And I thought my tattoo forever branded me a deviant… without a doubt 7yler has me beat in that department with his recently Tijuana donkey show tattoo by El Kike at Pinz and Needlez in Edgewood, MD. He’s going to hell for sure, or at least should expect to one day have someone use his tattoo against him in court.
Comments
214 responses to “No more wearing shorts for Tyler!”
use *snicker*
you sound racist.
though probably are
use *snicker*
you sound racist.
though probably are
Why of course.
In fact I am now off to have the word “minge-hair” burnt into my nose.
Why of course.
In fact I am now off to have the word “minge-hair” burnt into my nose.
make sure to send it into modblog
make sure to send it into modblog
I’m glad my tattoo sparked an engaging debate. It’s a joke tattoo, and any reasonable human being will realize that, even if they don’t have tattoos or modifications. It amazes me how many people spend the time to view modblog, so they are already exposed to so many extreme modifications, yet they flip about a tattoo on my leg that is covered up 70% of the time by some tight pants. I work in a tattoo shop so I am far from dealing with children every day. I encourage everyone to get at least one joke tattoo, even if it’s on your ass or somewhere that isn’t highly visable. Just have a little fun, stop taking life so seriously. There will be more to come, and I’m hoping that me and the artist can brew up some ideas that top this one.
I’m glad my tattoo sparked an engaging debate. It’s a joke tattoo, and any reasonable human being will realize that, even if they don’t have tattoos or modifications. It amazes me how many people spend the time to view modblog, so they are already exposed to so many extreme modifications, yet they flip about a tattoo on my leg that is covered up 70% of the time by some tight pants. I work in a tattoo shop so I am far from dealing with children every day. I encourage everyone to get at least one joke tattoo, even if it’s on your ass or somewhere that isn’t highly visable. Just have a little fun, stop taking life so seriously. There will be more to come, and I’m hoping that me and the artist can brew up some ideas that top this one.
Hahaha!! Damn thats a funny tattoo!!!!!!
Hahaha!! Damn thats a funny tattoo!!!!!!
I don’t think thats meant to be a slice of pizza…
I don’t think thats meant to be a slice of pizza…
I think TheLexPest is right.
I think TheLexPest is right.
I can’t see anything laughable at it. For me its just gross.
I can’t see anything laughable at it. For me its just gross.
So since this is a major part of the debate going on with this tattoo, I was wondering Tyler, if you know you’re going to be around children do you feel inclined to make sure the tattoo is covered up?
I agree with those who are saying on the one hand it’s largely up to parents to protect their children, and that if anyone is offended then it is up to them to look away. But a child (not a 12 year old that is exposed to things in the school systems, but more like a 5 year old) who sees explicit sexual images, cartoon or otherwise, are going to be trying to wrap their brains around what they’re seeing. Even a brief glimpse can do significant damage in their own sexual development, particularly in the case of little girls. No, children do not “own the earth” as someone stated, but they do inherit it. Some people are what you’d call sexually devious and express themselves without hurting anyone else, but some people who’s sexual development was skewed in some way DO go on to hurt others and I think that that is what we should be working against whether we’re parents or not. And because I know someone is going to twist what I just said, I am not saying that there will be a surge in perverts because of Tyler’s tattoo! If that’s what you got from this then read it again and take a minute to think about what I could be saying.
So since this is a major part of the debate going on with this tattoo, I was wondering Tyler, if you know you’re going to be around children do you feel inclined to make sure the tattoo is covered up?
