[Therapsid]

(09-05-2013 11:45 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Though I generally find tattoos and piercings unattractive on women, I think it being a good indicator of sluttyness is quickly becoming dated.

It's not rebellious or even uncommon anymore... I know more than a few weird, socially inept chicks that are really into artsy bullshit who have tattoos, but don't sleep around.

So either way, it probably is often indicative that not all is right upstairs.

I don't know. I still find that these weird, socially inept inked up chicks are sluttier than their non-tattooed peers. Even though they're usually heinous, but that's another issue.

Put it this way - the few early 20-something virgins, and the larger group of twenties chicks with only a couple of sexual partners, are more likely to not have tat's than their sluttier friends.

Look at it from the girl's perspective. What's a greater spontaneous leap? What's a bigger submission to momentary desire? Getting a tattoo or fucking a random guy? I mean, a girl could have a one night stand and get away with it, but a tattoo is forever. Her parents will find out!

I'd argue almost any girl with a tattoo should be receptive to a same night lay.

[bacon]

(09-05-2013 03:15 PM)Acute Angle Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 03:11 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  

The next generation of kids will probably think everyone is born with a tattoo somewhere on their body.

When their 'uncool' parents all have tattoos, the next generation will, in an act of rebellion, loudly eschew self-vandalisation.

This is the end game. Once people start to see ink on their grandmas and other "old people" the counter culture element to it will die off as fast as getting "tramp stamps" which are now associated as uncool since they the only demographic with them are "old people."

[Beyond Borders]

(09-04-2013 09:57 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  

Call me crazy, but I would turn that inside out and eat it alive.

[TheBlackNarwhal]

Here's the crazy part...You're not crazy!

Kingsley Davis Wrote:

Tattoos are the most blatant class marker. Proles gonna prole.

So now we're living in some India-esque type of class based society? If and when I get a sleeve done I'll be sure to rock an Armani suit 24/7 with Gucci loafers just so people don't know how low-class I am.

Yes, I agree women in America have missed the marker for what it is to be an ideal woman. If you're ugly and/or fat, then you're still ugly and/or fat but you have some tattoos. I'm accepting it for what it is, and I should count my blessings and be glad I will have the opportunity in the future to visit countries where I don't have to worry about getting attacked by whales with fattitude.

[lurker]

(09-06-2013 01:58 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 09:57 PM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  

Call me crazy, but I would turn that inside out and eat it alive.

So would I. I just wouldn't call it again after I had enjoyed 3-5 meals.

[Walderschmidt]

(09-06-2013 10:55 AM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  

Here's the crazy part...You're not crazy!

Kingsley Davis Wrote:

Tattoos are the most blatant class marker. Proles gonna prole.

No one is calling you crazy for wanting to bang the shit out of the girl.

I think for some guys it's a turn off for sure, but that's not the point of Kingsley Davis' post. It's a class marker. Lower class marker. Class of what? Low class character for a woman. Any woman who marks her body permanently in some way, I believe has something fundamentally wrong with herself (hates her body or something). So for marriage - no tattoos is the way to go.

If you would choose to not only fuck a girl with tattoos but marry her - by all means - go ahead.

Now - the last thing I want to say is - chill man. We use a double standard, remember?

Tattoos on guys = badass

Wald

[Grizzly]

(09-04-2013 07:56 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Someone needs to tell these women tattoos are dreadful but it's hard to do that without coming off like your parents.

I had a conversation about this with a chick I used to work with. When she was 18, she was probably as close to a 10 as you can get without Photoshop; now, 10 years later, she's about an 8, unmarried, hitting the wall HARD and getting real desperate. Big all-natural tits that don't sag, a real genetic lotto winner, but dumber than a box of rocks. She raises more cocks than a rooster farm.

Anyways, I was telling her that I don't like tattoos on chicks because its not feminine, and when I think of people that have tattoos I think of sailors, bikers, prisoners, and so on. She starts giving me this crap about how she was thinking of getting a tattoo, they're SOOOOOO cool, and that one guy even told her that he wouldn't think of fucking a chick without tattoos.

I asked her "would you go out with a guy who wears lipstick and earrings?"

Her: "Ha ha, NOOOOOO, of course NOOOOOT!!!!..........oh..........I see what you mean." The empty look on her face was priceless.

