February 16, 2017

"His nipples have been removed in order to allow tattoo artists to have a smoother canvas to work on."

My favorite sentence in a U.K. Independent article titled: "Body Art: UK's most tattoed man who dyed his eyes calls for equal treatment of people with modifications/'I’m evolving into who I want to be and having the ultimate freedom of expression and control over my body.'"

Is he talking about outlawing employment discrimination against people whose whole face is tattooed? Yes. I'm not there, but I do agree with him about the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which bans some extreme procedures, like dyeing eyeballs:
"Under the law of the land, I’m a consensual victim of abuse. I don't feel like a victim of abuse. Everyone I talk to in the body modification world doesn't feel like a victim of abuse. But they say we are consenting to bodily harm. It’s ridiculous and it embarrasses us. The law is wrong."
Fine, but if consent is the key, don't abuse nonconsenting businesses by requiring them to hire you. Embrace the nanny state or reject it. 

36 comments:

Sebastian said...

"Fine, but if consent is the key, don't abuse nonconsenting businesses by requiring them to hire you. Embrace the nanny state or reject it." Sorry, doesn't work like that in Progressive World. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of conservative minds. Progs demand recognition of anyone's subjectivity and the ultimate power of the state to shove whatever they want down anyone's throat, consent and intellectual honesty be damned.

gspencer said...

Your choices.

Your consequences.

harryo said...

Tattoo's like leprosy, are disfiguring. People shun the disfigured. Embrace it, hate them back.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Why is it so hard to understand, let alone to accommodate, the clear and manifestly obvious fact that people don't want to be around that?

Fernandinande said...

District Judge Richard Scotti decided that Bayzle Morgan’s tattoos should be concealed in an effort to get him a fair trial

Donald Trump’s Barber Reveals “Hair Piece Is Used To Cover Swastika Tattoo” - with photoshopic evidence!

Peter said...

He should declare he got the tats to treat his body dismorphic disorder, and demand the National Health Service pay for them. And for his support, should he be unable to obtain employment.

Todd said...

More power to him, if it makes him happy. He is doing this to himself and as an adult should be free to.

As with any choice, he is also making life and life-style choices that have been and will continue to affect his life to some degree. As an adult, he should be able to.

Todd said...

And as others have said, his freedom to make choices should not impact everyone else's freedom to make choices as well.

Rick said...

don't abuse nonconsenting businesses by requiring them to hire you. Embrace the nanny state or reject it.

This will never happen. If something is allowed people must also be protected from judgements based on it.

Bay Area Guy said...

Does it really take a PhD in psychology to see this man's deep need for attention?

Whenever I see a youngster, man or woman, with a bunch of tattoos, I always wonder how it will play out in old age....

DKWalser said...

Laws against employment discrimination put businesses in a tough and unfair position. Many people find being served by someone who is heavily tattooed unappetizing. In professional work, many find tattoos to be unprofessional and those who display them openly to be less qualified than those who do not. Admittedly, these societal and cultural prejudices are out of date. Tattoos are no longer reserved for sailors who are too drunk to know what they're doing. But its may take a long time before the prejudices die out.

So, hiring the heavily tattooed can affect company sales, yet businesses cannot take that into account in their hiring practices?

Bay Area Guy said...

Hah, I would not hire this Dude. Clearly, his focus is on something other than work, saving, family, deadlines, etc, etc.

The Cracker Emcee said...

As I tell the sons, "bad life choices". It isn't remotely difficult.

joshbraid said...

How does one define "consent", then? Isn't that the real problem here? Does consent allow someone to agree to be eaten? To be killed? Is there any legal definition that includes what is considered harmful? Or do we just go all libertarian?

John said...

My body, my choice. His body, his choice.

Not just for women and not just about abortion.

I think the guy is pretty stupid and I would never hire him for any position nor, probably, patronize a business that did. Those tattoos are a way of saying "Fuck you" to me and the rest of the world. Well, "fuck you" right back.

I would never stop you from any of this stupidity. But I don't have to accept it and won't.

John Henry

buwaya said...

Extreme vanity.

Angel-Dyne said...

