Tattoos

[Keith&Co.]

the only tattoo I ever even kinda wanted was to get a wedding ring tattooed on my finger. Nothing big or gaudy, just a simple gold metal band around the base.

Problem was, I wasn't motivated by an assertion of unending devotion or fidelity. I was working on the Missile Handling Wharf and sometimes had to attach/detach the grounding strap on a missile being moved. We had a chief who would not casually remind the area workers to remove jewelry before the procedure, or walk down on the wharf to review adherence to the rules. He'd peek out the window from the second floor of the admin office, with binoculars, then throw open the window and use a bullhorn to scream about people wearing watches or rings when reaching into the missile liner.
The idea of teasing him with a ring that could not be made to come off appealed, but after two years of that, what would the purpose of the tattoo be, then?
I mean, I would TELL people, including Mrs. &Co. that it was eternal fidelity, of course, but really I might as well have had that chief's name tattooed on my wrist.

 

[Brian63]

Reviving this thread for a followup question here, potentially a dangerous one:

I am a heterosexual man who is particularly attracted to a woman's breasts, maybe more than other men tend to be. It is already difficult when a woman has a particularly attractive chest and is wearing some very revealing clothes to NOT take an occasional glance. Still, I try to avoid doing so and will even be giving orders to myself in my head of "Brian, look to the side or look at her eyes" or such.

When a woman who has a very attractive chest and is wearing very revealing clothes *ALSO* has tattoos on her chest, do you think that should give more license for others to take a glance at that tattoo, which happens to also be on her chest and so by extension you would be glancing at her cleavage? If a person gets a tattoo on their arm or wears some particular jewelry or other cosmetic item that is meant to draw attention to that part of their body, should they be bothered if other people actually do give some more attention to it than they otherwise would? What if it is on a woman's breasts---should that be treated the same or differently? I still feel guilty for looking at a woman's breasts, even if she has a tattoo or jewelry near them to draw attention, but there is also a conflicting element suggesting that it is not something I should feel guilty about for that precise reason.

For women, how uncomfortable does it make you if you catch someone (usually men) glancing at your cleavage? Do you have any tattoos there or wear necklaces that drop down that far, and do you think that should change what is acceptable or unacceptable from others in how they look at you?

I am a guy with a body type that is not noteworthy in any way, and have no tattoos of any kind, so do not draw any particular attention from anybody. If I did have a bunch of colorful tattoos on my arms though, it seems reasonable that people would eyeball me more (or at least my arms) and it would be unwarranted for me to be offended in any way from them doing that. When a woman gets her breasts tattooed and wears revealing outfits that happen to display them, I do not see any relevant difference.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Jesus fucking christ.

 

[Playball40]

How the hell could you possibly KNOW the purpose of one's tattoo (or jewelry or anything else for that matter) unless it's your own? Do you where a bathing suit? Is it topless? If it is, is it to "draw attention to your chest." And what in the name of all things holy are "revealing clothes"? You have some really messed up ideas on what the motives of others.

Reviving this thread for a followup question here, potentially a dangerous one:

I am a heterosexual man who is particularly attracted to a woman's breasts, maybe more than other men tend to be. It is already difficult when a woman has a particularly attractive chest and is wearing some very revealing clothes to NOT take an occasional glance. Still, I try to avoid doing so and will even be giving orders to myself in my head of "Brian, look to the side or look at her eyes" or such.

When a woman who has a very attractive chest and is wearing very revealing clothes *ALSO* has tattoos on her chest, do you think that should give more license for others to take a glance at that tattoo, which happens to also be on her chest and so by extension you would be glancing at her cleavage? If a person gets a tattoo on their arm or wears some particular jewelry or other cosmetic item that is meant to draw attention to that part of their body, should they be bothered if other people actually do give some more attention to it than they otherwise would? What if it is on a woman's breasts---should that be treated the same or differently? I still feel guilty for looking at a woman's breasts, even if she has a tattoo or jewelry near them to draw attention, but there is also a conflicting element suggesting that it is not something I should feel guilty about for that precise reason.

For women, how uncomfortable does it make you if you catch someone (usually men) glancing at your cleavage? Do you have any tattoos there or wear necklaces that drop down that far, and do you think that should change what is acceptable or unacceptable from others in how they look at you?

I am a guy with a body type that is not noteworthy in any way, and have no tattoos of any kind, so do not draw any particular attention from anybody. If I did have a bunch of colorful tattoos on my arms though, it seems reasonable that people would eyeball me more (or at least my arms) and it would be unwarranted for me to be offended in any way from them doing that. When a woman gets her breasts tattooed and wears revealing outfits that happen to display them, I do not see any relevant difference.

