So you know I'm not making this up and that there is actual research behind what I'm saying:
Some men believe that whether a not a woman has tattoos affects their chances of sleeping with her on the first date.
At least that's what a new study led by Nicolas Guéguen of France's Université de Bretagne-Sud showed. Guéguen investigated the relationship between how men rated a woman's attractiveness, willingness to go out with them and willingness to have sex on the first date and whether or not the woman had a tattoo....
The results showed that men thought women with a tattoo were more likely to go on a date with them, and more likely to have sex on the first date, than women without a tattoo. However, Guéguen's researchers did not ask the participants why they thought this -- stereotypes about women with tattoos? Past experiences with tattooed women? -- and no news yet on what women think of men with tattoos.
Research from 2007 found that women with tattoos were considered more promiscuous and less attractive than women without. A study from 2005 found that people with tattoos were considered "less credible" in a professional context. (source)
Here's a new aphorism: "The more body art you have, the more likely you are to be involved in deviance."
So says Jerome Koch, a sociologist with Texas Tech University's "Body Art Team" -- true moniker -- which surveyed 1,753 students at four colleges and found a correlation between multiple tattoos or piercings and "deviant behavior."
The severally inked or poked at the unnamed Midwestern and Southern colleges said they engaged in, roughly speaking, more promiscuity, more drug use, more binge drinking, more arrests and more cheating on academics than their peers.
The research team has been studying tattoos and piercing since 1999; its latest study will be printed in The Social Science Journal in March and was first reported in Miller-McCune magazine, which tracks academic research. (source)
Tattoos and piercings send social signals. In some cultures, you're saying, "I'm healthy"—suffering the pain and health risks of body modification demonstrates biological fitness. In ours, the message is more like, "I'm down for anything."
A team of anthropologists at the University of Goettingen in Germany found that men and women with tattoos or piercings beyond earlobes are more sensation-seeking and promiscuous than the unadorned—as well as less friendly. Message received: A study reported in Body Image found that women with tattoos are seen by college students as more sexually active and more heavily drinking (and less attractive) than their peers. In fact, these students assume women with three tattoos (on the arm, hip, and ankle) chug eight drinks in a night out, versus only four for women with no ink. (source)
I agree. Wow.
Noel: "Are we to say that Belle Rose is..."
Unseen: "You can't counter general truths with specific cases."
"Are we to say that" those who ride motorcycles (excepting myself, I guess) are unable to grasp this general truth about general truths?
Is that how you see it? Back to the real world. I ride motorcycles. Sometimes I ride in groups of 30 to 50 grown ups. For the exception of myself and perhaps two that I can think of, off the top of my head, they all have tats and some of the woman have peircings. Thing is all of the woman are married, kids in college, and are really decent folk. Not too shabby as bikers go. Not once have I noticed any deviant behaviour in our group. Now outside our group I've seen tons of behavior that would make a porn star blush. But man, that's with anything not just decent folk who like body art, not just bikers, or teenagers in college.
Well, you can put your FA back on stop laughing. Once again, you seem to think that a particular, anecdotal case like "I heard about a sky diver whose parachute didn't open and he lived" disproves the generalization that such accidents tend to be fatal. I hope that analogy helps you get through the fog (or is it smoke?) that keeps you from being appropriately sharp and analytical.
Also, taking your biker group example, I'm not talking about what's actually the case, but about common attitudes or prejudices, which is another way your example is beside the point.
Are we to say that Belle Rose is going to be considered a mark by men who don't know her simply cause she wants to sport a tattoo?
No, that wouldn't be because of wanting one. It might be once she gets one. How would they know she wants a tattoo? (head scratching)
We don't even know her! We don't know her likes and dislikes we know jack about her but if we pay heed to the studies you posted its safe to assume that we'll know she's promiscuous and deviant if she goes ahead and gets a tat. You know how insane that sounds? And Belle, I think you are the bees knees and I love reading your post. Get the tat! Think long and hard about what you want it to say about you or about your life and wear it like a chapter in your book. And don't pay any mind to these studies by these tight ass's who think fellatio is deviant behavior.
I don't know enough about her to know if she fits any other profile items. The more she fits, though, the more she'll be viewed that way. If she goes out with her lower back tattoo showing, gets drunk, swears like a sailor, acts sexually forward and a bit out of control, talks about other occasions when she drank or took drugs to excess (the old "more than I need to know"), etc., she could very well find herself the subject of sexual attentions.
Koch is the only one who mentions deviance, and he seems to define it not in the sense of perverted behavior but as behavior that deviates from a very conservative, middle-of-the-road, prudish, middle-class center. In other words, it deviates from that standard. He's not using the word in its sexual sense.
"Female mammals have mammary glands for nursing their young"
"Untrue, My friend had a double mastectomy so she can't nurse at all!"
Which of these came from Noel?
"males have rudimentary mammary glands"
Not at all surprising, but that doesn't negate the lead statement either. :-)
"Unfortunately, Noel seems to have removed that bad example from his post."
No. My fault. I meant to use a more subjunctive statement to indicate an analogy. I should have said, "Which one of these might have come from Noel."
how bout this one; kiss my ass! That one came from Noel. Here's another one Blow it out your ass! Yep that one came from Noel too.
The internet, the only place where a man's gonads are measured by the speed of his broadband connection. Yep, that came from Noel too.
Here's another one from Noel, Mike God bless you...
Never let it be said that you're anything but a class act.
yep, class out the wazoo.
I'm great at parties too.
Well, it's 7:00 am. Time for me to go out into the world and classify humans according to what they wear and how much body paint they're showing. Should be a great subway ride.
Unseen: I see what you're saying and to you it makes so much sense. It's just that it comes off as just a tad sexist to tight ass's like me. Not to say that what you're trying to explain to my Cro-Magnon ass isn't based on fact. Sometimes things are not always black and white; at least that's how I see it.
Thanks for enlightening me and you stay classy.
Well, it's 7:00 am. Time for me to go out into the world and classify humans according to what they wear...
And so, I guess you would reserve judgment on whether these guys are Klansmen:
Unseen: I see what you're saying and to you it makes so much sense. It's just that it comes off as just a tad sexist to tight ass's like me.
Once again, you can't seem to absorb the idea that I'm describing views not advocating them.
Not to say that what you're trying to explain to my Cro-Magnon ass isn't based on fact. Sometimes things are not always black and white; at least that's how I see it.
Boy, you are hard to get through to. I'm talking about generalizations which, by definition, are not black and white. Where do you see black and white thinking on my part?
Okay, I get it you're just making generalizations. You don't believe any of them you're just parroting them.
You don't advocate looking at woman as easy marks simply because they chose to sport tattoo's. You're just repeating something you read. Right?
Boy I'm hard to get to. Upto about this last response I had no clue you did not agree with or believe the generalizations you were typing out. You had me convinced that you were in fact a sexist pig. My bad!
Nothing to see here folks, move along... Just generalizations...