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.
CyberSeeker@discuss.tchncs.de
on 30 May 14:50
nextcollapse
The so-called architect put those hairs there, you moron.
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.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 16:08
collapse
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.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jun 00:44
collapse
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive
Nah he made the hair and made the reproductive mechanism we call sex which is fueled by attraction, clearly the intent (which frankly is a ridiculous concept to argue w.r.t biology so I guess we’re working within a religious framework at this point, biology cannot have “intent,” being a concept) was that we be attracted to the hair God put there, the attraction to hairlessness was born relatively recently to homo sapiens’ existence. I’d believe relative hairlessness is attractive to our species as a whole through a holdover of self selecting us VS neanderthals, except that we didn’t war them to extinction, we interbred.
Frankly shaving at all is spitting in God’s face removing the hair he created you with, by the “architect” logic.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive
So you again dispute your own argument that all tattoos are interpreted by the brain as “blemishes” and therefore “sickness.” If you won’t listen to my argument at least listen to yours.
as long as they are feminine, delicate,
And women? Do they have the same requirements w.r.t attractive tattoos on men, or do they prefer tattoos that are manly and tough? Perhaps straight men just prefer women who are feminine and delicate, which duh, and this tattoo preference is an extension of that. It also applies to facial features, hairstyles, clothes, so why wouldn’t it extend to tattoos?
I conclude that you conjure conclusions where there are none. Do you come from a country or culture that actually does view tattoos that way, like Japan or (apparently) Korea, by chance? Just a hunch. Japan thinks tattoos are only for criminals, for instance.
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced but as the Brandeis study indicated, most men do not find body hair on women attractive. Consequently, the Creator must have designed men to find body hair on women unattractive.
I came up with the blemish hypothesis before I read the survey. Note that the survey found that men find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. Something doesn’t make sense. If men find tattoos on women attractive, why do they have to be hidden? To me it suggests that men find tattoos on women attractive if they are hidden, but they don’t really care about tattoos on women unlike earrings, which enhances a women’s beauty.
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 03:21
nextcollapse
I’m going to say this plainly, so that you can understand:
You’re not anywhere near as clever as you think you are
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jun 10:22
collapse
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced
Due to the technological advancement we have conditioned ourselves to think this, but as “the architect” designed we have it and we’re supposed to like it (by your “architect” logic). It’d be like if your house was designed with window screens but you didn’t like them so you took them off, they were put there by the architect for a reason and you are altering the house by taking them away. We’re supposed to believe that altering the same house by adding a coat of paint is bad, yet altering it by removing window screens is A-Ok.
The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re so theistic you believe some immortal being directly beams thoughts to your head individually, and thus those thoughts must be “what god intended.” Since it’s no longer 0BC the rest of us know you’re not really talking to the bush.
You came up with a bad hypothesis and then backed it up with a shoddy study that doesn’t draw the conclusions you think it does. Correlation != causation, and I doubt the studies mention “cause god said so” anywhere anyway. It doesn’t make sense because you’re reading too deep into these studies in an attempt to justify your biases through your religious framework.
Know what? If god didn’t want us to get tattoos he wouldn’t have invented tattoo guns, same as razors, howboutdat?
A better analogy would be a house designed with security bars on the windows. In a low crime area, the bars could be removed because they make the house less attractitve.
I believe in what’s called intelligent design. This is the belief that the universe including life was the result of an intelligent agency. The nature of the designer such as whether it is immortal is unknown. If the Brandeis study is correct, the designer created men to innately find body hair on women unattractive.
After further thought, I think my blemish hypothesis is correct. The survey said that men find tattoos on women attractive as long as they’re small and hidden. This means that men prefer seeing plain skin on women. The reason could be that men’s brains interpret a tattoo as a blemish. A blemish on the skin such as a mole could indicate a health problem.
The designer created humans with artistic ability.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jun 21:18
collapse
If you remove the bars you still lessen your security, no matter how safe you think the neighborhood may be, and you’re still going against the architect’s design despite your subjective opinion on the beauty (or lack thereof) of the bars. In fact Mosquitos are one of the world’s most dangerous animals to this day and those would be the bugs that hair blocks, we still “need” our bars, by your own logic.
So yes, god (at least with a small “g” unless you specify Allah, Yaweah, Jehovah, Xenu, JHVH-1, El, Prometheus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Khnum, etc). Your theory only holds up as “true” (and tenuously at that, if ) if your god is real. Pascals wager is fun and all but until such time as you can prove the existence of such a creator, your conclusions are unprovable.
After further thought, I think my blemish hypothesis is correct…The reason could be
You don’t even believe your own rationalizations and refuse to let your conscious mind see it. You would have said “is.”
The designer created humans with artistic ability.
But not the ability to distinguish art from sickness?
Fun fact, my god told me tattoos are hot and body hair is natural, and my god is bigger than your god, so therefore you’re wrong.
An architect could design a house to be more attractive without security bars but in some areas bars are necessary. Mosquitos are not a big problem in many areas. An area could be sprayed with insecticide if they become a problem. Women also now have the time and equipment to shave their legs and armpits.
Evidence for a creator is off topic.
It is simpler to design men to innately find plain skin on women attractive.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Jun 04:58
collapse
Yeah, now they can shave, but for most of human history that wasn’t the case (unless you think we’re 2000 yr old and Adam and Eve is literal not apocryphal, the human race is much older than recorded history, which is much older than 2000yr, unless you’re one of those “The Devil put dinosaur bones there to fool us” types). If what you say is true we never would have gotten to even develop fire before we died because nobody was shaving so nobody wanted to fuck.
Evidence for a creator is not off topic, it’s the entire crux of your argument. Your argument is literally “god told me to.” If god is then not real and instead all of science is correct with the theory of evolution, then your entire argument is also not real. That’s kinda the problem with hanging your insane theories on an unprovable creator, technically you can never be “disproven” as you can keep saying “god told me” while ignoring anything inconvenient as you do, but anyone who isn’t dumb enough to already fall for that won’t ever be convinced.
But this is already settled, I told you I talked to my god and he said yours is a liar. I will accept no further debate on this topic because my god is infallible and you can’t prove otherwise.
Intelligent design simply believes that the universe and life was created by an intelligent agency. There are no religious texts. When women didn’t have the equipment or time to shave, they didn’t. Removing body hair enhances a women’s sexuality but is not required for eroticism no more than makeup or perfume.
The topic is whether men find tattoos on women attractive not evidence for intelligent design.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Jun 15:34
collapse
If your argument hinges on “intelligent design is real and The Creator™ made men hate tattoos” you need to prove the first part before the second can be “true.” If intelligent design is not real then no creator made men hate tattoos, simple as.
