers. From what I understand, it's no problems since it's not offensive. But the US seems to have tightened it's tattoo policy recently. Do you think it could be a problem? More so if I want to apply as officer?

Second, what of ear stretchings? I know we can't wear any jewelry, but it still leaves marks on the ears. Could it be a problem?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Andraste (8 Jun 2016)

Hello,

So long as your tattoos are not offensive you should be fine.  WRT ear stretching . . . well . . . there is no direct policy covering ear stretching but you would have to adhere to dress regulations in that as a man you cannot wear earrings of any type while on duty (in uniform or civilian clothing).  

Cheers

Andraste


----------



## FSTO (8 Jun 2016)

I just have to ask.

WTF is the attraction to ear lobe stretching? I never seen something so absolutely fricking stupid looking in my life.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jun 2016)

Think about how you would feel when your stretched out earlobe catches on some protrusion and gets ripped open.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I just have to ask.
> 
> WTF is the attraction to ear lobe stretching? I never seen something so absolutely fricking stupid looking in my life.



Just people channeling their inner Masai roots.    :dunno:


----------



## FSTO (8 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just people channeling their inner Masai roots.    :dunno:



Isn't that cultural appropriation?


----------



## LJBenoit (8 Jun 2016)

Haha I must admit I don't really understand either what the fuss is about, but girls seems to love it... and I tend to think with my below-the-belt brain. Should work on that. Anyways, thanks for the answers, it seem to confirm what I saw. Anybody know of real life exemples (soldier with tattoos on the hand or stretched earlobes)?


----------



## RocketRichard (8 Jun 2016)

I heard of 'rumint' a young infantry private that had f### off tattooed on the outer edge of his right hand. I do believe the RSM said you have 3 choices: a) cut your hand off, which was self injury b) grind the tattoo off, again self injury or c) get dishonourably discharged...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jun 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> I heard of 'rumint' a young infantry private that had f### off tattooed on the outer edge of his right hand. I do believe the RSM said you have 3 choices: a) cut your hand off, which was self injury b) grind the tattoo off, again self injury or c) get dishonourably discharged...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



.....................or d) get it lasered off.


----------



## RocketRichard (8 Jun 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .....................or d) get it lasered off.


I don't believe that was an option in the early 80's.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> I don't believe that was an option in the early 80's.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I think that there were only three people licensed in Canada to remove tattoos in 1983.  The popular Tattoo Artist in Oromocto, an ex-US Medic, was one.


----------



## Sir Robert Peel (3 Jul 2016)

I am reading a lot of posts about what is acceptable and what is not, but I am not seeing any information on my question so I am going to ask. Two of my tattoos were deemed as unacceptable which stopped my recruitment process, not that they were offensive they were just misinterpreted. With that being said I have had the two tattoos altered so they no longer look anything like the used to. I have recently re-submitted them to Ottawa for approval. Does anyone know the chances of them being approved the second time around or if anyone has gone through the same process and has any information what to expect I would certainly love to hear it. Thank you.


----------



## Bigblueshark (12 Sep 2016)

Sorry if this post seems needless. I have searched all over the forums for rules regarding tattoos on officers. I have read the CAF FAQs and found that anywhere other than neck, head, or ears is aloud. However I have already applied and passed my air crew selection and am now considering a half sleeve starting from the wrist bone up to the elbow on my forearm. 

I assume it is alright but I have a feeling that an officer might be held to a different standard and I am worried this could jeopardize my career. It is not offensive and will just involve the ocean with a few small details. 

I've seen countless members with sleeve tattoos but again not any officers. Any feedback or personal experiences are appreciated! 
Thanks


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Sep 2016)

Bigblueshark said:
			
		

> Sorry if this post seems needless. I have searched all over the forums for rules regarding tattoos on officers. I have read the CAF FAQs and found that anywhere other than neck, head, or ears is aloud. However I have already applied and passed my air crew selection and am now considering a half sleeve starting from the wrist bone up to the elbow on my forearm.
> 
> I assume it is alright but I have a feeling that an officer might be held to a different standard and I am worried this could jeopardize my career. It is not offensive and will just involve the ocean with a few small details.
> 
> ...



It's 2016, just don't get anything offensive and you'll be fine.


----------



## Pusser (13 Sep 2016)

As an officer with multiple tattoos, please allow me to comment.

Although you are technically correct and a non-offensive sleeve tattoo should not be an issue, I would recommend you wait until you are actually in the CAF before getting such a tattoo.  Although the regulations say it's OK, the fact remains that for the most part, tattoos are not as common in the officers' mess as they are elsewhere. At the very least, they may give you a hard time on basic training (watch An Officer and a Gentleman).  My general advice for anyone is that tattoos should be able to be covered up when wearing any military order of dress (including the short-sleeve shirt orders).  Once you're in the CAF and finished basic training and your position is secure, you can start to let your personality out for others to enjoy, but until that point, it is probably best to conform with the norm.  It just makes life easier.


