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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I conclude that men prefer plain skin on women. Note that with tattoos on women, men prefer small tattoos in hidden locations.
“Most guys” doesn’t mean anything. An average is a pretty bad argument when it comes to making blanket statements about people’s preferences. It ignores culture, health, age, … so many things. But I guess the point is, “it seems like 6 out of 10 people respond yes to this prompt.” It’s shallow, meaningless… It barely makes a scientific statement, let alone defend your assertions. Most guys are personable enough to also not meet such broad statements, if you supply just an ounce of real-life context.
Your results also don’t demonstrate anything beyond cultural bias in a potentially biased study.
The statements weren’t broad. They were very specific. Most guys find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. The results might not be cultural but biological, similar to the study on body hair on women.
A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.
Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.
Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.
The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.
Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.
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.
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.
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.
I conclude that men prefer plain skin on women. Note that with tattoos on women, men prefer small tattoos in hidden locations.
“Most guys” doesn’t mean anything. An average is a pretty bad argument when it comes to making blanket statements about people’s preferences. It ignores culture, health, age, … so many things. But I guess the point is, “it seems like 6 out of 10 people respond yes to this prompt.” It’s shallow, meaningless… It barely makes a scientific statement, let alone defend your assertions. Most guys are personable enough to also not meet such broad statements, if you supply just an ounce of real-life context.
Your results also don’t demonstrate anything beyond cultural bias in a potentially biased study.
The statements weren’t broad. They were very specific. Most guys find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. The results might not be cultural but biological, similar to the study on body hair on women.
You are overstating your sources.
A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.
Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.
Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.
The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.
Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.
I suggest you attempt to fix your brain: it clearly malfunctions and this may indicate health problems.