Tattoos on Girls: Sexy, Sordid, Slutty, or Silly?

Now how could anybody find


...permanently embossed in big, bold letters on his lover's back not alluring? Seems like the height of taste, class, and elegance to me. Haha.

Depends on the girl. Her business how she decorates her body. Some women are attractive with a tattoo or two. Same thing re piercings (tongue, clit hood, nipples, etc...). Some people can't get past the decorations and see the woman.

I'm not quite as old as SJ, but I don't like them generally. I can honestly say that I've never found a girl attractive BECAUSE of her tattoos. While there are classy and tacky tattoos, a girl is hot because of her, not because of the tattoo, and I'd put up with it (the second girl in SJ's pics is a great example). However, a tacky, amateurish tattoo can make me think less of her. I'm not in the civvie dating pool at the moment, but if I were I date a girl with tattoos because the stereotype (true or not) that I associate with them is that I'm more likely to get lucky and maybe in a kinkier way. But I doubt I'd be interested in a LTR if she had ink (maybe a small, discrete, classy one, but not much). I used to have a FWB/FB that had quite a few tattoos, and while I loved spending time with her, I kept wondering why she kept getting new ones as they weren't the good, classy kind. I doubt she can waer a bikin now that her kids are getting a bit older.

Oddly, I do think that certain piercings are sexy. Go figure.

Not personally a fan of tats because I love the female form in all its natural varieties and I have yet to see aftermarket enhancements that I consider an improvement (but we all like different things). Some are neutral and some are a big step backwards, in my opinion.

I've never been bothered by ink in a session because it doesn't affect physical contact or my ability to connect mentally with anyone. In an hour-long context, it's just not that big a deal. Who cares? I'm too busy enjoying the time with a cool person.

My biggest issue with ink is that, like it or not, I think its a limiting choice that you can't get away from. If you have a sleeve or other significantly visible ink, it closes doors that might otherwise have been open for personal and professional opportunities. You put yourself into a virtual box that you can't get out of because of cultural biases. It sucks, but I really think it's reality, so why do it? You can say "screw them who think that way", but "them" aren't the ones who are going to suffer because of the bias.

When I retire, I'm going to get a Mike Tyson face tattoo and terrorize my family. My grand-kids will piss in their pants. They're going to talk about me for generations. At that point, who gives a fuck? But for now, I'm going to tow the corporate line and exploit all of the opportunities I can so I'll have all the funds I need for my debauchery.

BTW, any thoughts from anyone on what that ink that is being applied as significant body art today will look like in 40 years? I'm thinking "not good". I think that tramp stamp will lose it's appeal.

Cheers,

L4L

Like SJ, I grew up in an era where tattoos were primarily obtained by people of much lower socioeconomic status and education level. But I was also taught not to "look down" on anyone and not to "judge a book by it's cover". While these lessons were primarily aimed by my parents to raise me as non-racist (a stark exception to how most of my white contemporaries were raised, it certainly applied to those with tattoos. But as a historical matter, I do understand the historical context of otherness that SJ is talking about.

That being said, I don't think that accounts for my dislike of tattoos. After all, long hair on guys was a much stranger and more bizarre occurrence growing up than seeing a tattoo -- and probably more disapproved of where I grew up at least until the early to mid 1970's. And I got over that by the 5th grade and had a pony tail, much to the horror of untold numbers of relatives and neighbors.

But back to tattoos. I just dislike them because they are simply unattractive in my judgement. The detract from, rather than enhance the beauty of the female form.

I've never been a particular fan of the fashion. But it wouldn't be a deal killer, and certainly wouldn't justify rude behavior. I'm always reminded of a sign I saw on a customer's desk several years ago:

"The difference between people with tattoos and people without tattoos, is that people with tattoos don't care if you don't have one." You could insert "gun," "suv," pretty much anything but religion for the word tattoo and still have a great philosophy to live by.

We all have our "buttons," it's how we respond to having them pushed that tells so much about who we are. A rude poster emboldened by the anonymity of the internet, is by nature a rude person anyway in my opinion.

One or two small tats -- say small of the back or ankle/wrist -- I don't mind. However, some of the pics I see lately are people who have a whole arm, or their entire side covered by massive tats. I guess great for those that like tattoos, but definitely not my cup o' tea.

