How would you handle a 15 yo talking about getting a matching tattoo with a friend who is dying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I'm on the fence and have not yet responded. I take issue with your premise that I owe an explanation to child with the terminal illness. I would still have to consider my child here.

I didn’t say you owe anyone an explanation, but you’re dreaming if you think this is a situation where you can just say “no” and have that be the end of it. The OP’s daughter is certainly not going to let it go. I guess you could just wait until her friend dies to avoid THAT conversation, but there is no way out of this situation that doesn’t involve having to provide a difficult and hurtful answer to a teenager whose good friend is dying. If a tiny tattoo is worth the hurt that denying this will cause, go for it, but it doesn’t give you some kind of great parent award.

There is quite a lot of sanctimony in your post there and assumption that I think I wouldn't have say anything to my own child comes out of now where. My comment was on my mental orientation, which is towards my own child.

My closest childhood friend died when I was 19, she was 20. The ocean of grief was so overwhelming for so long (for her family too) that the idea of getting a tattoo to aid memory and provide comfort is like talking about a drop in the ocean (and I suspect her parents would have felt the same way about their daughter's friend getting a tattoo). It really feels like a non-sequitur, frankly, but I am hearing that this could be comforting to others. I suppose now 30 years later with the benefit of hindsight and not drowning in the emotion, I'd prefer living remembrance. Like, my friend was fiercely creative. I am not. But anytime I do something the least bit creative, I think of her, wonder what she would have thought, and hope she would be proud of me. Symbols have their place but in my experience they really didn't come close to providing any comfort during the worst of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I wouldn't explain it to the child with cancer because that is not my place. I would talk with her parents if they wanted an explanation and I would say, as kindly as possible, that I am very sorry but I am unsure that this is the right thing to do for my daughter at this time, but I am willing and able to help in many other ways and would absolutely do that.

People on this thread are getting angry at the parents who are hesitant or not willing to let their kid get a tattoo. I think it's misdirected. People have different beliefs and different ways to process grief. If another parent wants to allow their child to get a tattoo, fine, but my child is not getting my consent to a tattoo before they reach 18. I don't think it's the right thing to do in this situation and it's a rash and permanent decision and there are other ways to explore how to deal with this grief. That's just my opinion and hopefully just as I would respect your decision to let you child get a tattoo, you would respect my decision not to.

[Anonymous]

In this particular instance, waiting 3 years seems fairly arbitrary. Let the girls have their chosen moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I would say no to the tattoo and offer something else. And my answer would be 15 is to young to make a permanent body modification. At 18 they will be free to get the tattoo if they still want it but chances are they will not.
At 15 your friends are the center of your world, at 35 not so much. A few you might hold on to but that's not always the case. What is meaningful today as a teen, loses it's meaning as life goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I wouldn't explain it to the child with cancer because that is not my place. I would talk with her parents if they wanted an explanation and I would say, as kindly as possible, that I am very sorry but I am unsure that this is the right thing to do for my daughter at this time, but I am willing and able to help in many other ways and would absolutely do that.

People on this thread are getting angry at the parents who are hesitant or not willing to let their kid get a tattoo. I think it's misdirected. People have different beliefs and different ways to process grief. If another parent wants to allow their child to get a tattoo, fine, but my child is not getting my consent to a tattoo before they reach 18. I don't think it's the right thing to do in this situation and it's a rash and permanent decision and there are other ways to explore how to deal with this grief. That's just my opinion and hopefully just as I would respect your decision to let you child get a tattoo, you would respect my decision not to.

I'm the post right above yours and your comment is helping articulate what's so troubling to me about this. Forgive me, my words are not always kind here -- but teenagers are not rationale, long-term decision makers. A person facing the dealth of a loved one may not be a rationale, long-term decision maker. This post is asking us to combine these two and then allow them to make a permanent choice by the very fact they fall into the two categories above. And then the posters here assume unkind motivation when the parents' express pause -- that feels really emotionally manipulative to me. And it does not sit well at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I would say no to the tattoo and offer something else. And my answer would be 15 is to young to make a permanent body modification. At 18 they will be free to get the tattoo if they still want it but chances are they will not.
At 15 your friends are the center of your world, at 35 not so much. A few you might hold on to but that's not always the case. What is meaningful today as a teen, loses it's meaning as life goes on.

So you wouldn’t let your daughter get her ears pierced before the age of 18? That’s permanent body modification too, and more visible than a discreet tattoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I would say no to the tattoo and offer something else. And my answer would be 15 is to young to make a permanent body modification. At 18 they will be free to get the tattoo if they still want it but chances are they will not.
At 15 your friends are the center of your world, at 35 not so much. A few you might hold on to but that's not always the case. What is meaningful today as a teen, loses it's meaning as life goes on.

So you wouldn’t let your daughter get her ears pierced before the age of 18? That’s permanent body modification too, and more visible than a discreet tattoo.

