Marks of Shame: Tattoos and what to do about them

National Review, March 11, 2002 by Theodore Dalrymple

Rep. Lois Capps, Democrat of California, deserves some praise, however qualified: Her securing of money for the Liberty Tattoo Removal Program of San Luis Obispo County was, at least in theory, a good deed. It meant that she has a genuinely sympathetic appreciation of the plight of some of her poorer constituents.

Contrary to what her detractors and dyed-in-the-wool skeptics say, the social consequences of being tattooed, and therefore of tattoo removal, are by no means trivial or merely aesthetic. One might with justice adapt the old proverb about marriage to the adorning of the skin in this savage fashion: Tattoo in haste, repent at leisure.

Others also argue with the provenance of the funds that she has secured for the program: the Justice Department. To provide public funds for the amelioration of the consequences of private folly might be seen as an encouragement of that very folly. It sets up a perverse incentive. After all, if tattoos can be removed at public expense, why bother to think very carefully about having them done in the first place? Easy come, easy go.

But in fact the proposed terms under which tattoo removal will be performed at public expense are such that this cavalier attitude is unlikely to be promoted. The eligible tattooed will be those who have "gang-related" or "anti-social" tattoos so prominent as to prevent them from obtaining employment. The eligible tattooed will also have to promise not to tattoo themselves again, and to complete 16 hours of public service.

In any case, it seems to me highly unlikely that the kind of people who have themselves tattooed in this fashion ever give much thought to the long-term consequences of their decision. They have not hitherto been deterred by the expense of tattoo removal; it is unlikely, therefore, that they will henceforth be encouraged by its cheapness. The problem surely is that people who tattoo themselves in the first place don't think much about the future at all.

There are other, practical objections to the funding, however. The sum of money involved is very small: $50,000. According to a statement on Rep. Capps's website, this money will be used to hire a full-time program coordinator and for education to deter young people from getting tattoos. It is difficult to imagine that there will be much left over for the actual removal of tattoos, which tends to be an expensive business when performed properly. What is presented as tattoo removal is actually an expansion of a health-education bureaucracy of doubtful worth.

The removal of tattoos nevertheless remains a laudable aim, for they are often the visible sign that a man (only recently have women in any numbers had themselves tattooed) belongs to a violent, brutal, antisocial, and criminalized subculture. When a man with such tattoos says he wants them removed, therefore, he is in effect saying that he wants to change his life. He is tired of life among the tattooed.

And what is that life like? It is one of arbitrary and pointless aggression, caused by fragile egos, inflamed by the humiliation of personal failure and insignificance in an age that worships celebrity. It is a world in which a look, a glance, is taken as a challenge and is enough to provoke a vicious attack, for the guilty pursue where no man fleeth.

Several of my patients, for example, have had the words No Fear tattooed on the side of their neck, and all of them have been attacked in bars and pubs by other men of the tattooed class. The words are taken as an invitation to such an attack: for if a man says he has no fear, he must mean that he does not find other men fearful. Tough guys regard this as a terrible insult to their manhood, and so launch a preemptive strike. One of my patients thus adorned had had his skull fractured four times as a result.

Many tattooed people -- particularly those with the most aggressive tattoos -- have themselves tattooed at an early age, the age of indiscretion, when they strongly desire to join the subculture I have described. The consequences for them are long-lasting, however. Recently I met a man with several tattoos, among them one on the palm of his right hand reading, "Pleased to meet you -- now f*** off." He had had it done when he was 17 years old. He told me that he now wanted a job in the retail trade, but so far all employers had declined his services.

With the unctuous mealy-mouthedness commonly known as political correctness, Rep. Capps's website explains the rationale of her proposal that such tattoos be removed at public expense:

People with tattoos often find themselves being unfairly stereotyped in a way that makes it difficult to find employment or be promoted to higher, better paying positions. The Liberty Tattoo Program works with people in our community to help erase this social stigma.

The point about the social stigma is, of course, that it is entirely justified. Indeed, if only it were a little stronger, people might not indulge in this primitive behavior to begin with. When a man has "Kill the Pigs" emblazoned on his hands or arms, it is best to assume that he is not an apostle of law and order.