a young woman in my office is looking for another job, and she was astounded to learn that an office to which she applied (as a lawyer in a state office) had a policy against visible piercings such as her nose piercing.

I was astounded that she was astounded.

I mean, even if someone doesn't come right out and say, "we have a policy against," surely no one is surprised that such adornments are not quite accepted in the professional world. They are seen as, well, what they are, really, aren't they? as an artifact of youthful rebellion. I realize that this stuff is moving beyond the province of the young and carefree, but it ain't there yet.

I think that we likely have moved past automatically judging someone's, you know, moral values or something based on a piercing, but it does remain a distraction in a professional setting. Like it or not.

Any thoughts?

are earring forbidden as well?

a young woman in my office is looking for another job, and she was astounded to learn that an office to which she applied (as a lawyer in a state office) had a policy against visible piercings such as her nose piercing.

I was astounded that she was astounded.

I mean, even if someone doesn't come right out and say, "we have a policy against," surely no one is surprised that such adornments are not quite accepted in the professional world. They are seen as, well, what they are, really, aren't they? as an artifact of youthful rebellion. I realize that this stuff is moving beyond the province of the young and carefree, but it ain't there yet.

I think that we likely have moved past automatically judging someone's, you know, moral values or something based on a piercing, but it does remain a distraction in a professional setting. Like it or not.

Any thoughts?

I think that we likely have moved past automatically judging someone's, you know, moral values or something based on a piercing.......

Aren't we the the ever optomistic one.

are earring forbidden as well?
no. but most people would acknowledge a difference between an earring and a nose piercing. they have different meanings in our culture. no?

tell her she should be happy she can still keep her nips pierced! :)

Anyway, welcome to the professional world. each organizations has it's own rules.
she'll need to choose which one she wants to join.

no. but most people would acknowledge a difference between an earring and a nose piercing. they have different meanings in our culture. no?
lets see, one is wearing jewelry to try and look pretty, the other is wearing jewelry to try and look pretty.
I hope the office does not allow men to wear brown shoes after dark btw.

are you describing the world as it should be, or as it is?

because if you think you're describing the latter, I don't think you're quite nailing it.

some places are not going to care. some places, like law offices that represent the state in the courts of that state, are, because people's perceptions are what they are.

it would be one thing to hire a person of color in 1963 in an otherwise all-white professional scene as an act of moral courage.

nose piercings -- eh, they don't get the same consideration.

I knew a pro skateboarder who had "Freedom" tatooed on his neck. I always thought it ironically curtailed his ability to work many places.

I can see disagreeing with the policy, even though it seems ok to me, but I agree with you, bill, that it's shocking that she was shocked that such a conservative profession would have conservative rules.

I am always amazed by all the well dressed professional women I work with who have tattoos.

Don't see any piercings other than earings though and this place is pretty much run by women.

My company - not so small, has over 250,000 employees - also has a rule stating that hair must be of a color found in nature. Ironically, I also work at a small ski area which has the same rule (about piercings and hair color)

Don't see any piercings other than earings though and this place is pretty much run by women.
The greatest things about piercings, for the most part, is that they go away.

I've been toying with the idea of a nose piercing for a while. I think it would be fun. And then if I decide I don't like it anymore or I want a job where it's inappropriate, I can take it out and that's the end of things. As it is, NCAA rules prohibit jewelry during play, so I would have to take it out every game or tape my nose, which would look dumb.

My company - not so small, has over 250,000 employees - also has a rule stating that hair must be of a color found in nature. Ironically, I also work at a small ski area which has the same rule (about piercings and hair color)


I could deal with those rules.



joe

The greatest things about piercings, for the most part, is that they go away.

I've been toying with the idea of a nose piercing for a while. I think it would be fun. And then if I decide I don't like it anymore or I want a job where it's inappropriate, I can take it out and that's the end of things. As it is, NCAA rules prohibit jewelry during play, so I would have to take it out every game or tape my nose, which would look dumb.
riddle me this.
what is fun about a piercing?
I'm not arguing with you, really, but it seems to me that what is fun is a bit of the recklessness of it. a little shock value is what makes it fun.

and that's sort of why it's not considered terribly professional.

don't get me wrong -- one of the abiding regrets of my life, other than never having lived in NYC, is that I didn't get an earring and grow my hair down to my ass when it didn't matter.

riddle me this.
what is fun about a piercing?
It's not really about shock value to me, though. I think you're projecting.

For instance - nose rings are cute to me because they sparkle (of course, I'm talking about the studs and not hoops). If done right, I don't think they have to be too flashy or obnoxious. They are just jewelry.

On a personal note, I have a tongue piercing. It has little shock value because I wear a retainer 90% of the time that most people can't see. But I have a lot of nervous energy and I can fidget without anyone hearing or noticing.

My company - not so small, has over 250,000 employees - also has a rule stating that hair must be of a color found in nature.

hmmm...sounds like my organization, which also has a rule against body piercings (other than ear, but only for women). Of course, we're also only allowed to wear two rings.

It's not really about shock value to me, though. I think you're projecting.

this is interesting. maybe things have changed, or are changing, that much, which is sort of my question.

projecting? sure, doesn't everyone? how else do you figure out anything about the world?

put another way, aren't you projecting about my projecting?

projecting? sure, doesn't everyone? how else do you figure out anything about the world?
Stereotypes and generalizations are good tools to understand a strange situation better in a short amount of time. They can also hinder your ability to understand a situation beyond a certain depth. You're looking for more than just superficial understanding, or you wouldn't have posted the thread - right?

Put it this way - are we talking about projecting or are we talking about piercings?

Put it this way - are we talking about projecting or are we talking about piercings?
but isn't that the very issue, really? where everyone wears earrings and has in our culture for centuries, piercings are tribal and exotic and it's hard for people born to this culture to see them as just adornments. they mean . . . something. maybe someday they won't, but they do now. you get projection, whether you think you've bargained for it or not.

and I think that they probably mean something to most people who get them, too.

heck, even earrings mean something. believe me, when my 8 y/o got her ears pierced, it was a big damn deal.

you think that you're the first generation to face this? when I was twelve, long hair had a cultural meaning. and then short hair on a teen meant something. and then there were mohalks and spikes and shaved heads. most of the meaning faded as the fads became more part of the mainstream, but that's pretty much when they stop being fads, too.

I'm not surprised....young people (in general) tend to believe that what they believe is the truth and should be what everyone else believes. Growing up cures that. (End of patronizing remarks)

I do a lot of leadership hiring for organizations & I can say that it would take an exceptionally superior candidate for me to hire them in spite of a visible tattoo or piercing (other than simple earing piercing). There are too many other candidates that would fit the organizations better.

Len

they mean . . . something. But they don't mean the same thing to everyone.

For example, there are a LOT of 20somethings in our culture, and most of them would hardly think twice about a nasal piercing.

I could see you making an argument for excessive amounts of piercings, or maybe a specific piercing (certainly tongue piercings still carry some stigma even in the younger crowd), but I've seen little evidence to support the theory that ALL piercings outside of ears continue to be exotic and tribal.

It's not really about shock value to me, though. I think you're projecting.

For instance - nose rings are cute to me because they sparkle (of course, I'm talking about the studs and not hoops). If done right, I don't think they have to be too flashy or obnoxious. They are just jewelry.


indeed. the missus has a small stud in her nose...it's teh hawt. it's also very discreet. i often forget that she has it.

regardless, all this talk makes me glad i don't have a "real" job....it all seems very silly to me. i mean really, 5 seconds of interaction with someone goes soooo much further than .5 seconds of visual inspections....why don't we realize this and embrace it.....

hmmm...sounds like my organization, which also has a rule against body piercings (other than ear, but only for women). Of course, we're also only allowed to wear two rings.

I would find it unacceptable (and maybe a court would too) that the rule allows women to have pierced ears but not men. That's sexist, basically.

The two rings thing seems kind of stupid for anyone who doesn't put their hands near machinery.

Then again, I'm pretty against dress codes that get any more draconian than mandating long pants (and even then, skirts are a big gray area). I might be able to tolerate a "no jeans" policy, but it would be tough. Probably the best rule is "Cover all pubic areas and/or baby making/feeding parts."

I understand the urge to assume that mandating style is a way of mandating behavior, which is my take on why people make such conservative dress/jewelry rules. I also resist it at every turn. Some of the rudest, most embarrassing people I've ever had to go to a business lunch with were wearing suits. A dress code won't make a boor any less awful. Indeed, it just makes it easier for them to sneak up on you because you can't see them coming.

I've seen little evidence to support the theory that ALL piercings outside of ears continue to be exotic and tribal.

professional business environment that are exotic & tribal and they are normally unacceptable. That is just the way it is right now. You don't have to agree with it, but if you want to work in a professional business environment, you will have to accept it.

Len

But they don't mean the same thing to everyone.

For example, there are a LOT of 20somethings in our culture, and most of them would hardly think twice about a nasal piercing.

I could see you making an argument for excessive amounts of piercings, or maybe a specific piercing (certainly tongue piercings still carry some stigma even in the younger crowd), but I've seen little evidence to support the theory that ALL piercings outside of ears continue to be exotic and tribal.
Hell when I was growing up a guy with an ear piercing was considered edgy (I did have 3 at one point). I never did get a tatt though I went through a brief rebellious period where I had a spiked mullet--hey it was the 80s people! Gimme a break. Other than that, I usually tended to be the guy who was kinda a chameleon--in general I dressed pretty conservatively. Because of the way I dressed I rarely got in trouble. All my friends with long hair and ratty clothes were the ones that got hassled by the man. I may have been a total party animal, but my look didn't advertise that.

