On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive.Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive, but when humans weren’t as technologically advanced it served a purpose. Perhaps to detect insects crawling on the body. In modern society, that’s not much of a problem.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
According to the article, most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they should be small and hidden. Combined with the article on body hair on women, I conclude that men prefer women with plain skin. It was my hypothesis of blemishes as an explanation, but it could be that men were simply created with this preference.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive
Nah he made the hair and made the reproductive mechanism we call sex which is fueled by attraction, clearly the intent (which frankly is a ridiculous concept to argue w.r.t biology so I guess we’re working within a religious framework at this point, biology cannot have “intent,” being a concept) was that we be attracted to the hair God put there, the attraction to hairlessness was born relatively recently to homo sapiens’ existence. I’d believe relative hairlessness is attractive to our species as a whole through a holdover of self selecting us VS neanderthals, except that we didn’t war them to extinction, we interbred.
Frankly shaving at all is spitting in God’s face removing the hair he created you with, by the “architect” logic.
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive
So you again dispute your own argument that all tattoos are interpreted by the brain as “blemishes” and therefore “sickness.” If you won’t listen to my argument at least listen to yours.
as long as they are feminine, delicate,
And women? Do they have the same requirements w.r.t attractive tattoos on men, or do they prefer tattoos that are manly and tough? Perhaps straight men just prefer women who are feminine and delicate, which duh, and this tattoo preference is an extension of that. It also applies to facial features, hairstyles, clothes, so why wouldn’t it extend to tattoos?
I conclude that you conjure conclusions where there are none. Do you come from a country or culture that actually does view tattoos that way, like Japan or (apparently) Korea, by chance? Just a hunch. Japan thinks tattoos are only for criminals, for instance.
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced but as the Brandeis study indicated, most men do not find body hair on women attractive. Consequently, the Creator must have designed men to find body hair on women unattractive.
I came up with the blemish hypothesis before I read the survey. Note that the survey found that men find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. Something doesn’t make sense. If men find tattoos on women attractive, why do they have to be hidden? To me it suggests that men find tattoos on women attractive if they are hidden, but they don’t really care about tattoos on women unlike earrings, which enhances a women’s beauty.
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced
Due to the technological advancement we have conditioned ourselves to think this, but as “the architect” designed we have it and we’re supposed to like it (by your “architect” logic). It’d be like if your house was designed with window screens but you didn’t like them so you took them off, they were put there by the architect for a reason and you are altering the house by taking them away. We’re supposed to believe that altering the same house by adding a coat of paint is bad, yet altering it by removing window screens is A-Ok.
The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re so theistic you believe some immortal being directly beams thoughts to your head individually, and thus those thoughts must be “what god intended.” Since it’s no longer 0BC the rest of us know you’re not really talking to the bush.
You came up with a bad hypothesis and then backed it up with a shoddy study that doesn’t draw the conclusions you think it does. Correlation != causation, and I doubt the studies mention “cause god said so” anywhere anyway. It doesn’t make sense because you’re reading too deep into these studies in an attempt to justify your biases through your religious framework.
Know what? If god didn’t want us to get tattoos he wouldn’t have invented tattoo guns, same as razors, howboutdat?
I honestly couldn’t give a fuck. If you wanna shave have at it, but if you are more comfortable without shaving, more power to ya.
From https://www.brandeis.edu/writing-program/write-now/2021-2022/azevedo-ligia/index.html
On top of that, the most important confirmation of my research is that men do indeed prefer women without body hair, no matter if it’s located in the leg and/or armpit. In the “choose the most attractive picture” questions, the photo of a woman without body hair was rated significantly more attractive than the one with body hair, with 95.2% of the participants choosing the hairless women. When it came to explaining their answers, the participants stated the following opinions: preferring partners with smooth skin (95.2% of the participants), seeing body hair as an emasculating feature (85.7%), and considering that females “just look better” without body hair (28.5%). These results demonstrate that body hair is associated with femininity, and having a hairless body is an expectation of men towards women.
Tbf, and I know you’re just trolling anyway but, that blew your “architect” argument out of the water here.
Architect for people here would mean our “creator,” or a metaphor for biology for the non-religious. So the “architect” put the hair on the women, as you say he designed them that way, and thus the alteration (removal) should be perceived as sickness, I should suspect Alopecia, but it isn’t and I don’t. Instead as your source suggests and as I can confirm for me personally I do prefer such a woman altered beyond our architect’s designs, I don’t see her as sick, I can correctly surmise that she, a tool using primate like myself, likely purchased a razor from a store and removed the hair from where it originally was.
