Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.
This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.
With skin, I’m not talking about skin color but its plainness.
Yes, it’s my interpretation that men prefer watching plain skin on women. I’m just trying to make sense of men finding tattoos on women attractive but only if they’re small and in hidden places. If something is attractive, wouldn’t it be desirable to have it highly visible?
Of course, there are groups which love tattoos. Tattoos are part of the Goth scene.
With skin, I’m not talking about skin color but its plainness.
That’s still not designer work. The genetic lottery doesn’t declare “this is what you’re supposed to look like”. It just spits out a genome and resulting appearance with all the consideration and passion of a die rolling off the table. The comparison with a thinking, feeling architect designing a building with deliberation and aesthetic intentions just doesn’t work.
Like I said, we could talk about whether graffiti is vandalism, but the same thing just doesn’t apply to human bodies any more than it applies to an homeowner painting their own walls.
Yes, it’s my interpretation that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
And I’m telling you that it’s just not true, at least not so broadly as you make it out to be.
I’m just trying to make sense of men finding tattoos on women attractive but only if they’re small and in hidden places.
I’ll strike that “but only” from that sentence because it’s not true, as I said before.
I know plenty of people with highly visible tattoos and plenty of guys (and gals) that find that attractive. Most of the tattooed women I know have or had relationships at some point, which implies that their tattoos aren’t a turnoff.
The allure that makes hidden tattoos attractive is the same thing that makes any other secret attractive, that makes conspiracy theories attractive, that makes occult practices attractive and that makes all the “doctors hate this trick” adverts work: To know something most people don’t makes you feel special. To have someone share their secret with you is a gesture of trust. And particularly to discover hidden things about the body of another is intimate on some level.
There is also a lingering issue where some people take offense to tattoos, which makes some employers less likely to hire people with visible tattoos in customer-facing jobs.
There is a worry that you might trust an investment advisor less if it’s a woman with visible ink, or refuse to buy coffee from a barista with something written on her arm. So long as that stigma remains, there is a reason to hide tattoos that has nothing to do with attraction:
Cunts who think they have the right to judge what others do with their own bodies.
The Brandeis study indicated that most men find body hair on women unattractive. This suggests that men innately find body hair on women unattractive. There is no genetic lottery, the dice are loaded.
Your hypothesis that the attractiveness of tattoos on women is that they are hidden is plausible but is counter intuitive since something beautiful would seemingly want to be shown such as earrings on women.
You contradict your own hypothesis that tattoos are attractive on women if they’re hidden. Consequently, you should have no problem with employers telling employees to cover their tattoos.
The Brandeis study indicated that most men find body hair on women unattractive. This suggests that men innately find body hair on women unattractive.
I don’t know that study or how representative it is, but even if it were, there are two glaring errors here:
The suggested link between stated opinion and some innate tendency overlooks the possibility that this opinion might be a cultural product, rather than some natural state. If we’re permanently exposed to media feeding us a particular beauty standard, that is going to shape our perception.
How people feel about body hair doesn’t have any immediate bearing on how they feel about tattoos. For instance, I could advocate for women shaving their legs so I can better see their leg tattoos. Not that I have any right to tell women (or anyone else) what to do with their body, of course.
In any event, that study also isn’t representative of the cultural environment I move in. I don’t know what culture you’re from to feel so strongly about this, but it certainly isn’t universal.
Your hypothesis that the attractiveness of tattoos on women is that they are hidden
My claim is that, specifically for hidden tattoos (regardless of the wearer’s sex), part of the appeal may be that they’re hidden. This isn’t the only reason tattoos might be attractive, just an appeal a specific subset may have (and not all within that subset either – some tattoos genuinely are ugly, but that doesn’t mean all are).
is counter intuitive since something beautiful would seemingly want to be shown such as earrings on women.
Pussies are beautiful too, but that doesn’t mean everyone wants to show them to the world. Some beautiful things are only shown to select people, and that’s fine.
But also, many beautiful tattoos are shown in public, and I love that, and I know many people who love that, and any claim that men categorically find them unappealing in women is just not representative.
You contradict your own hypothesis that tattoos are attractive on women if they’re hidden.
I made no claim that they are only attractive when hidden, or only when public, because attractiveness is generally nuanced and complex and can’t be broken down to absolutes like that.
Consequently, you should have no problem with employers telling employees to cover their tattoos.
How would that contradiction (or either position alone) imply any logical connection to what employers tell their employees or how I would feel about that?
