Stretched earlobes ....horrible

Sonderkommando

ardinn wrote: »

I work in hotels and certainly would not employ anyone with that stupid Shiite on their face - ears, Arse! Tattoos are fine once covered - this stretching and nose bars and horns and all the rest would instantly tell me that the person is a knobend. I would even go as far to say if I was to go into a retailer which had someone with this dumb **** all over them working in it I probably wouldnt go back!

Even looking at that pic makes me want to smack her and her parents! Facking Dope!

If I paid for a decent meal and was served by someone who presented themselves as such, no way would I return to the establishment.

Kovu

Sonderkommando wrote: »

The majority of people with ears like that have severe self esteem issues.

Naw, I'm sexy as fúck so I am

P_1

Sonderkommando wrote: »

If I paid for a decent meal and was served by someone who presented themselves as such, no way would I return to the establishment.

Sad to see such snobbery is still alive and well

Turtyturd

Sonderkommando wrote: »

If I paid for a decent meal and was served by someone who presented themselves as such, no way would I return to the establishment.

While we're playing make believe. If I owned a restaurant and you had that attitude towards my staff I'd tell you to leave and not bother coming back.

Neyite

Sonderkommando wrote: »

If I paid for a decent meal and was served by someone who presented themselves as such, no way would I return to the establishment.

In catering, piercings are prohibited from a health and safety and hygeine point of view, rather than asthetics. Take bewleys for instance, the dress code only permitted a plain wedding band if married. No studs, hoops, rings with stones etc. Aside from the fact that they could fall into food, people could easily catch jewellery on equipment -its very easy to lose a finger if a ring gets caught in machinery. Scents and fragrances forbidden except for a roll on deodorant so as not to taint food. No nail polish, false nails either. Lots of factories, especially food production would have a similar policy.

I'd prefer ear tunnels on a server than bitten nails. Nails bitten to the quick make me wince.

One eyed Jack

Sonderkommando wrote: »

The majority of people with ears like that have severe self esteem issues.

Have you ever sat down with, and spoken to, and spent time with the majority of people 'with ears like that', whom you claim have self esteem issues?

Is there a higher proportion in the number of people with self esteem issues 'with ears like that', or is there a higher proportion of people with self esteem issues who do not have 'ears like that'? An utterly daft and ill-informed correlation tbh.

Anesthetize

Sonderkommando wrote: »

If I paid for a decent meal and was served by someone who presented themselves as such, no way would I return to the establishment.

Is that their problem or are you scared of people who are different to you? Seems like some people live in a very backwards society.

eternal

It's been a Tribal manner of attraction for years. Get over it.

Anesthetize

I find it funny that body modification has been around for a few thousand years in many societies and cultures yet there's still saps out there who get offended by it People in capitalist society are far too uptight and uncultured.

eternal

Anesthetize wrote: »

I find it funny that body modification has been around for a few thousand years in many societies and cultures yet there's still saps out there who get offended by it People in capitalist society are far too uptight and uncultured.

Ah you're just copying what I said. Get your own ideas

liz lemoncello

Thargor wrote: »

Piercings and tattoos have some chance of making it past HR especially these days ....

I think that's because piercings and tattoos have become mainstream.

Anesthetize wrote: »

I find it funny that body modification has been around for a few thousand years in many societies and cultures yet there's still saps out there who get offended by it People in capitalist society are far too uptight and uncultured.

But not in western culture. I've only seen a handful of people with tunnels in real life. I didn't know what they were called until I read this thread. When/if they become more common, people won't think twice about them.

wakka12

People can dress how they want without being criticised

Azalea

Anesthetize wrote: »

I find it funny that body modification has been around for a few thousand years in many societies and cultures yet there's still saps out there who get offended by it People in capitalist society are far too uptight and uncultured.

But don't you live in capitalist society yourself? I agree it's silly just to declare that most people who have those earlobe things have self esteem issues - the opposite I'd say a lot of the time, as they don't give a sh-t what people think, one of the very definitions of not having low self esteem IMO.
But there's uptightness in all cultures, even if it might vary in relation to different things.

