Why women get tattooed

In general female behavior is not explicable in terms of rational pursuit of goals, but as innate reactions to stimuli, at least in anything pertaining to sex and reproduction.

And most things do pertain to sex and reproduction, at least until they hit menopause.

Thus, to explain a female’s behavior, one does not ask “what do woman want” but rather “how would this reaction to stimuli have affected reproductive success in the ancestral environment?”

It is obvious and well known that tattoos uglify women, which has a direct and substantial harmful effect on their lives and reproductive success. So, why?

Well, I can report the reason in one case. The one women where I was around when she made the decision to get tattoos initially wanted to get tattooed as a shit test. Her motivation was to test if I was strong enough to stop her from doing stupid self destructive things. Which I was. And then eventually I dumped her. After I dumped her she proceeded to do a pile of stupid self destructive things while somehow going to considerable lengths to involve me in them. The message being “see, without you to care for me and protect me from myself, I will do stupid self destructive things.”

Well, that is one case, and maybe it does not generalize, but this is the case where I know the reason why a woman got tattooed.

147 Responses to “Why women get tattooed”

  1. Bedrich says:

    I once spent some time with a very sweet and pretty young whore, somewhere in Australia.
    I asked her why she didn’t have any tattoos, and she said, “Oh, no, my dad would kill me!”

  2. […] Why women get tattooed. […]

  3. Mr Curious says:

    Women have tattoos because they are easily brainwashed by the MSM. Men are more in direct contact with reality, so cannot be persuaded that a tattoo on a woman is anything other than an eyesore. I once had a girl tell me she was thinking of getting dreadlocks. I didn’t bother to argue, as if she’s that dumb… pearl swine etc…

  4. Father Thyme says:

    Jim, you say you want to revive a narrow historical period of Christianity that heavily relies on European traditions and consistently ignores the poisonous Jewbook (((the Bible))), back in the day that the European leadership was careful to keep hidden from the people because it is so damn poisonous to European culture.

    Fine, I’ll go along with you, if you can first demonstrate how to get eliminate the Bible from millions of homes, and get that poisonous Jewbook back out of print.

    But if you can’t eliminate the Bible, people are always going to be able to read this sort of poison that is destroying Europe:

    “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

    That Biblical Christianity is alive and well in Europe today, and is being practices by Merkel, a Christian Democrat, daughter of a Lutheran minister, and member of the Evangelical Church of Berlin.

    If you can destroy all remnants of the Bible, you might be able to fulfill your fantasy of going back in time to when the Bible wasn’t allowed to be seen by anybody.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Reminder that secular individuals talk endlessly about religion because it makes them feels conversationally nimble, committing blasphemy in areas where others have loyalty, but where they have none.

    • Father Thyme says:

      Funny seeing a Kike wannabee like you speak of loyalty. The soil I was born on is sacred. You, however, call a distant foreign Skype homeland “holy” and have arranged your whole life around your desire to live in a fantastical Jewish capital city with pearly gates.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        That’s right, conversationally nimble when you commit blashpemy in areas where others have loyalty, but where you have none, F.T.

        “Father”, you are drooling on your keyboard!


        • Father Thyme says:

          That’s right, I’m not loyal to Jews/Jerusalem/Rabbis; however, you are. Thus, you are a race traitor. I’m loyal only to my own blood and soil.

          If this be “blasphemy,” make the most of it, Kike-wannabee.

    • Samson J. says:

      “Secular” (I do put that in quotes) individuals talk about religion, indeed CANNOT stop talking about it, because they cannot stop thinking about it, because of the God-shaped hole in the human heart, and because they cannot escape the constant gnawing guilt. Everyone “secular” I’ve ever observed, who could nonetheless hardly restrain themselves from talking incessantly about religion, ended up sooner or later revealing that the issue was eating them up.

      • Father Thyme says:

        Funny thing, “Jews First” (Romans 1:16 KJV) cult fanatics can’t stop talking about their religion, then get all butt-hurt when somebody replies.

        And, I’m not “secular.” That’s just another lie from the Jews First cultists.

        Try refraining from bringing up your Jew First cult in one of Jim’s threads. Watch, nobody else will bring it up either.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Whatever…The air needed to be cleared, so I cleared it. Don’t suck out all the oxygen, mister…


        • Father Thyme says:

          Actually, you could clear the air by explaining how your “Jews First!” (Romans 1:16) cult of personal status-whoring for a slot in new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2), a foreign capital city of a foreign people, is going to save the White race. Sounds like a race-traitor’s scam to me. Why don’t you want to think of soil where White people tread as Holy Land?

  6. Samson J. says:

    I had a conversation not long ago with a young woman who has multiple tattoos. I mentioned in passing that a major reason men get tattoos is because they feel a sense of inferiority and want a way to signal “toughness”. She seemed genuinely surprised by this idea, that this might possibly be the reason anyone would get a tattoo.

    • peppermint says:

      It was the sense of inferiority part you twat. A gun owning woman would be surprised if you tell her gun owning men feel inferior too. You insulted her men. Try not insulting people if you want them to saythings that surprise you.

      • Samson J. says:

        Well, I didn’t literally use the word “inferiority”, and I did say it was the reason SOME men get them. But you’re likely right. I just took it as a shocking illustration of woman’s inability to see what’s in front of her.

  7. Father Thyme says:

    Straighten her out with a faϟhitude adjustment. Kevin MacDonald, of “Culture of Critique” fame, addresses such Critical theory (Frankfurt School) thought. Desert Skypes don’t have the capacity to understand European’s emotional attachment (love) to partners, thus they mock it as a fetish.

    “Thus far one might suppose that the creation of the individualistic nuclear family based on consent and love, monogamy, and the decline in the importance of extended kinship is simply the result of the social processes I have mentioned. But the fact is that these changes occurred much more quickly and much more thoroughly than in other parts of the world. The Western world remains the only culture area fundamentally characterized by all of the markers of individualism: Monogamy, the conjugal nuclear family, representative government with individual rights against the state, moral universalism, and science.” http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm

    It’s not a fetish; it’s how we Whites evolved in the northern European climate, especially the Ice Ages.

  8. peppermint says:

    my gf says that normal sex is BDSM fetish, that getting aroused by the thought of having children with your partner is a fetish, and that feeling emotionally attached to your partner is a fetish.

    \..|../..Aryan defender has detected a programme
    .\o/….that could harm your system.
    ………[Accept White genocide]…[[࿕Uninstall skypes]]

  9. JRM says:

    One thing we haven’t addressed is the “subject” of the tattoo.