 

[Brian63]

How the hell could you possibly KNOW the purpose of one's tattoo (or jewelry or anything else for that matter) unless it's your own?

Reasonable inference based on history. A man will be more likely to wear a business suit for a job interview to impress potential employers while wearing blue jeans around the house for comfort. A woman would likely wear a glamorous dress for an awards show rather than a sweatshirt and shorts, because that is what the event is partially designed for and what everyone else does. A person can get a tattoo for a variety of reasons such as covering up a surgical scar, or because they think it looks pretty, or to mark some milestone in their life, for instance.

...what in the name of all things holy are "revealing clothes"?

Clothes that are revealing of certain parts of the body. A revealing shirt would be a shirt that reveals a lot of the person's arms and/or upper body. Revealing pants would reveal a lot of their legs. I am not sure why you find the phrase "revealing clothes" so confusing or controversial. If you find my examples unhelpful, you can use google too:

"revealing clothes"

 

[ZiprHead]

the only tattoo I ever even kinda wanted was to get a wedding ring tattooed on my finger. Nothing big or gaudy, just a simple gold metal band around the base.

Problem was, I wasn't motivated by an assertion of unending devotion or fidelity. I was working on the Missile Handling Wharf and sometimes had to attach/detach the grounding strap on a missile being moved. We had a chief who would not casually remind the area workers to remove jewelry before the procedure, or walk down on the wharf to review adherence to the rules. He'd peek out the window from the second floor of the admin office, with binoculars, then throw open the window and use a bullhorn to scream about people wearing watches or rings when reaching into the missile liner.
The idea of teasing him with a ring that could not be made to come off appealed, but after two years of that, what would the purpose of the tattoo be, then?
I mean, I would TELL people, including Mrs. &Co. that it was eternal fidelity, of course, but really I might as well have had that chief's name tattooed on my wrist.

My dad was an electrician. He always said wedding rings are called widow makers by electricians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the only tattoo I ever even kinda wanted was to get a wedding ring tattooed on my finger. Nothing big or gaudy, just a simple gold metal band around the base.

Problem was, I wasn't motivated by an assertion of unending devotion or fidelity. I was working on the Missile Handling Wharf and sometimes had to attach/detach the grounding strap on a missile being moved. We had a chief who would not casually remind the area workers to remove jewelry before the procedure, or walk down on the wharf to review adherence to the rules. He'd peek out the window from the second floor of the admin office, with binoculars, then throw open the window and use a bullhorn to scream about people wearing watches or rings when reaching into the missile liner.
The idea of teasing him with a ring that could not be made to come off appealed, but after two years of that, what would the purpose of the tattoo be, then?
I mean, I would TELL people, including Mrs. &Co. that it was eternal fidelity, of course, but really I might as well have had that chief's name tattooed on my wrist.

You should have gotten a temporary tattoo of a wedding ring.

 

[Keith&Co.]

My dad was an electrician. He always said wedding rings are called widow makers by electricians.

Yeah, the Safety Center loved to publish pictures where someone handling a tool accidentally closed a circuit. There's a lovely one of a Wedding Ring welded to a crescent wrench. They point out that the ring wasn't cut to remove it....

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have a tatoo on my shoulder of the 3 monkeys, except its backwards. A monkey is cupping his eyes trying to see, one is cupping he ears trying to hear, and one is screaming. I get a lot of questions about that tat.

 

[Brian63]

Koy, how about this. In this thread, you can talk all you want on the subject of your tattoos or anyone else's tattoos, and anyone else can join in with posts of their own about that topic. That is what the thread was originally more broadly based on. Later, it focused more on tattoos (and even other cosmetics) placed on certain body parts. If that particular topic does not interest you, then you do not have to make any posts about it at all. Other people can post about that topic, also in this very thread, even if you do not. You can just leave those posts alone and continue on the topic of tattoos in general.

A single thread can have more than 1 topic being discussed at a time, especially when the 2 (or more) subtopics have a link between them. I am completely fine if both of those topics are chatted about in this thread, as they are connected and have implications for each other, and would not be offended or throw a temper tantrum if both are discussed. You are similarly welcome to keep talking about tattoos in general, all you want. Both sub-discussions are on topic in this conglomerate thread, and we can have substantive and civil disagreements that are educational and fun too. Let's leave out the insults and arguing by gifs and smilies and shouting and screaming and hyperbole as well.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your entire post was about exonerating your guilty obsession with staring at women’s breasts. It had nothing whatsoever to do with tattoos, except as they exist to give you an excuse to stare at women’s breasts. You repeatedly referenced the she was asking for it/look at the way she was dressed/it’s not my fault, I simply can’t control myself excuse infamous among rape apologists and, you know, rapists themselves, and actually—openly—blamed the women for your inability to stop staring at their breasts, even so far as to attempt eliciting sympathy for your plight, as well as flat out declaring that it simply isn’t your fault if women are going to wear revealing clothes and jewelry that hangs “down to there” or get tattoos on their chests. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You did this twice, now, after the first time when we did this Silkwood dance and it was finally (rightfully) shunted to elsewhere.

