I prefer not to see property covered in illegal graffiti, but I must say quite a bit of it is outstanding art. It amazes me how someone can spray paint the correct proportions in a railway yard, on a bridge or any difficult area to access. I enjoy looking at well done graffiti more than walking around the Louvre.
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
In what the sample size of…3? from the esteemed publication… Glamour magazine.
Multiple mentions of a survey, no mentions of how many were in the survey pool, how many responded, demographic information outside of “18-38”, or any other pertienant details.
So cool, a student research paper you allege wrote that is based on Glamour magazine and a unsubstantiated survey. Hope it was worth the Brandeis tuition 🤣
I couldn’t find any scientific studies on tattoos but the Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. Both studies seem to agree; men like women with plain skin. If men only find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and hidden, they prefer women not to have tattoos.
But they’re still allowed to give their opinion and down voting them becayse we disagree is not how this works. I upvote comments that are on topic and invite discussion. This was one, even if I don’t agree. “I don’t agree with you but I will fight so you can be heard” – Descartes (I think)
There’s a time and a place. If I go to a wedding, I’m not gonna walk up to people and start talking about how I don’t care about a piece of paper. I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I agree. Everyone has their own preferences - some are minimalist preferring a “blank canvas” while some prefer a bit more than that. This kind of mentality goes beyond just tattoos, but it feels like a dice roll sometimes on social sites like this.
You disagree with someone being able to get a tattoo? Are you also against crocs because they’re ugly. I would agree i think baddly of croc wearers but i know thats just my stupid hatred for those ugly things. But if i were to voice that opinion, i wouldnt be able to blame others for disagreeing with me. You say an unpopular opinion on the internet, people reply.
Yeah. Real architecture is only built by architects, not artists. So much beauty is lost in this country to spray paint. Real cities like Rome don’t have this problem.
Banksy isn’t graffiti, he’s street art. They’re cousins but there is a difference.
And he’s not that good, he ripped off Blek Le Rat. And he has no respect for his predecessors, going over King Robbo (RIP.) I’ll take a bomber like JA XTC or MQ, or a freight king like Ichabod or Jase over Banksy any day, personally.
I’ve seen good graffiti. They are good artists. On locations such as the walls of a subway station is good, but on a house no. Tattoos on the body no because it’s a blemish on the body.
Off the top of my head the rainbow house by those Baptist nuts with the signs and a picture a kid drew for their parent before they died turned into a tattoo.
Not really. Bodies are not blank canvases. A house is not a blank canvas. The architect designed it a certain way. Think of a woman’s leg. Even hair is a blemish. Much more so tattoos.
“I sit in an empty room with nothing on the walls. No paintings, no posters, not even any light fixtures or furniture. The house is not a canvas for me to decorate.”
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive.Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive, but when humans weren’t as technologically advanced it served a purpose. Perhaps to detect insects crawling on the body. In modern society, that’s not much of a problem.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
According to the article, most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they should be small and hidden. Combined with the article on body hair on women, I conclude that men prefer women with plain skin. It was my hypothesis of blemishes as an explanation, but it could be that men were simply created with this preference.
I don’t get it. Would you say a river has architecture? Would you refer to an empty desert as a blank canvas? There is no architecture for which there was no intent. Also, canvases are artificial or even abstract constructs — of which our body is not. You seem to be anthropomorphizing things to justify and even romanticize your biases. Interesting use of cognitive load, there.
An unblemished human body serves a biological purpose; indication of health. A person with blemishes on the body probably indicates health problems. Although a tattoo is art, the brain interprets it as a blemish. That’s the reason it makes skin less attractive.
A tattoo does not indicate a health problem, but the brain might interpret it as a blemish on the skin which does indicate a health problem. For example, a mole.
if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
I conclude that men prefer plain skin on women. Note that with tattoos on women, men prefer small tattoos in hidden locations.
On the website version of Lemmy you can edit how your name appears and it accepts emojis. I actually forget about it because Voyager ignores those, lol.
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art but ruins the beauty of the original architecture.
That’s nice, dear
Nobody actually asked you though
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art that enhances the beauty of the otherwise plain architecture.
I prefer not to see property covered in illegal graffiti, but I must say quite a bit of it is outstanding art. It amazes me how someone can spray paint the correct proportions in a railway yard, on a bridge or any difficult area to access. I enjoy looking at well done graffiti more than walking around the Louvre.
In the human body plain indicates health. Blemishes such as moles or spider veins indicate poor health. The brain interprets tattoos as a blemish.
No, your brain interprets that. I do not.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
You started out stupid, and then got worse
You will die alone and lonely.
Well they obviously didn’t ask me, I love my women bushy. Or ask anyone from before the 70’s.
And just for good measure, YOURE A MISOGYNISTIC ASSHOLE.
The Brandeis study said 95.2% of men preferred hairless women not 100%.
Only a truly blemish-free brain could have come up with this brilliant take. Not so much as a wrinkle on that surface.
In what the sample size of…3? from the esteemed publication… Glamour magazine.
Multiple mentions of a survey, no mentions of how many were in the survey pool, how many responded, demographic information outside of “18-38”, or any other pertienant details.
So cool, a student research paper you allege wrote that is based on Glamour magazine and a unsubstantiated survey. Hope it was worth the Brandeis tuition 🤣
I couldn’t find any scientific studies on tattoos but the Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. Both studies seem to agree; men like women with plain skin. If men only find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and hidden, they prefer women not to have tattoos.
Stop speaking for all men. There are tons of guys that love tattoos on themselves, on their friends, and on their lover.
