| Like a PP said, it will definitely weed out people who don't want to hang with tattooed or not tattooed persons, according to their tastes, life views, values, etc. Kind of a win-win. |
Nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. |
Because when you are stupid, you are stupid. Their life. |
|
poisonous animals have outward signs, markings.
Tats are an outward sign of danger... |
Who is “inciting action”? Saying/Thinking/Believing it looks ugly masculine and more unnattractive than if you never had it is not an action. Nobody is rounding up tattooed people into gulags and forcing laser removal on them. |
"Should not be encouraged" is an action. You're saying society should discourage young women from tattooing their bodies. This is an overstep, because it's none of your damn business. |
That whole post was one of my "favorites" on this thread because it tried to sound very erudite but was full of logical inconsistencies. Yes, it did proscribe action: encouraging young women not to "mar" their beauty with tattoos. And then it said it wasn't about attractiveness, oh no! No, it was about the anti-social instinct behind getting tattoos; see, tattoos are a symptom of antisocial leanings. And definitely the way to cure anti-social instincts is to pressure young people into conforming with what old people want for them, lol. Isn't conforming to one guy's ideas of beauty the mark of pro-social behavior? Won't society fall apart if young women are allowed to mar their beauty with no thought of their chattel value? Yup, it probably all hinges on whether or not people decorate their bodies with ink. |
But the young woman is still free to do as she pleases! If she doesn’t care what people think then so what? Trying to force the idea that there should be no social mores or pressures around at all is an overstep on everyone else, just in the other direction. So why are you any better, exactly? |
I'm not the PP but your whole thesis is flawed. Putting ink on your body has nothing to do with other people and hence it cannot be anti-social behavior. And because it is not anti-social behavior, there is no reason for society to push against it. Your personal aesthetic preferences do not the fabric of society make. |
If someone were to graffiti a beautiful piece of architecture like Westminster Abbey or the White House or a Frank Lloyd Wright original, even it was a pouring forth of that person’s creative expression, I can still be dismayed and discourage the behavior. Not because I’m sexually attracted to the building, or only because the inherent beauty of the building has been marred. Sure, that blemish is a part of it, but so is the antisocial behavior and lack of reverence for beauty, revered places, social tranquility (and the law, to wit). The human person is infinitely more beautiful and contains more dignity than a building or Ferrari, and so it is in the best interest of society to encourage the preservation of beauty where it can be done. I would say the same thing about willfulling choosing obesity, or steroids and synthol injections to the biceps, or cartoonish Kardashian-esque plastic surgeries and fillers. I can lament what happened to Michael Jackson, not because I wanted him to be sexually attractive for me personally, but because very obviously a tragedy was done to his naturally beautiful brown skin and ethnic nose. Not only that, but he died at the very hands of doctors who would not tell him “No! Stop! You’re hurting yourself and I won’t participate!” Yes he chose that, but does that mean that that way should be celebrated, or disinterestedly not cared about at all? Is a group of adults that tells its little black girls and boys “who gives a damn what society thinks! if you don’t like how you look, just bleach your skin and chisel your face until you feel beautiful!” a loving one? I certainly would never tell my child such a thing. But according to this thread, people who would merely *discourage* such a thing are hateful, want to own others, and so on. It is an image of the petulant worldview I mentioned earlier. |
|
Tattoos used to be a class signifier in women. The amount of tattoos and education were inversely proportional. No longer true, but the assumptions remain. |
| It's body art, OP. Personal taste. My ink is one way that I use to express myself. I am a 50 yr old grandmother. Some people like ink, some people do not. Those of you who do not cannot understand those of us who do, so there's no point in trying. |
|
My mom when my 25 year old daughter got a tattoo on her forearm - “what will a baby think when it’s mom has a tattoo on her arm?”
Can’t make this shit up. |
How is it body art? What makes it art? |
Moms with tattoos on their arms are low class. So tacky. |