Young women with tattoos are “dickless Queequegs” abusing their freedom, possible threat to Men’s Rights

Are tattooed women a threat to Men’s Rights? Last week, the editors of A Voice for Men decided to promote “compassion for men and boys,” as the site’s old motto had it, by publishing a long and exceedingly creepy jeremiad against young women who taint their “radiant” young skin with icky tattoos, thereby ruining things for the men of the world.

In a post titled “Tattoos, good judgement and women,” Doug Mortimer, a self-described Man Going His Own Way of long standing, reminisces at length about the good old days, when the dancers at his favorite “topless bar” were as free of tattoos as they were of tops.

I used to occasionally pay a visit to one of the many local topless bars – pardon me, gentleman’s clubs – so I could wallow in a state of beer-buzzed, middle-aged, semi-arousal.

Sorry to put that image in your head so early in the day. (Or, whenever you happen to be reading this.)

By the late 1990s, tattoos were all the rage. It was almost impossible to see a dancer without a tramp stamp or some other symbol or picture, meaningful or meaningless (to me if not to her). I simply could not fathom why a young woman, with her skin at its peak of radiance and health, would do anything to detract from it.

Readers with sensitive stomachs may want to skip the next bit here.

Flat-chested or full figure; statuesque or petite; blond, brunette, or redhead, healthy skin tone is a key component of neoteny and nubility.

I’m not sure I really needed to hear a dude who was already middle-aged two decades ago wax poetic about the “neoteny and nubility” of women young enough to be his granddaughters.

In 1998, Mortimer tells us, he grew so frustrated by the tattoos adorning the “female flesh” he was paying to ogle that he quit going to “gentlemen’s clubs” altogether.

Despite Mortimer’s bold and principled stand, the young women of America continued to get tattoos. Today, Mortimer reports with horror, one survey found that “25% of all men under 25 have at least one tattoo; for women in that age group, the number is 47%.”

He warns young men to think twice about getting into relationships with these terrible tattooed women.

After all, you’re going to be looking at them every day, possibly till death do you part. Do you really want to cuddle up long-term with a dickless Queequeg?

Mortimer goes on to suggest that the popularity of tattoos amongst young women suggests that maybe they really don’t deserve freedom after all.

Ultimately, you have to seriously question the judgment of a young woman who would make a permanent commitment to something as trivial as body art. Of course, good judgment is only rarely associated with young women, which is why young women are kept on a short leash in traditional societies. When young women are given freedom, they often fuck it up.

Mortimer doesn’t address this directly, but presumably he believes that young men handle their freedom far more wisely, despite considerable video evidence to the contrary.

Mortimer is quick to assure his readers that he is well aware that young women without tattoos can also be terrible freedom-abusers who should probably be kept on a “short leash” as well.

That doesn’t mean a tattoo-free woman can’t be fucked up, but one who is tattooed…well, no matter what the design, it might as well be a big red warning flag.

Well, no. But, given the disgust that Mortimer and many other denizens of the manosphere feel towards tattooed women, tattoos could perhaps be better described as magical talismans offering protection from a certain kind of creepy woman-hating shitbag.

In any case, it’s pretty hard to imagine Mortimer’s post convincing any self-respecting woman, young or old, to cancel an appointment at the local tattoo parlor; I suspect that, if anything, it could have an opposite effect.