In China, tattoos border on illegal – and they're his life's work | Hacker News Reader

In China, tattoos border on illegal – and they're his life's work

latimes.com

51 pointspetethomas65 comments

Tattoos are generally stigmatized in most of East Asia: China, Korea, Japan and cultures affected by these countries.

Although there are some ties to the past with tattoos predominantly being used by outlaws, criminals, prisoners, slaves (prisoners and slaves were branded with tattoos on the face to ensure people knew who they were and was also considered a punishment of its own) or soldiers (in certain periods of history, soldiers weren't respected in China and considered a lowly job as there was a high chance of death and they often were involved in pillaging in the more chaotic times), modern-day stigma is from criminals and gangsters who would use tattoos to differentiate themselves and show themselves as "hard and not to be messed with" or to inspire courage within themselves.

Nowadays its a bit more relaxed but even now people will hide tattoos in job interviews because it can mean an automatic rejection.

Note that despite the fact that tattoos are rather normalized in the West, the default stance is still to hide them during job interviews, with varying degrees of leniency depending on industry and region (e.g. Microsoft probably doesn't care if its programmers are tattooed, though it will for its corporate salespeople).

Many tech companies may not care about their programmers, but many others still care if anyone in any position has anything visible.

There does appear to be a normalization going on, though; in my line of work (F500 consulting), I’ve seen multiple examples of prominent tattoos on both the consultant and client/buyer side (mostly tribal sleeve/neck ink on men). It’s still unusual enough to remark on, but I suspect in a decade or so will either be completely unremarkable, or else the slightly-embarrassing if harmless remnants of a dated fad.

Given the health risks, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Many pigments are made out of heavy metals [0], and while it might have immune benefits, it's for the same reason as bee stings (a minor irritant that keeps it on its toes). The difference is that bee stings don't contain heavy metals.

They've also struck me as a bit tacky (like most other fads), the difference of course being that they're permanent.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tattoo-ink-mercur...

>>Given the health risks, I'm not sure that's a good thing

There's also "health risks" in going to a restaurant, or storing bleach in your home. You show me a study that gives a marked decline in health or life expectancy among heavily tattooed individuals, or else this is just some low quality fear mongering.

>>(like most other fads)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing

I think judging people is extremely tacky, especially when you do so in a way that makes you sound poorly informed about the subject matter. We get it, you don't like tattoos or how they look. That's really your problem though, nobody else's. Policing other people's bodies is a bad look.

How could I "policing other people's bodies"? I can't police any thing; I'm not a policeman and neither can nor ought to enforce my ideas on others.

I linked something above with respect to heavy metals; Scientific American is generally considered a good source. It lists infection risk, mercury exposure, and exposure to numerous other heavy metals as risks. I also imagine that these risks are increased with removal, as the ink must be broken up and processed by the body. Ancients mainly used ash, as I understand it, which is certainly lower risk than heavy metals. In any case, it seems to have very little reward for a high risk.

This is anecdotal, but I know some body who nearly had her leg amputated below the knee because of a chronic wound caused by an ankle tattoo becoming infected. This is doubly risky in light of the recent uptick in drug-resistant bacteria.

Finally, a European Commission report says the inks could have serious health consequences (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/sep/28...).

> I think judging people is extremely tacky, especially when you do so in a way that makes you sound poorly informed about the subject matter.

I'm not judging a person over all, rather I am saying a choice he made may have been unwise. If the evidence I have provided is wrong, let me know why. It is the choice of any man what he does with his body, but that doesn't mean it's not okay to discuss the medical risks. Many people around here seem open to discussing the effects of other risky behaviors; why is it not okay to discuss the effects of this one?

To be fair, the default stance on interview attire for men is a suit, which covers like 95% of a persons body.

How very white collar of you to think that.

I think maybe 25% of my interviews have been in a suit, the rest being some version of industry specific clothing (chef's whites) or just jeans and button-down. I can't imagine I'm that much of an outlier here.

You're not an outlier here, but here is a bubble inside a bubble. I wore a shirt [0] and tie for my first job interview (video rental store, got the job before I sat down because no other candidate was wearing a shirt and tie) and have worn a suit for every job interview since (although I often take off the jacket once we're sat down).

Apropos of the general subject, I've had to give feedback to more than one person in their probation period along the lines of "buy a belt and use it, nobody wants to see your underwear or what your underwear should be covering". There are some shockingly badly dressed software engineers. Comfortable and casual is one thing, but your clothes falling off you or exposing parts of yourself nobody wants to see?

[0] I think in US English, one would call this a "formal shirt". In England, it's just a shirt.

