Even ****ty ones,
more attractive or less attractive?
I vote more, because of the thigh tattoo.
In general, it still really depends on the type of tattoos.
If you have some good ones or even halfway decent, more attractive.
If you have ****ty ones, or my personal worst - a name on your neck, less attractive.
True.In general, it still really depends on the type of tattoos.
I think attractive people look good with all but the worst tattoos.If you have some good ones or even halfway decent, more attractive.
I know a girl who tattooed "Truth Hurts" on the back of her neck.If you have ****ty ones, or my personal worst - a name on your neck, less attractive.
In general, it still really depends on the type of tattoos.
If you have some good ones or even halfway decent, more attractive.
If you have ****ty ones, or my personal worst - a name on your neck, less attractive.
. But, in general, I think women view dudes with tats in a better light than dudes without them. Just like the view dudes with muscles in a better light than dudes without them.
Maybe.....
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attraction-evolved/201702/are-men-tattoos-more-attractive
From the article......
"Women thought that the men looked healthier with a tattoo, which supports the biologists’ theory. However, tattoos didn’t make a man look more or less attractive. Women thought tattooed men would be worse partners and fathers than men without tattoos, perhaps because tattoos signal impulsiveness and a propensity for risk-taking — hardly the characteristics most women prioritize in a long-term partner. Both men and women agreed that a man with a tattoo looked more masculine, dominant, and aggressive."
The research was done in Poland, though.... so.......anyone seen any Polish tatoos?
Neck tats of your 1st and 2nd baby mamas make me swoon.
I knew this discussion would be muddied by the many variables in the execution of a tattoo idea. It can be poorly placed, poorly drawn, and end up being a mess. But, in general, I think women view dudes with tats in a better light than dudes without them. Just like the view dudes with muscles in a better light than dudes without them.
As for me, I like and appreciate body art, and would encourage a girlfriend to get as many tattoos as she wants.
Not this woman. A tat has never made a man more attractive to me. Well, ok, maybe a good one back in the day, but since many men sport them now, I don't hold a dude with tats in a better light than the non-inked dude.
Yeah? I've been wanting to get one for awhile, because, it suits my personality.
But, I get what you're saying, someone with tattoos from head to toe, isn't automatically more attractive to you. Which would go against what I said a few posts ago.
Even ****ty ones,
more attractive or less attractive?
I vote more, because of the thigh tattoo.
I don't care for tats on women. At all. Ever. Call me old fashioned, or sexist, or whatever. I think they detract from a woman's beauty. JMO.
I don't mind them on men, within reason.
I'm sure you will take anyone and everyone that comes along. Without regard to decorations, size, hygiene habits, race/ethnicity, upbringing, or anything else. A skinny Korean is the same as a blonde Swede is the same as an 800 lb Bolivian. Yes, I'm sure you're the paragon of equal opportunity.Instead of objectifying women in general and creating a double standard, why not just say you don't appreciate them romantically? You're not judging, right, it's just a matter of aesthetics.
I'm sure you will take anyone and everyone that comes along. Without regard to decorations, size, hygiene habits, race/ethnicity, upbringing, or anything else. A skinny Korean is the same as a blonde Swede is the same as an 800 lb Bolivian. Yes, I'm sure you're the paragon of equal opportunity.
:roll:
People like what they like, and there's nothing wrong with that. Grow up and get over yourself.
It’s difficult to find stats on this, but I suspect that majority of people who get tats are when they are still quite young, in their teenage years. Then they accumulate more tats as they get older. But it must be quite rare for someone to get their first tat in life when they are in their 40s or 30s or even late 20s. Hence, those who do get tats in that mature age range must have gotten their first tat when they were much younger and so simply continued the practice. This proves that having more maturity and education results in not getting tats. But those who don’t get tats for cultural and religious circumstances demonstrate the superiority of growing up with certain taboos and discouraged behavior. When you grow up without a restriction you are more likely to experiment with it just to try out something new. But if you grow up knowing that certain behavior is restricted or taboo in your culture, you are more likely to avoid it at that critical age, and hence never do it at all throughout your life. In other words, it is better to grow up with more restrictions regarding certain behaviors. Since Western lifestyle and culture is very permissive in allowing their children to engage in behaviors, this is why children of that culture end up engaging in such things as getting tats, dying their hair funky colors, bizarre hairstyles, face piercings, etc.
In other words, you are not a fan of self-expression. You think children should be raised under the thumbs of parents who don't allow them any free expression whatsoever?
I disagree. I think that there should be a happy medium. I have a tattoo. My adult children have tattoos. My husband has like 30. There's nothing wrong with expressing yourself with tattoos, as long as you understand that there is a possibility that you will always have people looking down on you for it. Then again, I have always raised my kids to not give a **** what other people thought of them. And for the most part, I have happy, well-adjusted daughters.
Parents not allowing their kids to get tattoos doesn’t mean they are barring themselves from all self-expression absolutely, only barring them from a certain type of expression. My point is that when those same kids mature into adults and are free to make their own decisions why do they not get tats then? It shows that they have mentally matured and understand the reasoning of their parents and may even be grateful for it. Self expression at such an age has to be restricted in some way, especially since such expression is permanent and very difficult even painful to erase. I believe that at that age they are not really about self-expressing, only following the latest trend and trying to fit in (the opposite of self-expression ironically).
In my view there are much better ways of expressing yourself which remain true to your culture and identity. Women express themselves in feminine ways with jewelry (bracelets rings whatever), people express themselves with clothing, fashion, hairstyles. And these are only expressions in physical appearance, more higher than this is expression through writing, poetry, and positive behavior.
Tats are a form of expression in your culture but not mine. Imagine if one of your kids wanted to express themselves in the way Shi'ite Muslims do in their mourning rituals?