Regarding Tattoos
Some theories, in a sequence.
First up, Dr Daisy Dixon, a philosopher of art at Cardiff University:
my theory is that a reason these men don’t like tattoos on women is because it’s an outward sign of creative agency and self-ownership – it signals that the woman’s body is hers and no one else’s – it aesthetically undermines and rejects men’s felt entitlement to our bodies 🖤 https://t.co/EwlxW9oxHQ
— Dr Daisy Dixon (@daisyldixon) February 15, 2026
Then, a less lofty and perhaps more plausible take by Tim Newman:
For me it reflects poor decision-making which is downstream of poor judgement. Not something you really want in a relationship. https://t.co/9U2u4Y2OG0
— Tim Newman (@whitesundesert) February 16, 2026
And Devon Eriksen offers this, which you may want to read in full:
There is a sort of woman who is deeply and personally offended that Men don’t like Thing.
And she always has Theory.
Theory is about how Men don’t like Thing because they are Bad. All of this is explained by Story.
Story might be plausible, and make sense, but it’s one of… https://t.co/ROC5Bab0wR
— Devon Eriksen (@Devon_Eriksen_) February 15, 2026
I should add that there may in fact be more than one Daisy Dixon. But still.
And because you like footnotes.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
“He paid a million dollars to own her for a weekend”
Setting aside for a moment the matter of women with haphazard and unflattering tattoos, it was an amusing rabbit hole. Some interesting contrasts in how things can be seen.
Plus, I learned many things about women’s erotica.
So there’s that.
That’s not the result of “unrestrained freedom.”
We have had plenty of freedom for decades and we haven’t all run to the tattoo parlor to get marked up.
It’s also not “an outward sign of creative agency and self-ownership” and a rejection of the male gaze.
It’s quite obviously self-harm. That’s what all the uglification is. For twisted psychological reasons, when women are violated, it induces intense self-loathing and they uglify themselves to prevent predators from striking again.
Same with aposemitic hair colors and piercings and heifer rings.
Also, following the crowd and peer pressure.
I’m not a huge fan of tattoos anyway, but a tattooed neck and face is generally a pretty clear warning of damaged goods. To see the phenomenon as something positive and empowering, a feminist triumph, requires some next-level contrivance.
I’m now also wondering whether lesbians, unlike men, regard face and neck tattoos as some glorious sign of empowerment. Or just another crazy bint to avoid.
“I’m a gay man in a straight woman’s body”
I’m not a huge fan of tattoos anyway, but a tattooed neck and face is generally a pretty clear warning of damaged goods.
Same. I have seen some lovely designs on arms and legs but once you are venturing north of the clavicle, there is reason for concern. And it’s usually cheap, unoriginal stuff, and rarely colored. I recall one woman who had an elaborate Ganesha on her back – getting it was a long, laborious, and quite expensive process but it was stunning artwork.
From the comments to that X post.
This.
When even soccer moms are tatted, it’s not “creative agency” or even “edgy and transgressive”.
Already starting to laugh as the ink on Boomers starts sagging… it will only get worse.
and vice versa.
That covers much of the, uhhh, subculture.
“Diversity itself isn’t an issue at all – that’s a positive”
Indeed, but in trying to see if your footnote one and “Call Me Doctor” are the same, it seems the footnote one has quite the oeuvre and if anyone gets aroused by that the price of drinks will no doubt go up again AND the hamster spray deployed.
If, however, the two are the same, she is either clever at tapping a market (who knew minotaurs were a thing), and/or has issues other than the obvious.
In the same vein…
It must be strange to live in a state of near-continual cognitive dissonance. To loudly and habitually profess the wondrousness of “diversity,” while seeing first-hand, quite vividly, scenarios to the contrary.
As if use of the words “excluded” and “social isolation,” any acknowledgement of a practical downside, were heresy and must immediately be offset with the word “positive,” used repeatedly, and other gushing affirmations.
And inevitably, from the replies:
Also inevitably, the words “white supremacist.”
These people are the civilisational analogue of bone cancer.
I’ve got the hose on hot standby.
[ Ups price of drinks. ]
Not completely unrelated, another lady has an insightful opinion on things.
We are not the heavily tatted ones junior.
Though I suppose the term cognitive dissonance could be replaced with the words fundamental dishonesty.
I’ve always been baffled by pretty women ruining their appearance. Even an average girl can look nice with a tiny amount of effort. Are they so afraid of being looked at by men? Are they sure they can’t compete so they quit playing the game? I notice many mature women who dress totally slovenly as well, like they have just given up. Sad.
Cognitive dissonance produces anxiety, fundamental dishonesty produces smugness.
Your body, your choice.
My choice is to disapprove what you chose to do to your body.
David, this is self-promotion. The crazy take on the tattoo picture got a f-Ton of people to go click on the link to her book. She loves that.
My evidence?