----------



## New_Guy24 (13 Sep 2016)

I am an officer and I have both of my arms and hands tattooed.  It is quite uncommon but it is allowed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Sep 2016)

Bigblueshark said:
			
		

> Sorry if this post seems needless. I have searched all over the forums for rules regarding tattoos on officers. I have read the CAF FAQs and found that anywhere other than neck, head, or ears is aloud. However I have already applied and passed my air crew selection and am now considering a half sleeve starting from the wrist bone up to the elbow on my forearm.
> 
> I assume it is alright but I have a feeling that an officer might be held to a different standard and I am worried this could jeopardize my career. It is not offensive and will just involve the ocean with a few small details.
> 
> ...



When in doubt, consult Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/3o7viy/what_are_your_opinions_of_tattoos_on_officers/


----------



## Loachman (13 Sep 2016)

I have merged this into the existing twenty-three-page tattoo thread because:

It was completely unnecessary to start yet another tattoo thread,

It was not an appropriate post for the "Ask a CAF Recruiter" forum, and

Several people responded, contrary to the "Ask a CAF Recruiter" forum rules.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> When in doubt, consult Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/3o7viy/what_are_your_opinions_of_tattoos_on_officers/



Reddit is cute and all, but I prefer army.ca.  They have been more accurate, and have been around longer discussing Canadian military things and stuff....



 :2c:


----------



## WestGirl36 (14 Sep 2016)

Hello again, 

Sorry for the flood of questions. Really trying to find out the information I need and having a lack of resources to a recruiting office up north. 

I have read from previous posts that tattoos on face, neck, ears are not allowed. I have a small tattoo of a bird behind my ear. Will this be not allowed as it is mostly hidden? 

Thank you again for your time 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## da1root (14 Sep 2016)

Good Day,

Please see the following thread that I have just created: http://navy.ca/forums/threads/124119.0.html

Best Regards,
Sgt Laen


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2016)

Tattoos.....A long and constantly asked topic.  Please read at your leisure:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/869.325






http://lmgtfy.com/?q=army.ca%2C+tattoos


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2016)

READ

Posted by Sgt Lean



			
				Sergeant Laen said:
			
		

> To clear up the many questions about Tattoo's that keep appearing.  Recruiters and File Managers cannot tell you if your tattoo will or will not be approved upon your recruiting process.  The only people involved in that are the MCC, UPSO, CFRC CO, RPSO, CFRG CWO & CFRG Commander (acronyms defined below).
> 
> If you do not have a tattoo and you are thinking about getting one - your best bet is to hold off.  As a Recruiter I will not tell you not to get one, but when you are trying to join an organization with a tattoo policy your best bet is to hold off.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (14 Sep 2016)

Reply #561,
"If you do not have a tattoo and you are thinking about getting one - your best bet is to hold off.  As a Recruiter I will not tell you not to get one, but when you are trying to join an organization with a tattoo policy your best bet is to hold off."

And, if there is a possibility you may one day Release from the CAF and go through the Application Process with another employer, to perhaps consider the above advice.


----------



## Pusser (15 Sep 2016)

This is general advice, that applies to many things, not just tattoos:

During the course of one's career in the armed forces, there will come a time when eccentricity and having an interesting and different personality will be admired, remembered and possibly rewarded (even if that only means not getting into too much crap).

*THE RECRUITING PROCESS AND BASIC TRAINING ARE NOT THAT TIME.*

Get in, get settled and prove yourself professionally before letting your personality shine.  The goal is to be "that guy" who everybody remembers fondly and tells great stories about, not "that guy" who gets unceremoniously punted at Week 2 and whose name is forgotten by the end of the course.


----------



## delta_19 (14 Nov 2016)

So I've been in for two years now and am thinking about getting a piercing well on christmas leave and was looking for some insight. I was just wondering if anyone else here has got a piercing well on leave and how that worked out for them? how did you keep the holes open at work, because I know even piercings that have been there for over a year can heal when not in use. Any info would help. 

thanks


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Nov 2016)

delta_19 said:
			
		

> So I've been in for two years now and am thinking about getting a piercing well on christmas leave and was looking for some insight. I was just wondering if anyone else here has got a piercing well on leave and how that worked out for them? how did you keep the holes open at work, because I know even piercings that have been there for over a year can heal when not in use. Any info would help.
> 
> thanks



The key factor that you haven't mentioned is location. Piercings on the nipple or genitalia, while technically in violation of the dress policy, in practice they are unlikely to be noticed or detract from a professional military appearance. Noses and eyebrows, on the other hand, are a pretty obvious violation of the rules.


