Jesus, some people will fark anything with tits.

Ok, she's not ugly, but she has a ways to go before she hits hot.

I'm not into girls with tattoos and piercings but I am really into girls with chainsaws so this is very confusing!

I hate those weird nose rings like she's wearing (sorry, don't know the name). Always looks like they've got shiny boogers hanging out of their nose.

Cool tune, I just downloaded it.

Tattoos don't make anyone, male or female, more attractive at all.

Someone can be hot enough to overcome a tattoo, or the tattoo's placement, subject matter, and/or execution can be good enough for it to not be much of a problem, but tattoos, in general, are not a good idea. And a bad tattoo, or too many of them, or placement in an area where they cannot be concealed, can absolutely ruin someone's appearance.

I am old and have no tats.

That said, I think she is hot, especially since she can wield a mean chainsaw to create art. Her tats are just part of her look, and it all looks good to me.

LasersHurt: chaoswolf: I'm always surprised by the tattoo hate on fark.

Ugly tattoos are ugly. Ugly chicks are ugly. Pretty women with pretty tattoos are pretty.

I fail to see the problem.

I don't get it either. There's a particular culture of dislike for tattoos here that's more accute than other places.

I'm thirding the confusion. I feel as though anyone younger than forty these days should be really okay with tattoos. No longer is it the mark of the lower class, and even places like Target hires folks with tattoos nowadays, so the "can't get a job" stigma is dead. My doctor has visible tattoos, as do folks who work at my bank, and my real estate agent. I teach at University, and many of my colleagues have visible tattoos, some with full sleeves. I really can't think of any profession that bars visible tattoos out of hand.

That said, bad tattoos can make someone look worse. But the same can be said for bad clothes and bad hair.

Why does she have that nose ring? Is it to make her easier to handle?

Standard Deviant: The stigma is not gone. I would only hire someone with visible tattos or a piercing hanging out of their nose for a $15/hr job that did not interface with my clients. It is a credibility detriment.

Well, its your right to keep being a close minded boss.

Credibility? WTF? People who get tattoos are not credible? Congrats. That's the most asinine things I've heard all day.

CtrlAltDestroy: chaoswolf: Pretty women with pretty tattoos become less pretty with each one.

FTFY.

The worst is when they ruin a perfectly good pair of boobs with huge tattoos. I've never liked tattoos and I most likely never will. If you do, then fine. But I'm equally as allowed to not like them.

meehaw: Well, its your right to keep being a close minded boss.

Credibility? WTF? People who get tattoos are not credible? Congrats. That's the most asinine things I've heard all day.

Sorry bro, but he's not the asshole you'd like to make him out to be. People with tattoos are more likely to do risky/unprofessional/etc things in life. True, not all will, but the odds aren't in their favor vs someone who is ink and extra hole free. It sucks for the people who are completely sane and level with tattoos, but the world is a shiatty place sometimes. Any semi intelligent person had to of known the sitgma about tattoos and the professional world going into it. People assume things about me because I'm brown even though I conduct myself professionally. At last they had a choice in the matter. People suck.

Plus, let's say that you're going in to get a mortgage. Would you rather your broker look like the guy who did the tattoos on the "stars on my face, daddy freaked out, so I'll just lie and say I fell asleep" girl or the "Windows" guy from those retarded apple ads?

Sorry bro, but to the professional world, this is how they see people and tattoos.

First of all, because you constantly use the word "bro", I could make several assumptions about you. Just sayin'...

Now, I would never be so starry eyed as to believe that discrimination doesn't exist. Having been a victim of it in my life, as well, I am all too familiar with being unfairly stereotyped. That doesn't stop me from thinking those doing the stereotyping are closed-minded a-holes.

And I just want to know where the hell you guys live! That the presence of tattoos is such a stigma to you suggests that you haven't gotten out much. Yes, my sixty-five year old mother thinks tattoos are for the devil people. It's a big reason I don't have any...because I respect my mother and know it would break her heart. But she lives in a town of 2000 and is FREAKING 65 years old! So being set in her ways is par for the course, and her small southern town experiences simply don't make for much malleability of values and thought.

As stated before, I live very near a large metro area now, and many of the folks that I deal with professionally are tattooed...some of them heavily. I have not experienced that they are losing business because of this choice. I maintain that you people just need to get out more. This is anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I would wager that most of us discussing this are just being anecdotal anyway.