As with the hair even if the tattoo “should” be viewed as a sickness due to a malfunction of our brains, in mine it isn’t. As with “shaving” I’m also aware of what “ink” is, tattooed or sharpied frankly, if I see someone wrote a phone number on their wrist (a forgotten rite of passage in the age of the smart phone but for those of us old enough to remember) or an X on their hand I don’t think “sick” I think “got a date” or “is under 21 at this band’s show” respectively, as my brain (perhaps unlike yours) is capable of interpreting context.
Furthermore many blemishes are not only “non-medical” (birthmarks, etc) some can be downright attractive. Love me a hot pale freckled woman.
The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive, but when humans weren’t as technologically advanced it served a purpose. Perhaps to detect insects crawling on the body. In modern society, that’s not much of a problem.
From https://www.glamivibe.com/do-guys-like-tattoos-on-girls/
So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive, as long as they are feminine, delicate, and in flattering locations on the body like the shoulder, wrist, or ankle. Small, minimalist tattoos or ones with personal meaning tend to be the most appealing to men.
According to the article, most men find tattoos on women attractive, but they should be small and hidden. Combined with the article on body hair on women, I conclude that men prefer women with plain skin. It was my hypothesis of blemishes as an explanation, but it could be that men were simply created with this preference.
Nah he made the hair and made the reproductive mechanism we call sex which is fueled by attraction, clearly the intent (which frankly is a ridiculous concept to argue w.r.t biology so I guess we’re working within a religious framework at this point, biology cannot have “intent,” being a concept) was that we be attracted to the hair God put there, the attraction to hairlessness was born relatively recently to homo sapiens’ existence. I’d believe relative hairlessness is attractive to our species as a whole through a holdover of self selecting us VS neanderthals, except that we didn’t war them to extinction, we interbred.
Frankly shaving at all is spitting in God’s face removing the hair he created you with, by the “architect” logic.
So you again dispute your own argument that all tattoos are interpreted by the brain as “blemishes” and therefore “sickness.” If you won’t listen to my argument at least listen to yours.
And women? Do they have the same requirements w.r.t attractive tattoos on men, or do they prefer tattoos that are manly and tough? Perhaps straight men just prefer women who are feminine and delicate, which duh, and this tattoo preference is an extension of that. It also applies to facial features, hairstyles, clothes, so why wouldn’t it extend to tattoos?
I conclude that you conjure conclusions where there are none. Do you come from a country or culture that actually does view tattoos that way, like Japan or (apparently) Korea, by chance? Just a hunch. Japan thinks tattoos are only for criminals, for instance.
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced but as the Brandeis study indicated, most men do not find body hair on women attractive. Consequently, the Creator must have designed men to find body hair on women unattractive.
I came up with the blemish hypothesis before I read the survey. Note that the survey found that men find tattoos on women attractive if they’re small and in hidden locations. Something doesn’t make sense. If men find tattoos on women attractive, why do they have to be hidden? To me it suggests that men find tattoos on women attractive if they are hidden, but they don’t really care about tattoos on women unlike earrings, which enhances a women’s beauty.
Due to the technological advancement we have conditioned ourselves to think this, but as “the architect” designed we have it and we’re supposed to like it (by your “architect” logic). It’d be like if your house was designed with window screens but you didn’t like them so you took them off, they were put there by the architect for a reason and you are altering the house by taking them away. We’re supposed to believe that altering the same house by adding a coat of paint is bad, yet altering it by removing window screens is A-Ok.
The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re so theistic you believe some immortal being directly beams thoughts to your head individually, and thus those thoughts must be “what god intended.” Since it’s no longer 0BC the rest of us know you’re not really talking to the bush.
You came up with a bad hypothesis and then backed it up with a shoddy study that doesn’t draw the conclusions you think it does. Correlation != causation, and I doubt the studies mention “cause god said so” anywhere anyway. It doesn’t make sense because you’re reading too deep into these studies in an attempt to justify your biases through your religious framework.
Know what? If god didn’t want us to get tattoos he wouldn’t have invented tattoo guns, same as razors, howboutdat?
I’m going to say this plainly, so that you can understand:
You’re not anywhere near as clever as you think you are