    I know many will say “It doesn’t matter, they are all unattractive”.

    But in spite of what McLuhan might say, the content issue might be instructive to the “whys” of the medium question.

    What subject matter predominates in the tattoos women get? My first guess is animals (we’ll include insects too, the ever=popular butterfly)…maybe followed these days by some kind of “inspirational” quote.

    The popularity of animals might suggest a need to reunite with nature, in response to urban alienation. (Actually the affinity women show for “nature” is something that runs deep, and the New Age books are full of woman as nature; even 19th century sociology held that women were anti-civilization, atavistic agents for de-evolution. But I digress).

    Are these animals “spirit helpers”? Other tattoo subjects might be analyzed to see if there may be some potent symbolic content appealing to feminine emotions. I suppose there’s an age-defying aspect as well; the person may grow old the tattoo remains the same (sort of, allowing for wrinkles).

    Male tattoos are probably going to lean to geometric neo-tribal designs and images of power. I’m not a fan of tattoos for either sex, but the males bother me less; perhaps b/c I don’t see any loss in marking up a male body, but a female body marked up is a loss of beauty. Men are more made up of their character than their looks, so the tats aren’t critical.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      The most tattoos i see in a day is when im watching mma or sub grappling. Getting tattoos as a fighter is stupid since its damages your bodies ability to sweat. Guys with full body tattoos often develop jaundice later in life because the skin is one of the biggest avenues the body uses for the elimination of waste.

      I have a running theory, based on long anecdotal observations, that for various reasons, guys who get lots of tattoos don’t become champions. The only major exception to this theory right now is Connor MacGregor, but even he ran into some trouble lately against Nate Diaz.

      If you don’t know anything else about two guys going into the fight, bet on the one with less tattoos.

      • JRM says:

        “Getting tattoos as a fighter is stupid ”

        I agree, but I suspect in the world of boxers and other fighters there may be a psychological element of getting tattoos that accentuate the musculature and/or strike apprehension into the opponent, much like Samurai masks made a frightful appearance.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          I think if anything, the psychological aspects indicated by tattoos is another reason to bet against them.

      • peppermint says:

        — its damages your bodies ability to sweat

        Does that mean some strategic face tats can keep sweat out of the eyes?

        It could also mess up the lines and confuse an opponent like how some bugs look like they have eyes where they don’t.

      • Zach says:

        Since 1993 MMA is still the only sport I watch. I think of it as a natural sport, like a natural right. I cleared wrestling rooms at the drop of a hat. So was attracted to it without much effort.

  10. gustavoman says:

    In my experience, the smart women got small, inconspicuous tats during their late teens/early twenties for one reason only; “everybodys doing it”. I’ve called them out about it, and they’re usually pretty honest saying “Yeah, I was young. Not the best idea”. The women who get tats all over their bodies are another story. These women have been slutty, self-serving, and broken. All have daddy issues. So one group does it to fit in and another does it to stand out (although unoriginal).

  11. Alan J. Perrick says:


    You should answer the age-old question of whether women have souls.


    • Father Thyme says:

      If possession of a supernatural “soul” is carried on the Y chromosome, then did your magical Haploid Savior have one, since that Jewish Cuckspawn wasn’t fertilized by a Y chromosome carrier?

      • Alan J. Perrick says:



        • Father Thyme says:


          “Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against ‘race:’ the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.” -Friedrich Nietzsche (Twilight of the Idols, Chap. 6)

          Cuckianity is nothing but the original “Low-Lifes Matter!” movement.

    • jim says:

      I don’t know if anyone has souls, and if people do, I am pretty sure dogs and cats do also.

      But I do know the answer to the age old question “What do women want?” And it is not pretty.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        I don’t believe you, “Jim”, because it doesn’t seem at all likely that you would use the word _repent_ as you did in your Aug. 14th blogpost to refer to any possible activity of any four-legged furry friends…

        That blogpost was about what women want, so you could say that the latest perspective, _women_don’t_have_motives,_they_have_reactions_to_stimulus_, you’re presenting is, well… a bit rocky.

        Best regards,


        • Father Thyme says:

          You use “repent” as if it has only supernatural connotations regarding a Magic Kike.

          Today I repented of, i.e., turned from, not greasing a plugged zerk, because such neglect was turning into a sin, i.e., a failure. I bought a new grease zerk at the hardware store and installed it, greased the joint, and it doesn’t squeak any more. Oh the sweet sound and glorious scent of oil and steel!

          No meddlesome Skype required.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        No, that word is from the September 14th post, but they’re both about what you believe women are after.

        • jim says:

          I have never used the word “repent” in reference to women, and do not believe women are capable of repentance.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            That is different from what you wrote here:

            “If you are a woman approaching thirty, and you are nagging your husband, bitching at him, interrupting him, speaking disrespectfully of him, or refusing him sex: Repent now.”



            • jim says:

              1. That is not the date you originally named, which why I could not find it.

              2. Not expecting the call to repentance to be heeded. It is rhetorical.

              3. In the same post I state:

              Women inherently lack agency, and really bad decisions just keep “just happening”.

              which clearly implies I doubt their capacity to repent.

              • Alan J. Perrick says:

                I initially looked up those pages because I knew you had (recently) written in them what you believed women wanted: vampire. The issue with repentance would have been a more clear-cut way to say that your position is getting more unclear. The other way to say that is that in those two posts, “Jim”, you wrote about what it is when women “get their way” and also what they “want”, but now you’re writing about stimulus that is effective, and that seems to be going in too much of a way that is overly systematised and too cumbersome to apply for others.

                Personally, I dislike behaviourist psychology, and think it’s overly reliant on a moribund and bureaucratic state. But maybe you’re thinking about something else…

                • jim says:

                  Everything is unclear to those who stubbornly refuse to understand. Your crimestop is adversely affecting basic reading comprehension.

                  Women do not get what they want partly because they do not know or understand what they want, and partly because they react to stimuli with responses that in the ancestral environment tended to bring them reproductive success regardless of what they thought that they wanted.

                  Women are not moral agents in the way that men are moral agents. Men pursue goals, women react to stimuli. “Doing X will have bad consequences for you and doing Y will have good consequences for you” is the kind of argument you would use to persuade a man to stop doing X and start doing Y. Such arguments are not effective on women, nor is it useful to explain female behavior in terms of the rational pursuit of reasonable goals. Homo economicus is a man, though he may well supervise a female assistant or secretary.

