Anonymous wrote: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.

Moms with tattoos on their arms are low class. So tacky.

It's body art, OP.

How is it body art? What makes it art?

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH told me that FIL said the exact same thing recently. "I don't understand why pretty young women ruin their looks with tattoos."

And I said, yeah, first of all your dad is like all old people who can't believe the next generation has different preferences and standards and thinks theirs should remain supreme for all time. And secondly, your dad is blind to his ingrained misogyny in thinking that "pretty young women" need to give a flying fook what some stranger thinks. And my husband said, no no, of course my dad isn't misogynistic, and I said look, it's ingrained in us to think that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and earn the attention and protection of men. It's a subtle, subconscious thing, and it takes effort and self-awareness to recognize and reject it.

It's just pretty wild to think that people you don't know should care about being aesthetically pleasing to you. Hello entitlement.

Why are so few people capable of thinking abstractly when it comes to stuff like this? It has nothing to do with wanting strangers to be aesthetically pleasing to an individual person. In principle, yes, young women should as a whole not be encouraged do things to mar their beauty on purpose. Based on the answers in this thread, the tattoo very much is an expression of “screw you, if you think I’m ugly!” which is a statement in and of itself. It speaks of a petulant disdain for social restraint and lack of long-term thinking which is not a positive quality to have in a civilized, eusocial society. Has nothing to do with who does and does not get a boner from it.

This is an extremely problematic viewpoint. Women’s bodies are their own, to do with as they please. They are not a collective good.

And people’s opinions and viewpoints are their own, to do with what they please. Why is it any more wrong for them to think that it’s unnattractive then? Why do people want to control or change other people’s visceral reaction to seeing a beautiful woman scribbled on like a school desk then? Why is it any more wrong for a mother to not want that for her daughter? Just because a man *can* waste his life away playing video games and doing drugs as he pleases does it mean people are wrong for discouraging such a life and finding it unnattractive?

Think what you please but don’t expect anyone to give two shits about your opinion.

And nobody cares that you don’t care what people think. Truly a marvel how useless this line of thinking becomes!

YOU are the one who posted that “young women should as a whole not be encouraged blah blah blah.” That’s not just a personal opinion, that’s an action statement. Young women’s bodies are none of your business. When you choose to incite action about something that is a personal matter, it’s incumbent that other people let you know that you are overstepping. Care about your own body. Leave everyone else alone.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH told me that FIL said the exact same thing recently. "I don't understand why pretty young women ruin their looks with tattoos."

And I said, yeah, first of all your dad is like all old people who can't believe the next generation has different preferences and standards and thinks theirs should remain supreme for all time. And secondly, your dad is blind to his ingrained misogyny in thinking that "pretty young women" need to give a flying fook what some stranger thinks. And my husband said, no no, of course my dad isn't misogynistic, and I said look, it's ingrained in us to think that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and earn the attention and protection of men. It's a subtle, subconscious thing, and it takes effort and self-awareness to recognize and reject it.

It's just pretty wild to think that people you don't know should care about being aesthetically pleasing to you. Hello entitlement.

Why are so few people capable of thinking abstractly when it comes to stuff like this? It has nothing to do with wanting strangers to be aesthetically pleasing to an individual person. In principle, yes, young women should as a whole not be encouraged do things to mar their beauty on purpose. Based on the answers in this thread, the tattoo very much is an expression of “screw you, if you think I’m ugly!” which is a statement in and of itself. It speaks of a petulant disdain for social restraint and lack of long-term thinking which is not a positive quality to have in a civilized, eusocial society. Has nothing to do with who does and does not get a boner from it.

This is an extremely problematic viewpoint. Women’s bodies are their own, to do with as they please. They are not a collective good.

And people’s opinions and viewpoints are their own, to do with what they please. Why is it any more wrong for them to think that it’s unnattractive then? Why do people want to control or change other people’s visceral reaction to seeing a beautiful woman scribbled on like a school desk then? Why is it any more wrong for a mother to not want that for her daughter? Just because a man *can* waste his life away playing video games and doing drugs as he pleases does it mean people are wrong for discouraging such a life and finding it unnattractive?

Think what you please but don’t expect anyone to give two shits about your opinion.

And nobody cares that you don’t care what people think. Truly a marvel how useless this line of thinking becomes!

YOU are the one who posted that “young women should as a whole not be encouraged blah blah blah.” That’s not just a personal opinion, that’s an action statement. Young women’s bodies are none of your business. When you choose to incite action about something that is a personal matter, it’s incumbent that other people let you know that you are overstepping. Care about your own body. Leave everyone else alone.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH told me that FIL said the exact same thing recently. "I don't understand why pretty young women ruin their looks with tattoos."

