I get that I look rather opposite to the mainstream, and that coloured hair and tattoos mean I look a little different to most of the people on the bus.
I get that I'm from London and can be prone to forgetting that other parts of the country are not perhaps not as used to seeing unconventional people.
I get that certain images of people (mainly women I guess) are used to appeal to the broadest demographic in the media, and that tattooed women still hold predjudices that have not yet been challenged away.
I get all of this, and I accept it, mostly, all of the time. But then sometimes it bothers me. Just sometimes, and today was one of those times.
As part of my job I am in touch with a lot of PR and media people about potential features in the press. Recently, in about three separate cases, I was in talks about being suitable for upcoming articles, but in all three cases, the editors wouldn't accept someone as heavily tattooed as me. All circumstances were nothing to do what I look like, but yet the press still seem to think that people won't be able to handle (?) seeing me if the discussion isn't about my image.
I'm not sure what they're fearful of, whether they believe that their readers would be too distracted, or disgusted by my appearance? That having a tattooed person who has something else to say may confuse people? That a tattooed woman has the most interesting things about her on her skin, and nothing more within?
In the defence of some mainstream press, Marie Claire did feature my story, without featuring my tattoos, which was pretty refreshing, but it is no coincedence that I have been told three times that I cannot be used purely due to my tattoos.
Sigh, oh well. It is what it is. Next!