RDM_83 again

Anesthetize wrote: »

I find it funny that body modification has been around for a few thousand years in many societies and cultures yet there's still saps out there who get offended by it People in capitalist society are far too uptight and uncultured.

Thing we have it the wrong way around these days in relation to body modification.
In most non-Western cultures its actually a sign of conformity to a certain group and tied to life stages, getting ear hoops, neck rings etc is like getting a white wedding dress.
In western culture before the last couple of decades its IMO about being part of a group, sailors tattoo's, soldiers tattoo's, prison and gangsters.
These have meaning too and its not simply a choice matter-they mark achievements/experiences and have meaning thats not meant to be appropriated by those without that experience.

TLDR: Body modification traditionally is about life stages or membership of a group, its not about asserting individuality and one would already be becoming part of this group before modification.

Azalea

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thing we have it the wrong way around these days in relation to body modification.
In most non-Western cultures its actually a sign of conformity

That's true - it's the done thing, so not being uptight would be refusing to partake.

One eyed Jack

They're based on statistics from the States, but I found these articles interesting.

TATTOOS IN THE WORKPLACE STATISTICS

The following tattoos in the workplace statistics specifically cover tattoo discrimination statistics.

LEGALITY
Countries you can be arrested in or fined for certain illegal religious, political or racial tattoos is 13.
Tattoos in America are a form of expression and are protected from criminal law by the Constitution, but are not federally protected in the workplace.

OCCUPATIONS
The job industry with highest percentage of tattooed staff is the military.
The occupation with the second highest rate of tattooed employees is agriculture.
The occupation with the most lenient tattoo and piercing policies is the government.
However, only 8% of government employees have ink or piercings.

HIRING
76% of employees feel tattoos and piercings hurt your job interview chances.
However, 73% of people say they would hire staff that had visible tattoos.
6% of tattooed people say they wouldn’t hire someone with visible ink.
Only 4% of tattooed or pierced people say they've actually faced discrimination in their current job.

LIVING
States with the highest percentage of tattoo discrimination statistics are South Carolina, Oklahoma and Florida.
States with the most piercing and tattoo friendly public opinion are Montana, Colorado and California.

(bold emphasis my own)

Source: Support Tattoos and Piercings at Work


And from Forbes - Tattoos No Longer A Kiss Of Death In The Workplace


“Now you’re never going to get a job!” Almost everyone in the 14% pool of tattooed Americans has heard something like this from a relative or friend. But as the number of inked Americans grows, is the traditional assumption that tattoos and jobs don’t mix really true in 2013?

Workplace tattoo policies vary among and within industries. But with many contemporary companies stressing commitments to diversity and inclusion, tattoos are becoming increasingly unproblematic across the board. Lax tattoo policies for blue-collar and art-related jobs aren’t shocking, but the increasingly tolerant outlook of frontrunners in corporate, educational and medical industries are more surprising.

As consulting firm CEO John Challenger explained, most employers today would agree that a person’s appearance is nowhere near as important as his or her professional skills. “Even in this tight job market, most companies aren’t going to view tattoos too harshly. Companies have a vested interest in hiring the most qualified candidate.”

According to Bank of America BAC +0.00%Spokeswoman Ferris Morrison, the company has no restrictions when it comes to inked corporate employees. “We have no formal policy about tattoos because we value our differences and recognize that diversity and inclusion are good for our business and make our company stronger,” she said.

This attitude is not uncommon in contemporary corporate environments. Having large, colorful and highly visible lilac tattoos inked across her upper chest didn’t stop Courtney Pecola from landing a job as vice president of Philadelphia’s ZB Sports, a sporting goods retailer, in 2004. “If I’d passed on her because of her tattoos, I’d be out one phenomenal employee,” Pecola’s hirer commented.


Source: Tattoos No Longer A Kiss Of Death In The Workplace (article continues)


Makes a balls of this sort of nonsense -

lanos wrote: »

so you would have nothing useful to advise really

the fact is that if you look up any job in situations vacant in the newspaper or in the FAS office
not 1 employer from these sources would hire somebody with piercings such as hers.
maybe she could get a job in a fish gutting factory.

its hardly a career though.

your view of the world is a noble one i'll admit but it bears no resemblance to the reality for job seekers.

