The Attraction of Ink
Sunday, June 15, 2014by Paddy Vipond
troubleandsqueak.wordpress.com
Photo by Wesley Waughan
The saying goes that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, but despite, this people continually search for the secret to attraction. Many believe that there are definitive ways to make someone more attractive; blonde hair, breast enlargement, make-up, body language, and money are just some of the examples we could give. Inevitably, this search for the secret to attraction has begun to look at the world of tattooing. The scientists, the psychologists and the biologists are now asking “are people with tattoos more attractive than people without tattoos”? In their quest for a formula of beauty, we take a look at just a few of the conclusions they have arrived at.
The Harris Poll, which was conducted in January 2012, found that 30% of people with tattoos said that the ink made them “feel more sexy”, and 21% said that it makes them feel “attractive or strong”. This belief though, does not appear to be reflected by the thoughts of those without tattoos. 45% of those who have not been inked see tattoos as a turn-off rather than a turn-on. These figures are unsurprising, and rather than attraction, they seem to tell us more about the mindset of the people interviewed. The poll merely represents the different personal tastes of each individual. As expected those that like tattoos seem to find them attractive, and those that don’t like them see them more as a turn-off.
There are some that believe that tattoos carry with them a deep-routed appeal and attraction. The decision to get a tattoo, and be attracted to those with tattoos, is a built-in biological, or even an evolutionary, reason. Mindclockwork.com, a website focussing on psychological studies, believes that part of the reason women decorate their bodies is because of biological urges to attract males. The theory is that women, rather than men, are more likely to get pierced and tattooed, as these decorations increase their chances of receiving male attention. The belief is that other aspects of female culture also reflect this need to decorate; hair styling, make up, cosmetic surgery and even large shoe collections. Although there is an undoubted feel-good factor about looking good, and there are numerous reasons as to why a woman may buy a pair of shoes, or wear a certain dress, the fact that almost throughout human history society has been unfairly male dominated, means that women have had to pander to the needs of the men. The burden of impressing the opposite sex has been on females as the males hold the power to choose a mate. Wedding proposals are a prime example of this. Here it is the man picking his partner, and not the other way round.
If this theory were to be correct, it would mean that people could be more attracted to tattoos without even knowing it. And that people may be getting tattoos because of subconscious desires to attract a mate. Charles Darwin in fact looked at the concept of sexual selection inside his theory of natural selection. Natural selection was a struggle for existence, who would survive and who would die, but sexual selection was a struggle for reproduction, who would mate and have the most offspring, thus passing on their genes. Quite unlike with humans, in the animal world the burden to attract is on the males, the females hold the power of decision. This is why you see manes on lions, extravagant feathers on peacocks and antlers on stags.
Continuing along the scientific theme, Scientific American ran an article in May-June 2012 entitled “Survival of the Tattooed and Pierced?” In that article it focused on researchers at the University of Wroclaw in Poland who looked to study the body symmetry of a number of people. Body symmetry – how alike your left and right side are – indicates genetic health and is associated with sexual attractiveness. Half of the men and women measured had ink and/or piercings, and the other half did not. The findings of the research showed that “men with bodily decorations exhibited greater symmetry than those without”. The conclusion they drew from this is that getting inked is a risk-taking behaviour that we have inherited from our ancestors. They were the people “who were strong enough to endure injuries and survive”. It is strange that they arrived at such a conclusion as there was no difference in the findings when looking at the women in the study. Effectively meaning that there was no difference between those who were inked and/or pierced, and those who were not. The study chose to disregard this finding somewhat and instead focused on the men in the research, perhaps unwisely concluding that “at least in men, body art could serve as an “honest” signal of fitness in the Darwinian sense”.
So thus far the quest into the attraction of ink has seen science, psychology and biology promote tattoos in females as decoration to attract a male, and tattoos in males as a signal that they are fit and strong, essentially proving to the females that they are capable of fathering a child. In contrast to the theories of these scientific studies there are still a huge number of people that find tattoos unattractive. This fact surely showing that there is no formula for attraction, and that it simply comes down to personal preference.
