Other than the dude on the right, a lot of people have tattoos. I contribute to that fact. The difference between LizardMan and I (and, presumably most of the rest of the tattooing community) is that I didn't get my tattoos to completely subvert my ink-less identity. Oh, there are degrees of intended subversion, and intended augmentation, and intended cool-ification.
But assuming that Lizzo's head-to-toe inking (and bone grafting and piercing and stretching and slicing and levering) is a meaningful and defining transformation is probably fair enough. And given the literal nature of the transformation, it's probably fair to assume he was comfortable with the general public making assumptions about - or even asking - what it means and how it defines him.
On the other hand, for the general public to feel entitled to ask what my clearly symbolic markings mean is just plain fucking wrong.
I seem to have reached my limit of boozed-up retards in pubs grabbing me by the wrist and examining my tatt like it's public property, then demanding to know what it "means".
How about "choke on my scrotum, you socially-stunted silverback".
Maybe its purely an exercise in aesthetics. Or maybe since it isn't literal means it's private i.e. it's none of your fucking business what it means. If I had've wanted all and dipshit sundry to "get it" I would have had a prose paragraph written there and a nice brochure printed up for visitors to take home.
No comments:
Post a Comment