This man is a scumbag...

bodice ripper

http://news.bme.com/2013/01/30/lesya-and-rouslan/#more-43538


The same eejit who did the stars tattoo. Seems he is into marking conquests for life. The support from BME and others is disgusting.

SkyBlooo

He didn't force her to get that tattoo. Shocking tattoo but what makes him a scumbag?

bodice ripper

Tattooing his name on the face of a woman he met for the first time that day?

Really?

SkyBlooo

Am I missing something? She willingly let him do it.

bodice ripper

SkyBlooo wrote: »

Am I missing something? She willingly let him do it.

and some women let men beat them, the men are still scumbags.

Extinction

bodice ripper wrote: »

and some women let men beat them, the men are still scumbags.

Tattoo's are legal, whats the problem?

SkyBlooo

I think that tattoo is awful and I also think how quickly they're getting married is pretty shocking too, but you're comparing domestic abuse with a face tattoo which she willingly wanted.

bodice ripper

Extinction wrote: »

Tattoo's are legal, whats the problem?

I didn't say "criminal", so what's your point?

Don't see what the issue is and comparing the tattoo artist to a man who beats his wife or girlfriend is ridiculous.

Extinction

bodice ripper wrote: »

I didn't say "criminal", so what's your point?

The point is that you compared tattooing to a criminal act and called the artist a scumbag for no reason other than your own views. Tattoos are legal, beating someone isn't. She willing accepted the ink and is not a victim of crime. What exactly is your point and why do you call him a scumbag?

Marty McFly

I posted the same link in the o.t.b thread earlier today. I think he is a bit of a gob****e but so is she at the same time the two of them are to blame, she met a man online and within a week off meetig him allowed him to tattoo her face her first tattoo at that aswell.

He obviously gets some sort of pleasure out of it basically branding him hers for life but shes as much a fool for allowing him to do it, its not like he held her down and made her do it shes a willing all be it slightly unhinged participant ( even at tht calling her unhinged is harsh since I don't know the full ins and outs of it), comparing him to a woman beater is harsh though imo.


But your right that bme article does make light of it and almost seems to applaud it to a certain extent as playing it out as a true love story.

Esoteric_

Honestly, I really respect your posts, bodice-ripper, but saying women 'let' men beat them is absolutely disgusting. If you had any inkling into the emotional and mental trauma that occurs when a man beats a woman (or vice versa) on a regular basis, you wouldn't dream of saying something so completely insulting. :-/ Unless you've been in that position yourself, you have no idea how much it destroys you.


Moving on, this is nothing like abuse. There's clearly an element of him liking the control and 'branding' the woman as his 'property,' but she was a willing participant.

Frankly, it looks like a ridiculous publicity stunt.

That said, has anyone noticed that on her face, his name is misspelled? Not only is it spelled without an O, it's also got 2 s letters, one on each side of the nose. :pac:

bodice ripper

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Honestly, I really respect your posts, bodice-ripper, but saying women 'let' men beat them is absolutely disgusting. If you had any inkling into the emotional and mental trauma that occurs when a man beats a woman (or vice versa) on a regular basis, you wouldn't dream of saying something so completely insulting. :-/ Unless you've been in that position yourself, you have no idea how much it destroys you.


Moving on, this is nothing like abuse. There's clearly an element of him liking the control and 'branding' the woman as his 'property,' but she was a willing participant.

Frankly, it looks like a ridiculous publicity stunt.

That said, has anyone noticed that on her face, his name is misspelled? Not only is it spelled without an O, it's also got 2 s letters, one on each side of the nose. :pac:

I have had the **** kicked out of me by my boyfriend in the past, cheers.

I am deeply disturbed by the idea the anyone would defend this creep. I will also be surprised if his doesn't get a trip in a van with either relatives or other tattoo artists eventually.

Esoteric_

bodice ripper wrote: »

I have had the **** kicked out of me by my boyfriend in the past, cheers.

I am deeply disturbed by the idea the anyone would defend this creep. I will also be surprised if his doesn't get a trip in a van with either relatives or other tattoo artists eventually.

Well then you more than anyone should understand that what you said about women letting men beat them is absolutely disgusting.

Nobody here has defended him. We've said that the woman was tattooed of her own free will. She's not a puppet, she made the choice to have it done.

Extinction

How can he have done anything wrong when she was a willing participant? Why be so harsh as to call him a scumbag for doing something that she consented to?

bodice ripper

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Well then you more than anyone should understand that what you said about women letting men beat them is absolutely disgusting.

Nobody here has defended him. We've said that the woman was tattooed of her own free will. She's not a puppet, she made the choice to have it done.

Of course it is disgusting. There are other factors involved, even if the women stay of their "free will". that was kind of the point I was making.