I have a problem with the general expectation that customer service has to be conventionally attractive, but it’s particularly bad for women. Tattoos are just one notch on that tally of things that really shouldn’t matter in a professional context. If my tax advisor is ugly as sin, but gives good advice, they’re a good tax advisor.
The whole topic of tattoos, particularly when it’s straight men talking about women’s tattoos, often veers into men policing women’s bodies. Women don’t exist for your or my viewing pleasure. If you think they’re ugly, that’s your opinion. Even if it was a common opinion, it would still be an opinion.
Announcing “I don’t like this thing some people do” is a dick move in the first place. Let people enjoy things. Let them do with their bodies what they want.
But to make it specifically about women and keep doubling down? Fuck the fuck off. No half-baked attempt at providing scientific backing for sexism is gonna make it less sexist.
I’ve been trying to be charitable thus far, but let me be clear here: Tattoos, no matter the sex, gender, ethnicity, religion or favourite sports team of their wearer, are an expression of individuality. Whether or not they’re beautiful or attractive by any standard shouldn’t matter.
I happen to love them, but that’s incidental to my basic human respect for other people’s dignity.
I prefer not to see property covered in illegal graffiti, but I must say quite a bit of it is outstanding art. It amazes me how someone can spray paint the correct proportions in a railway yard, on a bridge or any difficult area to access. I enjoy looking at well done graffiti more than walking around the Louvre.
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
In what the sample size of…3? from the esteemed publication… Glamour magazine.
Multiple mentions of a survey, no mentions of how many were in the survey pool, how many responded, demographic information outside of “18-38”, or any other pertienant details.
So cool, a student research paper you allege wrote that is based on Glamour magazine and a unsubstantiated survey. Hope it was worth the Brandeis tuition 🤣
I couldn’t find any scientific studies on tattoos but the Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. Both studies seem to agree; men like women with plain skin. If men only find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and hidden, they prefer women not to have tattoos.
The article said that some respondents explained that hairless bodies made women appear younger. Body hair on women is not a blemish in that it’s not a flaw, but it makes women less attractive.
But they’re still allowed to give their opinion and down voting them becayse we disagree is not how this works. I upvote comments that are on topic and invite discussion. This was one, even if I don’t agree. “I don’t agree with you but I will fight so you can be heard” – Descartes (I think)
There’s a time and a place. If I go to a wedding, I’m not gonna walk up to people and start talking about how I don’t care about a piece of paper. I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I agree. Everyone has their own preferences - some are minimalist preferring a “blank canvas” while some prefer a bit more than that. This kind of mentality goes beyond just tattoos, but it feels like a dice roll sometimes on social sites like this.
You disagree with someone being able to get a tattoo? Are you also against crocs because they’re ugly. I would agree i think baddly of croc wearers but i know thats just my stupid hatred for those ugly things. But if i were to voice that opinion, i wouldnt be able to blame others for disagreeing with me. You say an unpopular opinion on the internet, people reply.
Man, people online sure pick weird arguments. Who the hell cares this random dude doesn’t like tattoos? 127 downvotes for that? This is the type of shit I just scroll over
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
If men finding tattoos on women attractive only if they’ll small and hidden is not much of an endorsement of tattoos at least on women.
Not really. Bodies are not blank canvases. A house is not a blank canvas. The architect designed it a certain way. Think of a woman’s leg. Even hair is a blemish. Much more so tattoos.
“I sit in an empty room with nothing on the walls. No paintings, no posters, not even any light fixtures or furniture. The house is not a canvas for me to decorate.”
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive.Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive, but when humans weren’t as technologically advanced it served a purpose. Perhaps to detect insects crawling on the body. In modern society, that’s not much of a problem.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
According to the article, most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they should be small and hidden. Combined with the article on body hair on women, I conclude that men prefer women with plain skin. It was my hypothesis of blemishes as an explanation, but it could be that men were simply created with this preference.
I don’t get it. Would you say a river has architecture? Would you refer to an empty desert as a blank canvas? There is no architecture for which there was no intent. Also, canvases are artificial or even abstract constructs — of which our body is not. You seem to be anthropomorphizing things to justify and even romanticize your biases. Interesting use of cognitive load, there.
An unblemished human body serves a biological purpose; indication of health. A person with blemishes on the body probably indicates health problems. Although a tattoo is art, the brain interprets it as a blemish. That’s the reason it makes skin less attractive.
