This man is a scumbag...

Esoteric_

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am glad you have had rosy experiences with tattoos and society in general. I haven't, and I am sure I have seen it frequently bemoaned on this board that people are stereotyped by their tattoos. This chap has made the news by being an unethical, creepy man who tattoos the faces of young women, and has promotional material with their marked lover naked and groped.

Seriously, what the **** more would anyone need to say "**** this guy"

I never said I have only had good experiences and have never been stereotyped for having tattoos. I'm insulted by people all the time who have issues with tattoos. I've still never heard the artists being called 'creeps.'

The guy's a bit of an eejit, the girl moreso. What else is there to say really?

Marty McFly

bodice ripper wrote: »

The assholes who tattooed that baby are not recieving praise from the likes of bme, nor becoming celebrities or promoting their studio. I'd like to see all involved horsewhipped in public.

This bit I do agree whole heartedly with, BME and anyone else promoting this in a positive light should be ashamed of themselves but then again bme has always been a bit extreme. It shouldn't be made out in a positive way.

Star Lord

My personal opinion is that the guy is a predator alright, tattooing the faces of young women like this in order to get his name out there more, and to boost his own ego.

And like it or not, believe it or not, tattooists are often viewed as scumbags by the general public. What we experience and what we think is often vastly different to what the general, ink-free public will think. That always leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but peoples opinions, be that sexism, racism, sectarianism, or any other discriminatory opinions are not something that will be easily stamped out. This actively pushes things that will further fuel discriminatory views on those that are tattooed. And usually the most heavily tattooed people are the tattooists themselves.

So I'm with Bodice Ripper, the guy is a scumbag, using others to boost his own ego!

Esoteric_

Using others to boost his own ego, I agree he definitely did.

But she agreed.

If Remis asked me could he tattoo his name on my face, I'd think he's an eejit and an opportunist, and I'd say no. Doesn't make him a scumbag because one person was stupid enough to agree to it.

Dr. Jonathan Crane

bodice ripper wrote: »

Because I am a tattoo artist. and tattoo artists are frequently seen as creepy, exploitative men with no morals.

I'm sorry, what? I have absolutely never met or heard of anyone who feels that way.

Anyway, horrible tattoo, horrible idea and reason behind it. In my opinion. But both are consenting adults and there's a big difference between making a poor choice on a tattoo and letting someone abuse you and I think it's about the worst comparison that could be made. It's not about defending the artist, he's obviously a bit of an eejit, but she's the one who should take the brunt of the blame if she regrets the tattoo, just like anyone else who regrets a tattoo. Estoteric basically covered how I feel about it anyway.

As far as BME goes, Shannon has seen a lot more than anyone here and would be a hypocrite to get up in arms over a facial tattoo done on a consenting adult, regardless of what it is. This story did kind of remind me of this though, a case in which the artist was an abusive scumbag. If anyone remembers the girl who got Drake tattooed on her forehead, this is Shannon's thoughts on the story.
http://www.zentastic.com/blog/2011/12/14/things-that-make-me-angry-disgusted-and-angry/

bodice ripper

So, Shannon is a hypocrite in a big way:

"I wish that the piece of **** who did the DRAKE forehead tattoo had even a fraction of the decency and respect for his customers and basic empathy that in my opinion is required of a tattoo artist. Maybe it could have been a wonderful story too rather than the internet Darwin joke meme of the day. I think there is a very good chance that this girl was manic depressive or otherwise not in the right frame of mind to commit to such a tattoo. Asking “are you sure” “three times” in a five minute period just isn’t good enough. It’s not good enough ethically and it’s not good enough legally. Would “come back in a week” (and keeping his insults to himself) have been good enough? I don’t know. But it would have been a lot better. When a plastic surgeon does a procedure on someone, they are legally obligated to ensure that the person fully understands the implications of the procedure. Tattoo artists are similarly obligated. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but the obligation is still there. To ignore that obligation, and then to take it a step further and turn your customer into a worldwide laughing stock by slagging them online compounds the damage. Can you imagine if your tattoo artist pulled this stunt on you? Imagine how you would feel? Now what if the tattoo was on your face? What if you got the tattoo as a part of your mental illness? How much worse did that person just make it?

It really makes me sick. Disgusts me.