The man is a scumbag. Yes she is also an eejit for her part, but this man is in a position of power here, and just getting off on this ****. Plus, he is the tattooer here. I expect better ethics. Well, I say expect...

Marty McFly

bodice ripper wrote: »

Of course it is disgusting. There are other factors involved, even if the women stay of their "free will". that was kind of the point I was making.

The man is a scumbag. Yes she is also an eejit for her part, but this man is in a position of power here, and just getting off on this ****. Plus, he is the tattooer here. I expect better ethics. Well, I say expect...

We all expect and wish for better ethics but sadly any arsehole can pick up a tattoo gun and start tattooing people, sure just look at the video that went viral last week of the infant getting a tattoo to see how little ethics some people have.

Extinction

Ethics don't even come into it, many people get their faces tattooed, its something that has happened for thousands of years. If neither of the participants are offended about it then why should anyone else get on their high horse and claim it's offensive. Should we all not just mind our own business unless an actual crime or offensive act has actually taken place?

bodice ripper

In the Netherlands, it is legal to tattoo someone from 16 with ID.

I regularly get 16 year old girls who want their boyfriends name tattooed on them (often on their pubic area...).

I say no, because it is the wrong thing to ****ing do.

I am pretty certain I would be roundly condemned by this board if i did otherwise.

Would it be better if I were sleeping with them too?

bodice ripper

Extinction wrote: »

Ethics don't even come into it, many people get their faces tattooed, its something that has happened for thousands of years. If neither of the participants are offended about it then why should anyone else get on their high horse and claim it's offensive. Should we all not just mind our own business unless an actual crime or offensive act has actually taken place?

it is my business.

Extinction

bodice ripper wrote: »

it is my business.

How is somebody elses life and their decisions in their own life your business?

Chikablam

What exactly do you find scumbaggy about this?
Is it him tattoo her?
Or is the fact that it was his name that he tattooed?
Or the fact that it was on his face?

Also, is the fact that he found nothing wrong with the tattoo that makes him a scumbag?

bodice ripper

Extinction wrote: »

How is somebody elses life and their decisions in their own life your business?

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

catallus

The guy is obviously a publicity seeking predator. He found this chick on the internet, promised her marriage and then used his hold over her to convince her that having her face disfigured was a good idea. A lot of people would naturally have a problem with this.

Esoteric_

bodice ripper wrote: »

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

I'm not being smart, but I have absolutely never heard of any tattoo artist being described as such. My family despise tattoos and think people who get them are muppets, but they've never once had worries that I'd be creeped on while getting one. I don't know anyone who views an artist in a studio (as opposed to a scratcher) in the way you describe.

Yeah, it's a ridiculous thing to do, but she's an adult. She's not 16, she's a well educated adult who decided she wanted that particular tattoo. A quick search of her Facebook page also shows that it is NOT her first tattoo, as they're claiming on BME.

Marty McFly

To be honest at least in this there both consenting adults gob****es but consenting adults, I have and I think most should have a much bigger problem and anger directed at the mother and tattooer who tattoo'd the infant in the video I mentioned.

Now thats a real pair of scumbags and If I was an artist I would have a much bigger problem with that and how it represents the industry.

Stark

Kind of looks like she had "BUS" tatttoed on her face.

Extinction

I don't know anyone who thinks of tattoo artists as creepy but then again I have no hang ups about them and I have many tattoos. The girl is an adult and as such can make her own decisions. As for your assertion that it is somehow your business to be a moral guardian regarding tattoos, well its not, its an adults own choice to have what they want.

bodice ripper

Esoteric_ wrote: »

I'm not being smart, but I have absolutely never heard of any tattoo artist being described as such. My family despise tattoos and think people who get them are muppets, but they've never once had worries that I'd be creeped on while getting one. I don't know anyone who views an artist in a studio (as opposed to a scratcher) in the way you describe.

Yeah, it's a ridiculous thing to do, but she's an adult. She's not 16, she's a well educated adult who decided she wanted that particular tattoo. A quick search of her Facebook page also shows that it is NOT her first tattoo, as they're claiming on BME.

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"

Marty McFly

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 get what you saying no one here is condoning his actions at all, I havent seen one post say he's a lovely chap sure leave him alone, but what people are saying is she is a consenting adult and allowed this to happen she willlingly took part that makes a huge difference.

Do you not think the video I mentioned is a much more serious matter?

bodice ripper

Marty McFly wrote: »

To be honest at least in this there both consenting adults gob****es but consenting adults, I have and I think most should have a much bigger problem and anger directed at the mother and tattooer who tattoo'd the infant in the video I mentioned.

Now thats a real pair of scumbags and If I was an artist I would have a much bigger problem with that and how it represents the industry.

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.

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.