Incorrect. I presented a survey which said that most men find tattoos on women attractive if they are small and in hidden locations. There is no requirement to give a reason. The article didn’t give a reason.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Jun 10:16
collapse
No, you are the one ascribing the reason without any evidence to support it, of course the article doesn’t back up your delusions, but that is the point, the article does not back up your delusions.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
on 30 May 16:53
nextcollapse
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.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
on 30 May 16:55
nextcollapse
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 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.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
on 31 May 14:45
nextcollapse
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.
“Most guys” doesn’t mean anything. An average is a pretty bad argument when it comes to making blanket statements about people’s preferences. It ignores culture, health, age, … so many things. But I guess the point is, “it seems like 6 out of 10 people respond yes to this prompt.” It’s shallow, meaningless… It barely makes a scientific statement, let alone defend your assertions. Most guys are personable enough to also not meet such broad statements, if you supply just an ounce of real-life context.
Your results also don’t demonstrate anything beyond cultural bias in a potentially biased study.
The statements weren’t broad. They were very specific. Most guys find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. The results might not be cultural but biological, similar to the study on body hair on women.
A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.
Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.
Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.
The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.
Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.
The Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. The survey on tattoos was not but there does seem to be a relationship. Most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they have to be small and hidden. I conclude men prefer women with plain skin. The study on body hair on women is probably correct otherwise women would not spend time and money removing body hair.
First, the body-hair study does not prove a biological preference. At most it shows that a sample of men from a particular culture preferred a particular presentation of women.
Second, your tattoo source doesn’t even support your conclusion. You started with “most men find tattoos attractive if they’re small and hidden” and somehow arrived at “men prefer plain skin.” Those are not equivalent statements.
If a man finds a small tattoo attractive, then by definition he is not preferring plain skin in that case.
Third, “women spend money removing body hair, therefore men biologically prefer it” is a terrible argument. By that logic, because women spend billions on makeup, hair dye, cosmetic surgery, high heels, push-up bras, anti-aging products, and fashion, all of those preferences must also be biological. That’s obviously not how social norms work.
Finally, you’re treating “feminine” as though it’s an objective biological category when much of what people call feminine changes dramatically across time and culture. Different societies have preferred different body shapes, skin tones, hairstyles, body hair practices, tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic standards.
What your sources support is a much narrower claim: some men in some populations expressed certain preferences under certain conditions.
What they absolutely do not support is your repeated claim that women are most feminine when they have completely unmarked skin or that this is some universal male preference.
“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.”
Witchfire@lemmy.world
on 30 May 15:49
nextcollapse
Thankfully, none of the people who get tattoos give a shit what you think ☺️
northernlights@lemmy.today
on 30 May 23:10
collapse
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)
plant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 06:22
nextcollapse
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.
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.
metallic_substance@lemmy.world
on 30 May 18:02
collapse
Thanks!
chuckleslord@lemmy.world
on 30 May 16:39
nextcollapse
Wow! Wrong about both tattoos and graffiti. A two-fer
I pity you having never seen goos graffiti. Banksy weeps😭
panthera_@lemmy.today
on 31 May 02:54
nextcollapse
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
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 15:49
collapse
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.
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.
brognak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 16:23
nextcollapse
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.
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 20:50
collapse
Stop speaking for all men. There are tons of guys that love tattoos on themselves, on their friends, and on their lover.
LookBehindYouNowAndThen@lemmy.world
on 31 May 17:06
nextcollapse
Only a truly blemish-free brain could have come up with this brilliant take. Not so much as a wrinkle on that surface.
BrickEater@lemmy.world
on 31 May 21:37
nextcollapse
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 article said that some respondents explained that hairless bodies made women appear younger. Body hair on women is not a blemish in that it’s not a flaw, but it makes women less attractive.
LookBehindYouNowAndThen@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 02:54
collapse
The weird reactionary impulse to do cargo-cult science will always amaze me.
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 03:19
collapse
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.
BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
on 31 May 03:40
nextcollapse
Majority of responses like this are straight up hypocrisy.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 31 May 15:47
nextcollapse
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.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jun 07:35
collapse
Like in telltale heart?
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 03:18
nextcollapse
That’s nice, dear
Nobody actually asked you though
SethTaylor@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 08:01
nextcollapse
Man, people online sure pick weird arguments. Who the hell cares this random dude doesn’t like tattoos? 127 downvotes for that? This is the type of shit I just scroll over
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.
If men finding tattoos on women attractive only if they’ll small and hidden is not much of an endorsement of tattoos at least on women.
luciferofastora@feddit.org
on 01 Jun 08:37
collapse
Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.
This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
luciferofastora@feddit.org
on 01 Jun 22:33
collapse
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.
With skin, I’m not talking about skin color but its plainness.
Yes, it’s my interpretation that men prefer watching plain skin on women. I’m just trying to make sense of men finding tattoos on women attractive but only if they’re small and in hidden places. If something is attractive, wouldn’t it be desirable to have it highly visible?
Of course, there are groups which love tattoos. Tattoos are part of the Goth scene.
luciferofastora@feddit.org
on 02 Jun 06:36
collapse
With skin, I’m not talking about skin color but its plainness.
That’s still not designer work. The genetic lottery doesn’t declare “this is what you’re supposed to look like”. It just spits out a genome and resulting appearance with all the consideration and passion of a die rolling off the table. The comparison with a thinking, feeling architect designing a building with deliberation and aesthetic intentions just doesn’t work.
Like I said, we could talk about whether graffiti is vandalism, but the same thing just doesn’t apply to human bodies any more than it applies to an homeowner painting their own walls.
Yes, it’s my interpretation that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
And I’m telling you that it’s just not true, at least not so broadly as you make it out to be.
I’m just trying to make sense of men finding tattoos on women attractive but only if they’re small and in hidden places.
I’ll strike that “but only” from that sentence because it’s not true, as I said before.
I know plenty of people with highly visible tattoos and plenty of guys (and gals) that find that attractive. Most of the tattooed women I know have or had relationships at some point, which implies that their tattoos aren’t a turnoff.
The allure that makes hidden tattoos attractive is the same thing that makes any other secret attractive, that makes conspiracy theories attractive, that makes occult practices attractive and that makes all the “doctors hate this trick” adverts work: To know something most people don’t makes you feel special. To have someone share their secret with you is a gesture of trust. And particularly to discover hidden things about the body of another is intimate on some level.
There is also a lingering issue where some people take offense to tattoos, which makes some employers less likely to hire people with visible tattoos in customer-facing jobs.