I agree with those who are saying on the one hand it’s largely up to parents to protect their children, and that if anyone is offended then it is up to them to look away. But a child (not a 12 year old that is exposed to things in the school systems, but more like a 5 year old) who sees explicit sexual images, cartoon or otherwise, are going to be trying to wrap their brains around what they’re seeing. Even a brief glimpse can do significant damage in their own sexual development, particularly in the case of little girls. No, children do not “own the earth” as someone stated, but they do inherit it. Some people are what you’d call sexually devious and express themselves without hurting anyone else, but some people who’s sexual development was skewed in some way DO go on to hurt others and I think that that is what we should be working against whether we’re parents or not. And because I know someone is going to twist what I just said, I am not saying that there will be a surge in perverts because of Tyler’s tattoo! If that’s what you got from this then read it again and take a minute to think about what I could be saying.
i love the fucking tattoo. and i love the arguements that are goin on. mucho. tyler! i love it!
i love the fucking tattoo. and i love the arguements that are goin on. mucho. tyler! i love it!
i love the fucking tattoo. and i love the arguements that are goin on. mucho. tyler! i love it
i love the fucking tattoo. and i love the arguements that are goin on. mucho. tyler! i love it
PROPER BRUTAL!
PROPER BRUTAL!
And I love *Stitch* bahahah
And I love *Stitch* bahahah
I am almost never around children. I have three jobs, I work from 5am to 11pm every day and none of my jobs are oriented with children of that age. As I previously mentioned, the details of this tattoo are not distinguishable unless you are up close. I am 6’7″ tall with many visible tattoos, 1 3/8″ stretched lobes, long hair, and a beard. Children don’t exactly find me a lovable character, and most keep their distance. Therefore, being around children is not a concern of mine. I wouldn’t take out my jewelry from a piercing or try to appear less tall if I was around a child just because it was going to frighten them. These kids are already growing up in a fucked up generation, and I’m sure they’ve already overheard their parents pounding eachother in one way or another, so I doubt my tattoo will affect them in any way. Not to mention, it is not a realistic tattoo, so I wouldn’t expect a young child to even be able to depict the images or portrayed action.
& thank you to everyone who finds humor in it, for being a normal fun-loving human.
Stitch, go through with yours!
I am almost never around children. I have three jobs, I work from 5am to 11pm every day and none of my jobs are oriented with children of that age. As I previously mentioned, the details of this tattoo are not distinguishable unless you are up close. I am 6’7″ tall with many visible tattoos, 1 3/8″ stretched lobes, long hair, and a beard. Children don’t exactly find me a lovable character, and most keep their distance. Therefore, being around children is not a concern of mine. I wouldn’t take out my jewelry from a piercing or try to appear less tall if I was around a child just because it was going to frighten them. These kids are already growing up in a fucked up generation, and I’m sure they’ve already overheard their parents pounding eachother in one way or another, so I doubt my tattoo will affect them in any way. Not to mention, it is not a realistic tattoo, so I wouldn’t expect a young child to even be able to depict the images or portrayed action.
& thank you to everyone who finds humor in it, for being a normal fun-loving human.
Stitch, go through with yours!
I work with children and from my experience they have no problems integrating almost EVERYTHING they see into their ever growing map of the world. The problem arises when there is noone to explain and guide them in their attempts to understand and sort the influences.
It can’t be Tylers (or anyone elses) responsibility to cut the freedom to express oneself (or sense of humour) to shield young people so their own parents don’t have to bother to explain the variety of life to their children.
I work with children and from my experience they have no problems integrating almost EVERYTHING they see into their ever growing map of the world. The problem arises when there is noone to explain and guide them in their attempts to understand and sort the influences.
It can’t be Tylers (or anyone elses) responsibility to cut the freedom to express oneself (or sense of humour) to shield young people so their own parents don’t have to bother to explain the variety of life to their children.
That’s where good parenting comes in, and should act as a filter. But apparently some people don’t realize that and according to them I will be the cause of every kid that crosses my path becoming a sexual deviant. Right.
That’s where good parenting comes in, and should act as a filter. But apparently some people don’t realize that and according to them I will be the cause of every kid that crosses my path becoming a sexual deviant. Right.
Hey, Tyler, I’m all for you getting whatever you want tattooed on your body.
But – honestly, I am sick of people who love “joke” tattoos dismissing everyone who doesn’t like them as “taking life too seriously”.
