You know when you read a blog that seems so ridiculous, you don’t know quite how to respond? Well, that just happened. “Women, let me tell you something that your friends and many guys will not. Your tattoos are ugly. We do not like them. We respect you less for them. We think you’re a pawn without a sense of solidarity in a world that pressures you to conform. Even if we’re not conscious of this belief, we hold it.”
I could literally paste it in bit by bit and just sigh loudly, hoping that the internet would just understand. But, seeing as the internet can twist a simple sigh into multiple meanings, I’ve decided I’d see where rambling gets me.
“The fact that women with tattoos and piercings are exceptionally easy to conquer sexually with minimal effort always gets contested despite the universal anecdotal evidence to the contrary.”
If I had a sign with the word ‘Bullshit’ sprawled across it, I would raise it above my head here. First of all, I’ve never seen actual universal evidence that suggests that tattooed and pierced females are, to put it, ‘exceptionally easy to conquer sexually with minimal effort’. I’d note the term ‘anecdotal’ is only solid if you listen to multiple people. The chances of being open to a true spectrum of people to judge it is unlikely. If I had a particular dislike for a certain aspect of people, say – for example – blondes, I would choose to listen to the negative stories about blondes being easy to reinforce my argument.
But as someone who both has tattoos and – I’d like to think – has a fair view into the world of sexual appetites based on my workplace, I can shed some more anecdotal evidence to the argument. I have served countless customers, many with tattoos and piercings, many without. I have had discussions based from my own tattoos, many loving tattoos and having them themselves and many – like the author – disgusted by them. But here’s the fun fact, from 18-78, tattooed or non-tattooed, people have the same sexual standpoint. Is there a biological ‘click’ in your head that makes you open your legs when you have the slightest ink on your skin? No. People like what they like regardless of tattoos, and I’ve known people with tattoos to only do things with long term partners, and I know others without tattoos who have a good time doing whatever with whoever they want. Does that make them bad? No. None of this does. And the fun crux of it all: tattoos have nothing to do with self-sexual preferences.
“What is the objection? Women with tats are “independent,” “thoughtful,” and “interesting.” Hmm. My first three adjectives would be “loose,” “kinky,” and “*likely* diseased (use condoms).” Wassamatta? Not down with some inked skank?”
Loose: Tattooed or not, you can sleep with whoever you want. Clearly the author of the original blog has a theory that if you have sex with anyone other than your life-partner, you’re a ‘whore’ and who knows what other ridiculous labels. The link between sex and tattoos is kind of frustrating, really, but hey. Kinky: Good! That’s not a bad thing. And, back to the workplace and anecdotal evidence you would not believe how kinky the normal, non-tattooed housewife can be. Mums, grandmothers, teachers, writers, the regular Joe on the street – people are kinky because newsflash: that’s actually not a bad thing. Likely diseased: I think ‘sigh’ will suffice on this one.
“When your friends compliment your latest addition and talk about how “cool” it is and how “edgy” you are, know that they do so in hopes that you will do the same when they get some piece of trashy memento permanently enshrined on their skin.”
Not one person I know has ever got a tattoo because they think it is edgy, nor has that ever been a compliment thrown to those with tattoos. This kind of contradicts the other idea that tattoos are basically a fashion statement and all too common (“Getting a tattoo marks you not only as a sheep…“). Something so common would never be considered edgy; in fact, in today’s culture is there anything that’s actually edgy? I don’t think so, when it comes to how someone looks.
Does this fall under the category of what the mainstream media calls “jealous men calling normal things cheating?” Yes. Does that make us wrong? No.
This point goes on to say that female tattoo artists are rare, so I’ll deal with that point first: they’re not. If the moral issue is *gasp* a male leaving a mark on your skin, it’s not difficult to find a female alternative. Every town or city I have gotten a tattoo in, or been with a friend or family member when they got one, had a female tattoo artist. In fact, we tend to go there. Also, another surprising trait – they’re not strangers. Tattoo parlours are generally friendly places and it takes all of a visit or two to become relatively chatty with male tattoo artists. Would I prefer someone I know better to stick a needle in me? No, I’d prefer someone professionally trained, and someone who’s generally friendly.
