Marilyn Manson reportedly goes through airports with obscenities written on his face to stop paps

Redditor j_patrick_12 says he ran into Marilyn Manson in an airport security line, and that Manson was apologizing profusely for the word FUCK written in eyeliner on his face, explaining that it was there to stop paparazzi from taking saleable pictures, and not because Manson wanted to be mean to people in the airport.

I just went through the LAX security line with Marilyn Manson. He had "FUCK" scrawled in large letters across the bottom half of his face, with what appeared to be a grease pencil. As we each removed our boots in the security line, he kindly explained that it was not directed at me or anyone else in the airport, but rather at the paparazzi, so that they couldn't sell any photos of him that they took. He was really apologetic about it, and covered his mouth around young children while apologizing to their parents for exposing their child to profanity.

Marilyn Manson just explained to me, in the security line at LAX, that the profanities written on his face in grease pencil were directed at the paparazzi, not at me. Reddit, what bizarre celebrity encounters have you had? (self.AskReddit)


  1. Huh, thats actually a pretty clever way to deal with those hyenas. They can take pictures, but they will be worthless because they won´t be able to sell them.

    1.  I noticed some young non-entity of a “starlet” being given coverage in the Daily Mail had the word tattooed on her flank… didn’t stop the DM from printing that paparazzi’s photos…

      1. You don’t think he would have stopped doing it if it didn’t work? 

        Edit: Oh, I see. You’re convinced Manson is looking for “attention”.

        1. Does it work? This is a story (with pictures available) about how he’s avoiding people taking pictures of him and writing stories. Works a treat.
          I think that the reason people don’t tend to take pictures of him or write about him is that this is the first thing of note he’s done in a decade. And there’s no shame in that, I have nothing against the man, but why would paps be harassing him any way? What scoop are they aiming for that’s NOT better than him walking through a public place with obscenities on his face?

          Sorry, I don’t buy it.

          1. I see pictures on the internet.  Am I going to see them in The Inquirer or similar publications?  Because that’s what’s relevant.

            You care way too much for someone who “doesn’t buy it”, by the way.  Or is hating on celebrities the “ironic” hipster answer to pop-culture celebrity worship?

            Edit: Yes, lots of people on the internet. Are they looking at the celebrity gossip site with the Manson photos or are they looking at wikipedia and facebook?

          2. @wysinwyg

            I’m not hating on anyone, I commented on the article because I found the premise unbelievable. It’s a desperate cry for attention and I think that provokes equally interesting conversation, personally.

            Funnily enough a lot of people use the internet, more than read the Inquirer (I don’t have a citation, it’s just an educated guess) – so I’m not sure what the relevance is here. That only people that read the inquirer matter?

            A picture may be worth a thousand words, but if journalists and the public still cared about what MM was up to they’d print those thousand words and do without the picture. But instead this is the first time I’ve heard about him in a decade, and it’s a story about how he’s trying not to be noticed. Surely you’re able to understand the irony?

            And where did this hipster business come from anyway? You’re crankier than me.

          3. @wysinwyg:disqus 

            Also, since when have tabloid-type publications cared about the truth anyway?  If they wanted to write stories about him I’m pretty sure they’d manage.

          4. Crankier than you?  Check the amount of vertical space you’ve used to bitch about Manson and recalibrate.  I’m pointing out that for someone who is WAY TOO COOL to care about celebrities you seem to care an awful lot about this celebrity. Surely you’re able to understand the irony?

          5. I’m really not following your thought process I’m afraid – if there is one.
            The amount of vertical space I’ve dedicated to this conversation has absolutely nothing to do with my feelings toward Mr Manson. I’m not bitching about anything, I’m pointing out the obvious.

            ‘Way too cool’? You’re inferring things from thin air. I didn’t say I was too cool to care about Manson, I simply said I don’t hate the man. How you reached that perspective is beyond me. Is everyone that doesn’t hate or love MM up their own arse? Or just me?

            I don’t care about this celebrity, I care about the conversation. Is that beyond your comprehension? That someone could have an opinion on celebrity culture without adoring or hating a particular celebrity?

            Sir, you have issues that I’m not qualified to deal with.

    1. …they can’t sell photos with obscenity, because they aren’t fit to print.  Whether or not you think he’s a fake is sort of immaterial?