Of course I think that ultimately people have the right to get the tattoo they want, no matter what anyone else thinks, but that doesn’t absolve the professional community of responsibility. Tattoo artists are not machine-like prostitutes. They play a complex role that is equal part craftsman, artist, and therapist. Do not overlook the last part. Therapist. Body modification is a profound, life-changing, even spiritual experience. What this tattoo artist did falls analogous to raping and robbing a cripple. He spit on the entire profession and the entire body modification community with his profound lack of respect for the customer, the community, himself, and his industry peers."

Anyone want to come back to that? I doubt it.

Esoteric_

bodice ripper wrote: »

So, Shannon is a hypocrite in a big way:

"I wish that the piece of **** who did the DRAKE forehead tattoo had even a fraction of the decency and respect for his customers and basic empathy that in my opinion is required of a tattoo artist. Maybe it could have been a wonderful story too rather than the internet Darwin joke meme of the day. I think there is a very good chance that this girl was manic depressive or otherwise not in the right frame of mind to commit to such a tattoo. Asking “are you sure” “three times” in a five minute period just isn’t good enough. It’s not good enough ethically and it’s not good enough legally. Would “come back in a week” (and keeping his insults to himself) have been good enough? I don’t know. But it would have been a lot better. When a plastic surgeon does a procedure on someone, they are legally obligated to ensure that the person fully understands the implications of the procedure. Tattoo artists are similarly obligated. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but the obligation is still there. To ignore that obligation, and then to take it a step further and turn your customer into a worldwide laughing stock by slagging them online compounds the damage. Can you imagine if your tattoo artist pulled this stunt on you? Imagine how you would feel? Now what if the tattoo was on your face? What if you got the tattoo as a part of your mental illness? How much worse did that person just make it?

It really makes me sick. Disgusts me.

Of course I think that ultimately people have the right to get the tattoo they want, no matter what anyone else thinks, but that doesn’t absolve the professional community of responsibility. Tattoo artists are not machine-like prostitutes. They play a complex role that is equal part craftsman, artist, and therapist. Do not overlook the last part. Therapist. Body modification is a profound, life-changing, even spiritual experience. What this tattoo artist did falls analogous to raping and robbing a cripple. He spit on the entire profession and the entire body modification community with his profound lack of respect for the customer, the community, himself, and his industry peers."

Anyone want to come back to that? I doubt it.

I agree that she's a hypocrite.

There's nothing to come back at that. None of us have actually condoned the tattooist's actions.

bodice ripper

Esoteric_ wrote: »

I agree that she's a hypocrite.

There's nothing to come back at that. None of us have actually condoned the tattooist's actions.

If those actions don't qualify someone for "scumbag", you don't hold tattooers to high enough standards.

Esoteric_

bodice ripper wrote: »

If those actions don't qualify someone for "scumbag", you don't hold tattooers to high enough standards.

I consider scumbags to be people like rapists, murderers and violent criminals. Not egotistical tattoo artists. But that's all down to personal opinion, I guess.

tread_softly

I feel slightly ill after reading about that.

Both involved are complete dopes imo.

I'm all for love at first sight, believing you'll be together forever etc. but to do that after ONE MONTH of being together!!????

I'm with my fiancé 7 years and would never even consider getting a big tattoo of his name. Realistically, because you don't know what will happen in the future. No couple are ever guaranteed to be together forever, sad but true.

Regardless of that, there is an uncomfortable power play at work here. Someone in the BME comments likened it to branding cattle which stood out for me. I find it disgusting.

Even look at the way he is holding her in the photo, I don't see blossoming love there, I see control.

I understand she has plans to extensively cover herself in tattoos but to begin with something like that....

If he genuinely loves her, would he really have done that to her??

bodice ripper

Esoteric_ wrote: »

I consider scumbags to be people like rapists, murderers and violent criminals. Not egotistical tattoo artists. But that's all down to personal opinion, I guess.

oh, for me sexual exploitation for financial gain is plenty to qualify.

FoxyVixen

tread_softly wrote: »

Even look at the way he is holding her in the photo, I don't see blossoming love there, I see control.

Ditto.

That image is incredibly disturbing reading the body language. His hand tight across her chest, his left foot pointing thereby angling his pelvic region and that finger is far too compact!! I admire nude photography, this is not a tasteful shot IMO. He has her controlled in so many angles it's disturbing.

So far as I can see he groomed her through the internet, so far as promising marraige?

