Tatoos on women

[Cactus34]

Fictional tattoos always succeed. They're always keenly chosen to be a facet of the character's life circumstances and/or personality. Fictional tattoos, when we see them in movies and illustrations, are always vividly spectacular works of art.

So, to the original question, I say go for it!

As a postscript, real life tattoos are usually boneheaded, ditzy impulses to have the Chinese symbol for mushu pork on their shoulder blade or a rorshach thing that might be a butterfly or a bird or a...you're kidding me-THAT is supposed to be a lion with a full mane??

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I hate you all.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Samantha Cameron the British PM's wife has a tat of a dolphin on her foot. But she was in marketing - hardly a profession.

I dislike tats on any one and on women particularly. Is that sexist? Probably. And I would hate it if any of my daughters got one. That's who I am.

It's not just so-called 'professions'. Increasingly, companies, especially in retail, are imposing prohibitions on visible tats on the argument that tats put off clients/customers. I understand Cameron rarely shows her dolphin.

Although I once considered a shoulder rose when at college, I think I go with Cactus.

 

[PennLady]

This got me thinking about US Marines and tattoos -- I think they're almost synonymous. I found this link at eHow:

http://www.ehow.com/about_6643256_usmc-tattoos-policy.html

I found this part interesting:

Promotion

As Marines are highly recognizable across the U.S. and around the world, the Corps places a premium on placing sharp, professional-looking Marines in public positions. The presence of tattoos may be taken into consideration when determining promotions and new assignments. Marines with sleeve tattoos are no longer eligible to apply for commissioning or warrant officer programs, and those with heavy tattooing will not be selected to be recruiters.

 

[lovecraft68]

This got me thinking about US Marines and tattoos -- I think they're almost synonymous. I found this link at eHow:

http://www.ehow.com/about_6643256_usmc-tattoos-policy.html

I found this part interesting:

To which I would head on over to an attorney or local ACLU branch and say discrimination.

What Elfin was speaking of and I know she is not quite saying this, but this is what is being implied by people who will judge by tattoos.

The perception of people with tattoos are that we are wild, "bad ass" trouble, irresponsible, reckless, immature, I suppose as well. Maybe for women trashy and slutty may fall in too.

So in a day where homosexuality, gender and color no longer(or should) no longer factor into jobs, tattoos still do?

Gay marriage, one of the most taboo things you could imagine even a generation ago is beginning to be accepted, but not tattoos?

Shakes head.

Then again, I admit it is fun to show up at my wife's stuck up toast master's club during their annual barbecue "flying my colors" and then discourse knowledgeably on any subject they care to bring up.

You can see they almost want to say "you're smarter than you look"

Judging someone by color, race, gender, sexual preference, mode of dress and yes things like tattoos or piercings is simply a form of "We're better than you"

But no one would want to think that about themselves now would they?

 

[sr71plt]

I've seen a small tattoo on a woman occasionally (e.g., a tiny lizard on an ankle) that I thought was pretty nifty. But that's pretty much the extent of any tattooing I've seen on a woman that I thought was the least bit nifty.

 

[lovecraft68]

You know, I can see debating this in real life and personal beliefs, preference, but I really don't understand why anyone would care about a fictional tattoo on a fictional woman in a story.

 

[countesscrush]

I have on tatoo, on my shoulder, and I am planning one more. I got the first before marriage
And held off because my husband doesn't like them. Finally decided to go ahead as it is my body. My first tat, and the planned on both have sigificant meaning to me. I think for a lot of people with
tattoos this is true.

I really doubt my second tattoo will make me suddenly unfuckable or unemployable.

As to the tattoo girl in the story, there are plenty who love tats, just like some like blondes,
it seems like a preference to me. We all read stories that speak to our preferences, so I am certain thete will be an audience for it.

 

[countesscrush]

Sorry for the typos, on my phone...

 

[PennLady]

To which I would head on over to an attorney or local ACLU branch and say discrimination.

I don't think you can do that. Another article from a military site I read quoted a Marine officer as noting that you join the Marines, they don't join you. If you want to join, you follow the rules. The rules on tattoos are spelled out. I don't see this as any different than a dress code employed by any other company.

What Elfin was speaking of and I know she is not quite saying this, but this is what is being implied by people who will judge by tattoos.

Some people do, and they shouldn't.

So in a day where homosexuality, gender and color no longer(or should) no longer factor into jobs, tattoos still do?

You do not choose the orientation, gender, color or nationality you are born with. You are not born with tattoos. It's a choice, and every choice has a consequence.

Judging someone by color, race, gender, sexual preference, mode of dress and yes things like tattoos or piercings is simply a form of "We're better than you"

But no one would want to think that about themselves now would they?

Yeah, we all make judgments. Don't except yourself. We probably couldn't get through most of life without making some quick judgments, and we work with what we have, much of which is appearance. Quick judgments might be wrong, no question, but you have to start somewhere.

