Thread: Covered in tattoos.

I'm hoping to start a discussion about tattoos on women. I don't mean a small hidden one - women have been doing that for ever - I mean swathes of tattoos, sleeves, whole legs, hands, necks, face etc. I can't really find anybody who has much of an opinion on this.

Over the past few years we've all noticed how women have been increasingly covering themselves with tattoos. I personally find it hideous, disappointing, and ugly, and I choose not to even acknowledge such women, yet alone talk to them. I definitely DEFINITELY wouldn't date such a woman (or any woman for that matter - but you know what I mean). But I wonder why so many women, especially young women, are doing this.

Last weekend I went into town on Saturday night on my own. In one bar, a group of 6 women walked in. Three of them were completely covered in tattoos. There seemed an obvious mother hen. Her face had so much lip-Botox and false lashes that she looked like a burns victim who'd had reconstructive surgery. She had a nice body, but had covered an entire leg in tattoos, a whole arm, and had tattoos on her hands and neck. I saw several other women who'd tattooed their necks, underneath their chin, and it looked ridiculous to me.

Many women claim it's artistic, and they're expressing their unique identity on their skin. Many men celebrate this, and claim to "love an inked girl". But I don't see it that way. I see it as super conformist to a subculture which is fast becoming mainstream culture. If such women really were expressing their unique identity on their skin, then why didn't we see any women doing this in, say, the 1960s? The reason is because they feared social ostracisation. But now it's acceptable, many women seem comfortable getting covered in tattoos. This says a great deal about who they are: conformists, looking for social cues about what's right and wrong. Sheep.

I suspect many women also feel it makes them look edgy. But as I said above, it's now more mainstream and socially acceptable to be covered in limb-full tattoos, so it's not edgy at all. It's downright sad. Even middle class, sensible women are doing it, which looks even more wrong in my opinion. It's edgier to have no tattoos as all, nor Botox in the lips, nor makeup. Now that's edgy!

Women are totally destroying their natural beauty, and a lot of women have a lot of that. It's just that these days, they almost all ruin it to subscribe to a completely distorted beauty ideal. I find it utterly utterly depressing and repulsive, and tattoos are, for me, the bedrock of this repulsion, second only to the epidemic of obesity amongst them.

Anybody care to comment?

There's pain involved; some women seem to take a sick pleasure out of it.

Originally Posted by frog

There's pain involved; some women seem to take a sick pleasure out of it.

Again, that says tons about them, their history, how they feel about themselves, etc. There's no greater red flag than a body full of tattoos.

I think it is instinctive. People make their appearance mirror what they have inside. Thus these women ruin their skin because they are a wreck inside.

Or maybe its mother nature's instincts, creatures always signal their poisonous nature with bright colours and distinctive skin patterns.

It tells us also how disconnected men are from natural instincts that we dont recognise these features as signs of danger to run away from!

But then you should be suspicious of a women without tattoos, because that one is more skillful in hiding her true nature.

AWALT!

I never have seen much point in tattoos at all. Just symbols of "belonging" to some group/ tribe/ gang. And in said groups I see it as a male symbol. After that I think men copy catted that as if to look tough as well. Women followed that.
As for OP's POV: some tattoos can be artistically very pretty but I agree: women look dumb and ridiculous with them, IMO. I asked a tattoo artist on Reddit once: he agrees it's often a form of automutilation behaviour from women. Se category of cutting themselves or over piercing.
Within women's ""standards"" I recommend taking a tattoo (any) as a huge red flag for being damaged goods.

Agree with the OP.

1. Looks absolutely trashy
2. Huge Red Flag
3. Just one more way for a thot to scream "LOOK AT ME!" to a crowded room.

Avoid at all costs, along with the rest of 'em.

Originally Posted by Gunnar

3. Just one more way for a thot to scream "LOOK AT ME!" to a crowded room.

The woman I referred to in the bar on Saturday night, the mother hen woman, she certainly stood out, and I certainly looked, but for all the wrong reasons. I thought she looked like a huge cunt. Years ago I would have been paying a circus owner to stand and stare at her.

Originally Posted by Spooky

I'm hoping to start a discussion about tattoos on women. I don't mean a small hidden one - women have been doing that for ever - I mean swathes of tattoos, sleeves, whole legs, hands, necks, face etc. I can't really find anybody who has much of an opinion on this.

Over the past few years we've all noticed how women have been increasingly covering themselves with tattoos. I personally find it hideous, disappointing, and ugly, and I choose not to even acknowledge such women, yet alone talk to them. I definitely DEFINITELY wouldn't date such a woman (or any woman for that matter - but you know what I mean). But I wonder why so many women, especially young women, are doing this.

Last weekend I went into town on Saturday night on my own. In one bar, a group of 6 women walked in. Three of them were completely covered in tattoos. There seemed an obvious mother hen. Her face had so much lip-Botox and false lashes that she looked like a burns victim who'd had reconstructive surgery. She had a nice body, but had covered an entire leg in tattoos, a whole arm, and had tattoos on her hands and neck. I saw several other women who'd tattooed their necks, underneath their chin, and it looked ridiculous to me.

Many women claim it's artistic, and they're expressing their unique identity on their skin. Many men celebrate this, and claim to "love an inked girl". But I don't see it that way. I see it as super conformist to a subculture which is fast becoming mainstream culture. If such women really were expressing their unique identity on their skin, then why didn't we see any women doing this in, say, the 1960s? The reason is because they feared social ostracisation. But now it's acceptable, many women seem comfortable getting covered in tattoos. This says a great deal about who they are: conformists, looking for social cues about what's right and wrong. Sheep.

I suspect many women also feel it makes them look edgy. But as I said above, it's now more mainstream and socially acceptable to be covered in limb-full tattoos, so it's not edgy at all. It's downright sad. Even middle class, sensible women are doing it, which looks even more wrong in my opinion. It's edgier to have no tattoos as all, nor Botox in the lips, nor makeup. Now that's edgy!

Women are totally destroying their natural beauty, and a lot of women have a lot of that. It's just that these days, they almost all ruin it to subscribe to a completely distorted beauty ideal. I find it utterly utterly depressing and repulsive, and tattoos are, for me, the bedrock of this repulsion, second only to the epidemic of obesity amongst them.

Anybody care to comment?

The best thing that could possibly happen to women would be for them to be socially ostracized once again for shitty behavior, especially where that behavior hurts others. An adulteress should be treated as bad as a child molester. It used to be that an adulteress would lose all her friends, would be ex-communicated from the church (which used to be a big deal), it would be next to impossible for her to find a new husband, and most people would refuse to talk to her. And, surprise, surprise, women cheated much, much less back then, and women monkey-branched much, much less. The truth is someone who pisses on the sacred vow to "forsake all others" (translation: don't fuck anyone else), deserves to be treated like dogshit.

It's been the sick and evil mental illness known as feminism that has encouraged women to commit despicable acts like cheating on their husbands or defacing their bodies with tattooes. It used to be if a woman had any tattoo that wasn't easily hidden she was seen as a slovenly and grotesque slattern and 20-dollar hooker who takes it up the ass and gets drunk and gets gang-banged. It would be good for women if every person who saw her tattoo would reaction with total revulsion. Women can't think for themselves. They can only follow the herd. And now, the sick feminist herd is encouraging women to get all inked up, get fat, dye their hair blue, and grow out disgusting armpit hair. Then if a man is turned off by that, he's somehow the bad guy. I would love it if every tattooed ho heard multiple people throughout the day say to her, "Ewww, that tattoo is GROSS, and it makes you look like an ugly and filthy tramp, and I feel like puking right now. I didn't know you were a whore who lets a German Shepard bang you up your cunt and up your ass."

I wish any woman who fucked around on the cock carousel would be shunned by everyone around her and that businesses would refuse to serve her, and that anyone who actually did talk to her would treat her with total disgust, as if they were looking at a pile of vomit. Slut shaming is a good thing. It used to prevent women's behavior from degenerating into that of a disgusting and diseased wild animal.

Good things that used to happen were that women would be:
adultery shamed
slut shamed
fat shamed
tattoo shamed

Unfortunately, feminism didn't just brainwash women. It brainwashed men into putting up with that shit.

Women keep doing disgusting, shitty, and grotesque behavior because there are very few if any social consequences anymore. It was society's duty to reject and shun adulteresses. I think if a wife cheated on her deployed soldier husband, she's not just guilty of adultery (which should be a crime), but she's also guilty of treason. She's helped the country's enemies by demoralizing a United States soldier. She should be tried and convicted of treason and sentenced to death by firing squad. And her husband should be permitted to serve on that firing squad if he wishes.

I'm an old sailor. My father was an old sailor. Neither one of us had tattoos. I respect myself and my body. Any woman that tattoos her body to the point of abuse has mental issues. (What woman doesn't)?

When I see a woman covered in ink, I am instantly repulsed. That is how I react to any woman that obscures/adulterates her natural beauty.

My father and I didn't get tattoos because we felt that it detracted from our God-given looks. If the enemy ever captured us, they could trace our units from our ink. (This would betray our troop movements).

Not for me, nor for anyone I care about, thank you!

An Army buddy had the zig zag man (rolling papers) on his arm, then got religion and hated it. Enough to get something extremely bad to cover it up. Messed up his head and body at the same time.

They might look nice when new, but old tat's get really ugly.

"A tattoo on a woman is like a bumper sticker on a Ferrari. Neither improves their looks."