A tattoo does not indicate a health problem, but the brain might interpret it as a blemish on the skin which does indicate a health problem. For example, a mole.
if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
I conclude that men prefer plain skin on women. Note that with tattoos on women, men prefer small tattoos in hidden locations.
Banksy isn’t graffiti, he’s street art. They’re cousins but there is a difference.
And he’s not that good, he ripped off Blek Le Rat. And he has no respect for his predecessors, going over King Robbo (RIP.) I’ll take a bomber like JA XTC or MQ, or a freight king like Ichabod or Jase over Banksy any day, personally.
I’ve seen good graffiti. They are good artists. On locations such as the walls of a subway station is good, but on a house no. Tattoos on the body no because it’s a blemish on the body.
Off the top of my head the rainbow house by those Baptist nuts with the signs and a picture a kid drew for their parent before they died turned into a tattoo.
On the website version of Lemmy you can edit how your name appears and it accepts emojis. I actually forget about it because Voyager ignores those, lol.
Yeah. Real architecture is only built by architects, not artists. So much beauty is lost in this country to spray paint. Real cities like Rome don’t have this problem.
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art but ruins the beauty of the original architecture.
That’s nice, dear
Nobody actually asked you though
Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.
This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.
With skin, I’m not talking about skin color but its plainness.
Yes, it’s my interpretation that men prefer watching plain skin on women. I’m just trying to make sense of men finding tattoos on women attractive but only if they’re small and in hidden places. If something is attractive, wouldn’t it be desirable to have it highly visible?
Of course, there are groups which love tattoos. Tattoos are part of the Goth scene.
That’s still not designer work. The genetic lottery doesn’t declare “this is what you’re supposed to look like”. It just spits out a genome and resulting appearance with all the consideration and passion of a die rolling off the table. The comparison with a thinking, feeling architect designing a building with deliberation and aesthetic intentions just doesn’t work.
Like I said, we could talk about whether graffiti is vandalism, but the same thing just doesn’t apply to human bodies any more than it applies to an homeowner painting their own walls.
And I’m telling you that it’s just not true, at least not so broadly as you make it out to be.
I’ll strike that “but only” from that sentence because it’s not true, as I said before. I know plenty of people with highly visible tattoos and plenty of guys (and gals) that find that attractive. Most of the tattooed women I know have or had relationships at some point, which implies that their tattoos aren’t a turnoff.
The allure that makes hidden tattoos attractive is the same thing that makes any other secret attractive, that makes conspiracy theories attractive, that makes occult practices attractive and that makes all the “doctors hate this trick” adverts work: To know something most people don’t makes you feel special. To have someone share their secret with you is a gesture of trust. And particularly to discover hidden things about the body of another is intimate on some level.
There is also a lingering issue where some people take offense to tattoos, which makes some employers less likely to hire people with visible tattoos in customer-facing jobs. There is a worry that you might trust an investment advisor less if it’s a woman with visible ink, or refuse to buy coffee from a barista with something written on her arm. So long as that stigma remains, there is a reason to hide tattoos that has nothing to do with attraction:
Cunts who think they have the right to judge what others do with their own bodies.
Don’t be a cunt.
The Brandeis study indicated that most men find body hair on women unattractive. This suggests that men innately find body hair on women unattractive. There is no genetic lottery, the dice are loaded.
Your hypothesis that the attractiveness of tattoos on women is that they are hidden is plausible but is counter intuitive since something beautiful would seemingly want to be shown such as earrings on women.
You contradict your own hypothesis that tattoos are attractive on women if they’re hidden. Consequently, you should have no problem with employers telling employees to cover their tattoos.
I don’t know that study or how representative it is, but even if it were, there are two glaring errors here:
In any event, that study also isn’t representative of the cultural environment I move in. I don’t know what culture you’re from to feel so strongly about this, but it certainly isn’t universal.
My claim is that, specifically for hidden tattoos (regardless of the wearer’s sex), part of the appeal may be that they’re hidden. This isn’t the only reason tattoos might be attractive, just an appeal a specific subset may have (and not all within that subset either – some tattoos genuinely are ugly, but that doesn’t mean all are).
Pussies are beautiful too, but that doesn’t mean everyone wants to show them to the world. Some beautiful things are only shown to select people, and that’s fine.
But also, many beautiful tattoos are shown in public, and I love that, and I know many people who love that, and any claim that men categorically find them unappealing in women is just not representative.
I made no claim that they are only attractive when hidden, or only when public, because attractiveness is generally nuanced and complex and can’t be broken down to absolutes like that.