But that's not the issue with this thread. It's an issue of preference of female attractiveness. I happen to think that tattoos CAN make an interesting person more interesting and attractive. It's not a cry for attention, necessarily...no more than cutting your hair a certain way or wearing ostentatious clothing. And, I do not believe for one minute the ridiculous claim that it is a sign of mental illness, as suggested above. These days, it's a fashion choice...albeit, a more permanent one than most, but still a fashion choice.

Now, to stereotype once again for myself...I'd love to get the demographic data of Farkers who hate tattoos vs. those who don't mind them/like them on women. I would wager that the former are largely over 50 years old. We're not getting off your lawn...bro.

LasersHurt: I guess the take-away message here is "if I don't like it, it must be wrong." Be that the mental illness moron (seriously, dude. It's cool if you don't like them, but mental illness? One of the dumbest things committed to comment space recently) or the "credibility detriment" guy (Just because YOU reduce someone's credibility based on something superficial doesn't mean everyone else does.)

Thank you. Another voice of reason. Opinion does not equal fact.

Genju: meehaw:

And I just want to know where the hell you guys live! That the presence of tattoos is such a stigma to you suggests that you haven't gotten out much. Yes, my sixty-five year old mother thinks tattoos are for the devil people. It's a big reason I don't have any...because I respect my mother and know it would break her heart. But she lives in a town of 2000 and is FREAKING 65 years old! So being set in her ways is par for the course, and her small southern town experiences simply don't make for much malleability of values and thought.

As stated before, I live very near a large metro area now, and many of the folks that I deal with professionally are tattooed...some of them heavily. I have not experienced that they are losing business because of this choice. I maintain that you people just need to get out more. This is anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I would wager that most of us discussing this are just being anecdotal anyway.

I live in Florida. Despite what you may be thinking about that statement, there is quite a corporate presence in this state. I work in a company that has thousands of employees across the world. We have heavily tattooed people (arms/legs, no face tats). Those people are forced to wear long sleeves (imagine that in the Florida summer) to cover themselves whenever a customer or higher up comes to visit. Right or wrong, CAD's observation is somewhat accurate. Anecdotal for me as well, but it isn't just Florida either. Perhaps it's due to having more government customers.

My wife is from Florida, so I'm familiar with the state, both the good and the bad, and I grew up in Georgia. So I'm very familiar with the area. I would be interested to know if your company offices in, say, California, were so strict about the tattoo coverage policy. I find that companies lag behind popular opinion in those states, and the Southeast in general. For instance, I mentioned Target before. Now I understand that being a Target employee is not a top level job. However, they are a large corporation that controls its image tightly, and that image is presented in the workaday employees that we all see when we need to ask where the shampoo is. So it is arguable that they are more strict about their dress policy for salespeople and cashiers than they are about folks working in the corporate offices. In Georgia, you will not get hired at a Target if you have visible tattoos. Where I live now, I have seen at least four highly visible employees at Target with half or full sleeves. They are certainly "presentable" in every other way...well groomed, professional, and friendly. The same thing applies to length of hair. When I was living in Georgia, I could not get a job at a place like Home Depot if I didn't cut my hair. Out here, there are several employees at Home Depot with long and/or alternatively styled hair, piercings and tattoos.

As I have calmed down about this debate (I was angry and disturbed at the lack of tolerance displayed before), I am now more interested in understanding this in a more objective way. It's clear that tattoos are more accepted now than they were in the eighties. Similarly, they were more accepted in the eighties than in the fifties. Maybe we could have a discussion that doesn't involve personal opinion and get to the bottom of the acceptance of societal norms. Subcultures all start off being iconoclastic. Then, they start being adopted by a small section of society...usually the young. Then, they get swallowed by culture at large as a sanctioned, if mildly edgy, form of individual expression. Finally, they become the norm. This happens all the time, and its fascinating to me. Think about the lowly t-shirt. It was shocking for audiences to see a young Marlon Brando in a "Streetcar Named Desire" being a "punk" and wearing a t-shirt without a proper shirt over it. Now, no one thinks anything about it. It is a societal norm, when sixty years ago it was akin to walking out of the house in your underwear.

Thoughts?