So, I tell you what. In the next post I’ll try an experiment to see if you can understand why I objected both times. Right now, real life intrudes.

 

[funcouple]

Your entire post (twice now; the first time rightfully shunted to elsewhere) was about exonerating your guilty obsession with staring at women’s breasts. It had nothing whatsoever to do with tattoos, except as they exist to give you an excuse to stare at women’s breasts. You repeatedly referenced the she was asking for it/look at the way she was dressed/it’s not my fault, I simply can’t control myself excuse infamous among rape apologists and, you know, rapists themselves, and actually—openly—blamed the women for your inability to stop staring at their breasts, even so far as to attempt eliciting sympathy for your plight, as well as flat out declaring that it simply isn’t your fault if women are going to wear revealing clothes and jelewry that hangs “down to there” or get tattoos on their chests. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You did this twice, now, after the first time when we did this Silkwood dance and it was finally (rightfully) shunted to elsewhere.

So, I tell you what. In the next post I’ll try an experiment to see if you can understand why I objected both times. Right now, real life intrudes.

because my wife has huge tits I have had to get used to other guys enjoying the view.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Reviving this thread for a followup question here, potentially a dangerous one that applies to all of you as human beings on this planet:

I am a heterosexual man who is particularly attracted to your daughter’s breasts, maybe more than other men tend to be. It is already difficult when a woman has a particularly attractive chest and is wearing some very revealing clothes to NOT take an occasional glance, but your daughter in particular has a really spectacular set of breasts. I try to avoid looking at your daughter’s breasts and will even be giving orders to myself in my head of "Koy, look to the side or look at her eyes" or such.

When your daughter is wearing very revealing clothes and *ALSO* has tattoos on her chest, do you think that should give me more license to stare at her breasts? If your daughter gets a tattoo on her arm or wears some particular jewelry or other cosmetic item that is meant to draw attention to that part of her body—not to the tattoo, but to the body part, because people don’t want you to look at the tattoo itself, it’s a signifier—should she be bothered if I give more attention to her her arm than I otherwise would? So, then, if it is on your daughter’s breasts---should that be treated the same or differently, or can I just straight up stare at her tits and use the tattoo as an excuse?

I still feel guilty for looking at your daughter’s breasts, even if she has a tattoo or jewelry near them to draw attention, but there is also a conflicting element suggesting that it is not something I should feel guilty about for that precise reason. She’s asking for it, right?

Do you agree that it’s your daughter’s fault for my behavior?

For the women here, how uncomfortable does it make you if you see me staring at your daughter’s cleavage? Do you have any tattoos there or wear necklaces that drop down that far so I can stare at your breasts, too, and do you think that should change what is acceptable or unacceptable from me in how I look at you? You doing that to me?

I am a guy with a body type that is not noteworthy in any way, and have no tattoos of any kind, so do not draw any particular attention from anybody. I just blend into the background as I stare at you and your daughter’s breasts. If I did have a bunch of colorful tattoos on my arms though, it seems reasonable that people would eyeball me more (or at least my arms; again, NOT the tattoos on my arms, it’s the body part people are wanting me to look at when they get tattoos) and it would be unwarranted for me to be offended in any way from them looking at the tattoos on my arms, so it would likewise be unwarranted for you or your daughter to be offended that I’m staring at your breasts, right?

In fact, if your daughter gets her breasts tattooed and wears revealing outfits that happen to display them, I do not see any relevant difference between someone looking at the tattoos on my arm and me using your daughter’s tattoos as an excuse to stare at her breasts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

because my wife has huge tits I have had to get used to other guys enjoying the view.

“Get used to”?

 

[funcouple]

dupe

As a guy who has a wife and a 19 year old daughter that both have huge tits, and if either one of them is wearing a low cut top, I say you, me or anyone else has the right to look as much as we want, tattoos or not

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

dupe

As a guy who has a wife and a 19 year old daughter that both have huge tits, and if either one of them is wearing a low cut top, I say you, me or anyone else has the right to look as much as we want, tattoos or not

Now it’s a “right”? What happened to “get used to”?