                • Alan J. Perrick says:


                  I’m much more useful to my people than you are, but in a way I do appreciate your efforts, “Jim”.

                  Best regards,


                • Father Thyme says:

                  “my people”

                  Skypes and “Skypes First!” (Romans 1:16) wannabees who consider distant foreign soil as “Holy Land” and want to live in the Skype’s national capital forever.

                  Why can’t you consider your own native soil holy?

                  We are not Your Kind of People

                • Alan J. Perrick says:

                  “Father Thyme”,

                  You’re drooling on your keyboard.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “and do not believe women are capable of repentance.”

                  Then you are circumventing God’s will.

                  Remember that prophets, apostles, and Jesus all preached and taught repentance to the followers of Christ, both men and women, and believed both sexes had equal capacity in their minds and hearts, to bear witness to and change the error of their ways. That is, Christian men and women had an equal ability using reason and emotion to seek forgiveness, to atone for their sins. If one hears and believe’s God’s will, if one acknowledges sin, if one is sorry for their sins, they are able to repent. Repentance is a decision to change. After receiving forgiveness, one must follow through and make the changes he decided to make.

                  You assume, wrongly once again, that women lack agency. It is quite annoying that you promote something that is observably false.

                  Repentance includes turning away from sin and turning to God for forgiveness. It is motivated by love for God and the sincere desire to obey His commandments. Clearly, you are not abiding by the will or word of God.

                  “Women do not get what they want partly because they do not know or understand what they want…”

                  This ground has been covered before. God gave men and women the ability to think and reason, in His image. Females pursue goals and have aspirations. Those objectives and motivations may be different from men, but when it comes to articulating what they want and how to get it, women clearly demonstrate an ability to inform men their intentions. To state otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding in human nature. Then again, it’s not surprising that you have been utterly brainwashed to think in this manner.

                • jim says:

                  Women are “saved through childbearing” – which I don’t think literally means childbearing, but rather childbearing is a synecdoche for the burdens of the female role.

                  Women are saved by acting like good women, not by acting like good men. They repent to their husbands and fathers, not to Jesus.

                  You really have to torture the text to read equivalence between males and females into the gospels. It is clear that salvation for women does not work the same way as salvation for men.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  Drooling? It seems that you’re projecting, if the (((Apostle Paul))) is correct when he wrote:

                  “Not many of you were wise by human standards.” -One Corinthians one

                  I believe that part, with you being one of the best examples of the average intellect in your “Low Lifes Matter!” movement.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  You really have to ignore the following text to deny equivalence between males and females in the Bible.

                  “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” — Galatians 3:28

                  My suggestion is that you take a razor to the Bible and cut out all the passages that you find disagreeable. It’s been done before, and that heavily redacted version—sans Galatians 3:28—has been given to new Senators in the US Congress since 1904. A slice of Tradition!

                • jim says:

                  Plenty of stuff in the Bible that says the direct opposite.

                  “There is neither slave nor free”, which is immediately followed by the following clarification:

                  18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

                  19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

                  20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

                  21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

                  22 Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

                  23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;

                  And similarly Ephesians 6:
                  5 Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

                  6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

                  7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

                  8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Women are “saved through childbearing” – which I don’t think literally means childbearing”

                  So, you really have little clue.

                  “but rather childbearing is a synecdoche for the burdens of the female role.”

                  Citations? Where specifically does God grant salvation to only Christian women who wholeheartedly assume this particular burden you state?

                  Genuine repentance involves heartfelt sorrow before God for our sins and prompt action to correct them. The reason that there is hope is because God is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7) for His entire flock, man or woman.

                  God is always ready to forgive and restore the repentant sinner, man or woman, since the thought of repentance opens a door of hope to those who are suffering the consequences of their sins.

                  “Women are saved by acting like good women, not by acting like good men. They repent to their husbands and fathers, not to Jesus.”

                  Corrected by accuracy –> Women are saved by acting like good Christians. They repent to themselves, those they “harmed”, to their priest/minister, but most important, to God, who will grant forgiveness if they are truly sorry for their misdeeds.

                  “It is clear that salvation for women does not work the same way as salvation for men.”

                  Salvation works the same for all Christian men and women who embrace the word of God.

                • jim says:

                  If that is God’s plan for women’s salvation, not many women in heaven.

                  As Paul says, they are the weaker vessel. Their minds do not work like that.

                  But for women, according to the New Testament, there is another way:

                  1 Timothy 2:9
                  9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
                  10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
                  11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
                  12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
                  13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
                  14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
                  15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

                  The command is to submit, not repent, which command more easily suits a woman’s nature.

                  If God was to provide salvation to women on the same basis as to men, it would necessarily be terribly unfair to one kind or the other.

                • Koanic says:

                  Deep, Jim.

                  You’re my favorite non-Christian pastor.

                • Corvinus says:

                  Koanic, it’s deep alright. Deep in shit.

                  “If that is God’s plan for women’s salvation, not many women in heaven.”

                  God’s plan is for salvation for ALL of his followers, men and women.

                  Timothy 2:9 directs Christian women that their place in public worship was one of quiet attention, i.e. wearing something that would NOT rouse attention, or distract the thoughts of other during worship. This demonstrates the inward feelings with which the Apostles desire the devout Christian women to come to divine service. They REMAIN part of the flock. They receive counsel and guidance…and are given the opportunity to repent before the Lord.

                • jim says:

                  Says “saved through childbearing”, which in context means performing the humble and submissive feminine role. Does not say saved through repentance.

                  Repentance is too hard for women “It just happened”. Submission is relatively easy for women.

                • jim says:

                  You are contradicting the plain words of the bible, and the actual practice of the communion of saints, which is that the role of women in Christianity is fundamentally and radically different from the role of men.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Says “saved through childbearing”, which in context means performing the humble and submissive feminine role. Does not say saved through repentance.”

                  I offered the relevant Biblical citations. I can’t help it that you are a contortionist of the Good Book.

                  “Repentance is too hard for women “It just happened”.”

                  It’s actually easy. The Lord enables his flock, men and women, the ability to submit to His truth and repent in His name. Women attend confession. They state clearly their transgressions; they express sincere regret or remorse about their wrongdoing or sin. A priest forgives them. The women through her individual actions demonstrates her regret or remorse by engaging in actions other than those she honestly reported. God knows, NOT YOU, in Her heart to what extent is that regret or remorse sincere and to what extent is her conduct becoming of a person worthy to receive His gifts.