The whole topic of tattoos, particularly when it’s straight men talking about women’s tattoos, often veers into men policing women’s bodies. Women don’t exist for your or my viewing pleasure. If you think they’re ugly, that’s your opinion. Even if it was a common opinion, it would still be an opinion.
Announcing “I don’t like this thing some people do” is a dick move in the first place. Let people enjoy things. Let them do with their bodies what they want.
But to make it specifically about women and keep doubling down? Fuck the fuck off. No half-baked attempt at providing scientific backing for sexism is gonna make it less sexist.
I’ve been trying to be charitable thus far, but let me be clear here: Tattoos, no matter the sex, gender, ethnicity, religion or favourite sports team of their wearer, are an expression of individuality. Whether or not they’re beautiful or attractive by any standard shouldn’t matter.
I happen to love them, but that’s incidental to my basic human respect for other people’s dignity.
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art that enhances the beauty of the otherwise plain architecture.
I prefer not to see property covered in illegal graffiti, but I must say quite a bit of it is outstanding art. It amazes me how someone can spray paint the correct proportions in a railway yard, on a bridge or any difficult area to access. I enjoy looking at well done graffiti more than walking around the Louvre.
In the human body plain indicates health. Blemishes such as moles or spider veins indicate poor health. The brain interprets tattoos as a blemish.
No, your brain interprets that. I do not.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
You started out stupid, and then got worse
You will die alone and lonely.
In what the sample size of…3? from the esteemed publication… Glamour magazine.
Multiple mentions of a survey, no mentions of how many were in the survey pool, how many responded, demographic information outside of “18-38”, or any other pertienant details.
So cool, a student research paper you allege wrote that is based on Glamour magazine and a unsubstantiated survey. Hope it was worth the Brandeis tuition 🤣
I couldn’t find any scientific studies on tattoos but the Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. Both studies seem to agree; men like women with plain skin. If men only find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and hidden, they prefer women not to have tattoos.
Stop speaking for all men. There are tons of guys that love tattoos on themselves, on their friends, and on their lover.
Well they obviously didn’t ask me, I love my women bushy. Or ask anyone from before the 70’s.
And just for good measure, YOURE A MISOGYNISTIC ASSHOLE.
The Brandeis study said 95.2% of men preferred hairless women not 100%.
It’s pretty gross how hard you’re trying to convince people that it’s normal to like prepubescent girls.
BoDy HaIr iS sEeN aS a BlEmIsH!!
Jeeeezus Christ, dude.
The article said that some respondents explained that hairless bodies made women appear younger. Body hair on women is not a blemish in that it’s not a flaw, but it makes women less attractive.
Only a truly blemish-free brain could have come up with this brilliant take. Not so much as a wrinkle on that surface.
I have never thought about it that way. Thanks for a explanation why some people may not like tattoos.
Thankfully, none of the people who get tattoos give a shit what you think ☺️
But they’re still allowed to give their opinion and down voting them becayse we disagree is not how this works. I upvote comments that are on topic and invite discussion. This was one, even if I don’t agree. “I don’t agree with you but I will fight so you can be heard” – Descartes (I think)
There’s a time and a place. If I go to a wedding, I’m not gonna walk up to people and start talking about how I don’t care about a piece of paper. I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I agree. Everyone has their own preferences - some are minimalist preferring a “blank canvas” while some prefer a bit more than that. This kind of mentality goes beyond just tattoos, but it feels like a dice roll sometimes on social sites like this.
Quite the hypothesis. How’s it playing out
You disagree with someone being able to get a tattoo? Are you also against crocs because they’re ugly. I would agree i think baddly of croc wearers but i know thats just my stupid hatred for those ugly things. But if i were to voice that opinion, i wouldnt be able to blame others for disagreeing with me. You say an unpopular opinion on the internet, people reply.
Man, people online sure pick weird arguments. Who the hell cares this random dude doesn’t like tattoos? 127 downvotes for that? This is the type of shit I just scroll over
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
If men finding tattoos on women attractive only if they’ll small and hidden is not much of an endorsement of tattoos at least on women.
I think it’s more like our bodies are blank canvases. They need some color and embellishing to really accent what’s already there
Not really. Bodies are not blank canvases. A house is not a blank canvas. The architect designed it a certain way. Think of a woman’s leg. Even hair is a blemish. Much more so tattoos.
Oh it’s a rage bait account. I get it.
Not wrong, scrolling through their post history is watching someone beg for down votes and general internet ire.
