Q. I'm just wondering why men expect women to have small tattoos that can be covered up. I have 4, but I chose to have a black phoenix on the inside of my forearm tattooed as a memorial for my father (he had a blue phoenix on his arm when he died). I later want to add symbols for "Father" tattooed near the bird.
I haven't really gotten any negative feedback from it, but I just noticed that a lot of people on this forum think that women should only have them small, cute in nonvisible locations.
Do guys prefer small cute tattoos like butterflies and flowers on women, or do some prefer that the tattoos have some kind of meaning? I'll never regret mine, but I think it's unfair that my father was covered in tattoos without anyone questioning him, yet some think it's "unusual" for me to have a large tat in a visible spot like my arm. It's a bit of a double standard. Your thoughts? Thanks for answering.
I haven't really gotten any negative feedback from it, but I just noticed that a lot of people on this forum think that women should only have them small, cute in nonvisible locations.
Do guys prefer small cute tattoos like butterflies and flowers on women, or do some prefer that the tattoos have some kind of meaning? I'll never regret mine, but I think it's unfair that my father was covered in tattoos without anyone questioning him, yet some think it's "unusual" for me to have a large tat in a visible spot like my arm. It's a bit of a double standard. Your thoughts? Thanks for answering.
A. Personally I don't see any reason why men and women should be treated differently with regard to tattoos. But I agree with you, there's often a double standard. It also often comes out in the many, many questions which purely ask whether women with tattoos are still attractive, as if a woman's only role in life is to be looked at by men.
I think that very often the people who believe that 'small cute' tattoos are OK on women but larger ones aren't probably just haven't given it all that much thought from this angle. They have a sort of vague idea that tattoos are 'unfeminine', and that women should therefore only get 'cute' tattoos to counteract this, without having really considered the implications of these ideas - the fact that it suggests that a woman's main function is to be attractive, to appeal to other people, to be non-threatening; that she's a visual object rather than a human being with a head full of valid, interesting, unique ideas. Which I think is pretty sad, really.
In some ways I actually find this halfway-house suggestion that teeny-tiny flowers and hearts and butterflies are OK on women, but nothing else is, even more irritating than those people who just don't like tattoos full stop. Although I do like tattoos, I don't expect everyone else to as well. But the whole point of tattoos is that they can express anything you want them to, and to suggest that women should be restricted to certain subjects, sizes and placements when choosing their tattoos in order to 'fit in' is really hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with flowers, butterflies and so on; they can make great tattoos and if someone does want them, that's fine. If that's the tattoo someone truly wants then it's great, in fact. But I suspect that in some cases women are half-heartedly driven to get these kinds of tattoos for fear that if they got anything more individual and personal, people would ask too many questions and look down their noses, and that's such a shame.
So what I would say is, well done you for getting the tattoos you wanted! The more people do that, and show the world why it's important, the less 'cuteness' will be the main issue, and the better off we'll all be.
Hope this helps!
I think that very often the people who believe that 'small cute' tattoos are OK on women but larger ones aren't probably just haven't given it all that much thought from this angle. They have a sort of vague idea that tattoos are 'unfeminine', and that women should therefore only get 'cute' tattoos to counteract this, without having really considered the implications of these ideas - the fact that it suggests that a woman's main function is to be attractive, to appeal to other people, to be non-threatening; that she's a visual object rather than a human being with a head full of valid, interesting, unique ideas. Which I think is pretty sad, really.
In some ways I actually find this halfway-house suggestion that teeny-tiny flowers and hearts and butterflies are OK on women, but nothing else is, even more irritating than those people who just don't like tattoos full stop. Although I do like tattoos, I don't expect everyone else to as well. But the whole point of tattoos is that they can express anything you want them to, and to suggest that women should be restricted to certain subjects, sizes and placements when choosing their tattoos in order to 'fit in' is really hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with flowers, butterflies and so on; they can make great tattoos and if someone does want them, that's fine. If that's the tattoo someone truly wants then it's great, in fact. But I suspect that in some cases women are half-heartedly driven to get these kinds of tattoos for fear that if they got anything more individual and personal, people would ask too many questions and look down their noses, and that's such a shame.
So what I would say is, well done you for getting the tattoos you wanted! The more people do that, and show the world why it's important, the less 'cuteness' will be the main issue, and the better off we'll all be.
Hope this helps!
What is the Sexiest tattoo location on a woman?
Q. What do you think is the sexiest location on the body a woman can have a tattoo. I think tattoos on the small of the back is the sexiest spot.
A. As a woman, I think it`s sexy and pretty to see it in the middle of her lower back, that shows just above low-rise pants.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar