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

[Josh F]

 

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. 

If you want to just have a conversation with yourself, I don't care, but don't strawman me and think you've discovered some eureka moment.  I said the opposite of all of this, so this is an awfully weak tactic to alter my own precisely expressed opinions to their opposite using some third rate spin job like this was day time TV.  I said I support voluntary relationships, and people disassociating from other people.  I employ this tactic in my own life.  Then I said I don't support a philosophy which excludes black, obese, transgendered, or tattoo'd people.  So you spun what I said in some semantic attempt to try and "catch me" but you're only exposing yourself here as a manipulator.  I can't engage in this kind of frustrating manipulation, so I'm not going to engage you any further.  

[James Dean]

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."

 

But where would that desire come from? For me it comes from a sense that the person is virtuous and rational, a quality that is easily ascertained by being vulnerable and connected to them.

 

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.

 

I don't believe I've ever given you advice. I made a strong case as to why tattooing is a legitimate art form. I've corrected a mistake that you made by claiming that tattooed women are more promiscuous, have sex earlier, and have sex more often. This was and still is a false statement unsupported by any science or evidence. I then presented the thread with 2 facts and a logical conclusion we can derive from these facts. I've overlooked all the random and nonsequitor things you've thrown in so far, I've even overlooked you accusing me of 'shaming' which was just not true.

 

What does that have to do with tattooed people and their interests? What does that have to do with women in particular? What does that have to do with your father and how he acts?

 

I think that if a woman found out that you had a prior prejudice but saw past it for the virtue of her character, that would be a sign of emotional strength on your part, but this is neither here nor there, again, this has nothing to do with women in particular.

 

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.

 

So are you saying that you would not benefit from virtuous people in your life? because that is what I'm advocating, that you associate with virtuous people and that virtue has nothing in particular to do with how one looks, dresses, does their hair, or pierces their body.

 

And all parties ultimately benefit as I am only stating fact that I can support with logic and science and you are posting speculation on people's motives and characters based on an outward appearance.

 

An employer who looks at a study that says "There is a positive correlation between being his Hispanic and being lazy" and incorrectly interprets that as "I should not hire any Hispanic people because statistically they are lazy" would close off to himself a whole sector of hard working people. Would he hire more lazy people if he did hire Hispanics? NO! Not unless he was hiring totally at random! The employer should instead interview (as he already probably does) people before hiring them to determine if they are a hard worker or not. Once he has objective standards, why would he need statistics? Let's even say every single Hispanic person on the planet was lazy except for one. He would reject all the Hispanic people that he interviewed until he found that one person without ever having to know that statistic because they would fail his criteria in their own right, regardless of their outward appearance.

 

I have no problem that you choose to not associate with large swaths of people who have certain characteristics. You claim that it's based on statistics although the statistics would only matter if you engaged in relationships with people totally at random. I don't think that makes you a bad person. It is, however, an inferior methodology for determining the virtue of someone and this can be shown with simple deductive reasoning. Please refute the logic or the premises of my argument and enough with the nonsequitors and speculation... we're trying to have a conversation here and it's becoming frustrating with how much you are fogging.

 

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." 

 

This is just pure speculation and any "stance" you have based on this claim is just conjecture. Again, you are perfectly free to live your life by conjecture (we are V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T after all) but don't claim that it's somehow objective or scientific. These are your prejudices and you are totally right to have them, but it will harm other people who might eschew relationships with virtuous people because there's a picture of a bunny on their ankle.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

First off, thank you for assuming that I already know things, rather than assuming that I'm ignorant of what everyone else has argued. 

 

Secondly, I allow Stef to lead me because of his Strength, Devotion, Seriousness, and Humility. 

 

(1) I let Stef lead me, because he has achieved strength on his own, acquired so much knowledge on his own, acquired so much relationship happiness on his own, and has chosen to help/fight the entire world on his own.  Stef has become so strong in his focus, his mission, and his character that I can easily imagine a hungry lion attacking Stef during the opening rant of a call in show *AND* being put into a sleeper hold by Stef.  Yet the most important thing is NOT that I imagine him subduing a lion with his bare hands - it's that I know the first thing he'll say after subduing the lion is, "Mike, who is our first caller?" 

 

(2) Click this - http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/11/18/go-full-gorilla/ - Read the article if you want, but definitely scroll down to the first comment by Leo, click "show more" and look at the photo. 

 

The dying man is able to die like that, because he was consistently living right beforehand.  He didn't discover in that moment that, "You can destroy ALL of a man's wealth, a man's family, a man's relationships, a man's reputation, and his bodily-integrity through torture/murder - but the MAN will still remain."  No.  He reminded himself of all that everyday, year after year.  So that, when it was time for him to die, he was able to stand like that.  Instantly.  Like a BOSS.  (Stef can die like that - easily, though I hope he never has to.  More impressive, MMD can almost die like that - and his growth as a  person from who he was before FDR to who he will eventually become is amazing.  Respect.)

 

(3) "The MAN that still remains" is comprised of his values, his hopes, his desires, and his judgments.  Consequently, the most sacred thing you can do to anyone is try to change their minds!  And when you try to change someone else's mind, you'd better be Strong, Serious, Devoted, and Humble.  Strong in yourself, Serious in exploring the topic of conversation, Devoted to meeting the needs of your target-of-conversion, and Humble enough to both admit when you were wrong and to constantly remind yourself of the importance of Strength/Seriousness/Devotion. 

 

No "doing it just to see what happens".  No "seeing who agrees with me, so I can form lasting relationships with them".  No "making yourself feel better about yourself because you argued your point". 

 

Changing someone else's mind is never casual.  Never. 

 

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

 

 

 

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?

 

My answer is funny to me, and outright flabbergasting to many.  My base opinions about people with tattoos have been strengthened by my base opinions about people who support people with tattoos.  Because I don't respect the leadership capabilities of those who've tried to change my mind, I'm far less likely to associate with tattooed / pierced individuals.  (It's as simple as, "If people you don't respect all try to convince you to do X, you should do the opposite of X.  It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong; it matters that you shouldn't follow whomever you don't respect.")

 

I first formulated my opinions about people with tattoos from this article, which I've already linked in this thread. 

 

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

 

It's not so much that the article itself is perfectly written, but that the reactions of people who disagreed with it were hilarious. 

 

The article is posted on returnofkings.com - whose "About" link says the following:

 

 

 

Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine.

 

ROK aims to usher the return of the masculine man in a world where masculinity is being increasingly punished and shamed in favor of creating an androgynous and politically-correct society that allows women to assert superiority and control over men. Sadly, yesterday’s masculinity is today’s misogyny. The site intends to be a safe space on the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed. 

 

Women and homosexuals are discouraged from commenting here.

 

The article itself says "Women With Tattoos Are Broken - meaning "mentally unstable, unsuitable for long-term-relationships, promiscuous, and so on." 

 

Now a mentally composed response would've been: (1) To recognize that ROK is a niche website with a niche audience.  (2) To recognize that they don't have to read that article, if they don't want to.  (3) To accept that they don't have the power (or right) to change the minds of Matt Forney and his ilk.  (4) To at least realize that, "Hey, if I tweet him a death threat or insult, his point-of-view of tattooed and pierced women will be strengthened.  So, even though I've already thought of tweeting him one, I should restrain myself, for my own sake." 

 

Instead, death threats and insults galore - all of which he retweeted, some of which he retweeted and trolled back to.   

 

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

 

Hannah:  As an aside, the reason that I opened up to you is that you were NOT trying to change my mind.  You were trying to get to understand my mind.  I hold people who try to change my mind to very high standards, but I easily talk to those who try to understand my mind - provided they have some empathy.  Your empathy was exceptional. 

[MMX2010]

If you want to just have a conversation with yourself, I don't care, but don't strawman me and think you've discovered some eureka moment.  I said the opposite of all of this, so this is an awfully weak tactic to alter my own precisely expressed opinions to their opposite using some third rate spin job like this was day time TV.  I said I support voluntary relationships, and people disassociating from other people.  I employ this tactic in my own life.  Then I said I don't support a philosophy which excludes black, obese, transgendered, or tattoo'd people.  So you spun what I said in some semantic attempt to try and "catch me" but you're only exposing yourself here as a manipulator.  I can't engage in this kind of frustrating manipulation, so I'm not going to engage you any further.  

 

You also said that you're trying to change the minds of those who exclude people based on tattoos and piercings (meaning me), and that you find my behavior to be "morally inconsistent".  Since "morally inconsistent" is a big, big word, it's hard for me to believe that you support my voluntary decision to not-associate with tattoo'ed and pierced individuals. 

 

You say you're not fazed by my decision to not-associate with tattoo'ed and pierced individuals, BUT you call such a decision "morally inconsistent" - which strongly suggests that you ARE fazed by it. 

 

 

But where would that desire come from? For me it comes from a sense that the person is virtuous and rational, a quality that is easily ascertained by being vulnerable and connected to them.

 

 

I don't believe I've ever given you advice. I made a strong case as to why tattooing is a legitimate art form.

 

Listen carefully, James.

 

I don't care whether you call it "giving advice", "not giving advice", or "making a strong case as to why tattooing is a legitimate art form".  Because no matter which term you use, you are attempting to alter MY desires and perceptions until they match YOUR desires and perceptions. 

 

But do you even know why my desires and perceptions are? 

 

What kinds of friendships do I already have?  What kind of friendships do I want?  What types of romantic relationships have I had, have I wanted, and want now?  Pertinent to this topic, how does the presence/absence of tattoos relate to all of these questions? 

 

You don't know the answers to any of those questions, because you haven't asked.  Josh F. didn't ask.  Rainbow Jamz asked, but only because he wanted to evaluate my answers for the presence/absence of bigotry - not because he wanted to understand me FIRST, so that he could help me SECOND. 

 

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

 

 

 

So are you saying that you would not benefit from virtuous people in your life? because that is what I'm advocating, that you associate with virtuous people and that virtue has nothing in particular to do with how one looks, dresses, does their hair, or pierces their body.

 

*sigh*

 

James, if tattoos were randomly assigned to people, and depicted random symbols, placed on random parts of the body, then you're right.  Only an idiot would use either the presence / absence of tattoos or the nature of those tattoos to derive a person's character.  However, tattoos are chosen by their recipients, and are (almost) always non-random symbols.  So your argument is clearly self-contradictory. 

 

So your argument "Virtue has nothing to do with tattoos" is self-detonating because of the nature of those tattoos. 

 

(It's also a side-splittingly funny argument, because it basically means, "Tattoos are just random, meaningless symbols with no explanatory power whatsoever, and anyone who perceives explanatory power in tattoos is a fool.  Newsflash: Every tattoo-possessor or piercing-possessor grants extraordinary explanatory power to every single tattoo/piercing they possess.) 

[James Dean]

Listen carefully, James.

 

I don't care whether you call it "giving advice", "not giving advice", or "making a strong case as to why tattooing is a legitimate art form".  Because no matter which term you use, you are attempting to alter MY desires and perceptions until they match YOUR desires and perceptions. 

 

First of all, I've found our exchange to be civil for the most part, and honestly was enjoying the passion and clarity with which you debate, something I really enjoyed on other threads, I have a massive respect for your intellect. I also respect my own intelligence, and think I can make a case for my argument backed up by logic and empiricism. Obviously you do as well, and thus we exchange ideas. In light of that, I'd like to say I really experience things like this negatively, I don't see the need for "listen carefully" or "sigh." I understand that you are frustrated by this thread, and I'm trying to be gentle here, as I think there's been a failure of communication, which I accept could totally be me just talking shit, so let my try and clarify some things.

 

There is a huge difference between giving advice and stating facts. I give advice about things subject to opinion; i.e. the clothes that one might wear. I can advise someone to not wear stripes and plaids, but the combination of stripes and plaids is not wrong in any objective sense. I can also only give advice on matters I have no choice in. I can advise my friend to follow directions to my house for a party, but his choices are totally his own. I have no interest in doing this with you, partly because I have profoundly less knowledge than you about what's in your self interest and partly because I know that you will make the best decisions for yourself. If you choose not to associate with people based on their physical characteristics, it's not the initiation of force or fraud, and it's a-OK in my book.

 

Stating facts, which I am solely interested in doing, has no concern with the opinions, concerns, histories, objections or emotional preferences of me or you. This is why I did not find it particularly useful to ask you about your inner state and your feelings. I want to be sensitive so I'm not abrasive, but fundamentally trying to understand your needs and wants for intimate relationships would be a whole other conversation, and would have no bearing on any truth statements.

 

The stating of facts also has no bearing on what you ought to do. If I state that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth, there is nothing in that statement that compels you to do anything. However it is incumbent on those who wish to be rational to accept that which can be proven and reject that which lacks either internal consistency or does not conform to objective reality.

 

I wish to re-state the two premises which I wish to put forward, neither of which you have addressed thus far.

 

(p1) People with tattoos and piercings are more likely to have unprocessed trauma.

 

(p2) People who are consistently virtuous and have gotten tattooed or pierced exist.

 

Lets address the first premise. Using the data that you provided, along with some common sense, we can make generalizations about people with tattoos and piercings, as we can do with most subgroups of people. The studies you cited clearly show that people with tattoos are more likely to have all kinds of negative effects which all indicate the acting out of unprocessed trauma. We also, with some degree of certainty can assume that someone covered in tattoos from the aryan brotherhood with a big swastika on his forehead isn't someone worth engaging. This is because the group "people with tattoos and piercings" is a very large and diverse group itself. We are missing the huge matters of degree that occur in that statistical category that ranges from 9-year-old girls with their ears pierced and a 260 pound 6'10'' murderer who got covered in prison tats serving a life sentence.

 

With this in mind, a large amount of the people I have encountered with tattoos don't have any objective methodology for philosophy, have no self-knowledge, and are destructively acting out their childhood trauma. In fact most people I meet in general are that way. To say "most tattooed people are traumatized" is kind of a arbitrary statement as most of all people are traumatized so any subgroup you take from that will be mostly traumatized. Now I understand that you could make virtue the criteria and that subgroup would be all virtuous by definition, but since "people with tattoos and piercings" is such a large group of people not much can be said specifically. Obviously there's a standard distribution here... if you want to argue that the dysfunctional are the mean, then that's fine but then you can only say things about the people who cluster around the mean. But if we've already established that the average tattooed person is dysfunctional, then to say "tattooed people are more likely to show signs of dysfunction," is a tautology because you're saying that the dysfunctional are dysfunctional. of course they are! but this is a good lead in to the second premise.

 

There exists overlap in the two groups "people with tattoos and piercings" and "people who practice consistent virtue." When you make statements of reality they must be internally consistent and in accordance with the facts. If you make a statement "any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them," then any matter can be found that is not subject to the law of universal gravitation would disprove that claim. If you make the statement "all people who are tattooed and pierced do not practice consistent virtue," then any one person I can find with a tattoo or piercing that is practicing consistent virtue disproves that statement. It's not hard to empirically prove this, and I don't think you are trying to assert that claim, but it is a fact useful in deductive reasoning.

 

The conclusion that we can draw from these premises is this.

 

© one ought not use the possesion of tattoos or piercings to determine the presence or absence of virtue.

 

This is all I am really claiming at this point. I think I made other compelling arguments previously in the thread around the topic of tattooing as legitimate art which you did not address, but that's neither here nor there. I use philosophy to determine the value of relationships first and foremost. Are some types of tattoos and piercings largely indicative of past abuse? Yes, but the only way to know for certain is to ask them and interact with openness and empathy. That pretty much sums up my stance on this particular matter. 

[hannahbanana]

I feel like everyone involved in this conversation would do some good if they walked away from this thread for a little while to calm down. Everyone seems to be feeling provoked and are getting angered, and that's leading to more provocation for the others. This conversation is interesting and I think it can go somewhere, but right now it seems like it's spinning out of control.

 

I know I'm not entirely involved in this conversation, but it's making me worried and anxious that things are getting rough between so many people. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is causing some anxiety in others, too....it's just a suggestion.

[Blackfish64]

I feel like everyone involved in this conversation would do some good if they walked away from this thread for a little while to calm down. Everyone seems to be feeling provoked and are getting angered, and that's leading to more provocation for the others. This conversation is interesting and I think it can go somewhere, but right now it seems like it's spinning out of control.

 

I know I'm not entirely involved in this conversation, but it's making me worried and anxious that things are getting rough between so many people. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is causing some anxiety in others, too....it's just a suggestion.

 

 

Agreed.  They should all just go out and get a tattoo and get it over with. 

[dsayers]

I have seven tattoos. The last six were acquired within a small time frame. This was some time ago. I don't think that I would present day get a tattoo. I don't regret the ones I have because it's just skin. I just wanted to point out that regardless of what that makes you think of a person and whether that interpretation is accurate or not, all you can know for sure is that you're judging one aspect of who somebody was at some point in the past. The thought processes I had back when I got them is not how I think today. It's not who I am today.

[Blackfish64]

Ja, my daughter wanted me to sign for her to get inked when she was sixteen, for her sixteenth birthday present.  She knew better than to ask, but she did anyway, just in case I changed my mind.  She instead treated herself to that ink job two years later, on her eighteenth birthday, when there was nothing anyone could really do to stop her.  The tattoo she chose was the same one she had in mind back when she was sixteen.  It was a highly colorful lizard she had doodled into one of her journals.  I must admit, it was a very good drawing.  I was impressed.  I've always liked that picture. 

 

Anyway, she's twenty seven now, and wishes she "wouldn't have gotten that stupid lizard on my ]her] leg."  I just chuckle.  The lizard is actually not a bad looking fellow.  I think it looks great. 

 

Again, I really don't have any aversion to people getting inked.  In the end, it don't mean diddly.  I think when we're younger our priorities are a little screwed up and we do some silly stuff.  I know I did.  I look back on some of it and say to myself, 'Man, what the fuck were you thinkin'?'  And I think that's just it-we're not thinkin'.  Of course, there are "older" people who get inked, too.  They don't seem to have any priority issues. 

 

I'm not so convinced that someone with a tattoo has been "traumatized".  I just don't believe it.  Some people get inked all over the place and they haven't got any trauma at all.  On the other hand, I, myself, was severely traumatized, brutalized, and maltreated for all of my childhood and teen years, but I have zero ink.  Every time I thought to go and get myself inked, I forgot about it in a little while and went and did something else.  Sometimes it would occur to me, "Oh, yeah, I forgot to go and get that ink.  Now, what was that design idea I had in mind again...?"

 

And of course there are in fact people who have ink who are traumatized.  And of course it is a reflection of their trauma.  Of course there are.  But are these ideas a rule of thumb with everyone who has ink?  I don't think so.  

 

As for getting inked being "masochistic", I don't know about that either.  I am something of an athlete and I do physical workouts that would make most people feint on their first few times out with me.  It's some work and some pain to get the job done and keep up my agility and ability the way I like.  If that makes me "masochistic", well, then, I guess, I'm masochistic, at least to some extent.  But, then again, the pain is simply the price one pays for what one wants sometimes.  I know of a Hawaiian woman who's face is traditionally inked by the artist from her village in Hawaii.  She hated the pain of getting the ink on her face, but she wanted the ink just the same, so she endured.  It means something to her.  She loves it.  She wears it proudly.  It is an intrinsic part of her identity.  She would not trade it for anything. 

 

I spend a lot of time with whores.  I love assertive women.  Not aggressive women, mind you, but definitely assertive.  Most whores are assertive.  I like that.  They are some of my favorite people.  They don't all have ink.  In fact, most of them don't.  I don't mind the ones that do.  Not at all.   

 

I think it all boils down to a matter of personal preference and taste.  

 

As for the ink getting old and ugly, well, so do most people get old and ugly anyway. 

 

The only thing I would recommend is that if one gets inked, one should get it where it can be covered up when the time comes to cover up, like, say, for a job interview.  When we walk around all inked up, there are certain situations where it would not be advantageous to do so. 

[MysterionMuffles]

I feel like everyone involved in this conversation would do some good if they walked away from this thread for a little while to calm down. Everyone seems to be feeling provoked and are getting angered, and that's leading to more provocation for the others. This conversation is interesting and I think it can go somewhere, but right now it seems like it's spinning out of control.

 

I know I'm not entirely involved in this conversation, but it's making me worried and anxious that things are getting rough between so many people. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is causing some anxiety in others, too....it's just a suggestion.

 

That's the choice I made after the fog horn had been sounded.

[MysterionMuffles]

Ja, my daughter wanted me to sign for her to get inked when she was sixteen, for her sixteenth birthday present.  She knew better than to ask, but she did anyway, just in case I changed my mind.  She instead treated herself to that ink job two years later, on her eighteenth birthday, when there was nothing anyone could really do to stop her.  The tattoo she chose was the same one she had in mind back when she was sixteen.  It was a highly colorful lizard she had doodled into one of her journals.  I must admit, it was a very good drawing.  I was impressed.  I've always liked that picture. 

 

Anyway, she's twenty seven now, and wishes she "wouldn't have gotten that stupid lizard on my ]her] leg."  I just chuckle.  The lizard is actually not a bad looking fellow.  I think it looks great. 

 

Again, I really don't have any aversion to people getting inked.  In the end, it don't mean diddly.  I think when we're younger our priorities are a little screwed up and we do some silly stuff.  I know I did.  I look back on some of it and say to myself, 'Man, what the fuck were you thinkin'?'  And I think that's just it-we're not thinkin'.  Of course, there are "older" people who get inked, too.  They don't seem to have any priority issues. 

 

I'm not so convinced that someone with a tattoo has been "traumatized".  I just don't believe it.  Some people get inked all over the place and they haven't got any trauma at all.  On the other hand, I, myself, was severely traumatized, brutalized, and maltreated for all of my childhood and teen years, but I have zero ink.  Every time I thought to go and get myself inked, I forgot about it in a little while and went and did something else.  Sometimes it would occur to me, "Oh, yeah, I forgot to go and get that ink.  Now, what was that design idea I had in mind again...?"

 

And of course there are in fact people who have ink who are traumatized.  And of course it is a reflection of their trauma.  Of course there are.  But are these ideas a rule of thumb with everyone who has ink?  I don't think so.  

 

As for getting inked being "masochistic", I don't know about that either.  I am something of an athlete and I do physical workouts that would make most people feint on their first few times out with me.  It's some work and some pain to get the job done and keep up my agility and ability the way I like.  If that makes me "masochistic", well, then, I guess, I'm masochistic, at least to some extent.  But, then again, the pain is simply the price one pays for what one wants sometimes.  I know of a Hawaiian woman who's face is traditionally inked by the artist from her village in Hawaii.  She hated the pain of getting the ink on her face, but she wanted the ink just the same, so she endured.  It means something to her.  She loves it.  She wears it proudly.  It is an intrinsic part of her identity.  She would not trade it for anything. 

 

I spend a lot of time with whores.  I love assertive women.  Not aggressive women, mind you, but definitely assertive.  Most whores are assertive.  I like that.  They are some of my favorite people.  They don't all have ink.  In fact, most of them don't.  I don't mind the ones that do.  Not at all.   

 

I think it all boils down to a matter of personal preference and taste.  

 

As for the ink getting old and ugly, well, so do most people get old and ugly anyway. 

 

The only thing I would recommend is that if one gets inked, one should get it where it can be covered up when the time comes to cover up, like, say, for a job interview.  When we walk around all inked up, there are certain situations where it would not be advantageous to do so. 

 

DUDE! thanks so much for sharing that!

[MysterionMuffles]

I guess that's what really boils down to. Location, location, location. Especially when you're old and your skin begins to sag. What inspired your daughter to get inked?

[MMX2010]

There is a huge difference between giving advice and stating facts.

 

Stating facts, which I am solely interested in doing, has no concern with the opinions, concerns, histories, objections or emotional preferences of me or you. This is why I did not find it particularly useful to ask you about your inner state and your feelings. I want to be sensitive so I'm not abrasive, but fundamentally trying to understand your needs and wants for intimate relationships would be a whole other conversation, and would have no bearing on any truth statements.

 

The stating of facts also has no bearing on what you ought to do.

 

I wish to re-state the two premises which I wish to put forward, neither of which you have addressed thus far.

 

(p1) People with tattoos and piercings are more likely to have unprocessed trauma.

 

(p2) People who are consistently virtuous and have gotten tattooed or pierced exist.

 

The reason I haven't addressed your premises is that I object to the structure of your argument. 

 

Here's a host of examples that follow your argument structure.

 

(1) (a) Going to college is generally a good idea, because college graduates have higher average salaries than non-grads.

     (b)  Some people who have never been to college make a lot of money.

 

(2) (a) Refusing to do to the doctor - ever, over a period of years - is generally a bad idea, because it leads to unhealthy outcomes.

     (b) Some people who never go to the doctor, over decades, are quite healthy. 

 

(3) (a) Smoking is a really bad idea, because it generally leads to health problems.

     (b) Some people who smoke live long, healthy, wonderful lives. 

 

(4) (a) The majority of people with tattoos and piercings have unprocessed childhood trauma. 

     (b) Some people who are virtuous have tattoos. 

 

Furthermore, you're not ONLY "stating facts".  You used the phrase "inferior methods" to describe my process, which is a word designed to inspire changing-of-mind.  (Just as Josh F. used the phrase "morally inconsistent", and Rainbow Jamz used the word "bigotry".) 

 

Hilariously, I don't mind that you're trying to change mine (or anyone else's) mind.  But I despise the way you're only claiming to be "stating facts".  I would much rather you overtly state, "My perspective on tattoos and piercings is so much more enlightened than yours, and it leads to far greater relationships than you'll ever have with your perspective!" 

 

Why?  Because such overtness allows me to demand empirical evidence.   

 

You would instead of alluding to your virtuous relationships would have to openly provide evidence of them. 

 

 

 

one ought not use the possesion of tattoos or piercings to determine the presence or absence of virtue.

 

First, a request.  Re-read some of the colored-texts arguments I posted earlier, because each of them strongly implies that tattooes and piercings are designed to either resist or avoid therapy.  Then get back to me.   

 

Second, a suggestion.  The most sacred ideas we learn as children are always the most difficult to surrender.  When Thunderf00t and his other clowns were criticizing Stefan for the copyright violations, they were using big-boy words like "censorship" to explain their outrage.  But the problem was that the YouTube poster was only deprived of his audience by being prevented from posting on Youtube.  Since he was free to post his videos on other, less popular, websites, he was never censored.  But "free speech" and "censorship" are so deeply ingrained in their psyches, because they were repeated so frequently in childhood, that the Stef-critics can't see my point. 

 

Similarly, if you're under 25 and went to public school, the words "bigotry" and "discrimination" are powerfully engrained in your psyche.  Hence, you see a tattooed person get "discriminated against", and you experience a hyper-strong emotional reaction.  But the problem is that tattoos/piercings are A CHOICE in a way that "being Hispanic" is not - (which renders your earlier comparison of tattoos to "being Hispanic" really bad). 

 

And so I would suggest that you're conflating ANY situation where someone "feels discriminated against" into one big category, irrespective of whether they chose their situation.  So racism and homophobia are lumped in together with fat-shaming and tattoo-shaming, simply because they produce the same emotional response.  But race and sexual orientation ARE NOT choices, whereas getting fat and being pierced ARE - with the latter being entirely a choice. 

 

So your equating of those four events is flawed. 

[MMX2010]

That's the choice I made after the fog horn had been sounded.

 

RJ, it was you who fogged the discussion.

 

You asked me, earlier, how my dismissal of yours, James Dean's, and Josh F's opinions wasn't "bigotry". 

 

That's really easy to answer: Dismissing other people's opinions is not, in itself, an act of "bigotry". 

 

Earlier in time, I was open-minded about tattoos and piercings.  Then I felt discomfort / annoyance by their presence.  Then I, with an open-mind considered the opinions that you're presenting now - and rejected them. 

 

Because I was open-minded at the time, I wasn't being bigoted.  And because your (collective) opinions aren't NEW INFORMATION, then I can dismiss them without being bigoted. 

 

Your problem, RJ, as I've mentioned multiple times, is (1) you never asked me what opinions I've already considered, while forming my position on tattoos and piercings, and (2) you assumed that I was ignorant of the arguments you were advancing. 

 

Once you assumed I was ignorant - (which is, ironically, quite bigoted) - you assumed that your opinions ought to change my mind.  Once you assumed that you were correct, you boxed yourself into an incorrect (!) diagnosis of "bigotry". 

 

So, please apologize for calling me "bigoted" - especially since "bigoted" is a highly inflammatory accusation to make. 

 

Failing that, please reflect on the argument I made to James Dean - that you're so focused on the emotional reaction of "discrimination" that you've improperly glued together true bigotry - (such as homophobia and racism, which hates on people for things out of the control) - with "false bigotry" - (such as fat-shaming and tattoo-possession, which hates on people for things well-within their control). 

[Blackfish64]

I guess that's what really boils down to. Location, location, location. Especially when you're old and your skin begins to sag. What inspired your daughter to get inked?

 

I don't know what inspired her to get inked.  I think she was simply a teen and it was cool, so she wanted to do it, too.  I really don't know. 

 

Yes, and the funny thing about getting old and your skin sagging is that you can't do anything about that, but you can head to the tattoo shop and get your ink refreshed!  Looks great! 

 

Yes, location.  I will honestly tell you, as a manager in the casinos and hiring a lot of people, we had a policy of "no visible tattoos".  That policy stems from the old days.  These days, everyone has tattoos and it is getting harder and harder to find people who do not have them!  Especially the youngsters, who are covered in them.  But, much to their disappointment, I did stick to the policy.  I would not hire someone with tattoos on their face, neck, hands, anywhere it could not be covered up.  Even though our uniforms were generally pretty casual for routine , daily business, those with tats on their arms had to wear long sleeves and a tie.  I know, it's hot in Nevada, but you've asked for it.  Anyone exposing their tats to the public got a written warning up to and including termination.  For me, it's not that I have anything against tattoos, I don't, but I do have  a professional attitude, and so do you, and you will not be allowed to bring your personal stuff onto my casino floor or into my hotel.  Cover it up, get to work, or go find a different job.  Sorry, kids. 

 

But these days, the tats (and those god-awful piercings!) are everywhere.  And you see more and more people being allowed to wear them in positions where it was unheard of, unacceptable before.  That includes Las Vegas hotels and casinos.  You hardly see a cocktail server anymore who does not have that awful looking tattoo on her lower back just above her buns.  Yikes.   The least you could do, Darling, is get something original.  OK, I have to go brush my teeth now.  Get the bad taste out of my mouth.  Have a great day!     

[dsayers]

Anyway, she's twenty seven now, and wishes she "wouldn't have gotten that stupid lizard on my ]her] leg." 

 

Why is this? I've never understood tattoo regret.

[Blackfish64]

Why is this? I've never understood tattoo regret.

 

That'd be another question I don't know the answer to.  Maybe she doesn't want the lizard anymore, but wants something else in its place now, or maybe she regrets tattoo altogether.  I really don't know.  When she talks about it, I just kind of laugh.  I mean, what can she do about it now anyway?  She can get lasered and have it removed, which, my understanding of it is that it is more expensive and more painful than the tattoo. 

 

If I were her, I would just leave it alone. 

 

Her hubby is covered with tats.  He loves 'em.  He can't get enough tats. 

 

I am just happy and grateful the two of them agree that the tats need to be in a place where they can be easily covered up.  Whew (wiping brow)!

[Tweety]

As a tattooed woman, I strongly feel like I need to throw my two cents into this discussion.

 

Correlation is not causation.

 

I thought about each of my tattoos beforehand for about 2 years before getting them. I have not regretted my tattoos. Yes, I know my skin will sag, therefore I thought about where to have them on my body. IMO getting tattooed did not hurt too much, so I would not put it into a category of major masochism. Surely one has to be a little masochist to do that, but I would say the same about squeezing into today's women's clothes as well.

 

I am certain my childhood was not trauma-free, but I would not expect that of anyone being born in the world as it is.

[J. D. Stembal]

I am certain my childhood was not trauma-free, but I would not expect that of anyone being born in the world as it is.

 

Are you suggesting that all parents wish to traumatize their children?

 

I recently finished listening to Origins of Way in Child Abuse, and Demause had quite a bit to say about scarring rituals. I don't think he mentions tattooing in particular, as it is a more modern invention, but there are many mentions of ritual mutilation, piercing and blood-letting of children. We don't tattoo children as far as I know, but we are still commonly circumcising male infants, and piercing the ears of female infants. All of these practices hearken back to tribal practices of abusing children to prepare them for war and strife.

 

If you listen to the book, prepare to feel deeply disgusted.

 

https://freedomainradio.com/free/

[Tweety]

 

Are you suggesting that all parents wish to traumatize their children?

 

 

 

No. I am saying that there is a high probability (I expect) that a person being born in to this world has not had a trauma-free childhood.

[Buggy]

When it comes to short and shallow interactions, here is how I view tattoos:

(From my post in another thread)

 

A tattoo is almost always taken for the purpose of adding to one's shallow social capital, in some way. It is therefore reasonable to assume that any individual with a tattoo is socially integrated in society. If an individual is socially integrated in our current western society, the individual is unlikely to host any "red-pill" knowledge or point of views.

 

 

[Peaceful Parent]

Why is this? I've never understood tattoo regret.

How about plastic surgery regret? It may or may not be analogous but I'm interested in hearing your distinction between the two.

[MysterionMuffles]

What do you mean by shallow social capital? And you are free to assume that they don't have red-pill knowledge, but what is that based on? How do you come to the conclusion that someone with tattoos has no red pill knowledge?

 

I have a vegabond friend who has tattoos, and he's a vegabond for the reason that he lives off the grid of government. He's an Anarchist, albeit almost the typical stereotype, but he is an Anarchist nonetheless.

[shirgall]

How about plastic surgery regret? It may or may not be analogous but I'm interested in hearing your distinction between the two.

 

Or weight loss surgery regret. I sometimes look upon the fact that I resorted to vertical sleeve gastrectomy as a failure of willpower, discipline, and a bunch of other loaded adjectives.

[Buggy]

What do you mean by shallow social capital? And you are free to assume that they don't have red-pill knowledge, but what is that based on? How do you come to the conclusion that someone with tattoos has no red pill knowledge?

 

I have a vegabond friend who has tattoos, and he's a vegabond for the reason that he lives off the grid of government. He's an Anarchist, albeit almost the typical stereotype, but he is an Anarchist nonetheless.

Capital gained from aesthetic impressions, rather than ethical and or "personal". As I said, if the tattoo is taken with the purpose of gaining "shallow social capital", I would say it is unlikely that the person has high social value coming from ethical and or personal qualities. I didn't say that someone with tattoos has no red-pill knowledge, I said the individual is unlikely to if their motivation for taking the tattoo was gaining shallow aesthetic social capital in the first place. 

 

And of course one can change. Tattoos are not chemical chains to the blue-pill lifestyle and hypocrisy.  

 

Considering the dislikes but lack of direct opposition, I suspect I hit a few folks where it hurts. *Entices lurkers to proper discussion*

[Peaceful Parent]

As I said, if the tattoo is taken with the purpose of gaining "shallow social capital", I would say it is unlikely that the person has high social value coming from ethical and or personal qualities.

Why unlikely? Would you also feel the same about an individual who enjoys and invests in fashion? Not that you're making any accusation against me but I'd like to include that I'm a big fan of men's wear.

[MMX2010]

Considering the dislikes but lack of direct opposition, I suspect I hit a few folks where it hurts. *Entices lurkers to proper discussion*

 

Not to flex my own muscles, but I did so more strongly than you. 

 

The discussion on tattoos almost perfectly mirrors this former FDR-contributor's discussion of drug usage. 

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42628-im-angered-by-the-marijuanadrug-discussion-at-the-end-of-2846/?hl=drugs

 

The OP - obviously a casual drug user - lectured the entire forum that "Not all drug users are like that", and concluded that the entire forum had "a personal vendetta against drug users".  He said that the scientific studies on drug usage don't apply to every user of drugs, and stormed off the forum in rage. 

 

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

 

In this thread, some people with tattoos (and some people who merely support tattoo-possessors), lectured the entire forum that "Not all tattoo-possessors are like that.", and concluded that anyone who refuses to associate with tattoo-possessors are "bigoted" and "Wow, just wow!".  They said that the scientific studies of tattoo-possessors don't apply to every possessor of tattoos, and down-voted my posts rather than address the most substantive parts of them. 

 

The only difference is that drugs are illegal and can contribute to violent behavior, whereas tattoos aren't illegal and aren't contributors to violent behavior.  (Unfortunately, though, tattoo-possession is scientifically correlated with violent behavior AND specific mental disorders that are resistant to therapy / self-knowledge.  So "correlation isn't causation" cuts both ways here.)

 

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

 

More unfortunately, is that people don't realize that "The mistake of wrongfully excluding someone is much less costly than wrongly-accepting someone."  It's much more damaging to yourself to marry the wrong person (a non-virtuous, selfish person) than it is to wrongfully dissociate from a right person (a virtuous, non-selfish person). 

 

So when they begin with "You're being bigoted for refusing to associate with a tattoo'ed person!", they're trying to produce more interactions between tattoo'ed and non-tattoo'ed individuals.  But when their advice backfires, (as it statistically must do, at least SOME of the time), they're producing the worst possible mistake - (associating long-term with wrong-people) - at the expense of occasionally producing a good outcome - (associating long-term with right-people). 

 

In other words, when they're wrong, the people who listen to them must pay the price.  And if you don't agree with them. you're "bigoted". 

 

Contrast this with my position, "If I'm wrong, then I will pay the price.  And you all can do what you please." 

[Buggy]

 

-

Well yeah, this is very common over the web, or at least I have gathered nothing but evidence and experience that it is over my years of using the web.

 

It's just sad too see how many missed opportunities humanity suffers from high IQ paired with low EI. 

[J. D. Stembal]

No. I am saying that there is a high probability (I expect) that a person being born in to this world has not had a trauma-free childhood.

 

Who is traumatizing this high ratio of children?

 

Or weight loss surgery regret. I sometimes look upon the fact that I resorted to vertical sleeve gastrectomy as a failure of willpower, discipline, and a bunch of other loaded adjectives.

 

Except that no one can will themselves to lose weight. Your body's metabolism is regulated by the autonomic nervous system and hormones, not the conscious brain.

[shirgall]

Except that no one can will themselves to lose weight. Your body's metabolism is regulated by the autonomic nervous system and hormones, not the conscious brain.

 

 

But you can, supposedly, will yourself to eat the right foods and not eat too much. Most of my weight gain was stress-related food binges, and a VSG puts an easy end to that. 75% smaller stomach makes it rather difficult to overeat. But I still sometimes tell myself it is a cheat because other people don't have to do it.