Another day, another "I demand the freedom to do whatever the hell I want to do, no matter how bizarre or off-putting to normal people, but I demand everyone else be denied the freedom to ever, ever disapprove of me or judge me negatively in any way" clown.

ALP said...

I read the article and got the impression he spent most of his life chasing body modification - so no time spent developing a marketable skill. Maybe that's the bigger issue. I can think of all kinds of jobs for someone like this individual: theme park bartender, costume shop owner, art supply shop, lead singer (a band with modified members sounds intriguing). Why not make your life's work the heart of your vocation rather than this hissy fit about more laws?

Just choose a vocation consistent with your values and interests - LIKE THE REST OF US.

Expat(ish) said...

I think we are missing the bigger point - can he make that thing growing out of his chin light up. He could then get work promoting raves.

Problem solved.

Laslo, I think you could come up with other options....

_XC

mockturtle said...

Yes, you may do what you want with your body but you can't demand 'equal treatment' because of your stupid choices. Maybe you could join a circus.

PB said...

He's not "evolving".

Sebastian said...

"his freedom to make choices should not impact everyone else's freedom to make choices as well." Sorry, too late. His freedom inevitably affects others' freedom. Once you have a welfare state, especially of course a National Health Service, and "anti-discrimination" laws, everyone's "freedom" to act out their own insanity is everyone else's business.

n.n said...

PB:

Evolution is a chaotic process. His evolution follows his conception, his choice, of a fitness function. Now it's up to the other boys and girls to decide whether to normalize, tolerate, or reject his orientation and expression.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Just a couple of steps to: He cut off his genitals so that his skinny jeans would fit better/drape flat-er.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

YT: You can milk anything with nipples

He's safe, at last.

Todd said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Just a couple of steps to: He cut off his genitals so that his skinny jeans would fit better/drape flat-er.

2/16/17, 12:06 PM


OK, so, if a young man did this, as a "life style choice" but still "felt" like a man, could he use a woman's rest room is SF due to the lack of the socially unacceptable and "offensive" penis?

Would it make any difference if instead of a young man, he was a 300 pound, hairy, 5 foot 6, balding Hispanic who was also 1/32 Cherokee with a non-socially appropriating hair cut?

n.n said...

We've been on a progressive slope since The Hippocratic Oath was deprecated in favor of Pro-Choice.

madAsHell said...

We've just added inkism, and inkist to the Newspeak dictionary.

madAsHell said...

Sandra Fluck will testify the she needs $300 a month for ink. Otherwise, you're an inkist.

traditionalguy said...

Once lawlessness is approved as what ought to be legal, then there is no escaping Chaos from enforcing the so called "rights."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Todd said...OK, so, if a young man did this,

A young "man," Todd? How regressively cisnormal of you. For shame. I'll just assume you'll punish yourself appropriately for that microagression.

Ben Hammer said...

Is the science settled? You're dying your eyeballs with a foreign substance! I can't believe this is, long term, healthy.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Neighbor couple were visiting the other evening, began discussing their next child. They both really like the tail thing and are looking into having some macaque DNA blended into the zygote.

No problem with consent there; life begins at parturition.

Breezy said...

Some people do not want to normalize Trump. I say, let's not normalize people who think they are lizards.

Rt1 Rebel said...

A friend of mine is a breast cancer survivor, and she sought out and received tattoos for her breast rebuilds from a renowned artist in MD that specializes in "3D" nipple tattoos. She showed my GF and me, and I can say he does great and noble work.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/a-tattoo-that-completes-a-new-breast/?_r=0

Dulcinea el Toboso said...

I work in a prison and know guys who have tattooed their sclera (while locked up!) who are now going blind. Not to mention the infections and diseases transmitted by jailhouse tattoos....They'll burn paper for soot and use library books to snuff the flame in a cup or jar. Or they'll steal the ink from pens. The motors are all homemade and powered by electrical outlets.

The guys who get prominent or offensive ink are lifers, gang members, or really young and don't see a future for themselves in normal society. Or they like the reactions they get. I just wish they would wait to get inked by a professional with an autoclave!