BTW are you pierced?

lanos wrote: »

I'm my IT career, I have attended dozens of conferences
many attended by engineers middle managers, upper managers etc
and how many have visible tattoos, face piercings or lobe stretching
Zero
These people are smartly dressed and successful.
a few bearded lefties dressed casually i'll admit, but no weird stuff on them.
I attended the HEAnet conference in Cork last week and how many stretched lobes did I see ?
Zero
I don't know what area of IT you work in but we're definitely not moving in the same circles

Clearly, we don't move in the same circles, because I lack your "tunnel vision"...

/badum tish! :pac:

lanos

ah one-eyed-jack i excused myself from the thread but you had to bring me back in.
you went to a lot of trouble to try to discredit me.

a waste of time i reckon.

your last post is entirely about tattoos
this thread is about ear stretching, and facial piercing and to a lesser extent facial tattoos, not body tattoos

so take your american statistics and stick them in your stretched earlobe (you must have one)

this is ireland, different environment entirely, and the number of people on here who have spoken negitavely about them is conclusive to me.

i work in a place with hundreds of employees and none have their ears stretched, none have facial tattoos and maybe a few have a nose stud or their eyebrow pierced. nobody looks like the dealers girlfriend from pulp fiction

One eyed Jack

lanos wrote: »

ah one-eyed-jack i excused myself from the thread but you had to bring me back in.
you went to a lot of trouble to try to discredit me.

a waste of time i reckon.

Clearly.

Particularly seeing as I didn't bring you back in, nor force you in any way, shape nor form to re-engage with the discussion. I'm not trying to discredit you at all, merely demonstrate that your impressions of employment prospects for people with tattoos or piercings are utterly misguided, and I happened to be reading Forbes this morning when it occurred to me to see if they had any articles on the subject. It really wasn't as much trouble at all as you think. I'm not inclined to put myself out too much for those people who seem to make no effort at all, which seems to be about your level.

lanos wrote: »

your last post is entirely about tattoos
this thread is about ear stretching, and facial piercing and to a lesser extent facial tattoos, not body tattoos

I was given the impression from your opening post that it was about the employment prospects of people with any or all of the above.

lanos wrote: »

so take your american statistics and stick them in your stretched earlobe (you must have one)

this is ireland, different environment entirely, and the number of people on here who have spoken negitavely about them is conclusive to me.

In case you hadn't noticed, people are not strictly limited in their employment prospects to their country of birth any more. Notwithstanding that fact, the US offers a much greater picture of employment prospects within a corporate environment than Ireland. The number of people here who have spoken negatively, or even positively about about them is hardly representative of anything really, because of the small sample size of posters we have here, as opposed to the number of employers and employees in the States.

And seeing as I haven't had the inclination to have any piercings or tattoos done myself in the last week or so, my previous comment is still current -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I'm not, nor do I have any tattoos. I'm often mistaken for one of those Latter Day Saints crowd because I'm always dressed in a white shirt, black trousers and navy tie (red, if I'm feeling adventurous).

lanos wrote: »

i work in a place with hundreds of employees and none have their ears stretched, none have facial tattoos and maybe a few have a nose stud or their eyebrow pierced. nobody looks like the dealers girlfriend from pulp fiction

And as we've both already agreed - we don't move in the same circles, which is why I decided to go outside both our limited experience and seek objective evidence to the question of whether a person's employment prospects are actually hindered by either tattoos or any kind of piercings, and the objective evidence as observed by people far more qualified than yourself (the fact that you are under the impression that your opinion is correct is evidence itself of the fact that you do not possess the necessary evidence to qualify your opinion, you're just wrong, basically!) -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

C. I'd ask her what jobs she was interested in herself, then take a look at her CV to see what experience and qualifications she had, and what experience and qualifications she might need to get into the career she was interested in, and advise her on that basis, before I'd give a damn about her physical appearance.

HIRING

76% of employees feel tattoos and piercings hurt your job interview chances.
However, 73% of people say they would hire staff that had visible tattoos.
6% of tattooed people say they wouldn’t hire someone with visible ink.
Only 4% of tattooed or pierced people say they've actually faced discrimination in their current job.