 

[funcouple]

dupe

As a guy who has a wife and a 19 year old daughter that both have huge tits, and if either one of them is wearing a low cut top, I say you, me or anyone else has the right to look as much as we want, tattoos or not

A “right”?

I believe so, if they are in public and showing what they have, it is displayed for anyone to look at.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A “right”?

I believe so, if they are in public and showing what they have, it is displayed for anyone to look at.

“Showing what they have?” “‘Displayed for anyone to look at”? Are you a peacock? Trick question, because it’s the males that display.

You’re a fountain of quotes, I’ll give you that. The difference here, though, is that you’re advocating for your daughter to OPT for putting herself “on display” whereas Brian is evidently arguing that if your daughter were to just wear a necklace, that alone gives him the right to stare at her breasts.

Not at the necklace. That’s just the excuse. At her breasts.

Still feel ok about it?

How about if your daughter is deliberately not wearing a “low cut top” and doesn’t want someone like Brian reducing her to just her breasts, but does like to wear the necklace you bought her for her birthday? Is she on display then, too, when she wears it, or is your necklace—and the love of her Father that it represents it her—the thing she is displaying?

Do people like Brian still have a “right” to use the necklace as an excuse to avoid eye contact and stare at her breasts? I mean, boys will be boys, right? They have no agency or responsibility of their own. She’s asking for it wearing that necklace that hangs the way all necklaces hang.

And clearly the tattoo is just another way she’s forcing people like Brian to obsess over her tits. Because that’s what she is, after all. A huge pair of tits. You got used to it, after all.

It’s not about the tattoo or the necklace or the clothes, all your daughter/wife wants is for people like Brian to think of nothing other than their tits. She doesn’t exist; just her tits do. Right? That’s the only thought that ever goes through her head. Hey world, I’m nothing more than a huge pair of tits and that’s what motivates my every wardrobe choice and jewelry choice and body beatification/expression so it can’t be anyone else’s fault, it’s all mine; all an excuse I give to others that exonerates people who have every right to reduce me to nothing more than my huge tits.

This isn’t your daughter’s choice; this is evidently a self-described fringe obsessive saying that it’s your daughter’s fault for his obsession.

So, is that it, or did you want to talk about tattoos?

 

[funcouple]

A “right”?

I believe so, if they are in public and showing what they have, it is displayed for anyone to look at.

“Showing what they have?” “‘Displayed for anyone to look at”? Are you a peacock? Trick question, because it’s the males that display.

You’re a fountain of quotes, I’ll give you that. The difference here, though, is that you’re advocating for your daughter to OPT for putting herself “on display” whereas Brian is evidently arguing that if your daughter were to just wear a necklace, that alone gives him the right to stare at her breasts.

Not at the necklace. That’s just the excuse. At her breasts.

Still feel ok about it?

How about if your daughter is deliberately not wearing a “low cut top” and doesn’t want someone like Brian reducing her to just her breasts, but does like to wear the necklace you bought her for her birthday? Is she on display then, too, when she wears it, or is your necklace—and the love of her Father that it represents it her—the thing she is displaying?

Do people like Brian still have a “right” to use the necklace as an excuse to avoid eye contact and stare at her breasts? I mean, boys will be boys, right? They have no agency or responsibility of their own. She’s asking for it wearing that necklace that hangs the way all necklaces hang.

And clearly the tattoo is just another way she’s forcing people like Brian to obsess over her tits. Because that’s what she is, after all. A huge pair of tits. You got used to it, after all.

It’s not about the tattoo or the necklace or the clothes, all your daughter/wife wants is for people like Brian to think of nothing other than their tits. She doesn’t exist; just her tits do. Right? That’s the only thought that ever goes through her head. Hey world, I’m nothing more than a huge pair of tits and that’s what motivates my every wardrobe choice and jewelry choice and body beatification/expression so it can’t be anyone else’s fault, it’s all mine; all an excuse I give to others that exonerates people who have every right to reduce me to nothing more than my huge tits.

This isn’t your daughter’s choice; this is evidently a self-described fringe obsessive saying that it’s your daughter’s fault for his obsession.

So, is that it, or did you want to talk about tattoos?

all that I am saying is, if my wife, daughter or and any other woman dressed in a low cut top and exposed ample cleavage in public, they would be fair game for anyone to look at and/or comment however they wanted to. In the same way that if I went completely naked on this thread, my cock would be fair game for anyone to look at and comment about however they wanted.

 

[Brian63]

I am a heterosexual man who is particularly attracted to your daughter’s breasts, maybe more than other men tend to be.