I have never thought about it that way. Thanks for a explanation why some people may not like tattoos.
Thankfully, none of the people who get tattoos give a shit what you think ☺️
But they’re still allowed to give their opinion and down voting them becayse we disagree is not how this works. I upvote comments that are on topic and invite discussion. This was one, even if I don’t agree. “I don’t agree with you but I will fight so you can be heard” – Descartes (I think)
There’s a time and a place. If I go to a wedding, I’m not gonna walk up to people and start talking about how I don’t care about a piece of paper. I feel like this is one of those cases where “if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all” should apply.
I agree. Everyone has their own preferences - some are minimalist preferring a “blank canvas” while some prefer a bit more than that. This kind of mentality goes beyond just tattoos, but it feels like a dice roll sometimes on social sites like this.
You disagree with someone being able to get a tattoo? Are you also against crocs because they’re ugly. I would agree i think baddly of croc wearers but i know thats just my stupid hatred for those ugly things. But if i were to voice that opinion, i wouldnt be able to blame others for disagreeing with me. You say an unpopular opinion on the internet, people reply.
Quite the hypothesis. How’s it playing out
Yeah. Real architecture is only built by architects, not artists. So much beauty is lost in this country to spray paint. Real cities like Rome don’t have this problem.
Poe’s Law from the top rope.
Why would you say Rome specifically you third Reich wanna be 😂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti
I pity you having never seen good graffiti. Banksy weeps😭
Banksy isn’t graffiti, he’s street art. They’re cousins but there is a difference.
And he’s not that good, he ripped off Blek Le Rat. And he has no respect for his predecessors, going over King Robbo (RIP.) I’ll take a bomber like JA XTC or MQ, or a freight king like Ichabod or Jase over Banksy any day, personally.
Insert XKCD expert overestimating the specific knowledge of the public here… Quartz
No I know most people don’t know, this is the “expert” (not that expert but in context) informing. Wasn’t trying to be a dick.
I’ve seen good graffiti. They are good artists. On locations such as the walls of a subway station is good, but on a house no. Tattoos on the body no because it’s a blemish on the body.
Off the top of my head the rainbow house by those Baptist nuts with the signs and a picture a kid drew for their parent before they died turned into a tattoo.
Your purism needs to be rethought
I think it’s more like our bodies are blank canvases. They need some color and embellishing to really accent what’s already there
Not really. Bodies are not blank canvases. A house is not a blank canvas. The architect designed it a certain way. Think of a woman’s leg. Even hair is a blemish. Much more so tattoos.
“I sit in an empty room with nothing on the walls. No paintings, no posters, not even any light fixtures or furniture. The house is not a canvas for me to decorate.”
Would a painting be attractive on the outside of a house?
deleted by creator
Yes. See every mural ever.
Oh it’s a rage bait account. I get it.
Not wrong, scrolling through their post history is watching someone beg for down votes and general internet ire.
The so-called architect put those hairs there, you moron.
Depends on where the hair is located. Do you like women with hairy legs or hair under the armpits.?
Yes
I honestly couldn’t give a fuck. If you wanna shave have at it, but if you are more comfortable without shaving, more power to ya.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive. Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive, but when humans weren’t as technologically advanced it served a purpose. Perhaps to detect insects crawling on the body. In modern society, that’s not much of a problem.
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
According to the article, most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they should be small and hidden. Combined with the article on body hair on women, I conclude that men prefer women with plain skin. It was my hypothesis of blemishes as an explanation, but it could be that men were simply created with this preference.
Hair is a blemish? You’re out of your goddamn mind
deleted by creator
Really? Do you like women with hairy legs or hair under the armpits?
So you want natural skin, but no natural hair growth?
Hair on a woman legs and armpits are not attractive.
I hope you shave of all of your body hair because it is disgusting on men
Well maybe when one day when you get to enjoy a woman you won’t mind so much.
I don’t get it. Would you say a river has architecture? Would you refer to an empty desert as a blank canvas? There is no architecture for which there was no intent. Also, canvases are artificial or even abstract constructs — of which our body is not. You seem to be anthropomorphizing things to justify and even romanticize your biases. Interesting use of cognitive load, there.
What’s ironic is that tattoos introduce intent to the matter, thereby providing something to romanticize.
An unblemished human body serves a biological purpose; indication of health. A person with blemishes on the body probably indicates health problems. Although a tattoo is art, the brain interprets it as a blemish. That’s the reason it makes skin less attractive.
A tattoo does not indicate health problems. I don’t know where you got this idea, but your idea is wrong.
A tattoo does not indicate a health problem, but the brain might interpret it as a blemish on the skin which does indicate a health problem. For example, a mole.
if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
I conclude that men prefer plain skin on women. Note that with tattoos on women, men prefer small tattoos in hidden locations.
I suggest you attempt to fix your brain: it clearly malfunctions and this may indicate health problems.
Wow! Wrong about both tattoos and graffiti. A two-fer
Tell that to my Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy tattoo, a massive improvement to previously boring skin.
I boo in your general direction.
Unrelated to the shithead you’re replying to, but how did you make it so your username appears in such a large typeface?
On the website version of Lemmy you can edit how your name appears and it accepts emojis. I actually forget about it because Voyager ignores those, lol.
Thanks!
Gross, like straight up ewww
Majority of responses like this are straight up hypocrisy.
I agree. It’s often a red flag of emotional problems as well. Not always, but in my experience, often enough to be reliable.
Wooowwww… This is an insane generalised judgement.
It’s a good starting point, backed up from repeated interactions. They can prove me wrong, or more often, prove me right.
You’re going to die alone and lonely