//basically the bottom line is young people can ***** about individuality and freedom all they want, but many jobs judge you by the way you look--right or wrong.

But they don't mean the same thing to everyone.
don't oversell this. when you see someone with a nose piercing, or a tattoo, versus someone in a Fair Isle sweater and a skirt, don't you make assumptions? And if you saw someone in a Fair Isle sweater and a skirt and a piercing, aren't you going to make some assumptions there, as well?
about being "in the club" or not?
heck, as a grown-up daddy I started shaving my legs, at least in part because it was, in part, my calling card to get me into the club of bicycle racers. Not every last person who races shaves, but that says something, too.

I would find it unacceptable (and maybe a court would too) that the rule allows women to have pierced ears but not men. That's sexist, basically.

The two rings thing seems kind of stupid for anyone who doesn't put their hands near machinery.

Then again, I'm pretty against dress codes that get any more draconian than mandating long pants (and even then, skirts are a big gray area). I might be able to tolerate a "no jeans" policy, but it would be tough. Probably the best rule is "Cover all pubic areas and/or baby making/feeding parts."

I understand the urge to assume that mandating style is a way of mandating behavior, which is my take on why people make such conservative dress/jewelry rules. I also resist it at every turn. Some of the rudest, most embarrassing people I've ever had to go to a business lunch with were wearing suits. A dress code won't make a boor any less awful. Indeed, it just makes it easier for them to sneak up on you because you can't see them coming.

most organizations function best when they are as homogenious as possible...especially in departments with repitatitive tasks and those that require frequent personal interaction. It's about "Lubricating" harmony....and it does work for most organizations.


I don't think it's as much about mandating behavior as enhancing harmony.

Len

I understand the urge to assume that mandating style is a way of mandating behavior, which is my take on why people make such conservative dress/jewelry rules.

it may be that in part, for some folks, but I think it's more about avoiding the distraction of it all. as enlightened as you may be, you know people that aren't, and, heck, who needs it when you're trying to run a business or an organizaton. it's just easier not to deal with it all, and there frankly is precious little reason to have to try.
that may change, which is one reason why I brought this up.

don't oversell this. when you see someone with a nose piercing, or a tattoo, versus someone in a Fair Isle sweater and a skirt, don't you make assumptions?
Sure, but my assumptions are probably different than yours. That's the point I'm trying to make - not that we don't all make assumptions, but that probably more people than you might think assume different things than you do.

Your negative assumptions, I'm guessing, would revolve primarily around the person with a nose piercing and/or tattoo. My negative assumptions would revolve around the person in a Fair Isle (what the crap is Fair Isle? teh goggle will help) sweater.

I would find it unacceptable (and maybe a court would too) that the rule allows women to have pierced ears but not men. That's sexist, basically.

The two rings thing seems kind of stupid for anyone who doesn't put their hands near machinery.

We're pretty special :cool:

Then again, I'm pretty against dress codes that get any more draconian than mandating long pants (and even then, skirts are a big gray area). I might be able to tolerate a "no jeans" policy, but it would be tough. Probably the best rule is "Cover all pubic areas and/or baby making/feeding parts."

It's this same liberal attitude that got Spirito banned for a week. :D

I understand the urge to assume that mandating style is a way of mandating behavior, which is my take on why people make such conservative dress/jewelry rules. I also resist it at every turn. Some of the rudest, most embarrassing people I've ever had to go to a business lunch with were wearing suits. A dress code won't make a boor any less awful. Indeed, it just makes it easier for them to sneak up on you because you can't see them coming.

You are absolutely right. That's why the stereotypes are so dangerous. But for the same reason that these attitudes/actions are deplorable regardless (or in spite) of dress, there should be some reasonable expectation of dress (including decorations) for those in a professional work environment. For instance, NFL Players should keep their jersey tucked in all game long :)

Your negative assumptions, I'm guessing, would revolve primarily around the person with a nose piercing and/or tattoo. My negative assumptions would revolve around the person in a Fair Isle (what the crap is Fair Isle? teh goggle will help) sweater.

oh my. you've been caught -- rather blatantly -- projecting.

I don't have negative assumptions about piercings that go beyond what I might think about what is now really quite a conformist thing to do when you're twenty-two.

give us who have lived a little more credit.

and, actually, i have run scared from Fair Isle sweaters since i first saw one.

Not that I loved anyone who didn't wear one or hated anyone who did. The world isn't like that. some of the wackiest, most disturbing people I've ever met were the most conventional-looking. I guess that felt the safest highly, highly disguised.

a young woman in my office is looking for another job, and she was astounded to learn that an office to which she applied (as a lawyer in a state office) had a policy against visible piercings such as her nose piercing.

I was astounded that she was astounded.

I mean, even if someone doesn't come right out and say, "we have a policy against," surely no one is surprised that such adornments are not quite accepted in the professional world. They are seen as, well, what they are, really, aren't they? as an artifact of youthful rebellion. I realize that this stuff is moving beyond the province of the young and carefree, but it ain't there yet.

I think that we likely have moved past automatically judging someone's, you know, moral values or something based on a piercing, but it does remain a distraction in a professional setting. Like it or not.

Any thoughts?

The world is changing.

Last year I went to a settlement conference at a major New York law firm and the second year associate (who was third or fourth chair on the case) was wearing a nose ring. This was at the kind of law firm that ten years ago would have been aghast had a male lawyer worn a sports jacket instead of dark blue or gray suit to the office.

Now, I agree with you that it is astounding that someone who is a lawyer, albeit a very young lawyer, is not aware of the negative impressions that piercings and tattoos have among people of a certain age (like our age). About two years ago, we had a long-term temporary secretary who was working at our office. When she arrived, she was wearing a high necked, long sleeved shirt, slacks and had no pierced jewelry showing other than a pair or earrings. Then once she was established in the office, her clothes became more revealing (short sleeved shirts, skirts) -- and there were multiple tattoos on the places that she revealed. Then, multiple earrings started to sprout out of her ears. Clearly the woman who was working for us knew that it was a good idea to present a non-pierced, non-tattooed first impression. And, her method worked -- by the time that she started to show her body art, we had gotten to know her as an employee and could overlook her appearance. I am not going to say that we would have rejected her if she had walked into the office on the first day looking like she did after several weeks of her revealing her body art. But, she at least was smart enough to cover up until she had the job.

It's this same liberal attitude that got Spirito banned for a week. :D
Yeah but even if the outcome is a foregone conclusion, sometimes the fight is worth the effort due to the discussion it raises (or the satisfaction of rebelling, as it may be :p).

I'm not surprised....young people (in general) tend to believe that what they believe is the truth and should be what everyone else believes. Growing up cures that. (End of patronizing remarks)
Len

I can't believe you actually posted that in seriousness. Do you really think there's any difference between the young kid who doesn't want "the man" telling her what to do and the old man who complains about "the damn longhairs"?

Growing up, as you put it, does NOT confer any particular ability to understand or accept someone else's perspective. You prove it yourself by assuming that youth (or immaturity) is the reason people don't want to accept your judgment about the acceptability of tattoos or piercings in the workplace.

Nothing personal, but your argument is laughably, tautologically dumb.

Sounds to me like being at the top is what makes people think that their way is the only right way.

I don't have negative assumptions about piercings that go beyond what I might think about what is now really quite a conformist thing to do when you're twenty-two.
But to a twenty-two year old, certainly to those less sure in decisions than I am, that is a HUGE assumption. Tons of 20somethings don't know why they make the decisions that they do, and projecting that kind of negativity on them can make them second-guess the things that they actually have done for themselves.

Don't underestimate the intensity of the negativity in that assumption, particularly the meaning it has for those you project it on.

And, just to repeat myself, I never said that I don't project. gosh.

give us who have lived a little more credit.
You don't understand the actions of the younger person about whom you started the thread, so in this particular discussion I have the upper hand since I am younger.

I can't believe you actually posted that in seriousness. Do you really think there's any difference between the young kid who doesn't want "the man" telling her what to do and the old man who complains about "the damn longhairs"?

Growing up, as you put it, does NOT confer any particular ability to understand or accept someone else's perspective. You prove it yourself by assuming that youth (or immaturity) is the reason people don't want to accept your judgment about the acceptability of tattoos or piercings in the workplace.

Nothing personal, but your argument is laughably, tautologically dumb.

Sounds to me like being at the top is what makes people think that their way is the only right way.

I should have included smiley's....the "End of patronizing remarks" comment should have been a givaway that my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

I'll try to be less obscure next time.

Len

You don't understand the actions of the younger person about whom you started the thread, so in this particular discussion I have the upper hand since I am younger.

Youth and enthusiasm is no match for old age and treachery :p

Youth and enthusiasm is no match for old age and treachery :p
certainly not in the eyes of the old person. :wink:

where did I once judge negatively?

I'm seriously confused by this.

yes, I think that a piercing at this point for someone in their early twenties is conformist. and I shave my legs to conform, as I said.

So?

calculating that someone has conformed is not negative. it just is.

and, it's not that I don't understand why she didn't take her piercing out. I mean, if she wants only a job that accepts her piercing, then she should leave it in. that's an entirely valid choice. if she is willing to negate the issue, because it is one in many circles, then she should have take the piercing out.

I don't care a whit that she has a piercing. but I understand not hiring her as a lawyer, too, over someone equal in all other respects. who needs the distraction, which it will be seen as by lots of other folks.

I was surprised that she was surprised is pretty much the beginning and the end of it.

where did I once judge negatively?

I'm seriously confused by this.
A 20-something who still harbors insecurity about being themselves and making their own decisions in life may consider your snap judgment about conformity extremely negative. It's not negative to you, but it's negative to those you project it on.

most organizations function best when they are as homogenious as possible...especially in departments with repitatitive tasks and those that require frequent personal interaction. It's about "Lubricating" harmony....and it does work for most organizations.


I don't think it's as much about mandating behavior as enhancing harmony.

Len

Insisting on homogeneity is intellectually lazy. You know as well as I do that the uproar caused by a pierced nose would last about a week, tops, in the minds of all but the most petty, awful people in an organization (and I could argue that it's the petty and awful who should then be rejected).

I'm prepared to say that MANY people are petty and awful, but probably not enough to justify trying to legislate sameness.

Worse than that is when people hold these opinions and act on them but don't admit it. You admit that you would hold a tattoo against a management candidate, and you have your reasons, but would you honestly tell that otherwise-qualified candidate that he or she was unacceptable because of the tattoo? Probably not if you don't want to be sued, and I think that kind of action is a more soul-destroying than having to make a dress code rule or just dealing with differences.

Yeah but even if the outcome is a foregone conclusion, sometimes the fight is worth the effort due to the discussion it raises (or the satisfaction of rebelling, as it may be :p).

Absolutely! However I do not believe that the fight should be over a nose ring. Ending segregation...Women's suffrage...Religious freedom...now those are fights worth fighting regardless of the potential outcome. Something so simple! As someone else said (MarkS?), if you know the perception...which admittedly, apparently the young woman in the OP didn't...then go and establish yourself before you start to fight.

OTOH, I believe that if you are creative enough there are ways to win virtually every fight.

Absolutely! However I do not believe that the fight should be over a nose ring. Ending segregation...Women's suffrage...Religious freedom...now those are fights worth fighting regardless of the potential outcome. Something so simple! As someone else said (MarkS?), if you know the perception...which admittedly, apparently the young woman in the OP didn't...then go and establish yourself before you start to fight.

OTOH, I believe that if you are creative enough there are ways to win virtually every fight.

Plus it seems that tatts and rings are more the uniform of 20 somethings these days than any expression of individuality. When everyone does it is it really rebellious anymore?

Ok. a little perspective here.

doing someing conformist like getting a piercing does not make one either a piece of sh*t or even a conformist. one patch of ice doth not a winter make.

I can't help whether someone's appraisal of your actions -- and it is about your action, not so much about you; I've said this to you before and I'll say it again, you seem like an intelligent, interesting person, but I don't know anything about you -- is perceived by you as negative. I mean, geez, how much could one person control here?

methinks you're coming down quite a bit harder on me and, truth be told, on yourself than need be.

Plus it seems that tatts and rings are more the uniform of 20 somethings these days than any expression of individuality. When everyone does it is it really rebellious anymore?
Why is there an automatic assumption of rebellion?

I don't think I've ever truly rebelled in my life.

doing someing conformist like getting a piercing does not make one either a piece of sh*t or even a conformist. one patch of ice doth not a winter make.
And you, who preach the wisdom of age, expect a 20-something to realize all this and not hold the judgment against you?

And by the way, I am not applying ANY of your statements to myself and have not even bothered to put myself in the shoes of the girl in your initial post. None of this, in my mind, is about me - so you can drop that personal aspect. My feelings are not hurt. I have no insecurities about what you may or may not think of piercings and tattoos - for one, because in a professional setting you would never know that I have either, and for two because I do not know you and therefore am not really invested in your opinion.

The 20something I speak to are those with less life experience than myself, those who are still unsure of their ability to make decisions that reflect "themselves," as most in their early 20s still have a long way to go in terms of living independently - both in mind and in action. Not that they would necessarily have the awareness to describe the situation that way, just purely hypothetical here based, again, on stereotypes.

I should have included smiley's....the "End of patronizing remarks" comment should have been a givaway that my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

I'll try to be less obscure next time.

Len
True dat. It wasn't obvious after your other post on the subject.

Sorry to go off--but then that's why I put that it wasn't personal. I'd still give you a punch on the shoulder and hand you a cold one (soda) any day.

Insisting on homogeneity is intellectually lazy. You know as well as I do that the uproar caused by a pierced nose would last about a week, tops, in the minds of all but the most petty, awful people in an organization (and I could argue that it's the petty and awful who should then be rejected).

I'm prepared to say that MANY people are petty and awful, but probably not enough to justify trying to legislate sameness.

Worse than that is when people hold these opinions and act on them but don't admit it. You admit that you would hold a tattoo against a management candidate, and you have your reasons, but would you honestly tell that otherwise-qualified candidate that he or she was unacceptable because of the tattoo? Probably not if you don't want to be sued, and I think that kind of action is a more soul-destroying than having to make a dress code rule or just dealing with differences.


I think the argument is geared more towards the hiring process than an established member of an organization that is a known quantity and goes out to get a tattoo or piercing. Sure, that person may be the talk of the office for a week, but assuming the production/quality remains the same, that will die out.

If, during the hiring process, the potential employer can weed out an applicant that doesn't meet (or hold the chance of not meeting) a standard of conduct or productivity, then they don't get hired... because generally there are enough candidates that don't have said potential indicator. Is this discriminating? Sure, it happens all the time. Someone will get the job...which means someone else will not get the job. Why didn't they get the job? because the potential employer deemed, for whatever reason, that the applicant was not as qualified as the person eventually selected. If the particular employer feels that tattoos/body piercings are indicative of a particular ...personality (non-conformist trouble maker)???? and therefore prejudicial to the atmosphere and productivity of the organization, then why hire?

Just sayin'

Insisting on homogeneity is intellectually lazy. You know as well as I do that the uproar caused by a pierced nose would last about a week, tops, in the minds of all but the most petty, awful people in an organization (and I could argue that it's the petty and awful who should then be rejected).

I'm prepared to say that MANY people are petty and awful, but probably not enough to justify trying to legislate sameness.

Worse than that is when people hold these opinions and act on them but don't admit it. You admit that you would hold a tattoo against a management candidate, and you have your reasons, but would you honestly tell that otherwise-qualified candidate that he or she was unacceptable because of the tattoo? Probably not if you don't want to be sued, and I think that kind of action is a more soul-destroying than having to make a dress code rule or just dealing with differences.

but the reality is that in most cases I'm trying to save a company and as many jobs as I can. I'm not on a crusade to change something as extraneous to survival as dress code standards as I am trying to change that which is necessary for survival. Every new person I bring into an organization has to add more value than the disruption they create, and quickly. I make the best decisions at the time.

As to your contention that these "petty" differences only last a week or so, not in any company I've ever worked for. These things seperate people as opposed to joining them together.

And to your last comment, the fact that a candidate for a management position wouldn't know the culture he was walking into ahead of time, speaks volumes about his ability or willingness to fit in. I'm not looking for a yes person, but I am looking for managers that understand that an organizations functioning requires compromises from all participants. Making a stand in an interview over a nose ring shows lack of judgement IMO or a belief that they are superior as a candidate. If they are, we both end up happy. Frankly, if I have the pick of 2 candidates equally capable and one demonstrates these characteristics & one doesn't, why would I take on the extra baggage? As to telling him....it's not my job to teach him the facts of life. I tell them the truth, I found a better fit for the organization.

And I sleep pretty good at night.....especially when I save a few hundred jobs in the process.

Len

Why is there an automatic assumption of rebellion?

I don't think I've ever truly rebelled in my life.
I think BJII is agreeing with you.

I think BJII is agreeing with you.
I know he does, but the people who buy into the rebellion aspect obviously don't.

And you, who preach the wisdom of age, expect a 20-something to realize all this and not hold the judgment against you?
well, I was more about hoping that YOU wouldn't hold against me some judgment that I don't have that you think I do that is way more about the beholder than the beholdee anyway, IMHO. See, because, even though we are having this little discussion from 2000 miles or whatever electronically, I consider this something of a community, and I am invested in your opinion at least that much.

So, I care, even if you don't.

I think the argument is geared more towards the hiring process than an established member of an organization that is a known quantity and goes out to get a tattoo or piercing. Sure, that person may be the talk of the office for a week, but assuming the production/quality remains the same, that will die out.

If, during the hiring process, the potential employer can weed out an applicant that doesn't meet (or hold the chance of not meeting) a standard of conduct or productivity, then they don't get hired... because generally there are enough candidates that don't have said potential indicator. Is this discriminating? Sure, it happens all the time. Someone will get the job...which means someone else will not get the job. Why didn't they get the job? because the potential employer deemed, for whatever reason, that the applicant was not as qualified as the person eventually selected. If the particular employer feels that tattoos/body piercings are indicative of a particular ...personality (non-conformist trouble maker)???? and therefore prejudicial to the atmosphere and productivity of the organization, then why hire?

Just sayin'

Actually, my point is that it's unreasonable to assume that something like a piercing or a tattoo will be disruptive if the prospective hire is otherwise well-qualified.

I see very little intellectual difference between rejecting someone over a tattoo and rejecting them because of their race. There are differences of degree of course, since tattoos are voluntary, but both smack of intolerance and an inability to see beyond one's own narrow experience.

I can't say that I wouldn't think ill of a guy who had little horns implanted under his forehead skin and maybe even refuse to hire him on the strength of that--I'm only human--but I'd like to hope that if he'd gotten to the point where I was trying to figure out whether or not to give him a job he would have already impressed me with his actual skills. I don't know--maybe my "Oh HELL no" meter leaves me with a lot fewer hireable candidates by the time I've actually seen them, so I don't necessarily believe that if I didn't give the horns guy the job I'd be just as happy with one of the other candidates.

well, I was more about hoping that YOU wouldn't hold against me some judgment that I don't have that you think I do that is way more about the beholder than the beholdee anyway, IMHO.
I don't hold it against you because I don't consider it applicable to myself, even though you might. I was simply trying to explain that some people will perceive your conformity button negatively and hold it against you.

I never did get a tatt though I went through a brief rebellious period where I had a spiked mullet--hey it was the 80s people!

Seriously. That would be a contender against Bikeboy389's sad face.


As for actual useful(?) contributions to this thread, all I can say is that when I see a nose piercing my first reaction is to hand the person a tissue. Then I stare at it continuously and wonder if they have problems blowing their nose. Facial piercings in general don't look good to me.

Growing up in my family, if you dribbled your drink down your face someone would inevitably ask if you had a hole in your chin. Now people pierce their lips! Do they dribble? I've never a pierced lip person drink anything. Maybe they only drink from a straw while I'm not looking.

I believe in people's freedom to express themselves, but that doesn't stop me from wondering what they are thinking when they do.

I see very little intellectual difference between rejecting someone over a tattoo and rejecting them because of their race. There are differences of degree of course, since tattoos are voluntary, but both smack of intolerance and an inability to see beyond one's own narrow experience.

one is a choice. one is not.
huge difference.

huge.

and whether anyone wants to admit it, getting an adornment like a tattoo or a piercing is meant to say something, something that has little place in the work environment.

what it is meant to say is open, apparently, to discussion, but it means something having to do with identifying with a subculture inhabited by people who were born after about 1981. What it means to belong to that culture is, I suppose, within the prerogatives of its members, but identifying with a youth subculture is not really what the employer is looking for as a visible testament in the employer's employees generally, unless it's like a coffee shop.
come on. let's pick up our heads just a tad.

I see very little intellectual difference between rejecting someone over a tattoo and rejecting them because of their race. There are differences of degree of course, since tattoos are voluntary, but both smack of intolerance and an inability to see beyond one's own narrow experience.

That it is voluntary is a very important distinction.

But I agree with you...hell, I have a tat...and one of my old boss' was quite suprised when he found out. (def not c()de).

what it is meant to say is open, apparently, to discussion, but it means something having to do with identifying with a subculture inhabited by people who were born after about 1981.
You're right. All those who got tattoos before 1981 were doing so with only the hope that they could later identify with an unborn generation.

I know he does, but the people who buy into the rebellion aspect obviously don't.
well, we apparently can't call it rebellion or conformity. I think it's something other than neutral, myself, because it is something that pretty much only people of a certain age do. So it must mean something. I think.

what would you suggest?

well, we apparently can't call it rebellion or conformity. I think it's something other than neutral, myself, because it is something that pretty much only people of a certain age do.
What certain age?


Certainly getting a tattoo is not neutral - it is personal, and therefore varies with each person.

That said, I rarely group tattoos and piercings because one is permanent and the other is not.

You're right. All those who got tattoos before 1981 were doing so with only the hope that they could later identify with an unborn generation.
sweetie, forgive me while now I really do patronize.

the only people with tattoos before 1981, which is the year that I graduated college, were bikers or sailors or hookers. I'm serious. about then, you started seeing, like, maybe some very saucy wenches doing a little flower on the ankle or something, but it was way noticeable because it was so very, very rare. it has grown from maybe the late 1980's to where in the last five years it really has become ubiquitous.

What certain age?

are you serious?

now you're just being difficult.

you may not distinguish among people older than twenty-five -- we probably all look alike to you -- but the difference in this activity (and I agree that there is a difference between tattoos and piercings) is so much more prevalent in people younger than perhaps thirty, thirty-five than anyone older that it is not funny. I'm not saying that overnight all of the sudden you had to get one -- it was a little more gradual than that -- but I don't know anyone my age with a tattoo who wasn't in the military or who rode motorcycles for a living. No one. OTOH, I know all sorts of twenty-somethings. Something changed.

but the reality is that in most cases I'm trying to save a company and as many jobs as I can. I'm not on a crusade to change something as extraneous to survival as dress code standards as I am trying to change that which is necessary for survival. Every new person I bring into an organization has to add more value than the disruption they create, and quickly. I make the best decisions at the time.

As to your contention that these "petty" differences only last a week or so, not in any company I've ever worked for. These things seperate people as opposed to joining them together.

And to your last comment, the fact that a candidate for a management position wouldn't know the culture he was walking into ahead of time, speaks volumes about his ability or willingness to fit in. I'm not looking for a yes person, but I am looking for managers that understand that an organizations functioning requires compromises from all participants. Making a stand in an interview over a nose ring shows lack of judgement IMO or a belief that they are superior as a candidate. If they are, we both end up happy. Frankly, if I have the pick of 2 candidates equally capable and one demonstrates these characteristics & one doesn't, why would I take on the extra baggage? As to telling him....it's not my job to teach him the facts of life. I tell them the truth, I found a better fit for the organization.

And I sleep pretty good at night.....especially when I save a few hundred jobs in the process.

Len

Here's me taking a step back. Look, we're not really talking specifics, are we? We shouldn't be--this being the location it is.

My argument is that it's inherently unfair to make fashion judgments in the workplace. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, or that most people wouldn't be happier in a homogeneous workplace. I just think we have to try to break that thinking down every chance we get. Sometimes it's not practical to do what's perfectly fair, but if we talk about it and remain mindful, maybe we'll be MORE fair next time we have a choice.

My argument is that it's inherently unfair to make fashion judgments in the workplace.
yes it bloody likely is. the workplace is one horribly unfair place. the worst.

but it is what it is, and you will be judged in ways that you do not like and there isn't a thing that anyone can do about it.

I wonder if they have the same restrictions against obviously large fake boobs and silicone lips.

yes it bloody likely is. the workplace is one horribly unfair place. the worst.

but it is what it is, and you will be judged in ways that you do not like and there isn't a thing that anyone can do about it.
you are right, lets all roll over and silently agree as long as it's not us being targeted.

I wonder if they have the same restrictions against obviously large fake boobs and silicone lips.
one could hope.

you are right, lets all roll over and silently agree as long as it's not us being targeted.
wait a minute.
are you going to get self-righteous about a piercing?

as if you have some moral right to not be judged on the way you choose to look?

now that is astounding.

wait a minute.
are you going to get self-righteous about a piercing?

as if you have some moral right to not be judged on the way you choose to look?

now that is astounding.
People that have fun doing that are not worth my time.

sweetie, forgive me while now I really do patronize.

the only people with tattoos before 1981, which is the year that I graduated college, were bikers or sailors or hookers. I'm serious. about then, you started seeing, like, maybe some very saucy wenches doing a little flower on the ankle or something, but it was way noticeable because it was so very, very rare. it has grown from maybe the late 1980's to where in the last five years it really has become ubiquitous.

You are right about tattoos in the pre-1981 world. But, it's not 1981 anymore.

Recently, I was having lunch with the author of a leading treatise on psychiatry that is used in medical schools. He related how when he began practicing psychiatry in the 1970s, having a visible tattoo then was viewed by the psychatric profesion as a sign that the person had an "anti-social personality" and was an indicator of mental illness. The thing that prompted the discussion was his mentioning that medical school students with whom he interacts have visible tattoos -- something that was unheard of even 10 years ago. I really think that it is hard for someone born after 1981 to understand the deep seated negative feelings that many of us born before 1981 have with respect to tattoos. I'm not saying that we are right. But, that's just the way it is.

People that have fun doing that are not worth my time.
I didn't say that you have to care. That is a choice you are so very entitled to make. But don't complain about the other end of it -- you're darned right that people will make judgments about you. Including some moral ones. I don't happen to see the moral component, either way, myself, but some people will make them, anyway.
You see, it wasn't so very, very long ago -- within memory of many, many people in positions of authority, that tattoos and piercings were pretty exclusively the province of bikers, drug dealers (often the same folks), hookers, drug addicts (often the same folks), and sailors. And while one would not have to be very enlightened to avoid the conclusion that you are neither a biker, drug dealer, hooker, addict, nor sailor, there would be that sneaking suspicion that somewhere deep down you wanted to look like a biker, drug dealer, hooker, addict, or sailor. for some reason. and that person likely isn't going to wonder too hard about why you want to look that way.
next.

I really think that it is hard for someone born after 1981 to understand the deep seated negative feelings that many of us born before 1981 have with respect to tattoos.
The beauty of life is that as long as younger generations accept different ideas, some prejudices will die with time.

I won't get as deep as some of the other musings here but this is what I have to offer...

When I worked at McDonalds in the early 90s men weren't allowed to wear earings.

I can't get past the snot issue when I see someone with a nose ring. For some reason I think belly button rings are sexy but in other bodily areas - not so much.

I got my tat when I was about 26 to sort of mark the end of a chapter in my life that I enjoyed (the one where I could, as mentioned by someone earlier, have hair down to my a$$ without it mattering). Now that I'm 32 I'd love to get more. I even know what/where and my wife wants me to get it done too, but with a mortgage, a gear fetish, etc, there's just too many other ways that I'd prefer to spend the $$.

I think that may also be why you don't see as many tats on people older than their 20's. For whatever reason tats are now enjoying the most popularity that they have seen since the end of WWII. That makes it less taboo and more exceptable for everyone to get them. But people older then their 20's have more critical demands for their hard earned $. In this day and age I would guess that most people in their 20's are in college where, even though $ may (or may not) be tight, a large percentage of it is disposable income.

We wear uniforms at work and all look alike. I'm happy because it's less laundry that I have to wash myself.