A comment about rudeness. If a provider posts an ad with her pic and somebody gratuitously posts a screed on how ugly she is on account of the tattoos, that is rude. However, if someone posts asking "do you guys like tattoos?", it is no in the least rude to post your honest views about tattoos in response to that inquirey, even if you response is that you have a visceral loathing of tattoos that literally turns your stomach.

I don't mind tats if they are small and strategically placed so as to eccentuate the female form as accesorries. But, I don't like it when the ink is overpowering and the woman becomes the accessory to the tat.

My initial thought when I see a girl for the first time shouldn't be: "Wow, look at all that ink!"

Not a big fan of tats here either except for providers like Wynter Stark that have them colored and tastefully done on her sides and one small tat around one arm. None on her legs, breasts or even a tramp stamp. Hers are very feminine.

The worst tats IMO are those that are ghetto looking, non colored, on breasts and a mans name. Ick... But to each his/her own. They look even worse on AA skin, very ghetto and not at all feminine.

I saw a provider with the most beautiful complicated floral vine running from her leg all the way to her arm and covering the arm. Turned me around on high quality ink. Originally Posted by LuckJack

I don't have any, and probably never will, as I too am from that generation. I'm indifferent to most tats, because unless i really like it, or really don't like it, the tat quickly blends into the image I have of the lady without defining that image, the same way clothing does. I may like or not like what a girl is wearing, but it rarely defines her in my mind.

Probably the coolest tat I ever saw on a woman had a vine tattoo exactly as LuckJack described. She was a stripper at a club in Cleveland, and I could not get a big enough eyeful. Other than the tat, she was not a girl I would consider exceptionally good looking, and her physical attributes were average (for a stripper) at best, but the tat made her unique, intriguing, and a magnet that attracted the lion's share of my wallet whenever I went to that club.

I think some of the "tramp stamps" I have seen were sexy. The problem is the name. Tramp Stamp just makes you wanna say no. By the way, I'm starting a campaign to end the phrase "blow job" for the same reason.

Prison tats suck, and pimp brands suck, any name including "MOM" leaves me unmoved artistically, and anything that requires a font is probably not art. I'm not sure I'd be able to get behind the Halloween theme SJ described either, but like I said, unless it's really good, or really bad, It's not an issue.

I don't get the reason for unfinished tats. Is it a time thing, or a money thing, or a ran out of Jack Daniels thing? I know girls that have been running around with the same "unfinished" tat for years. Why?

I have also noticed that very few people have just one. Ask anyone with a tat, and they will tell you about the next one they are going to get. Must be good, if most people don't stop with one. I will probably never know first hand.

Some tats are useful, and well thought out, like this one...

Another "S" word for getting the ink...Sentimental


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovie...her-late-pooch

There are three ok reasons to get a tattoo...
Your Mom
Your kids
Your military affiliation.

Today in this inked generation, people are making a statement with tats. It is in that statement that determines their worth.

I guess my opinion of tattoos is evident by the fact that I spent 22 years in the military and never got one. I don't care for them on men or women, and there was a time I wouldn't give a dollar to a stripper who had one. With providers it's really no a big issue for me, unless she has one on her breasts, which is a deal-killer for me. I'd prefer they didn't have any, and it's a huge plus for me when they don't.

okay some of you are being rude with you comments i think there is a way of getting your point across without using words like "ghetto" and bringing race into it. wtf???

okay some of you are being rude with you comments i think there is a way of getting your point across without using words like "ghetto" and bringing race into it. wtf??? Originally Posted by Jules Jaguar

JJ, in my opinion you are not looking closely enough at how those words were used. I went back and reread the post you are speaking of, and I don't see it.

Ghetto can certainly be considered a style, if for no other reason than everyone knows what style is being referenced when the word is used that way. No individual was singled out, and it is a style that some people like, and some people don't. You know what style the poster was talking about. What word would you use that is closer to the mark?

The reference to AA women and tattoos is also valid. If we are to be so PC that we are not allowed to notice that their skin is darker, especially when the discussion is aesthetics, then it has all gone to far.

We are talking about aesthetics, a topic so subjective that almost any opinion is valid without explanation. Unless you can say there is no aesthetic difference, there's nothing wrong or insulting about holding an opinion of the change in aesthetics created by the difference.

Ink colors look different on AA skin than on suicide skin. There is also a marked difference in contrast between the ink and the skin pigment. This is all obvious. What is wrong with having an opinion of the aesthetics?