                  “You are contradicting the plain words of the bible, and the actual practice o”f the communion of saints, which is that the role of women in Christianity is fundamentally and radically different from the role of men.”

                  I would look carefully in the mirror before you make this accusation. You are well known for your contradictions and tortured logic involving the Good Book. Do you repent for your sins? Do you seek forgiveness for your transgressions?

                • jim says:

                  “Says “saved through childbearing”, which in context means performing the humble and submissive feminine role. Does not say saved through repentance.”

                  I offered the relevant Biblical citations. I can’t help it that you are a contortionist of the Good Book.

                  Until the twenty first century, scarcely anyone that called themselves Christian interpreted those citations the way you do, and even today people that interpret them that way are generally people who hate and fear Christianity, and demonize Christians.

                  Very recently existent Christianity was unimaginably right wing by today’s standards.

                • peppermint says:

                  whatever comes next will have to explain how things got the way they are now. You can blame the skypes for everything, or blandly say signaling, but in a world that has muds, cuckstainty is a suicidal religion to have, and it will be much more difficult to wipe out all the muds than to tell the truth about humanity.

                  Which is that we are animals, not souls.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but we can handle this, young earth creationism, the way the disciples handled the flat earth references in the old Testament. For the intellectuals, yes, the disciples said yes, the earth is round, and references to the contrary in the old testament are allegory and religious metaphor. For the intellectuals, we say that we are descended from killer apes, and not much changed from the original killer ape, and the story of Adam and the fall is metaphor and allegory about our evolved killer ape nature.

                  Progressives are young earth creationist from the neck up We are not young earth creationist. And we don’t have to be. The disciples quietly dumped flat earthism. We can quietly dump young earth creationism.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Until the twenty first century, scarcely anyone that called themselves Christian interpreted those citations the way you do, and even today people that interpret them that way are generally people who hate and fear Christianity, and demonize Christians.”

                  Jim, you don’t know if you are coming or going. Jesus was eminently clear from the get-go that His flock would receive eternal life for repenting for one’s sin–men and women–given that He died for them.

                  The greater sinner a man/woman had been, the greater love the man/woman ought to show to Him when his/her sins were pardoned. Sin is a debt; and men/women as sinners, are debtors to Almighty God.

                  God is ready to forgive; and his Son having purchased pardon for those who believe in him–man and woman–his gospel promises it to them, and his Spirit seals it to repenting sinners, men and women, and gives them the comfort.

          • JRM says:

            @jim: “I have never used the word “repent” in reference to women, and do not believe women are capable of repentance.”

            They are however, capable of regret and unhappiness. But it’s the same kind of regret one feels if a thunderstorm spoils your picnic plans. In other words, it is devoid of the self-lacerations men feel for a bad decision, b/c men acknowledge their responsibilities, women only experience outcomes.

            Women are perfectly capable of ruining two or three (or a half-dozen) people’s happiness, and then sit in the ruins wondering why so many bad things have befallen *them*. It’s certainly not her fault…

            The man, on the other hand, will endlessly play back the mental footage of the train wreck, looking for the moments when he should have done something different. This is the essence of repentance.

            Few women have ever felt it, compared to the multitude of women who wonder why “everyone gets mad at them sometimes”.

      • ron says:

        what is the answer then? What do you think they want?

  12. Zach says:

    Always got a “oh, she must be fucked up, or abused or something”… vibe with tattooed chicks.

    • jim says:

      I think it is more likely abusing than abused. If actually abused, wants to be maximally attractive. If abusing, likely to uglify herself to challenge her man to stop her.

      Men have an instinctive tendency to see women as victims in need of rescuing, but even in a viking type conquest type society where women are absolutely property, this is unlikely as Spandrel will tell you. Even if the law gives women very little power, nature gives them so much.

      We see female victims everywhere for the same reason we see tigers everywhere – if a man sees a victim, and she is not a victim, he loses little. If he fails to see a victim where she is a victim, he misses a reproductive opportunity.

      • Koanic says:

        The easiest way to find a victim is to make one.

      • Zach says:


        When choosing the wife, if I saw one hint of pleb, it would never have happened. Stupid, retarded low life’s are vile putrid filth to me, even if they need protecting or seem to need to be protected.

        I have, many times, needed to do mans work when some ape in a bar thought they needed to come to the defense of some chick I’m with that needed a talking to by me. Nothing sets me off quicker, than another man trying to white knight a chick when they have no business, reason, or knowledge of the situation.

        So, I am then forced to set not one person straight, but sometimes more.

        But tats horrify me.

        • Father Thyme says:

          >> another man trying to white knight a chick

          Did any of the White Knights ever say “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” and then stoop to write on the ground? He could have been that Magic Jew trying to set you straight, Zach. 🙂

  13. Ben Gunn says:

    The best answer comes from another commenter on another blog. They are imitating the behavior of men they wish to attract.

  14. Javier says:

    Follow the leader. When the “cool girls” get tattoos, all girls get tattoos.

  15. Another angle to this. There is an assumption amongst moderns that we start with nothing and then we make of ourselves something according to our own free will and choices. In this view, the body in its natural state carries no meaning, but is something like a blank canvas, upon which we can make meaning by drawing or writing things that express something about our lives or aspirations. If, on the other hand, you believe that the human body already carries a significance of its own, then you’re less likely to overwrite this via visually distracting tattoos.

  16. Anal Rape Parade says:

    Similar story: I was dating a girl who told me she wanted to get a “COEXIST” tattoo. I told her I wouldn’t marry a girl with a tattoo. She did it anyway, so I broke up with her. She later admitted that she wanted to see if I would fight to stop her from doing it.

    She’s still unmarried.

  17. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Women want security, and the only way they are smart enough to attempt to get that is by endlessly teasing and testing those around them until they are as close to power as they can get. Power is how things happen, so if power is familiar with you and you haven’t been destroyed yet, the chance is that power has adopted you and will sustain you.

    This isn’t always a bad direction to go, to repent, to change oneself towards an orientation to legitimate authority. But it is in the destructive tendency of a short term view that women make the mistake that makes them, in the longer term, helpless.

    Such a short-term orientation towards power is the essence of Humanistic philosophy. It is anti-nomian.