----------



## delta_19 (14 Nov 2016)

would be a single lip piercing.


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2016)

delta_19 said:
			
		

> So I've been in for two years now and am thinking about getting a piercing well on christmas leave and was looking for some insight. I was just wondering if anyone else here has got a piercing well on leave and how that worked out for them? how did you keep the holes open at work, because I know even piercings that have been there for over a year can heal when not in use.



See also,

Body Piercings  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/66071.25
3 pages.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2016)

delta_19 said:
			
		

> would be a single lip piercing.



Don't waste your money. The first time you go on an extended course, exercise, or operation, it will heal over.


----------



## delta_19 (14 Nov 2016)

AVS labs the chances of me getting a deployment in during the remainder of my contract is very small.


----------



## Pusser (14 Nov 2016)

delta_19 said:
			
		

> AVS labs the chances of me getting a deployment in during the remainder of my contract is very small.



Then why not wait until you get out?


----------



## delta_19 (14 Nov 2016)

because thats still 3 years away.


----------



## Pusser (16 Nov 2016)

A lot can happen in three years.  I wouldn't discount deployment quite yet.


----------



## FlyLikeAnEagle (4 Jan 2018)

Are you tell your base that you got a tattoo during xmas break or "let sleeping does lie"? Its healed and "non-offensive" so....

Thanks
OS FLAE


----------



## LightFighter (4 Jan 2018)

FlyLikeAnEagle said:
			
		

> Are you tell your base that you got a tattoo during xmas break or "let sleeping does lie"? Its healed and "non-offensive" so....
> 
> Thanks
> OS FLAE



You don’t need to inform your chain of command every time you get a tattoo.  

If you are worried about it, perhaps you should have sought information prior to getting a tattoo.


----------



## FlyLikeAnEagle (4 Jan 2018)

Pickle Rick said:
			
		

> You don’t need to inform your chain of command every time you get a tattoo.
> 
> If you are worried about it, perhaps you should have sought information prior to getting a tattoo.



Just making sure. 

Thanks.


----------



## mariomike (4 Jan 2018)

FlyLikeAnEagle said:
			
		

> Are you tell your base that you got a tattoo during xmas break or "let sleeping does lie"? Its healed and "non-offensive" so....



BODY ADORNMENT

9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears. Additionally, members shall not acquire tattoos that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CAF. 
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/CH2-POLICY-AND-APPEARANCE.pdf


----------



## Franko (5 Jan 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> BODY ADORNMENT
> 
> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears. Additionally, members shall not acquire tattoos that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CAF.
> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/CH2-POLICY-AND-APPEARANCE.pdf



Sorry to tell you, but the policy has changed. It was updated I believe last September.

The location of tattoos has not though. I don't have access to the latest directives right now.

Regards


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2018)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Sorry to tell you, but the policy has changed. It was updated I believe last September.
> 
> The location of tattoos has not though. I don't have access to the latest directives right now.
> 
> Regards



Thanks. The one I posted is dated: 2016-07-12

Perhaps someone will post a more recent one.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Jan 2018)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Sorry to tell you, but the policy has changed. It was updated I believe last September.
> 
> The location of tattoos has not though. I don't have access to the latest directives right now.
> 
> Regards



I don't think so, there's no CANFORGEN about the policy change.


----------



## Franko (5 Jan 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I don't think so, there's no CANFORGEN about the policy change.



It's the dress manual itself that's changed. Doesn't require a CANFORGEN. 

Regards


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Jan 2018)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> It's the dress manual itself that's changed. Doesn't require a CANFORGEN.
> 
> Regards



Yes and the dress manual is managed by a committee and is reviewed yearly.  A couple of years ago a few qual badges were added to the authorized for wear list.  I had no idea until I was randomly looking in the dress manual and saw the changes.


----------



## Pusser (5 Jan 2018)

Just pulled this from the current manual:

9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears. Additionally, members shall not acquire tattoos that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CAF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 20.

I don't see a difference.  It's worth noting that it actually says that offensive tattoos are only prohibited if they are *visible* when clothed.  Thus, if it's not visible in your underwear...
Not sure that's what they meant, but that's what it says.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Just pulled this from the current manual:
> 
> 9. Body Tattoos and Body-Piercing. As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears. Additionally, members shall not acquire tattoos that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing that could be deemed to be offensive (e.g., pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CAF. Visible and non-visible body piercing adornments, with the exception of women’s earrings and ear sleepers described in sub-paragraph 6.a., shall not be worn by members either in uniform or on duty in civilian clothing. The meaning of the term “on duty”, for purposes of dress and appearance, is Interpreted in Chapter 1, paragraph 20.
> 
> I don't see a difference.



Word for word the same as Reply #576. 