And I can use them as napkins/rags and not give it a second thought.

and whether anyone wants to admit it, getting an adornment like a tattoo or a piercing is meant to say something, something that has little place in the work environment.

what it is meant to say is open, apparently, to discussion, but it means something having to do with identifying with a subculture inhabited by people who were born after about 1981. What it means to belong to that culture is, I suppose, within the prerogatives of its members, but identifying with a youth subculture is not really what the employer is looking for as a visible testament in the employer's employees generally, unless it's like a coffee shop.
come on. let's pick up our heads just a tad.

Please understand that to some of us who are more experienced dealing with our "customized" brethren, this sounds judgmental, and inaccurate to boot.

Your suggestion that we pick up our heads sounds more like we're supposed to get on our knees. The dominant culture rules, and if we don't buy it and get f*cked for that, we were only asking for it. It may work that way, but that doesn't make it right.

And there are only going to be fewer and fewer non-customized job applicants out there, so you might as well at least start getting your mind around it a little. You might even find yourself looking to one of them for a job and being ruled too square, who knows?

And in case anyone wonders about my perspective, I do hire people. I do not have, nor want, any tattoos, and have a pierced ear that hasn't seen an earring in about 8 years. I've also been hired for at least two positions partly because I was perceived as being somehow "edgy" because my hair wasn't its natural color, I had an earring, I used to be a messenger, and I rode a motorcycle. Make of that what you will.

you may not distinguish among people older than twenty-five -- we probably all look alike to you
your patronizing attitude is exhausting. :rolleyes:

I honestly thought that prejudices against tattoos and piercings were propagated by religious fanatics rather than the average joe who is over x age.

The beauty of life is that as long as younger generations accept different ideas, some prejudices will die with time.
oh, please.

by the time the prejudices surrounding these fads die, the fads will die, too.

the younger generation will one day be parents and judges and principals and such and will understand the little flower of rebellion that grew into a tattoo. and the growth industry will be in removing the damned things. not so much because of stigma but because they tend to look like sh*t after they've been on your body for thirty years.

next.
My general attitude for people still living in the dark ages.

the only people with tattoos before 1981, which is the year that I graduated college, were bikers or sailors or hookers. I'm serious.

You mean the only people with tattoos you SAW. I suggest you consider what happened after Janis Joplin got her ink. I suggest you consider how many people were sporting ink in hidden places.

Did tats get more popular? Sure. Are there more than ever? Sure. But don't think that "respectable" people did not have them in the 70's and earlier. I mean, in Japan people sported full body suits and never let them show on a daily basis. The artists who worked before 1981 will tell you the same thing as I am, that doctors and lawyers got ink too. But you would never know to look at them.

by the time the prejudices surrounding these fads die, the fads will die, too.
Somehow I doubt that tattooing is a dying industry.

Additionally, I think you severely underestimate the meaning in a LOT of tattoos - that is, while people of your age who got drunk and got one some random night might have eventually regretted it, many young(er) people put a lot of time and thought into the tattoos they get - ergo they are less likely to want it removed.

The intent of my tattoo existed for 5 years before I actually got it. I finally put it on my body when the I was able to match intent with design and funds.

Please understand that to some of us who are more experienced dealing with our "customized" brethren, this sounds judgmental, and inaccurate to boot.

Your suggestion that we pick up our heads sounds more like we're supposed to get on our knees. The dominant culture rules, and if we don't buy it and get f*cked for that, we were only asking for it. It may work that way, but that doesn't make it right.

And there are only going to be fewer and fewer non-customized job applicants out there, so you might as well at least start getting your mind around it a little. You might even find yourself looking to one of them for a job and being ruled too square, who knows?

And in case anyone wonders about my perspective, I do hire people. I do not have, nor want, any tattoos, and have a pierced ear that hasn't seen an earring in about 8 years. I've also been hired for at least two positions partly because I was perceived as being somehow "edgy" because my hair wasn't its natural color, I had an earring, I used to be a messenger, and I rode a motorcycle. Make of that what you will.
dude, you don't seem to get that, in your case, the dominant culture DID rule -- the dominant culture was the twenty-somethings around you.

and why the hell did you take the earring out if it wasn't about being young and shiftless?

that's a joke, but it's shorthand for a more serious point.

I am not talking about getting on your knees for heavens sake. what the hell are you talking about?

I could give a sh*te whether you or the horse you rode in on have a tattoo or an earing or whatever. in 1980, it was cool for a dude to have an earring. and it wasn't like wearing a watch. It was considered cool.

now it's more like a watch, I get it. but it's still not a watch.

get over it.

yes it bloody likely is. the workplace is one horribly unfair place. the worst.

but it is what it is, and you will be judged in ways that you do not like and there isn't a thing that anyone can do about it.

There isn't a thing anyone can do about it? I will not accept that as truth.

Whether you choose to try to change things or not is up to you, but perpetuating stereotypes is not done by some unseen hand of god or whatever. It's done by regular people, day to day, choosing to do what's expedient or comfortable (or worse) rather than putting the baggage aside. It may not be practical every time, but putting our prejudices aside MUST be considered every time, or we get nowhere.

that I have seen prohibit obvious tattoos, and usually piercings with a few exceptions. Earrings are almost always allowed. Small studs, not rings, in noses are often allowed. Eyebrow and lip studs are usually not, as are any rings in the face.

dude, you don't seem to get that, in your case, the dominant culture DID rule -- the dominant culture was the twenty-somethings around you.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. That I was hired by 20 year-olds? Nope. That I AM a 20 year old working in a coffee shop, and that's why I think your stance is unjust? Nope again. I'm confused by this.


I am not talking about getting on your knees for heavens sake. what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your implied (and in a later post, directly stated) suggestion that the only way to lift up our heads (presumably to see what's going on) is to accept things as they currently stand, and to resist the status quo is worthless. I see no need to surrender on this point.

We disagree. That's OK with me, as long as I can make my point.

Here's me taking a step back. Look, we're not really talking specifics, are we? We shouldn't be--this being the location it is.

My argument is that it's inherently unfair to make fashion judgments in the workplace. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, or that most people wouldn't be happier in a homogeneous workplace. I just think we have to try to break that thinking down every chance we get. Sometimes it's not practical to do what's perfectly fair, but if we talk about it and remain mindful, maybe we'll be MORE fair next time we have a choice.

Hiring is about capability & fit. You have a limited amount of time to make judgements (& they must be judgements) in a hiring situation. You have to judge based on the evidence the candidate presents to you. If the workplace culture is suit & tie and the candidate shows up in golf casual, is it unfair to make a judgement about how you think they will fit into an organization? An Interiew is a staged event....on both sides. The cadidate should present themselves as they want to be seen....if they want to be seen with a nose ring and a face tattoo, that is their right. It's also my right as a hiring manager to interpret that signal in the context of fit in the organization.

I don't get the idea of fair or not fair in this context.

len

Hiring is about capability & fit. You have a limited amount of time to make judgements (& they must be judgements) in a hiring situation. You have to judge based on the evidence the candidate presents to you. If the workplace culture is suit & tie and the candidate shows up in golf casual, is it unfair to make a judgement about how you think they will fit into an organization? An Interiew is a staged event....on both sides. The cadidate should present themselves as they want to be seen....if they want to be seen with a nose ring and a face tattoo, that is their right. It's also my right as a hiring manager to interpret that signal in the context of fit in the organization.

I don't get the idea of fair or not fair in this context.

len
Bottom line-- Unless you own your own biz or work in an industry where tatts and piercings are normal you have to suck it up and play by the rules that The Man sets for you. Nobody owes you a job and I don't think the ACLU will get too excited that you were discriminated against because of your ink or piercings. If I were to get a tatt It'd be in an area I could easily cover up with normal clothing.

Hiring is about capability & fit. You have a limited amount of time to make judgements (& they must be judgements) in a hiring situation. You have to judge based on the evidence the candidate presents to you. If the workplace culture is suit & tie and the candidate shows up in golf casual, is it unfair to make a judgement about how you think they will fit into an organization? An Interiew is a staged event....on both sides. The cadidate should present themselves as they want to be seen....if they want to be seen with a nose ring and a face tattoo, that is their right. It's also my right as a hiring manager to interpret that signal in the context of fit in the organization.

I don't get the idea of fair or not fair in this context.

len

I guess I'm just choosing the role of starry-eyed idealist today, and suggesting that fitting in isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that maybe if we considered relaxing our superficial standards a bit, things could actually turn out better, not worse. Glass half full and all that.

I guess I'm just choosing the role of starry-eyed idealist today, and suggesting that fitting in isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that maybe if we considered relaxing our superficial standards a bit, things could actually turn out better, not worse. Glass half full and all that.

The way it should be and the way it is are 2 different things.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. That I was hired by 20 year-olds? Nope. That I AM a 20 year old working in a coffee shop, and that's why I think your stance is unjust? Nope again. I'm confused by this.



I'm talking about your implied (and in a later post, directly stated) suggestion that the only way to lift up our heads (presumably to see what's going on) is to accept things as they currently stand, and to resist the status quo is worthless. I see no need to surrender on this point.

We disagree. That's OK with me, as long as I can make my point.
if the status quo were about health care or global warming or equal rights for people of color or economic justice for exploited slaves, I can see your point.
But it is all but offensive to use that rhetoric for a bit of jewelry or body ink that is purely adornment.

Ok, I have delete a post or two. Calm down, take a deep breath, and keep it about the issue at hand and not about each other please. Unlocked, for now.

I guess I'm just choosing the role of starry-eyed idealist today, and suggesting that fitting in isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that maybe if we considered relaxing our superficial standards a bit, things could actually turn out better, not worse. Glass half full and all that.

to both the company and the employees that wil be managed to hire someone that is most capable and has a chance to be effective leading the people he will be leading. Given the choice between 2 equally capable people one with visible tats & piercings & one without to lead a group of middle aged employees.......why would I take on the additional baggage and hire someone that will have a harder time being effective quickly?