[aphelion]

She's not THAT dumb if she picked up on your meaning there.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(09-06-2013 10:20 PM)Grizzly Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:56 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Someone needs to tell these women tattoos are dreadful but it's hard to do that without coming off like your parents.

I had a conversation about this with a chick I used to work with. When she was 18, she was probably as close to a 10 as you can get without Photoshop; now, 10 years later, she's about an 8, unmarried, hitting the wall HARD and getting real desperate. Big all-natural tits that don't sag, a real genetic lotto winner, but dumber than a box of rocks. She raises more cocks than a rooster farm.

Anyways, I was telling her that I don't like tattoos on chicks because its not feminine, and when I think of people that have tattoos I think of sailors, bikers, prisoners, and so on. She starts giving me this crap about how she was thinking of getting a tattoo, they're SOOOOOO cool, and that one guy even told her that he wouldn't think of fucking a chick without tattoos.

I asked her "would you go out with a guy who wears lipstick and earrings?"

Her: "Ha ha, NOOOOOO, of course NOOOOOT!!!!..........oh..........I see what you mean." The empty look on her face was priceless.

EXCELLENT point. The same goes for this:

Her: "Don't you like strong women?"
Me: "Do you like men who scamper up on a chair when they see a mouse?"

[Stun]

(09-06-2013 10:55 AM)TheBlackNarwhal Wrote:  

Here's the crazy part...You're not crazy!

Kingsley Davis Wrote:

Tattoos are the most blatant class marker. Proles gonna prole.

So now we're living in some India-esque type of class based society? If and when I get a sleeve done I'll be sure to rock an Armani suit 24/7 with Gucci loafers just so people don't know how low-class I am.

This is why people over 30 want to strangle everyone under 25 - no one is being classist here. But you DO say something about yourself the way you present yourself. The people that think they're the coolest IDGAF or want to scream to everyone how independent they are are the ones most likely, and the most predictably, to get tattoos.

If you have to make a point about how much you don't give a fuck, then you clearly do give a fuck.

[Stun]

Dupe

[Vaun]

Tattoos like fashion get dated quick, and when they are on someone else, dated tats look even worse. I have a northwestern indian art piece from the mid 90's (re: the anthony keidis look), that I totally hate now. The chics I see with 90's tats that have been tanned over and over are a major turn off, the tribal bands and what not. All those hipster tats that are cool now, the song birds, stars, anchors(everyone is a sailor these days), guns, text, etc, will be out of style in another 5-10 years. How will they look down the road after they have had a few tans? The only real tats that stand the test of time are akin to prison tats, and thats not a look on a chic I'll really ever be into.

[The Lizard of Oz]

The other day I was idly fantasizing about going down to Cali or Florida, probably FLA, and setting up my own porn production studio.

The studio would be called Inkless Productions, and the idea is that any girl that ever appears in an Inkless shoot is certified inkless from head to toe. Not even some bullshit faded flower petal on an instep. Inkless means no ink, anywhere, period.

Unfortunately, the number of younger girls (18-21) that are willing to do hardcore pornography in the US and have no ink on them is what, 5 or 6? Maybe more if you include potential Mormon sluts, but anyway you're begging.

Back to reality...

[TigerMandingo]

Bump.

Well, things have only gotten worse after 5 years it seems. I see a shocking number of girls with tats.

On the bright side, this video cracked me up. This guy is a tattoo artist and tears into stupid celebrity tats

[puckerman]

It depends on where the tattoos are and what they are. That being said, I am finding a lot of them to be ridiculous and a turnoff. I suspect we will see a rebellion against this. I don't know when we will see it though.

It's especially disappointing to go to a place like Barton Springs pool. I look forward to seeing women in their bikinis. Then I see some stupid tattoo on her leg. It's always a disappointment. Some of them just look so trashy.

[Mess O.]

I really can't fucking stand it either, and hell, I guess I can't rightly describe why - I just don't like it. Why do we like what we like, and not what we don't? Sometimes it just is. The presence of tats seem permissible only with the most gorgeous of women, since they're overall level of beauty can withstand being "weighed down" by the defacement. Just walk on.

[Thot Leader]

They bug the shit out of me. Tatts scream "I hate my femininity" and "I don't really respect my body, don't ever have a kid with me". It's a constant reminder that the majority of women are unsuitable as wives or mothers.