I dislike joke tattoos. Personally, they don’t fit at all with the way I think about body art, I find them quite silly. Some people just don’t really like jokes in tattoo form. A separate problem altogether is that I don’t see anything funny in a picture of a donkey fucking a woman – I find it really unpleasant to look at, to be honest. And I believe I’m far from alone in either of these views.
I object to your suggestion that I am not a “normal, fun-loving human”. You’re sounding awfully like one of those people who will dismiss anyone who doesn’t laugh at their jokes as “having no sense of humour”.
Get whatever you want tattooed on you, seriously, I totally support your right and decision to have this tattoo done. But, for fucks sake, at least accept and understand that some people dislike your particular brand of humour – there’s a fair few of us – and that holding such an opinion is not incompatible with being normal, fun-loving, and having a sense of humour.
Hey, Tyler, I’m all for you getting whatever you want tattooed on your body.
But – honestly, I am sick of people who love “joke” tattoos dismissing everyone who doesn’t like them as “taking life too seriously”.
I dislike joke tattoos. Personally, they don’t fit at all with the way I think about body art, I find them quite silly. Some people just don’t really like jokes in tattoo form. A separate problem altogether is that I don’t see anything funny in a picture of a donkey fucking a woman – I find it really unpleasant to look at, to be honest. And I believe I’m far from alone in either of these views.
I object to your suggestion that I am not a “normal, fun-loving human”. You’re sounding awfully like one of those people who will dismiss anyone who doesn’t laugh at their jokes as “having no sense of humour”.
Get whatever you want tattooed on you, seriously, I totally support your right and decision to have this tattoo done. But, for fucks sake, at least accept and understand that some people dislike your particular brand of humour – there’s a fair few of us – and that holding such an opinion is not incompatible with being normal, fun-loving, and having a sense of humour.
Thats a cute tattoo!
Why can’t anyone just be fucking happy with a tattoo these days? Some one always has to pick out one reason or another to whine about. If you are seriously that unhappy with the tattoo, don’t look at it, don’t post a comment, and move on.
Thats a cute tattoo!
Why can’t anyone just be fucking happy with a tattoo these days? Some one always has to pick out one reason or another to whine about. If you are seriously that unhappy with the tattoo, don’t look at it, don’t post a comment, and move on.
You can dislike anything you desire to, but you’re going to have to deal with it if you’re browsing modblog, especially considering that there are many things of a humorous nature on this website. I’m glad you take body art seriously, and that shows that you have a respect for body modification. I also have many serious tattoos that hold great meaning to me, but I do not limit myself by that. My body represents me, so it will be filled with every aspect of my life, not just my serious side, even if that includes “sick” humor. Maybe it makes me sick in the head, or mentally deranged. If that is so then I wouldn’t want to live any other way. Opening your mind and finding humor in many things is an amazing thing to grasp, and leads to a more happy, stress-free life in my opinion. While I can understand where you are coming from with these views, I’m sure we lead two completely different lives. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your profession, and are you religious at all? If you aren’t comfortable with talking about this in a public place you can email me at [email protected]
You can dislike anything you desire to, but you’re going to have to deal with it if you’re browsing modblog, especially considering that there are many things of a humorous nature on this website. I’m glad you take body art seriously, and that shows that you have a respect for body modification. I also have many serious tattoos that hold great meaning to me, but I do not limit myself by that. My body represents me, so it will be filled with every aspect of my life, not just my serious side, even if that includes “sick” humor. Maybe it makes me sick in the head, or mentally deranged. If that is so then I wouldn’t want to live any other way. Opening your mind and finding humor in many things is an amazing thing to grasp, and leads to a more happy, stress-free life in my opinion. While I can understand where you are coming from with these views, I’m sure we lead two completely different lives. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your profession, and are you religious at all? If you aren’t comfortable with talking about this in a public place you can email me at [email protected]
um, everyone please get over yourselves and your holier-than-thou authoritative comments about someone ELSES tattoo decisions.
pauly, you’re a bad ass, and I’m not exactly sure why anyone would try to argue with you seeing as you shut people down with no more than 5 sentences.
tyler, i think its cute that you posted your tmail for that other person to email you at, via hiptop for life!
um, everyone please get over yourselves and your holier-than-thou authoritative comments about someone ELSES tattoo decisions.
pauly, you’re a bad ass, and I’m not exactly sure why anyone would try to argue with you seeing as you shut people down with no more than 5 sentences.
tyler, i think its cute that you posted your tmail for that other person to email you at, via hiptop for life!
I’m pretty sure the “Jesus is a Cunt” T-shirt is actually cradle of filth…not marilyn manson. And, while the shirt is offensive, I think it can be viewed as artistic (though crude).
The shirt also has a picture of a nun masturbating, with the text on the back. The meaning one could derive from this is that Jesus (or god or what not) has simply taken the place of typical sexual desire–or impeded it. Especially considering the numerous bans on various sexual acts perpetrated by almost all religions. While the shirt is crude and offensive, it does contain a subtext that is largely lost precisely BECAUSE people see ONLY “offensive”.
I believe that, if we were so inclined, tyler’s tattoo could be seen as taking a similar “artistic stance”. That is: overtly offensive, with a more thoughtful subtext. Why are we so offended by this tattoo? One, public display of sex acts. Two, transgression of culturally assumed prohibited sex acts. Both of which are, arguably, harmless. Is not the subtext of the art also it’s offensiveness? In other words, the transgression is calling our assumed prohibitions into question, and by doing so in a public forum, allowing for an open discussion OF those assumptions.
As for the children, if we take that, historically, families lived in the same room, children were probably exposed, on a regular basis, to the act of sex–at least between their parents. In contemporary, one could argue that the prohibitive nature of the act of sex that is put for before children is what CAUSES the distress that children feel when first exposed to it. Perhaps, if children were MORE exposed to the natural and positive nature of sex, they wouldn’t be so shocked by it. (and one has to wonder exactly how much children are shocked by sex.) What I’m saying is: is it the children or the parents who we are to be concerned with shocking?
All that said, I applaud humorous tattoos. I think that serious art and humorous/absurd art are both absolutely necessary. Parody and satire are as enlightening as drama and tragedy. To have one without the other would be to darken an already murky world. If one needs further evidence, didn’t Shakespeare, arguably one of the best English dramatists and poets, compose both? Par excellence?
I’m pretty sure the “Jesus is a Cunt” T-shirt is actually cradle of filth…not marilyn manson. And, while the shirt is offensive, I think it can be viewed as artistic (though crude).
The shirt also has a picture of a nun masturbating, with the text on the back. The meaning one could derive from this is that Jesus (or god or what not) has simply taken the place of typical sexual desire–or impeded it. Especially considering the numerous bans on various sexual acts perpetrated by almost all religions. While the shirt is crude and offensive, it does contain a subtext that is largely lost precisely BECAUSE people see ONLY “offensive”.
I believe that, if we were so inclined, tyler’s tattoo could be seen as taking a similar “artistic stance”. That is: overtly offensive, with a more thoughtful subtext. Why are we so offended by this tattoo? One, public display of sex acts. Two, transgression of culturally assumed prohibited sex acts. Both of which are, arguably, harmless. Is not the subtext of the art also it’s offensiveness? In other words, the transgression is calling our assumed prohibitions into question, and by doing so in a public forum, allowing for an open discussion OF those assumptions.
As for the children, if we take that, historically, families lived in the same room, children were probably exposed, on a regular basis, to the act of sex–at least between their parents. In contemporary, one could argue that the prohibitive nature of the act of sex that is put for before children is what CAUSES the distress that children feel when first exposed to it. Perhaps, if children were MORE exposed to the natural and positive nature of sex, they wouldn’t be so shocked by it. (and one has to wonder exactly how much children are shocked by sex.) What I’m saying is: is it the children or the parents who we are to be concerned with shocking?
All that said, I applaud humorous tattoos. I think that serious art and humorous/absurd art are both absolutely necessary. Parody and satire are as enlightening as drama and tragedy. To have one without the other would be to darken an already murky world. If one needs further evidence, didn’t Shakespeare, arguably one of the best English dramatists and poets, compose both? Par excellence?
>>While the shirt is crude and offensive, it does contain a subtext that is largely lost precisely BECAUSE people see ONLY “offensive”
The subtext is lost because it is completely obscured by a graphic image. There is no attempt to explain or provide narrative to the viewer at all. Whilst the producers of such a text may make spurious claims to opening debate and challenging perceptions the truth remains that such blatant imagery is designed mostly for shock with the handy get-out clause of hiding behind post-modern multiple interpretation. Shakespeare never used such methods.
Too many people believe that their freedom of expression entitles them to be as crude and lurid as possible then hide behind spurious claims that it does no harm.
>>While the shirt is crude and offensive, it does contain a subtext that is largely lost precisely BECAUSE people see ONLY “offensive”
The subtext is lost because it is completely obscured by a graphic image. There is no attempt to explain or provide narrative to the viewer at all. Whilst the producers of such a text may make spurious claims to opening debate and challenging perceptions the truth remains that such blatant imagery is designed mostly for shock with the handy get-out clause of hiding behind post-modern multiple interpretation. Shakespeare never used such methods.
Too many people believe that their freedom of expression entitles them to be as crude and lurid as possible then hide behind spurious claims that it does no harm.
Any psychoanalyst or psychiatrist worth their PhD will attest to the belief that providing graphic images to youngsters can have a seriously negative impact on them. This is due in no small part to them not having had the time and life-experiences to develop an understanding of what they seeing.
Information regarding death/sex etc is slowly filtered to children across their formative years in a very structured way to enable them to interpret what they are seeing in ways that do not cause them distress or have an adverse effect on them maturing.
Simply exposing children to strong graphic imagery at an early age can be harmful and is often used as a way of enforcing an adults own personal belief rather than what is generally considered correct.
Any psychoanalyst or psychiatrist worth their PhD will attest to the belief that providing graphic images to youngsters can have a seriously negative impact on them. This is due in no small part to them not having had the time and life-experiences to develop an understanding of what they seeing.
Information regarding death/sex etc is slowly filtered to children across their formative years in a very structured way to enable them to interpret what they are seeing in ways that do not cause them distress or have an adverse effect on them maturing.
Simply exposing children to strong graphic imagery at an early age can be harmful and is often used as a way of enforcing an adults own personal belief rather than what is generally considered correct.
I think that maybe we should all stop tripping over our huge balls and PhDs and let the man enjoy his tattoo
I think that maybe we should all stop tripping over our huge balls and PhDs and let the man enjoy his tattoo
Most poetry (at least lyric poetry) does not contain narrative, though it is the heart of most poetic art. (One could, in fact, argue that the lack of narrative is what defines lyric poetry.) Leaving that aside, I do wonder about there being “no attempt to explain or provide narrative to the viewer at all.” I assume by explain you don’t mean the heavy handed, didactic crap that plagues more allegory, but rather that the images/whatever are so initially shocking that the subtext is lost. With that concept of “explain” in mind, I would bring up the many cases of “proper art”–such as the chocolate jesus or the jesus in a pool of urine–to draw counter examples. The certainly IS a strong initial reaction. Deliberately so–it IS quite a bit of fun revolting and shocking people (I, personally, quite enjoy it). That said, however, is it not possible that the very shock will promote a change in thinking? Not completely analogous, but if one considers Bahktin’s concept of the carnivalesque, whereby the world is turned upside down to restore order, I think we can see an artist precedent for both vulgar and shocking imagery used to either enhance the status or revolutionize. (I must admit that the carnival in Rabelais’ works actually functions more as a stabilizing factor.) Perhaps grotesque realism better fits the role here?
Either way, the basic point I’m trying to make is there is a legitimate precedent is the history of art to support the use of shocking art to promote discussion and change in popular assumptions. (And I do think we can find quite a bit of vulgarity in Shakespeare. Perhaps not on a level with that of today’s standards, but, for the time and up until the early 20th centuries, Shakespeare could be quite scandalous. How else does one explain the censored and sanitized versions so popular in Vaudeville and popular theater throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries?)
