Kat Von D - Airbrushed and Tattoos Concealed

Larianne

black francis wrote: »

Clothes can be a deal breaker.

I thought most guys like steak?

Elmidena

Never noticed before (not that I spend any time willingly on Lady Gaga) but her knee down looks like an elbow+forearm :eek:...doesn't look right at all!

settings

Zulu wrote: »

Absolutely not.
(It would be akin to saying her clothes would be a deal breaker)

you can always take te clothes off :rolleyes:

SugarHigh

G86 wrote: »

Given the naysayers here, dare I ask you this question: if you met a girl you had savage chemistry with and got on well with, would the tattoos be a deal breaker?

No but they probably do make it less likely I'd have chemistry with them. I don't like people who try to stand out in a crowd for no other reason but to stand out in a crowd. If you stand out in a crowd because of a talent or something actually about you then that's fine. I view these kind of tattoos as boring people trying to be interesting by buying it.

SugarHigh

SugarHigh wrote: »

No but they probably do make it less likely I'd have chemistry with them. I don't like people who try to stand out in a crowd for no other reason but to stand out in a crowd. If you stand out in a crowd because of a talent or something actually about you then that's fine. I view these kind of tattoos as boring people trying to be interesting by buying it.

Does she not stand out of the crowd because of her talent?

Owen

With the Tatts?



But only cause they compensate for the hideous man voice.

Magic Eight Ball

SugarHigh wrote: »

No but they probably do make it less likely I'd have chemistry with them. I don't like people who try to stand out in a crowd for no other reason but to stand out in a crowd. If you stand out in a crowd because of a talent or something actually about you then that's fine. I view these kind of tattoos as boring people trying to be interesting by buying it.

I haven't posted much in this thread because I have little interest in arguing tattoos with people such as yourself. Believing someone exclusively gets tattooed only to 'stand out from the crowd' is truly one of the most moronic statements I've ever heard.

Take a bow! :rolleyes:

DenMan

Kat with tats. even saying it like that sounds great. they definitely add to her self-image. very sexy woman. yes most definitely.

tfitzgerald

I like tattoos on a girl as long as they are not pointing to her chest then they just frighten me a little

Wolfe Tone

Larianne wrote: »

I thought most guys like steak?

Its obvious she doesnt know what to do with a good steak!

Hyperbullet

She looks fantastic with the tatts.

Feckfox

Zulu wrote: »

looks far better without the tats.

Agreed. IMO this is generally the case.

The girl in the OP is good looking though - with and without the tatoos.

G86

SugarHigh wrote: »

No but they probably do make it less likely I'd have chemistry with them. I don't like people who try to stand out in a crowd for no other reason but to stand out in a crowd. If you stand out in a crowd because of a talent or something actually about you then that's fine. I view these kind of tattoos as boring people trying to be interesting by buying it.

There are posters here who personally aren't attracted to women with tattoos, and that's fine. There are posters here who don't mind a few tattoos but aren't attracted to Kat Von D's, and that's fine too.

But you have been nothing but judgemental, rude, and ridiculously close minded in your opinion, and that's not fine.

You don't seem to understand that a tattoo isn't simply an accessory, it's not something you get to 'stand out' or to make a statement, it's a reflection of your identity - and it's a part of you! If it makes you stand out then that's simply a consequence of your decision to get inked, due to the fact that you're in a minority, but it's not a deciding factor! People get tattoos for all sorts of reasons, and none of them need to justify those reasons to anyone else. You say that if you can't understand it then it's pointless, but you don't seem to get that it's THEIR tattoo, it's an expression of THEIR own identity, and it has absolutely nothing to do with you! So whether you can correctly interpret it or not is completely irrelevant.

I dyed my hair black there at the weekend, it's not my natural colour though so people have noticed it and I've stood out; I got my lip pierced a few years ago, people often ask me about it as it's very visible; I'm a chick who lifts more weight than a lot of guys, I'm one of very few women who train in my gym, so I'm in the minority; I'm a vegetarian, so when I go to a restaurant I have to ask for a specific menu, which differs from my peers; And sometimes I paint my finger nails different colours, most people use the same colour but I like it them this way!

