Old Grump Doesn't Like Extensive Tattoos On Women (dating, attractive, clothes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm 61, and I'm sorry, I find extensive tattoos on women more like graffitti than anything attractive. On legs, arms, neck, chest, etc. They can be portraits, the Declaration of Independence, skulls, you name it. I don't understand the need to presumably and permanently deface skin like this. Small, discreet tattoos I can understand, but sprawling inkmarks seem a risk if after a few years they are perhaps no longer as relevant a "statement" as before. Am I such a totally old dork thinking like this? Is it just a passing, generational thing? I hope so. I apologize to tattoo aficiandos, but that's how I feel.
I never thought of it much. Tattoos have been around thousands of years. It is an art form. I agree some are tacky, but that's just my personal aesthetics. People should do what they want. It doesn't have to meet my approval. I have some ink, none of which is visible if I have a shirt on. Just as with clothes, jewelry and makeup, people have adorned themselves with tattoos forever.
I read the TOS and the thread that is specific to this forum. I did not see anything about tattoos.
As for the OP, which we're supposed to stick to: it's an issue of personal taste. Plenty of people have them. Many others don't. If you're looking for someone you want to date, stick to the people whose taste matches yours; or be prepared to accept someone for who they are.
Around here there lots of very attractive normal people who are heavily tattooed; even professionals working in the office. I noticed most people that I've run into have tattoos of some manner (almost feel like I'm the exception without one). There are at least 5 tattoo parlors in my immediate area.
As such, tattoos are more accepting by society here and influencing what people think of as attractive or not.
Some of the art is beautiful. Everyone has dating preferences... and are entitled to them.
I personally do not have any tattoos, & would likely never get one, but if someone else wants one, that is fine. It is not my business. Op just needs to date people who do not have one, I think they (non tattoo folk) are probably in the majority anyhow.
I'm 61, and I'm sorry, I find extensive tattoos on women more like graffitti than anything attractive. On legs, arms, neck, chest, etc. They can be portraits, the Declaration of Independence, skulls, you name it. I don't understand the need to presumably and permanently deface skin like this. Small, discreet tattoos I can understand, but sprawling inkmarks seem a risk if after a few years they are perhaps no longer as relevant a "statement" as before. Am I such a totally old dork thinking like this? Is it just a passing, generational thing? I hope so. I apologize to tattoo aficiandos, but that's how I feel.
You are free to like or dislike anything just like everyone else is and to solve your issue, don't date women you don't like but don't assume your opinion of their tattoo(s) mean anything to anyone but you.
You have no idea why anyone gets a tattoo and any *statement* made by a tattoo is relevant to the one who has the tattoo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.