A) Crappy bodice-ripper is one of ten books in the series. I myself have written ten books in a series. It is not easy, and it takes a long freaking time to do. Unless she had an LLM barf up ten books of incomprehensible AI crap, she’s been working hard.
B) She’s sitting at 614,953 in Kindle Store. Which means she’s actually selling some e-books. Which means her looney-tunes social media bullshit is working.
Now, as to actual chicks with real tats? Hard pass! Because if that’s what they do with money, I don’t want them in my house. Tats are oh-my-ghod!!! expensive. Chick in the picture could have spent $80K for that. Maybe more.
Tattoos are what girls do when they’re bored, not very bright, and somebody else is paying the bills.
“Those are my two Jesse Jackson stories.”
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Always respect the media.
When tattoos for everyone started getting popular (IIRC 1990s?) my girls started talking about getting one. HOWEVER I told them (and they agreed) to keep it at one or two and have it someplace where it can’t been seen when one wears normal clothing – like to school or workplace.
Girls are all successful adults and no casual observation reveals any tat.
Neck and face tats, especially, are huge “Danger!” flags. A rose on one’s shoulder blade isn’t.
[ Rummages under bar, produces tattoo detector. ]
[ A low hum, valves glow. ]
[ Scans Darleen. ]
[ Eyes widen. ]
I have…barely one but it goes to how long we have tolerated idiocy. He spoke at UF in 1984 during his campaign. I had seen him on one of the Sunday news shows and was at least mouthing words that sounded reasonable. So since it was going to be right across the street from the computer lab where I spent so much time I went to see him. There was a nicely dressed, if physically schlumpy, Jewish kid there with a sign reading “No hymies in hymie town”. IYKYK. There was a security/police guy there who was focused on keeping Jewish kid outside the open building (it was a nice day and doors were open). The absurdity of that effort turned me off on anything else Jackson had to say. Plus, he was insanely late. Like I even went back to the lab and figured, well if he’s here when I come back, OK.
Choose wisely.
Are these the same Daisy Dixon?
I shouldn’t think so. Though I did still laugh.
Great, another Thunberg is heard from.
[ Scans Darleen again, loud beeping. ]
Filed under “Getting what you asked for, good and hard.”
Back when I was in high school, those girls drew designs on their jeans with ball point pens. Could we go back to that, please?
No visible tattoos, but the glasses are a red flag.
[Mona Lisa smile]
I wasn’t expecting them to be quite so numerous. Or vividly pornographic.
As is the ‘want some candy’ smile.
A prisons minister who says “colleagues” instead of “offenders” probably belongs in a prison rather than running one.
It looks very much like an attempt at moral blunting, at fogging discernment, as if people who finally end up in prison – which takes a hell of a lot of work – were just like the rest of us.
Except, of course, they’re not.
If I had the power, I would force him to test his views by living among violent career criminals.
Speaking of moral blunting, here is more excuse-making for hardened criminals.
I’ve had this discussion with many young women when they insist that guys like their tattoos. Of course they do; the tattoos say “I like pain, I’m desperate for attention, and I make bad decisions without concern for the long-term consequences”. Bad decisions like, say, sleeping with the kind of guys that copious tattoos attract. Ask these women how many marriage proposals they’re getting, and the conversation changes tone quickly.
Dude. Those women aren’t paying for the tattoos. Not with money, anyway.
Many women with low self-esteem will adopt conspicuous uglification for two reasons: one, it gets them attention (it is always about attention) and two, it gives them a built-in excuse and emotional defense for any rejection.
There’s another, more subtle dynamic. Very attractive women will often adopt fashion trends that make them less attractive because they can afford it. Most men have a number on the 1-10 scale below which they won’t look twice. An 8 or 9 can afford to lose a point or two and still be desirable. But that 8 or 9 knows that the 5s, 6s, and 7s will follow her trend, and if they lose a couple of points, they’re no longer competition.
This. I’ve listened to what men say when they see tattooed women, and it has nothing to do with respect or marriage and everything to do with kink and promiscuity.
I really don’t think you’re being fair to tattooed ladies.
I wonder if Penn Jillette will ever realize how foolish he was.
That smug smirk. That blindness to real-world consequences.
The word of the day is “aposematism”.
Much is said of the female “6-6-6” requirements for men. Mentioned less often is the male “0-0-0” requirements for women, largely because they don’t come into play until around age 30.
At age 30, both sides are no longer looking for casual sex partners, but for long term relationships. While the women’s preferences don’t change, the men’s do. Women find that men who would happily sleep with them aren’t interested in them as life partners, so they don’t have as many options as they the prior to their best before date. Conversely, the remaining men now have more options and can be pickier. That’s where the 0-0-0 rule kicks in.
What is the 0-0-0 rule?
All three are indications of poor life choices. While children can be hidden from view (and often are), and debt doesn’t show up unless it’s extreme, tattoos are a visual signal of poor impulse control.