There is a worry that you might trust an investment advisor less if it’s a woman with visible ink, or refuse to buy coffee from a barista with something written on her arm. So long as that stigma remains, there is a reason to hide tattoos that has nothing to do with attraction:
Cunts who think they have the right to judge what others do with their own bodies.
The Brandeis study indicated that most men find body hair on women unattractive. This suggests that men innately find body hair on women unattractive. There is no genetic lottery, the dice are loaded.
Your hypothesis that the attractiveness of tattoos on women is that they are hidden is plausible but is counter intuitive since something beautiful would seemingly want to be shown such as earrings on women.
You contradict your own hypothesis that tattoos are attractive on women if they’re hidden. Consequently, you should have no problem with employers telling employees to cover their tattoos.
luciferofastora@feddit.org
on 03 Jun 06:35
collapse
The Brandeis study indicated that most men find body hair on women unattractive. This suggests that men innately find body hair on women unattractive.
I don’t know that study or how representative it is, but even if it were, there are two glaring errors here:
The suggested link between stated opinion and some innate tendency overlooks the possibility that this opinion might be a cultural product, rather than some natural state. If we’re permanently exposed to media feeding us a particular beauty standard, that is going to shape our perception.
How people feel about body hair doesn’t have any immediate bearing on how they feel about tattoos. For instance, I could advocate for women shaving their legs so I can better see their leg tattoos. Not that I have any right to tell women (or anyone else) what to do with their body, of course.
In any event, that study also isn’t representative of the cultural environment I move in. I don’t know what culture you’re from to feel so strongly about this, but it certainly isn’t universal.
Your hypothesis that the attractiveness of tattoos on women is that they are hidden
My claim is that, specifically for hidden tattoos (regardless of the wearer’s sex), part of the appeal may be that they’re hidden. This isn’t the only reason tattoos might be attractive, just an appeal a specific subset may have (and not all within that subset either – some tattoos genuinely are ugly, but that doesn’t mean all are).
is counter intuitive since something beautiful would seemingly want to be shown such as earrings on women.
Pussies are beautiful too, but that doesn’t mean everyone wants to show them to the world. Some beautiful things are only shown to select people, and that’s fine.
But also, many beautiful tattoos are shown in public, and I love that, and I know many people who love that, and any claim that men categorically find them unappealing in women is just not representative.
You contradict your own hypothesis that tattoos are attractive on women if they’re hidden.
I made no claim that they are only attractive when hidden, or only when public, because attractiveness is generally nuanced and complex and can’t be broken down to absolutes like that.
Consequently, you should have no problem with employers telling employees to cover their tattoos.
How would that contradiction (or either position alone) imply any logical connection to what employers tell their employees or how I would feel about that?
I have a problem with the general expectation that customer service has to be conventionally attractive, but it’s particularly bad for women. Tattoos are just one notch on that tally of things that really shouldn’t matter in a professional context. If my tax advisor is ugly as sin, but gives good advice, they’re a good tax advisor.
The whole topic of tattoos, particularly when it’s straight men talking about women’s tattoos, often veers into men policing women’s bodies. Women don’t exist for your or my viewing pleasure. If you think they’re ugly, that’s your opinion. Even if it was a common opinion, it would still be an opinion.
Announcing “I don’t like this thing some people do” is a dick move in the first place. Let people enjoy things. Let them do with their bodies what they want.
But to make it specifically about women and keep doubling down? Fuck the fuck off. No half-baked attempt at providing scientific backing for sexism is gonna make it less sexist.
I’ve been trying to be charitable thus far, but let me be clear here: Tattoos, no matter the sex, gender, ethnicity, religion or favourite sports team of their wearer, are an expression of individuality. Whether or not they’re beautiful or attractive by any standard shouldn’t matter.
I happen to love them, but that’s incidental to my basic human respect for other people’s dignity.
Yes, whether men’s preference for no body hair on women is innate or cultural would require further scientific studies.
Yes, there is no direct relationship between men’s feeling towards tattoos and body hair on women, but it could indicate that men prefer looking at plain skin on women.
You explained that most men finding tattoos on women attractive if there’re small and hidden is because some things are attractive if hidden. Then there should be nothing wrong with employers requiring women to hide tattoos since they’re attractive only if hidden. Employers are stricter towards up front personnel regarding dress code because they give people an impression of the company. Employers would probably say nothing about tattoos for employees working in nonvisible positions such as stock clerk. Actually, up front men would be required to cover tattoos. You would not tolerate all tattoos. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Maine was criticized for having a tattoo of Totenkopf, a Nazi symbol. He had it covered up.
luciferofastora@feddit.org
on 03 Jun 17:08
collapse
I looked up the article you alluded to earlier. As an aside, articles are generally referred to by author and year, not just the institution. Given that it’s the only relevant paper I found from Brandeis University, I’m going to assume you mean Azevedo, L. (Fall 2021). Male Stigmatisation of Female Body Hair.
It refers to a previous study by Prokop that had a sample made up of 96 students from a single Slovakian university, which is most certainly not a balanced and representative sample. It also refers to an entertainment video made by a fashion magazine with three participants, which is about as unscientific a source as you could come up with.
Azevedo then proceeds to acknowledge that, besides these two sources, there is “not enough evidence […] on men’s opinions regarding female body hair.”
I will note here that Prokop at least specified the source of his 96 participants, while I fail to see any indication how Azevedo’s 21(!) participants were selected. That is a smaller sample size, less transparent and if I’m reading this right, the survey consisted of three pairs of pictures.
This “study” is, put mildly, worthless filler, and has the gall to call that “confirmation”. It might indicate a potential direction of research by suggesting a the tendency to perceive shaved women as younger, but that is all it is. Any results you might see in it wouldn’t require “further scientific study”, but rather “actually scientific study”, because this sure isn’t.
The article does cite plenty of other sources, which is the more valuable thing about it. These sources are, among other things, used to cement the impression that men seem to find younger women sexy. Specifically, “a hairless body is a direct representation of a pre-puberty body”.
As for the question of natural or cultural, the article actually answers that by stating that women try to fit in with patriarchal expectations and by citing these other sources to illustrate that hair removal only really became “an important part of femininity between 1915–1945”, started in part by Gillette trying to sell a razor and accelerated by pornography sexualising youth.
It concludes that, as a result of easy access to said pornography, men “form the wrong expectation of how the female body should look”.
