For years, tattoos have stereotypically been associated with bikers, gangs and criminals. Those imprisoned would receive tattoos and tattoo other prisoners to convey gang membership, and those who killed would tattoo tear-drops underneath their eyes - one tear-drop for each victim. Other forms of tattoos are tribal tattoos, and identification tattoos which Jewish people were forcibly given to permanently remind them that they were a part of the Holocaust. The stereotype, though, has since died down, as tattoos have become more common with youth. It is now recognised as a legitimate art form, and accepted in varied cultures.
Tattooing started out in Asia and Europe, and was adopted by Samoans as 'Tatau'. Female Samoans would receive a 'Malu', a tattoo to signify their progression into puberty, and males would receive a 'Pe'a' so signify male-hood, and respect for their courage. It was not until Captain Cook's Botanist, Sir Joseph Banks, in the 1700s, had returned to England with a tattoo, thus sailing, so to speak, the concept of tattooing across the globe. Sailors soon adopted this, and by 1870 it was popular amongst upper-class individuals, including royalty, due to the pricing. When the 1970s came along, tattooing became a fashionable thing in the Western side of the world, and has been redefined as an art form, and has pulled away from being merely a statement of individuality and rebellion, although most teenagers wait until they are seventeen to get their first tattoo because it is deemed utterly awesome to have ink in one's skin before the age of legality.
In this day and age, it would be difficult to understand why someone would not stray from the stereotypes associated with drugs and tattoos, unless of course they belong to the older generations of humans. A certain someone, though, has recently caught my attention as I was reading their article which attempted to describe Ian Watkins' appearance before diving into the gnarly details of his pedophilic state of being. I did not believe what I was reading - no, I did believe the pedophile part, because it has been blown out of proportions by the media and for once, for the right reasons, however I did not believe the portrayal of Watkins which was provided. I had mistaken the description for a Mexican Drug Ring leader or something of the sort. Here is a screen shot of the basis of my disbelief, located in the article:
I read it again to make sure that my mind has read it the way it was written. I thought that, perhaps my mind was playing some sort of trick on me, to agitate me and cause alarm for no apparent reason. But no, my mind was correct. What I read was right. The journalist was attempting to shun Watkins as a stereotypical rapist because of his "heavily tattooed" appearance, and associate this appearance with the use of drugs, in an attempt to justify his actions. I searched for a photograph of Watkins to make sure that my image of him had not changed since I had a poster of his face on my bedroom wall ten years ago, and I found his mugshot:
I observed this photograph for a mere twenty seconds and burst into laughter. From the description above, one would imagine Watkins to look something like this:
Honestly, whoever this 'AFP' character is that wrote this article is, needs a serious visit to Specsavers. They are seeing the world in the eyes of my hardened ancestors who attacked homosexuals or tattooed people on sight back in Lebanon. Listen to me, AFP: the insertion of lead-free ink into one's skin does not turn them into pedophiles. I have a tattoo close to my skull, and I do not seem to have been influenced to inappropriately touch children, nor sexually abuse them. Whoever you are, you need to go back to University and learn better adjectives to assist you to help describe the criminal at hand to the public. The way you have written this description implies that tattooed people are amoral, and the fact that you have written this so-called descriptor in the same sentence as the word 'meth' and 'desire' disgusts me even more - so all those who "desire" methamphetamine are "heavily tattooed" and run a risk of sexually antagonising and raping premature children? How is this man, as such, in any way heavily tattooed?
And in the mug-shot, which is the predominant photograph of Watkins at this point in time, all I can see is a hint of a tattoo on the left side on his neck. That description is downright misleading. As well as misleading, it is also inappropriate. Tattooed people are people too, there are more pedophiles and sadistic criminals and rapists out there who are not tattooed. Take Jeffrey Dahmer. Charles Manson. Aileen Wournos. Gilles de Rais. Richard Trenton Chase. Albert Fish. Andrei Chickatilo. Joachim Kroll. Dennis Rader. John Haigh. Adolf Hitler. Javed Iqbal. Ted Bundy. None of these sadists were "heavily tattooed". It is not scientifically proven that tattooed individuals are secretly sadistic pedophiles. That claim is just as unbelievable as claiming that people with fingernails which fall short of three-centimetres long will, in their lifetimes, consume more beer than people who regularly attend pubs. Or people born with a monobrow will be more likely to fall off a verandah due to the excessive weight on their face than people born with two eyebrows. Ridiculous!
What AFP should have written, is something along the lines of this: The fetish-fueled sadistic rockstar with an addiction to drugs and the sexual domination of fans and their children due to his fame who happens to have a few tattoos scattered around his body which have absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, spoke of his desire to intoxicate one of his victims by blowing crystal meth smoke into the child's face. Judging by AFP's claim, though, I suppose Mike Tyson probably is a pedophile too.
References:
Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org]
AFP's news article: [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lostprophets-lead-singer-ian-watkins-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-baby-rape/story-e6frg6so-1226769281856]
As most of you have recently heard, Ian Watkins from the band the Lostprophets has turned away from being a prophet proclaiming the righteousness of his music and become a lost prophet, per se, lost in a realm somewhere between the realm of what is not right and the realm of utter pedophilia, proclaiming his fetishes for pre-pubescent children, and most of all, babies.
There are varied terms to label the varied states of sexual attraction to certain individuals in society, particularly categorised by age groups. Most people have not heard of these terms, so I have taken it upon myself to explain each one and attempt to inextricably link them to the best of my abilities, and choose the best one to apply to Ian Watkins. Firstly, comes Paraphilia. Paraphilia is, as Wikipedia defines it, 'the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations or individuals'. This term ultimately summarises the entire world of unaccepted sexual fetishes. Then, comes Chronophilia, which is sexual attraction limited to particular age groups, and also houses sub-terms labelling those attractions. These terms which place creeps in our society under the freak radar are Hebephilia, Ephebophilia, Nepiophilia, Pedophilia, Teleiophilia, and Gerontophilia.
Hebephilia is the sexual interest to pre-pubescent children aged from eleven to fourteen years old. Ephebophilia is the adult sexual interest for girls aged fourteen to sixteen, and boys aged fourteen to nineteen, but also is sometimes used to label a sexual preference for adolescent boys - some Catholic Priests, arguably, can thus be labeled as Ephebophiles. Nepiophilia is a sexual preference for toddlers, aged from zero to three years. Pedophilia, the most common of the terms, applies to the sexual interest by people aged sixteen or above years towards children aged eleven years and under, or pre-pubescent children. Teleiophilia applies to the sexual interest in adults. Finally, Gerontophilia applies to the sexual preference for the elderly. In my opinion, I believe that Ian Watkins is both a Nepiophile and a Pedophile. I suppose it can be stated thus, that Ian Watkins has a Paraphilia fetish. Although it is normal for every person to have sexual fetishes, certain sexual fetishes themselves are considered abnormal, and severely frowned upon, more than masturbating in an aeroplane toilet is frowned upon. Yes. That was a Hangover reference.
Ian Watkins has basically outraged most of his fans, and allegedly at times sexually pleased others and their children, by using his rockstardom and position of power. I personally know a number of fangirls who have slept with famous men, simply because of their fame - for the famous person, it is another 'screw', and for the fan it is a screw and an unforgettable memory that they most likely will not share with their own children. He has pleaded guilty to thirteen sexual offences, including, informally, misusing his fame to enter adult and pre-pubescent genitalia - and has attempted to convince those in the courtroom, when the seventeen minute long footage of him and the mother of an eleven-month old baby performing a sex act on that baby, that he does not recall a bit of it, due to being high on crystal meth.
Police, after raiding his home, found tapes of Watkins performing sexual acts with underaged fans, most of them aged only sixteen, which additionally makes him an Ephebophile. This concoction of Chronophilia results in one thing - a mentally ill lead singer with no intentions but to keep sexually exploiting and abusing young children with his fame until he was caught. "If you belong to me, so does your baby", "a summer of incest and child porn", and "do you like being my underage slut" are words which echo biological needs mixed with mental corruption. And when one ponders whether the case can become much worse than it already is, it does: police have somehow seized Skype footage which shows Watkins masturbating as the woman on the other end of the call is abusing her child. This man's password on one of his laptops is "If***kids". Could he make this matter more blatantly obvious?
Watkins took the power of being an influential role model and transformed it to influenced role play, with children. Years ago, a swarm of 'dead baby' jokes infected the internet, and outraged many. Now, with Watkins doing nasty things on live babies, I, along with many other ex-fans, do not know how to feel. The scary part about all of this is that this sexual abuse, and worse, happens each day to many children. The only thing we can do is to make sure our children/sisters/brothers do not idolise famous people to the extent where they would sacrifice their virginity, mental state and dignity. And mothers, if you cannot distinguish between what is right and what is downright wrong, please offer your child to a better home and grow some right-minded sense. If that is downright impossible, then place yourself in the child's shoes. You would not enjoy it as much as you currently do.
References:
Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org]