And I said, yeah, first of all your dad is like all old people who can't believe the next generation has different preferences and standards and thinks theirs should remain supreme for all time. And secondly, your dad is blind to his ingrained misogyny in thinking that "pretty young women" need to give a flying fook what some stranger thinks. And my husband said, no no, of course my dad isn't misogynistic, and I said look, it's ingrained in us to think that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and earn the attention and protection of men. It's a subtle, subconscious thing, and it takes effort and self-awareness to recognize and reject it.

It's just pretty wild to think that people you don't know should care about being aesthetically pleasing to you. Hello entitlement.

Why are so few people capable of thinking abstractly when it comes to stuff like this? It has nothing to do with wanting strangers to be aesthetically pleasing to an individual person. In principle, yes, young women should as a whole not be encouraged do things to mar their beauty on purpose. Based on the answers in this thread, the tattoo very much is an expression of “screw you, if you think I’m ugly!” which is a statement in and of itself. It speaks of a petulant disdain for social restraint and lack of long-term thinking which is not a positive quality to have in a civilized, eusocial society. Has nothing to do with who does and does not get a boner from it.

This is an extremely problematic viewpoint. Women’s bodies are their own, to do with as they please. They are not a collective good.

And people’s opinions and viewpoints are their own, to do with what they please. Why is it any more wrong for them to think that it’s unnattractive then? Why do people want to control or change other people’s visceral reaction to seeing a beautiful woman scribbled on like a school desk then? Why is it any more wrong for a mother to not want that for her daughter? Just because a man *can* waste his life away playing video games and doing drugs as he pleases does it mean people are wrong for discouraging such a life and finding it unnattractive?

Think what you please but don’t expect anyone to give two shits about your opinion.

And nobody cares that you don’t care what people think. Truly a marvel how useless this line of thinking becomes!

YOU are the one who posted that “young women should as a whole not be encouraged blah blah blah.” That’s not just a personal opinion, that’s an action statement. Young women’s bodies are none of your business. When you choose to incite action about something that is a personal matter, it’s incumbent that other people let you know that you are overstepping. Care about your own body. Leave everyone else alone.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH told me that FIL said the exact same thing recently. "I don't understand why pretty young women ruin their looks with tattoos."

And I said, yeah, first of all your dad is like all old people who can't believe the next generation has different preferences and standards and thinks theirs should remain supreme for all time. And secondly, your dad is blind to his ingrained misogyny in thinking that "pretty young women" need to give a flying fook what some stranger thinks. And my husband said, no no, of course my dad isn't misogynistic, and I said look, it's ingrained in us to think that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and earn the attention and protection of men. It's a subtle, subconscious thing, and it takes effort and self-awareness to recognize and reject it.

It's just pretty wild to think that people you don't know should care about being aesthetically pleasing to you. Hello entitlement.

Why are so few people capable of thinking abstractly when it comes to stuff like this? It has nothing to do with wanting strangers to be aesthetically pleasing to an individual person. In principle, yes, young women should as a whole not be encouraged do things to mar their beauty on purpose. Based on the answers in this thread, the tattoo very much is an expression of “screw you, if you think I’m ugly!” which is a statement in and of itself. It speaks of a petulant disdain for social restraint and lack of long-term thinking which is not a positive quality to have in a civilized, eusocial society. Has nothing to do with who does and does not get a boner from it.

This is an extremely problematic viewpoint. Women’s bodies are their own, to do with as they please. They are not a collective good.

And people’s opinions and viewpoints are their own, to do with what they please. Why is it any more wrong for them to think that it’s unnattractive then? Why do people want to control or change other people’s visceral reaction to seeing a beautiful woman scribbled on like a school desk then? Why is it any more wrong for a mother to not want that for her daughter? Just because a man *can* waste his life away playing video games and doing drugs as he pleases does it mean people are wrong for discouraging such a life and finding it unnattractive?

Think what you please but don’t expect anyone to give two shits about your opinion.

And nobody cares that you don’t care what people think. Truly a marvel how useless this line of thinking becomes!

YOU are the one who posted that “young women should as a whole not be encouraged blah blah blah.” That’s not just a personal opinion, that’s an action statement. Young women’s bodies are none of your business. When you choose to incite action about something that is a personal matter, it’s incumbent that other people let you know that you are overstepping. Care about your own body. Leave everyone else alone.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH told me that FIL said the exact same thing recently. "I don't understand why pretty young women ruin their looks with tattoos."

And I said, yeah, first of all your dad is like all old people who can't believe the next generation has different preferences and standards and thinks theirs should remain supreme for all time. And secondly, your dad is blind to his ingrained misogyny in thinking that "pretty young women" need to give a flying fook what some stranger thinks. And my husband said, no no, of course my dad isn't misogynistic, and I said look, it's ingrained in us to think that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and earn the attention and protection of men. It's a subtle, subconscious thing, and it takes effort and self-awareness to recognize and reject it.