As consulting firm CEO John Challenger explained, most employers today would agree that a person’s appearance is nowhere near as important as his or her professional skills. “Even in this tight job market, most companies aren’t going to view tattoos too harshly. Companies have a vested interest in hiring the most qualified candidate.”

Any time you'd care to present evidence for your earlier assertions in the thread that a person's employment prospects are reduced by their having tattoos or piercings of any kind, well, I'm all... ears


(I don't think I should give up the day job any time soon, those puns are awful! )

Minderbinder

"As consulting firm CEO John Challenger explained, most employers today would agree that a person’s appearance is nowhere near as important as his or her professional skills. “Even in this tight job market, most companies aren’t going to view tattoos too harshly. Companies have a vested interest in hiring the most qualified candidate.”"

Well yes they kind of have to say that or agree with that. They're never going to actually say 'I didn't hire you because you have a nail sticking out of your face'.

It's very difficult to know someone's professional skills before they've worked for your company. By the time of a face to face interview I would imagine most of the candidates would have similar cv's and experience and therefore it comes down to appearance and personality. I'm not saying it's right but I don't see how having stretched earlobes is going to enhance your chances of getting most jobs. I'm not trying to be cruel but it simply doesn't help. HR staff are also answerable to someone and they are usually not in the position to take chances. They'll go with the safest bet.

Canterelle

My daughter has nose piercing, nose ring, ear piercings and a small stretcher in one ear. I hated most of them and fought a losing battle to persuade her not to! But now I've gotten used to them and it doesn't bother me. However, everyone tells her to lose them when she looking for part time retail work. I guess these are jobs where appearance wins over everything else and the shop can just hire the next person in line who doesn't wear piercings.

Yakkyda

Personally I wouldn't be a massive fan, especially the larger ones. It doesn't look to bad with the tunnels in but a bit disconcerting visually when out, doesn't turn me stomach though.

It's true that they may affect employment in certain sectors(retail springs to mind, say working at the tills in a large chain, it's probably not gonna gel with the image they want to portray, but again there's other retailers that wouldn't care)

But if you're qualified in your profession and are suitable for the job, it shouldn't be a factor whatsoever imo. I have a feeling though, that the reality is that's not the case in the real world. I'm sure there's a few employer's out there that missed out on hiring a highly talented, qualified professional individual due to a personal dislike of a particular body modification. They're loss in all likelihood.

As for the poster saying it's a sign of self esteem issues? I'd say it's a sign of a person pretty damn confident and comfortable in themselves tbh. Silly thing to be spouting.

As for facial tattoos? I've never seen one that looks good in the flesh(a couple on the Internet, but veerrryyy few and far between)

Each to their own, it's their body. Don't be judging a book by its cover...

Hulk Hands

Rightly or wrongly, it would be an issue for a high percentage of office job employers, and you'd be hoping a candidate would have enough common sense to see that. So if someone with them is job hunting, they either didn't realise it would hurt their job chances, showing a lack of cop and foresight, or they did realise they'd be a professional hinderance and got them regardless, showing a lack of career ambition. Both those qualities would turn me off a candidate

One eyed Jack

Minderbinder wrote: »

"As consulting firm CEO John Challenger explained, most employers today would agree that a person’s appearance is nowhere near as important as his or her professional skills. “Even in this tight job market, most companies aren’t going to view tattoos too harshly. Companies have a vested interest in hiring the most qualified candidate.”"

Well yes they kind of have to say that or agree with that. They're never going to actually say 'I didn't hire you because you have a nail sticking out of your face'.

They can, because tattoos and piercings don't fall under the nine grounds of discrimination in employment equality legislation.

Minderbinder wrote: »

It's very difficult to know someone's professional skills before they've worked for your company. By the time of a face to face interview I would imagine most of the candidates would have similar cv's and experience and therefore it comes down to appearance and personality. I'm not saying it's right but I don't see how having stretched earlobes is going to enhance your chances of getting most jobs. I'm not trying to be cruel but it simply doesn't help. HR staff are also answerable to someone and they are usually not in the position to take chances. They'll go with the safest bet.

