Thread: Slept through 55 tattoos???? - The plot thickens

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't think that deciding everything until they are 17 and then hoisting responsibility over the side when they turn 18 is a good idea.

In this case the father could have stayed and and help her choose the design, asking if a facefull of starts is the right idea. Or he could have argued to go forward with the initial 3, and then think about the rest some more, or whatever.

That is what a responsible father would do. Give advice. Dropping her off for her first tattoo and then leaving her on her own while having a couple of beers is -not- what a responsible father would do.

Good advice.

Let me ask this: Is the father of the tattoo artist also to be held responsible for how his son's face is now adorned?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

1. Choosing to look different is choosing to take the consequences as well.
2. Isn't that the whole idea of choosing to be different in the first place?

1. Yes. But that doesn't justify people dishing out these consequences.
2. Perhaps, but I have no idea why this particular guy chose to be different. I'm not going to take a wild guess, then treat him appropriately based on this guess.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'd just want to be there for my kids because I think it's important that I'm there whenever possible when they're taking big stept in their lives.

I understand that. But if she is a CONSENTING ADULT then the choice is hers and hers alone. They have to leave the nest some day, dude. As an adult, she made a choice. As an adult, she will (ALONE!) bear the consequences. For all we know, her dad said "don't do it, you're an idiot" and she did it anyhow. Sometimes being forbidden to do a thing makes it that much more gratifying.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

In some (but not all) cases with age comes wisdom. A responsible parent will try to guide their child, even after they have reached the age of legal consent, through the shoals and reefs of life. This girls parent failed in that duty whether from a lack of wisdom or sense of responsibility. All of the moral relativism and high highfalutin talk aside the kid now has a hard road to hoe and will for the rest of her life because of her night out. Those who defend the "artist" for doing it and her "right" to disfigure her face know that or they ought to.

OTOH, maybe it is that much of a different world and my twenty years of working in street tattoo shops in No Jersey, South Beach, Daytona, and West Palm don't mean squat. You guys who defend the "artist" and the girl's right to be wrong would know better than I do about tattoos and being heavily tattooed and what goes with that socially so I defer to your surperior intellect.

there's no need to be snippy. no one is denying your experience or that you know all about tattoos. but what you are missing is that a consenting adult paid the artist money for a service. he provided that service. you may disagree with the aesthetics of that service, but to question the ethics of it baffles me.

it seems that both of you are saying that in an ideal world her father would have raised her from childhood to dislike facial tattoos (or other extreme bodymod) and never WANT one. leaving that aside, she was in her adulthood and decided she wanted to have the ink done, and so she did. I'm really astonished that so many people are as worked up about this as they are.

I guess I'm just espousing the worldview that once kids get to be adults, their parents don't have authority over them, and it's none of their business what their adult children do.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

In Utopia maybe but down here on the ground it really does bring those consequences.

So this guy should not get his tattoos because the fragile minds of the "normal" people will explode?

Or he should get his tattoos, and just accept the consequences, because he knew what was bound to happen. He should just suck it up, right?

If people like him didn't exist I wonder who the "outsiders" of the norm would be. And of course, they would deserve everything they got too.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Good advice.

Let me ask this: Is the father of the tattoo artist also to be held responsible for how his son's face is now adorned?

I don't know, and neither do you. We don't know when and how he got the tats and his studs and piercings. We don't know if his father was involved, or even consulted, or whatever.

But the father of the girl was there on the spot. He was in the position to decide if he would stay and give advice and keep an eye out for her, reassure her, etc or if he would leave for beer.

I do not -blame- this on the father. I do not think he was responsible for what happened. But he wasn't being a responsible father either (taking his girls best interest at heart). Those are 2 slightly different uses of the word 'responsible'.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't know, and neither do you. We don't know when and how he got the tats and his studs and piercings. We don't know if his father was involved, or even consulted, or whatever.

But the father of the girl was there on the spot. He was in the position to decide if he would stay and give advice and keep an eye out for her, reassure her, etc or if he would leave for beer.

I do not -blame- this on the father. I do not think he was responsible for what happened. But he wasn't being a responsible father either (taking his girls best interest at heart). Those are 2 slightly different uses of the word 'responsible'.

True........

Originally Posted by joesixpack
The simple and obvious conclusion that I draw from this guy's choice is that he wishes to be an outsider.

An outsider...to society? Wanting to be different from the norm doesn't necessarily mean he wants to be an outsider.

Short of him actually walking up to you and telling you he wants to be an outsider, what sort of action could a fellow take that would indicate this to you? Or would it really be impossible because you choose not to understand non-verbal communication?

Originally Posted by joesixpack
1. Do you honestly think for a second that he doesn't wish to make people uncomfortable?
2. Look around you, how often do people do this?
3. Yeah, you can say all you want about tribal traditions or whatever, but we don't live there, do we?
4. Do you really think you can draw no conclusions about this guy?
5. Was his decision based on nothing?
6. Are we to believe that he is so naive that he had no clue that his appearance would be objectionable to many, if not most, people in his community?
7. Did he just decide one day to hang that much hardware on his face and tattoo it up and not expect any sort of reaction?