[MMX2010]

Well yeah, this is very common over the web, or at least I have gathered nothing but evidence and experience that it is over my years of using the web.

 

It's just sad too see how many missed opportunities humanity suffers from high IQ paired with low EI. 

 

The two cases where EI was most lacking were:

 

(1) Why is it such a big deal that someone rejects you just because you have tattoos?  (Let's just assume this happens, even though one can easily argue that you're being rejected because you have tattoos AND because of another reason.)  Sure, you can chase the person down, call him a prejudiced bigot, and feel better about yourself in the process.  But by chasing that person down, you're not signaling either self-confidence or that you possess many loving friends. 

 

(2) Even if you DID convince that person to change his/her mind, why would you take pride in having to convert / persuade someone to like you?  Can you imagine a wife telling a crowd of people, "Yeah, at first sight, hubby couldn't stand the sight of me.  But, thankfully due to my dogged persistence and argumentation skills, I persuaded him to give me a chance.  Now we're in L-O-V-E!" 

 

It churns my stomach to imagine that scenario. 

 

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

 

I don't know whether you're familiar with either Return of Kings or the RooshVForum, but the ROK article and the RVF reactions to that article are pure comedic genius.  (If this is your first foray into those two sites, the "masculine safe space energy" they create and communicate with can be highly unnerving at first.) 

 

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

 

RVF Thread: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-41331.html

[Peaceful Parent]

In other words, when they're wrong, the people who listen to them must pay the price. And if you don't agree with them. you're "bigoted".

 

Contrast this with my position, "If I'm wrong, then I will pay the price. And you all can do what you please."

 

I'm reading this as the crux of an argument a socially isolated person would/could make. If one would explain to a hermit that forming human relationships are enriching and rewarding, the hermit could then reply with the above reasoning minus the word bigotry.

 

Is that correct?

[MMX2010]

I'm reading this as the crux of an argument a socially isolated person would/could make. If one would explain to a hermit that forming human relationships are enriching and rewarding, the hermit could then reply with the above reasoning minus the word bigotry.

 

Is that correct?

 

I don't know whether you're questioning whether I am "a socially isolated person" and a "hermit" because I refuse to associate with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals, or whether you're implying that Rainbow Jamz and James Dean are "socially isolated people" and "hermits" because they encouraged me to associate with / be open-minded-about tattoo'ed / pierced individuals. 

 

IF it's the former, then I'm sad that you asked such a question without asking me anything about my personal relationships.  For all you know, I could have much better relationships than you because (or despite that) I don't associate with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals.  Or my relationships could be equally satisfying as yours.  Or they could be worse - but, even then, you'd have to assert that they're worse BECAUSE I don't associate with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals. 

 

 

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

 

IF it's the latter, I don't think "social isolation" and "hermit-ness" propelled Rainbow Jamz and James Dean to make their arguments.  Instead, I think non-curiosity and arrogance propelled them.

 

Rainbow Jamz FIRST accused me of bigotry and THEN asked me about my experiences with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals.  He didn't realize, (and it'd be nice if you helped him realize), that accusing people of "bigotry" isn't an effective way of getting them to open up to you.  If I accused you of "bigotry", wouldn't you be smarter to keep silent than to defend yourself - especially because I'm just a stranger on the internet and not someone you care about?  Rainbow Jamz, apparently, never considered this. 

 

James Dean never asked me questions about my current and past relationships, while saying things like, "So are you saying that you would not benefit from virtuous people in your life? because that is what I'm advocating, that you associate with virtuous people and that virtue has nothing in particular to do with how one looks, dresses, does their hair, or pierces their body."

 

If he were ONLY talking about himself and his relationships, with no expectation that others (or I) follow him, then I'd have no problem with his statement.  But he wants others to follow him WITHOUT ascertaining whether his audience actually has worse relationships. 

 

He doesn't know (and doesn't care!) whether his audience has: (A) BETTER relationships - which would mean that we should ignore his advocacy, (B) EQUAL relationships - which would also make him best-ignored, or © WORSE relationships - which would give him some authority to give advice.  (But, then again, he'd have to assert that he has better relationships BECAUSE he associates with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals.) 

 

Instead, he alludes to his virtuous relationships without providing any details, and alludes to my "non-desire to hang out with virtuous people" without knowing any details about my relationships.  When I asked about his purposes, he stated, "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."  But his unwillingness to explore the relationships of his audience, (and mine in particular), fills his arguments with the unmistakable stench of, "Hey!  You!  The people who I'm trying to convince!  You guys don't matter!  Only people-with-tattoos-and-piercings matter because 'tattooing is a legitimate art form!'." 

 

(Gee, I wonder why he hasn't changed anyone's minds about tattoo'ings and piercings...) 

 

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

 

If it's neither of those, please clarify what you meant. 

[Peaceful Parent]

I don't know whether you're questioning whether I am "a socially isolated person" and a "hermit" because I refuse to associate with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals, or whether you're implying that Rainbow Jamz and James Dean are "socially isolated people" and "hermits" because they encouraged me to associate with / be open-minded-about tattoo'ed / pierced individuals. 

 

Oh no, neither. I'm not asking if any poster here is a hermit, please allow me to clear that up. I was asking a non-personal question, which was: Could a hermit/social isolate use your argument as their main rational for not forming personal relationships?

[MMX2010]

Oh no, neither. I'm not asking if any poster here is a hermit, please allow me to clear that up. I was asking a non-personal question, which was: Could a hermit/social isolate use your argument as their main rational for not forming personal relationships?

 

I dunno.  Why don't you find a hermit / social isolate and ask him?