I snipped the sentence about "Visible and non-visible body piercing", because FlyLikeAnEagle was only asking about tattoos, in the tattoo thread. 

Body Piercing adornments, earrings and sleepers have threads of their own.

See also,

TATTOOS
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/124119.0.html


----------



## FlyLikeAnEagle (5 Jan 2018)

Easy fellas. Its covered by my shirt and only visible if I'm changing. Thanks for the input though.


----------



## Handsome_devil (12 Feb 2018)

Where do neck tattoos stand now a days?


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Feb 2018)

Handsome_devil said:
			
		

> Where do neck tattoos stand now a days?



Somewhere between the earlobes and the clavicle.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Feb 2018)

:rofl:


----------



## Swally (25 May 2018)

Is that the latest version of the policy? I got my file closed during the interview because I have a tattoo on my calf with the fword in it. :tsktsk:

"that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing"

...shorts?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 May 2018)

Swally said:
			
		

> Is that the latest version of the policy? I got my file closed during the interview because I have a tattoo on my calf with the fword in it. :tsktsk:
> 
> "that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing"
> 
> ...shorts?


Yes shorts, unless you plan on never going anywhere where the temperature is above 10 degrees and never doing PT.

I do not forsee a day when the fword tattooed on your body would be acceptable in the CAF.


----------



## Strike (25 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yes shorts, unless you plan on never going anywhere where the temperature is above 10 degrees and never doing PT.
> 
> I do not forsee a day when the fword tattooed on your body would be acceptable in the CAF.



What if it's a "Fuck Cancer" tattoo?


----------



## RocketRichard (25 May 2018)

Strike said:
			
		

> What if it's a "frig Cancer" tattoo?



Can't think of one person who doesn't agree with the sentiment 'f##k cancer'.  However, it's generally unacceptable in public to have f##k permanently displayed.  'frig cancer' would most likely be acceptable...


----------



## Pusser (25 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yes shorts, unless you plan on never going anywhere where the temperature is above 10 degrees and never doing PT.
> 
> I do not forsee a day when the fword tattooed on your body would be acceptable in the CAF.



Yes, we only allow it in its spoken form (loudly and with enthusiasm).


----------



## Pusser (25 May 2018)

Swally said:
			
		

> Is that the latest version of the policy? I got my file closed during the interview because I have a tattoo on my calf with the fword in it. :tsktsk:
> 
> "that are visible either in military uniform or in civilian clothing"
> 
> ...shorts?



That word is considered vulgar and so yes, it will keep you out, even on your calf.  The trouble is that when someone becomes a member of the CAF, it quickly becomes apparent that they are members, even in civilian clothing (e.g. olive t-shirts and dog tags hanging our when you go clubbing) and so your appearance is still expected to meet an acceptable standard.  Someday you will be seen in shorts and someone will make the connection that your are in the armed forces.

I would argue that words in tattoos are always a bad idea.  The internet is rife with examples of misspelled tattoos and while hilarious for the rest of us, are downright embarrassing for the wearer.  Hopefully it won't be too difficult for you to have your tattoo fixed, which would enable you to proceed with your application.


----------



## Gunner98 (27 May 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yes shorts, unless you plan on never going anywhere where the temperature is above 10 degrees and never doing PT.
> 
> I do not forsee a day when the fword tattooed on your body would be acceptable in the CAF.



Really look around you and see the full spectrum of tattooing on your peers in uniform.  If the recruiting centre is turning someone away because of a tattoo is the CAF really succeeding in an effort to hire the best possible candidates.  Scenario - I know you are an ultra-marathon runner with a PhD and speak 5 languages but you have X^G& tattooed on your calf; we will take the 300 lb, video gamer, Gen X, loner candidate who can't stand the sight of a needle therefore, he has no tattoos.  Besides is there a multi-lingual, multi-generational, translation scanner for tattoos to make sure those Gaelic, gothic, or Japanese tattoos aren't as or more offensive than the letters 6-21-3-11.


----------



## garb811 (27 May 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Really look around you and see the full spectrum of tattooing on your peers in uniform.  If the recruiting centre is turning someone away because of a tattoo is the CAF really succeeding in an effort to hire the best possible candidates.  Scenario - I know you are an ultra-marathon runner with a PhD and speak 5 languages but you have X^G& tattooed on your calf; we will take the 300 lb, video gamer, Gen X, loner candidate who can't stand the sight of a needle therefore, he has no tattoos.  Besides is there a multi-lingual, multi-generational, translation scanner for tattoos to make sure those Gaelic, gothic, or Japanese tattoos aren't as or more offensive than the letters 6-21-3-11.


And the best part is, if you get the tattoo while you are in, you MAY be charged and if you are, the likely outcome will be a minor punishment.  After which you will still have the tattoo with the possible direction to, "Make sure it's covered when you're on duty."