[Fender_Bender]

It is a very primal dislike that is hard for me to put a finger on. Perhaps it's the lack of impulse control or consideration of long term consequences, or just the herd mentality associated with tats now. There's nothing edgy about them and they just seem self indulgent. It all seems like projection of their own attraction to the tatted up badboy ("I think guys with tats are hot so guys must think girls with tats are hot")... Of course most dudes with tats nowadays are limp wristed soibois so I don't know how the attraction persists. The worst are big thigh tattoos. At a distance they look like someone smeared shit on their leg.

I don't care how artistic or well done a tattoo is. They degrade any woman at any size, type, or number. Again, I can't explain why I hate them so much. There is some chunk of my monkey brain screaming "UGLY AND TRASHY" right away. Same with stupid fuckin piercings like bovine septum rings.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Since this old thread was bumped, I'm going to re-post in full something I wrote in a different thread on this terrible subject.

(10-17-2014 09:10 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 01:34 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

Some of the rhetoric used against tattoos/piercings in the manosphere is simply too reactionary and puritanical.

No. I know that other posters have already responded to this, but it is important to understand exactly why today's tattoo epidemic is so pernicious, and how it is related to other and seemingly disparate aspects of the culture and the time.

The tattoo epidemic in today's females is a direct expression of the ideology of radical feminism. The point of the tattoo on a girl is to disrupt and trouble the process of a man perceiving her purely as a sexual object -- the dreaded process of "objectification" which the feminists regard as the ultimate evil.

The male sexual eye seeks, more than anything else, the smooth and uninterrupted expanse of naked female skin, shaped by its curves and moistened by its juices; it seeks this perfect oasis of responsive smoothness. That is, indeed, the process of sexual objectification, and it is the most fundamental way in which a man responds to the nubile female body, especially the body of a young girl in the prime of her fertility. The male sexual eye concentrates completely on its object, and nothing in the smooth flow of skin and shape disrupts this special concentration; it is requited ever more by the smooth expanse. In a sexually avid man, there is almost no limit to the intensity which this sexual concentration can reach -- it is one of the greatest intensities known to man, as well it should be; Nature willed it so. It is a concentration that commands the man to take possession of its object and to ravish it.

The tattoo is designed to fundamentally disrupt this process by despoiling the smoothness of female flesh in a particularly evil way, by essentially turning that expanse into a piece of text -- the one thing in the world to which the human and the male eye must necessarily pay attention, and the thing that is most different from a sexual object. That is precisely what the feminists want: the flesh, the purported sexual object, speaking back, by writing back. The moment it does that, it ceases to be the perfect dumb object that it must be; a terrible dissonance is created, and the sexual concentration on the object is necessarily diminished. It can never be seen the same way.

That is also why, in my experience, a small "classy" or "artful" tat, just a little Chinese character on the instep, is just as bad as a "full sleeve" -- indeed, maybe even worse. The eye can almost find a way to blend something crude and coarse like a "sleeve" and reinterpret it as a kind of background, a garish second skin which is however not different in kind. But the isolated black tat speaks back, and there is no escaping it. Just as it can be easier to fall asleep to the loud noise of many people speaking than to the sound of one voice holding a soft but perfectly intelligible conversation. As the single voice speaking is the thing most different in kind from the oblivion of sleep -- so the text nature of that single piece of ink is the thing most different in kind from the other, sexual, oblivion. The one excludes the other.

Thus, to say that our revulsion against the tattoo epidemic in females is "reactionary and puritanical" is to have things exactly backward. It is the tattoo that is "reactionary and puritanical", literally; it is there to defeat and diminish male sexuality, which thrives and achieves its deepest realization in the process of objectification -- a process which is more fundamental to human nature and indeed, to the continuation of the species, than any other, but that the radical feminists, in their demented ideology, have decided to uproot and eliminate from life.

Now of course it is true that the luscious young sluts who are defacing themselves in this way are not doing it consciously to disturb and nullify sexual objectification -- although being instinctive creatures, I think that many sense to a greater or lesser extent that getting a tat is a particularly deep and nasty (and permanent) "fuck you" to the male sex. And of course the great and serious beauties almost never do it because they know by an instinct that is deadly serious that being the perfect sexual object is their singular privilege and calling in life, and they dare not despoil it. But the ideas of feminism are in the air and spread imperceptibly, aided and abetted by the writings and chatter of many a hag and faggot and mangina, and inexorably they preach the need for females to deface themselves so that their bodies become a "conversation" -- how dreadful -- instead of a standing reserve of meat to be arranged before the male sexual customer, which is what they are meant to be and must be. And more and more of them obey this terrible call.

