A lot of people don’t realize that South Korea was a dictatorship until the 80s.
Korea is not in SE Asia
Nobody would have ever suspected those two of being tattoo artists while incognito
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art but ruins the beauty of the original architecture.
Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.
That’s nice, dear
Nobody actually asked you though
Man, people online sure pick weird arguments. Who the hell cares this random dude doesn’t like tattoos? 127 downvotes for that? This is the type of shit I just scroll over
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
If men finding tattoos on women attractive only if they’ll small and hidden is not much of an endorsement of tattoos at least on women.
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art that enhances the beauty of the otherwise plain architecture.
I prefer not to see property covered in illegal graffiti, but I must say quite a bit of it is outstanding art. It amazes me how someone can spray paint the correct proportions in a railway yard, on a bridge or any difficult area to access. I enjoy looking at well done graffiti more than walking around the Louvre.
In the human body plain indicates health. Blemishes such as moles or spider veins indicate poor health. The brain interprets tattoos as a blemish.
No, your brain interprets that. I do not.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
You started out stupid, and then got worse
You will die alone and lonely.
Well they obviously didn’t ask me, I love my women bushy. Or ask anyone from before the 70’s.
And just for good measure, YOURE A MISOGYNISTIC ASSHOLE.
The Brandeis study said 95.2% of men preferred hairless women not 100%.
It’s pretty gross how hard you’re trying to convince people that it’s normal to like prepubescent girls.
BoDy HaIr iS sEeN aS a BlEmIsH!!
Jeeeezus Christ, dude.
In what the sample size of…3? from the esteemed publication… Glamour magazine.
Multiple mentions of a survey, no mentions of how many were in the survey pool, how many responded, demographic information outside of “18-38”, or any other pertienant details.
So cool, a student research paper you allege wrote that is based on Glamour magazine and a unsubstantiated survey. Hope it was worth the Brandeis tuition 🤣
I couldn’t find any scientific studies on tattoos but the Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. Both studies seem to agree; men like women with plain skin. If men only find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and hidden, they prefer women not to have tattoos.
Stop speaking for all men. There are tons of guys that love tattoos on themselves, on their friends, and on their lover.
Only a truly blemish-free brain could have come up with this brilliant take. Not so much as a wrinkle on that surface.
I have never thought about it that way. Thanks for a explanation why some people may not like tattoos.
Thankfully, none of the people who get tattoos give a shit what you think ☺️
But they’re still allowed to give their opinion and down voting them becayse we disagree is not how this works. I upvote comments that are on topic and invite discussion. This was one, even if I don’t agree. “I don’t agree with you but I will fight so you can be heard” – Descartes (I think)
DescartesVoltaireThere’s a time and a place. If I go to a wedding, I’m not gonna walk up to people and start talking about how I don’t care about a piece of paper. I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I agree. Everyone has their own preferences - some are minimalist preferring a “blank canvas” while some prefer a bit more than that. This kind of mentality goes beyond just tattoos, but it feels like a dice roll sometimes on social sites like this.
You disagree with someone being able to get a tattoo? Are you also against crocs because they’re ugly. I would agree i think baddly of croc wearers but i know thats just my stupid hatred for those ugly things. But if i were to voice that opinion, i wouldnt be able to blame others for disagreeing with me. You say an unpopular opinion on the internet, people reply.
Quite the hypothesis. How’s it playing out
Yeah. Real architecture is only built by architects, not artists. So much beauty is lost in this country to spray paint. Real cities like Rome don’t have this problem.
Why would you say Rome specifically you third Reich wanna be 😂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti
Poe’s Law from the top rope.
Like in telltale heart?
I pity you having never seen good graffiti. Banksy weeps😭
Banksy isn’t graffiti, he’s street art. They’re cousins but there is a difference.
And he’s not that good, he ripped off Blek Le Rat. And he has no respect for his predecessors, going over King Robbo (RIP.) I’ll take a bomber like JA XTC or MQ, or a freight king like Ichabod or Jase over Banksy any day, personally.
Insert XKCD expert overestimating the specific knowledge of the public here… Quartz
No I know most people don’t know, this is the “expert” (not that expert but in context) informing. Wasn’t trying to be a dick.
I’ve seen good graffiti. They are good artists. On locations such as the walls of a subway station is good, but on a house no. Tattoos on the body no because it’s a blemish on the body.
Off the top of my head the rainbow house by those Baptist nuts with the signs and a picture a kid drew for their parent before they died turned into a tattoo.
Your purism needs to be rethought
I think it’s more like our bodies are blank canvases. They need some color and embellishing to really accent what’s already there
Not really. Bodies are not blank canvases. A house is not a blank canvas. The architect designed it a certain way. Think of a woman’s leg. Even hair is a blemish. Much more so tattoos.
a house is not a blank canvas
“I sit in an empty room with nothing on the walls. No paintings, no posters, not even any light fixtures or furniture. The house is not a canvas for me to decorate.”
Would a painting be attractive on the outside of a house?
Yes. See every mural ever.
deleted by creator
Oh it’s a rage bait account. I get it.
Not wrong, scrolling through their post history is watching someone beg for down votes and general internet ire.
The so-called architect put those hairs there, you moron.
Depends on where the hair is located. Do you like women with hairy legs or hair under the armpits.?
Yes
I honestly couldn’t give a fuck. If you wanna shave have at it, but if you are more comfortable without shaving, more power to ya.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive. Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
Hair is a blemish? You’re out of your goddamn mind
Really? Do you like women with hairy legs or hair under the armpits?
gay men exist
Yes, but I’m a heterosexual male so I don’t know the feelings of gay men.
but you’re assuming everyone else you’re replying to is also a hetero male, that’s my entire point
So you want natural skin, but no natural hair growth?
Hair on a woman legs and armpits are not attractive.
I hope you shave of all of your body hair because it is disgusting on men
Well maybe when one day when you get to enjoy a woman you won’t mind so much.
I am confused by what you mean
I don’t get it. Would you say a river has architecture? Would you refer to an empty desert as a blank canvas? There is no architecture for which there was no intent. Also, canvases are artificial or even abstract constructs — of which our body is not. You seem to be anthropomorphizing things to justify and even romanticize your biases. Interesting use of cognitive load, there.
What’s ironic is that tattoos introduce intent to the matter, thereby providing something to romanticize.
An unblemished human body serves a biological purpose; indication of health. A person with blemishes on the body probably indicates health problems. Although a tattoo is art, the brain interprets it as a blemish. That’s the reason it makes skin less attractive.
A tattoo does not indicate health problems. I don’t know where you got this idea, but your idea is wrong.
A tattoo does not indicate a health problem, but the brain might interpret it as a blemish on the skin which does indicate a health problem. For example, a mole.
if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.
I suggest you attempt to fix your brain: it clearly malfunctions and this may indicate health problems.
Wow! Wrong about both tattoos and graffiti. A two-fer
Tell that to my Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy tattoo, a massive improvement to previously boring skin.
I boo in your general direction.
Unrelated to the shithead you’re replying to, but how did you make it so your username appears in such a large typeface?
On the website version of Lemmy you can edit how your name appears and it accepts emojis. I actually forget about it because Voyager ignores those, lol.
Thanks!
Gross, like straight up ewww
Majority of responses like this are straight up hypocrisy.
I agree. It’s often a red flag of emotional problems as well. Not always, but in my experience, often enough to be reliable.
It’s often a red flag of emotional problems as well
Wooowwww… This is an insane generalised judgement.
It’s a good starting point, backed up from repeated interactions. They can prove me wrong, or more often, prove me right.
You’re going to die alone and lonely
deleted by creator