      1.  I should have clarified — I think he’s anything but fake. I just mean that it could perhaps render the photo rather useless as well. Explaining why he had the word FAKE written on his face (there are probably much better words he could choose) would most likely be rather drawn out and unscandalous — two things that no tabloid would ever want to be.

      2. …they can’t sell photos with obscenity, because they aren’t fit to print. 

        Isn’t this the industry that regularly pays good money for pictures of nip-slips and underpants-less young women exiting limousines? Seems like if anything, this would make the photos more valuable, even if they had to blur out the text.

        1. Hrm; interesting.

          Related: I think it was Daniel Radcliffe who said he used to wear the same outfit– same coat (or multiples) & shirt & pants & shoes (again, or multiples) so that the paparazzi couldn’t sell photos, since they all looked like they were from the same day.

  2. The older he gets, the more I like him. Though, I have to admit, I’m a little surprised the paparazzi is still interested in him at all these days. Shock-rock is dead.

    1. yea but an ex shock rocker with profanity scribbled across his face in an airport is worth a story…oh wait.

    2. I think he handled himself very thoughtfully when the moral panic about Columbine decided to try to scapegoat him.  He earned a lot of credit with me then.  I used to see him now & again when I lived in the Cleveland/Akron area & he never made a whole scene, which again, also worth some points.  Good for him.  I’m not a fan of his music particularly– like most Industrial or post-Industrial music there are a few catchy hooks, sure– so maybe it would be cool for him to, I don’t know, write some YA fiction or something?  That might be a good niche.

    3. There was a wonderful interview with him on NPR last winter about growing up as a midwestern high school band nerd.

      He said he doesn’t listen to his old stuff very much and focuses on movie scores. That’s  working pretty well for him, and gets back to his roots when he liked the old MGM musicals as a kid.

      1. Mmmm. I had no idea, I’ll have to see what scores he’s done. I do wish he’d publish more books, though, I always admired his grasp of English in his autobiography.
        Uhh. I kind of feel like a pushy relative. “Soo… when are you going to settle down and write some kids books?”

      2.  Sounds like that interview went better than the BBC one I was reading online I think two years ago.
        It felt like the interviewer rubbed him the wrong way, because he promptly started doing “freaking out the mundanes”-type stunts (I particularly liked reading the indignant reporter writing about him eating the microphone cover).

  3. Apologizing to everyone in sight and hiding your face from every nearby child is easier than having your picture taken?

    1. This. Plus the fact that Americans need to stop being so fucking sensitive and think-of-the-children-y all the time.

        1. I _think_ Mr. Doctorow also called it ‘cockpit parents’ – I think, anyway.

          I also came across the term in the Chronicle of Higher Education (friend’s copy.) The writer, a uni-prof,  said the cockpit parents made him miss the helicopter parents. 

          (At least I think it was the Chronicle, anyway I read it somewhere.)

          1. Well they put the “cop” in “helicopter” and the “cock” in “cockpit”, that’s for sure.

  4. ….because it’s so difficult to ‘shop out words on a face. Who pays for photos of Manson anyway?

    1. Yeah, because magazines are totally going to pay for pictures with shooped faces. “MM was spotted at the airport today with an obscenity written on his face. We can’t show you here, but trust us, it was a bad word.”

      1. Or you know, they could just run the picture and not mention the obscenity.

        The reason his pictures arent all over mags and why papz aren’t hunting him down is because no one cares.

  5. I’m not sure I fully understand the logic here.  Much as it seems like a nice idea to avoid photos, wasn’t the reason paparazzi fueled publications put out things about him because of his supposedly evil influence over kids?  I mean what would fit in more with their “think of the children” angle – a guy nobody cares about any more walking innocently through an airport or a photo in a busy terminal full of corruptable eyes with a blur over part of his face because it’s far far too obscene for this good ol’ wholesome family publication? I just can’t see how this isn’t attention seeking.

    1. You mean a guy you don’t care about and can’t see how anybody else would care about him, right? Funny how often those two things go together. “…and that Frank Sinatra…ENOUGH ALREADY.”

      If by “evil influence over kids” you mean popularity among them, then I guess so, but why use terminology left over from the PMRC and the original “Footloose?” Nice weaseling with “supposedly” there.

      1. Ehm I think you completely missed the point of my comment.  I don’t think he ever had an “evil influence” and the “supposedly” is there to show that.  I also imagine there’s plenty of people who care about him (I saw him in concert about ten years ago and if there’s one thing that taught me it was that nobody could deny the guy has a strong following) but they are fans and I would hope that fans wouldn’t be encouraging paparazzi to annoy the people they like.  The point was that back in his heyday he was hounded for ludicrous reasons and now he isn’t, it appears he wants to be.

  6. Boring white untalented washed out has-been attention seeker is a boring white untalented washed out has-been attention seeker, news at 11. 

    We all know he wrote FUCK on his face because these days those are the lengths he has to got to to get the pap to even want to photograph him. The things people do to get in the news these days…

      1. Making a living for my future without thinking I’m the saviour of humanity just for taking drugs, making forgettable music (most of which was covers anyway)and having to have people help me put my clothes on. Which, incidentally if a black person did those things do you think they would be lauded as the anti-christ superstar, or just another welfare cheat?
        So what have YOU done lately, o great and righteous judgmental one?

        1. If it had been a black person?  How about Snoop Mammal?

          I don’t know much about his music – I’m too old, I guess – but I do like what he writes.   His personal life, from what this Wiki page reveals, is a mess.  But this seems to be par for the course for rock stars, eh. 

          As for what I’ve done?  Not much: eat, sleep, shit, fuck.

          Y’know, the usual.

          1. Ah yes, Snoopdog, who smokes a lot of weed but has built up an empire while MM has spent all his money on cocaine and absinthe. 

            But don’t ask me, ask Dita Von Teese. **shrug**

            EDIT: Oh yeah, and the whites don’t like their idols criticized, don’t they??! Thank fuck this isn’t a post about Alfred Hitchcock sexually harassing young starlets!!! ;)

        2. I find it sad that anyone thinks that performing “covers” lessens the perceived quality of a musician or other artist.  Are all blues bands crap because they play songs from a fantastically rich library of blues?   String quartets only play “covers.”   Andy Warhol was a fake for painting copies of stuff?

        3. Funny thing, he never billed himself as the “Saviour of humanity”. He’s a musician. He makes music, and gives performances, during which he has an entertaining stage show… and he doesn’t claim to be anything else.
          It’s amazing how people can confuse “cranky ex-Fundementalist Athiest” with “thinks he’s Jesus”.

          Incidentally if you can’t separate stage persona from the actor performing that persona, you should stay away from TV. It might confuse you.

    1. Haters gonna hate.

      Seriously, I never got into Manson’s music but he’s never seemed like a particularly bad person. It generally seems when he speaks he actually has something halfway intelligent to say.
      Why the hate?

        1. Sure, ok. Let’s say this was all an involved plan on Manson’s part to create faux controversy.

          I still don’t see the reason to hate him so. Every star performer on earth is a narcissist. Just me personally, I don’t see what harm he’s done. Prince has done no end of attention-grabbing antics with even thinner rationales, but I’ve no reason to hate him either. As only one example.

          Your biz, just my $.02.

    2. I don’t even like him, but the level of vehemence you display over something so trivial makes me think there must be something wrong with you.

    3.  Deep breaths.  Step away from the internet.  There will be some nice, hunky men in white clothes at your door to help you shortly.

      I get the impression that you’re insanely jealous you don’t even have Manson’s modest amount of talent.  I really don’t see why else you’d care at all.

  7. He is a narcissist and thinks it makes him look better. It worked, boinboing is talking about him. Takes guts to do it before going through security though.

    1.  Same nose. I’m sure if he got work done he would’ve had them do a neck tuck and remove the double chin while he was under as well.

    2. Perhaps they’re hoping he does something tabloid-worthy. Being in the right place at the right time is half of success. Imagine instead of 100 paps catching the event, you’re one of 10 and you’ve got the best angle. Kind of like betting on the horse with the worst odds — when it does hit, man, you’re gonna make a killing.

  8. Daniel Radcliffe has a more effective approach. He just wears the Same Damn Outfit every time he goes out in public and doesn’t want pictures taken. 