Any reputable tattooist would refuse tattooing someones neck/hands with minimal/no body modifications - never mind 90% of their face!! So far as I can see and taking in the full picture available to us, he exploited a young woman - I could care less she gave consent. And I'll dare say he knew this move would escalate his false celebrity - again exploiting a young woman to meet his objectives.

Scumbag isn't usually a term used this side of the Shannon - from my experience it's usually used as a derogatory term in Dublin City and perhaps that's why some disagree calling him that?! I'm open to correction on that.

Irregardless, he's a low lying piece of organic life form that has only gone to highlight the tattoo industry in a negative light.

GT_TDI_150

For me the big thing is he could have put that tattoo ANYWHERE on her body, arms, hands, cleavage or even her neck and i wouldnt have considered it nearly as much of a violation of her.

I agree with comments above imo she was groomed online

Hail 2 Da Thief

She's obviously a dope but he must be a serious control freak to tattoo his name on her face! It's akin to a dog pissing on a pole to mark it's teritory!

Star Lord

Esoteric_ wrote: »

I consider scumbags to be people like rapists, murderers and violent criminals. Not egotistical tattoo artists. But that's all down to personal opinion, I guess.

What about grooming and essentially abusing and permanently 'branding' (in the place where it will have the most impact on her life) a young girl who very obviously is not in a good place mentally?

I would consider anyone that exploits someone else for their own gain to be a scumbag, particularly when the person on the receiving end is vulnerable.

Hellrazer

Bodice Ripper is right here.

That man is a out and out scumbag.

Regardless of whether she agreed / wanted it etc no honest reputable tattoo artist would tattoo someones face if they never had any other coverage.

The fact that this bloke has done it to "brand" his conquest is a classic sign of a dangerous sexual predator.Also the fact that she had it done leads me to think that maybe she was coerced into it...not by force but by this control freak.

Hes just giving tattooers a really bad name.

Princess Peach

The girl can't be fully mentally right, I would think, to agree to this, and he seems to have taken advantage of that to brand her.

I see it as an exercise of control anyway, scumbag!

GT_TDI_150

Gus, ive looked at her FB profile and she had 5-6 tattoos already, including 'AllForLove' just across her left eyebrow.

Plus she states she want to get tattood all over...

Something bout him doesnt sit right but im doubting my earlier asserting that she was groomed into the full face tat.

Hellrazer

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Gus, ive looked at her FB profile and she had 5-6 tattoos already, including 'AllForLove' just across her left eyebrow.

Plus she states she want to get tattood all over...

Something bout him doesnt sit right but im doubting my earlier asserting that she was groomed into the full face tat.

Its still not enough coverage to justify a facial tattoo.

FoxyVixen

IMO they're small tattoos she has and the point still stands that no reputable tattooist would ink 90% of someones face if they weren't already heavily tattooed ie. She has no sleeve or "full covering" tattooes.

His actions imitate that of grooming someone so I won't change my opinion on that matter. That photo is highly disturbing.

Whilst I can't ascertain whether she was "mentally capable" of taking the tattoo, I think we can all agree that young women (and indeed young men), can be naive and easily led.

He found her on the internet for chrissakes. How many did he chat to before coming across someone who fit the profile he was looking for?!

She was groomed and controlled plain as day.

Shlte tattoo but what does it matter to us.. If she consented, I don't see the issue.

Princess Peach

Ads by Google wrote: »

Shlte tattoo but what does it matter to us.. If she consented, I don't see the issue.

It doesn't matter to us, but it's current news. That's what a lot of threads on boards are about, discussing what's going on in the world.

There is no doubt that the guy is a twat but some of the accusations being thrown at him here are just wrong. The comments saying that the picture of them shows not a relationship of love but one of control is ridiculous. I wonder if myself and my girlfriend could pose in exactly the same manner would people be saying that I was grooming her rather than it simply being a case of two people posing.

As for the comment someone made about how tattoo artists are seen as scumbags or some such. What utter nonsense, I have never seen or heard anyone refer to a tattoo artist in such a derogatory manner. In fact most people have the upmost respect for them and recognise just how talented they can be. Sure their are some despicable tattoo artists but there are many despicable bankers, shop clerks, secretaries, teachers, etc, etc.

