Tattoos are a very common factor when it comes down to judging people, and a lot of individuals perceive tattoos to be a warning sign to steer clear from an individual.
Men are especially judged by their tattoos and often parents tend to tell their children to avoid these members of society, and it's quite common for them to cross the road.
Realistically though, a tattoo is just some ink on somebodies skin, it does not mean that they are a danger to your children or even you, it simply means it is another form of them expressing themselves.
Please get a grip society, is this really what is comes down to, some ink on skin, no longer do we can about a persons behavior or personality.
You might be avoiding this man and keeping your children away from him, but next week or even next year, this evil tattoo'd man might in fact be the consultant doctor that saves your little princesses life.
Are these really the people that you need to be protecting your children from?
The people who openly have some ink on them, the people that are expressing their stories, or the hidden away pedophiles, the secretive neighbor next door you never see, the trusted family friend who you would trust with your life, it's the people you don't worry about that often surprise you, they can be emotionally, sexually, physically abusing your children and still you won't open your eyes, still you make all these judgement about people without knowing a thing about them, you need to start looking closer to home at the people you do know about, they're the real threat.
Ridiculously women are often judged on their tattoos and people often assume that they are either gay or promiscuous, in regards to sexuality, this is an absolutely ridiculous assumption as unless a tattoo literally states "I kiss women" then there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest that they do, and even if a tattoo were to say that it could even be an ironic joke.
Sexuality is not defined by how you look, what you dress like, what you wear, or even whether you are inked, it is solely based upon emotions, feelings and sexual attraction.
Furthermore the assumptions regarding a woman's exclusivity can most definitely not be related to tattoos whatsoever, quite often if a woman has got a lot of tattoos, in order to photograph them all at once then there may include underwear shots yes, but how does this differ from the average underwear shots of models?
Is this really the issue though, is it the tattoos?
.jpg)
This lady has got a very large amount of tattoo's, however on the website which it was sourced from, she speaks openly about how she receives a large amount of verbal abuse saying that she is unattractive and makes tattoo's look awful. Perhaps this style of tattoo is not one of your preference, however how can you say that she is unattractive when you can't even see her face.
Her body is a real body, she has a waist, hips, curves, pert buttocks and defined legs, is that or is that not the same as other tattoo models?
.jpg)
This model however, receives a lot of abuse regarding claims that she must be "a slut", and other variations to describe her incredibly apparent promiscuity, however let me back-track slightly and consider the fact that more ink apparently means more sexual activity. Would that not mean the above photo was suggesting more promiscuity than the photo to the right?
They both show equal proportions of the body, one showing buttocks, one partial breast, however the bottom photo has less ink?
It can only lead to the conclusion that there is more to these judgement, that it isn't the ink which causes people to jump to conclusions, perhaps it's something different, something the below photo must posses that the one above doesn't.
If a photo of a man with a gun were to mean people jumped to the conclusions they were mass murderers, and even mass murdering psychopaths with intent to kill your family and lead others astray for the more creative stereotypers then perhaps it would make more sense.
Sadly, this is not the case, just because there is a photo of a woman in her underwear, does not mean that they are a threat, a slut, or intent upon stealing your husband, maybe it means they are proud of their body, has that ever occurred to you?
Unless the photo has them literally inserting unanimous objects into their vagina then I'm very certain there is nothing to suggest that they are at all promiscuous.
What these photo suggests is something far different, an entire new can of worms, it suggests that they are comfortable in their own skin, and comfortable with their bodies, and at least if they aren't then they are trying to be.
This is the threat to modern day society, they are intimidated by confident, independent women, and it's judgments like this which lead society to feel so bad about themselves and have such low self esteem, if you feel good about yourself, then there are always people there to pick faults with you, to push you down until you're on the same level as them and what you once felt good about, is now what concerns you most.
It always boils down to the juvenile philosophy, degrading others to make yourself feel better, we have developed our society so that we make everybody feel bad about themselves, to try to make ourselves better.
But of course to open our eyes and admit this would be to admit a fault, which as a society we cannot do, we must only pick faults with others, and keep up pretenses that we are perfect. So we ignore the fact we are secretly trying to put others down, we hide it under the cover of "ink prejudices", we try to segregate groups of society which stand out, and perhaps even display some confidence, we do whatever it takes.
We live in a selfish world, one where we pretend to have other people in mind and consideration, when really, we only do it to make ourselves look better.
Confidence is beautiful, ink is beautiful, we all have our own ways of expressing beauty and ways to make ourselves feel better, some are selfish, some appear selfless, but we cannot hide the fact that we live in a society where you break, or be broken down, just to be moulded into what we see as perfection.
We live in a society where nothing is beautiful, yet so is everything, we live in a world where everybody is hearing, but not one of us is listening.
Oh gosh, I think these judgments come from something more primitive. People are always looking to stay safe. And since they meet a lot of strangers, and can't know about everyone they meet, they depend on visual clues to know if the "other" is safe or not. In the cave-man days, people who looked most like you and your own tribe were more likely to be safe, whereas people who looked different were worth being suspicious of. In fact, people may have developed different ways of dressing, or wearing their hair, or otherwise identifying themselves visually, as a means to make clear which tribe they were affiliated with, so they could know who was safe or not. As you know, people are also always into comparing themselves with others, that also seems to be a built in human quality too. And may also have something to do with the need to stay safe.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the more a person looks like us, and the more they assume the visual trappings of our tribe, the safer we feel. The more they look different than us, the more we tend to be wary of them. While this can lead to trouble, some might say that it's also a subconscious way of keeping ourselves safe, and a part of human nature.
It's also probably a power thing. The majority tends to rule, and you yourself may be safer if you look how the majority looks, and more open to suspicion if you look differently.
As we mature as a society, I think we need to fight against these parts of our nature, but they extend so far back into our genetic past that it takes effort. People have to fight against their discomfort, and that's not something that comes naturally to many people.
AT