I think the culture as a whole keeps moving away from formality, which I don't find to be bad. Many times, formality is just an inauthentic pretense meant to make people in positions of power feel comfortable. Clothing is a form of self expression, which employers don't want because <reasons>.

fwiw, the phrase "shirt and tie" in American English is understood to be a button up shirt (I don't think most people specifically call this a "formal shirt") and tie. The "and tie" acts as a contextual modifier since it's rarely assumed someone would be wearing a tie with a t-shirt or something casual.

I've moved in the other direction in recent times, to some extent because I'm sick of the software engineer uniform. I wear a shirt (the kind with buttons) pretty much every day - some of which are made to measure and feature my own selection of colour and contrast colour, threads, collar type, cuffs and so on - and I often dress more formally at conferences (and sometimes on holiday, depending on what I'm doing) on my own time than I do at work.

"Clothing is a form of self expression, which employers don't want because <reasons>."

I wonder if my relatively formal attire in a sea of software engineer uniforms marks me out as one of these self-expressers - perhaps one day I'll be asked if I could please wear a t-shirt to work :)

That's just me; I like to look sharp. I expect that I am judged on that by some - look what he's wearing, I bet he can't even write code! - but as people here have implied in these very threads, if a company turns you down because you're well-dressed, you probably didn't want to to work there anyway!

It's probably not the default? I'd guess that most men don't wear suits to interviews. I didn't wear a suit when I was applying to be a baker. Or when I worked at Costco. Or any of the software jobs I've had. Or even when applying to be a manager.

A button down and a decent pair of jeans, maybe. But I can think of 0 times I've worn a suit to an interview.

Eh, I agree that it really depends on the job/area/people/etc, not the default everywhere for sure, I'd interview without a suit and just nice dress clothes.

Anyway, the point remains the same though, tattoos are still expected to be covered.

The Northwest tech scene must be radically different, because I have zero expectations that someone cover their tattoos for an interview.

The interviewed person should first and foremost be comfortable. What if wearing a suit makes someone uncomfortable or self conscious? What if hiding their arm/neck tattoos makes them less confident or worry about being judged? Why would I want a candidate to be thinking about that rather than the interview?

Honestly, why should I care if they show up covered head to toe in ink, or cross dressing, or whatever else makes them most comfortable? Obviously there's a limit -- you can't show up to the interview naked -- but all this about managing other people's appearances disappoints me so much.

I want to see that a candidate is capable of thinking ahead and planning what they wear in order to present themselves favourably, or at the very least not present themselves as a mess. These are easy points to win and when a candidate can't be bothered to put in five minutes' thought to win them, it's not a great start.

Had a candidate a couple of months ago with pants so baggy the crotch hung around his thighs and the whole apparatus appeared to be in danger of falling down (no belt, of course), and when he stood up to write on the board, his choice of underwear brand was apparent.

I don't want to challenge how you decide who to hire.

I just wanted to voice my point of view here. I have a terrible sense of "what looks nice" off the bat, have depression, anxiety, possibly on the spectrum according to my doctor, and I live alone. Things like this I'm scared of, while to an interview I 100% make sure everything fits properly, etc. I don't always have a great sense as to what I look like, so I'm scared of other people's decisions based on how I look, act, etc.

Good for you. A number of candidates devote no thought to how their appearance might be judged and turn up dressed in a way that wins them no points. Sounds like you do better than them.

Regional? A suit is the norm in DC for most industries, including software. I've only interviewed one candidate (in DC) who dressed casually. Two or three in suits w/out a tie or a blazer and dress pants. The rest were in a standard suit with a tie.

Bangalore was the opposite end of the spectrum. Not only casual attire but a casual attitude to the interview in general (cell phone on the bus, in the park, etc). I don't know if that would hold for local, in-person interviews, but was true for video interviews (development team is split 50/50 between DC metro and Bangalore, with managers in both locations).

At my employer, arm or neck tattoos would be noticed, but probably not impact a developers job prospects. Management might be a different story.

My wife is in banking and a suit is 100% expected at interviews. And tattoos covered. And piercings anywhere but the ear removed. A face or neck tattoo would likely be an immediate disqualifier for a job at HQ and probably also in their call centers or branches. Of course, they also dress true business casual every day (no jeans, men wear jackets, etc).

...huh. Interviewing in VA/MD, only once had a candidate wear a suit. Nice shirt and blazer with jeans/slacks seems to be the norm. I wonder if it’s micro-regional to DC? Or something about the specific software industry you are in?

Weird. No idea. I work for a large software company, ERP software, but in a niche market. Offices in Reston, Bangalore, and a few other places.

My understanding has been that most large companies, especially those older than like 15-20 years, in the east coast follow suit-culture for white-collar work; the minimum being business casual for daily work (not eg meetings with execs).

This difference being the quintessential culture shift compared to california (aka silicon valley) dress code, with shorts and shirt being a very direct reaction to it

But this is based on hearsay and history; I’m not old enough to experience it myself ;)

That certainly fits both my employer and my wife's.