It's just pretty wild to think that people you don't know should care about being aesthetically pleasing to you. Hello entitlement.

Why are so few people capable of thinking abstractly when it comes to stuff like this? It has nothing to do with wanting strangers to be aesthetically pleasing to an individual person. In principle, yes, young women should as a whole not be encouraged do things to mar their beauty on purpose. Based on the answers in this thread, the tattoo very much is an expression of “screw you, if you think I’m ugly!” which is a statement in and of itself. It speaks of a petulant disdain for social restraint and lack of long-term thinking which is not a positive quality to have in a civilized, eusocial society. Has nothing to do with who does and does not get a boner from it.

This is an extremely problematic viewpoint. Women’s bodies are their own, to do with as they please. They are not a collective good.

And people’s opinions and viewpoints are their own, to do with what they please. Why is it any more wrong for them to think that it’s unnattractive then? Why do people want to control or change other people’s visceral reaction to seeing a beautiful woman scribbled on like a school desk then? Why is it any more wrong for a mother to not want that for her daughter? Just because a man *can* waste his life away playing video games and doing drugs as he pleases does it mean people are wrong for discouraging such a life and finding it unnattractive?

Think what you please but don’t expect anyone to give two shits about your opinion.

And nobody cares that you don’t care what people think. Truly a marvel how useless this line of thinking becomes!

YOU are the one who posted that “young women should as a whole not be encouraged blah blah blah.” That’s not just a personal opinion, that’s an action statement. Young women’s bodies are none of your business. When you choose to incite action about something that is a personal matter, it’s incumbent that other people let you know that you are overstepping. Care about your own body. Leave everyone else alone.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH told me that FIL said the exact same thing recently. "I don't understand why pretty young women ruin their looks with tattoos."

And I said, yeah, first of all your dad is like all old people who can't believe the next generation has different preferences and standards and thinks theirs should remain supreme for all time. And secondly, your dad is blind to his ingrained misogyny in thinking that "pretty young women" need to give a flying fook what some stranger thinks. And my husband said, no no, of course my dad isn't misogynistic, and I said look, it's ingrained in us to think that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and earn the attention and protection of men. It's a subtle, subconscious thing, and it takes effort and self-awareness to recognize and reject it.

It's just pretty wild to think that people you don't know should care about being aesthetically pleasing to you. Hello entitlement.

Why are so few people capable of thinking abstractly when it comes to stuff like this? It has nothing to do with wanting strangers to be aesthetically pleasing to an individual person. In principle, yes, young women should as a whole not be encouraged do things to mar their beauty on purpose. Based on the answers in this thread, the tattoo very much is an expression of “screw you, if you think I’m ugly!” which is a statement in and of itself. It speaks of a petulant disdain for social restraint and lack of long-term thinking which is not a positive quality to have in a civilized, eusocial society. Has nothing to do with who does and does not get a boner from it.

This is an extremely problematic viewpoint. Women’s bodies are their own, to do with as they please. They are not a collective good.

And people’s opinions and viewpoints are their own, to do with what they please. Why is it any more wrong for them to think that it’s unnattractive then? Why do people want to control or change other people’s visceral reaction to seeing a beautiful woman scribbled on like a school desk then? Why is it any more wrong for a mother to not want that for her daughter? Just because a man *can* waste his life away playing video games and doing drugs as he pleases does it mean people are wrong for discouraging such a life and finding it unnattractive?

Think what you please but don’t expect anyone to give two shits about your opinion.

And nobody cares that you don’t care what people think. Truly a marvel how useless this line of thinking becomes!

YOU are the one who posted that “young women should as a whole not be encouraged blah blah blah.” That’s not just a personal opinion, that’s an action statement. Young women’s bodies are none of your business. When you choose to incite action about something that is a personal matter, it’s incumbent that other people let you know that you are overstepping. Care about your own body. Leave everyone else alone.

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.

poisonous animals have outward signs, markings.

Tats are an outward sign of danger...

Anonymous wrote:These are women who generally put a lot of effort into their appearance so it’s obvious they want to look good, and they are usually pretty attractive overall, but when you see a woman and she’s covered head to toe in tattoos it really negates her good looks. Maybe she’s trying to appeal to a certain guy but IMO tattoos are almost never a positive on a woman, at best it’s something you can put up with but it never enhances someone’s looks. It’s an inherently masculine look.

Because when you are stupid, you are stupid. Their life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would expect a large portion of woman that have many tattoos, have some emotional issues.

Have many tattoos and no emotional issues. I'm a lawyer, a parent, and generally a pretty healthy person.

I think people that are judgmental usually have mental illness.

Nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this comment.

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.