    • Father Thyme says:

      Said the white trash who thinks holy land is a distant foreign soil and fulfillment is yearning to live the Jew capital for eternity. Marking yourself with the “Jews First!” (Romans 1:16 KJV) religion is like getting a tramp stamp.

  18. epimetheus says:

    From my life: when tattooed girls have talked about their history, they mentioned lesbianism, threesomes both ways, and group sex.

    one example was a blonde hottie with masculine aspirations. it first began with typical freshman sluttiness one at a tme etc. then, numerous small earrings on the upper half of each earlobe. perhaps one year later, id heard her and her boyfrend had swapped with another fwb “couple”. then within maybe a month she had chopped her hair lesbo style,followed immediately by a massive tattoo down the length of one ribcage.

    my interpretation is self hatred escalating into self destruction. or a girl maxes out her hedonic treadmill and advertizes sluttiness to draw in demon lovers deluxe.

  19. JRM says:

    I feel like we’re kind of brainstorming here, as a group. Jim’s post even said “here’s ONE example…”

    Let me throw another possibility out there…

    We know women are essentially helpless in the face of hormonal urges. Logic and reason, when applied, are after the fact and mostly guess work or con jobs.

    These women nowadays….they seem to have a LOT of testosterone. Whether it’s from man-made materials in the atmosphere or by oral administration by a passing male, they’re carrying a lot of it around.

    So, the appeal of being a hard-ass rebel isn’t limited to men anymore. Women are under the sway of male hormones in large doses.

    The next time you find yourself in a public area with a good traffic volume of the current female population, watch how they walk. The walk is getting more and more masculine. I remember a time when lots of women were naturally graceful, and some were even delicate. They seem to be a dying breed. Many women now stomp around like construction workers.

    I would like to know the correlation between the stompers and the tattooed.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:


      “I feel like we’re kind of brainstorming here, as a group….”

      Sometimes, it seems like this blogger wants me to reinterpret the worldview of the Rev Rushdoony into topical application. There are moments when I believe that I should spend more time writing at my own blog, but writing this way gives me more prompts or encouragement.

      Best regards,


    • Cavalier says:

      If it were just the feminization of men, chemicals in the breathing air and the drinking water might make sense.

      If it were just the masculinization of women, chemicals in the breathing air and the drinking water might make sense.

      But the two together make me lend credence to Jim’s hypothesis of metaphorical chemicals in the metaphorical breathing air and the metaphorical drinking water.

  20. Joe says:

    “Why do women get tatoos?” raises the larger question of why so much of Western civilization has become so decadent in the last 60 years. As we all know, it’s a lot more than women getting tatoos. It’s the decline in the way people dress in public, the amount of swearing, the vulgarity of movies and television and music, the decline of sportsmanship in the sports world, the grostequeness of modern art, miscegenation, and on and on.

    Women now frequently behave the way the stereotypical longshoreman or sailor behaved sixty years ago, and maybe worse. Tatoos, fatness, dressing like trash, filthy mouths, and casual promiscuity.

    Something happened to the civilization, and women getting tatoos are just one manifestation of the general degeneration. Women are creatures of fashion and social norms and if the social norms go to shit then women will follow them right down into the cesspool if that’s what everyone else is doing.

    • Father Thyme says:

      >> Something happened to the civilization

      I blame the decline primarily on women’s suffrage, but technology that made women seem as powerful as men—especially Colt’s equalizer and the safety bicycle—precipitated that.

      “‘New Woman’ was the term used to describe the modern woman who broke with convention by working outside the home, or eschewed the traditional role of wife and mother, or became politically active in the woman’s suffrage movement or other social issues (12); the bicycle greatly helped the New Woman to act as such.” Social History of the Bicycle : —Effects on British Society http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1011/bicycle/bicycle1.html

    • Cavalier says:

      The swearing, at least, can be attributed to the change in religion. Christianity designated such words as “fuck”, “shit”, and “damn” as swearwords, power words, things verboten to say and ideally verboten to think. So maybe at one time—I don’t know for sure, I wasn’t alive then—maybe fuck was the worst thing you could say, one of the principal objectives of the Church being to suppress animalistic female sexuality.

      In contrast, Progressivism’s swear words are words like “nigger”, “spic”, and “kike”. Like the “fuck”, “shit”, and “damn” of its predecessor, you will never hear those words in public, and by logical extension you will never hear thoughts derived from words like nigger, like mean IQ differences, and as what you say determines what you think, will likely never think those thoughts either, one of the principal objectives of the Cathedral being to suppress racial reality.

      I think all the other things are similar, but not nearly so cut and dry and so ripe for dissection, though what is clear is that the reigning religion suppresses the things it wants to suppress and encourages the things it wants to encourage, and is extraordinarily effective at it.

      TL;DR — You’re a Christian, culturally if not officially, and you see the coarseness of the Progressive world through a Christian lens, and are horrified.

      • peppermint says:

        Having a list of bad words isn’t a Christian thing, but having the concept of sin under which your soul gets eternal punshment if you say them in any context is.

        • Cavalier says:

          If the Church influences language, and language influences culture, and culture influences behavior, behavior such as the chastity or sluttery of women, behavior which is intrinsic to assurance of paternity and thus intrinsic to the rise and fall of civilization, the rise and fall of civilization being the ebb and flow of natural selection, then perhaps we can see sin, hellfire, and eternal damnation for what they are: a metaphor for failure at life, a metaphor for meta-death, the death of the genes, as the soul is a metaphor for the bloodline itself.

          • Father Thyme says:

            So we need a “Jews First!” (Romans 1:16) cult to provide us metaphors about White Genocide. Tell me how that works again.

      • Father Thyme says:

        In contrast? No, Progressivism’s equality cult is fully Christianity too. “Red and yellow, Black and white, They are precious, In His sight.”

        In Biblical language: “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all.” Colossians 3:11

        Christianity is the original “Low Life’s Matter!” equality movement.

        • Cavalier says:

          A religion isn’t what you can find in its holy texts, it’s what its adherents think and say and do. For nearly two millennia, Christians were what today would be called crazed, right-wing nutjobs, Literally Hitler, holding beliefs so extreme that today they would be divorce-raped and thrown into jail to be sodomized by niggers.

          That kind of track record makes it hard to take you seriously. Even more so does the inconvenient fact that Progressives had to stop being Christian in order to go fully insane.

          That Semitic texts are famously self-inconsistent is the final nail in the coffin.


          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            _…Semitic texts…_

            That’s heresy, C.