Both are large and old.

When I meet with clients in any sort of sales capacity, I wear a suit. Daily wear is nice casual (jeans, button down shirt). Conventions or site visits are pants and a jacket, no tie.

> A suit is the norm in DC for most industries,

Food service? Construction? I think a lot of folks are failing to include things like trades, services industries, etc.

Sure, most white collar interviews out east might require a suit.

> At my employer, arm or neck tattoos would be noticed, but probably not impact a developers job prospects.

This bums me out. I'm a software manager about to get full sleeve tattoos. You know what doesn't affect my ability to be a good software engineer or manager? My appearance. The fact that someone would say, "This person is great, except I don't like the way they look, so maybe let's not hire them" is truly awful, and I'd hope that at least someone on the hiring committee would push back hard.

Well, it could also be a reflection upon the poor judgment of someone who persisted in getting tattoos in the full knowledge that their (perhaps potential) employer frowned on them.

That's a circular argument. "Getting tattoos makes you a bad candidate because it shows that you're willing to get tattoos". You shouldn't want to work for people that think that way. Great way to weed out bad companies if you ask me.

This is just being shouted to the masses, not to you personally: If a qualified candidates only disqualification are his tattoos, he's still a qualified candidate.

Also, I've had visible tattoos (hands, neck, arms) my entire adult life. I've never had an issue with them involving employment. Excluding the time an employer wanted to put pictures of them on their website and I decline. Two weeks later I was laid off. Either they were going to fire me and wanted to take pictures of me on my way out, or they weren't going to fire me and this made me seem like I wasn't a "team player".

I doubt most businesses would even care if their salespeople were tatted as long as it wasn't on their face or gaudy (like something lewd/tacky or really big like a full sleeve). An ankle or wrist tattoo seems pretty normal and may be visible a sizable amount of the time.

Because of Hong Kong movie's influence, I was brought up thinking tattoos are for gangsters.

In Japan tattoos are generally banned from spa areas (which there are a lot of, pretty much all capsule hotels have one).

It was explained to me that this was a roundabout way of banning the Yakuza.

I wonder if they would bother enforcing the ban on foreigners, since it's a roundabout way of banning the Yakuza.

I wonder if they keep it as a way of banning foreigners..

They probably keep it as a way to restrict both.

Places will enforce it - I'd say most do not - but my sample size is only large enough to say confidentially that the places my friends went to do not, with one exception that enforced it.

Source: Friends with tattoos who have visited Japan as I don't have any myself.

E: This is one of very, very few shows I'd ever recommend and it covers this topic: https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/needles-and-pins , specifically the ones in Japan and South Korea which have very similar culture surrounding tattoos.

I went to a public onsen in Hakone. More like a western spa than a bathhouse. They made me purchase a covering for my leg tattoo, even though I am not Japanese and therefore could never have been Yakuza.

I was also in Hakone, last month. There was a foreigner with pretty obvious tattoos on his body in the onsen I went to. It probably depends on the bathhouse.

I went to Hakone Kowakien Yunessun. I've heard other non-Japanese people mention having to cover up their tattoos.

The Japanese culture is also extremely conformist and rule following. In my (limited) experience the letter of a rule is very important while the intent of the rule is not considered much.

I'd expect the rule to be enforced but I don't _really_ know.

Piercings are very restricted there too. You won't find any piercing shops. Doctors have to do them, even if you just want your ears pierced.

Tattoos are generally stigmatized everywhere. Most of the people in prisons have tattos so this may be a reason why people with tattos have traditionally been seen as "bad" people.

People who have tattoos are not allowed to enter Japanese bath houses. Because they cannot say that Yakuza members, who are more than often tattooed, are not welcome.

Do yakuza still get tattooed as heavily as the used to? I swear I read a while back that Russian mob members don’t get tattooed anymore, but I can’t seem to find the article I read.

This isn't accurate, businesses ban Yakuza members in their terms all the time. The capsule hotel I visited banned all members, and IIRC, all managers and executives of any Yakuza-linked business.

Here's an article about the ordinances they passed encouraging it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuza_exclusion_ordinances#Ex...

The perception of tattoos in the US was pretty much the same until the late eighties. Only criminals, bikers, and some military people had them. The Research book Modern Primitives seemed to really popularize them among college kids in the US and it kind of trickled down from there. I definitely saw a lot of people get them in the wake of that book. As this generation has gotten older tattoos have become more acceptable.

Look guys I don't know what's going on with all these China news but as a european who's lived in china several years, a lot of it seems wrong. I was in south China for a year recently and many people had visible tattoos, just as many as west europeans. And nobody cared. At all.

A bit of a mirror version of people's assumption that southerners in the United States all talk with a drawl and wear cowboy hats.

