EDIT: Apparently the author of the blog that started this rant has now made his blog private. I don't know that it has much to do with this post, but I like to think that I helped make the internet a little less stupid.
_____________
I have to thank Karamazov and his blog post “Tattoos and
Other Easy Ways to Ruin Your Body.” If it weren't for that blog, I don’t know that I would have been
inspired to start my own.
Welcome to my blog, "And Another Thing" dedicated addressing stupid on the
internet.
P.S. I've linked to that blog because it is right to give
credit, not because I think you should give it traffic… I will be including
completely un-doctored screen shots of the pertinent parts of his blog in this
one.
Tattoos and Other Easy Ways to Ruin Your Body
Obviously, the title is meant to be inflammatory, but I went
to this blog giving him the benefit of the doubt that it would at least be
restricted to his own opinion about tattoos. I mean our aesthetic preferences
are entirely subjective; what one person finds beautiful another person can
find revolting. That’s life. I can respect a different opinion.
But then, this happened:
Again, that is a screen shot that I have not tampered with
in any way. That is also the opening paragraph in this blog post that, I think,
has actually embarrassed the internet a little bit.
The first few sentences he spends explaining that women’s
tattoos are ugly. OK, fair enough. You don’t like tattoos (on women?) and that
is an entirely valid opinion to have if you want it. But the eyebrow raise
began somewhere around “We do not
like them. We respect you less for
them.” I mean, he can’t honestly be trying to present his opinion as
universally true, can he? Oh wait, yes he can!
“Men who gush about the sexiness of girls with tattoos do
this because they are culturally trained to do so.”
Congratulations, guys, your rights to your own opinions on
tattoos are have been completely eliminated as irrelevant and wrong if you
thought you disagreed with this blogger. I mean, wow. I got right away that he
didn’t have much respect for women’s self-expression, but apparently that
extends to absolutely everyone with a differing opinion.
Mr. Karamazov, I want to briefly discuss the logical concept
of the verificationism (I will be sure to make this as simple as possible). To
put it plainly, logic dictates that a proposition (a statement or question) can
only be considered valid if there is a way to determine whether the statement
is true or false (not believed or disbelieved, mind). A statement like “Men who
gush about the sexiness of girls with tattoos do this because they are
culturally trained to do so” cannot
be determined as either true or false, and is therefore logically flawed. In
other words, you are spouting rubbish. Stop it.
In the same way people (not me) become fascinated with Honey Boo Boo,
I couldn't stop reading. I was committed now.
“The fact that women with tattoos and piercings are
exceptionally easy to conquer sexually with minimal effort always gets
contested despite the universal anecdotal evidence to the contrary” Fact? FACT?
I mean, you just
can’t.
 |
| Source: Oxford English Dictionary Online |
 |
| Source: Oxford English Dictionary Online |
"Universal anecdote” is an oxymoron.
They are for the most part
mutually exclusive terms.
Unless you are trying to claim that you have
literally slept with every woman who has a tattoo which you, me and a vast
number of other women know is total bullshit. And I do mean just a staggeringly
huge number of other women.
Anyway… that little vocabulary lesson aside…
Let me get one thing out in the open right now. I do not believe that a dislike of tattoos (on women or men) necessarily equates to being an old-fashioned, fundamentalist bigot. An opinion on something like tattoos is the same as an opinion on any piece of art. I don’t expect you to like the same things I do and do expect the same consideration in return.
Whether or not I think you’re a bigot, Karamazov, well… draw your own conclusions.
 |
| Source: Oxford English Dictionary |
The condescending post continues for a while much the same as it started, presuming that his opinions are “universal anecdotes” or whatever other nonsense he’d use to describe them. And then this happened:
It’s where another who put what-now, where?
And it was at this
point that I decided to write this blog.
OK, I will admit. I raged about this so hard that it was
actually difficult for me to do anything but splutter profanities that would
make a sailor blush.
“Because it’s where another man left his mark on you.” What?
Women are not passports! You won’t often hear me talk about
objectification, but this is an astounding example. What you have done here is
turn women into something that are only acted upon and who are incapable of
acting for themselves. Women have their own wills that you can’t just strip
from the tattoo getting process. What if a woman has a favorite necklace that
she bought for herself and wears all the time that happened to be made and/or
sold by a man? Someone who was jealous of that would justifiably be labeled
somewhere around Charles Manson on the crazy scale.
