Tasha Maltby's boyfriend has her on a leash, literally.
LONDON (Reuters) -- A British bus company has apologized to a girl who is led around on a leash by her boyfriend and describes herself as a human pet after one of its drivers threw her off a bus.
Tasha Maltby, 19, told British newspapers she was the "pet" of her 25-year-old fiance Dani Graves.
Pictures showed her dressed in black Gothic-style clothing with silver buckles on a silver chain -- which the driver of a bus from the firm Arriva took exception to.
She told the Daily Mail newspaper Wednesday she was thrown off and told: "We don't let freaks and dogs like you on."
Arriva would not comment on specifics but said it apologized if the couple felt they had been discriminated against. It added, however, that the driver was worried about safety and the company told Maltby to take the leash off in the future.
...Maltby -- who lives on state benefits and got engaged in November -- said her choice of lifestyle might seem unusual but was harmless.
"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."
Maltby "lives on state benefits."
Why am I not surprised?
Being "a pet" may be her "culture" and her "choice," but I don't see why the state is picking up the tab to allow her to go through life on a leash.
Maltby should get a job.
Doesn't the UK's National Health System provide for psychological services?
Maltby seems to be in need of that sort of assistance.
17 comments:
I have to agree. I read another interview with these two where he says he feeds her and picks out her clothes because you would not expect a pet to do those things. Well, I don't expect the state to pay support on my cat. I have no problem with their lifestyle choice as far as playing pet goes (although I do agree that the leash could be a problem on the bus), but I find it appalling that because she thinks it would be more fun being a pet the government is paying her way. Time for her "owner" to step up and pay her way!
I tried that with my wife once. She asked if she could get a smaller one for me.
I opted out.
Well why not - life would be a boring place if it was full of MacDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, American Express, GE bank accounts and all that really useful , good for you stuff. If I had a pet like that I would sure stroke her puppies.
I think Maltby was looking for attention and she's getting it.
She must be loving this.
I wouldn't want my tax dollars to support her.
I'm sure she's capable of making lots and lots of money.
Please, folks. Get a grip. This girl's wierdness has nothing to do with the fact that she's on the dole. She's a person not a cat, and she's certainly not the only lazy twit mooching off the system, whatever her reasons. Singling her out for being on the take is senseless, and likely just and excuse to call her out for being a freakshow.
She's just lazy and irresponsible, people. Maybe that's part of why she wants to be a pet. It's certainly shy she's on state support. But her being on the dole isn't a result of her being a "pet," so quit trying to make her relationship choices the reason for it. Cause and effect is a one-way street.
And in any case, once she's married to the guy holding her leash, the state will no longer be paying her to do nothing--her husband will be obligated in a more formal sense at that point. All of your mundane taxpayer outrage can go get stuffed then.
I never said that Maltby's weirdness had anything to do with her being on the dole.
I said that this "pet" should get a job.
Just because she's "not the only lazy twit mooching off the system" doesn't make what she's doing OK.
Instead of playing "pet," she should work.
Her relationship choices are irrelevant. If she wants to degrade herself by walking around in public on a leash, that's her business. If she had a job and spent her free time pretending to be a dog, that's cool. Weird, but her choice.
My argument is that this able-bodied person should be taking responsibility to provide for herself rather than devoting her life to being a "pet."
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could pretend to be a dog or cat and let the state pay the bill?
It's time for her to grow up and act like a big girl.
Tasha is a student and not on the dole her partner/owner is on the dole however, prpobably because most UK employers would not see past his dress style to his brain when it comes to interviewing him for employment. They would rather employ employ someone with short undyed hair who goes out on a weekend gets totally drunk and starts trouble. but thats the UK for you.
This story does not line up. She is a uni student. So she must go to classes and do home work etc. So NOT a full time pet infact. And that (I assume) is why she gets gov money.
You mean she does venture out to go to class without her leash?
She's not really a full-time pet?
Then I guess it shouldn't be a big deal for her to not wear the thing when she's on the bus.
um yeah, okay, look folks its pretty simple - just read between the lines.
they have a VERY KINKY sex life, involving lots of role play. pretty standard BDSM really - they're just taking it to the exhibitionist level.
No kidding.
Maltby is a pet and Graves is her owner.
Whatever. Simple enough.
There's no reason for them to whine about being thrown off a bus due to safety concerns.
Ha! Do they let pets on buses? Not where I live, but I'm not sure about that area. If she wants to be treated as a pet, she shouldn't be allowed on a bus. It's really as simple as that.
Of course, if they let pets on the bus in that area, that argument would be null. But otherwise, it's not like she is a "seeing eye dog" or some such assistance to some person who is actually handicapped.
I wish I could be government supported for my BDSM kinks. :D
Two thoughts....
She should get a job.
She really needs to do something about her looks. Make up. Hair flattening. I don't know why but something even though she has the form for the look, she doesn't have face or hair. Something keeps making me think a clown with no make up. Sorry. Yes. I'm shallow.
I think as far as her looks go, Tasha would go a long way by losing the collar and leash.
I agree. She should get a job.
I was under the impression that it was Graves, not Maltby, on benefits.
Anyway, plenty of people in the UK sponge off of benefits, thinking that it's an acceptable alternative to getting a job, and whether or not this is true of this couple is irrelevant. The point is, in a civilised, tolerant and functional society, they should have the right to live however they like as long as it's not impeding upon the rights of others. If one or both of them is/are truly sponging off of benefits, then that's what you should be criticising, not the fact that they enjoy an unusual lifestyle.
Tasha fully consents to this way of living. It was her idea to be a human "pet". The articles that go into greater detail about their relationship setup say that she is comfortable having rules that would seem degrading or oppressive to others, such as not being allowed to leave the house without Dani's permission. In fact, they come up with the rules together.
What's degrading about it? She's actually pretty smart, don't you think? This guy she likes feeds, clothes, houses and sexually satisfies her, and she doesn't have to do housework, contribute income or even get out of bed to have breakfast. Sounds like a pretty good deal in exchange for some animalistic role-playing and a flimsy little dog lead.
If she's happy in the role of a dog, and citizens don't mind supporting an able-bodied woman, good for her.
I wouldn't waste my time, my mind, and my talents like that. But hey, that's just me.
Who said the government is paying for their lifestyle? You should get more facts of what your commenting about before you actually comment on it.
From what ive seen Mary has absolutely no idea what shes talking about. Its her fiance that has the unemployment benefits.
I actually googled it and read different quotes on each website I've seen this on, shes holds her own leash on the bus, so you cant really say its safety reasons now can you? The driver said "we don't let freaks and dogs like you on this bus" Its NOT safety reasons at all, its discrimination. Find some more ways to be a jackass please.
Stop criticizing her for her life choices.
"I wouldn't waste my time, my mind, and my talents like that. But hey, that's just me."
That is in fact as you stated, just YOU, not everyone has to abide by your unwritten laws of the land.
She goes to school, shes not wasting her talent or her mind. The 5 days she doesn't go to school its HER FREE TIME, so shes not wasting her time either.
You really should get a clue Mary. And your posting at 5:12 pm US eastern time, unless you live elsewhere then you should get a job as well.
As for me i'm a 15 year old boy, so i don't need to get a job, unless of course you have an unwritten law that says i HAVE to get a job or ill be thrown in your basement and tied up.
Like i said, read more about what your going to talk smack about before you actually talk smack about it.
Post a Comment