----------



## Swally (11 Jun 2018)

Here's the offending tattoo btw. 

"Young bull says to the old bull: Hey, let's run down that hill and f*ck one of those cows. Old bull says No. Let's walk down and f*ck them all"


----------



## mariomike (11 Jun 2018)

Swally said:
			
		

> "Young bull says to the old bull: Hey, let's run down that hill and f*ck one of those cows. Old bull says No. Let's walk down and f*ck them all"



That was a great scene,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qj0RrSmQEo


----------



## smallzeroman445 (12 Jun 2018)

Hey guys .. really confused here.. I went in for my interview a few days ago and was told that the small hand prints behind my ears disqualified me from joining the army. I have a lot of other tattoos 2 sleeves and leg work done.. but this whole time I was under the understanding that neck tattoos that are non offensive would be ok.i was told the pictures of the tattoos are being sent for review , and all the info I’ve found seems to be conflicting. Really hate to not to get in over this ( will look into removal if I need to) the tattoos are of my child’s hand prints from birth . He was very tiny when he arrived so the hand prints are only 2 inch by 2 inch roughly. Just wondering if anyone had and recent experience with this as in 2018 experience. And can offer some
Advice.


----------



## kratz (12 Jun 2018)

=https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/caf-jobs/apply-now/faq.htmlCanadian Armed Forces - FAQ



> Are Forces members allowed to have tattoos and/or piercings?
> 
> Yes. Forces members can have non-offensive tattoos anywhere on the body except for the face, *head* and ears. Offensive tattoos (anything pornographic, racist, containing vulgar language/design, etc.) are not acceptable in the Forces. Forces members are not allowed to wear any piercings while in uniform or in the work environment, except for women’s stud earrings.
> 
> Date modified: 2018-06-05




Behind your ears is still on your head. The positive is your situation has been sent for review. So you have not been denied, yet. Just another delay in processing your application as you wait for a decision.


----------



## Lumber (12 Jun 2018)

I'm looking for some personal anecdotes.

"Officers and visible tattoos." I'm specifically referring to tattoos that would be visible in short sleeves; so, manily arm tattoos, whether full sleeve or just individual ones on your forearms or triceps. The kind that you would notice RIGHT away.

If you're not an officer with visible tattoos, whats has your opinion of those officers been? Did you immediately judge them (whether positive or negative) when you saw their tattoss? If you _are_ an officer with visible tattoos, what's your experience been? Has is ever negatively affected your careers? 

Merci!


----------



## CountDC (12 Jun 2018)

Don't judge people by tattoos as it really isn't an indication of what the person is really like.  Some get them thinking it will make them look cool or tough when it doesn't, others get them simply because they like them and some get ones that have special meaning.  Mine was designed by my wife and she now wants to change it after many years.  Anyone know a good and safe artist in Toronto?

My only thought is when I see the ones that are over the face or what some might deem vulgar is did the person really think of their future when they did that?


----------



## smallzeroman445 (12 Jun 2018)

Ok thanks for the info.. I was told the policy’s were just changed in recent weeks.. which would make it after I applied.. it’s ok, before I was told as long as it was small and was not offensive, then it would be ok... but because the policy’s just changed and I hadn’t had my interview yet that it’s not allowed now.. I have a consult on the 23rd for removal.. I got the tatts 10 yrs ago right after the birth of my twin boys.. ( they are the hand prints from child , one behind each ear on my neck)never thought I’d have another chance at joining the army. From the quote ( sent pictures) it’s notnthat much and a small price to pay to join now. Just takes times 6-8 months for treatments to be complete, thats due to wait times between treatmeants. Just a speed bump in the process. That’s if come
Monday I’m told I’m disqualified cuz of them. Not gonna wait to get the process started thanks for the info. The centre wasn’t sure and had to call out to Ottawa to ask about it. Glad I did.


----------



## Lumber (12 Jun 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Don't judge people by tattoos as it really isn't an indication of what the person is really like.  Some get them thinking it will make them look cool or tough when it doesn't, others get them simply because they like them and some get ones that have special meaning.  Mine was designed by my wife and she now wants to change it after many years.  Anyone know a good and safe artist in Toronto?
> 
> My only thought is when I see the ones that are over the face or what some might deem vulgar is did the person really think of their future when they did that?



What I'm asking is, has any officers in the CAF ran into "barriers" career goals (whether upward movement or simply desired posting), as the result of having visible tattoos?


----------



## mariomike (13 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What I'm asking is, has any officers in the CAF ran into "barriers" career goals (whether upward movement or simply desired posting), as the result of having visible tattoos?



If the tattoos were within policy, would the officer actually be told - verbally or in writing - they were the reason?

If not told, how would they ever know?


----------



## Lumber (13 Jun 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If the tattoos were within policy, would the officer actually be told - verbally or in writing - they were the reason?
> 
> If not told, how would they ever know?



