• You must be logged in to see or use the chatbox

Sue sue

Take 6
Bold Member!
People get cover-up tattoos of scars all the time but Kentucky health officials are looking to ban Tattoos over scars along with acne and sunburn. So tattoo nipples over a mastectomy scar looks like it will be out


 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

JackBurton

Veteran Member
Bold Member!
The govt wont even say why?

How does tattooing over a scar present a health concern? Bizarre.

If this was any state but Kentucky, id buy it was some oddball overreaction to health worries. But since it's the south, you can bet your dick it most definiitely is yet another bomb dropped in the war on women. They no doubt are trying to target survivors of breast cancer. No doubt in my mind.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Sejanus

Veteran Member
Bold Member!
No.

But my stepmom has one very similar.
I went thru the whole cancer process with her. She didn't want nipples. She wanted something more expressive.

I don't think it right to out law this. It's part of the healing process.

Someone needs to challenge this.
I completely agree.
It is an outstanding use for tattooing.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

caitierig

Member
Bold Member!
No.

But my stepmom has one very similar.
I went thru the whole cancer process with her. She didn't want nipples. She wanted something more expressive.

I don't think it right to out law this. It's part of the healing process.

Someone needs to challenge this.
Totally agree with Sejanus. It's not just an aesthetic thing, going through that trauma and fight should at least earn you a fucking inked nipple. It is less about image in a lot of cases than it is about psyche and feeling like you're getting your body back. If they are banning those types of tats can they at least add in the super creepy, badly drawn portrait of kids and whoever's morbidly obese baby mama tattoos too?
tattoo-portrait-fails-jpg.18133
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

tmdgirl

The girl who waited....forever.
I can understand maybe "cautioning" people to not get a coverup right after or shortly after surgery/injury (better to wait until fully healed first), BUT there is no reason to try to ban these types of tattoos...for a lot of people its part of the healing process, and they can be a very positive thing.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

everjaded

ಠ_ಠ
Bold Member!
How would this ban let them "focus on cleaner environments in tattoo shops"?!

They're not even trying to find a decent excuse. This is infuriating.

Some doctors do post-mastectomy tattooing and it's a JOKE. Women deserve the right to be able to go to an actual artist to get a more realistic nipple (should that be their choice) or a beautiful artwork to cover their scar and begin to heal.

Tattoo shops have also come a long way in covering up scarring from burns and other injuries that cause discoloration--by tattooing natural skin tones over the impacted areas. The wording is so vague too, lots could be considered a scar (including prior tattoos not done well). Sorry no cover ups for you.

Same for people who've bad amputations. Guess you're stuck with a gnarly ass nub, fuck you for even considering wanting some art instead. This dude is one of my favorite examples of this:

1c6bb952293d65dc4ee09b56de6a9b07-png.18135
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Siobhan

Baekjul Bool Gool
Staff member
The govt wont even say why?

How does tattooing over a scar present a health concern? Bizarre.

If this was any state but Kentucky, id buy it was some oddball overreaction to health worries. But since it's the south, you can bet your dick it most definiitely is yet another bomb dropped in the war on women. They no doubt are trying to target survivors of breast cancer. No doubt in my mind.
Both women and men suffer from breast cancer, and nipple replacement tattoos help not only breast cancer survivors, but also FTM transgender people who often lose both nipples during chest reconstruction surgery.
Most FTM's don't opt for lower SRS, but only for chest reconstruction, and depending on how much breast tissue/breast size, they may just have a keyhole liposuction done, or in most cases, complete double mastectomies.
In the cases of complete mastectomies, the patient can choose between attempting to have their nipple skins grafted into appropriate male positional areas, or nipple tattoos. The nipple grafts can fail to take, and the minor graft scars are nearly always tattooed over for the patient to maintain a more "natural" appearance, which is usually vital for the patient's perception of self - just as it is with breast cancer patients/survivors.

Tattoos are also extensively used in some facial reconstructions for severe burn victims, creating a more natural appearance for lips, eyebrows, and even helping to accent definition in nose and ear reconstructions.