Frankly, I had my doubts about your claim before. Now I’m very much convinced you didn’t even read the source you cite, just made up a conclusion and grasped for anything to support it.
it could indicate
This is a wonderful way to isolate yourself from any accusation of having implied a claim. Your mention of scientific studies could indicate that you’re actually interested in the point. It could also mean you’re just trying to double down on the assertion that women are objectively more attractive without tattoos by reaching for the closest thing you get to a confirmation that plain skin could be more attractive.
You know the worst part of all this? Even if you were right, even if there was some measure proving that they’re objectively more attractive and all the people who actually like tattoos are just freaks of nature, it still wouldn’t give you, or me, or anyone else any right to tell women what to do with their own fucking bodies.
Then there should be nothing wrong with employers requiring women to hide tattoos since they’re attractive only if hidden.
Look, I get that you’re not big on reading, but I’ve already disambiguated that “only” is misplaced here, because there are multiple ways tattoos can be attractive.
And even if it was the only way, an employer has no right to demand attractiveness from his employees, regardless of their gender or presentation. Women don’t owe sexiness to anyone, period.
Employers are stricter towards up front personnel regarding dress code because they give people an impression of the company.
And that impression is…? Whether their employees are willing to submit to arbitrary, antiquated and pointless social standards about attractiveness?
That was my point: Customers having a stick up their arse is the only justification to demand conformity to that arse-stickery. Whether your clerk or cashier is ugly or attractive or the hottest person to ever walk the earth has no bearing on their competence. Bodily hygiene, sure, that has health and olfactory implications. But personal appearance shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
You would not tolerate all tattoos. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Maine was criticized for having a tattoo of Totenkopf, a Nazi symbol. He had it covered up.
I wouldn’t tolerate Nazi symbols in graffiti either, or any other medium
I posted the link; you didn’t have to spend time looking for the article.
The article said that women also find a hairless body more feminine and attractive. Also, the rise of feminism didn’t change this. This suggests that it’s innate. The author believes in evolution. Consequently, he attempts to reconcile a contradiction. Female body hair indicates a girl has reached puberty and can reproduce. Therefore, it would seemingly be a selective advantage for men to be attracted to body hair on women. He explains the contradiction by saying that society is the cause. As I pointed out above, the explanation is wanting. Also, if there is an evolutionary advantage for men liking body hair on women, why would a patriarchal society want women to remove body hair? Since I believe that humans were created, I can simply say that humans were designed to find women without body hair more attractive just as humans were designed to find earrings on women attractive.
You dislike the Totenkopf tattoo on Platner because of its meaning but if you were an employer, how would you know what tattoos are offensive? Platner said that he didn’t know Totenkopf was a Nazi symbol. It would be simpler for an employer to have employees cover up tattoos at least for upfront employees.
luciferofastora@feddit.org
on 04 Jun 09:27
collapse
I posted the link; you didn’t have to spend time looking for the article.
I didn’t see it in our conversation, sorry if I missed it.
The article said that women also find a hairless body more feminine and attractive.
…because they are pressured by social factors to conform to a certain image of beauty, which the article states to be a fairly new phenomenon.
“However, it has only become an important part of femininity between 1915–1945, especially in the Western world (Basow, 1991). Before this time, by looking at beauty books and catalogs, it is noticeable that most women didn’t remove armpit and leg hair (Hope, 1982).”
Also, the rise of feminism didn’t change this.
“With the second feminist wave and the spread of hippie culture, pubic hair was neither uncommon nor seen as unnatural (Cerini, 2020). Unshaved female genitalia even started to be represented in Playboy (Cerini, 2020).”
It certainly did. That change just didn’t hold up to the pressures of media that wanted to sell a certain aesthetic:
“This completely changed in the following decades, however, as full body hair removal became not only preferred, but the norm. […] [Brazilian waxing] exploded in the market as the media and celebrities began to support and advertise this completely hairless look (Webb-Liddall, 2019). Research associated exposure to certain magazines and TV shows with pubic hair removal (Bercaw-Pratt et al., 2012, as cited by Li & Braun 2017).”
This suggests that it’s innate.
“By understanding the history behind female body hair removal, it is possible to see how it started as a way to generate profit through the development of a new market. […] It is interesting to see that the association of a hairless body with femininity grew over the course of decades to become what men see as ideal when looking for a mate today.”
If it was innate, why would it not be an issue for millennia, then suddenly explode within decades?
Consequently, he attempts to reconcile a contradiction.
As an aside: Lígia is usually a girl’s name. This is most likely a woman investigating why her sex is subjected to certain pressures.
Also, if there is an evolutionary advantage for men liking body hair on women, why would a patriarchal society want women to remove body hair?
Evolution works on far greater spans of time than a century. It doesn’t have any bearing on this trend. But if you want to bring that into the discussion, the advantages of hair (cited from Bergman, J. (2004). Why mammal body hair is an evolutionary enigma. via the article) are "retention of heat, sexual dimorphism, attraction of mates, protection of skin and reflection (or absorption) of sunlight”. To reflect on their bearing on humans in order of mention:
Clothing has made retention of heat less critical. Most mammals don’t skin or shear other animals or harvest and prepare flax for the sake of crafting artificial heat retention covers. Most mammals also don’t intentionally start fires to warm themselves. Humans have done both for thousands of years.
Breasts, hips, general presentation provide plenty of dimorphism. Our ability to communicate age explicitly also removed the necessity of body hair to indicate fertility.
The attraction of mates is exactly the subject of this discussion, and as stated, has only become associated with hairlessness in the last century, for reasons mentioned before.
Again, clothing. We need less skin protection because we can compensate (and have done so for thousands of years). We also fashion various lotions to help protect the skin.
Do I need to repeat the role of clothing as a fur substitute? We also build covered housing, which helps reduce sun exposure. Most animals don’t build tents from hide or fabric or assemble a shelter from stones, bricks and mortar, concrete and steel.
The lone evolutionary advantage to hairlessness cited is that “Ancient Egyptians also shaved their heads to prevent lice infection”. Other primates have mutual removal of parasites as a social ritual. They also generally don’t have the technology to depilate. And again, they are more dependant on their fur than humans.
This is just one of many ways humans have removed evolutionary pressures from our lives. Hence, however important it might have been a hundred thousand years ago, body hair is just no longer a strict necessity for us. That doesn’t strictly mean that we’d evolve away from growing it, if there also is no pressure to the opposite, just that it stops being as strong of a selection criterion.
So why did we start favouring hairlessness a century ago? Per the arti
First the article cites men’s attraction to breasts and waist to hip ratio as innate evolutionary selective advantages. Babies can recognize pretty faces. From calendar-canada.ca/…/can-babies-tell-if-youre-pre…
A further line of evidence relating to infants’ facial representations is infants’ preference for attractive faces. Infants 2 months of age and older will spend more time looking at attractive faces when these are shown paired with less attractive faces (Langlois et al., 1987; Samuels & Ewy, 1985).