If you are denied employment b/c of things you can't control, as I said above, that's different. If you apply for work somewhere that says in its requirements "no tattoos," and you have tattoos, well then, you're out of luck.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think you can do that. Another article from a military site I read quoted a Marine officer as noting that you join the Marines, they don't join you. If you want to join, you follow the rules.

Bingo. SO many folks SO misunderstand what they have the "right" to do--and where it impinges on the rights others to do as they want with their business/organization.

 

[lovecraft68]

Bingo. SO many folks SO misunderstand what they have the "right" to do--and where it impinges on the rights others to do as they want with their business/organization.

There was once a time women weren't allowed in the military either.

It gets to a point where somethings become outdated.

hell drill sergeants can't even be "mean" anymore because of Political correctness.

Better yet, there was a time not more than maybe 60-70 years ago, women were frowned upon for wearing pants.

Let's get real here, short of FTW tattooed on the neck or an eight ball on the hand, tattoos shouldn't necessarily raise red flags.

 

[Cactus34]

I have something of an unfortunate kneejerk prejudice against tattoos because, I intimated in my earlier post, they're usually horrible. Tattoos exceed "Sturgeon's Law", which states "90% of anything is crap." In my life, I'd say tattoos press 95% or higher as a percentage of failures. For every skillful piece of art, I see dozens that were taken right off the mud flap of an 18-wheeler. Mud and all.

Even the skillfully done pieces are not a guarantee. My friend wanted a Bugs Bunny on his ankle. He researched and hunted until he found just the pose for the inker to use as reference. The artist did a very decent job, no question. But, due to some crazy blend of the ink, my buddy's biochemistry and plain voodoo, within five years the lines and colours started to blur and seep. Now it looks like he let his pre-school son work on him with wax crayons.

In the case of the Marine Corps, if they set up an artistic aesthetic judge saying "You can be promoted because you've got a bitchin' cool tattoo, but your friend looks like a men's room wall, so no advancement for him", it would be opening a legal can of giant snakes. Best to just say, "No tattoos, period."

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I have something of an unfortunate kneejerk prejudice against tattoos because, I intimated in my earlier post, they're usually horrible. Tattoos exceed "Sturgeon's Law", which states "90% of anything is crap." In my life, I'd say tattoos press 95% or higher as a percentage of failures. For every skillful piece of art, I see dozens that were taken right off the mud flap of an 18-wheeler. Mud and all.

Even the skillfully done pieces are not a guarantee. My friend wanted a Bugs Bunny on his ankle. He researched and hunted until he found just the pose for the inker to use as reference. The artist did a very decent job, no question. But, due to some crazy blend of the ink, my buddy's biochemistry and plain voodoo, within five years the lines and colours started to blur and seep. Now it looks like he let his pre-school son work on him with wax crayons.

In the case of the Marine Corps, if they set up an artistic aesthetic judge saying "You can be promoted because you've got a bitchin' cool tattoo, but your friend looks like a men's room wall, so no advancement for him", it would be opening a legal can of giant snakes. Best to just say, "No tattoos, period."

That's why you keep it simple, man.

My design, simple black ink, solid lines. Small, discreet, timeless.

 

[PennLady]

There was once a time women weren't allowed in the military either.

It gets to a point where somethings become outdated.

Yes, but again, you can't control your birth gender, or color, or whatever. And some things are outdated and should be eliminated.

Let's get real here, short of FTW tattooed on the neck or an eight ball on the hand, tattoos shouldn't necessarily raise red flags.

That's not true. Our Marines go all over the world, and they represent this country. And they volunteered. They volunteered to join an agency that has rules. If you don't like those rules, okay fine, don't join. You have the option. You want to join the Marines? Then don't get a tattoo, or at least follow their policies regarding them.

I have nothing against tattoos, nor the people who wear them. I've toyed with the idea from time to time myself. But I don't consider myself a canvas for art as some people do, nor is there any image I want permanently etched on my skin. But that's just me.

 

[Gankhuu]

I think some of us forget that not all tattoos are for everyone to see. Some tattoos are very personal. Yes, often it's art to show off- which I'm not so keen on. But sometimes it's like an oath... a sign of devotion... in remembrance of lost loved ones, etc. Or simply... it's your personal 'thing.'

I also think the original poster needs to assess why they were writing the story in the first place. Was it to please others? Or were they writing the story for themselves. If for others... then, I guess you listen to your audience. If for yourself, then 'The rest be damned'

 

[Gankhuu]

I even have scars that I'm proud of. They often have a decent story to go with them. Not the same as tattoos... and I didn't go out of my way to get the scars. But, I wouldn't take them away, now that I have them. They are what make me who I am. I like to think of some tattoos like I do of scars, except the intent to get them, part. Or rather, you got the tattoo because of something.

 

[sr71plt]

Regarding the Marine Corps tattoo policy: Shhh, can you keep a secret? There's a phrase in the corps' code on this, "potential liabilities in the field," which points to at least one reason they put a stop to tattooing, as popular as it once was in the Marine Corps.