[TigerMandingo]

(06-24-2018 09:11 PM)Fender_Bender Wrote:  

I don't care how artistic or well done a tattoo is. They degrade any woman at any size, type, or number. Again, I can't explain why I hate them so much. There is some chunk of my monkey brain screaming "UGLY AND TRASHY" right away. Same with stupid fuckin piercings like bovine septum rings.

Well said.

Another thing I was thinking. You never see girls (and probably guys) of established, wealthy, upper-class backgrounds get tatted up. Like you would never see a Rothschild or a Rockefeller or a Trump walking around with a sleeve tattoo .

The breakdown of bourgeois values is one of the major reasons for the outbreak of freakish and deviant behavior.

PS, just saw Lizard's post. Superb.

[godfather dust]

(06-24-2018 09:31 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 09:11 PM)Fender_Bender Wrote:  

I don't care how artistic or well done a tattoo is. They degrade any woman at any size, type, or number. Again, I can't explain why I hate them so much. There is some chunk of my monkey brain screaming "UGLY AND TRASHY" right away. Same with stupid fuckin piercings like bovine septum rings.

Well said.

Another thing I was thinking. You never see girls (and probably guys) of established, wealthy, upper-class backgrounds get tatted up. Like you would never see a Rothschild or a Rockefeller or a Trump walking around with a sleeve tattoo .

The breakdown of bourgeois values is one of the major reasons for the outbreak of freakish and deviant behavior.

There's plenty of rich girls with a "tasteful" wrist, ankle etc tattoo.

.0000000000001% oligarchs are not a useful group to compare to the rest of society.

[TigerMandingo]

(06-24-2018 09:35 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

.0000000000001% oligarchs are not a useful group to compare to the rest of society.

Perhaps not useful, but we could certainly learn a lot from them. As far as I know, they adhere to traditional norms ie. marry young, pop out lots of kids, financial stability, focus on education, hard work etc. The last thing on these peoples' minds is "lemme hit up that parlor downtown and get that dragon tat I've always wanted".

[godfather dust]

(06-24-2018 09:49 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 09:35 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

.0000000000001% oligarchs are not a useful group to compare to the rest of society.

Perhaps not useful, but we could certainly learn a lot from them. As far as I know, they adhere to traditional norms ie. marry young, pop out lots of kids, financial stability, focus on education, hard work etc. The last thing on these peoples' minds is "lemme hit up that parlor downtown and get that dragon tat I've always wanted".

I agree to an extent. Similar to DiCaprio giving speeches on equal pay and global warming while fucking 15 19 year olds on a jet... Do you want the bullshit he's pushing, or look more towards how he's living as an inspiration.

[hedonist]

So much trash.....

And the ones with the tattoos under their tits ffs.....

Everyone trying to be rockstars these days with social media and this shit

[King of Monkeys]

(09-06-2013 10:20 PM)Grizzly Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 07:56 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Someone needs to tell these women tattoos are dreadful but it's hard to do that without coming off like your parents.

I had a conversation about this with a chick I used to work with. When she was 18, she was probably as close to a 10 as you can get without Photoshop; now, 10 years later, she's about an 8, unmarried, hitting the wall HARD and getting real desperate. Big all-natural tits that don't sag, a real genetic lotto winner, but dumber than a box of rocks. She raises more cocks than a rooster farm.

Anyways, I was telling her that I don't like tattoos on chicks because its not feminine, and when I think of people that have tattoos I think of sailors, bikers, prisoners, and so on. She starts giving me this crap about how she was thinking of getting a tattoo, they're SOOOOOO cool, and that one guy even told her that he wouldn't think of fucking a chick without tattoos.

I asked her "would you go out with a guy who wears lipstick and earrings?"

Her: "Ha ha, NOOOOOO, of course NOOOOOT!!!!..........oh..........I see what you mean." The empty look on her face was priceless.

This is a great way to get a point across to someone else. This is gold. Thanks to whoever revived this thread. I gotta remember this stuff.