Yet, the author claims that men’s attraction to women with hairless bodies is cultural. She is claiming that advertisement can change people’s perception of beauty. Then how did men’s perception of beauty regarding body hair originate? Did Gillette advertise that women are more attractive without pubic hair? Why has this perception persisted? Persistence is evidence of innateness. If companies including Gillette offered to pay this author and Brandeis University millions to determine how advertisement can change people’s perception of beauty, do you think they can do it? Egyptians shaved their hair to prevent lice. Are bald headed people attractive? Women began shaving their body hair after the invention of the safety razor because they were now able to do it safely. Also, fashion became more revealing.
Men find stockings on women attractive yet, women don’t wear them as often. Why can’t advertisement change this?
Evolutionists claim that attraction to earrings on women is because it indicates wealth isn’t satisfactory. Then why don’t women wear it in the nose or eyebrows?
I’ve been thinking of your hypothesis that female genitalia is an example of something hidden but is attractive to explain men’s attraction to tattoos on women only if they’re small and hidden. Breasts and genitalia are erotic. That’s the reason they’re hidden. Tattoos are not erotic. Also, why wouldn’t a large tattoo on a women’s behind be attractive? A better explanation is that men are attracted to small and hidden tattoos on women is that this doesn’t distract from a women’s body.
I believe in intelligent design. This is the belief that the universe and life was the result of an intelligent agency. The nature of the designer is unknown because science cannot determine it.
threaded - newest
Nobody would have ever suspected those two of being tattoo artists while incognito
<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/87c386c0-ec88-4623-a600-7903af879fb7.gif">
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art but ruins the beauty of the original architecture.
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.
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.?
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 www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/…/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 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.
Nah he made the hair and made the reproductive mechanism we call sex which is fueled by attraction, clearly the intent (which frankly is a ridiculous concept to argue w.r.t biology so I guess we’re working within a religious framework at this point, biology cannot have “intent,” being a concept) was that we be attracted to the hair God put there, the attraction to hairlessness was born relatively recently to homo sapiens’ existence. I’d believe relative hairlessness is attractive to our species as a whole through a holdover of self selecting us VS neanderthals, except that we didn’t war them to extinction, we interbred.
Frankly shaving at all is spitting in God’s face removing the hair he created you with, by the “architect” logic.
So you again dispute your own argument that all tattoos are interpreted by the brain as “blemishes” and therefore “sickness.” If you won’t listen to my argument at least listen to yours.
And women? Do they have the same requirements w.r.t attractive tattoos on men, or do they prefer tattoos that are manly and tough? Perhaps straight men just prefer women who are feminine and delicate, which duh, and this tattoo preference is an extension of that. It also applies to facial features, hairstyles, clothes, so why wouldn’t it extend to tattoos?
I conclude that you conjure conclusions where there are none. Do you come from a country or culture that actually does view tattoos that way, like Japan or (apparently) Korea, by chance? Just a hunch. Japan thinks tattoos are only for criminals, for instance.
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced but as the Brandeis study indicated, most men do not find body hair on women attractive. Consequently, the Creator must have designed men to find body hair on women unattractive.
I came up with the blemish hypothesis before I read the survey. Note that the survey found that men find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. Something doesn’t make sense. If men find tattoos on women attractive, why do they have to be hidden? To me it suggests that men find tattoos on women attractive if they are hidden, but they don’t really care about tattoos on women unlike earrings, which enhances a women’s beauty.
I’m going to say this plainly, so that you can understand:
You’re not anywhere near as clever as you think you are
Due to the technological advancement we have conditioned ourselves to think this, but as “the architect” designed we have it and we’re supposed to like it (by your “architect” logic). It’d be like if your house was designed with window screens but you didn’t like them so you took them off, they were put there by the architect for a reason and you are altering the house by taking them away. We’re supposed to believe that altering the same house by adding a coat of paint is bad, yet altering it by removing window screens is A-Ok.
The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re so theistic you believe some immortal being directly beams thoughts to your head individually, and thus those thoughts must be “what god intended.” Since it’s no longer 0BC the rest of us know you’re not really talking to the bush.
You came up with a bad hypothesis and then backed it up with a shoddy study that doesn’t draw the conclusions you think it does. Correlation != causation, and I doubt the studies mention “cause god said so” anywhere anyway. It doesn’t make sense because you’re reading too deep into these studies in an attempt to justify your biases through your religious framework.
Know what? If god didn’t want us to get tattoos he wouldn’t have invented tattoo guns, same as razors, howboutdat?
A better analogy would be a house designed with security bars on the windows. In a low crime area, the bars could be removed because they make the house less attractitve.
I believe in what’s called intelligent design. This is the belief that the universe including life was the result of an intelligent agency. The nature of the designer such as whether it is immortal is unknown. If the Brandeis study is correct, the designer created men to innately find body hair on women unattractive.
After further thought, I think my blemish hypothesis is correct. The survey said that men find tattoos on women attractive as long as they’re small and hidden. This means that men prefer seeing plain skin on women. The reason could be that men’s brains interpret a tattoo as a blemish. A blemish on the skin such as a mole could indicate a health problem.
The designer created humans with artistic ability.
If you remove the bars you still lessen your security, no matter how safe you think the neighborhood may be, and you’re still going against the architect’s design despite your subjective opinion on the beauty (or lack thereof) of the bars. In fact Mosquitos are one of the world’s most dangerous animals to this day and those would be the bugs that hair blocks, we still “need” our bars, by your own logic.
So yes, god (at least with a small “g” unless you specify Allah, Yaweah, Jehovah, Xenu, JHVH-1, El, Prometheus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Khnum, etc). Your theory only holds up as “true” (and tenuously at that, if ) if your god is real. Pascals wager is fun and all but until such time as you can prove the existence of such a creator, your conclusions are unprovable.
You don’t even believe your own rationalizations and refuse to let your conscious mind see it. You would have said “is.”
But not the ability to distinguish art from sickness?
Fun fact, my god told me tattoos are hot and body hair is natural, and my god is bigger than your god, so therefore you’re wrong.
An architect could design a house to be more attractive without security bars but in some areas bars are necessary. Mosquitos are not a big problem in many areas. An area could be sprayed with insecticide if they become a problem. Women also now have the time and equipment to shave their legs and armpits.
Evidence for a creator is off topic.
It is simpler to design men to innately find plain skin on women attractive.
Yeah, now they can shave, but for most of human history that wasn’t the case (unless you think we’re 2000 yr old and Adam and Eve is literal not apocryphal, the human race is much older than recorded history, which is much older than 2000yr, unless you’re one of those “The Devil put dinosaur bones there to fool us” types). If what you say is true we never would have gotten to even develop fire before we died because nobody was shaving so nobody wanted to fuck.
Evidence for a creator is not off topic, it’s the entire crux of your argument. Your argument is literally “god told me to.” If god is then not real and instead all of science is correct with the theory of evolution, then your entire argument is also not real. That’s kinda the problem with hanging your insane theories on an unprovable creator, technically you can never be “disproven” as you can keep saying “god told me” while ignoring anything inconvenient as you do, but anyone who isn’t dumb enough to already fall for that won’t ever be convinced.
But this is already settled, I told you I talked to my god and he said yours is a liar. I will accept no further debate on this topic because my god is infallible and you can’t prove otherwise.
Intelligent design simply believes that the universe and life was created by an intelligent agency. There are no religious texts. When women didn’t have the equipment or time to shave, they didn’t. Removing body hair enhances a women’s sexuality but is not required for eroticism no more than makeup or perfume.
The topic is whether men find tattoos on women attractive not evidence for intelligent design.
If your argument hinges on “intelligent design is real and The Creator™ made men hate tattoos” you need to prove the first part before the second can be “true.” If intelligent design is not real then no creator made men hate tattoos, simple as.
Incorrect. I presented a survey which said that most men find tattoos on women attractive if they are small and in hidden locations. There is no requirement to give a reason. The article didn’t give a reason.
No, you are the one ascribing the reason without any evidence to support it, of course the article doesn’t back up your delusions, but that is the point, the article does not back up your delusions.
Yes
Hair is a blemish? You’re out of your goddamn mind
I am confused by what you mean
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.
Well maybe when one day when you get to enjoy a woman you won’t mind so much.
I hope you shave of all of your body hair because it is disgusting on men
gay men exist
Yes, but I’m a heterosexual male so I don’t know the feelings of gay men.
but you’re assuming everyone else you’re replying to is also a hetero male, that’s my entire point
But as a hetero male, I only know the feelings of a hetero male. I also don’t know the feelings of a female.
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.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1ca8b835-df9d-4419-8648-1de35361c750.png">
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 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 www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/…/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.
“Most guys” doesn’t mean anything. An average is a pretty bad argument when it comes to making blanket statements about people’s preferences. It ignores culture, health, age, … so many things. But I guess the point is, “it seems like 6 out of 10 people respond yes to this prompt.” It’s shallow, meaningless… It barely makes a scientific statement, let alone defend your assertions. Most guys are personable enough to also not meet such broad statements, if you supply just an ounce of real-life context.
Your results also don’t demonstrate anything beyond cultural bias in a potentially biased study.
The statements weren’t broad. They were very specific. Most guys find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. The results might not be cultural but biological, similar to the study on body hair on women.
You are overstating your sources.
A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.
Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.
Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.
The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.
Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.
The Brandeis study on body hair was scientific. The survey on tattoos was not but there does seem to be a relationship. Most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they have to be small and hidden. I conclude men prefer women with plain skin. The study on body hair on women is probably correct otherwise women would not spend time and money removing body hair.
You’re making several unsupported jumps.
First, the body-hair study does not prove a biological preference. At most it shows that a sample of men from a particular culture preferred a particular presentation of women.
Second, your tattoo source doesn’t even support your conclusion. You started with “most men find tattoos attractive if they’re small and hidden” and somehow arrived at “men prefer plain skin.” Those are not equivalent statements.
If a man finds a small tattoo attractive, then by definition he is not preferring plain skin in that case.
Third, “women spend money removing body hair, therefore men biologically prefer it” is a terrible argument. By that logic, because women spend billions on makeup, hair dye, cosmetic surgery, high heels, push-up bras, anti-aging products, and fashion, all of those preferences must also be biological. That’s obviously not how social norms work.
Finally, you’re treating “feminine” as though it’s an objective biological category when much of what people call feminine changes dramatically across time and culture. Different societies have preferred different body shapes, skin tones, hairstyles, body hair practices, tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic standards.
What your sources support is a much narrower claim: some men in some populations expressed certain preferences under certain conditions.
What they absolutely do not support is your repeated claim that women are most feminine when they have completely unmarked skin or that this is some universal male preference.
I suggest you attempt to fix your brain: it clearly malfunctions and this may indicate health problems.
“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?
Yes. See every mural ever.
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)
Quite the hypothesis. How’s it playing out
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.
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!
Wow! Wrong about both tattoos and graffiti. A two-fer
I pity you having never seen goos graffiti. Banksy weeps😭
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
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 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
To me tattoos are like graffiti. It’s art that enhances the beauty of the otherwise plain architecture.
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 www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/…/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.
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.
Only a truly blemish-free brain could have come up with this brilliant take. Not so much as a wrinkle on that surface.
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%.
It’s pretty gross how hard you’re trying to convince people that it’s normal to like prepubescent girls.
BoDy HaIr iS sEeN aS a BlEmIsH!!
Jeeeezus Christ, dude.
The article said that some respondents explained that hairless bodies made women appear younger. Body hair on women is not a blemish in that it’s not a flaw, but it makes women less attractive.
The weird reactionary impulse to do cargo-cult science will always amaze me.
You started out stupid, and then got worse
You will die alone and lonely.
I have never thought about it that way. Thanks for a explanation why some people may not like tattoos.
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.
Gross, like straight up ewww
Majority of responses like this are straight up hypocrisy.
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.
Why would you say Rome specifically you third Reich wanna be 😂 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti
Poe’s Law from the top rope.
Like in telltale heart?
That’s nice, dear
Nobody actually asked you though
Man, people online sure pick weird arguments. Who the hell cares this random dude doesn’t like tattoos? 127 downvotes for that? This is the type of shit I just scroll over
From 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.
If men finding tattoos on women attractive only if they’ll small and hidden is not much of an endorsement of tattoos at least on women.
Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.
This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.
With skin, I’m not talking about skin color but its plainness.
Yes, it’s my interpretation that men prefer watching plain skin on women. I’m just trying to make sense of men finding tattoos on women attractive but only if they’re small and in hidden places. If something is attractive, wouldn’t it be desirable to have it highly visible?
Of course, there are groups which love tattoos. Tattoos are part of the Goth scene.