Now if the job was leading a group of 20 something technogeeks as an IT director.......maybe I'd lean the other way. In this case am I not being fair to the non-tatted & non-pierced person?

Like it or not, fit matters and especially when you are in a firefight to save the company.

Now, after the company stabilizes, I might take more of a risk.

Len

to both the company and the employees that wil be managed to hire someone that is most capable and has a chance to be effective leading the people he will be leading. Given the choice between 2 equally capable people one with visible tats & piercings & one without to lead a group of middle aged employees.......why would I take on the additional baggage and hire someone that will have a harder time being effective quickly?


Now if the job was leading a group of 20 something technogeeks as an IT director.......maybe I'd lean the other way. In this case am I not being fair to the non-tatted & non-pierced person?

Like it or not, fit matters and especially when you are in a firefight to save the company.

Now, after the company stabilizes, I might take more of a risk.

Len


So after Nardelli turns Chrysler around he can go out and get inked???


...youve got to have.........................................


....beach cred to sell surfboards......

sometimes cred is all about perceptions
perceptions vary w/ experience
just sayin

to both the company and the employees that wil be managed to hire someone that is most capable and has a chance to be effective leading the people he will be leading. Given the choice between 2 equally capable people one with visible tats & piercings & one without to lead a group of middle aged employees.......why would I take on the additional baggage and hire someone that will have a harder time being effective quickly?


Now if the job was leading a group of 20 something technogeeks as an IT director.......maybe I'd lean the other way. In this case am I not being fair to the non-tatted & non-pierced person?

Like it or not, fit matters and especially when you are in a firefight to save the company.

Now, after the company stabilizes, I might take more of a risk.

Len

Bingo.
If you don't like the dress code/ culture/ interior decoration policy of an organisation - please feel free not to apply for a job there.
I get amazed by people who think they have the right to work wherever they choose under their own terms.

don't get me wrong -- one of the abiding regrets of my life, other than never having lived in NYC, is that I didn't get an earring and grow my hair down to my ass when it didn't matter.


Having a pierced ear has actually come in handy for me as a parent. My daughter begged to get her ears pierced. When she was 7, we let her get it done. She handled it great until it came time to take the starters out and put new ones back in. She got one of the starters out, got scared and had a hard time getting back in. They're really sharp, so she irritaed the crap out of her ear. I let her practice putting an earring in my ear until she got the hang of it.

I didn't mention that I hadn't had one in for a few years or that she was stabbing the living sh*t out of me but, hey, it worked. It just took about two weeks for my ear to heal.

Having a pierced ear has actually come in handy for me as a parent. My daughter begged to get her ears pierced. When she was 7, we let her get it done. She handled it great until it came time to take the starters out and put new ones back in. She got one of the starters out, got scared and had a hard time getting back in. They're really sharp, so she irritaed the crap out of her ear. I let her practice putting an earring in my ear until she got the hang of it.

I didn't mention that I hadn't had one in for a few years or that she was stabbing the living sh*t out of me but, hey, it worked. It just took about two weeks for my ear to heal.

hippy. :D

piercings, tattoos, and jobs

this thread has prompted me to go out and get a Prince Albert and a visible tattoo....that is all

hippy. :D


Yep. The long-haired pic blew her away, too. Shame I don't have any pics from when it really was down to my ass.

certainly not in the eyes of the old person. :wink:

Yeah, but you're gonna be old a lot longer than you're young.

your patronizing attitude is exhausting. :rolleyes:

I honestly thought that prejudices against tattoos and piercings were propagated by religious fanatics rather than the average joe who is over x age.
your patronizing attitude is exhausting.

it was a joke a JOKE to make light of your question about "a certain age."
you know what certain age. you were patronizing me, really.

the other post was more deliberately patronizing.

there is no moral or religious component to the bias. the adornees are not considered (by most, anyway (although I do think that certain religions have a proscription about altering God's handiwork what do I know ask someone religious) immoral. but they are considered unprofessional, bespeaking, as they do, of the culture of the young badass.
I don't make these rules. I am merely reciting them.
I have to say, I consider the whole idea of using the word "prejudice" to describe what is out there as if on a par with racial or sexual or sexual orientation or ethnic prejudice all but offensive. if I were to walk into court without a tie, I am not sure that "prejudice" is the right word for what I would experience.
there is a time and a place and a manner, and decorous is decorous, and tattoos and piercings in all their permanence really stretch and in most instances break those boundaries in a professional setting, and it's all still out there in the working world, like it or not.

I have to say, I consider the whole idea of using the word "prejudice" to describe what is out there as if on a par with racial or sexual or sexual orientation or ethnic prejudice all but offensive. if I were to walk into court without a tie, I am not sure that "prejudice" is the right word for what I would experience.

It is pre-judging based on how people look. That pre-judging is treating people as a group (they want to be bad-azzes) and not as individuals (maybe they wanted to remember their dead child every day of their life, and share the story with anyone that asks).

You are right that people make those judgments. However, I think many of them make those judgments not based on the body modification itself, but rather on the choice to display it in a given setting. A choice to be "deviant" and put your own priorities above the "norm" of a given situation is seen as a sign that you might not follow rules you don't agree with. That can be a big problem in a business setting, whether it is a tat, or offering to pray after every meeting, or farting and making jokes about it. Heck, I like tats, but if someone showed up for an interview with tattoos on their face I would tend to think they would be trouble as a coworker.

Unless they were Maori of course :)

There is no doubt people with a tat or two, or multiple piercings, are treated differently than others. Should they be? I don't think so. But they are.

lets just all excpet each other's perception of tattoos and piercings and show off your ink and pokes!!!!!


pix people!

It's harder for me to get a job now. Down with The Man!

Yeah, but you're gonna be old a lot longer than you're young.
Nope. I'm never gonna get old. :)

this thread has prompted me to go out and get a Prince Albert and a visible tattoo....that is all
post pix!

Nope. I'm never gonna get old. :)

When I was 20 I was terrified of getting older. (Which strikes me as strange, seeing as how 20 kinda sucked).

Anyway, now that I'm..gasp...34 (just two past the half + 7 - in case you're figuring it - and I know you are! :wink: ) even 50 is starting to look younger and I no longer worry about it. Just a number doncha know?

The experiences and different perspectives we get are awesome. You just have to learn to ignore the gray hairs and wrinkles.

When I was 20 I was terrified of getting older. (Which strikes me as strange, seeing as how 20 kinda sucked).
I ain't skeered of getting old, I'm just not gonna. I started using anti-wrinkle stuff when I turned 21. :D

if the status quo were about health care or global warming or equal rights for people of color or economic justice for exploited slaves, I can see your point.
But it is all but offensive to use that rhetoric for a bit of jewelry or body ink that is purely adornment.

You said yourself that these bits of jewelry and body ink mean something to those who wear them. Who are we to decide not only what they mean, but that their meaning is invalid?

If somebody shows up for a job interview with a red dot on their forehead, or wearing a Sikh's turban, or a crucifix hanging out of their shirt, or with the strings of their prayer shawl hanging out of their suit, I'm not about to invalidate that, though they are entirely voluntary, would be conspicuous in many workplaces, and I do not buy into nor particularly respect their meaning in any way.

Just because you say piercings and tattoos are poor judgment at best, or that they smack of sailors and *****s, doesn't mean they are that. At some point, people who do the hiring in this world are going to have to look past their own experience and hire somebody who doesn't fit in to their worldview, because the weirdos are going to be the majority. By my standards, they already are.

I ain't skeered of getting old, I'm just not gonna. I started using anti-wrinkle stuff when I turned 21. :D

we all said that paint. not being a buzzkill...just sayin

we all said that paint. not being a buzzkill...just sayin
Well I didn't win the genetic lottery. :p


But cereal, I was just goofin'. I think age is a mental thing - and I don't think I'll ever get mentally older than I already am.

Now if the job was leading a group of 20 something technogeeks as an IT director.......maybe I'd lean the other way. In this case am I not being fair to the non-tatted & non-pierced person?

Well, the way I see it, yeah. Whichever way you turn that, if your judgment is based on appearance, I think it's at least somewhat unfair.

I'm not saying I'd never take a job that had a dress code I thought was too restrictive. I'm just saying I don't think it's right to be that way.

At some point in any discussion, there's a place where you have to decide whether you're really moving the ball, or just jabbing at each other or trying to get the last word. I think we're there and the ball ain't moving, so I'm off this one. It's been...interesting.

Well, the way I see it, yeah. Whichever way you turn that, if your judgment is based on appearance, I think it's at least somewhat unfair.

I'm not saying I'd never take a job that had a dress code I thought was too restrictive. I'm just saying I don't think it's right to be that way.

At some point in any discussion, there's a place where you have to decide whether you're really moving the ball, or just jabbing at each other or trying to get the last word. I think we're there and the ball ain't moving, so I'm off this one. It's been...interesting.

So you are saying that making any choice in this case is unfair. How would you make the choice?

Len

So you are saying that making any choice in this case is unfair. How would you make the choice?

Len
Dang. Drag me back in, why dontcha?

I'm not saying making a choice is unfair. I'm saying if appearance figures into the equation, especially something like a tattoo or piercing that doesn't preclude dressing professionally otherwise, THAT'S not right.

Objective measures and blind judgments are fair--and I understand that you see a conforming (not necessarily conformIST) appearance as an objective measure so we're not likely to ever get eye to eye on this one--and are the only criteria that really stand up in my book. I'm not suggesting that insufficient spelling skills or an inability to speak the required language be overlooked--it isn't "everybody gets a trophy" day--I'm saying let's be as forgiving of things that are just minor differences as we can.

I'm suggesting that we could all work harder to overcome our preconceptions and that it's in everybody's best interest that we do so. Maybe it starts with getting an explanation--from the applicant, not bill:D --of the mindset behind the facial tattoo or the piercing. We need to get beyond our own interpretation on some of this stuff. It's only going to come up more and more often.

I'm sure I sound like some kind of hippie kook, and maybe that's justified, but there it is.

darn. i've been reading (all the posts in) this thread and have tried hard not to be argumentative in my reply...so i'll try to turn it around and ask you to ask me...

J's has around 30 disparate tatt's, ranging from small to large. none are obvious in long sleeves and pants.

five ear piercings and one failed that is causing a nice cartilage scar.

i've been a professional in the IT/Corp industry since 1993, all jobs in very conservative firms.

can i help with questions?

I'm not surprised....young people (in general) tend to believe that what they believe is the truth and should be what everyone else believes. Growing up cures that. (End of patronizing remarks)

I do a lot of leadership hiring for organizations & I can say that it would take an exceptionally superior candidate for me to hire them in spite of a visible tattoo or piercing (other than simple earing piercing). There are too many other candidates that would fit the organizations better.

Len


Len has this nailed. I work in a medical institution with one of the strictest dress codes anywhere. Those providers seeing patients in clinic MUST be in full business attire, no visible tattoos, or piercings. Men MUST wear dress pants, not slacks or khakis, and a dress shirt and tie........jackets are HIGHLY recommended.

On an aside, I was just involved in some discussions with members of our national academy in regards to our large annual conference REGARDING dress. We have far too many PA's who think it is okay to attend in a t-shirt, shorts, and sandals........It pisses me off to no end.....complete and utter lack of professionalism. I tend to dress very nice for meetings, conferences, and patient care.....WHY???? Cause I am a professional, and I am not only representing my profession, but myself with every patient I see. YMMV...

Are you a judgmental health professional? Several years ago I went to a suburban Mpls clinic for a refill on some hay fever medications and had to sit through a hepatitis lecture when he saw my tattoos. The doctor appeared professional, but his behavior was otherwise.


Len has this nailed. I work in a medical institution with one of the strictest dress codes anywhere. Those providers seeing patients in clinic MUST be in full business attire, no visible tattoos, or piercings. Men MUST wear dress pants, not slacks or khakis, and a dress shirt and tie........jackets are HIGHLY recommended.

On an aside, I was just involved in some discussions with members of our national academy in regards to our large annual conference REGARDING dress. We have far too many PA's who think it is okay to attend in a t-shirt, shorts, and sandals........It pisses me off to no end.....complete and utter lack of professionalism. I tend to dress very nice for meetings, conferences, and patient care.....WHY???? Cause I am a professional, and I am not only representing my profession, but myself with every patient I see. YMMV...

Are you a judgmental health professional? Several years ago I went to a suburban Mpls clinic for a refill on some hay fever medications and had to sit through a hepatitis lecture when he saw my tattoos. The doctor appeared professional, but his behavior was otherwise.


Nope, I have a tattoo myself. I do however, think about certain behaviour patterns when I see patients dressed in certain ways, or when I see a guy with multiple piercings and tattoos. I may be more prone in the ED to think of drug use/abuse, etc. I don't ever say anything until the proof is either there or not, but to think that we as human beings don't prejudge other people based on their appearances is sheer folly, and actually insulting to ones intelligence. WE all do it to some degree or another. The question really should not be whether we prejudge someone based on appearance, but rather, what do you do with that information, do you TREAT them differently......Those are very different questions in my mind. In a professional environment, a nasal piercing is simply not acceptable IMO. Like it or not, many clients will not approve of it, and the above mentioned scenario with the lawyer, calls into question how effectively she is representing the state if clients and/or colleagues are questioning her professionalism. It's that simple.

At some point, people who do the hiring in this world are going to have to look past their own experience and hire somebody who doesn't fit in to their worldview, because the weirdos are going to be the majority. By my standards, they already are.

who said it's about people who don't fit into someone's worldview? or that the folks who pierce and tat are weird?

you did, not me.

see, kids who do this stuff are all about digging the weird thing. pardon, your slip is showing, if you know what I mean. It is not simple adornment, in most cases. It is an ain't I hip and weird thing.

and it's fine on that level. Look, this is nothing new. Nothing, nothing, nothing new. The phenomenon of tourist badassing is very, very old. I remember it when I was young. I remember that older guys had greasers and gangs. My dad's generation had the zoot suiters and all. I'm sure that previous generations had theirs.

no, I think that the problem that will be faced is that this is a too well-understood phenomenon. No, it doesn't mean that you are a drug addict or a hooker. I get it. It definitely has moved beyond that. It even has moved beyond tourist identification with bikers and criminals. But it starts with the nihilism and iconoclasm in which youth imbues itself, and the judgment inherent in such permanent changes are right there on display. Piercings being different. I actually have little issue with either, but at least piercings go away. that tribal band that seemed so cool, that little squiggle above your ass that was sexy before you were a mom who has put on a few pounds, they will be there for awhile.

I'm suggesting that we could all work harder to overcome our preconceptions and that it's in everybody's best interest that we do so. Maybe it starts with getting an explanation--from the applicant, not bill --of the mindset behind the facial tattoo or the piercing. We need to get beyond our own interpretation on some of this stuff. It's only going to come up more and more often.

anyone who has a facial tattoo is making one hell of a statement. at the very least, part of the statement is that the wearer is trying very, very hard to be different, and the wearer saw fit to inject a permanent ink under the skin to make that point, showing a certain confidence -- arrogance? -- that the wearer would like to live with this statement for a very, very long time. In some situations, that may be valued. In most others, it is greeted as a curiosity at best, a lapse in judgment giving serious pause about character issues such as maturity and flexibility.

the point maybe missing from this discussion is that in some measure what kept me from getting a tattoo is an appreciation for flexibility and the transient nature of such personality statements. in other words, I am more flexible than you are, because I can appreciate that people change, and I've been able to appreciate that for a long, long time. the person who gets tatted, I wonder about how much that person thinks about the sun's coming up tomorrow on a different world.

And, just so you know, I sat last week drinking a beer with a dad from my kid's school at his daughter's 10 y/o birthday party. he was covered in tattoos, and so was his wife, who is a doctor. I was not sitting there thinking the whole time about what his tat's said about his character. I was watching the kids, laughing, drinking a beer. I have no idea whether he or she regreted them, and maybe they don't. They, however, are clearly artifacts, and no longer what they are about today.

I have no idea whether he or she regreted them, and maybe they don't. They, however, are clearly artifacts, and no longer what they are about today.

You have no idea what they think about them in terms of regret.

You are sure they are no longer what they are about today.

Do you see any contradiction in those two statements at all? On one hand you are saying you don't know their attitudes about the ink, because you did not ask. But you still claim to know what kind of person they are, even though you did not ask.

It is pre-judging based on how people look. That pre-judging is treating people as a group (they want to be bad-azzes) and not as individuals (maybe they wanted to remember their dead child every day of their life, and share the story with anyone that asks).

You are right that people make those judgments. However, I think many of them make those judgments not based on the body modification itself, but rather on the choice to display it in a given setting. A choice to be "deviant" and put your own priorities above the "norm" of a given situation is seen as a sign that you might not follow rules you don't agree with. That can be a big problem in a business setting, whether it is a tat, or offering to pray after every meeting, or farting and making jokes about it. Heck, I like tats, but if someone showed up for an interview with tattoos on their face I would tend to think they would be trouble as a coworker.

Unless they were Maori of course :)

There is no doubt people with a tat or two, or multiple piercings, are treated differently than others. Should they be? I don't think so. But they are.
I agree with just about everything you say, except the part about pre-judging people by how they choose to look. happens all the time. it's about time, place, and manner, as you say, but it's also a bit about tourist badassing from when you're young.

not all that many people get tattoos to remember dead children. Now, I do know a guy who got a tattoo to remember his grandmother's death and how he didn't have the money to go to her funeral and how pissed off he was. He recently had part of it removed and changed to something else, because he no longer is quite that angry young man.

what does that prove? not a whole lot other than that people change, and tat's don't, and even if you are twenty-two you maybe should appreciate the permanence of tattoos, and if you don't, maybe you aren't mature enough to be getting inked.

It's like 16 y/o girls getting breast augmentation. Good god, what 16 y/o knows anything about anything, let alone how she will feel about her body in five or ten years?

and I don't think that you get to discount that appraisal out of hand. I remember the days when long hair meant something, and then it didn't so much, and then trying to explain to my folks that it didn't, but you know what? it sort of did. It didn't mean that we were hippies so much as that we were identifying with the hippie freedom, which has a lot of appeal for a 17 y/o. Now, my parents probably shouldn't have been as frightened by that as they were -- it's just hair for heavens sake, and I've said to my wife that if my girls want to explore a little weirdness with going blue or purple, I'm happy to let them -- but they weren't completely wrong, either.

I know what they are about because we share children, and we have sat together through meetings and school socials and soccer games and basketball games. I haven't seen any new ink, and that says something, I think.

Maybe I will ask. I am not sure how to bring up such a thing comfortably, because whenever I have asked someone (and I am aware of approaching non-judgmentally, for sure) I don't get a cheerful, oh, I am so glad you asked. The wearer usually tries to figure out where I am coming from first, and then will explain often with embarrassment. Even if there is a good explanation. And I often glean regret.