You did not say explicitly, but presumably you mean for the daughter in this scenario to be a young girl. Even every grown woman is also the daughter of some other also-grown parents, so the mere fact that she is a daughter to some other humans is irrelevant. Grown and independent women are not obligated to behave in line with whatever parents tell them to do, they make their own choices. We would not need the permission of their parents or even to speak with them.

In the case of a young girl then, that is actually where you may be onto something. That is where I am still undecided on where to draw a line, or if any line *can* even be drawn. If a coworker of mine who is a heterosexual guy has a particular affinity for nailpolish on females, and I know that and also notice that he takes an extra second to glance at my 10 year old’s nails but have never had any reason to suspect he would do anything beyond that, then that is okay. Even if my 10 year old is wearing bright and colorful nailpolish. If my best friend (a heterosexual male) that I trust a lot is particularly attracted to brunette females over blondes, and my 8 year old daughter happens to have brunette hair, would I tell her that he is off limits from my family? No, because perhaps I know he is also very good at exercising self restraint and he has other aspects of his personality that strongly override his impulse to hump any female with brunette colored hair. Also, simply looking at someone’s hair is a pretty safe and harmless activity in itself. He would not be implying to my daughter that she is “just a piece of” brunette hair. He also appreciates people who are good singers, and if my 8 year old daughter happens to have a good singing voice that he enjoys listening to I would not infer that he thought my daughter’s entire value as a human being was reducible to just that singing voice. If he also had an attraction to breasts and was attracted to my daughter’s breasts, I acknowledge I would be more uncomfortable with that, but the question is whether I would have any good reason to be or not. That may be more of an idiosyncrasy of myself and our culture at large than any kind of flaw in him, when we treat those different traits (nailpolish/hair color/singing voice versus breasts) with such double standards and hypocrisies. At some point we have to lay the responsibility on the parents as well. If they are taking their young children (regardless of gender) to public sidewalks while entirely naked, then they should not be surprised if people at least become distracted by them and look at them for an added moment, regardless of whether they would be attracted to them.

If a heterosexual male friend of yours particularly likes the sound of female singing voices, and your young daughter has a very good singing voice that he enjoys, would you scream and shout at him to back off and stop reducing your daughter’s net worth to being “just a pair of” vocal cords? Maybe you misunderstood what his actual view is…

… whereas Brian is evidently arguing that if your daughter were to just wear a necklace, that alone gives him the right to stare at her breasts.

This is a strawman that you keep repeating again and again, Koy. I have repeatedly referred to my behavior as being more of taking something like an “occasional glance.” Instead of saying my behavior is an occasional glance, you refer to it as a “right to stare” or an “obsession.” It is hard to converse with you in any meaningful way when you so flagrantly and carelessly distort my actual position. Let’s look at probably your worst example of that, when you state:

“…someone like Brian reducing her to just her breasts…”

We have been over that already, and at no point and at no time did you ever successfully cite your source for that. I do not reduce a woman to just her breasts, I am attracted to her breasts. Those are 2 VERY different sentiments. I am also greatly in awe of people who are great public speakers, that does not mean that I think they are reducible to just that single characteristic. I greatly envy people who are very technology-savvy and literate (I am neither), but that does not mean that I think their value as a human being is reducible to just that single characteristic. Out of all the various possible qualities and characteristics of people that I do admire, respect, have admiration for, affinity for, and even attraction for---why do you pick out a woman’s breasts and keep attributing to me that I am reducing their life’s value to just that one, while repeatedly ignoring all the rest?




In the other thread, there was a hypothetical posed to you first which you have yet to address at all, so will be repeated here:


Curious---

Suppose a woman mentions that she finds beards on a guy attractive, moreso than completely shaved necks. Would you then attribute to her the positions that:

She thinks guys are "just a piece of hair" or that she thinks neck hair is "the most important wonderful things in all the land?" Or would you recognize there is a dramatic difference in degrees and kinds between those statements? Perhaps you were being a bit excessive and hyperbolic, and mischaracterizing what her actual view is?



On a more personal note now:

Koy, you have written up several posts in response to me over the course of a couple threads, and normally I would be flattered and appreciate you doing so. However, you are getting a bit creepy and I feel as if you are treating me as if my entire self worth as a human being is reducible to just my opinions on tattoos and breasts. Your aggressive rhetoric has become an obsession of yours, and I am asking that you simply look away from this thread and the other, from this point forward. Do not stare at any of the posts in these thread. Especially do not respond to any of them. That would be so rude of you.

Or maybe you think me writing up posts and submitting them for public display gives you right or license for you to read them, even stare at them, even acknowledge them, even respond to them. That would be ironic though…