That’s still not designer work. The genetic lottery doesn’t declare “this is what you’re supposed to look like”. It just spits out a genome and resulting appearance with all the consideration and passion of a die rolling off the table. The comparison with a thinking, feeling architect designing a building with deliberation and aesthetic intentions just doesn’t work.
Like I said, we could talk about whether graffiti is vandalism, but the same thing just doesn’t apply to human bodies any more than it applies to an homeowner painting their own walls.
And I’m telling you that it’s just not true, at least not so broadly as you make it out to be.
I’ll strike that “but only” from that sentence because it’s not true, as I said before. I know plenty of people with highly visible tattoos and plenty of guys (and gals) that find that attractive. Most of the tattooed women I know have or had relationships at some point, which implies that their tattoos aren’t a turnoff.
The allure that makes hidden tattoos attractive is the same thing that makes any other secret attractive, that makes conspiracy theories attractive, that makes occult practices attractive and that makes all the “doctors hate this trick” adverts work: To know something most people don’t makes you feel special. To have someone share their secret with you is a gesture of trust. And particularly to discover hidden things about the body of another is intimate on some level.
There is also a lingering issue where some people take offense to tattoos, which makes some employers less likely to hire people with visible tattoos in customer-facing jobs. There is a worry that you might trust an investment advisor less if it’s a woman with visible ink, or refuse to buy coffee from a barista with something written on her arm. So long as that stigma remains, there is a reason to hide tattoos that has nothing to do with attraction:
Cunts who think they have the right to judge what others do with their own bodies.
Don’t be a cunt.
The Brandeis study indicated that most men find body hair on women unattractive. This suggests that men innately find body hair on women unattractive. There is no genetic lottery, the dice are loaded.
Your hypothesis that the attractiveness of tattoos on women is that they are hidden is plausible but is counter intuitive since something beautiful would seemingly want to be shown such as earrings on women.
You contradict your own hypothesis that tattoos are attractive on women if they’re hidden. Consequently, you should have no problem with employers telling employees to cover their tattoos.
I don’t know that study or how representative it is, but even if it were, there are two glaring errors here:
In any event, that study also isn’t representative of the cultural environment I move in. I don’t know what culture you’re from to feel so strongly about this, but it certainly isn’t universal.
My claim is that, specifically for hidden tattoos (regardless of the wearer’s sex), part of the appeal may be that they’re hidden. This isn’t the only reason tattoos might be attractive, just an appeal a specific subset may have (and not all within that subset either – some tattoos genuinely are ugly, but that doesn’t mean all are).
Pussies are beautiful too, but that doesn’t mean everyone wants to show them to the world. Some beautiful things are only shown to select people, and that’s fine.
But also, many beautiful tattoos are shown in public, and I love that, and I know many people who love that, and any claim that men categorically find them unappealing in women is just not representative.
I made no claim that they are only attractive when hidden, or only when public, because attractiveness is generally nuanced and complex and can’t be broken down to absolutes like that.
The whole topic of tattoos, particularly when it’s straight men talking about women’s tattoos, often veers into men policing women’s bodies. Women don’t exist for your or my viewing pleasure. If you think they’re ugly, that’s your opinion. Even if it was a common opinion, it would still be an opinion.
Announcing “I don’t like this thing some people do” is a dick move in the first place. Let people enjoy things. Let them do with their bodies what they want.
But to make it specifically about women and keep doubling down? Fuck the fuck off. No half-baked attempt at providing scientific backing for sexism is gonna make it less sexist.
I’ve been trying to be charitable thus far, but let me be clear here: Tattoos, no matter the sex, gender, ethnicity, religion or favourite sports team of their wearer, are an expression of individuality. Whether or not they’re beautiful or attractive by any standard shouldn’t matter.
I happen to love them, but that’s incidental to my basic human respect for other people’s dignity.
Yes, whether men’s preference for no body hair on women is innate or cultural would require further scientific studies.
Yes, there is no direct relationship between men’s feeling towards tattoos and body hair on women, but it could indicate that men prefer looking at plain skin on women.
You explained that most men finding tattoos on women attractive if there’re small and hidden is because some things are attractive if hidden. Then there should be nothing wrong with employers requiring women to hide tattoos since they’re attractive only if hidden. Employers are stricter towards up front personnel regarding dress code because they give people an impression of the company. Employers would probably say nothing about tattoos for employees working in nonvisible positions such as stock clerk. Actually, up front men would be required to cover tattoos. You would not tolerate all tattoos. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Maine was criticized for having a tattoo of Totenkopf, a Nazi symbol. He had it covered up.
I looked up the article you alluded to earlier. As an aside, articles are generally referred to by author and year, not just the institution. Given that it’s the only relevant paper I found from Brandeis University, I’m going to assume you mean Azevedo, L. (Fall 2021). Male Stigmatisation of Female Body Hair.
It refers to a previous study by Prokop that had a sample made up of 96 students from a single Slovakian university, which is most certainly not a balanced and representative sample. It also refers to an entertainment video made by a fashion magazine with three participants, which is about as unscientific a source as you could come up with.
Azevedo then proceeds to acknowledge that, besides these two sources, there is “not enough evidence […] on men’s opinions regarding female body hair.”
I will note here that Prokop at least specified the source of his 96 participants, while I fail to see any indication how Azevedo’s 21(!) participants were selected. That is a smaller sample size, less transparent and if I’m reading this right, the survey consisted of three pairs of pictures.
This “study” is, put mildly, worthless filler, and has the gall to call that “confirmation”. It might indicate a potential direction of research by suggesting a the tendency to perceive shaved women as younger, but that is all it is. Any results you might see in it wouldn’t require “further scientific study”, but rather “actually scientific study”, because this sure isn’t.
The article does cite plenty of other sources, which is the more valuable thing about it. These sources are, among other things, used to cement the impression that men seem to find younger women sexy. Specifically, “a hairless body is a direct representation of a pre-puberty body”.
As for the question of natural or cultural, the article actually answers that by stating that women try to fit in with patriarchal expectations and by citing these other sources to illustrate that hair removal only really became “an important part of femininity between 1915–1945”, started in part by Gillette trying to sell a razor and accelerated by pornography sexualising youth.
It concludes that, as a result of easy access to said pornography, men “form the wrong expectation of how the female body should look”.
Frankly, I had my doubts about your claim before. Now I’m very much convinced you didn’t even read the source you cite, just made up a conclusion and grasped for anything to support it.
This is a wonderful way to isolate yourself from any accusation of having implied a claim. Your mention of scientific studies could indicate that you’re actually interested in the point. It could also mean you’re just trying to double down on the assertion that women are objectively more attractive without tattoos by reaching for the closest thing you get to a confirmation that plain skin could be more attractive.