This is why I was asking for anecdotes. I'm not expecting peer reviewed proof of career interference based on a conservative view of body art.


----------



## mariomike (13 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not expecting peer reviewed proof of career interference based on a conservative view of body art.



Neither am I.

Because if they were told, even anecdotally, and the tattoos were within official policy, could that lead to this? :

Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]


----------



## Lumber (13 Jun 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Neither am I.
> 
> Because if they were told, even anecdotally, and the tattoos were within official policy, could that lead to this? :
> 
> Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]



I'm looking for something as simple as a Col telling one of his Maj's to wear long sleeve instead of short sleeve to the meet and greet with the new defence attaché.

I'm looking for someone being told by a friend a friend of a friend that they were passed over for a position because of their tattoos, but because person that was selected was just as qualified, they can't prove it was because of the tattoos.


----------



## Pusser (18 Jun 2018)

smallzeroman445 said:
			
		

> Ok thanks for the info.. I was told the policy’s were just changed in recent weeks.. which would make it after I applied.. it’s ok, before I was told as long as it was small and was not offensive, then it would be ok... but because the policy’s just changed and I hadn’t had my interview yet that it’s not allowed now.. I have a consult on the 23rd for removal.. I got the tatts 10 yrs ago right after the birth of my twin boys.. ( they are the hand prints from child , one behind each ear on my neck)never thought I’d have another chance at joining the army. From the quote ( sent pictures) it’s notnthat much and a small price to pay to join now. Just takes times 6-8 months for treatments to be complete, thats due to wait times between treatmeants. Just a speed bump in the process. That’s if come
> Monday I’m told I’m disqualified cuz of them. Not gonna wait to get the process started thanks for the info. The centre wasn’t sure and had to call out to Ottawa to ask about it. Glad I did.



The policy isn't that new.  This is what the Dress Manual actually says:

As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears.

The policy has been in place for almost six years now and note that it doesn't matter whether the tattoo is deemed offensive or not (that criteria applies to other areas of the body).


----------



## hambley92 (18 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If you _are_ an officer with visible tattoos, what's your experience been? Has is ever negatively affected your careers?



I've never had an issue with it. I have visible tattoos on both arms. I've never had a negative experience because of it. There are definitely some folks - both officers and non-commissioned - who believe that officers shouldn't have visible tattoos. There are also many who love it and it is a great conversation starter. I know plenty of officers with visible tattoos (everything from small symbols to full sleeves) and have never heard of any of them being given a hard time because of it.

Doesn't mean it won't happen, but I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm looking for some personal anecdotes.
> 
> "Officers and visible tattoos." I'm specifically referring to tattoos that would be visible in short sleeves; so, manily arm tattoos, whether full sleeve or just individual ones on your forearms or triceps. The kind that you would notice RIGHT away.
> 
> ...



Here is something to think about from a recent co-worker's experience.  He was nominated to go the National Health Care Leadership Conference in St John's NF in June 2018.  He is looking to retire from the military and is seeking civilian employment. He has many skulls and other rock band-esque forearm tattoos from his rowdier times.  He requested through the chain of command to wear DEU tunic and tie so that when he was meeting with potential civilian health care employers during several breakfast speed-dating opportunities he would look professional with r without his tunic.  The chain of command denied his request and said the dress of the day for military personnel attending the conference was DEU 3B short sleeve and he could always wear a sweater.  So off he went to the conference with his sweater to hide his tattoos while his peers were comfortable in their short sleeves.  I told him he should own his tattoos and not hide them because sooner or later the CEO would find out if they hired him.  If he was being honest with self and them then he should let his conversation/intelligence, resume and experience leave the impression and not his forearms.


----------



## CombatDoc (18 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm looking for something as simple as a Col telling one of his Maj's to wear long sleeve instead of short sleeve to the meet and greet with the new defence attaché.
> 
> I'm looking for someone being told by a friend a friend of a friend that they were passed over for a position because of their tattoos, but because person that was selected was just as qualified, they can't prove it was because of the tattoos.


I am aware of at least one MARS Officer who made it to Capt(N), with two sleeves of tattoos on his arms. He released from the CAF shortly after promotion to 4 ringer, but, likely could have made Cmdre. Conversely, I am aware of another officer with neck tats who was unlikely to make it to GOFO - but, the tats were likely not the sole reason.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> He requested through the chain of command to wear DEU tunic and tie so that when he was meeting with potential civilian health care employers during several breakfast speed-dating opportunities he would look professional with r without his tunic.



I've never had a tattoo, but I worked for a municipal health care employer. 



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So off he went to the conference with his sweater to hide his tattoos while his peers were comfortable in their short sleeves.