It's really not difficult at all to assess someone's professional skills before they've worked for any company. Most, certainly in IT, will have projects experience online and will have industry recognised qualifications and an online profile, and then with references and video interviews and so on, there are many ways to assess a candidate before a face to face in person interview ever takes place. I know you're not trying to be cruel, but for most employers, they're more interested in a person's qualifications and experience than their physical appearance. The hypothetical scenario of the "identical candidates based upon qualifications and experience" is even more rare than the candidate with piercings or tattoos. While you're right about HR staff, nowadays face to face interviews are conducted in front of a panel that usually consists of anywhere between three and five interviewers on a panel, usually one HR rep, one from management whom the candidate would be working directly under, and a person either from senior management or an outside consultant. Nobody from HR will never make these decisions on their own, and they'll go for the best candidate based upon a number of criteria, usually marking the candidates on a scoring system.

There's no evidence to suggest that piercings or tattoos will directly affect a person's employment opportunities any more than they're simply not qualified for the job, or they lack the necessary experience, or an infinite number of other factors depending upon the criteria that would be required of them in the role. It depends on numerous criteria and context before you start suggesting that a person's piercings or tattoos would be inherently detrimental to their employment prospects.

Canterelle wrote: »

My daughter has nose piercing, nose ring, ear piercings and a small stretcher in one ear. I hated most of them and fought a losing battle to persuade her not to! But now I've gotten used to them and it doesn't bother me. However, everyone tells her to lose them when she looking for part time retail work. I guess these are jobs where appearance wins over everything else and the shop can just hire the next person in line who doesn't wear piercings.

There are of course jobs where appearance would win over everything, particularly in retail of course where the company would want their staff to maintain and project a certain image, which is why I'm saying it would depend completely upon context, and I wouldn't immediately discount your daughters employment opportunities in retail simply based upon her appearance. It would depend a lot too on the type of retail outlets your daughter is applying to. A few of my friends have all sorts of facial and ear/neck piercings, hair all colours of the rainbow, and tattoos all over their bodies (though admittedly I don't know any with facial tattoos, I don't suppose HD eyebrows count, or being shot with Homer Simpsons make-up gun? They don't work as make-up counter reps in Brown Thomas though, although there's one or two aren't great advertisements for their beauty salons... I digress ).

Basically, depending again upon context, your daughters physical appearance could well be an advantage over other candidates in applying for certain positions in retail, depending upon the brand image the retail outlet wants to portray

lanos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are of course jobs where appearance would win over everything, particularly in retail of course where the company would want their staff to maintain and project a certain image, which is why I'm saying it would depend completely upon context

Off the top of my head:

Fields of employment that wouldn't accept you if you had tunnels
All the professions: including Solicitor, Chartered Accountant, Chartered Engineer, Doctor,
Teacher
Nurse
An Garda Síochána
Armed Forces
The Prison Service
Sales Reps
Financial Services
Airlines
Catering
Retail, except maybe places that sell tunnels
Senior IT - high stakes positions dealing with valuable clients
Generally, salaried employees with good progression prospects

Fields of employment that would probably be ok with tunnels
Low level IT - Code monkeys, low-paid phone support staff
Construction
Warehousing
Agriculture
Mechanics
Assembly work
Generally, hourly paid employees out of public view

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Basically, depending again upon context, your daughters physical appearance could well be an advantage over other candidates in applying for certain positions in retail,

name a few please, and I mean occupations that you can earn enough to buy a modest home and raise a family.

One eyed Jack

lanos wrote: »

Off the top of my head:

Oh, "off the top of your head", well that's great, I'll just take your word for it then shall I?

Me hole! :rolleyes:

(and I ain't referring to one that's been stretched! :pac:)

You're still only referring to careers that you think would discriminate based upon criteria that you would choose to discriminate against a person for, and ignoring the fact that your opinion really doesn't count for, well, jack!

name a few please, and I mean occupations that you can earn enough to buy a modest home and raise a family.

What? Your criteria again?

You really need to stop with that nonsense. Now you're talking about people's motivations for gaining employment in order to meet what you consider should be their priorities. Did you actually miss the whole point of this?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

C. I'd ask her what jobs she was interested in herself, then take a look at her CV to see what experience and qualifications she had, and what experience and qualifications she might need to get into the career she was interested in, and advise her on that basis, before I'd give a damn about her physical appearance.

