[Rastus]

So she has one, and it's visible. Fine. But I don't need my four-year-old getting a step-by-step lesson in tattoo "art."

[MacDorcha]

So she has one, and it's visible. Fine. But I don't need my four-year-old getting a step-by-step lesson in tattoo "art."

---

I'm going to be serious abour this, please, why not? I mean, sure they are four, but they have eyes still. What if mommy and daddy don't have tattoo's and so don't know the process, but your little one has a legit question when she sees it in the mall?

If they were older, I'd say "give them a history lesson on it." Heck, I might even say they should get it now.

Anyway, back to my original question-

Why do you feel you "don't need (your) four-year-old" learning about tattoos?

[danamco]

So she has one, and it's visible. Fine. But I don't need my four-year-old getting a step-by-step lesson in tattoo "art."




Don't be surprised if she not also will teach them how to put on a condom!??!