Thanks. I’ve never been to China, but was rather surprised by the headline here. I can believe it with Japanese or Koreans, but my impression is that Chinese culture tends to be pretty chill about these sorts of things.

I live in Shanghai since 201708 and visible tattoos are not rare on people aged 20 to 30 (men and women).

I don't understand tattoo, it's like wearing the same cloth (i.e. a T-shirt) every day, for the rest of your life.

I do think there's market for more colorful, longer lasting temporary tattoos. (Might be a startup idea for ya)

Ephemeral - https://www.ephemeraltattoos.com/ - is basically doing that

Just as there's a reason for constants in math and programming, it can be pleasing to have them on your body as well.

Why do we cut our hair, trim our beards, make music, pierce our ears or wear clothing? None of these things are strictly necessary.

The Ancient European Picts, Mayans, Native Northern Americans, Polynesian islanders, all of these humans were HEAVILY tattooed, often with ritual significance.

Tattoos are an ancient human art form. Ötzi the iceman had visible tattoos.

It is a way to memorialize the past and express yourself.

If using that line of logic, Do you also complain that you can't change your face?

Tattoos are an extension of your identity that you get to customize to your liking. The art is an expression of who you are and your body is the canvas. Of course you might think it not necessary or pleasent but to quote The Dude: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Personally I don't have any but If I did they would tell a story about me. And that story is my identity, my brand. You can then experiment with clothing that reveals different things if you like. I have a few friends that get deep into the art and fashion they use to accentuate them. It does have an appeal and to some looks attractive. YMMV, etc.

That’s fair to not get it. Being tattooed isn’t for everyone. I’ve wanted to be tattooed since I was 12. Not really sure why other than I was drawn to it. I’m 30 now and have about 30% of my body tattooed and have no plans to stop.

To address the potential startup — there are a handful of companies that sell temporary tattoos that last for several weeks, but they tend to favor trendy things (think infinity symbols, tribal (not really trendy anymore), and simple blackwork). I did see toddlertattoos[1] today, and those look really great. The biggest barrier to entry is the industry itself. It’s incredibly inclusive, closed off, and reputation based. I don’t think a person who doesn’t have a huge reputation in tattooing could make it work.

1) https://toddlertattoos.com/

Before reading the article, I was thinking that many Triads tattoo women in their family with large dragon tattoos (I dated one of these girls when her family moved to Los Angeles). It was weirdly explained to me that if a man tried to hurt her and saw those tattoos he would be afraid of the Triad and leave her alone. I found the entire concept a bit repulsive, but it isn't my culture.

The article's claim that tattoos are associated with gangsters lines up with this.

The history of tattooing is vast, as with any subculture. There's a lot of history with bikers, gangs, tribes, artists, healers, etc. You should read about the history of Russian prison tattoos[1]. I'm biased because I am a tattooed person. All that being said tattooing isn't just for gangsters. Humans have a long history of marking their bodies permanently[2].

1) https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9bzvbp/russian-criminal-t... 2) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/tattoos-144038580/

In South Korea, tattoos are illegal, but it hasn't stopped artists from creating - and creating some truly beautiful work. Tattoos have become relatively mainstream and millennials (though I hate the term) have widely adopted tattoos as commonplace. It's striking to see the cultural differences between East Asia and the western world, perception around tattoos being just one of them. Tattoos are particularly interesting because of the influence Asian artists have had on the culture and ethos of the art despite the widespread suppression of it. I'd love to hear a perspective on why it's evolved to be so different - and I do suspect it has to do with organized crime playing a large part (i.e. the Yakuza and the Triads).

I am not a fan of tattoos, but what is the rationale behind banning tattoos?

I would guess it is because to East asian authorities, you would only be getting a tattoo if you were being initiated in a gang or wanted to engage in outlaw activities, so stopping tattoos is indirectly stopping "outlawry" and thus preserving "morality" in society.

Probably similar to how schools in certain states ban red/blue bandannas or other gang-related artifacts

Tattoos are not illegal in South Korea, neither having them or making them is illegal.

It is simply classified as a form of acupuncture and regulated accordingly.

While tattooing is technically illegal in South Korea... [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_in_South_Korea

My husband used to work at one of the top lobbying firms in Washington DC. He told me they had a standing rule that if they saw a tattoo on someone, unless they were a former member of Congress or some very high ranking staff person, they wouldn’t hire them. Not even for the internship program. There was paranoia that the wrong tattoo could scare off a potential client.

You mean to tell me that lobbyists aren't cool and easy-going?

Lived in Shanghai for a long time. There are more and more people getting visible tattoos.

> "Even now, it is rare to see tattoos in the street or public life."

Maybe in smaller towns but it's pretty prevalent in Shanghai, Beijing etc.

Fix that title

Reply on news.ycombinator.com