As for doing harm, I have to admit, I can’t rightly argue with you. I’m no psychologist or psychiatrist, and so I can’t comment on the subject with authority. However, I do find it a bit dubious to claim that graphic images will necessarily cause irrevocable damage to children which will be mentally harmful. Within our particular social construct, I do imagine that you have a point. But, considering the modern creation of “childhood”, and the continually expanding age definition of “child”, I think we need to consider how much of the damage we assume to be happening is actually a product of social constructions. Please don’t take this to be a stance informed by cultural relativism. I’m not saying “it all depends”. But there is definitely quite a bit that does. There is the case of an aboriginal tribe (I’ve forgotten the location), where the rites of maturity include the boy-men fellatiating adult men, as sperm is believed to aid maturation. Apparently, no one in the tribe felt abused by this process. This is, of course, an extreme example, and I, personally, am not sure how to take this myself. But, I will say that it’s food for thought. What is it in graphic images that is so damaging to children? Could it be that there’s NOTHING inherently damaging? That the damage is not caused by the child, but by the way the child has been conditioned to understand the world?
I hope these posts are getting too long…
Most poetry (at least lyric poetry) does not contain narrative, though it is the heart of most poetic art. (One could, in fact, argue that the lack of narrative is what defines lyric poetry.) Leaving that aside, I do wonder about there being “no attempt to explain or provide narrative to the viewer at all.” I assume by explain you don’t mean the heavy handed, didactic crap that plagues more allegory, but rather that the images/whatever are so initially shocking that the subtext is lost. With that concept of “explain” in mind, I would bring up the many cases of “proper art”–such as the chocolate jesus or the jesus in a pool of urine–to draw counter examples. The certainly IS a strong initial reaction. Deliberately so–it IS quite a bit of fun revolting and shocking people (I, personally, quite enjoy it). That said, however, is it not possible that the very shock will promote a change in thinking? Not completely analogous, but if one considers Bahktin’s concept of the carnivalesque, whereby the world is turned upside down to restore order, I think we can see an artist precedent for both vulgar and shocking imagery used to either enhance the status or revolutionize. (I must admit that the carnival in Rabelais’ works actually functions more as a stabilizing factor.) Perhaps grotesque realism better fits the role here?
Either way, the basic point I’m trying to make is there is a legitimate precedent is the history of art to support the use of shocking art to promote discussion and change in popular assumptions. (And I do think we can find quite a bit of vulgarity in Shakespeare. Perhaps not on a level with that of today’s standards, but, for the time and up until the early 20th centuries, Shakespeare could be quite scandalous. How else does one explain the censored and sanitized versions so popular in Vaudeville and popular theater throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries?)
As for doing harm, I have to admit, I can’t rightly argue with you. I’m no psychologist or psychiatrist, and so I can’t comment on the subject with authority. However, I do find it a bit dubious to claim that graphic images will necessarily cause irrevocable damage to children which will be mentally harmful. Within our particular social construct, I do imagine that you have a point. But, considering the modern creation of “childhood”, and the continually expanding age definition of “child”, I think we need to consider how much of the damage we assume to be happening is actually a product of social constructions. Please don’t take this to be a stance informed by cultural relativism. I’m not saying “it all depends”. But there is definitely quite a bit that does. There is the case of an aboriginal tribe (I’ve forgotten the location), where the rites of maturity include the boy-men fellatiating adult men, as sperm is believed to aid maturation. Apparently, no one in the tribe felt abused by this process. This is, of course, an extreme example, and I, personally, am not sure how to take this myself. But, I will say that it’s food for thought. What is it in graphic images that is so damaging to children? Could it be that there’s NOTHING inherently damaging? That the damage is not caused by the child, but by the way the child has been conditioned to understand the world?
I hope these posts are getting too long…