All of the above are my own individual traits and preferences... but God aye, I'm SUCH an attention seeker:rolleyes:

Max Power1

Ricardo G wrote: »

She had tattoos long before she was famous so i doubt the above statement. As good as she looks without the the tatts she looks even nicer with'em me thinks

+1

parker kent

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

I haven't posted much in this thread because I have little interest in arguing tattoos with people such as yourself. Believing someone exclusively gets tattooed only to 'stand out from the crowd' is truly one of the most moronic statements I've ever heard.

Take a bow! :rolleyes:

A little harsh on him, isn't it? I think people that don't like tattoos are being forced to defend perfectly acceptable personal preferences on this thread. I tend not to be attracted to tattoos, but if other people want them, that is their business.

I think that in general, many people with tattoos have different interests/way of life to me. That's not saying one or the other is better, but we're just different. You have to admit that having Kat Von D's level of tattoos is out of the ordinary and is normally indicative of certain characteristics.

G86

parker kent wrote: »

A little harsh on him, isn't it? I think people that don't like tattoos are being forced to defend perfectly acceptable personal preferences on this thread. .

Not harsh enough. Personal preference is fine, such as Galvaseans post stating that he prefers women without tattoos. But tarring everyone who's inked with the same brush, and coming out with such excessive generalisations is complete bull and NOT what this thread is about.

Wolfe Tone

G86 wrote: »

Not harsh enough. Personal preference is fine, such as Galvaseans post stating that he prefers women without tattoos. But tarring everyone who's inked with the same brush, and coming out with such excessive generalisations is complete bull and NOT what this thread is about.

But you have generalized yourself... Some people do get tattoos for the reasons Sugarhigh mentioned.

parker kent

G86 wrote: »

Not harsh enough. Personal preference is fine, such as Galvaseans post stating that he prefers women without tattoos. But tarring everyone who's inked with the same brush, and coming out with such excessive generalisations is complete bull and NOT what this thread is about.

Didn't he say probably though? So that doesn't mean everybody. I doubt he actually means every single person with tattoos and was just talking in generalisations.

G86

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But you have generalized yourself... Some people do get tattoos for the reasons Sugarhigh mentioned.

No I haven't. Read my posts. In one, I referred to SOME people who do get tattoos for the reasons he mentioned, but I also said that this does not apply to everyone who's tattooed. He, however, is saying that everyone who's tattooed does it for the reasons he's stating, which is a completely uncalled for generalisation.

SugarHigh

G86 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that a tattoo isn't simply an accessory,

Yes it is. You are trying to elevate the credibility of tattoos over general fashion items but you haven't been able to articulate why they deserve this respect.

it's not something you get to 'stand out' or to make a statement, it's a reflection of your identity - and it's a part of you!

Articulate to me how spots on your face and a flower on your arm is a reflection of anyone's identity.

You say that if you can't understand it then it's pointless, but you don't seem to get that it's THEIR tattoo, it's an expression of THEIR own identity, and it has absolutely nothing to do with you! So whether you can correctly interpret it or not is completely irrelevant.

I'm saying that if you express something in a manner that can't be understood you haven't expressed anything. If I invent my own language and use it to write a book to "express" my views on Libertarianism then I haven't really expressed anything. If people can't understand what you are trying to communicate then you aren't communicating. It's just that simple. If it's a self-expression that only you can understand why try and express it publicly?

This whole idea of expression with relation to these fashion Tattoos is literally pretentious. It's trying to put forward a pretense of credibility where it doesn't exist.

It's like claiming wearing a trilby hat is expressing yourself. Which people actually do.:D It's trying to purchase a personality.

SugarHigh

parker kent wrote: »

Didn't he say probably though? So that doesn't mean everybody. I doubt he actually means every single person with tattoos and was just talking in generalisations.

I don't see how G86 expects us to discuss this topic without using generalisations? Does she expect me to give a personal view on everyone who has ever got a tattoo?

There are Tattoos that are fine but definitely not Kat Von D who is just a loud attention seeker anyway.

SugarHigh

G86 wrote: »

No I haven't. Read my posts. In one, I referred to SOME people who do get tattoos for the reasons he mentioned, but I also said that this does not apply to everyone who's tattooed. He, however, is saying that everyone who's tattooed does it for the reasons he's stating, which is a completely uncalled for generalisation.