It's clear that the op has over reacted slightly to the story and I can see where they are coming from but their vitriol toward the man in question is unneeded and unfair. He may not be the nicest person in the world and may not showcase the best qualities of the average Tattoo artists but some of the accusations made by the op and others would make many view them as scumbags.

bodice ripper

Deleted User wrote: »

It's clear that the op has over reacted slightly to the story and I can see where they are coming from but their vitriol toward the man in question is unneeded and unfair. He may not be the nicest person in the world and may not showcase the best qualities of the average Tattoo artists but some of the accusations made by the op and others would make many view them as scumbags.

I'll not be told about tattoo ethics by an enthusiast.

Adiboo

While it is a very extreme tattoo to get done without already being extensively covered. It does bother me that people are judging her and the artist as having "groomed her" and has "control" over her, when we know nothing about them personally, or of their personal lives.

People have many different types of relationships with their other halves, some couples choose to have open relationships. Some people are in dom/sub relationships, that many would find extreme.

Who are we to judge what two consenting adults get up to in their own lives. Especially when they are not harming anybody else, and are just expressing themselves.

People are different. And I think more power to them.

bodice ripper

bodice ripper wrote: »

I'll not be told about tattoo ethics by an enthusiast.

So my opinion ob the ethics behind tattooing are less valid than yours because I'm not a professional tattooist? Utter crap, just because you work in the industry does not mean that your thoughts on this man carry any more weight than mine.

No one here has defended him and we all recognise just how stupid that tattoo is but many of the reactions, yours included have been completely over the top. A grown woman consented to be tattooed, (and not got the first time either) and you have the audacity to come on here and call the tattoo artist a scumbag and then liken his tattooing of the girl to psychically abusing her. Utter, utter nonsense.

A friend of mine has the a tattoo of the band name Rancid across the back of his head and as a bald 20 something it's not one he can ever cover up. Is that artist who gave him the tattoo a scumbag?

Star Lord

Darko wrote: »

So my opinion ob the ethics behind tattooing are less valid than yours because I'm not a professional tattooist? Utter crap, just because you work in the industry does not mean that your thoughts on this man carry any more weight than mine.

As a tattoo artist, she's in a better position to know how they are thought of and treated by the general public than someone who is already positively inclined towards tattoos and tattoo artists. Thinking otherwise is either misguided or a little naive.

DamoElDiablo

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

As a tattoo artist, she's in a better position to know how they are thought of and treated by the general public than someone who is already positively inclined towards tattoos and tattoo artists. Thinking otherwise is either misguided or a little naive.

One of my best friends works as a tattooist, as do three other people I'm friendly with and none of them have ever been looked down upon or treated in a negative manner by members of the general public because of their profession.

Esoteric_

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

What about grooming and essentially abusing and permanently 'branding' (in the place where it will have the most impact on her life) a young girl who very obviously is not in a good place mentally?

I would consider anyone that exploits someone else for their own gain to be a scumbag, particularly when the person on the receiving end is vulnerable.

How do we know he groomed and essentially abused her? There's no proof of that, it's all pure speculation. Commenting on her mental state is also speculation.

She's not a 'young girl,' she's a well-educated adult who one would assume is capable of making her own decisions.

Again, I do not in any way condone the guy doing the tattoo, but she herself has an equal amount of blame to take for doing something so stupid.

He found her on the internet for chrissakes. How many did he chat to before coming across someone who fit the profile he was looking for?!

What's to say he specifically sought her or somebody like her out? Many, MANY people meet each other online through sites that aren't dating sites, and end up together.


I think what he did in agreeing to tattoo that on her face (or suggest it, if indeed he did) is an unethical thing to do, and he's basically destroyed how she looks and the vast majority of job prospects she may have had, but all of the 'abuse' comments are ridiculous. We don't know the dynamics of their relationship. Many people enjoy dom/dub relationships, many people enjoy relationships with no sex, many people enjoy open relationships/polygamy. Everything that's being said here, my own thoughts included (because he could be abusing and grooming her for all I know) are speculation and nothing more than that.

Taking the speculative comments about abuse/control aside, if she asked for the tattoo, he should have said no. He definitely shouldn't have done it. But if she wanted it, surely she should be getting as much blame as this guy? If he's a scumbag, then she's a complete and utter moron.

Princess Peach

How old is she and what do you mean well educated? I only saw that one article about her, doesn't say much about her background at all.