A Floyd County man has been charged with child cruelty after authorities say he tattooed his 3-year-old son.

Floyd County Police Sgt. Teri Davis said Eugene Ashley, 24, tattooed the back of his son’s right shoulder with “DB,” which stands for “Daddy’s Boy,” sometime this spring. The man told police he was intoxicated at the time, Davis said.


• Metro and state news The child’s mother, Amy Ashley, was not present during the incident.

The tattoo was discovered after an unidentified person complained to the Department of Family and Children Services about the conditions at the Ashley home. The Ashleys have three or four children, Davis said.

“You keep thinking you’ve seen it all, and then voila,” Davis said.

The children remain with their mother; Eugene Ashley was arrested May 21 and faces charges of child cruelty and tattooing a person younger than 18 years old, the latter being a misdemeanor, Davis said.

Ashley has been released from jail; information on his bond amount was not immediately available.

Holy shit. I mean really.
Just when you really think you've heard it all.

Interesting subject.

Is piercing a baby's ears abuse? Circumcision? Both are painful and permanent, just like a tattoo.

Mars23 said:

Good question

Mars23 said:

those may be true
but where one can be taken out and healed over and the other is a decision based on cleanliness, religion or family tradition, i don't think tattooing fits in there
from a western perspective

tattooing is taken differently around the world of course, but something like "DB" instead of a family symbol?
i don't know...


you raise a good point though.

Part of his punishment should include a tattoo that reads:

DUMBASS

across his forehead.

johnart said:

or DA
that way he's constantly questioned about what that means

sammij said:

I certainly don't advocate it or think this guy isn't a dumbass, but it really is a quandary. Which involuntary disfigurement is right for your child?

Mars23 said:

sounds like a pamphlet first-time parents read

sammij said:

And must be big enough that it can't be covered by bangs or a hat.

johnart said:

big, bold, gothic lettering

this guy just might have a case if he fights this all the way. I'm not saying it was cool, but piercing and circumcision seem to fall in this same category. This is the beginning of a slippery slope. Permanent changes inflicted on a minor's body by the parent.



at least he didn't name the kid Adolph Hitler. Crimmony! Even Hitler's indirect family, knew not to have kids...they're letting the name die. Then again...it is just a name.

sammij said:

OOH Gothic. Nice touch!

Mars23 said:

Well, piercings aren't exactly permanant.

KidaDynamite said:

it leaves a scar. Tiny, but none the less, it's a scar.and I know it's painful...my ear hurt like a sumovabitch!

BobGeorge909 said:

Mine didn't!

Mars23 said:

I'm glad you have brought that up. I'm against ANYTHING people do to disfigure their child that that child may not have chosen for themselves when old enough to do so.

Didn't somebody else do this to a 7 year old not too long ago...and that tatoo was a gang tattoo?

Mars23 said:

First thing I thought of.
Both aesthetic choices, even if parents come up with bullshit medical ones for circumcision.

Who the fuck would want "Daddy's Boy" tattooed on their body? Even if it was just "DB" it's still stupid and lame. If he's going to damage his kid's body he could have at least picked something cool, like a spider or a skull.

For the record, my daughter had her ears pierced when she was like ONE.
I'm circumscised and so are my two sons.

I can assure all you naysayers out there that there is NO deep-rooted psychological trauma suffered by any one of us. (at least none related to the piercing and/or circumscisions).

However, I'm fairly certain that if my wife and I had tattooed the kids, they'd be dealing with issues. Unless of course, we moved to a Maori village in the South Pacific.

I pierced my daughters ears before she was two. never did anything to my son but there were extenuating circumstances with that.

I guess tattoos are more an act of a personal express that one should have the opinion in making a decision in, to tattoo another person without their expressed permission seems to fall under the line of branding. Which I guess would be the next step if a line isn't drawn somewhere.
[Edited 5/26/09 20:18pm]

ZombieKitten said:

my sons...their decision,not mine...

PurpleJedi said:

We don't tattoo our kids anymore and Maoris live in New Zealand, also tattooing is illegal for anyone under 16 in New Zealand, you probably think we all wear grass skirts and drance around black cauldrons with missionaries inside. Be careful what you say there could just be someone from the random ethnic group you love to slag off.

my ears were pierced when i was a baby and I'm glad it was done back then.

ZombieKitten said:

Absolutely!

I'm sorry guys, I know that some of you have very young children with pierced ears, but I really don't agree with it. In fact, I think it should be made illegal to pierce a child's ears until at least the age of 8. Why would you want to do that to your kid?

Circumcision isn't really the done thing in the UK, unless there are medical grounds. I don't have boys, but if I did there's no way I'd be cutting his foreskin off without good reason. If it wasn't meant to be there why would men have them at birth?! You don't cut off any other part of the anatomy, for the sake of it! Why the foreskin?!

And as for the bloke who tattooed his kid - I agree with those that said he should have something tattooed onto his forehead... I'm inclined to go with 'FUCKWIT'
[Edited 5/27/09 8:21am]

Mars23 said:

\

Exactly. It's all wrong.

ZombieKitten said:

Agreed

Mars23 said:

I do not label ear piercing as abuse at all.

As for circumcision that is quite a barbarous act, it's painful, permanent and in most cases completely unnecessary I could never have that done to my own child.

ZombieKitten said:

Agreed!! Whole heartedly.