I don't think Māori tribes follow fashion fads like westerners with too much money and an uncontrollable need to stand out from the crowd while having nothing interesting to do with that attention. There are too many pointless fashion statements from boring people trying to look interesting.

There are also westerners without Tattoos that are fine but they are completely outnumbered by fashion followers.

G86

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think Māori tribes follow fashion fads like westerners with too much money and an uncontrollable need to stand out from the crowd but having nothing interesting to do with that attention. There is too many pointless fashion statements from boring people trying to look interesting.

There are also westerners without Tattoos that are fine but they are completely outnumbered by fashion followers.

I'm actually going to refrain from posting in this thread any longer, or I'll risk getting banned. I'm no longer capable of debating this without directly losing the plot, because your posts are driving me nuts!

I'll leave this to the rest of you guys for now, and maybe contribute later when I feel there's some reasonable debate going on.

Magic Eight Ball

parker kent wrote: »

A little harsh on him

Harsh? Seriously? Are you reading the **** he's posting? It's one thing to disagree with tattoos or frown upon them, but to tar everyone with tattoos as mindless attention seekers is nothing short of ridiculous.
I applaud G86 for attempting to have a constructive debate with him because I just coudn't be bothered. I'm actually convinced he's trolling.

FewFew

Must say I prefer the less make-up less tattoos look. Don't really have anything against tattoos as a rule, I just think she looks prettier here in the first picture.

Snowie

I like her with her tattoos shes got a certain style jet blak hair and the tattos are very dark to her very sallow white sking they suit her.. If she was blonde and had perfectly brown skin shed look terrible...

She doesnt she can pull them off with a really attractive air of confidance....
I think she looks awesome :cool:

i dont like some tattoos colour ones are stupid lower rist ones there just tacky ... hers are, works of art in some case's .....

me likey

Otis Driftwood

SugarHigh wrote: »

Yes it is. You are trying to elevate the credibility of tattoos over general fashion items but you haven't been able to articulate why they deserve this respect.
Articulate to me how spots on your face and a flower on your arm is a reflection of anyone's identity.

I'm saying that if you express something in a manner that can't be understood you haven't expressed anything. If I invent my own language and use it to write a book to "express" my views on Libertarianism then I haven't really expressed anything. If people can't understand what you are trying to communicate then you aren't communicating. It's just that simple. If it's a self-expression that only you can understand why try and express it publicly?

This whole idea of expression with relation to these fashion Tattoos is literally pretentious. It's trying to put forward a pretense of credibility where it doesn't exist.

It's like claiming wearing a trilby hat is expressing yourself. Which people actually do.:D It's trying to purchase a personality.

SugarHigh,you are at the stage that you are thread spoiling and trying to rail road users,and you well know that doesnt fly on boards.How in the hell could you possibly know why anyone gets tattoo'ed or what the tattoo's mean to anyone?Seriously,you are making a fool of yourself so rather than have you annoy users to the point of them getting banned,Im banning you from this thread.Post in it again you will be taking a week off from the forum.

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

Harsh? Seriously? Are you reading the **** he's posting? It's one thing to disagree with tattoos or frown upon them, but to tar everyone with tattoos as mindless attention seekers is nothing short of ridiculous.
I applaud G86 for attempting to have a constructive debate with him because I just coudn't be bothered. I'm actually convinced he's trolling.

MEB,you know the rules,if you have an issue with posts then report them.

G86

Fewcifur wrote: »

Must say I prefer the less make-up less tattoos look. Don't really have anything against tattoos as a rule, I just think she looks prettier here in the first picture.

That's a fair enough opinion Do you mean prettier in the pic where she's not airbrushed to look slimmer? Would you actually say 'prettier' though, or just that she appears more approachable to you?

parker kent

Magic Eight Ball wrote: »

Harsh? Seriously? Are you reading the **** he's posting? It's one thing to disagree with tattoos or frown upon them, but to tar everyone with tattoos as mindless attention seekers is nothing short of ridiculous.
I applaud G86 for attempting to have a constructive debate with him because I just coudn't be bothered. I'm actually convinced he's trolling.

I was actually basing my view on that one post, I hadn't properly read the thread and noticed who had posted what (quick reading a thread fails me :pac:).