There seems to be an underlying belief that the department will not see a tattoo before a candidate is hired. That they can be hidden under a business suit, long-sleeve shirt or a sweater.

In reality, there is no “hiding” a tattoo from them. In addition to the physical exam, the department will conduct a thorough medical examination. They now require candidates to show up for their oral interview in a short sleeve shirt.


----------



## smallzeroman445 (19 Jun 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The policy isn't that new.  This is what the Dress Manual actually says:
> 
> As of September 26th, 2012, members are not to acquire any tattoos that are visible on the head, face or ears.
> 
> The policy has been in place for almost six years now and note that it doesn't matter whether the tattoo is deemed offensive or not (that criteria applies to other areas of the body).



They told the policy was just recently changed ( he said back
Of the neck was fine before )but as of this year sometime it was changed.. I even
Called out to Ottawa for some info and the person I spoke to said it was with in the last few weeks but not all the recruitment centres were updated yet... I don’t no .. seems to me everyone I talk to has a different answer.. I see army with neck tatts all the time .. way bigger then the 2 small hand prints I have.. it is what it is.. until I hear back ( I called but no ones got back to me as of yet) then I won’t make any decisions on what to do
Next..


----------



## Pusser (19 Jun 2018)

smallzeroman445 said:
			
		

> They told the policy was just recently changed ( he said back
> Of the neck was fine before )but as of this year sometime it was changed.. I even
> Called out to Ottawa for some info and the person I spoke to said it was with in the last few weeks but not all the recruitment centres were updated yet... I don’t no .. seems to me everyone I talk to has a different answer.. I see army with neck tatts all the time .. way bigger then the 2 small hand prints I have.. it is what it is.. until I hear back ( I called but no ones got back to me as of yet) then I won’t make any decisions on what to do
> Next..



The order I quoted you before came directly from the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions (A-DH-265-000/AG-001), which is a published order from the Chief of the Defence Staff.  There is no room for confusion on this one.  Anyone you see in the CAF today with neck tattoos, theoretically got them before 26 September 2012.  Either that, or their chain of command simply ignored the policy and chose not to enforce it.  The fact that you talked to a number of people who should have known the policy, sadly, does not surprise me.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (20 Jun 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The order I quoted you before came directly from the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions (A-DH-265-000/AG-001), which is a published order from the Chief of the Defence Staff.  There is no room for confusion on this one.  Anyone you see in the CAF today with neck tattoos, theoretically got them before 26 September 2012.  Either that, or their chain of command simply ignored the policy and chose not to enforce it.  The fact that you talked to a number of people who should have known the policy, sadly, does not surprise me.





			
				smallzeroman445 said:
			
		

> They told the policy was just recently changed ( he said back
> Of the neck was fine before )but as of this year sometime it was changed.. I even
> Called out to Ottawa for some info and the person I spoke to said it was with in the last few weeks but not all the recruitment centres were updated yet... I don’t no .. seems to me everyone I talk to has a different answer.. I see army with neck tatts all the time .. way bigger then the 2 small hand prints I have.. it is what it is.. until I hear back ( I called but no ones got back to me as of yet) then I won’t make any decisions on what to do
> Next..



The policy change has nothing to do with Dress Regulations, but rather the CAF Recruiting Handbook which establishes Policy for recruitment.

Those policies are for applicants and processing applications. The change where neck, head, hand tattoos are no longer acceptable for recruitment is alleged to have been added on 18 May 2018 and will apply to any and all applications initiated on or after that date.

Those policies are not dress regulations for serving members and the tattoo regulations found in the CFP265 that permits tattoos with the exception of the face, head still stands. Dress Regulations also do not apply to Applicants as they are not yet serving members.


----------



## Pusser (20 Jun 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> The policy change has nothing to do with Dress Regulations, but rather the CAF Recruiting Handbook which establishes Policy for recruitment.
> 
> Those policies are for applicants and processing applications. The change where neck, head, hand tattoos are no longer acceptable for recruitment is alleged to have been added on 18 May 2018 and will apply to any and all applications initiated on or after that date.
> 
> Those policies are not dress regulations for serving members and the tattoo regulations found in the CFP265 that permits tattoos with the exception of the face, head still stands. Dress Regulations also do not apply to Applicants as they are not yet serving members.



Then there was a major disconnect in our policies.  The Dress Manual may not apply to applicants, but it does apply the moment they become members.  How can we honestly recruit someone who will instantly be in violation of a regulation the moment they sign on the dotted line?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (20 Jun 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Then there was a major disconnect in our policies.  The Dress Manual may not apply to applicants, but it does apply the moment they become members.  How can we honestly recruit someone who will instantly be in violation of a regulation the moment they sign on the dotted line?



But, the applicants wouldn't be in violation because the new recruiting policy is barring people with Neck, hand tattoos, yet they're permitted by the CFP265.

