How are piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, and heavy make up a sign of trauma?

[James Dean]

Finally, SOME people only get tattoos while refusing / downplaying the usefulness of therapy.  Those people are inferior long-term investments.  OTHERS manage to both get tattoos and engage in therapy, (although not simultaneously).  

 

Not simultaneously? what do you mean by that? do you mean that it's unlikely for someone to get a tattoo during their appointment with a therapist? Or is it that once people go to therapy, they don't get tattooed? If that latter, that's a bold claim that I'd like to see proof of.

 

The tl;dr summary is that tattooed women are more promiscuous, have sex earlier, and have sex more often.  (Some men find this slutty.)  Tattooed women are also more impulsive, more likely to be on drugs, and more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior.  (Some men find this unreliable, non-feminine, non-maternal, or all-of-these.)  Tattooed women are also more hostile, more prone to delinquent behavior, more likely to use violence, and more likely to suffer from Anti-Social Personality Disorder.  Lastly, tattooed women are more likely to suffer from mental illnesses, such as depression, eating disorders, BPD, neuroticism, and increased risk of suicide.

 

I don't think that's a productive way of phrasing that. Tattooed women are more likely to be promiscuous because research shows a statistical correlation between promiscuous behavior and having tattoos. To beat on an old metaphor, not all black people are thieves, however, there is a statistical correlation between being black and being a thief. I think automatically writing off a women because she has tattoos is a bad idea, get to know her history to see if she has unprocessed trauma, it's not hard to do.

 

And I think even then the studies are inconclusive because they did not differentiate between matters of degree... some women have tonnes of tattoos and others might have a small tattoo on their ankle or something. Having your whole body covered and having a small tattoo in a non-painful or highly visible spot is a very different thing.

[cynicist]

This is speculative, but here is my honest consideration here: many of us who experience childhood trauma suffer from issues like social anxiety, while others have turned their trauma isn't something cool.  In so far as the childhood trauma of one person might result in feeling excluded and ostracized, for others their behavior gives them more social cache. It reminds me of having a cooler brother or sister, and that feeling that you want to expose them, to turn the tables.  "Ahh I know the REAL them, the deep down insecure abused them and I want to expose them for it."  Thats how it feels to me.  

 

Your theory is that people against tattoos are jealous of how cool and popular people with tattoos are?

 

Here is my question to you guys:  what does someone with tattoos make you feel about yourself?  

 

Extremely lucky, like I dodged a bullet. I think many people in this thread are missing the point. It's not the tattoos themselves that are so horrible, it is what they generally indicate. Most of the people I knew with a lot of tattoos were and hung out with certain types of people: the kind who were underachievers, really into drugs, had very low self-esteem, were promiscuous, impulsive, and had lots of emotional problems. How many very successful people have you seen with sleeve tattoos? I'm sure there is an exception out there but I don't know of any...

[Josh F]

I think there's quite a lot of truth in that, my question would be, is that necessarily a bad thing?

No, I don't think it is a bad thing.  I think in my own life i've kind of straddled both worlds, being both a nerd and loner and also someone who partied and did drugs and that kind of thing.  

 

If you don't know what that even means, I suggest reading the scientific-article I linked earlier.

 

http://www.returnofkings.com/45944/science-confirms-tattooed-women-are-indeed-broken

 

The tl;dr summary is that tattooed women are more promiscuous, have sex earlier, and have sex more often.  (Some men find this slutty.)  Tattooed women are also more impulsive, more likely to be on drugs, and more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior.  (Some men find this unreliable, non-feminine, non-maternal, or all-of-these.)  Tattooed women are also more hostile, more prone to delinquent behavior, more likely to use violence, and more likely to suffer from Anti-Social Personality Disorder.  Lastly, tattooed women are more likely to suffer from mental illnesses, such as depression, eating disorders, BPD, neuroticism, and increased risk of suicide. 

 

 

 

 

Someone with tattoos makes me feel cheated, because I see tattoos as ways of "earning" respect and admiration that do not at all involve the acquisition of talent, intelligence, nor caring/concern for others.

Hah well I don't need a study to tell me girls with tattoos are having more sex and are doing more drugs, I just assume that is true. And your last comment was wise and insightful, thank you. 

[Josh F]

Your theory is that people against tattoos are jealous of how cool and popular people with tattoos are?

 

 

Extremely lucky, like I dodged a bullet. I think many people in this thread are missing the point. It's not the tattoos themselves that are so horrible, it is what they generally indicate. Most of the people I knew with a lot of tattoos were and hung out with certain types of people: the kind who were underachievers, really into drugs, had very low self-esteem, were promiscuous, impulsive, and had lots of emotional problems. How many very successful people have you seen with sleeve tattoos? I'm sure there is an exception out there but I don't know of any...

My theory is that some childhood trauma expresses itself as cool and other as anti-social and awkward, and that those who are in the later category might have a resentment towards those in the prior category.  Like I said, being on this website, like tattoos, is a sign of childhood trauma.  Hyper motivated people who become CEOs and world leaders are also signaling childhood trauma.  Extreme intelligence is signaling childhood trauma, I believe there was an older podcast on FDR about how intelligence is a coping mechanism for certain types of abuse.  In a world where 90% or more of children are abused, tattoos are just one of thousands of ways people cope with their abuse.  And there is nothing exacerbating or dangerous about it.  There is nothing especially telling, and if anything it is honest.  I wish that the politicians of the world had tear drop tattoos on their face for everyone they've killed.  

 

Also, you don't know anyone with a tattoo who is successful?  I can't help but speculate on how small your world is, frankly.  I mean right now, as I'm typing this I am listening to Joe Rogan, and he is successful and with tattoos.  In my world, some of the most successful people in my life have tattoos.  I don't live a quiet or suburban lifestyle, so maybe my perspective is wildly skewed just being an expat and all that, but if you want to see successful people with tattoos just turn on MTV for 5 minutes.  I think the idea that tattoos are a hinderance to success is extremely antiquated:

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB106201792853334000

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2013/02/27/having-a-tattoo-and-a-job/

 

There are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, professors etc with tattoos.  I know just piles of kind, virtuous, hard working, business minded people with tattoos so my perspective on this is going to be hard to change.  

[MysterionMuffles]

Two of my managers at work have tons of tattoos and they're pretty chill people. Well one is more stoic, while the other is easy going. It's weird, they're like night and day in comparison to each other's darkness and colour contrast in clothing and hair, but they both have tattoos. The brighter schemed one has sleeve tattoos and she was the most chill person I've ever been interviewed by, and possibly the calmest and compassionate criciticizer in any work place I've been when it comes to job place corrections. As for the one with the darker scheme, she delivers criticisms and corrections a little more coldly, but not at all hostile. 

 

But yeah, they're highly functional and successful if they can be in charge of taking care of a huge international clothing store. Well one of the shops to be precise.

[cynicist]

Also, you don't know anyone with a tattoo who is successful?  I can't help but speculate on how small your world is, frankly.  I mean right now, as I'm typing this I am listening to Joe Rogan, and he is successful and with tattoos.  In my world, some of the most successful people in my life have tattoos

 

Do you have tattoos?

[MMX2010]

I don't think that's a productive way of phrasing that. Tattooed women are more likely to be promiscuous because research shows a statistical correlation between promiscuous behavior and having tattoos. To beat on an old metaphor, not all black people are thieves, however, there is a statistical correlation between being black and being a thief. I think automatically writing off a women because she has tattoos is a bad idea, get to know her history to see if she has unprocessed trauma, it's not hard to do.

 

And I think even then the studies are inconclusive because they did not differentiate between matters of degree... some women have tonnes of tattoos and others might have a small tattoo on their ankle or something. Having your whole body covered and having a small tattoo in a non-painful or highly visible spot is a very different thing.

 

I'm confused.  Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll conduct your life and whom you'll invest in?  Or are you trying to influence the way other people conduct their own lives and whom they'll invest in? 

 

There are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, professors etc with tattoos.  I know just piles of kind, virtuous, hard working, business minded people with tattoos so my perspective on this is going to be hard to change.  

 

Josh, I just posted an article with multiple links to scientific articles supporting my argument.

 

In response, you basically replied, "But I know a tall Chinese guy, and another one, too!" 

 

Why?  Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll spend your life and invest your time OR are you trying to influence the way other people spend their lives and invest their time? 

[Josh F]

Do you have tattoos?

no

 

I'm confused.  Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll conduct your life and whom you'll invest in?  Or are you trying to influence the way other people conduct their own lives and whom they'll invest in? 

 

Josh, I just posted an article with multiple links to scientific articles supporting my argument.

 

In response, you basically replied, "But I know a tall Chinese guy, and another one, too!" 

 

Why?  Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll spend your life and invest your time OR are you trying to influence the way other people spend their lives and invest their time? 

So you understand the Bomb in the Brain series on here, right?  It puts child abuse at the center of a wide range of qualities from drug abuse to promiscuity to behavioral problems to criminality.  Someone with one of these qualities is always at higher risk for the other qualities.  That is to say, there is no causal relationship between tattoos and those behaviors, but their is a common causal relationship between those behavior and tattoos with child abuse.  I've already accepted this to be true, and I don't think I've responded with anything to the opposite.  

If you change your behavior towards someone for exhibiting symptoms of child abuse, and you desire to be consistent in your approach, then you should consistently apply that behavior to everyone on this website as well as a massive variety of other people from sky divers to cigarette smokers to people who debate others online.  They're all exhibiting symptoms of childhood trauma and are going to be statistically at higher risk for a wide variety of problems. 

Nothing about tattoos prevent or inhibit someone's ability to reconcile their trauma.

[MMX2010]

So you understand the Bomb in the Brain series on here, right?  It puts child abuse at the center of a wide range of qualities from drug abuse to promiscuity to behavioral problems to criminality.  Someone with one of these qualities is always at higher risk for the other qualities.  That is to say, there is no causal relationship between tattoos and those behaviors, but their is a common causal relationship between those behavior and tattoos with child abuse.  I've already accepted this to be true, and I don't think I've responded with anything to the opposite.  

If you change your behavior towards someone for exhibiting symptoms of child abuse, and you desire to be consistent in your approach, then you should consistently apply that behavior to everyone on this website as well as a massive variety of other people from sky divers to cigarette smokers to people who debate others online.  They're all exhibiting symptoms of childhood trauma and are going to be statistically at higher risk for a wide variety of problems. 

Nothing about tattoos prevent or inhibit someone's ability to reconcile their trauma.

 

I asked you a simple question, "Are you merely illustrating how you plan to live your life, spend your time, and invest in people OR are you trying to influence/alter how other people are living their lives, spending their time, and investing in people?" 

 

And you've typed out three paragraphs which seemingly want to alter the way other people are living their lives, BUT you've never directly stated that this is what you're trying to do. 

 

So, please, directly answer that simple question.  (And please realize how annoying/off-putting it is for me to have to ask that question a second time, just because you didn't answer it directly the first time.) 

[Bipedal Primate]

Your theory is that people against tattoos are jealous of how cool and popular people with tattoos are?

 Extremely lucky, like I dodged a bullet. I think many people in this thread are missing the point. It's not the tattoos themselves that are so horrible, it is what they generally indicate. Most of the people I knew with a lot of tattoos were and hung out with certain types of people: the kind who were underachievers, really into drugs, had very low self-esteem, were promiscuous, impulsive, and had lots of emotional problems. How many very successful people have you seen with sleeve tattoos? I'm sure there is an exception out there but I don't know of any...

I agree with Robert, it is not the tattoos that are worrisome, many are very beautiful, it is the socially constructed preconceived idea of who a tattooed person represents. Which is why I *try* really hard not to judge a person on appearance alone, instead I think its healthier and wiser to focus on patterns of behavior. For example, does this person with lots of tattoos drink and do drugs too? What are their interests and hobbies?

 

As an artist, I really enjoy looking at tattoo art. I appreciate the skill and talent needed to be a successful tattoos artist. I personally think the 'water color' tattoos are absolutely gorgeous. I have never ever wanted a tattoo and the thought of getting one creeps me out because of the strong association I have held since my teens that tattoos represent drugs, bikers, and/or criminals. The only family member I have with a tattoo is my aunt, and she got her tattoo on her 40th birthday, a small tramp stamp above her bum for her husband, who she has been with for 15 years ;-)

[cynicist]

If you change your behavior towards someone for exhibiting symptoms of child abuse, and you desire to be consistent in your approach, then you should consistently apply that behavior to everyone on this website as well as a massive variety of other people from sky divers to cigarette smokers to people who debate others online.  They're all exhibiting symptoms of childhood trauma and are going to be statistically at higher risk for a wide variety of problems. 

 

Yes, everyone is traumatized, and yet people who visit websites in order to learn about themselves and how to overcome their unpleasant origins somehow score higher for me than those who ink themselves instead, and who may not even be aware of any trauma to begin with. Those categories aren't mutually exclusive, but certainly some ways of dealing with the after-effects are better than others.

[Blackfish64]

Yes, everyone is traumatized, and yet people who visit websites in order to learn about themselves and how to overcome their unpleasant origins somehow score higher for me than those who ink themselves instead, and who may not even be aware of any trauma to begin with. Those categories aren't mutually exclusive, but certainly some ways of dealing with the after-effects are better than others.

 

 

Good point.  If I were to get tattooed, I wouldn't be looking forward to it as a way of solving any of my personal problems.

 

Furthermore, I think that therapy is always ongoing.  Major, intial therapy, certain breakthroughs, etc., may happen only once, but I think of therapy and coming to Web sites like these as maintenance.  Therapy, to me, is like massage, exercise, things of that nature.  I like doing it, and doing it regularly is good healthy maintenance for the individual.

 

Does anybody ever do therapy and then they're done?  I don't think so.  Though I've avoided therapy for personal and financial reasons in the past, it is not to say that I would not use therapy in my future should the right person/therapist come along.  Meantime there is a great deal one can do with journaling, reading books, chatting with others and testing ideas online, at sites like these, etc. 

 

I've tried to think of ways a tattoo might be therapeutic, but I can't think of any.  So, I would never use tattoo as a therapy or maintenance.  I can see it as a symbolic thing, a celebration of sorts, say, if I wanted to commemorate some important event or thing in my life; but then again I would get it where it could easily be covered up and not be a part of everything I do with the rest of my life, unless I wanted it to.

[Josh F]

I asked you a simple question, "Are you merely illustrating how you plan to live your life, spend your time, and invest in people OR are you trying to influence/alter how other people are living their lives, spending their time, and investing in people?" 

 

And you've typed out three paragraphs which seemingly want to alter the way other people are living their lives, BUT you've never directly stated that this is what you're trying to do. 

 

So, please, directly answer that simple question.  (And please realize how annoying/off-putting it is for me to have to ask that question a second time, just because you didn't answer it directly the first time.) 

I am trying to influence how other people live their lives.  Specifically, people on FDR, and specifically against the qualities Stef describes as victorian.  I think this community has a profoundly important philosophical message, wrapped in the aesthetics of a dentist's office.  

 

 

Yes, everyone is traumatized, and yet people who visit websites in order to learn about themselves and how to overcome their unpleasant origins somehow score higher for me than those who ink themselves instead, and who may not even be aware of any trauma to begin with. Those categories aren't mutually exclusive, but certainly some ways of dealing with the after-effects are better than others.

Agreed.  Therapy and philosophy are better ways to deal with childhood trauma, of course.  

 

There is also an honesty to the tattoo thing, in that it isn't some well hidden disfunction thats going to sneak up on you unexpectedly.  And the types and locations of tattoos give you some insight into their disfunction.  So tear drops and other prison tattoos say something very different than a guy with brightly painted tropical fruits on his arms. 

 

Additionally, I personally like people who have turned their trauma into artistic expression and passion over people who turn it into bitterness or violence.  Tattoos fall into both categories, but none of my tattoo'd friends have gang tattoo's.  I think that being super successful, like the CEOs of major companies, are similarly fueled by childhood trauma, and while it is wise to be skeptical of their intentions, over all many of them have done and do inspiring things.  

[MysterionMuffles]

What would it be about a CEO's childhood that makes them strive and thrive in that position, Josh?

[Josh F]

What would it be about a CEO's childhood that makes them strive and thrive in that position, Josh?

I couldn't say specifically, but generally that kind of hard work and desire to accumulate extreme amounts of capitol seems to come from a myriad of disfunction.  When you get into the personalities of people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg or Donald Trump, etc., you get some real whackadoo control freak, angry, obsessive, etc type traits.  

[MMX2010]

I am trying to influence how other people live their lives.  Specifically, people on FDR, and specifically against the qualities Stef describes as victorian.  I think this community has a profoundly important philosophical message, wrapped in the aesthetics of a dentist's office.  

 

More than that, you're trying to alter other peoples' decisions to NOT ASSOCIATE with other people.

 

For example, I prefer not to associate with transgendered individuals.  But you want me to associate with transgendered individuals.

 

I also prefer not to associate with obese women.  But you want me to associate with obese women.

 

And I also prefer not to associate with tattooed women.  But you want me to associate with tattooed women.

 

What really bothers me, though, is: (1) It's my life, not yours.  And I've the right to avoid whomever I wish to avoid.  (2) You're dropping bombs like "if you want to be morally inconsistent" all so that transgendered individuals, obese women, and tattooed women aren't avoided.  (3) You're not only providing arguments that defy the scientific evidence (in the case of tattooed women and obese women), but you're also not providing me with any incentive, (such as, "I'll pay you $20,000 per person, per year, that you associate with.")  (4) Lastly, you don't seem to grasp the "gambling with other peoples' lives" conundrum - which states that, "If you successfully change people's minds, and those people get hurt - which is what the scientific evidence says will happen - then you're responsible." 

 

So, seriously, if scientific evidence can't get you to back off, and if, "It's my life, and I'll avoid whom I want to avoid." can't get you to back off, then isn't your desire to change my association patterns immune to all criticism?  And isn't this complete immunity to criticism, in itself, an excellent reason to not listen to you? 

[MysterionMuffles]

I couldn't say specifically, but generally that kind of hard work and desire to accumulate extreme amounts of capitol seems to come from a myriad of disfunction.  When you get into the personalities of people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg or Donald Trump, etc., you get some real whackadoo control freak, angry, obsessive, etc type traits.  

 

Lol I hope you're not basing your perception of Zuckerburg from The Social Network. GREAT movie, but a very inaccurate depiction of him.

 

More than that, you're trying to alter other peoples' decisions to NOT ASSOCIATE with other people.

 

For example, I prefer not to associate with transgendered individuals.  But you want me to associate with transgendered individuals.

 

I also prefer not to associate with obese women.  But you want me to associate with obese women.

 

And I also prefer not to associate with tattooed women.  But you want me to associate with tattooed women.

 

What really bothers me, though, is: (1) It's my life, not yours.  And I've the right to avoid whomever I wish to avoid.  (2) You're dropping bombs like "if you want to be morally inconsistent" all so that transgendered individuals, obese women, and tattooed women aren't avoided.  (3) You're not only providing arguments that defy the scientific evidence (in the case of tattooed women and obese women), but you're also not providing me with any incentive, (such as, "I'll pay you $20,000 per person, per year, that you associate with.")  (4) Lastly, you don't seem to grasp the "gambling with other peoples' lives" conundrum - which states that, "If you successfully change people's minds, and those people get hurt - which is what the scientific evidence says will happen - then you're responsible." 

 

So, seriously, if scientific evidence can't get you to back off, and if, "It's my life, and I'll avoid whom I want to avoid." can't get you to back off, then isn't your desire to change my association patterns immune to all criticism?  And isn't this complete immunity to criticism, in itself, an excellent reason to not listen to you? 

 

No, he's not saying you should associate with specific people, rather have a more open before you judge. Granted, there will be people who are covered in tattoos from head to toe with a ton of piercings in their faces, but with the people who don't have that many of each should not just be easily written off as DYSFUNCTIONAL!!! STAY AWAAAAAY!!!

[James Dean]

I'm confused.  Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll conduct your life and whom you'll invest in?  Or are you trying to influence the way other people conduct their own lives and whom they'll invest in?

 

With all the respect in the world, MMX, I was correcting a very specific thing that you said.

 

The tl;dr summary is that tattooed women are more promiscuous, have sex earlier, and have sex more often.

 

That statement is incorrect. I don't mean to be abrasive, I genuinely think this is a very important distinction to make because it is a common mistake. The studies cited by the article you linked can only credibly claim that tattoos and promiscuity have a positive correlation.

 

To answer your question, I do hope to present a strong case for the legitimacy of tattooing, which I believe I have done and an currently awaiting any rebuttal anyone can come up with as I requested several posts ago. Since no one has taken the opportunity I think what I said has at least some validity. The criticisms you have brought to bear are criticisms that we share. When I meet someone, I take note of a lot of things, and yes I usually notice if they have excessive tattoos because, as we both agree (and the studies you cited make a good case for it) they are more likely to have unprocessed trauma, which would make them pretty dangerous to be around. I acknowledge that valuable information can be attained through "blink" judgements, but when it comes to a yes/no decision about investing in a relationship I go the surefire route and just talk about important things first. It's easy to mistake a self-knowledgeable tattooed person for another one of the crowd but unprocessed trauma has nowhere to hide when you bring up important topics, so I advise people to not put all their eggs in this particular basket, as I do think tattooing has a lot to offer.

 

Now I disagree that tattooing or any form of art is an "inferior way of processing trauma." It certainly is not sufficient to process trauma, but I don't see the case for it being counter productive. This goes back to my other question... are you suggesting that therapy and self knowledge cannot be perused alongside tattooing?

[Josh F]

Well my goal is not you in particular, I'm unfazed as to the choices you make or the people  with whom you personally associate.  My intention is to inject some new philosophical thinking here, thinking which is not entirely aesthetic.  I am taken in by arguments as to the influence of normative culture in which anything outside of vanilla incurs unnecessary consequences.  It isn't impossible to be obese, transgendered, black or tattoo'd and to be a virtuous human.  I'm not interested in a philosophical message which a) ignores or disassociates from those people or b) seeks to encourage adherence to "normal" behavior.  If you can see that Stefan Molyneux being black, transgendered, or an over weight tattoo'd woman would not diminish his virtue than why would it do the same to others?  Those qualities are not inherently representative of an incapacity for virtue, even if they do correspond significantly with non-virtuous behavior.    

 

Should someone be careful of who they associate with?  Yes, absolutely, I am a huge advocate for voluntary relationships.  If for you personally, that means a small group of people without tattoos and normal gender roles, fine for you I have no personal problems with that.  My goal isn't who MMX spends time with, but who this philosophical message helps.  

[James Dean]

(4) Lastly, you don't seem to grasp the "gambling with other peoples' lives" conundrum - which states that, "If you successfully change people's minds, and those people get hurt - which is what the scientific evidence says will happen - then you're responsible."

 

Again, the studies that you cited only say that, at best, it's more likely to happen. Not that it's some sort of certainty. And I don't know what the "gambling with other's lives" conundrum is, but it seems pretty fallacious to me. If I convince you of a truth claim and that truth claim leads to negative consequences, how am I responsible for the negative consequences?

 

Either I knew it was wrong or I didn't. If I did arrive at that conclusion in err through no fault of my own then the consequences are purely accidental, if I did purposely mislead you, that is surely a transgression in and of itself and needs no "gambling" conundrum.

[MMX2010]

 

No, he's not saying you should associate with specific people, rather have a more open before you judge. Granted, there will be people who are covered in tattoos from head to toe with a ton of piercings in their faces, but with the people who don't have that many of each should not just be easily written off as DYSFUNCTIONAL!!! STAY AWAAAAAY!!!

 

Right.  And I'm saying that, "If you want to change my behavior, you'd better make it obvious that you care about my needs, my preferences, and my future." 

 

He's NOT saying, "Have an open mind about tattooed individuals, because it'll maximize your ability to find lovely people to have awesome relationships with."  (This is an incentive-driven argument that enhances my quality of life.) 

 

He's saying, "Have an open mind about tattooed individuals, because I feel anxious and sad when tattooed individuals are rejected.  And I don't want to feel anxious and sad."  (This is a non incentive-driven argument that enhances the quality of his life, at my expense.  And if NOT at my expense, then definitely at the expense of the majority of people who follow his argument - because the majority of people will always suffer whenever they defy scientifically-discovered truths, such as the ones I linked in this article.) 

[MMX2010]

Well my goal is not you in particular, I'm unfazed as to the choices you make or the people  with whom you personally associate.  

 

Your argument is, "Even though I stated that MMX was morally inconsistent for not associating with tattooed individuals, I'm completely unfazed that MMX refuses to associated with tattooed individuals." 

 

Josh, you cannot use phrases like "moral inconsistency" - (the second most serious accusation you can make on FDR) - and then say, "Me?  Fazed?  Oh, not-at-all.  He can associate with whomever he wants." 

 

--------------------------

 

 

 

 It isn't impossible to be obese, transgendered, black or tattoo'd and to be a virtuous human.  I'm not interested in a philosophical message which a) ignores or disassociates from those people or b) seeks to encourage adherence to "normal" behavior.

 

Pay-dirt! 

 

You're not interested in a philosophical message that preaches non-association with certain individuals. 

 

So you know what that means?  It means you can associate with whomever you want and blog about it.  Tell us about your awesome adventures with obese, transgender, muli-tattoo'ed individuals.  Tell us about your awesome sexual escapades with them.  Tell us about the great virtuous adventures you all share.  Tell us about the superlative relationships you have that put the best relationships of the non-associators to shame.  Tell us how you and 450-pound, transgender, multi-face-tattoo'ed individual convinced an entire municipality to enact peaceful parenting laws. 

 

Do that FIRST and see who follows your lead. 

 

But don't say, "I'm not interested in a philosophical argument that believes in non-association..." on a libertarian message board, without expecting a large amount of pushback and a calm-assertive questioning of your methods and motives. 

[MysterionMuffles]

 

Your argument is, "Even though I stated that MMX was morally inconsistent for not associating with tattooed individuals, I'm completely unfazed that MMX refuses to associated with tattooed individuals." 

 

Josh, you cannot use phrases like "moral inconsistency" - (the second most serious accusation you can make on FDR) - and then say, "Me?  Fazed?  Oh, not-at-all.  He can associate with whomever he wants." 

 

--------------------------

 

 

 

 

Pay-dirt! 

 

You're not interested in a philosophical message that preaches non-association with certain individuals. 

 

So you know what that means?  It means you can associate with whomever you want and blog about it.  Tell us about your awesome adventures with obese, transgender, muli-tattoo'ed individuals.  Tell us about your awesome sexual escapades with them.  Tell us about the great virtuous adventures you all share.  Tell us about the superlative relationships you have that put the best relationships of the non-associators to shame.  Tell us how you and 450-pound, transgender, multi-face-tattoo'ed individual convinced an entire municipality to enact peaceful parenting laws. 

 

Do that FIRST and see who follows your lead. 

 

But don't say, "I'm not interested in a philosophical argument that believes in non-association..." on a libertarian message board, without expecting a large amount of pushback and a calm-assertive questioning of your methods and motives. 

 

This is a very passive aggressive post, MMX2010. I am surprised by you.

[MysterionMuffles]

I really don't see where you get off diving into Josh's sex life when he hasn't mentioned anything about it. I would suggest some introspection on why Josh's post may be triggering things in you. What is your experience with tattoo'd and pierced up people in your life? Have you had particularly negative interactions, hell even relationships, with those kinds of individuals? Or is this all just a prejiduce you have against tatoo'd and pierced individuals, MMX? I thank Robert for sharing his experience and that helps me understand where he's coming from. But for you, I just see it as hyper critical prejiduce based on shallow values. Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry.

[MMX2010]

I really don't see where you get off diving into Josh's sex life when he hasn't mentioned anything about it. I would suggest some introspection on why Josh's post may be triggering things in you. What is your experience with tattoo'd and pierced up people in your life? Have you had particularly negative interactions, hell even relationships, with those kinds of individuals? Or is this all just a prejiduce you have against tatoo'd and pierced individuals, MMX? I thank Robert for sharing his experience and that helps me understand where he's coming from. But for you, I just see it as hyper critical prejiduce based on shallow values. Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry.

 

Hold on, RJ. 

 

Could you please explain how I'm "spouting bigotry", when I've already posted a link to a scientifically-supported article that cites four research papers illustrating why tattooed women are "broken"?  Because I think that once science has reached a particular conclusion, anyone who disagrees with what the science says is "spouting bigotry". 

 

The most familiar example on this board is: (1) Scientific research has concluded that spanking is wrong.  (2) Any parent who spanks their children and claims to be a "good parent" is "spouting bigotry" BECAUSE he disagrees with the sciences.  Simple as that. 

 

Or have the rules changed?

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

A thought experiment for you. 

 

Let's suppose I introduce you to a particular young woman.  Your first five dates with her are a bit awkward, but she relaxes by the sixth date.  And after two years, you've decided to marry her. 

 

On the very night you've bought your engagement ring, I show you a video from two years ago, before your first date with her.  She states that she doesn't like you at all, but I talk her in to it.  (She says something like, "RJ is quiet and introspective, and that makes him look like a sissy."  I reply, "Oh I get how you feel, but give RJ a chance.  You'll see what you deem his 'sissyness' in a positive light.) 

 

And then I show you a video from after your first date with her, where she complains about another series of negative traits you have.  And, again, I talk her down. 

 

Finally, I allude to the fact that I have "over 100 hours of video" depicting her dislike of you, followed by me "talking her into the opposite opinion" using a variety of non-violent forms of persuasion. 

 

Could you handle knowing that the very same person who claims to be totally in love with you today needed to be persuaded, using over 100 hours of discussion, into "finally seeing how wonderful a person you are"?  Maybe you could, maybe you couldn't.  But the harder and harder Josh F. and James Dean try to convince me (or anyone else) about "the legitimacy of tattooing", (1) the less and less appreciative any tattooed person with self-respect and dignity ought to get, and (2) the more and more pointless their persuasive attempts become. 

 

Because I definitely know that the woman you're engaged to WOULD NOT appreciate me showing you those videos.    Why should she?  What likelihood would showing you those videos make you say, "Wow.  I'm so glad that MMX2010 took the epic amount of time to convince a chick who was strongly disinterested in me to give me a first, second, third, fourth, and fifth chance!  I had no idea how open-minded I was towards convincing a disinterested woman to like me in comparison to allowing a disinterested woman to just not associate with me!"? 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

Lastly, I got this from the RooshV message board.  (No one I'm quoting is a scientist or anything like that, and each color represents a different poster.)

 

Interesting...

 

So if I am tracking right. A lot of women get tattoos to memorialize highly personal events in their lives. Things that they don't want to forget. Things to learn from, etc.

 

These highly personal events, seem to me, to be generally tragic, unhappy events. I don't often see tattoos celebrating getting straight As, or passing their CPA exams, etc. Generally, it seems to memorialize pain.

 

So if they are remembering pain, that means they have been hurt, so then maybe they are fucked up from the pain?

 

Some people mentioned they spent years trying to figure out the right tattoo, wouldn't it be better spending years in therapy?

 

Maybe my logic is off. Just seems like if they are trying to remember incredible painful moments by inking themselves, it may mean they are broken.

 

 

 

 

In Freudian terms, they are symbolically mourning a lost object, most commonly some phantasmic conception of their innocence, usually romanticised and exaggerated by emotional fictions. They are fixated on the mourning of the trauma - not the trauma itself, particularly as the truth of the experience fades from memory. A tattoo to symbolise abuse or damage keeps them grieving and is a public monument to their melancholy, inviting others to share and enable their melancholic fixation and provide sympathy.

 

This refuses a natural and healthy 'stages of grief' process, where you refuse fixation and eventually build resilience and move on, which is why tattooed chicks are usually-prone to depression, mood swings and other mental instabilities.

 

Remember the degenerate thinking triad: emotionalism / irrationalism / symbolism.

 

 

 

 

Everyone has emotions which they find deeply satisfying. And they aren't necessarily positive. For me, sometimes that's a sense of righteous anger - especially when driving. I knew this woman at work who no matter what was going on, she would complain and sound off as if her life was just an endless series of tragic events. Being unhappy satisfied her on some deep, emotional level. It's what she was comfortable with. If she were happy for a moment, it would feel foreign, fake.

 

For these girls, it's pain and heartbreak. It's what fulfills them, what make them feel 'true to themselves,' what makes them feel 'real.' They are rooting themselves to that feeling, anchoring themselves to it for eternity.

 

To give their life some meaning...

 

Parenthetically, this woman I knew is no longer like that, and is now more pleasant. I don't know why, perhaps her circumstances improved. People can grow out of it.

 

 

 

 

If I may try to simplify for myself.

 

They just don't wanna get over it?

 

Sounds like they are fucked up and stupid.

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I have things in my life that are not great, but I am trying to make them better (fix, mend, heal, etc.). I don't want to hang onto any of the nonsense that is in my life. Why drag an anchor around all the time?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but you're rational. They're not.

 

The dopamine in the brain produced whilst processing negative emotions is both pleasurable and creates a sense of reward, so the feeling of negative-drama becomes a highly-addictive sensation for them.

 

 

 

For me the main issue with girls with tattoos and piercings is not that I find them physically unattractive. On the contrary, I often find that tattoos add to the attractiveness of a girl in reflecting her personality. The problem is that they generally tend to reflect the sort of personality that finds guys like me unattractive. The more tats and piercings a girl has and the more visible they are, the stronger a preference she is advertising for alpha bad boy fucks.

 

It is really not that I don't like her or don't respect her, so much as that before she even opens her mouth, she is signaling that she doesn't like me. And if this be so, why would I invest any time or energy in courting her? Moreover, this outcome is exactly what she wants, which makes it all the more incomprehensible that the girl in question would be upset about it. After all, her strategy to deter the kind of man that she doesn't want is working! And conversely, if this strategy is not working to attract the kind of man she wants, why would that be my fault? Since it isn't the tattooed girls' fault that my beta-ish strategies to attract their amorous attentions don't work. They are just as free to exercise their sexual preferences as Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer and Harley McBadBoy are.

 

What the outrage is really about: to ensure that tattooed yougogrrrls SMP strategy works and she gains the preferential, fast-track access to hot alpha cock that she so deeply craves, she needs to be the one who is rejecting the beta and not vice versa. The beta establishing himself as the Stackelberg leader in the game by publicly committing himself to a preference for non-tattooed women is an outcome that must be resisted at all costs, since this causes tattooed women to rank below him in the SMP, thereby nullifying her strategy. The monkey banana pants explosions of outrage are due to the simple fact since alphas will not be interested in fucking a woman who has been rejected by betas, they can only re-establish their SMP rank by forcing said betas back into submission- by shaming them, by threatening them, and/or by attempting to suppress their free speech.

 

(The reason I told Josh F. to talk about his wonderful relationships with tattooed, obese women, (and implied that James Dean should do the same), is that they've limited their persuasion techniques to rhetoric and shaming.  Leadership-by-example would be much more effective, but I don't see any Leadership-by-example from either of them.) 

[MysterionMuffles]

You dodged my proposition and flew into abstraction land. I'll work and ponder on your thought expiraement when you've given me the courtesy of a concrete example in your life where you've come across tattoo'd and pierced individuals that have supported the scientific facts you've presented. Simple proposition, MMX. I don't appreciate the non-sequitor direction you went in your response. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the escape into abstracts and thought expiraments are usually a sign of avoiding something more true to life in your experience that you simply do not want to share. You don't have to if you don't want, but I'm not gonna pretend we can have a conversation when your responses to either Josh, or myself, have little to nothing to do with what we've actually said. 

(The reason I told Josh F. to talk about his wonderful relationships with tattooed, obese women, (and implied that James Dean should do the same), is that they've limited their persuasion techniques to rhetoric and shaming.  Leadership-by-example would be much more effective, but I don't see any Leadership-by-example from either of them.) 

 

And what do you think you're doing with opening the floor to their sexual experiences with obese and tattoo'd women? Are you not trying to derive a sense of shame with their relationships with tattoo'd and obese women? If you want to talk about leadership by example, perhaps you can shed a little more light on your personal experience with obese and tattoo'd individuals instead of just relying on articles and other people's conversations about them to prove your point. 

 

In Josh's and my experience, yes tattoo'd and obese people carry and wear their trauma on them. But does that mean we turn them away because of their past, when in the present, they've become more peaceful and functional people since they've memoralized their pain? If we were to exclude people because of unresolved trauma, then we wouldn't have any friends because most people, if not everyone, has suffered some kind of trauma that they wear on them. In tattoos or otherwise. Maybe in behaviour. Maybe in other dress styles or tastes and preferences in media. 

 

To dismiss people just because they don't fit your criteria of normal and healthy (yes I know there are objective standards for these things but this topic seems to be more on aesthetics)--well again, it's bigoted. 

So I ask you again: what is your experience with obese and tattoo'd individuals? Have you had interactions with any of them? Have you had any relationships with any of them? How did those turn out? I would like to see how your view of them has been shaped by personal experience. Not by internet data. I'm not saying your articles and forum discussions are invalid, but you do gotta realize how it can be frustrating when someones asks you something, and you end up with a very indirect answer.

 

"Hey what are your thoughts on jazz music?"

 

"Apple orchids are beautiful. If you worked at one, not knowing that everything around you was poisonous, wouldn't you want me to tell you the truth? Even though you made a lot of money there and really enjoyed your job?"

 

I really don't appreciate being riddled with a lifeboat scenario when I all I wanted was insight from your personal experience. Abstractions are a defense. I'm sensing there's something you just don't want to tell us. Once again, you don't have to, but at least be honest and relevant when you respond.

[MMX2010]

I really don't appreciate being riddled with a lifeboat scenario when I all I wanted was insight from your personal experience.

 

That's not true, though. 

 

You said, "Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry."

 

Therefore, you wanted me to share my personal experiences under the condition that, if I didn't, I was just spouting bigotry. 

 

I challenged your assertion that I was "spouting bigotry" by stating that those who accept scientific research ARE NOT spouting bigotry. 

 

-----------------------

 

 

 

I'll work and ponder on your thought expiraement when you've given me the courtesy of a concrete example in your life where you've come across tattoo'd and pierced individuals that have supported the scientific facts you've presented.

 

It is not my job to read scientific research, and then say, "Hey, I know!  Let's do the direct opposite of what this research advises!" 

 

That would be like reading papers upon papers decrying the spanking of children, and then choosing to spank my own children - because "Open-mindedness!"

 

-----------------------

 

 

 

Are you not trying to derive a sense of shame with their relationships with tattoo'd and obese women? If you want to talk about leadership by example, perhaps you can shed a little more light on your personal experience with obese and tattoo'd individuals instead of just relying on articles and other people's conversations about them to prove your point.

 

 

There are four people participating in this conversation: You, me, Josh F., and James Dean.

 

Only ONE person, me, is not trying to change the positions of the other three. 

 

On the other hand, you, James Dean, and Josh F. are all trying to convince me to change my position by associating with tattooed / obese women. 

 

So when you ask, "Are you not trying to derive a sense of shame with their relationships with tattoo'd and obese women?", my answer is, "No, I'm trying to derive a sense of shame (humility?) for your lack of leadership abilities by both pointing out that I'm not-convinced and mentioning what would be more convincing.  As for your relationships with tattooed, obese women, I hope their lovely; not my cup of tea, though." 

 

 

 

 

 

To dismiss people just because they don't fit your criteria of normal and healthy (yes I know there are objective standards for these things but this topic seems to be more on aesthetics)--well again, it's bigoted. 

 

Not true.

 

"Bigoted", according to On Truth, is when you begin with a conclusion (which is always the conclusion you want to be true), and then seek only confirming information while dismissing non-confirming information. 

 

The opposite of "Bigoted" is when you begin with zero conclusions, investigate the situation with an open mind - (which, *AHEM*, does NOT entail you to personally BEHAVE in opposing ways) - and then accept whatever the scientific research says. 

 

Since I've cited scientific research justifying my position, and since I'm NOT THE ONE counseling anyone else to openly defy what the scientific research has concluded, I dismiss your mentioning of "bigoted" out of hand. 

 

------------------------

 

The most ironic this is that this is a V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T message board, a place which espouses above all else that our most sacred and intimate relationships must be VOLUNTARY.  Because of this espousal, even an irrational position like, "Tattooed and obese women creep me the hell out, and I don't want to associate with them..." is 100% in agreement with voluntaryism!  (You don't have to like it; you don't have to agree with it, but you gotta respect it!)

 

Yet, my position is far more evolved than this.  It says, "I've a lot of scientific research backing my desire to refuse association with tattoed, obese women.  You guys can associate with them if you want to." 

 

But this is not acceptable to either you, Josh F., or James Dean. 

 

Josh F. brings out extremely serious words like "lack of moral consistency".  You bring out extremely serious words like "bigoted".  And James Dean lectures me on what I already know, in a way that only strengthens my argument. 

 

On a V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T message board, why do I have to defend my right to refuse association with specific types of people?

[bootoo]

This article by Matt Forney isn't scientific, but it touched off a firestorm of angry, senseless criticism. 

 

http://www.returnofkings.com/45334/5-reasons-why-girls-with-tattoos-andor-piercings-are-broken

 

 

 

 

This article by Dr. Caveman is scientific. 

 

http://www.returnofkings.com/45944/science-confirms-tattooed-women-are-indeed-broken

 

Looks like the sample groups by Dr Caveman are based on questionaires completed by sample groups ranging between 120-8000 people

 

At best these can be used to direct further study. These can not be taken as evidence supporting any of the claims made in the article.

 

The answer remains 'no one knows'

[shirgall]

On a V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T message board, why do I have to defend my right to refuse association with specific types of people?

 

I think they want you to defend the choice, not the right. From the look of it, they are asking if you have empirical evidence that conforms with the expectation from the scientific research. I'm not sure how it blew up into something bigger than that.

[MMX2010]

From the look of it, they are asking if you have empirical evidence that conforms with the expectation from the scientific research.

 

And I already told RJ why this is an incredibly ridiculous thing to ask: one of the major purposes of scientific research is to determine what is a bad-thing-to-do so that you choose NOT to do it. 

 

 

I'm not sure how it blew up into something bigger than that.

 

The way he asked the question: "Have you had particularly negative interactions, hell even relationships, with those kinds of individuals? Or is this all just a prejiduce you have against tatoo'd and pierced individuals, MMX? I thank Robert for sharing his experience and that helps me understand where he's coming from. But for you, I just see it as hyper critical prejiduce based on shallow values. Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry."

 

UNTIL I shared my personal experiences with obese, tattooed, and pierced people, I'm JUST spouting bigotry. 

 

Not, "I respect your right to not answer my question, and I would NEVER presume that you're bigoted if you don't answer, but what are your experiences with such people?" 

 

I might have answered that question. 

 

But I'm not going to answer RJ's question as he phrased it. 

 

Again, the studies that you cited only say that, at best, it's more likely to happen. Not that it's some sort of certainty.

 

There's an important reason that I asked both you and Josh F. whether you were: (1) merely speaking about your own preferences with regard to tattooed women or (2) trying to convince people who currently don't associate with tattooed women to change their minds.  That reason is sample size. 