So I can see why people got a bit frustrated with him. Although I do think there is a mild element of people who don't like tattoos needing to defend themselves from being called naysayers. Each to their own and all that.

Otis Driftwood

Looking at those pics properly Id say neither.She looks (imo) kinda sick.I preferred her when she was a bit "thicker".

G86

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Looking at those pics properly Id say neither.She looks (imo) kinda sick.I preferred her when she was a bit "thicker".

She's definitely lost weight, she wasn't very heavy before, but I think her figure makes it difficult to carry extra weight, as she seems to carry weight more on her stomach rather than her hips/legs (I can sympathise!) - so that could be why she's slimmed down.

G86

parker kent wrote: »

Although I do think there is a mild element of people who don't like tattoos needing to defend themselves from being called naysayers. Each to their own and all that.

Not at all, a few other posters said they weren't keen on the tats and that was grand with me - it's personal preference.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hers are way over the top.

Some tattoos look good but christ two very attractive girls on my facebook have ruined themselves recently. Its like a five year old using multicoloured markers on a colouring book of rabbits.

Tattoos on boobs just never ever look good.

needless to say I think this girl looks far far better without them

Galvasean

G86 wrote: »

Given the naysayers here, dare I ask you this question: if you met a girl you had savage chemistry with and got on well with, would the tattoos be a deal breaker?

While i prefer women without tatoos, no it would not be a dealbreaker for me if they did.

parker kent

G86 wrote: »

Not at all, a few other posters said they weren't keen on the tats and that was grand with me - it's personal preference.

I did say mild, I wasn't saying there has been anything too much. Just that people who like tattoos may not understand the mindset of those who don't and vice versa. Even if you understand that people have different opinions, it is often difficult to understand why somebody likes something that you hate. I dread 99% of reality TV. I understand other people have different personal preferences. But I don't understand how they like it, I just know that they do. I hope that makes sense.

Like being called a naysayer for not finding something attractive, it is a mild example of having to defend an opinion on a personal preference.

G86

parker kent wrote: »

I did say mild, I wasn't saying there has been anything too much. Just that people who like tattoos may not understand the mindset of those who don't and vice versa. Even if you understand that people have different opinions, it is often difficult to understand why somebody likes something that you hate. I dread 99% of reality TV. I understand other people have different personal preferences. But I don't understand how they like it, I just know that they do. I hope that makes sense.

Like being called a naysayer for not finding something attractive, it is a mild example of having to defend an opinion on a personal preference.

At that stage, the thread had been derailed to the extent that people with tattoos were being generalised and outright insulted by the poster. So I do apologise if the word 'naysayer' wasn't apt, I was simply infuriated with the assumptions that were being made with regards to people who are tattooed.

parker kent

G86 wrote: »

At that stage, the thread had been derailed to the extent that people with tattoos were being generalised and outright insulted by the poster. So I do apologise if the word 'naysayer' wasn't apt, I was simply infuriated with the assumptions that were being made with regards to people who are tattooed.

And I didn't mean to pick on your word either, it was just in my mind since Galva just quoted it. I just meant that it can be difficult understanding why people don't like somebody. I could get on great with somebody with tattoos, but I don't think I'd ever be attracted.

Kat1170

Why are people who don't like tatoos like vegaterians. They think they have to force their views down your neck every chance they get.

It would never even cross my mind to say to someone without any tattoos that they are stupid for having none, why would I? But I've had idiots that I know, as well as complete strangers, say that to me because of my tattoos.

Each to their own, live and let live and all that jazz.

Ps. KvD
Deffo with, girls with tattoos can be sooo sexy, but still pretty without.

G86

Kat1170 wrote: »

Why are people who don't like tatoos like vegaterians. They think they have to force their views down your neck every chance they get.

I'm a vegetarian....and the above statement is ridiculous.

Galvasean

Kat1170 wrote: »

Why are people who don't like tatoos like vegaterians. They think they have to force their views down your neck every chance they get.

Why are you making sweeping generalizations about two groups of people?

Lemming

As G'em and a couple of others have already said; she looks nice in a 'generic' and very forgettable sort of way in the airbrushed photos. Just another faceless model on the cover of some magazine or advert.

The tattoos look great on her.


So .. with tatts. Definitely.

