Re: A few points about expression and the female body

Posted by Elizabeth on December 11, 2000 at 13:18:49:

In Reply to: Re: A few points about expression and the female body posted by Mikko on December 11, 2000 at 11:33:55:

: Obviously, you are unaquainted with the concept of the male gaze and body ownership--> yet you respond to it subconsciously. When
you say "tattoed chick = slut" you are claiming it is the male perspective and interpretation of the female body that determines it's purity
or value. This is exactly the reason a woman may feel compelled to assert ownership of her own form.

--- No, he isn't saying that. He is saying that a lot of guys would think that and they do. It doesn't have anything to do with theories about the
ways purity and value are determined, it's a simple fact of life.

In subtext, it is what he's saying, Mikko. By saying "it's a simple fact of life", you are not only reinforcing the idea but saying that it should not be resisted. That's very disappointing.

In the Navy there was a real tattoo artist, who actually did them for (on?) a few fellas. (My fake one was a sort of a spoof about that) He told us
as that quite a few female clients come in, readily expose very intimate parts of their body and want a tattoo on them. Some of them openly
admit they want a large tattoo they can partially display and ask men 'do you want to see the rest of it?' and that they think it improves their
chances.

Other women want a small one on the ankle or something. A cute little butterfly, for example. Their motivation is obviously different.

No question some girls do it to get sex. Do you find that morally offensive?

Follow Ups:

• So you wanna talk about subtexts? Mikko 14:00:35 12/11/00 (3)
  • Yes, I do Elizabeth 15:27:15 12/11/00 (2)
    • Re: Yes, I do Mikko 07:30:43 12/12/00 (1)
      • Thanks for the response Elizabeth 12:35:23 12/12/00 (0)

Post a Followup