If we take an example of an 18 year old with tunnels, she's unlikely to have the necessary qualifications or experience that would enable her to earn an income sufficient to buy a modest home and raise a family anyway. There are far more people twice her age who don't have tunnels and still can't afford to buy a modest home and raise a family ffs! There are even more people again who do earn enough to enable them to do that, and they have no intention of doing so :rolleyes:

(that's not even accounting for the fact that were they to take a career break to raise a family, their earning potential would be severely impacted, not to mention that the household income in their modest home could face a significant drop, and then they face barriers in trying to get back into the employment market if they haven't upskilled in the meantime).

If you still think tunnels, or lack thereof, make all the difference to a person's potential employment prospects, then it's simply down to your personal distaste for tunnels, and nothing more, because you haven't presented any credible evidence, of any sort ("off the top of your head" doesn't count), when your question is -

lanos wrote: »

program on RTE 2 now about irish people on the dole
and theres this girl with multiple piercings and these hideous
earlobe stretching things

how does this girl expect anybody to employ her


image below is not same as girl on RTE2

The fact is, that there are many people who would employ her, just not you.

lanos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh, "off the top of your head", well that's great, I'll just take your word for it then shall I?

Me hole! :rolleyes:
(and I ain't referring to one that's been stretched! :pac:)
You're still only referring to careers that you think would discriminate based upon criteria that you would choose to discriminate against a person for, and ignoring the fact that your opinion really doesn't count for, well, jack
What? Your criteria again?
You really need to stop with that nonsense. Now you're talking about people's motivations for gaining employment in order to meet what you consider should be their priorities. Did you actually miss the whole point of this?

If we take an example of an 18 year old with tunnels, she's unlikely to have the necessary qualifications or experience that would enable her to earn an income sufficient to buy a modest home and raise a family anyway. There are far more people twice her age who don't have tunnels and still can't afford to buy a modest home and raise a family ffs! There are even more people again who do earn enough to enable them to do that, and they have no intention of doing so :rolleyes:

(that's not even accounting for the fact that were they to take a career break to raise a family, their earning potential would be severely impacted, not to mention that the household income in their modest home could face a significant drop, and then they face barriers in trying to get back into the employment market if they haven't upskilled in the meantime).

If you still think tunnels, or lack thereof, make all the difference to a person's potential employment prospects, then it's simply down to your personal distaste for tunnels, and nothing more, because you haven't presented any credible evidence, of any sort ("off the top of your head" doesn't count), when your question is -


The fact is, that there are many people who would employ her, just not you.

I provide lists and examples and what do you respond with ?

waffle waffle
spoof spoof
blah blah blah

you're an expert in typing tons of drivel but nothing of any substance
and nobody is fooled I can assure you

you probably want me to provide proof of that though don't you

One eyed Jack

lanos wrote: »

I provide lists and examples and what do you respond with ?

waffle waffle
spoof spoof
blah blah blah

you're an expert in typing tons of drivel but nothing of any substance
and nobody is fooled I can assure you

you probably want me to provide proof of that though don't you

I'm still waiting for you to provide any sort of evidence that a person is unemployable because they have tunnels?

All you've provided so far has indeed been waffle, spoof, and blah blah, and when I didn't give a damn for your waffle, spoof and blah blah, you threw your toys out of the pram and went waah waah, and wanted the thread closed!

You appear to think what you say goes around here.

I've got news for you - it doesn't.

lanos

a few viewpoints

Schwiiing wrote: »

Idiots.
What happens when they go out of fashion? Do they just get left with huge drooping earlobes hanging off the ears? Sounds like a surgical repair.
Always thought there's money to be made in the future in tattoo removal and the likes.

Fluffy Cat 88 wrote: »

Horrible!
Thing is, I don't mind tattoos (good ones not cheap diy ****e ones), pierced lips etc but those tunnels are disgusting.
Apparently they stink too. There's a young lad working in a chipper in town who has them and I avoid ordering food from him because they turn my stomach.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yeah the larger ones are something I genuinely don't like at a deeper gut level <snip>
I'd get much more weirded out by the stretching, have the same reaction to large nose-bones and piercings on the back of the neck and scarification.

kneemos wrote: »

I immediately think doper anytime I see those earlobes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Horrible.
Oh you stretch your earlobes like tribal folk in Papua New Guinea? And you have a tattoo in Sanskrit? Oh like you must be so interesting, how different, there's only millions and millions of kids like you.

padd b1975 wrote: »

The calling card of the gobsh1te.