As the nature of warfare changed and counterinsurgency became more of a "main tool" in the American soldier's tactical job description, more and more Marines were being engaged in operations where it wasn't convenient for them to be identified as American soldiers. Having an eagle and Semper Fi tattooed on your bicep, the favorite Marine tattoo, is pretty much a dead giveaway on where you came from. The Marine Corps was increasingly being tapped for covert operations help and tattooing--with no one wanting the job of determining what tattooing would be compromising and what wouldn't--ran up against who could be available and who couldn't based simply on their body art. So, that became a factor in the "to the hell with it; just ban them all" policy. It became a question of whether their usefulness to do their full range of duties would be compromised or not (which is relevant to the promotion issue as well. If you can't do your full job, there's little reason to promote you as fast as someone who can).

 

[SevenSquared]

You know, I can see debating this in real life and personal beliefs, preference, but I really don't understand why anyone would care about a fictional tattoo on a fictional woman in a story.

I would assume because erotica feeds off of mental imagery and if you don't like the mental image of a character in your mind then you won't find the character 'attractive', which could in turn mean you won't be aroused by the story, which for many is the whole point of reading erotica in the first place.

I don't think that anybody has argued that characters in stories shouldn't have tattoos, just that some people may not want them in the story they happen to be reading. In the same way that other people may not want central characters who are fat or black or white or short or redhead or whatever.

 

[GC66]

The lady I dated before I met my wife was a tattooist. She had full sleeves on both arms.

I wrote about our story and hopefully it should be up soon.

 

[PennLady]

I would assume because erotica feeds off of mental imagery and if you don't like the mental image of a character in your mind then you won't find the character 'attractive', which could in turn mean you won't be aroused by the story, which for many is the whole point of reading erotica in the first place.

I don't think that anybody has argued that characters in stories shouldn't have tattoos, just that some people may not want them in the story they happen to be reading. In the same way that other people may not want central characters who are fat or black or white or short or redhead or whatever.

I agree. And the question in the OP about whether it would be a turn off or not has been answered, as such things usually are in these threads, with a lot of differing opinions.

Then, as per usual, things went off track a little -- but not as far off as some threads.

 

[sr71plt]

I would assume because erotica feeds off of mental imagery

Yep, that seems fairly obvious. Most of eroticism is in the brain.

And the reaction goes both ways on tattoos in erotica. I put tattoos and body piercings in my stories often--and I sometimes get requests to expand the stories on those elements. So, there are audiences for both with and without.

 

[OX2]

Regarding the Marine Corps tattoo policy: Shhh, can you keep a secret? There's a phrase in the corps' code on this, "potential liabilities in the field," which points to at least one reason they put a stop to tattooing, as popular as it once was in the Marine Corps.

As the nature of warfare changed and counterinsurgency became more of a "main tool" in the American soldier's tactical job description, more and more Marines were being engaged in operations where it wasn't convenient for them to be identified as American soldiers. Having an eagle and Semper Fi tattooed on your bicep, the favorite Marine tattoo, is pretty much a dead giveaway on where you came from. The Marine Corps was increasingly being tapped for covert operations help and tattooing--with no one wanting the job of determining what tattooing would be compromising and what wouldn't--ran up against who could be available and who couldn't based simply on their body art. So, that became a factor in the "to the hell with it; just ban them all" policy. It became a question of whether their usefulness to do their full range of duties would be compromised or not (which is relevant to the promotion issue as well. If you can't do your full job, there's little reason to promote you as fast as someone who can).

OK, step back into the light. The Army, Marines et al are trying to get away from a Heavily tattooed look that gives the impression that we are all bikers and NOT Professional. The Sergeant Major of the Army has put out that he doesn't care for tattoos on the neck, hands, face ect. If you can't see it in a long sleeve shirt, He doesn't care. I have had, and do have, relatives in "Spec OPs" I spent an X amount of time in Iraq with no name. Nobody gives a shit what you have Tattooed. If you are " Other" then it's not a good idea, but most of those guys are already aware and don't have distinctive stuff any way.

I Have a LARGE Knight Templar with 14 ( Soon to be 15 when I get back to my Tat Guy) Names on my back. I want the infidel to know who is killing him and what 15 guys he will be serving when he gets to my heaven.

 

[sr71plt]

I guess you didn't get the Marine Corps memo, Ox2.

(I love it when folks give the "facts" without looking them up first.)

 

[OX2]

Tats are cool, my only worry when I see a heavily tattooed woman is, what's going to happen at about 60? I told my wife long ago that I'd played pool with a sexy woman that had a dragon on her calf. She went and got a dragon on her ankle. After I got my Templar done ( Three sittings) she got three roses on her inner wrist to represent her Three Men ( Me and our sons)

I do think the Tramp stamp is hot, but only on certain women, just like certain women look good in certain clothes. I think with an eye towards professionalism, Tattoos that are highly visible like past wrist, face, and neck, do make people question your judgement. I'm ok with a few tats but not with a woman that's become a coloring book. Mine is more of a Commemorative memorial thing. ANd if that is what you want to do that's cool. But I'd never get a lover's name or my Kid's names put on. That just seems dumb to me in my opinion.