Lovequest 4-Dec-2014 - Chris repierces his taint

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Knife's Husbando said:
Ya beat me to it. Professional piercers and tattoo people deal with a lot of really "unusual" folks every day just in their line of work. When the last person in your chair wanted her eighth labia ring installed, and the person before that (the one with the green reverse mohawk) wanted a full-back zombie mural, you don't even really bat an eye at someone like Chris.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Piercers can (and should) refuse piercing someone who is intoxicated, or if they don't have the right anatomy for certain kinds of piercings (such as the skin being too thin, which would increase the risk of migration/rejection). The piercer, if he was indeed a responsible piercer, looked at Chris' taint and didn't see anything there that would ordinarily make a piercing unfeasible. Taints by definition aren't the most attractive body part, but the point is that there was nothing anatomically unusual about Chris' taint, and the piercing could have been successful if he had followed aftercare and didn't "diddle it." But yeah, a lot of piercers themselves have piercings and tattoos and at times face discrimination in the "vanilla" world because of them, so they would feel hypocritical discriminating against Chris (who probably comes off as eccentric but not completely dysfunctional).

But yeah, as I mentioned in the post before, an infected piercing site is reason to refuse piercing the individual, regardless of whether this is an autistic or neurotypical person...
 
Last edited:
Legally, other than basic sanitary condition standards, laws on this subject vary widely by location. What's legal in your state or city may not be in mine, and vice versa. Georgia was trying to ban female genital piercings of any kind a year or so ago, for example.

Morally, body modification is strictly a personal choice, and we all know what a can of worms that is to argue either for or against. It's a big grey area.
 
The Knife's Husbando said:
Legally, other than basic sanitary condition standards, laws on this subject vary widely by location. What's legal in your state or city may not be in mine, and vice versa. Georgia was trying to ban female genital piercings of any kind a year or so ago, for example.

Morally, body modification is strictly a personal choice, and we all know what a can of worms that is to argue either for or against. It's a big grey area.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Georgia tried to ban male taint piercings too? Sounds like something Virginia needs.
 
skyraider91 said:
In conclusion, here's something to think about. At the beginning of this month, Chris took several hundred dollars out of his paypal as cash and put it in his wallet. That is the same money that he is now using to have his taint re-piercied. To the people who have been his ebay customers, whatever your intention was, you ended up, in part, financing a mentally deficient person's self-destructive compulsion, and enabling him. You're enabling him to do something stupid that may ultimately result in serious harm.

Chris can't spend/manage money competently. He's stupid and not responsible. If you're hoping that he'll use the money you give him to pay the rent or pay down his debt, he's just going to use it to dig himself into an even deeper hole.

I'm not trying to be harsh, or to judge anybody. I just thought that it was a point which deserved to be brought up.
Click to expand...
Not their fault at all. He would have just taken the money from his welfare - even if his customers could somehow control CWC's purchases. By your logic the federal government would be responsible for CWC's taint re-piercing..
 
Last edited:
Oh..... my god. I was unfortunate enough to see the original picture. I don't wanna know how this one turns out.
 
Lucrid said:
But yeah, as I mentioned in the post before, an infected piercing site is reason to refuse piercing the individual, regardless of whether this is an autistic or neurotypical person...
Click to expand...
Do we know if he actually did it again, or if he just wants to?
I'm also pretty sure no professional would pierce a body area that's infected/recovering for legal reasons, especially if it's still healing from a previous piercing.
 
The Knife's Husbando said:
Legally, other than basic sanitary condition standards, laws on this subject vary widely by location. What's legal in your state or city may not be in mine, and vice versa. Georgia was trying to ban female genital piercings of any kind a year or so ago, for example.

Morally, body modification is strictly a personal choice, and we all know what a can of worms that is to argue either for or against. It's a big grey area.
Click to expand...

In my experience (which admittedly is only in 3 states/provinces), the laws are respected fairly well. Liscences (both personal and establishment) are the key to a decent career for people. Also, a lot of people in the business are fairly heavily tatted/pierced, which limits their other career options. Overall, they really don't want to put their liscense or career at risk. Finally, there tends to be a fairly tight-knit community among professionals, and building a reputation as skilled, knowledgable, sanitary, and ethical can increase your income multifold. That type of reputation can take years to build, and one incident to lose.

I am not saying that they will refuse to repierce Chris. I am saying that if they do (assuming he goes to a liscensed place), it is safe to say that there is no substantial risk if he follows proper procedures. Last time he seemed to put a little effort in, but might not have quite pulled it off. He did have the sense (or at least was able to be convinced by Thetan) to take it out when it started going south. Hopefully he is able to keep doing the things he got right from last time and address the things he got wrong.
 
Pikonic said:
Do we know if he actually did it again, or if he just wants to?
I'm also pretty sure no professional would pierce a body area that's infected/recovering for legal reasons, especially if it's still healing from a previous piercing.
Click to expand...

The general consensus is that he did indeed have it done, but we can't be 100% sure unless we have evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom