Here’s one more reason not to get a tattoo.
A tattoo artist met with a female client who wanted a five-inch tattoo on her upper thigh.
The woman wanted the image to go from the front to outer side of her leg.
She and the tattoo artist were no strangers.
He had previously given her three tattoos without incident.
The female customer claims that during this session the tattoo artist put his ring and pinky finger directly on her public area while applying the stencil to her leg.
She says that he apologized and went on working.
When the tattooed skin became inflamed, the artist massaged the area with cream.
As he did this, the woman said “oh, like, I get a beautiful piece and, like a nice, calming massage.”
The quick-witted tattoo artist allegedly responded, “we could extend those services to something more exciting.”
At this point, the woman claims that she became uncomfortable and told him “No, I don’t want to extend the services in that way.”
Things just kept getting weirder, according to court documents.
The woman alleges that towards the end of the session the artist noticed a tiny speck of ink “very, very close to [her] public area” where her “leg creases.”
She claims that despite her protests, the man went for the ink with a paper towel and “started to sexually rub [her] thigh.”
Four days later she filed a report with police.
The man was charged with indecent assault and battery.
He brought the case to trial and lost.
His attorney appealed the decision, primarily arguing that the woman consented to the artist’s touching of her leg when she requested the tattoo.
Today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the verdict.
The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of the victim’s lack of consent because, “[b]y requesting [him] to apply a tattoo to her thigh, [the victim] clearly gave her consent for him to touch her in areas specifically identified by this court as ‘private areas,'” and the victim did not effectively communicate her “withdrawal of consent” before “the alleged indecent assault and battery.” This argument misapprehends the scope of the victim’s consent. Like a patient undergoing a medical procedure, the victim here consented to a specific procedure by the defendant: the placement of a tattoo on her front and outer right thigh. The victim did not consent to touchings of her body that were unnecessary or inappropriate for the agreed-upon tattoo procedure. In particular, she did not give the defendant permission to touch her pubic area or inner thigh, much less in a sexualized manner.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.