NP - I consider piercings to be a completely different animal from tattoos. Piercings can be taken out and holes close. I know; I got several in college. When I changed my mind, I took them all out and it was like they were never there. I'm 40 now, and I thank goodness I didn't get tattoos instead. Much harder to remove.

[Anonymous]

My dh and I are not tattoo people. Our kids like to come up with scenarios where we would support/allow a tattoo. So far the very short list includes: if you make the Olympic team you can get the Olympic rings, if you enlist in the Navy you may get a tattoo of a heart/anchor with MOM (no other girl's name). I agree with many of the pp. Your current scenario would get added to our short list as long as it is tasteful, small and in a location that can be covered for a job interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I would say no to the tattoo and offer something else. And my answer would be 15 is to young to make a permanent body modification. At 18 they will be free to get the tattoo if they still want it but chances are they will not.
At 15 your friends are the center of your world, at 35 not so much. A few you might hold on to but that's not always the case. What is meaningful today as a teen, loses it's meaning as life goes on.

So you wouldn’t let your daughter get her ears pierced before the age of 18? That’s permanent body modification too, and more visible than a discreet tattoo.

NP - I consider piercings to be a completely different animal from tattoos. Piercings can be taken out and holes close. I know; I got several in college. When I changed my mind, I took them all out and it was like they were never there. I'm 40 now, and I thank goodness I didn't get tattoos instead. Much harder to remove.

So you don’t actually oppose all body modification. BTW, not all piercings close up when you stop wearing jewelry, and even if they do, they can leave permanent scars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I wouldn't explain it to the child with cancer because that is not my place. I would talk with her parents if they wanted an explanation and I would say, as kindly as possible, that I am very sorry but I am unsure that this is the right thing to do for my daughter at this time, but I am willing and able to help in many other ways and would absolutely do that.

People on this thread are getting angry at the parents who are hesitant or not willing to let their kid get a tattoo. I think it's misdirected. People have different beliefs and different ways to process grief. If another parent wants to allow their child to get a tattoo, fine, but my child is not getting my consent to a tattoo before they reach 18. I don't think it's the right thing to do in this situation and it's a rash and permanent decision and there are other ways to explore how to deal with this grief. That's just my opinion and hopefully just as I would respect your decision to let you child get a tattoo, you would respect my decision not to.

I'm the post right above yours and your comment is helping articulate what's so troubling to me about this. Forgive me, my words are not always kind here -- but teenagers are not rationale, long-term decision makers. A person facing the dealth of a loved one may not be a rationale, long-term decision maker. This post is asking us to combine these two and then allow them to make a permanent choice by the very fact they fall into the two categories above. And then the posters here assume unkind motivation when the parents' express pause -- that feels really emotionally manipulative to me. And it does not sit well at all.

Just to be clear, I am 11:01, not the first quoted post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty interesting how the people saying they wouldn’t allow this are basing that answer on their belief that the teens are not mature enough to understand the consequences/might change their minds/might be triggering.

If you are among those saying you would not allow this, please spell out exactly how you would explain that answer to the teens in question, specifically the one with the terminal illness. It’s pretty easy to say, “I’d never allow this” but I suspect many of y’all would be a lot less strident in the face of the actual situation being described.

And to the people who are saying that a small tattoo with dates is “disfigurement” I wonder if you are always so hyperbolic. Also that you and your kids don’t have pierced ears.

I would say no to the tattoo and offer something else. And my answer would be 15 is to young to make a permanent body modification. At 18 they will be free to get the tattoo if they still want it but chances are they will not.
At 15 your friends are the center of your world, at 35 not so much. A few you might hold on to but that's not always the case. What is meaningful today as a teen, loses it's meaning as life goes on.

So you wouldn’t let your daughter get her ears pierced before the age of 18? That’s permanent body modification too, and more visible than a discreet tattoo.

NP - I consider piercings to be a completely different animal from tattoos. Piercings can be taken out and holes close. I know; I got several in college. When I changed my mind, I took them all out and it was like they were never there. I'm 40 now, and I thank goodness I didn't get tattoos instead. Much harder to remove.

So you don’t actually oppose all body modification. BTW, not all piercings close up when you stop wearing jewelry, and even if they do, they can leave permanent scars.

I simply oppose getting a tattoo in the scenario that OP describes for a variety of reasons. I never commented on other "body modifications." I don't think the piercing comparison is accurate in this situation, nor does it matter.

[Anonymous]

I would allow it, and I think tattoos are the trashiest thing eve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a tattoo person and until a few minutes ago would not have imagined any scenario where I’d let my 15-year-old DD get a tatoo. But in this case I would definitely allow it. I think it is a lovely idea.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a tattoo person and until a few minutes ago would not have imagined any scenario where I’d let my 15-year-old DD get a tatoo. But in this case I would definitely allow it. I think it is a lovely idea.

+1

+1000

This is an extraordinary circumstance. This is not an average 15-year-old’s whim.

[Anonymous]

I would not allow this. Her choice at age 18.