You know the worst part of all this? Even if you were right, even if there was some measure proving that they’re objectively more attractive and all the people who actually like tattoos are just freaks of nature, it still wouldn’t give you, or me, or anyone else any right to tell women what to do with their own fucking bodies.
Look, I get that you’re not big on reading, but I’ve already disambiguated that “only” is misplaced here, because there are multiple ways tattoos can be attractive.
And even if it was the only way, an employer has no right to demand attractiveness from his employees, regardless of their gender or presentation. Women don’t owe sexiness to anyone, period.
And that impression is…? Whether their employees are willing to submit to arbitrary, antiquated and pointless social standards about attractiveness?
That was my point: Customers having a stick up their arse is the only justification to demand conformity to that arse-stickery. Whether your clerk or cashier is ugly or attractive or the hottest person to ever walk the earth has no bearing on their competence. Bodily hygiene, sure, that has health and olfactory implications. But personal appearance shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
I wouldn’t tolerate Nazi symbols in graffiti either, or any other medium
I posted the link; you didn’t have to spend time looking for the article.
The article said that women also find a hairless body more feminine and attractive. Also, the rise of feminism didn’t change this. This suggests that it’s innate. The author believes in evolution. Consequently, he attempts to reconcile a contradiction. Female body hair indicates a girl has reached puberty and can reproduce. Therefore, it would seemingly be a selective advantage for men to be attracted to body hair on women. He explains the contradiction by saying that society is the cause. As I pointed out above, the explanation is wanting. Also, if there is an evolutionary advantage for men liking body hair on women, why would a patriarchal society want women to remove body hair? Since I believe that humans were created, I can simply say that humans were designed to find women without body hair more attractive just as humans were designed to find earrings on women attractive.
You dislike the Totenkopf tattoo on Platner because of its meaning but if you were an employer, how would you know what tattoos are offensive? Platner said that he didn’t know Totenkopf was a Nazi symbol. It would be simpler for an employer to have employees cover up tattoos at least for upfront employees.
I didn’t see it in our conversation, sorry if I missed it.
…because they are pressured by social factors to conform to a certain image of beauty, which the article states to be a fairly new phenomenon.
“However, it has only become an important part of femininity between 1915–1945, especially in the Western world (Basow, 1991). Before this time, by looking at beauty books and catalogs, it is noticeable that most women didn’t remove armpit and leg hair (Hope, 1982).”
“With the second feminist wave and the spread of hippie culture, pubic hair was neither uncommon nor seen as unnatural (Cerini, 2020). Unshaved female genitalia even started to be represented in Playboy (Cerini, 2020).”
It certainly did. That change just didn’t hold up to the pressures of media that wanted to sell a certain aesthetic:
“This completely changed in the following decades, however, as full body hair removal became not only preferred, but the norm. […] [Brazilian waxing] exploded in the market as the media and celebrities began to support and advertise this completely hairless look (Webb-Liddall, 2019). Research associated exposure to certain magazines and TV shows with pubic hair removal (Bercaw-Pratt et al., 2012, as cited by Li & Braun 2017).”
“By understanding the history behind female body hair removal, it is possible to see how it started as a way to generate profit through the development of a new market. […] It is interesting to see that the association of a hairless body with femininity grew over the course of decades to become what men see as ideal when looking for a mate today.”
If it was innate, why would it not be an issue for millennia, then suddenly explode within decades?
As an aside: Lígia is usually a girl’s name. This is most likely a woman investigating why her sex is subjected to certain pressures.
Evolution works on far greater spans of time than a century. It doesn’t have any bearing on this trend. But if you want to bring that into the discussion, the advantages of hair (cited from Bergman, J. (2004). Why mammal body hair is an evolutionary enigma. via the article) are "retention of heat, sexual dimorphism, attraction of mates, protection of skin and reflection (or absorption) of sunlight”. To reflect on their bearing on humans in order of mention:
The lone evolutionary advantage to hairlessness cited is that “Ancient Egyptians also shaved their heads to prevent lice infection”. Other primates have mutual removal of parasites as a social ritual. They also generally don’t have the technology to depilate. And again, they are more dependant on their fur than humans.
This is just one of many ways humans have removed evolutionary pressures from our lives. Hence, however important it might have been a hundred thousand years ago, body hair is just no longer a strict necessity for us. That doesn’t strictly mean that we’d evolve away from growing it, if there also is no pressure to the opposite, just that it stops being as strong of a selection criterion.
So why did we start favouring hairlessness a century ago? Per the arti
First the article cites men’s attraction to breasts and waist to hip ratio as innate evolutionary selective advantages. Babies can recognize pretty faces. From calendar-canada.ca/…/can-babies-tell-if-youre-pre…
A further line of evidence relating to infants’ facial representations is infants’ preference for attractive faces. Infants 2 months of age and older will spend more time looking at attractive faces when these are shown paired with less attractive faces (Langlois et al., 1987; Samuels & Ewy, 1985).
Yet, the author claims that men’s attraction to women with hairless bodies is cultural. She is claiming that advertisement can change people’s perception of beauty. Then how did men’s perception of beauty regarding body hair originate? Did Gillette advertise that women are more attractive without pubic hair? Why has this perception persisted? Persistence is evidence of innateness. If companies including Gillette offered to pay this author and Brandeis University millions to determine how advertisement can change people’s perception of beauty, do you think they can do it? Egyptians shaved their hair to prevent lice. Are bald headed people attractive? Women began shaving their body hair after the invention of the safety razor because they were now able to do it safely. Also, fashion became more revealing.
Men find stockings on women attractive yet, women don’t wear them as often. Why can’t advertisement change this?
Evolutionists claim that attraction to earrings on women is because it indicates wealth isn’t satisfactory. Then why don’t women wear it in the nose or eyebrows?
I’ve been thinking of your hypothesis that female genitalia is an example of something hidden but is attractive to explain men’s attraction to tattoos on women only if they’re small and hidden. Breasts and genitalia are erotic. That’s the reason they’re hidden. Tattoos are not erotic. Also, why wouldn’t a large tattoo on a women’s behind be attractive? A better explanation is that men are attracted to small and hidden tattoos on women is that this doesn’t distract from a women’s body.
I believe in intelligent design. This is the belief that the universe and life was the result of an intelligent agency. The nature of the designer is unknown because science cannot determine it.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/494d47d3-01d8-4696-83ac-990bdd1231ce.jpeg">
A lot of people don’t realize that South Korea was a dictatorship until the 80s.
Korea is not in SE Asia