Yes, tats as tribal markings have been around for thousands of years. But as "fashion" statements they have been around only for the last twenty.

I'm with you Gravel. If it is about trends then with a little attention on "design history" or the "theory of clothing" there was a time when various items were considered "inappropriate/ taboo" for women:
- pants
- jeans
- sheer blouses
- bikinis
etc.
Women used to be fined for wearing such items and I haven't even ventured into hemlines or hairstyles.
Tattoos nowadays are no different in terms of how a person chooses to express themselves. It has more to do with a taste level/ subjectivity more than anything else.

It's okay not to be a contemporary of the times, the zeitgeist is not everyone.

Funny you should say that, as I do not consider it contemporary at all!
What I consider to be "the now & new" is the higher vibrational, the awakened, the Lightworker.
I am a Lightworker or Lightbringer, very much busying myself with the (global) ascension process. It's what I am, who I am, not what I do.
And no way would I have my skin tainted with tattoos.
I want to keep my body pure & clean :D
That to me feels "contemporary" but not everyone is there yet, not awakened yet.

As such I agree with Motown that at some point this fad will be in the past and no one will choose for tattoos anymore.
I sometimes wonder what the deeper reason is for getting them.
One woman that had lots said that if she had to live in "this meat sack" she was going to determine what it looked like.
That's not particularly the state of mind of an ascended & higher vibrational individual. It indicates she doesn't love nor respect her body at all otherwise she wouldn't call it "a meat sack".
I seriously couldn't believe it when she said that...

OT: Should they? Sure, why not. I don’t personally have any, and I have seen a lot that I thought looked tacky. But I’ve also seen some that are beautiful. A professionally-done sleeve that looks like lace or floral is more appealing to me than a bunch of random, unrelated tattoos.

A woman with a sleeve is a red flag. Guys know what I'm talking about.

Everyone that saying it doesn't matter, gonna learn the hard way - just sayin


Agreed. Alot of political correctness going on in some of these comments. Few men on Earth will actively seek out a woman with full arm sleeves of tats. That's just a fact. Sorry, not sorry

I'm with you Gravel. If it is about trends then with a little attention on "design history" or the "theory of clothing" there was a time when various items were considered "inappropriate/ taboo" for women:
- pants
- jeans
- sheer blouses
- bikinis
etc.
Women used to be fined for wearing such items and I haven't even ventured into hemlines or hairstyles.
Tattoos nowadays are no different in terms of how a person chooses to express themselves. It has more to do with a taste level/ subjectivity more than anything else.

It's okay not to be a contemporary of the times, the zeitgeist is not everyone.

" But with tattoos in particular it conveys a rebellious nature and a non traditional attitude,"

Not really. Tats these days show conformity with a certain age group, ideal, or "tribe" if you will, just as bell bottom pants, long hair, and beads, did back in the sixties.

I agree that nowadays it is how a person express themselves. But it's a ridiculous way because at the end of the day - art is subjective.

I think along with taste, and subjectivity - you missed an important one when it comes to women... attitude.

Women that are covered with tattoos are no different than what they do with their hair, clothes, etc. They do it for attention. But with tattoos in particular it conveys a rebellious nature and a non traditional attitude, so if she's looking for a mate - she better not be looking for a traditional man, because a traditional man will be looking for a traditional woman.

I only say this because I believe for the most part, women are looking for a traditional man - or should be! Unless they want to be the protecting bread winners and want to pursue the men and pay for the first dates, but I haven't come across many of those.

The rebellious thing now (for people in my area) is for people having no tattoos! Sexy AF!

Two. A woman should have two.

Oh wait! Tats...
I misread the title.

Now that is the biggest crock of chit men keep telling themselves.
Any man who thinks and tells this nonsense to others doesn't understand women at all.
When I put on my make-up, have my hair cut, put on a skirt or whatever it is... I do it for me myself and I and no one else!
For some people -female AND male- grooming might be a required boost for their self-confidence (which is still not the same as attention-seeking).
But for others who do not lack self-confidence it's about loving & caring about yourself. Feeling you are worthy. And that's an inside job, has nothing whatsoever to do with getting attention. Attention doesn't create self-confidence and self-love.

That's why you can wear a jute bag, no make-up or anything, and still be attractive when you exude self-confidence and self-love etc.

You also seem to forget the fact that many men need way more time than any woman to get ready to go out. Men can be incredibly vain, -or maybe it's insecurity...

I may be old school, but I believe a woman should never mark her body up with lots of tattoos. It defeats the beauty of her real self.
It's not like you can get a giant eraser and make them go away. So it's a permanent scar for life.
Having 1 or 2 small ones is fine. But to have an entire arem or 55-65% of your body covered, that's not attractive to me. If a man can't accept you as you are, he ain't worth it. A woman shouldn't have to mark over half her body to find love. Real love is based on acceptance and inward beauty.