In the same way that the designer/seller of the necklace is
a gender-less, neutral service provider so too is a tattoo artist. They are
providing a service. They are not seeking this woman out and seducing her into
letting her do this to them. They are passive in this transaction, it is
initiated, driven and concluded by the woman’s will and desire. A tattoo is a matter of self-expression and displaying
art; would you be equally offended if a woman had a Picasso print or Ansel
Adams photo in her house? No? Thought not.
For those of you wondering where that link goes, here
you go!
For those of you who would rather just keep reading, it goes
to an Amazon link of a book (that we can’t even confirm the blogger has read)
which is to a book published in 1933. Let that sink in for a second.
Now, I provide you with a well-researched
article detailing the history of tattoos from Greece and Rome to the
introduction and development in Western Culture. Note the absence of reference
to prostitution.
But honestly, all of that is irrelevant. Whatever the social
norms used to be, times change and with it, the social connotations associated
with practices such as tattooing.
“A woman with ink is an easy lay compared to her
clean-skinned counterpart.” Again, there are a few things I want to say about
this statement, and I am actually finding it difficult to know which one to address
first because they are all equally important points. So, in no particular
order:
- You are confusing an opinion with fact again. And before you cry that all your friends agree with you, the plural of anecdote is not data.
- SO WHAT? A woman’s worth or value is not determined by the amount of people she has or hasn’t slept with. If a woman likes sex and enjoys a healthy sex life, what right do you have to judge? What is the difference between a man sleeping with 10 women and a woman sleeping with 10 men (or whatever arbitrary number you think makes a person “easy lay”)?
- Once more we see Mr. Karamazov assuming that women are devoid of personal drive and will. Women are just as capable as anyone else of seeking out a one night stand for the sake of having a one night stand. How many men are an easy lay would you say?
And that final thought about guys respecting women with
tattoos less is laughable, and brings me back to my point about
verificationism. Please, please look
this concept up before voicing any more opinions on the internet, or you will
just continue to come across like someone who doesn’t understand basic logic.
There you go again, presuming you know what is going through
the mind of every person who has ever gotten at tattoo ever.
“Want to rebel? Want to demonstrate independence? Want to be
edgy?” Then you should conform to a very specific idea of beauty regardless of
your own opinions… because that makes all the sense. All of it.
Oh good, I was wondering if you were going to touch on this
subject at all.
“It’s not fair, but neither is child leukemia or Cystic
Fibrosis.”
Wait. What?
What is wrong with you? I mean, seriously using terminal
illnesses to justify your terrible argument? Are you actually a monster?
Anyway… earlier I asked who you were to judge and what the
difference was between men and women sleeping around. Clearly I have my answer.
It’s just a truth of society, apparently. You know what? You cannot change what
you refuse to confront. If you agree that it is not fair to stigmatize women
for sleeping around and not men (which you do, in this very blog, right there
in black and white) STOP PROMOTING THOSE JUDGMENTS OF WOMEN!
And what is a manly activity?
In conclusion, if nothing else, you have made it quite clear
that you are an outsider of the tattoo and body piercing community looking in
through a very dirty window. I am not going to speculate about where the
pollution of your view on tattoos and piercings came from. But I will say this:
you are wrong.
I assume the immediate reaction to that statement would be
something along the lines of “But it’s my opinion!” This would be uttered with
the hope of my conceding that opinions (however much I may disagree with them)
cannot technically be wrong. But you are not voicing opinions when you say that “all men”
think a certain way or that “all women” get tattoos for the same reason. You
are voicing what you believe to be true as if it were truth and anecdotes as if
they were established fact. That’s not an opinion. It is a fallacious argument
and demonstrably wrong.
Based on how Karamazov responds to dissenting opinions in
the comments on his own site, I have no doubt that if he chooses to respond to
this he will simply retort with a personal insult against me rather than try to
defend his position or legitimately argue mine, but I would welcome him or
anyone else to try. I am a huge supporter of free speech and will not block,
lock or delete comments for any reason.
Finally, I encourage everyone to
read up about the good work done by Ink 180 (a
cause I strenuously support).