“I sit in an empty room with nothing on the walls. No paintings, no posters, not even any light fixtures or furniture. The house is not a canvas for me to decorate.”
Would a painting be attractive on the outside of a house?
Yes. See every mural ever.
deleted by creator
The so-called architect put those hairs there, you moron.
Depends on where the hair is located. Do you like women with hairy legs or hair under the armpits.?
I honestly couldn’t give a fuck. If you wanna shave have at it, but if you are more comfortable without shaving, more power to ya.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive. Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive, but when humans weren’t as technologically advanced it served a purpose. Perhaps to detect insects crawling on the body. In modern society, that’s not much of a problem.
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
According to the article, most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they should be small and hidden. Combined with the article on body hair on women, I conclude that men prefer women with plain skin. It was my hypothesis of blemishes as an explanation, but it could be that men were simply created with this preference.
Yes
Hair is a blemish? You’re out of your goddamn mind
deleted by creator
Really? Do you like women with hairy legs or hair under the armpits?
gay men exist
Yes, but I’m a heterosexual male so I don’t know the feelings of gay men.
but you’re assuming everyone else you’re replying to is also a hetero male, that’s my entire point
But as a hetero male, I only know the feelings of a hetero male. I also don’t know the feelings of a female.
So you want natural skin, but no natural hair growth?
Hair on a woman legs and armpits are not attractive.
I hope you shave of all of your body hair because it is disgusting on men
Well maybe when one day when you get to enjoy a woman you won’t mind so much.
I don’t get it. Would you say a river has architecture? Would you refer to an empty desert as a blank canvas? There is no architecture for which there was no intent. Also, canvases are artificial or even abstract constructs — of which our body is not. You seem to be anthropomorphizing things to justify and even romanticize your biases. Interesting use of cognitive load, there.
What’s ironic is that tattoos introduce intent to the matter, thereby providing something to romanticize.
An unblemished human body serves a biological purpose; indication of health. A person with blemishes on the body probably indicates health problems. Although a tattoo is art, the brain interprets it as a blemish. That’s the reason it makes skin less attractive.
A tattoo does not indicate health problems. I don’t know where you got this idea, but your idea is wrong.
A tattoo does not indicate a health problem, but the brain might interpret it as a blemish on the skin which does indicate a health problem. For example, a mole.
if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
I conclude that men prefer plain skin on women. Note that with tattoos on women, men prefer small tattoos in hidden locations.
I suggest you attempt to fix your brain: it clearly malfunctions and this may indicate health problems.
I pity you having never seen good graffiti. Banksy weeps😭
Banksy isn’t graffiti, he’s street art. They’re cousins but there is a difference.
And he’s not that good, he ripped off Blek Le Rat. And he has no respect for his predecessors, going over King Robbo (RIP.) I’ll take a bomber like JA XTC or MQ, or a freight king like Ichabod or Jase over Banksy any day, personally.
Insert XKCD expert overestimating the specific knowledge of the public here… Quartz
No I know most people don’t know, this is the “expert” (not that expert but in context) informing. Wasn’t trying to be a dick.
I’ve seen good graffiti. They are good artists. On locations such as the walls of a subway station is good, but on a house no. Tattoos on the body no because it’s a blemish on the body.
Off the top of my head the rainbow house by those Baptist nuts with the signs and a picture a kid drew for their parent before they died turned into a tattoo.
Your purism needs to be rethought
Wow! Wrong about both tattoos and graffiti. A two-fer
Tell that to my Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy tattoo, a massive improvement to previously boring skin.
I boo in your general direction.
Unrelated to the shithead you’re replying to, but how did you make it so your username appears in such a large typeface?
On the website version of Lemmy you can edit how your name appears and it accepts emojis. I actually forget about it because Voyager ignores those, lol.
Thanks!
Yeah. Real architecture is only built by architects, not artists. So much beauty is lost in this country to spray paint. Real cities like Rome don’t have this problem.
Why would you say Rome specifically you third Reich wanna be 😂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti
Poe’s Law from the top rope.
Like in telltale heart?
Gross, like straight up ewww
Majority of responses like this are straight up hypocrisy.
I agree. It’s often a red flag of emotional problems as well. Not always, but in my experience, often enough to be reliable.
Wooowwww… This is an insane generalised judgement.
It’s a good starting point, backed up from repeated interactions. They can prove me wrong, or more often, prove me right.
You’re going to die alone and lonely
deleted by creator