Caroline Kent wrote for The Telegraph in October 2013 and explained why she found tattoos “a huge turn-off”. Though Kent admires those that get tattoos and she sees the appeal of them, she believes that “there’s nothing attractive about tattoos”. She is “sceptical” about tattooed guys but she admits that this is because she does not find tattoos in general “visually appealing”, simply saying “they are not for me”. Her article reflects a feeling that I think many would agree with. Unless you are a tattoo enthusiast yourself it is unlikely that you will put much significance on whether a member of the opposite sex has ink or not. Even those people who are tattoo enthusiasts have their own tastes about what is attractive and what is not. One friend with whom I spoke believes that she does find people with tattoos more attractive, but that the attraction depends on the “artwork itself”, for her “tribal tattoos aren’t attractive”. I would have to agree with her, I do find that people with ink appeal to me more but even I would find an entire sleeve of Miley Cyrus pretty off-putting.
So if, as expected, the attraction to people with tattoos is subjective and down to each individual person, does a tattoo have any impact at all? Does science concede defeat and admit that there is no formula for beauty, or does it continue to press the case that tattoos have a definitive relationship with attraction? Unsurprisingly, science pushes on.
Psychology Today highlights the work of French psychologist Nicolas Guéguen. He found that men viewed women with tattoos as more approachable as well as believing that these women were also more promiscuous. Guéguen conducted his studies on the beaches of Brittany, France, with women lying on a beach in a red “two-piece swimsuit” reading a book or magazine. Half the time the women “wore a temporary tattoo of a butterfly on their lower back” and half the time they did not. These women were observed to see how many times they were approached by men on the beach. The study found that women without the tattoo were approached 10% of the time, whereas women with the tattoo were approached almost 24% of the time. As well as being approached more often, they were also approached in a much shorter time. On average those with the tattoo were approached at around 24 minutes, but those without the tattoo were approached at around 35 minutes.
Guéguen furthered this study by interviewing men who were located close to these women wearing the red swimsuit. After asking them to look at the women for a short period Guéguen asked the men what they thought the probability of getting a date with that woman was, and “if the opportunity presented itself, the probability of having sex with her on the first date”. Guéguen found that the “male beachgoers thought their chances of having a date or having sex with the female confederates were significantly greater when they were displaying a tattoo than when they were not displaying a tattoo”. Therefore Guéguen concluded that tattooed women are seen as more promiscuous than non-tattooed women. This conclusion however, tells us more about the men interviewed than it does about the women with the tattoos. The women were not seen as more attractive, but more approachable, and having a tattoo did not mean that a woman was more promiscuous, it meant that men believed that to be the case. A misguided judgement held by the men that associates tattoos with higher sexual desire.
Writing for Psychology Today, Vinita Mehta, a clinical psychologist and journalist, states that the “findings add to multiple lines of evidence” that show men see attraction in women in any number of ways. Mehta states that “bodily attributes are not the only criteria that are relied upon” and that “clothing appearance or color, cosmetics, and hair”, as well as tattoos, have all been linked to “men’s approach and evaluation of women”. Gueguen interprets his results from an evolutionary standpoint believing that “like cosmetics or clothing, women may adorn tattoos as a way to enhance their appeal to men”. But he is quick to point out that the study has its limitations and he recommends “that future research should focus on whether the association between tattoos and promiscuity is based on men’s stereotypes”.
As the large majority of the people I have asked stated, tattoos impact little on how attractive they think a person is. Features, personality and even dress sense were given more priority. Despite scientific and psychological studies into the attraction of ink, it seems that personal taste and individual preference are still the main drives when finding a partner. Though the studies produce some thought provoking statistics and analysis, all too often the conclusions are sweeping generalisations and provide a deterministic view of what causes humans to be attracted to one another. A beautiful person will be a beautiful person whether they have ink or not. For perhaps the first time ever I find myself agreeing with, and echoing, words printed in The Telegraph. To quote Caroline Kent once more, true beauty “is never simply skin deep”.
This article can be found in Skin Deep Magazine issue number 237