However, it's the face/head tattoos, people weren't being recruited if they had them in the first place. Exceptions were being made for small tattoos (like behind the ears) and the justification was that if a member is suitable for service, why bar them for placement of tattoos, and were waiving it.

Hell, I see a few guys walking around with tattoos right up to the bottom of their chin.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What I'm asking is, has any officers in the CAF ran into "barriers" career goals (whether upward movement or simply desired posting), as the result of having visible tattoos?


OK, OK..... yes, I have tattoos.... and I have not (yet) been promoted to General -- _obviously_  because of the ink.  Thanks for rubbing salt in that wound.    :'(


----------



## BrewsKampbell (20 Jun 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> But, the applicants wouldn't be in violation because the new recruiting policy is barring people with Neck, hand tattoos, yet they're permitted by the CFP265.



Is it? or is it because of placement of what they actually have tattooed? I rejoined last year and have hand tattoos, including knuckles, and no issues getting back in.

EDIT: Missed the part where you mention the recruiting policy change this year. That's a shame if true.


----------



## garb811 (12 Aug 2019)

TATTOOFORGEN is out. See: CANFORGEN 121/19 CMP 068/19 062030Z AUG 19 DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE FOR TATTOOS.

Of note:


> 3. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE ONLY BODY PARTS WHERE TATTOOS ARE PROHIBITED ARE THE FACE AND THE SCALP EXCEPT FOR:
> 
> a. COSMETIC TATTOOS THAT ARE NATURAL-LOOKING IN SHAPE AND COLOUR OR
> 
> ...


----------



## kratz (12 Aug 2019)

It's good to see that Misandry hasn't been explicitly prohibited.  /s


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Aug 2019)

Maybe Misandry is considered the most exclusive of all hates because it includes everyone? (also sarcastic)

Serious question, does this mean the Sailor Jerry style pinup girl is verbotten? Fairly safe for work link to the originals on the site below, but that's a pretty common one for the arm/leg. Can see for some of the naked tattoos, but that's a pretty big grey area when some may say it's fine but others may raise an objection.

https://sailorjerry.com/en/tattoos/


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Aug 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> TATTOOFORGEN is out. See: CANFORGEN 121/19 CMP 068/19 062030Z AUG 19 DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE FOR TATTOOS.


Women in Canada can legally go topless. Can I get a tattoo of a topless woman or is that considered expressing _sexually explicit material?_


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Women in Canada can legally go topless.



Actually, it's only legal in ON, BC and SK (I think): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Aug 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, it's only legal in ON, BC and SK (I think): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada



Personal experience? What about the pictures?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, it's only legal in ON, BC and SK (I think): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada


I thought so, too.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (13 Aug 2019)

Thread unlocked. *Legitimate* questions and comments which add to the discussion are welcome. Otherwise, take it to PMs.

Staff


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Aug 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, it's only legal in ON, BC and SK (I think): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada



But that's because no one has needed to challenge in other provinces yet due to the precedent being set in the three you mentioned, no?


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Aug 2019)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> But that's because no one has needed to challenge in other provinces yet due to the precedent being set in the three you mentioned, no?



I have no idea.  There is this quote from the same source: "Since the matter has not been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is still possible that a woman could be convicted elsewhere in Canada."

Anyway, back to the topic of tattoos.  Good rule of thumb: If you think it might be offensive, get it somewhere it doesn't show in uniform.  Or don't get it at all.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Aug 2019)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I have no idea.  There is this quote from the same source: "Since the matter has not been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is still possible that a woman could be convicted elsewhere in Canada."
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic of tattoos.  Good rule of thumb: If you think it might be offensive, get it somewhere it doesn't show in uniform.  Or don't get it at all.



Agreed. As in life, if you have to question if it's right, it probably not.


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Serious question, does this mean the Sailor Jerry style pinup girl is verbotten?
> https://sailorjerry.com/en/tattoos/



I was curious if you would receive an answer. Certainly not for me to say. 

But, at least with "Sailor Jerry" I know what I am looking at. 

What I sometimes find confusing these days is that unless I look closely, and ask questions about what it all means ( which I would never do, unless I know the person ) I'm not usually sure what I am looking at exactly, or what it represents.

Not being very tattoo savvy, some of it looks like a bit of a Rorschach test to me.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Aug 2019)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Agreed. As in life, if you have to question if it's right, it probably not.


But some of my more interesting adventures have started with "watch this!" or "I dare you"... several of which could have left a permanent mark of two (OK, a couple of scars actually did).    ;D

I've no doubt posted it somewhere in the preceding 25 pages, but tattoo removal is:  more expensive than the original ink;  requires several sessions that all hurt more than getting the ink;  and doesn't remove green ink, so you may have spots remaining.


----------

