In life?we are taught to be individuals and independent thinkers, whose decisions should not be based on the actions of others.
Well, at least we should be.
When confronted with a problem or an issue, the natural course, all things being equal, should be to think it through, weighing the pros and the cons before arriving at a decision, and accepting whatever consequences may follow.
This is what most parents try to inculcate in their children from very young ages.
In short, they want their children to be leaders and not followers. They know that the life of a follower is one that could be fraught with problems.
Hence, the situation that was at the centre of last week’s question – Would you allow your 16-year-old to get a tattoo on her shoulder so she wouldn’t feel left out since her older sister, a 19-year-old, got a tattoo in the small of her back? If yes, why? And if not, why? – did not sit well with our readers.
Truth is, it shouldn’t have.
There really is nothing wrong with a 16-year-old wanting a tattoo, once it is understood that the decision rests with the parents of that child. What is disturbing, however, is the reason for wanting the tattoo.
This should be a concern for this parent, and any parent, whose child has the “follow the multitude” mentality – whether it is to do evil or not.
Parents need to reaffirm independent thinking in their children, which would also help to develop their critical thinking and help them to fully rationalize how they arrive at decisions.
The reason for doing anything in life should not be based on what another person is doing. Think for yourself and make your own decisions.
The majority of our readers who responded to this issue agreed with this sentiment and felt that this 16-year-old should not be getting a tattoo based on the fact that her older sister had one.
The following are some of the edited versions of some responses received:
• “No I would not let her get one because everything she sees someone with doesn’t mean she is supposed to have too.”
• “I would look at her and tell her from the time you want to do things so you won’t feel left out, then your life is on the wrong track. Think for yourself or you will follow people into a ditch.”
• “No I would not. She should not be doing things based on what others have done.”
• “Her sister is technically an adult. By law I cannot stop her. However, I can stop the 16-year-old. A tattoo is a permanent mark on the body and no one should do it ‘just because somebody else does it’.”
• “Definitely not! First, she is not old enough to know any better. Her sister is 19 and an adult; also her tattoo is in the small of her back and can be easily concealed . . . . Mum should also have a serious talk with big sis and ask her to be careful with certain decisions that may negatively influence her ‘baby’ sister.”
• “So she wouldn’t feel left out is not a good enough reason to get a tattoo.”
• “I would let her get it. I would help look for a tattoo artist that I am comfortable with and go from there. She could easily have gotten it done without asking and by then the only thing you can do as the parent is argue [and] then accept it.”
• “There is nothing wrong with having a tattoo at 16. My worries would be if it was done by a professional. People should move with the times.”
• “I would not allow my 16-year-old to have a tattoo. It’s not about keeping up with the times or anything like that; it’s about the principle. First a tattoo, then what?”
• “If she wanted to do it of her own free will, maybe; but because she saw someone with it? – No. She needs to learn that she has to be an individual and because someone else has something gives her no reason to feel left out. She has to have her own identity.”
• “Absolutely not. One, because it is against the law and I am not encouraging my child to break the law. Two, because the reasoning that her 19-year-old sister has one and she doesn’t want to feel ‘left out’ is silly. There is no way that she should feel that she and her older sister are on the same level – either in terms of privileges or responsibilities.”