I don't find anything to like about tats on anyone. I find the art work to be garish at best. On women they're a complete turn off.

I find tattoos on anyone, especially women, disgusting. It's even worse when they overdo it, or are fat and ugly to begin with.

Heavily tattooed women do it because they like pain.

Women process emotional pain and physical pain with the same brain wiring. Any pain will do.
Women that like getting tattooed also like relationship drama.

The secret is that the pain they are searching for without knowing what they are searching for is the pain of childbirth.

I can’t help but see women with tats as sheep. Shallow. Conceited. Conformist. Blatant attention seeking. Men too really. If everyone is a special snowflake with their “unique” tattoos than no one is a special snowflake.

Never want to hear another woman say she needs “ink therapy”. Your trashy tats don’t make you edgy or deep.

Never want to see another post wall 38+ yr old woman with teen kids that decides to get a sleeve.

And no fat chicks — the tats you feel are so special aren’t helping you in any way.

"Temporary ink" has come a long way in the past few years, so in my mind it makes no sense to get a permanent one. A woman can always change her mind with a temporary one and get a different style or go back to nothing at all.

That aside, yeah, there's definitely an inker subculture. The typical quality of the work combined with the typically large coverage area immediately identify who those people are. Those two factors can weigh differently. I think of Amy Winehouse, who had only light coverage, but the work was so amateurish that it spoke "I don't really give a shit about myself." I keep my distance from those people because the other crap they're usually involved with doesn't appeal to me at all.

Overt tats are about getting noticed. I don’t care if it’s a male or a female it’s all the same – LOOK AT ME!

But we’re talking about females here, right?

The dogs get tats to make them stand out, except all the dogs do it so all it does is make them stand out as a dog. Ruff.

But what of the pretty ones then? They already stand out so why bother?

One answer is because as Spooky says they’re sheep following the herd: “I’m just as brave as others so I’ll get this cute little Pooh Bear tat that will only be seen by those I wish to impress.”

Another answer might be cultural appropriation – something feminists scream against yet indulge in themselves. Their dissonance is never ending:

Someone makes a documentary about a “lost” tribe. It shows lithe, physically strong women holding spears with tats and piercings which have meaning in their tribe. Our women, not to be outdone by some “backwards” tribe have to measure up and prove that they’re just as capable of making a statement about their own prowess, except they haven’t earned that right – it’s an appropriation.

A third answer is as frog & Mr. Wombat say that they enjoy the pain, and the humiliation of having that pain inflicted upon them by another. A type of masochism if you will. Oooh hurt me, hurt me. Aaah I’m dripping wet.

Whatever the reason I don’t give a shit. You can’t fix fugly with a tat. You can’t improve beauty with fugly.

I'm not a fan either. I have seen some otherwise attractive women who are totally ruined by ugly tattoos, not to mention weird piercings, overdone make up and other unnecessary body modifications.

I saw one woman who had the Taj Mahal and Indian elephant God Ganesha tattooed across her upper chest. She wasn't even Indian and I can't imagine what it would be like to have to look at an elephant while fucking her!

They just don't look good and I think it becomes an addiction with them. They know they have already fucked themselves up so they just keep going. Most people regret getting tattooed anyway.

Originally Posted by Kryptic

I can't imagine what it would be like to have to look at an elephant while fucking her!

Absolutely priceless. LMFAO.

The tattoo inks protected under "trade secret" have chemical compounds in them that are forbidden in land fills. Monsanto glass tint is one of them that I know of.

Reminds me of the Victorian green wallpaper made from arsenic that was used in Victorian times, making multitudes ill and causing some to die.

Another thing is "infection" many people have died from this, the tattoo area is prone to infection due to the damaged tissue waiting to heal.

No ink on me, I'm just pragmatic about my safety.



In this next video the volcano blows @4:36

"Old Salt" story time!

When dad was stationed in San Diego, two of his buddies decided to get some body ink. Dad declined, telling them that his didn't want to permanently mark up/scar his body. His shipmates razzed him about "being afraid of the pain" until he relented and accompanied them to the Tattoo Parlor.

Dad sat in the tattoo artists chair and let the tattooist run an empty needle up and down his arm. (Prior to this dad told him that if he had put ink into it that he would kill him - literally). The blood ran down his arm and father said, "I'm not afraid, I just don't want any permanent ink on my body."
The others got their tattoos... father didn't.

Father was a member of the Underwater Demolition Team (a.k.a. the "Frogmen"). These were the forerunners of the Navy Seals created in 1962 by President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. My dad was one of the original "bad @$$ boys" long before the SEAL Teams of today.

He didn't need to prove how tough he was... because he WAS tough! He had no need to show off, because he could kill, kick ass, and take names anytime, anyplace.

God as my witness, this is a true story.