            • Steve Johnson says:

              Heresy? That’s papist nonsense. Something can only be heretical if it goes against the authoritative interpretation and there is no authoritative interpretation because that’s papism, right?

              The texts mean whatever anyone who reads them thinks they mean.

              • jim says:

                If you don’t have an authoritative interpretation and a mechanism for tossing heretics, then people are apt to start ironing out the logical contradictions and unprincipled exceptions of Christianity, but Christianity is built on logical contradictions and unprincipled exceptions, for example “God is three and God is one”. “Salvation is by faith not by works, but faith without works is dead.” And no one can figure out what baptism is or does, or what happened when Christ descended into hell.

                Iron out the logical contradictions, you get Unitarianism, people stop turning up to church and your church becomes Lesbian Marxist Feminist bookshop. Iron out the unprincipled exceptions, you get congregationalism, people stop turning up to church and your church is sold to a real estate developer.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  You’d have to eliminate the Bible to go back to a time of Christianity that existed when the Church wisely forbade the reading of that poisonous Jewbook.

                  Got any plan how to remove millions of poisonous Jewbooks from homes, wipe the internet clean of the Jewbook, and magically transform us to Medieval innocence?

                  Or maybe it’s time to recognize the “Jews First!” cult for what it is—poison—now that we can all read the Bible.

                • jim says:

                  The 1660 Anglican interpretation of the Bible is a defensible interpretation. Of course if we let people come up with their own interpretations, there are likely to be problems.

                • Father Thyme says:

                  So, the singularly defensible moment of Christianity had a 29 year history on one small island with 4% of Europe’s population, from 1660 until the Glorious Revolution in 1689, when Parliament’s ACT OF TOLERATION restored civil rights to those goddam Roman Catholics and and other Dissenters like Congregationalists and Baptists.

                  I love it! Let’s start by denying political office to Roman Catholics, and making life so hard on Congregationalists and Baptists that they emigrate to Antarctica or Mars. It’ll be more fun than Steampunk.

          • Father Thyme says:

            >> A religion isn’t what you can find in its holy texts

            That kind of deceit makes it hard to take you seriously.

            >> For nearly two millennia, Christians were what today would be called crazed, right-wing nutjobs

            Oh, like elevating Niggers to be “prophets and teachers” over them? (Acts 13:1) No wonder you’re trying so desperately to dismiss the (((Bible.))) Kek!

            Actually, the history of the church is similar to the behavior of SJW’s “Low Lifes Matter” movement, not “conservative” Volk. Like this county bumpkin said: “”Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

            • jim says:

              The apostles creed invokes the communion of saints – that religion should embrace the consensus of not only the living, but the dead.

              The consensus of the dead stabilizes Christianity’s tendency to go mad, and excludes certain dangerous interpretations of the New Testament.

              And the consensus of the dead is almost unimaginably right wing.

              • Father Thyme says:

                Traditional European white ancestor worship is superior to, and a balance against, (((Biblical))) Christian dogma, sure. If the only decent thing you can extract from the Apostle’s creed is a tiny phrase about ancestors, that proves the paucity of a “Jews First!” (Romans 1:16) cult.

                And the (((Magic Rabbi))) wouldn’t approve of venerating dead ancestors. “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

                • Father Thyme says:

                  More contempt for venerating ancestors from the Magic Skype: “Let the dead bury their dead.”

                • jim says:

                  True, but old white ancestor worship is dead beyond revival.

                  And the closest thing you can do to revive it is to revive that Christianity that is closest to it.

                • peppermint says:

                  it’s hard to worship our ancestors without acknowledging that they were christcucks

                  it’s hard to worship our ancestors when they sold us out

                  it’s hard to not worship our ancestors within the new weltanschauung, not worshipping one’s ancestors and thinking of ((Yahweh)) is your father and your life as yours to dispose of as you please and not respecting its stages so acting like an adolescent until 40 and 50 and 60 is pure christcuckoldry.

                  religion exists, in a sense, to explain the feels we have. people who entered the labor market before 2009 never felt the feels that people who entered the labor market after 2009 feel, which is why they just go along with christcuckoldry instead of being disgusted by those evil minded answers or the non-answers of “post”-christuck nihilism and seeking out kek through carefully sifting through posts to find the dubs.

                  ancestor worship is essential, but immediate ancestors not only were traitors but right now are traitors. I’m currently arguing with them on normiebook. Dems r real low-information voters, they refuse to acknowledge what they see because their #1 priority is not being called racist, because they are christcucks.

                  i want to worship them and not put them in context the way they used to put Columbus in context when I was in elementary school. Now they openly hate Columbus. And I can’t openly hate them, yet.

                  \..|../..Aryan defender has detected a programme
                  .\o/….that could harm your system.
                  ………[Accept White genocide]…[[࿕Uninstall skypes]]

                • Father Thyme says:

                  Revive Christianity? Kek!!! It’s alive and well, and destroying Europe.

                  “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

                  That is exactly what Merkel, who is (1) the leader of the CHRISTIAN Democrats and, (2) daughter of a LUTHERAN PASTOR, and (3) member of the EVANGELICAL CHURCH in Berlin, is doing.

                  She’s more like Jesus than you will ever be. But the Magic Rabbi isn’t somebody that a European should try to emulate.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      This is of course very true. The woman is a creature of fashion due to her weakness. Others might say that she is acting out her instinct related to “ancestral environment”, but that is true for every living thing, and so basically of no interest. The weakness which defines a woman, is one of her primary characteristics.

      That is why women take the media message and read between the lines in a way men are not able to do. This is to their credit, but it does make them difficult to motivate without sincere effort…


  21. jon dough says:

    It’s the hamster rationalizing.

    As CH @ Chateau Heartiste says, “It’s biomechanical feedback loops all the way down.”

    • Alan J. Perrick says:


      No, no women don’t need to be derided like that. That is anti-women.

      It’s her conscience which pulls her back, it’s her lust which drives her forward. It’s sin, the root of problems everywhere.


      • jim says:

        You attribute too much agency to women. They are the weaker vessel. Whether evolved or created, they were not built to make their own decisions unsupervised. And in actual fact, when women make wicked and self destructive decisions, as they so regularly do, no one wants them to suffer the consequences of their own decisions. When women make wicked and self destructive decisions, no one treats them as a moral agent, no one wants to treat them as a moral agent, everyone instinctively realizes that it is horribly wrong for a woman to suffer the full consequences of her own wicked decisions, just as it would be wrong for a child to make adult decisions and suffer adult consequences. When a woman goes wrong, just as when a child goes wrong, everyone instinctively and intuitively realizes that the problem was poor discipline and inadequate supervision.