1. I have no idea, since I'm not a mind reader. I'm not going to just assume the worst of him though, even if it is easy.
2. Hardly ever. I don't understand why choosing to look different from a society norm should have negative consequences.
3. I don't understand why tribal/religious reasons are the only acceptable ones for extreme tattooage.
4. He likes tatoos. That's about it.
5. See 1.
6. He knows, of course. Whether he cares or not is unknown (unless he joins up and tells us). In any case, his possible disregard for his community's negative reaction does not justify said reaction.
7. Answer to 6. applies here.

1. Let me ask you this, does it suprise you that his facial tattoos and peircings would make some people uncomfortable? I don't have to feel uncomfortable to know when someone's trying to make me feel uncomfortable. Just like I don't have to take umbrage when someone insults my mother to my face for me to know that they are trying to offend me.

Better still, if you see a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot", do you say to yourself "I'm not a mind reader, maybe someone just likes the color of that sign and the shape of the letters and they have no desire to keep people off of their property. After all, they haven't really done anything to tell me so"

2. You don't see people walking around with sandwitch boards that say "F#@K YOU A$$-#)!E" either do you? And this whole "negative consequences thing, what do you mean by that? Are people here suggesting that we persecute the guy? No, the negative consequences this guy faces is that people think he's either starved for attention or trying to frighten others. I think less of him because of that, and I question his maturity and character. There's going to be some jobs that he won't be hired for and rightfully so.

3. I'm not suggesting that they are the only reasons for it, I'm pointing our that it is not the norm in western culture and everyone here knows it. When in Rome, as they say, do as the Romans, especially if doing otherwise takes so much effort and has obvious social consequences.

4. Seriously? Is that the only conclusion a rational person could draw? You really expect me to believe this?

5. Yes, we've established that you're not a mind reader, but I'm also beginning to think you've either got Aspergers Syndrome or you're being disingenuous. I suspect the latter, though not being mind reader, I don't know for sure.

6. First of all, I am wondering what said "negative reaction" is other than people thinking less of him. No one here is suggesting having the guy flogged or jailed. A few years back, young guys here in the States took to dressing like gang members and thugs thinking it would make them look tough and dangerous. Surprise of all surprises, the police often treated them as such. It's not really surprising, is it. I mean, after all, people treat men in police uniforms as police, right?

Originally Posted by joesixpack
we're judging based on the decision he made to take on that appearance. Try to understand the distinction. The things I say will make more sense if you do.

I understand the distiction. I think it's irrelevant; the criticisms on drawing conclusions about him still apply.

If you think it's irrelevant, then you clearly don't understand the distinction. We can only judge a person based on their actions. Taking on the appearance as he has done is clearly an action.

Originally Posted by jockeys

there's no need to be snippy. no one is denying your experience or that you know all about tattoos. but what you are missing is that a consenting adult paid the artist money for a service. he provided that service. you may disagree with the aesthetics of that service, but to question the ethics of it baffles me.

I am glad you put it that way. When I got into the business tattoos were not fashionable. It was a definite sub-culture. Maybe it still is to an extent and maybe not. At that time no respectable tattooist would give someone a facial tattoo. For many the same prohibition went with tattoos on the hands. The reason for that feeling of responsibility was that these tattoos brought negative social consequences particularly the facial tattoos.

As a professional I don't make decisions for people, I just apply tattoos. OTOH, if a person comes in and wants something that will bring social ostracism upon them I don't want to contribute to that for a few $$. I cannot help but look askance at someone in the business who doesn't have the same view.

I guess I am from the old school. I have been to the big city an seen the elephant. I hung out in NYC down the lower east and west side, in San Francisco and New Orleans in the '60s. I've seen plenty in my days and I've never seen anyone of the half dozen I've run across who didn't regret the choice of getting the facial tattoo.

Originally Posted by jcd

Or he should get his tattoos, and just accept the consequences, because he knew what was bound to happen. He should just suck it up, right?

.

Yes, that is exactly what is being said.

Originally Posted by Bruno

He has the same rights. I agree. Forcing me to have apositive opinion about him despite his choice is not one of that rights.

For example: assuming you have a partner, why did you pick him or her? You made a judgement on a number of things. One of those things was their appearance. Did you feel bad about falling in love with someone whose appearance you liked? Do you feel that it was weak and that you should have picked the ugly girl who was smitten by you, whom you met before meeting your current partner, and who might have been a better partner (rich, healthy, etc) from an objective perspective?

You, sir, are completely missing my point.

You feel free to judge peoples apearance. However, using their appearance to make assumptions of what kind of person that makes them, that is prejudice, and that is wrong.

And your definition of normal is one of them, but there are others, statistical frequency does not fit for everything. There are lots of things that are not statistically frequent but considered normal by the general population, and vice versa.