  9. I always figured if I were ever in a scandal and didn’t want pictures and video taken, I would just hold up middle fingers on the side of my face and shout FUCK repeatedly. Good for him.

  10. I understand that fame can be cruel, that people make a living off others’ fame and fortune. I understand being followed and photographed is tiresome. So hiding a lot works well, making your appearance unprintable works well, and then being thoughtful and explaining to the public you encounter makes you somehow friendly is cool. But why not live your life and allow the thousands of photos available diminish their value? If you smiled and mugged for these vultures, and every one of them had hundreds of photos of you at airports, in restaurants, waving, sticking out your tongue, shaking hands with every being you encountered, you become a media whore and most of the photographers would go away. It seems to me it would be easy to photograph this person with his hand over the dirty word if he covers it and apologizes for it so often.

  11. I’m surprised the paps can’t just photoshop it out, actually. It doesn’t seem like that would violate some paparazzi code of journalistic ethics.

  12. He ought to go the Karin Dreijer Andersson route. It effectively obscures facial features while remaining visually engaging, and there’s no obscenity to worry with.

  13. If you really don’t want to be harassed, have someone take a thousand photos of you and put them on the internet, ruining the prices for everyone else.

    Scarlett Johansson was freaking brilliant doing all those glamour shots with the occasional exposed nipple. Is anyone going to chase her on a Vespa to get a grainy side-boob shot? Nope.

  14. As suggested above, a certain degree of predictable ubiquity might be most effective. I doubt anyone gets paid for surreptitious shots of Jack Nicholson at a Lakers game.

  15.  I would think that the type of people who only cared about MM 10+ years ago (when it was cool to “care”) are exactly the kinds of people he wouldn’t want caring about him at all.  He’s more relevant and creative now than ever.  I honestly don’t understand the hate.  Not only is he incredibly musically talented, he’s got great taste in girlfriends…Evan Rachel Wood?  Lindsay Usich?  Va Va VOOM…

    1. You are not tabloid relevant (for the most part) unless your work is current and popular or unless you have a history of making a public spectacle of yourself, and not just on stage. If its the latter you have a host of choices, infidelity, drugs etc. 
      The point is that MM is not currently or particularly tabloid relevant right now. He just has an ego the size of a house. As for celebs pissing and moaning about having their picture taken, I say get over it. They  get paid an ungodly amount of money to do what they love, and it is EXACTLY what they prayed for. Really? You’re successful now you’re pissed about it. Pathetic. 

  16. I second Mindfu’s thought. The story is non sense: He must be doing it for publicity because it would be less than trivial to photoshop “fuck” off his face. Doesnt everyone know how trivial it would be to photoshop it off his face? 

    1. It might be actionable for a news publication, even a celebrity tabloid, to alter the content of a news photo. And since MM wasn’t posing for a photoshoot, that’s exactly what such a photo would have been.

      During the 1984 Olympics Time Magazine used this photo of Mary Decker but they airbrushed out the walkie antenna because they thought it detracted from the dramatic moment. As I recall, a journalistic shitstorm ensued, but Decker had bigger things to be upset about. Time had a similar scandal when they manipulated O.J. Simpson’s mugshot on the cover to make him look scarier before the trial had even begun, but he was also in no position to do anything about it.

      1. OK, with the legal aspect of opening a publication to lawsuits I can see how Manson’s rationale might work. The paparrazzi wouldn’t care, but a media conglomerate certainly would. 

        I can actually see how the media outlet might have to be absolutely certain none of their photos have been altered, as even the possibility of one being fake would open *all* their other celebrity photos to potential lawsuits – and they might then have to prove in court none of their photos were photoshopped.

  17. This just shows that he is either stupid or really really high.  He wrote something to block pap’s from taking photos, but then covers it up so as not to offend people around him?  Wouldn’t the paps take photos then when he covers it up?  There is some sort of messed up alcoholic logic about this.

    And as others have pointed out, there are not a lot of individuals waiting in the wings to take photos.  

    Having just witnessed him in concert where he was mumbling his lyrics for half the set, I feel he needs to sober up, have a shower, drink some coffee.

    1. Wouldn’t the paps take photos then when he covers it up?

      It’s really hard to sell a photo of “some goth with his hand over his face”.

Comments are closed.