BenedrylPete wrote: »

Rank looking things, been round people with them and kept wanting to put a bicycle ulock through the loop, lock it and fk the key away.

petes wrote: »

surely it's ability over everything else even though I know it's not.
You're judged on your appearance as soon as you meet a potential employer and if they don't like
them it's highly unlikely you'll get the job

Thargor wrote: »

Id say they stink, a gaping sore kept open like that especially ears where the skin tends to be more moist and oily and cuts take an age to heal. I was in the Natural History Museum in London a few weeks ago paying 12 quid or something for a slice of cake and a cup of tea and I came to the end to pay and there was a guy on the till who'd obviously been told to remove his for work, they were flapping around like dead skin on a burn victim with wet red holes in the middle of them, turned my stomach, didn't even want the food after paying for it.

ardinn wrote: »

I work in hotels and certainly would not employ anyone with that stupid Shiite on
their face - ears, Arse! - this stretching and nose bars and horns and all the rest would instantly tell me that the person is a knobend.
I would even go as far to say if I was to go into a retailer which had someone with this dumb **** all over them working in it I probably wouldnt go back!

seamusk84 wrote: »

So once you stop using them your ears need reconstructive surgery to go back to normal?
What the hell is wrong with people.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I try to not be judgemental but I struggle with stretched ear lobes. They're so gaggy to look at....

Penn wrote: »

I wouldn't hire anyone with them. It displays an inherent lack of professionalism, akin to wearing a Slipknot t-shirt to a job interview when you should be wearing a suit or other formal attire.
By all means, it's your body, it's your choice. But it can and likely will have a negative impact depending on what job you want to go for, and that needs to be taken into consideration when making that choice. If someone does make that choice, I would be free to make the choice to not hire them.

Thargor wrote: »

but stretched ears/lip plates are on another level bordering on self harm, they imply the person might have mental problems, nobody wants them facing customers or meeting clients, you are literally destroying your lifetime prospects for a temporary fashion fad.

Sonderkommando wrote: »

The majority of people with ears like that have severe self esteem issues.

Sonderkommando wrote: »

If I paid for a decent meal and was served by someone who presented themselves as such, no way would I return to the establishment.

Minderbinder wrote: »

I'm not saying it's right but I don't see how having stretched earlobes is going to enhance your chances of getting most jobs. I'm not trying to be cruel but it simply doesn't help. HR staff are also answerable to someone and they are usually not in the position to take chances. They'll go with the safest bet.

Canterelle wrote: »

I guess these are jobs where appearance wins over everything else and the shop can just hire the next person in line who
doesn't wear piercings.

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, it would be an issue for a high percentage of office job employers, and you'd be hoping a candidate would have enough common sense to see that. So if someone with them is job hunting, they either didn't realise it would hurt their job chances, showing a lack of cop and foresight, or they did realise they'd be a professional hinderance and got them regardless, showing a lack of career ambition. Both those qualities would turn me off a candidate

Kovu

lanos wrote: »

a few viewpoints

Lol.

You actually went back through the thread to get all the negative comments. What about all the positive ones? If you don't quote them, they don't exist in the thread, no?
Also seriously....I cannot take half of those quotes there seriously- ''level bordering on self harm, they imply the person might have mental problems''

*wanders off to bang head off table and other such loopy actions as I am clearly not well in the head*

:rolleyes:

katydid

lanos wrote: »

program on RTE 2 now about irish people on the dole
and theres this girl with multiple piercings and these hideous
earlobe stretching things

how does this girl expect anybody to employ her


image below is not same as girl on RTE2

Absolutely stomach churning. I've no problem with piercings in general, but those make me want to puke. I teach young people, and several of them have those things. I've had to tell them straight out I can't look them in the face because I find them (the ears, not the students) revolting.