 

In a sample size of one person, the likelihood that unwanted statistical correlations will be "escaped" or "avoided" is maximized, but in a sample size of hundreds, thousands, and millions of people, the likelihood that unwanted statistical correlations will be "escaped" or "avoided" is minimized-to-zero. 

 

Thus when Josh F. admits to wanting to reach the largest possible audience, he's admitting that he wants to maximize the sample size - which will certainly result in leading his target audience to undesirable ends. 

 

So when you say, "Again, the studies that you cited only say that, at best, it's more likely to happen. Not that it's some sort of certainty.", you're right ONLY insofar as you're speaking for yourself - but you're dead wrong when you're speaking for the large group of people (your target audience) whose minds you wish to change.

 

There is certainty.  It is the certainty that your target audience will experience overwhelmingly negative consequences by believing your argument, compared to the consequences they would've experienced if they ignored your argument. 

[Christopherscience]

(Hopefully this isn't a double-post from clicking review then post accidentally)

What is the nature of a tattoo? Or a piercing? Or heavy makeup?

 

A tattoo is a permanent or semi-permanent alteration of the skin pigment. It is done through the repeated stabbing of a needle and dye below the basal lamina or subcutaneous tissue. Primative tattoos (like scarification) were done by making cuts in the skin and stuffing them with dye.

 

When a person elects to be stabbed repeatedly with a needle, or cut and have dye shoved into the wound... one has to wonder, "what is the underlying motivation for that behavior?"

 

Let's hold the common claim of a tattoo as "artistic expression" to be true.

 

What does it express to make the skin the canvas? Why not use a canvas as a canvas? If you like a particular artist's work, then why commission them to stab you with needles?

 

There are many justifications given for tattoos; "I want to carry it with me, forever."; "It's a reminder..."; "I want to make myself more beautiful [or some generic aesthetic justification]."; etc.

 

Electing to be stabbed with needles is an [artistic] expression of a form of masochism.

 

Full disclosure: I have one tattoo, on my chest, and was a cutter in the past.

 

Similarly, a piercing is done for similar reasons as a tattoo; [artistic] expression. A woman with ear piercings is making an aesthetic choice to put an extra hole in her head for beauty.

 

At the very least, a piercing is a pain/annoyance and requires additional hygiene routines (cleaning out the dead skin at least, otherwise it will, eventually get inflamed).

 

Full disclosure: I've had four (very private) piercings in the past. And I viewed it as highly masochistic, and a damaged-I'm-tough-signal.

 

Dyed hair is, at a minimum, saying that one's natural hair color is unsatisfactory.

 

Heavy make up is, at a minimum, saying that one's natural face is unsatisfactory and needs to be covered up.

 

So, linking these all together; why does a person feel their natural features are unsatisfactory or deserving of a masochistic expression?

 

What is natural?

 

The natural function of pain is to cause aversion to a stimulus.

 

The hair and face are naturally indicators of health. The face is naturally used for expression (I think the eyebrows are noteworthy hair/face things... good for expression, but often shaped, plucked, painted, or altered... which greatly change a person's expression )

 

...

 

Naturally, people avoid pain, but will bargain with pain - taking less pain if it means avoiding greater pain.

 

Hopefully you can fill in some of the gaps as to why a person would feel the need to alter their self in such a way, and at such a cost.

 

The trauma theory certainly fits within my own experience (though I would have denied it at the time, while getting my piercings or tattoo). Hopefully I'm not projecting, but it seems very logical that trauma is the explanation for the majority of tattoos and piercings (and perhaps dyed hair and heavy makeup, as well).

 

Stabbing one's self seems illogical otherwise.

[James Dean]

In a sample size of one person, the likelihood that unwanted statistical correlations will be "escaped" or "avoided" is maximized, but in a sample size of hundreds, thousands, and millions of people, the likelihood that unwanted statistical correlations will be "escaped" or "avoided" is minimized-to-zero. 

I don't meet with undesirable relationships in my life not because my life has a small sample size, it is because I have a consistent and rational methodology for finding facts, if others have this methodology, they also avoid undesirable relationships. Once you have a methodology it's either true or false and is not subject to chance. If I were randomly grabbing at a bag with mostly red marbles, yes, statistically I would get more red marbles and so would anyone else. Statistics have no bearing when I open the bag and specifically pick out the one blue marble in the bag. I am not encouraging people to associate with more tattooed and pierced people. I agree that would lead to more negative results on the whole, but this mischaracterizes my position. I am saying the most consistent way to determine if people have unprocessed trauma is to ask them, not to rely on physical markers.

you're speaking for the large group of people (your target audience) whose minds you wish to change.

 

I'm not speaking for them, I'm presenting them with the facts.

 

(1) Pierced and tattooed people are significantly more likely to have unprocessed childhood trauma (as we agree, is scientifically verified)

(2) Not all pierced and tattooed people have unprocessed childhood trauma.

 

In light of the second fact, it logically follows that we must use a different criteria to determine weather or not people have unprocessed childhood trauma. The easiest way I've found is to ask them, you usually have an answer within about 5 minutes.

[hannahbanana]

 

So when you ask, "Are you not trying to derive a sense of shame with their relationships with tattoo'd and obese women?", my answer is, "No, I'm trying to derive a sense of shame (humility?) for your lack of leadership abilities by both pointing out that I'm not-convinced and mentioning what would be more convincing.  As for your relationships with tattooed, obese women, I hope their lovely; not my cup of tea, though." 

 

Maybe this could shed some light, and help others understand what your position is on this thread, because I'm curious as to your reasons about why you seem specifically adamant about not associating with tattoo'd women. I understand that there is research showing a trend in how many tattoos a person has and their behavior, and that's a reasonable and important thing to keep in mind. But at the same time, this forum has shown again and again that such trends can be opposed. For example, spanking is connected to a higher risk of violent behavior, lower IQ, and crime, but there are many people here who have experienced the same, if not worse, and are non-violent, intelligent people. But I suppose that's obvious, but I want to keep my point complete   So, since I assume you know all this, what is it that changes your mind about such people? What made you able to listen to Stef's advice and associate with his values, even though he has been abused in the past, meaning he could have a high risk for violence? By applying universality, this must be possible for other cases as well, even if some things take more convincing than others.

So I guess I'm just a little confused, because by your association with this forum it seems that you are willing to accept that there are exceptions to people with "red flags" in their pasts, but you sound very adamant about people with tattoos not being worth you associating with.

So, is there anything different in your base opinions about people with tattoos that makes you less likely to trust them, as compared to other similar cases?

 

I understand that you could feel the same way with tattoo'd people as you do in other cases, and you're just trying to make a point here about the importance in research when making first impressions of people, and are probably getting frustrated because people are acting like it doesn't matter at all, correct? If that's the case, just let me know; otherwise, I'm still interested in what you have to say.

[MMX2010]

I don't meet with undesirable relationships in my life not because my life has a small sample size, it is because I have a consistent and rational methodology for finding facts, if others have this methodology, they also avoid undesirable relationships. Once you have a methodology it's either true or false and is not subject to chance.

 

I am saying the most consistent way to determine if people have unprocessed trauma is to ask them, not to rely on physical markers.

 

 

Oh boy. 

 

My favorite Manosphere writer is Rollo Tomassi, author of therationalmale.com blog.  My absolute favorite saying of his is, "You cannot negotiate desire." 

 

When you say, "the most consistent way to determine if people have unprocessed trauma is to ask them, not to rely on physical markers.", you're implying that it's the first and only thing I've got to do.  But it's really the SECOND thing, after "experiencing the genuine, non-negotiated desire to associate with such a woman in the first place."  As I've made clear, though, I....don't.....experience.....that......feeling.  Hence your advice is not useful to me, *AND* it ignores my genuine desires, *AND* it suffers from the "oh-sure-you-can-make-people-do-unpleasant-things-but-they-do-them-all-WRONG" weakness. 

 

Now some people at FDR would say you're being horribly non-empathetic for ignoring my desires and giving me unsuitable advice.  But my father pulls this crap all the time, which means I don't experience any strong negative feelings while ignoring your non-empathetic activism. 

 

But the thing I can't ignore, (because it's so ironic), is how you're not tuned in to the genuine desires of the tattooed women you're advocating for.    No woman, tattooed or otherwise, wants to find out that the man she's intimate with had a decades-long aversion to associating with women-like-her.  It doesn't turn them on.  It doesn't inspire genuine, non-negotiated desire to be with me.  It's a really bad idea. 

 

So, in this three-party conversation involving myself, you, and millions of tattooed women everywhere only ONE party is experiencing a benefit from it.  And it ain't me.  And it surely ain't the tattooed women.  Which means there's only one remaining choice, and I'll leave you to consider what self-knowledge can be derived from this observation. 

 

 

When a person elects to be stabbed repeatedly with a needle, or cut and have dye shoved into the wound... one has to wonder, "what is the underlying motivation for that behavior?"

 

Let's hold the common claim of a tattoo as "artistic expression" to be true.

 

What does it express to make the skin the canvas? Why not use a canvas as a canvas? If you like a particular artist's work, then why commission them to stab you with needles?

 

 

The orange-colored text in one of my posts above is my favorite answer to the "Why get tattoos question?"

 

The following responses are my favorite answer to the, "If tattoos are art, why not just hang art on a wall?" question.  Each color represents a different person, and neither person is a scientist.  If you don't like the political rhetoric that informs their views, I can distill their observations into non-political language. 

 

The tattoo epidemic in today's females is a direct expression of the ideology of radical feminism. The point of the tattoo on a girl is to disrupt and trouble the process of a man perceiving her purely as a sexual object -- the dreaded process of "objectification" which the feminists regard as the ultimate evil.

 

The male sexual eye seeks, more than anything else, the smooth and uninterrupted expanse of naked female skin, shaped by its curves and moistened by its juices; it seeks this perfect oasis of responsive smoothness. That is, indeed, the process of sexual objectification, and it is the most fundamental way in which a man responds to the nubile female body, especially the body of a young girl in the prime of her fertility. The male sexual eye concentrates completely on its object, and nothing in the smooth flow of skin and shape disrupts this special concentration; it is requited ever more by the smooth expanse. In a sexually avid man, there is almost no limit to the intensity which this sexual concentration can reach -- it is one of the greatest intensities known to man, as well it should be; Nature willed it so. It is a concentration that commands the man to take possession of its object and to ravish it.

 

The tattoo is designed to fundamentally disrupt this process by despoiling the smoothness of female flesh in a particularly evil way, by essentially turning that expanse into a piece of text -- the one thing in the world to which the human and the male eye must necessarily pay attention, and the thing that is most different from a sexual object. That is precisely what the feminists want: the flesh, the purported sexual object, speaking back, by writing back. The moment it does that, it ceases to be the perfect dumb object that it must be; a terrible dissonance is created, and the sexual concentration on the object is necessarily diminished. It can never be seen the same way.

 

That is also why, in my experience, a small "classy" or "artful" tat, just a little Chinese character on the instep, is just as bad as a "full sleeve" -- indeed, maybe even worse. The eye can almost find a way to blend something crude and coarse like a "sleeve" and reinterpret it as a kind of background, a garish second skin which is however not different in kind. But the isolated black tat speaks back, and there is no escaping it. Just as it can be easier to fall asleep to the loud noise of many people speaking than to the sound of one voice holding a soft but perfectly intelligible conversation. As the single voice speaking is the thing most different in kind from the oblivion of sleep -- so the text nature of that single piece of ink is the thing most different in kind from the other, sexual, oblivion. The one excludes the other.

 

Thus, to say that our revulsion against the tattoo epidemic in females is "reactionary and puritanical" is to have things exactly backward. It is the tattoo that is "reactionary and puritanical", literally; it is there to defeat and diminish male sexuality, which thrives and achieves its deepest realization in the process of objectification -- a process which is more fundamental to human nature and indeed, to the continuation of the species, than any other, but that the radical feminists, in their demented ideology, have decided to uproot and eliminate from life.

 

Now of course it is true that the luscious young sluts who are defacing themselves in this way are not doing it consciously to disturb and nullify sexual objectification -- although being instinctive creatures, I think that many sense to a greater or lesser extent that getting a tat is a particularly deep and nasty (and permanent) "fuck you" to the male sex. And of course the great and serious beauties almost never do it because they know by an instinct that is deadly serious that being the perfect sexual object is their singular privilege and calling in life, and they dare not despoil it. But the ideas of feminism are in the air and spread imperceptibly, aided and abetted by the writings and chatter of many a hag and faggot and mangina, and inexorably they preach the need for females to deface themselves so that their bodies become a "conversation" -- how dreadful -- instead of a standing reserve of meat to be arranged before the male sexual customer, which is what they are meant to be and must be. And more and more of them obey this terrible call.

 

I don't agree with the argument you are making, but this is a masterpiece of writing.

 

The tattoo is to the liberated slut as the ring is to the traditional wife. Both are means of sexual objectification: whereas the ring marks a woman as the property of another man, the tattoo marks her as the property of other men.

 

The apolitical translation is, "People get tattoos because they don't really want to be looked at, nor really want to be understood, nor really want to be judged." 

 

My stance is, "I've no desire to associate with anyone who really doesn't want my gaze, my understanding, and my judgment. FTN FTW." 

[MysterionMuffles]

Who said anything about women, MMX? We were talking generally about PEOPLE with tattoos and piercings. Not particularly women. Are you sure you're not just trying to turn this thread into something about what really isn't? And speaking of bigotry, if bigotry is having a conclusion and then seeking out information to reinforce that, how is what you just did not bigotry? Josh, James, and I are providing you with contrary opinions and you simply dismissing them--especially with non-sequitors--without giving them much of a thought is another way of seeking information that conforms to your initial position.

This isn't about tattoos or piercings for you, MMX, this is about women to you. Possibly, in particular, tattoo'd and pierced up women.  But we'll never know because you refuse to share your experience with them if you've even had any. Who cares how I phrased the question? If you were honest you would've pointed out my phrasing right away instead of loading up your post with some impossible situation. I'll admit I have a tendancy to ask leading questions, it's something I'll work. There's my humility to admit a fault, where's yours? 

 

If you're only basing your prejiduce based on a couple of articles and forum threads, and haven't at all had direct interaction with people who have tattoos and piercings, then...just...wow I have no words for that.

If you really weren't spouting bigotry, the way I asked my question wouldn't matter. You'd have no problem simply answering honestly and directly to prove that my accusation of bigotry on your part is false.