>>12575>Nude is defined as "Without clothing or other covering of the skin", naked is defined as "Bare, not covered by clothing.", hence they are the same thing.In the visual arts, there is a difference between 'naked' and 'nude'—this distinction is one of the first things you learn about in any Art History 101 class, especially on the topic of painting. I think you could have an interesting conversation on this when discussing body art. Even in a 'naked' state a tattooed person could still be seen as 'nude' because they've allowed their bodies to be used as a canvas. Perhaps this is where some men get the idea that tattooed women are more promiscuous. Why get a tattoo if you had no intention of showing it off, right? Hell, some people might feel entitled to see it! It's a potentially scary thought.
>your words [...] do not refute or argue against the premise in the quote [...] which poses the idea that tattoos resemble clothingI chose not to refute or argue against it because the premise itself is stupid. If you fucked a heavily tattooed woman, will you be convinced that you're fucking her clothed? Skin feels like skin, tattooed or not. If its equally smooth and unblemished, you might as well fuck a doll at that point. Tattoos aren't blemishes so long as they heal correctly, and provided the client didn't go to a shitty tattooist. But say this hypothetical woman was subject to scarring from her tattoos, why would that be a big deal? The sexual appeal of tattoos, for me, is the additional opportunities for foreplay. It's fun (and erotic) to follow the contours of the ink for the same reason why I like to touch acrylic paintings; it's not necessarily something that's meant to be touched, it's meant to be seen. To be allowed the privilege of that intimate moment, well; it's sexy and cool as fuck. Does the idea of the human body not being as much of an essential, immutable subject (trying to avoid the word, 'pure') disturb you?
>To you perhaps, but not necessarily for the rest of us.No, that's literally what it means. Go to a figure drawing class sometime and insist on calling the model they have posing nude, 'naked'—I dare you, see how people react.
>For that matter, what even constitutes 'experimenting'? It sounds like a euphamism for doing crack.Stop being obtuse. You know what I mean.
>Perhaps that is why you see them as being more appealing? Perhaps you see them as a symbol of rebellion against those who denied you the opportunity to have them?Initially yes, like any Midwestern suburban kid who grew up in a socially conservative, Christian household. But now that I'm well into adulthood, I can genuinely appreciate the art form; even some of the bad and mediocre ones.
>>12578>The stance OP is basing this off of hinges on conditional definitions and the idea that there's intrinsic value to tattoos.Ah yes, the moment someone pulls up a dictionary you just know nothing productive will ever come out of the exchange. I realize I'm talking past everyone, so I'll just leave the thread.
>He fails to see that you can enjoy art and you can enjoy women, but they need not necessarily be mixed to appreciate either more.I enjoy art and I enjoy women; I also enjoy the rare occasions when they're mixed together (especially on a fat fetish basis). OP clearly has trouble sharing that appreciation, and has pronounced apprehension over this 'trend' potentially becoming more widespread.
>He disagrees with "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which is the same as agreeing to disagreeOP says women are free to do what they want their bodies
>>12305 but only as a way of saving face that they would prefer women not get any at all
>>12301 — I would place this accusation on them, not me.
>>12605>If Margot spent $300 or $1,000 + on that John Wayne Gacey Frankenstein tat on her thigh makes no difference if it's hot. The tattoo artist did a fine job, looks just like his drawing. Then Margot wanted it framed and the tat artist has done a fine job there as well. BUT it still looks stupid and unappealing sexually.Honestly I'm a sucker for 'abstract' art in ornate frames. If it were up to me, I would've made the frame B&W or ditched the flowers entirely and gone full baroque excess. Either way, there's still a lot to play with there and I'm sure people who don't even know what it is are drawn to it regardless. It's certainly a conversation-starter, and that's the least you can hope for with a tattoo.
>You say tattoos from centuries ago had more thought and craft. Ok, so you agree there's bad tattoos these days women are stupidly covering themselves in? Wouldn't that be a poor decision for their sex appeal? Making them *not* instead of *hot*?It depends on the tattoos and how bad I think they are! None of the examples posted in this thread so far have been especially egregious or cringey. You'd have to post some real 'People of Walmart' type shit to get as visceral reaction out of me.