Regardless of the alleged "reasoning" behind this proposed ban, it's quite obvious that it would be far more detrimental to the various patients psyches, versus actual fears of "medical complications", like infections, etc., as the tattooing is often done in the surgical rooms with the tattoo artist working under the surgeon's guidance, and under fully sterilized settings.
Kentucky is taking on the rights of all their citizens to choose for whatever personal reasons, how they will deal with major scarring due to myriad traumatic causes, and IMO, this will surely backfire on the state legislators pushing for this to become law.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

JackBurton

Veteran Member
Bold Member!
Both women and men suffer from breast cancer, and nipple replacement tattoos help not only breast cancer survivors, but also FTM transgender people who often lose both nipples during chest reconstruction surgery.
Most FTM's don't opt for lower SRS, but only for chest reconstruction, and depending on how much breast tissue/breast size, they may just have a keyhole liposuction done, or in most cases, complete double mastectomies.
In the cases of complete mastectomies, the patient can choose between attempting to have their nipple skins grafted into appropriate male positional areas, or nipple tattoos. The nipple grafts can fail to take, and the minor graft scars are nearly always tattooed over for the patient to maintain a more "natural" appearance, which is usually vital for the patient's perception of self - just as it is with breast cancer patients/survivors.

Tattoos are also extensively used in some facial reconstructions for severe burn victims, creating a more natural appearance for lips, eyebrows, and even helping to accent definition in nose and ear reconstructions.

Regardless of the alleged "reasoning" behind this proposed ban, it's quite obvious that it would be far more detrimental to the various patients psyches, versus actual fears of "medical complications", like infections, etc., as the tattooing is often done in the surgical rooms with the tattoo artist working under the surgeon's guidance, and under fully sterilized settings.
Kentucky is taking on the rights of all their citizens to choose for whatever personal reasons, how they will deal with major scarring due to myriad traumatic causes, and IMO, this will surely backfire on the state legislators pushing for this to become law.
The transgendered thing is going to help this thing gain MAJOR support in Kentucky. I could see it passing with flying colors and overwhelming support from the hick trash there based on that.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Siobhan

Baekjul Bool Gool
Staff member
How would this ban let them "focus on cleaner environments in tattoo shops"?!

They're not even trying to find a decent excuse. This is infuriating.

Some doctors do post-mastectomy tattooing and it's a JOKE. Women deserve the right to be able to go to an actual artist to get a more realistic nipple (should that be their choice) or a beautiful artwork to cover their scar and begin to heal.

Tattoo shops have also come a long way in covering up scarring from burns and other injuries that cause discoloration--by tattooing natural skin tones over the impacted areas. The wording is so vague too, lots could be considered a scar (including prior tattoos not done well). Sorry no cover ups for you.

Same for people who've bad amputations. Guess you're stuck with a gnarly ass nub, fuck you for even considering wanting some art instead. This dude is one of my favorite examples of this:

View attachment 18135
@everjaded I wish I had a pic a firefighter buddy had done over a badly scarred forearm, he had the outer edges done to look blackened and peeling away from wires and metal toned bars to represent a "mechanical"
appearance a la "Terminator" on the large scar, and it looked cool AF.
It was his way to remind himself that he could "take a licking and keep on ticking", and had it done after the MD's had approved his return to full duty as a paid FF/Paramedic, and would show it off to the rookies to show that even though the job can be dangerous, never fear for yourself when your partner's with you in a building fire, because your lives depend on each other - if you go down, they will save you, and vice versa.
Post automatically merged:

The transgendered thing is going to help this thing gain MAJOR support in Kentucky. I could see it passing with flying colors and overwhelming support from the hick trash there based on that.
Agreed, but their numbers are much lower than the high numbers of breast cancer patients, which are both women and men.
It'll be all about getting the ban done ... until one of these lawmaker's wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, or even themselves end up losing a (or both) breast, and they realize that to reconstruct a mastectomy and give their loved one or themselves back the appearance of what's been lost to a horrible disease will require either tattooing, or a special made and highly expensive prosthetic nipple piece that must be glued on daily, and most insurances will not cover.
I'm frankly surprised that their going for tattoos only, and not more harmful unnecessary medical procedures like breast augmentation or any implant cosmetic surgeries, I mean, if they're really worried about serious infections and medical complications - there are far more infections/complications with any unnecessary cosmetic surgeries that require implants and fillers than with tattoos (aside from bad artistry).

ETA: I've seen through 3 generations on my father's side of the family what double mastectomies do to a
woman. My great-grandmother, great-aunt, and aunt all lost both breasts, and this was long before reconstructive surgery was available.
All they had were pads to put in their bras to give an external impression of breasts, and what they saw in the mirrors when dressing were scars crossing their chests and underarms.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Top