        No one really believes in female emancipation, no one really believes that women are moral agents in the sense that men are, when women foul up.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          That is your opinion. And, you are somebody who does not even see the value to the meme “white women sex strike against White Genocide” #WWSSAWhiteGenocide.

          Best regards,


          • Steve Johnson says:

            There’s no value to it because it’s bullshit.

            • Alan J. Perrick says:

              What a brave fellow, calling out meme scientists like that! Give your self a medal for your courageous display, “Steve”!


      • jon dough says:

        And that’s your hamster rationalizing.
        Thanks for making my point.

      • Father Thyme says:

        >> No, no women don’t need to be derided like that. That is anti-women.

        White-Knight to the rescue! — just like the Magic Jew in the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11,) the progressives’ favorite passage in the whole Jewbook.

        Tattooed skanks need birched in the public square. And White Knight Jesus can piss off with his “Low-Lifes Matter!” movement.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Hell is forever!

          • Father Thyme says:

            You’re yellow-bellied Jewlicker who would sell out his own family to escape to a fabled eternal Jew city with pearly gates. When are you going to start calling “Holy Land” that upon which you were born, instead of absconding to a distant foreign soil, traitor?

            And you’re wrong if the single book worth reading in the Bible is correct. You will have *no reward* more and *no advantage* over General Custer’s dead horse.

            • Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have *no further reward,* and even their name is forgotten…in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.”

            • Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 “Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have *no advantage* over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

            When you’re dead, you’re dead. Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo. You’ve been sold a fantastical bill of goods more destructive than that which Bernie Madoff pawned-off, and only a greedy submissive like you would fall a “Jews First!” (Romans 1:16) cult that places individual status-whoring in the afterlife above the biological imperative of providing for your family’s progeny—the volk that your Magic Jew taught you to hate (Luke 14:26).

      • peppermint says:

        Exactly, christcuck, telling the truth about women is anti-woman from your cucked perspective of souls and sin, which is why the progs have been so effective at pushing their retarded soul-theory-based lies about women’s behavior.

        This is why the White race can’t be saved with cuckstainty.

  22. it came from the nightosphere says:

    Nope. You guys just don’t talk to too many women I guess.

    Q: Why do MEN get tattoos?

    Hint: Women do it for a very different reason.

    • jim says:

      With men, different. Plausibly makes you look dangerous, look like the man that does not give a damn. So, tattoos in men may well improve dating chances, if it is congruent with a general air of criminality of violence and frequent rape.

      Getting tattooed makes you look like the man who might well beat the shit out of her, thus improving your prospects of getting a hot girlfriend and getting laid like a rug, without the possibly inconvenient legal consequences of actually beating the shit out of her.

  23. JRM says:

    I will throw in a personal experience that is interesting in light of the sub-culture/visible signifier theory:

    I knew a girl a few years ago (she was a co-worker) who told me that she had (I don’t recall, five or six, a fair number) of tattoos, but that when she was wearing business/workday clothes, none were visible.

    She seemed to think this put her somewhat above girls sporting visible tats on commonly uncovered areas, and perhaps it did. The layers of presentation tho, are interesting: permanently marked, but covertly, and then revealed verbally.

    She obviously wanted to be able to pass as a “normal” girl, for economic purposes, but yet had a strong need for getting marked in private areas, and then felt a further need to share the hidden “differences”.

  24. Dave says:

    Groucho Marx opines on the subject in 1939:


  25. First Bayes says:

    I always thought it was because they wanted to be branded or marked. Same reason why fashion labels command a premium.

    When you stopped her the first time, you were imposing your personal brand on her, but the instant you let go, she rushed to get whatever brands she could. It’s also why women indulge in “retail therapy” after a fresh breakup.

  26. JRM says:

    The teleology of this phenomena should probably begin with the first modern group of women to get tattoos, if I am not mistaken they were in the “biker” subculture. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    In the biker culture, the tats acted as a visible token of belonging to the subgroup, BUT ALSO of rejection of the mainstream. The biker gal was telling her tribe “I am one of you, and I don’t intend to rejoin ‘straight’ society”.

    The transference from biker subgroup to the culture at large is where the question gets much more complex.

    Most of the commenters here have valid points. There may be several reasons for the female attraction to the tats. Another one no one has mentioned yet is that it is part of the neo-tribalism culture, which also brought us piercings.

    There is a small body of literature on neo-tribalism; I recall a Re/Search magazine/book style publication on it from probably thirty years ago.

    The right of passage/painful ritual nature of the tattooing process (the first time) is probably a powerful attractor. What I think shows this behavior is unhealthy, as opposed to say, actual tribal tattooing by primitives, is that many women become addicted to the process, getting more tattoos and more elaborate tattoos in a serial process.

    I will throw in one of my go-to explanations for female behavior: their friends urge them on. The group of female acquaintances validate and encourage the process, at some level perhaps knowing the subject is getting less attractive to males with each new tat.

    • Anon says:

      Yes, there’s definitely an in-group and elitism factor at play.

      • jim says:

        I don’t think so. That would be a rational reason for getting tattooed.

        Your in group is whores, and not elite, plus they look ugly. With women, any behavior that does not look rational, probably is not rational.

      • Anon says:

        >Yes, there’s definitely an in-group and elitism factor at play.

        No, there’s not. Tattoo culture is a microcosm of the Wild West. They do it as a part of the neverending stream-of-consciousness drunk stumble to secure a mate. This looks absurd to anyone who has a clue because it is exactly as absurd as low-quality stock begging you to use a rubber.

  27. Sig Sawyer says:

    Simple projection. Women like em on men cause of the bad boy factor so they think the reverse applies. In reality, the bad girl repels wedding rings like a magnet.

  28. Cavalier says:

    There’s something of an interesting parallel in that Christianity seems to suppress things like tattoos, and the only extant form of Christianity in the West is Progressivism, which may rightly be called a cult for the intelligent white urban bourgeois.

    I suppose the question is not why women get tattooed, but what disposes women who get tattooed to get tattooed, and why. This, I think, has a substantial religious and SES component to it above and beyond simple shit tests, or whatever.

    • Cavalier says:

      The first sentence in the second paragraph should read:

      I suppose the question is not why a women who gets tattooed gets tattooed, but what disposes a woman to be a woman who gets tattooed.