Maybe I will ask. I am not sure how to bring up such a thing comfortably, because whenever I have asked someone (and I am aware of approaching non-judgmentally, for sure) I don't get a cheerful, oh, I am so glad you asked. The wearer usually tries to figure out where I am coming from first, and then will explain often with embarrassment. Even if there is a good explanation. And I often glean regret.

I suggest this: "Do you mind if I ask about your tattoos?"

If no, then "Could you tell me about what they mean?"

That is a pretty neutral question.

Well I didn't win the genetic lottery. :p


But cereal, I was just goofin'. I think age is a mental thing - and I don't think I'll ever get mentally older than I already am.
you do, and you don't.

my mother, who is 88, still thinks of herself as the pretty 20 y/o who visited Italy with her folks in 1939 and started a riot on the beach because of her bathing suit.

but you do get older, and you see things not exactly differently -- white doesn't suddenly become black -- but from a broader perspective. Lots more grey.

it happens. it happens.

You have no idea what they think about them in terms of regret.

You are sure they are no longer what they are about today.

Do you see any contradiction in those two statements at all? On one hand you are saying you don't know their attitudes about the ink, because you did not ask. But you still claim to know what kind of person they are, even though you did not ask.
to answer your question directly, no, I don't see a contradiction.

whether or not they regret their getting tatted doesn't have much to do with whether they would do it again -- regret is not a very productive emotion.

and I don't think that whether someone got tatt'd twenty years ago says a whole lot about who they are today. might say something about who they were twenty years ago. but, people change, you know? that is one of the ways that people change. when they were twenty-five, they got tat'd. when they are forty-five, the tat seems silly, whether or not they spend waking hours regretting them, which I hope isn't the case, for heavens sake. Who needs that?

I've read through these posts and as many and as complex as they are, I may have missed a good bit of actual content. My take on it is....Is it unfair...YES....is it the way it is...YES....

Even if there is no distinct policy against visible ink, piercings, odd hair style/length or color....or dress, Let me assure you that people judge other people. First impression is nearly impossible to retract.......this goes for the above criteria as well as weight, age or just being plain ugly.... Agreed, none of it is fair and some illegal, but it happens...I am sure less qualified cannidates have been hired for many jobs as a result. This in itself creates problems, how many of you have dealt with clearly incompetant people in professional setting?

As time goes on acceptable dress, appearance and whatever may change, but change does not happen fast normally. If it was mandated, it would surely bring about more resentment.

I wish I was wrong about all of this, but I don't believe I am.

The beauty of life is that as long as younger generations accept different ideas, some prejudices will die with time.

And new ones will be born...

Wifet goes to the OBGYN.

OBGYN tells wifey about her boyfriends Prince Albert. Wifey gets a new doc.

WHERE is the mystery here?

Interesting thread. I would imagine I am a bit younger than the average reader here so I guess I am not surprised with the hostility...but I was also reminded of an incident that happened recently. I grew up on the west coast, spent most of my time between Portland/LA. I guess things like piercings and tattoos never seemed liked a big deal, but not every area is quite so open minded. My cousins fiancee recently visited and commented multiple times on how he was amazed so many people had full sleeves around here...I guess where he is from (somewhere outside of St Louis) it is extremely rare. My grandparents just move to AZ where it seemed (from what I saw anyway) that visible tattoos were also not so popular there either.

I guess the trouble with the internet is people are coming from anywhere and everywhere...no idea what kind of preconceived notions they have about things.

I also feel like the workplace is a two way street...if I were to go to a job interview and the manager seemed to have an issue with a man wearing earrings and/or needing to wear a black suit with no colorful ties to fit in, I would have second thoughts about wanting to work there in the first place.

For the record I wear a 1 carat diamond in each ear and have fairly extensive tattoo work, although none visible. I work for a fortune 500.

The most tattoo'd person I have ever met is 57 and has a fully body suit (that means basically his whole body is tattoo'd)...he got his first in his late 40's and kept going from there. He is senior level management at said fortune 500, deal with it :)

I really think that it is hard for someone born after 1981 to understand the deep seated negative feelings that many of us born before 1981 have with respect to tattoos.

I know you qualified this by saying "many" but there are "many" people born before 1981 that have tatoos. In fact, there are many people born before 1960 that have tatoos, like my wife. I don't think there is even a majority of people born before 1981 that have deep seated negative feelings about tatoos anymore. There may be many that roll their eyes or give off an exasperated sigh but tatoos are pretty accepted in casual society. Every one of my immediate family members, including my wife, daughter, son, daughter-in-law and, soon to be, son-in-law have tatoos. I don't have one. Few care in casual settings and they're even getting some acceptance in professional settings, although I don't think they'll ever be widely accepted (visible tattoos that is).

For the record I wear a 1 carat diamond in each ear and have fairly extensive tattoo work, although none visible. I work for a fortune 500.

The most tattoo'd person I have ever met is 57 and has a fully body suit (that means basically his whole body is tattoo'd)...he got his first in his late 40's and kept going from there. He is senior level management at said fortune 500, deal with it :)

If I were a Fortune 500, I could deal with it. But I am not.

I doubt that a customer or client of your Fortune 500 company will change his or her overall impression of the company based on the appearance of one employee and, many Fortune 500 company employees rarely interact with the public. The same was true when I worked for a law firm that was the largest in the state (and now, after several mergers, is one of the largest in the world). But, things are different when you are a smaller enterprise. The way an employee looks does have an impact on the image that a place, such as the small firm of which I am partner, projects. Times may be changing and my views have changed with them. But, I cannot take the same risks that a Fortune 500 company can take with employee appearance.

.... But, I cannot take the same risks that a Fortune 500 company can take with employee appearance.

It is an open secret that you have a "I Surfed Alp d'Huez" tat on your backside. :D

If I were a Fortune 500, I could deal with it. But I am not.

I doubt that a customer or client of your Fortune 500 company will change his or her overall impression of the company based on the appearance of one employee and, many Fortune 500 company employees rarely interact with the public. The same was true when I worked for a law firm that was the largest in the state (and now, after several mergers, is one of the largest in the world). But, things are different when you are a smaller enterprise. The way an employee looks does have an impact on the image that a place, such as the small firm of which I am partner, projects. Times may be changing and my views have changed with them. But, I cannot take the same risks that a Fortune 500 company can take with employee appearance.


it really depends on your interaction with clients and/or the public. Management is quite a bit different than sales. Lawyers, for the most part are constantly interacting with the public. Again, everyone prejudges everyone, that is the world we live in. :rolleyes:

The US seems to be much more formal regarding business attire than much of Europe. I was astounded how casual office casual is here in Norway-- and we share a cafeteria in a technology park with other businesses--- and they are all the same.

It is not unusual at all to see a professional woman in her 40s with a nose piercing-- the midwife we worked with had several facial piercings. I thought nothing of it.

Nope, I have a tattoo myself. I do however, think about certain behaviour patterns when I see patients dressed in certain ways, or when I see a guy with multiple piercings and tattoos. I may be more prone in the ED to think of drug use/abuse, etc. I don't ever say anything until the proof is either there or not, but to think that we as human beings don't prejudge other people based on their appearances is sheer folly, and actually insulting to ones intelligence. WE all do it to some degree or another. The question really should not be whether we prejudge someone based on appearance, but rather, what do you do with that information, do you TREAT them differently......Those are very different questions in my mind. In a professional environment, a nasal piercing is simply not acceptable IMO. Like it or not, many clients will not approve of it, and the above mentioned scenario with the lawyer, calls into question how effectively she is representing the state if clients and/or colleagues are questioning her professionalism. It's that simple.

I not read every one of the posts on this topic but it seems simple to me:

1.) In business, and life, perception is reality.
2.) I am in the commercial construction business and buildings are designed and constructed with perception in mind. The quality built into banks, law offices and insurance offices is specifically geared to show success and stability, often at obscene cost premium. The image is why you buy services from those companies.
3.) The same can be true for employees. They are often representatives of the firm and expected to act and appear in conformance with the company's values. Thus dress codes and morals codes are often applied. The more visible you are for a company the more important your image is.
4.) People have the freedom to choose. If they value their freedom of expression during working hours more than a certain job they have that choice. Employers have the freedom to choose the image they want portrayed to the public. (Think the NBA, if you don't like it, go find another job that will pay you $15 mil a year)
5.) It is perfectly natural that people judge anything based on the senses. Sight, sound, smell and taste play into how people value things. We naturally (or most) shy away from stinky people as it could be a sign of sickness. Studies have found that what people find attractive is symetrical facial features. Point is, there are natural reasons that animals prefer one thing over another. To put in well into context for this board, how many have made a bicycle purchased based on one model being better looking than another? Hmmm. I'll bet many have bought a poorer performing bike because the better engineered bike was not the right color or didn't have the sexy tube shapes.

It's your choice to adorn your body any way that you like. It is the employer's choice to hire you or not. You can control your choice, not the employer's. Deal with it.

It is an open secret that you have a "I Surfed Alp d'Huez" tat on your backside. :D

I have no secrets at all. Philippe has taken care of that.

The only "tat" on my backside is the road rash scar from the 2003 crash that literally ripped the shorts off of my butt. I wish that I could, at least, say that I crashed on some mythical Alpine descent. But, alas, I crashed on a road near my house upon which I ride at least once per week.

Whenever my daughters come up with some new attire that I don't like, I threaten to go for the "Mr. Clean" look and pierce my ear if they don't dress like proper young ladies. But, they are wise to me and know that no matter what they do, my ears will remain unpierced.

I am always amazed by all the well dressed professional women I work with who have tattoos.

Don't see any piercings other th