“Because tattoos were primarily a symbol of prostitutes.”
Where is this ‘primarily’ defined? Is the word ‘primarily’ more apt because it supports a very narrow minded argument and kind of skips over a number of other instances? Ignoring the history of tattoos that includes 4000BC examples believed to be forms of acupuncture, ancient mummies being found with clear ink visible, or many ancient tribes being heavily tattooed, or sailors being key people to get tattoos. To me, sailors and tribes came far above prostitutes in the tattoo line, when the topic first comes up.
“Guys will always respect you less for having one, even if it’s on the subconscious level. I know I didn’t disrespect women with tats until I dated one.”
And here! The epic point that is being missed: there was no notable issue with women with tattoos until personal interactions with one. Was the person horrible and a ‘whore’ because they had tattoos? Well, no, otherwise you wouldn’t date them. But ‘She turned out to be quite the skank’, so of course all tattoo-bearing women in the world are akin to this one example who skewed the author’s opinion in the first place. I’ll weigh in my own point here: I am not a skank. I wasn’t before I got tattoos, I wasn’t after I got tattoos. I am not treated with less respect for having them, nor am I treated with more, because they don’t matter. I am treated based on how I am as a person, and what I do from day to day. No one suddenly changes their approach to me if I roll up a sleeve and unveil something they don’t like.
Referring back to the mention of talking about tattoos in work, it’s people like those who make these debates reasonable, those who can politely ask about tattoos and say that they’re not something they like. People are far more open minded when they just talk to people about the whys behind things, and then agree to disagree and move on. Do they go home and say to their daughter, “If you get a tattoo you’ll be an easy whore just like that random girl I had a nice chat with?” I highly doubt it.
And, in conclusion…
“Women who get tattoos demonstrate they are prepared to make a long-term decision they will always regret for social approval/independence status in their own minds. It’s a mullet you can never shave off. We will never respect you for having one. You will lower your social value by having one and limit your choice of potential suitors.”
I have never gotten a tattoo for social approval or independence. I have never cared about other people liking my tattoos, nor did I get them to prove a point. They aren’t edgy. No one in their right mind thinks they are edgy. Yes – there are some god awful tattoos out there and yes it’s easy to look at a tattoo and go ‘God, you will regret that’, but that’s different because that’s an opinion on a singular tattoo, and not the person as a whole, or a sweeping generalisation of a whole section of society. It’s fair to think that in some professions visible tattoos or certain images may not be fine, but again, that’s opinion on a situation and not a person.
Judging females as a whole because of tattoos is stupid. We are not ‘lowering our social value’ because of tattoos. Why don’t you judge the person by what they say and how they act, not how they look? And, one thing that irks me most in the conclusion – if you think that having a tattoo limits a woman’s choice of partner, then you’re the one losing out on a host of potential suitors. Because, true story, when you find a perfect suitor, they love you for you, not a little ink on your skin.
After writing this, I found their follow up blog which looks at the statistics the original referred to:
While that’s all fair and well, these deal with a fraction of tattooed people, and to the conclusion drawn:
Given: Only 3.3% or less of women who have tattoos have had 1 partner or less and of women with over 11 partners, tattooed women make up over 30%
Given: The odds of marriage becoming successful drop by as much as 30% for one partner and 50% for over 11.
Therefore: It can reasonably be posited that women with tattoos are poor choices as lifelong mates.
I refer to everything I said above: tattoos don’t make the person. If a marriage fails it’s not because of the person having tattoos, it’s because of a multitude of factors. I cannot imagine how many marriages break down because of a dysfunction that comes with being with someone with tattoos, because the most surprising people have tattoos. Like I said above, mothers, grandmothers, teachers, whoever else I listed – everyone comes from the same standpoint, and it seems a frankly downright rude judgement to conclude that some ink blotches on skin can then make them an unsuitable mate.