      • jim says:


        “Why” implies agency, and agency is unlikely to be a factor in women getting tattooed.

  29. Glen Filthie says:

    I happen to agree with all that, Jim. I offer this acting in my capacities as both Devil’s Advocate and the blog troll:

    – some men LOVE the tats. One photo and vid forum I frequent has an entire page dedicated to inked women. Women obviously like them too. Your explanation for their motives may be suspect as well. Consider the social context: women supposedly get the tats to differentiate themselves from the herd – most will tell you this, only using more politically correct language – like they are using them to express their individuality. Yet clearly, upon observation, they (and the men too, to some extent) are using them as badges of membership in a certain sub-herd or splinter herd.

    – can’t comment on your gal, but to me some people are just bat shit crazy and that is all there is to it. If the ‘I need a man to protect me from doing harmful things to myself’ is indeed the logic behind the behaviour…isn’t that reasoning a product of “bat shit crazy” than the XX genetics?

    My personal observation is that the quantity and quality of tats is inversely proportional to the IQ and that seems to hold for both men and women. YMMV.

    • peppermint says:

      Some men like fatties and some men think beast fuckers are hot. Some men even try to get their women to fuck googles. “Some men think it’s hot” is a pretty reliable indication that it’s disgusting and most men would reject it out of hand.

    • jim says:

      some men LOVE the tats.

      Any statement of the form “Some men LOVE X” always has some value for X similar to diving into a barrel of shit and drowning yourself in shit.

      • Glen Filthie says:

        Fair enough I suppose. In the case of P-Mint’s pervs I would agree.

        But ya gotta admit – this tat shit’s gone seriously mainstream and a majority of people are drowning themselves in it.

  30. viking says:

    I think there’s several motivations. OCD is one, drawing on oneself cutting food disorders substance abuse depression and tattoos are correlated.Its a form of self mutilation.all of the above seems to be genetic, it seems like what ever the genetic set up is is somewhat fluid and may manifest in some as alcoholism and others as drug addiction but people with these almost always have some of the other issues.
    Tattoos is not always this but i would say its quite rare, people who are not genetically predisposed to substance abuse rarely get addicted physically to substances or processes. First because they dont have the right [or rather wrong] brain chemistry that makes the mere physical addiction an order of magnitude harder to deal with, they dont have the family trauma that goes with a genetic heritage of addiction, or a personal history from their own addiction, or the tolerance for the negative physiological effects of high doeses of poisons.But it occasionally happens when say drinking drugging etc becomes popular enough in the culture normies get into popular substances at high enough rates that a few manage to develop a problem, these are the one that can most easily stop on their own, and make up the crowd who thinks they have an insight into what a genetically predisposed addict is and isnt.My favorite definition of an addict puts the lie to this’ someone who cant stop using’
    My guess is eventually we will untangle the connections between addiction depression OCD Bipolar process addiction etc. When you have spent 30 year arround AA meetings and lived the nightmare then you can chime in and give me your opinion. in the meantime I have heard it all before trust me you dont know what the fuck youre talking about.

  31. North Star says:

    Could it not be as simple as the desire to be marked, as cattle are marked? It’s painful but not actually dangerous, which they love.

    I know a male tattoo artist who’s most desired kind of client (money issues aside) is a young girl getting her first tattoo. To him, it’s marking virgin territory, leaving his mark (even if it’s some inane design of her choosing). He seduces women by saying things like, “You’re just lovely. I want to tattoo you.”

    Of course most tattoos aren’t inked by men directly coming on to women like this (though probably quite a few are). But it does illustrate that there’s a sort of “owned by something else” psychology at play, that women find alluring, even if only in an abstract way.

  32. Anon says:

    You overcomplicate this. Tattoos are popular and women think they look cool.

    If you think women think tattoos are ugly, you’ve never talked to one I think.

    The more interesting question: WHY do women think tattoos look cool, while we don’t? Who is the more “objective” viewer? There is some very interesting thing going on with gender, hormones, neurotransmitters, and what is perceived as cool/attractive. Probably the same thing that makes women more prone to following fashion – their subjective perception just makes the latest fashion look cool to them – while to men it often looks ridiculous.

    Coolness is in the neurochems of the beholder. (Also, why do Afro-Americans dress so silly in WEJ eyes?)

    • Anon says:

      Uh, s/WEJ/north euro white/

    • Anon says:

      Also, there are differences here.

      Smarter women might get a small tattoo because it’s popular. But they don’t really think they are cool, and they know it’s a bad deal long-term.

      A lower-IQ woman might get a big one because she’s viscerally attracted to it, and YOLO.

      I suspect liking tattoos is due to being in some kind of more primal, childish, non calculating, non judging, headspace. If you smoked a lot of weed you might also go “wow, nice ink!”

  33. Foster says:

    I think of the behavior in terms of creating a micro environment in which the woman can Thrive against her competition. In the larger environment she would be less able to compete but in the micro environment of women with tattoos on them she stands a better chance of success with her desired mating material. It’s kind of like the stamp they give you when you go into some clubs. It is the ticket for entry into the micro culture of low class people in America.

    In this way comma the situation is comprable to the girl who feigns an interest in some sort of activity in order to be around men and to eliminate her competition. For example several bloggers have talked about the “gamer girl” who is not there to play video games but is there to attract a high-status male at least within his group because she is unable to attract one in the general population.

  34. Alfred says:

    Heartiste wrote about women having tattoos as deliberate self-maiming and slut signalling https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/tattoos-as-maimgeld/.

    Men have tattoos in a red queen tattoo race because they want to signal being outlaws.
    Women have tattoos because they act self-destructively when the men in their life don’t stop them.

  35. Steve Johnson says:

    I tend to think that it’s more how competition works between women.

    Women judge men’s attractiveness based on how attractive the women he attracts are. Women apply that same type of thinking to other women and if left unchecked end up in a competition to pull off the biggest mating handicap possible because the handicaps are visible and the more limiting they are, the more attractive the woman must be.

    This type of competition goes off the rails when women have less contact with men.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Women judge men’s attractiveness based on how attractive the women he attracts are.”

      No. Women judge the level of men’s looks based on a host of factors–fitness, intelligence, sense of humor, for starters. Rarely do women have direct knowledge of the appearance of a man’s past girlfriends or love interests.

  36. Joe says:

    It’s “fuck you dad”, in a nutshell. Products of single mothers who’ve been told horror stories about thier father.

Leave a Reply