FewFew

G86 wrote: »

That's a fair enough opinion Do you mean prettier in the pic where she's not airbrushed to look slimmer? Would you actually say 'prettier' though, or just that she appears more approachable to you?

Oh I didn't even notice she was slimmed down, it was more the eye make up and expression that did it for me. She has a pretty face, think the strong eye make-up takes away from it. Plus I always think tattoos are prettier close up, at a distance all I can see is black lines and the patterns aren't pleasing. Up close it'd be a case of "oh that's cool, that too, and that. Not keen on that one. Oooh, pretty" etc.

Galvasean

Lemming wrote: »

As G'em and a couple of others have already said; she looks nice in a 'generic' and very forgettable sort of way in the airbrushed photos. Just another faceless model on the cover of some magazine or advert.

The tattoos look great on her.


So .. with tatts. Definitely.

I don't think the part I have put in bold is very fair on her. Personally I find the most attractive part of a good looking woman is the face. It's what I like to focus on. But saying she is 'Just another faceless model' seems very harsh IMO. She has a beautiful face. While the tatoos do indeed help her stand out, I also feel that they distract (or even detract) from her face.

Exile 1798

The people who are very into tattoos like Kat Von D, or the fellas who have their full arms done are one thing. They're into it, it’s art, I get it.

However the people who get one or two ****e little tattoo’s I don’t understand. If a women has one of those it’s a major turnoff, not just physically but mentally as well. To me it screams of someone who’s tried to buy themselves a personality.

Kya1976

G86 wrote: »

I came across these pics of Kat Von D recently, where her tattoos were concealed for photoshoot. There's also a pic of her before she was slimmed down with airbrushing for the shoot. I'm curious as to which picture the guys here would go for, I think she's striking and personally think that her tattoos are what make her interesting, without them she's just another pretty face. If you were in a bar and you saw a woman tattoo'ed to that extent, would it stop you approaching her? Or make you more likely to? Which one would you go for?

Tattoos concealed/before airbrushing (apparently the patchy parts are from the concealor and an uneven skin tone or something!)

I think she looks pretty in all pictures tbh.

Being quite heavily tattoo myself I've noticed that I would definitely get approached more by people(both men and women), most of them just want to ask you about the tattoos(and show you theirs:p).

And I would agree with G86, tattoos are a reflection of your identity/personality, for me I did not get them done to get more attention of people.:)

Dr Galen

Like Morrie, my tattoos are all in places that aren't immediately visible. Unfortunately in my line of work, it just not accepted to be showing a tattoo. For example, I would absolutley love to have some work done on my lower arms, but it just wouldn't work as I'm constantly having to be in short sleeves. I've compromised though and am going for upper arms

Its funny, because I've been told I don't look like a "tattoo person" and when I let people see my back and stuff they are quite taken aback tbh as I'm working my way towards a full back piece.

The_Morrigan

Dr Galen wrote: »

Like Morrie, my tattoos are all in places that aren't immediately visible. Unfortunately in my line of work, it just not accepted to be showing a tattoo. For example, I would absolutley love to have some work done on my lower arms, but it just wouldn't work as I'm constantly having to be in short sleeves. I've compromised though and am going for upper arms

Its funny, because I've been told I don't look like a "tattoo person" and when I let people see my back and stuff they are quite taken aback tbh as I'm working my way towards a full back piece.

What the hell is a "tattoo person" - I get that a lot too :rolleyes:

Show and tell at the next beers Dr. G!

Larianne

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The people who are very into tattoos like Kat Von D, or the fellas who have their full arms done are one thing. They're into it, it’s art, I get it.

However the people who get one or two ****e little tattoo’s I don’t understand. If a women has one of those it’s a major turnoff, not just physically but mentally as well. To me it screams of someone who’s tried to buy themselves a personality.

What number of tattoos is it appropriate to have to say its art? It's either all art or its not.

Although I don't like tattoos myself, it wouldn't and hasn't stopped me from talking to someone with tats. I have gone "ew" a few times though coz the designs were shít!

jester77

I like the tattoos but the makeup is horrendous and a total turn off.

Galvasean

jester77 wrote: »

I like the tattoos but the makeup is horrendous and a total turn off.

Hmmm.... Would anyone else agree that makeup is essentially a temporary tattoo... or am I miles off the mark?