Bias Against Tattoos

A large tattoo budget means that these are money that should be spent on therapy. Paying a guy with a beard, tattoed face and electric needles, to give you lizard skin and pain, is not a wise choice.

You are the type of person that this person is referring to.

I think the Internet has help people to forget the difference between having an opinion, sharing an opinion, and making a judgment.

Less is better for me. Tattoos hide muscular development and veins.

These conversations are generally ridiculous. No one is legislating aesthetics. Most people have no control over their attraction triggers. Hell, some unfortunate individuals are even turned on by pre-pubescent children. If someone says X trait is repulsive or mind-boggling, I wouldn't read too much into it. Cockroaches think other cockroaches are sexy. Flies think shit tastes delicious. Most people -- women and men -- think large muscles on a female are a major turnoff. They'll even make normative statements, such as "women should not have big muscles."

People being free to express their views exposes us to the variety of human desires. The no-implant brigade can be obnoxious, but I do like knowing there are folks decidedly opposed to breast augmentation. If nothing else, it can make us more open-minded because it would never occur to me to think twice about my preferences. If someone remarks, "She looks better with long hair," you can always silently steel man their claim by muttering, "You mean, 'she looks better to ME with long hair.'"

Pretty much all is fair in lust and war. There's no moral reason you're attracted to females rather than males. There's no rational reason you personally prefer a particular hair color or style. There's also room to revise your views (within narrow parameters). A gearhead might think a particular car looks ugly at first glance, but it grows on him. And so on.

I, for one, have no issue with these ladies getting tattoos. It's their body, they can do whatever they want with it, I don't think it "ruins" anything.

And as for the "therapy" thing, some of these ladies are spending hours a week in the gym and hundreds (if not thousands)of dollars on gear, and you think tattoos alone prove something wrong's upstairs?

A large tattoo budget means that these are money that should be spent on therapy. Paying a guy with a beard, tattoed face and electric needles, to give you lizard skin and pain, is not a wise choice.

I immediately hear a coo-coo clock. When I see a whole sleeve, limb or formally beautiful breast covered, it's high noon.

Although not specifically targeted at FBB, the whole tattoo/vampire/body desecration thing is just about replacing nature's beauty with industrial grade shit and trying to get society accustomed to the approaching dystopian world. Your jailers will have a good laugh at what you spent on tattoos vs ammo.

Just my opinion, tattoos do NOT enhance a woman's appearance, most of them are pretty ugly with that sickly blue green ink. What is attractive is clean clear healthy skin tightly wrapped around hard shapely muscle. Tats cover that up, all that hard work to get that muscular detail is wasted. As the women age they get worse looking. Seeing sagging tattoos on an older woman is not attractive at all. The less tattoos the better. Time spent in the tattoo shop would be far better spent in the gym. These fit women are already works of art, putting tattoos on their exceptional bodies is like putting bumper stickers on a Ferrari.