Have any of you that were opposed to girls with foot tattoos changed your mind on them that they have become more trendy than ever? I was never totally turned off by them but used to be at a point where I felt like they added something to the foot. Now I almost feel like I want my girl to have a foot tattoo of some sort. How do all you others feel?
Posted by goodguyneighbor (Member # 2824) on :
I've always loved them, because foot tattoos readily signal that they're at least 18 and probably open minded. Makes my job easier+ they're cute.
Posted by Beautifulfeetonline.com (Member # 13717) on :
quote:Originally posted by goodguyneighbor: I've always loved them, because foot tattoos readily signal that they're at least 18 and probably open minded. Makes my job easier+ they're cute.
...what he said
Posted by Tiny Dave (Member # 30771) on :
I have over time grown to like them. Where before I didnt use to like them.
Posted by dougiezerts (Member # 6829) on :
I feel that tattoos make the foot "exotic."
Posted by GQguy (Member # 16534) on :
I depends if it's in good taste. A tattoo of a unicorn or dolphin is pretty cheesy. Where the tattoo is placed can also add to the aesthetic appeal.
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
I'm 50/50 on tattoos in general. Really, it depends on the girl too. On some girls I really like them, on others, not at all.
And good guy, I think I know of at least 5 girls I've worked with in the last couple years whose parents let them get tattoos before they turned 18. Wonder if it's a generational thing of them thinking it's okay. My senior prom date (Madison) back in 1997 had a tattoo on her leg and she was actually in the class of 1999. Have you ever found that the girl wasn't of age using that method?
Patrick
Posted by Dick Lipschitz (Member # 127) on :
Tattoos? Ick.
In response to the original question, no, my opinion has not changed. If anything, the fact that they're so trendy has made me more resolute. The way I see it, tattoos are a sure sign of mediocrity, a screaming beacon to the world that declares: "Look how individual I am! I got body ink! Just like everyone else!"
Why anyone feels the need to "enhance" something that comes out of the box in perfectly lovely condition ... well, it's beyond me. Most psychologists will tell you it's indicative of self-esteem issues, but that's getting into an area above my paygrade.
Your mileage may vary. (And probably will.) If you enjoy them, great. I'd like to think I'm not alone, though.
Cheers, DL
Posted by Karmix (Member # 27268) on :
ah i'm not terribly into the foot tatoo thing either, doubt i ever will be. i think of it as a permanent dressing up of sorts, which to me gets boring. can't "clean" it off when your done. i really could go on about it, but i won't. i'm pretty certain my opinion has been made clear. with that; to each his own.
Posted by Lyrical (Member # 6603) on :
Some look nice and some do not look nice. But in general I like em.
Posted by uksoleman (Member # 31463) on :
I think some look sexy as fuck, and others verge on the ridiculous, it all depends on the design chosen (and the capability of the tattooist!)
Posted by mjl1717 (Member # 2939) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dick Lipschitz: Tattoos? Ick.
In response to the original question, no, my opinion has not changed. If anything, the fact that they're so trendy has made me more resolute. The way I see it, tattoos are a sure sign of mediocrity, a screaming beacon to the world that declares: "Look how individual I am! I got body ink! Just like everyone else!"
Why anyone feels the need to "enhance" something that comes out of the box in perfectly lovely condition ... well, it's beyond me. Most psychologists will tell you it's indicative of self-esteem issues, but that's getting into an area above my paygrade.
Your mileage may vary. (And probably will.) If you enjoy them, great. I'd like to think I'm not alone, though.
Cheers, DL
[ July 25, 2010, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: mjl1717 ]
Posted by mjl1717 (Member # 2939) on :
quote:Originally posted by mjl1717:
quote:Originally posted by Dick Lipschitz: Tattoos? Ick.
In response to the original question, no, my opinion has not changed. If anything, the fact that they're so trendy has made me more resolute. The way I see it, tattoos are a sure sign of mediocrity, a screaming beacon to the world that declares: "Look how individual I am! I got body ink! Just like everyone else!"
Why anyone feels the need to "enhance" something that comes out of the box in perfectly lovely condition ... well, it's beyond me. Most psychologists will tell you it's indicative of self-esteem issues, but that's getting into an area above my paygrade.
Your mileage may vary. (And probably will.) If you enjoy them, great. I'd like to think I'm not alone, though.
Cheers, DL
Yes, overall Id say "Never try to improve upon nature... 1)Most of the time I think they look cheesey.. 2) I had a girlfriend who had an inconspicuous one maybe 1 inch on the outside of her calf. Thought it was very so-so. 3)I agree with Lipschitz-Overall foot guys may be more cerebral and mediocrity is just not cool.. (I mean geez--you think Hillary Clinton has a damn foot tatoo?) 4)They are not unique.
Posted by temp1234 (Member # 33411) on :
I agree with Lipschitz. I'm studying psychology at the moment and the lectures on tattoos were an eye opener!
Don't like.
Posted by justdaone (Member # 16096) on :
I think as long as the tattoo doesn't take up the whole foot it's okay. Anything large just doesn't do it for me.
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
As an artist, I often like the artwork, just not on the body. I'm not one who thinks that people get them because of all these mental issues and such. I frankly hate needles, so I'd never get them. If that wasn't the case and I had some money to spend, I might have myself an Egyptian hieroglyph or two - maybe something with Anubis or Isis. In the long run I see people who get tattoos to be like people who always get the newest cellphone, hottest car, collect this or that - they just enjoy it and have a passion for it.
Patrick
Posted by FIASCo (Member # 1899) on :
As a general rule, I usually don't care for "permanent" ink on feet. That said, it depends on the girl, the feet, and the tattoo.
Posted by markn (Member # 13818) on :
I have never supported placing a tattoo on anything, especially a beautiful female foot. There was an attractive model on a canadian site who had a tattoo of a large lizard on her ankle. That was extreme. If I were offered to turn away from Elizabeth or Cierra's artwork I could not do it. They would receive ample pampering and love regardless of a bit of ink. There is no "black and white" answer to the question of tattoo approval.
Posted by goodguyneighbor (Member # 2824) on :
Think about it this way, to the average person, tattoos are way more appealing than feet.
Hopefully all the haters at least accept the reality that foot tattoos are popular in the same spirit that no one likes to be judged negatively for being a foot enthusiast.
Afterall it's the same freewheeling spirit that makes tolerance and personal freedom to indulge in whatever your fancy possible.
Posted by Dick Lipschitz (Member # 127) on :
I get what you're saying and appreciate where you're coming from, goodguyneighbor, but it's apples and oranges.
By the numbers, Phil Collins' music, McDonald's hamburgers and Axe body spray also are quite popular, but it doesn't make them particularly good. And by the same measure, a foot fetish is more palatable to the average person than a steaming pile of animal waste left on the doorstep, but there's no relationship between the two. Putting the popularity of tattoos vs. the acceptability of foot fetishists is a false comparison.
If you enjoy seeing human graffiti, knock yourself out. I don't personally care for it, and I wouldn't go out of my way to voice my opinion (except for the fact that someone asked the question in the original post ), and I wouldn't stop you from getting one or enjoying one on someone else, or even try to change your mind.
But I don't see body art as a sign of a freewheeling spirit -- I see it as blind obeisance to a faux sense of being "edgy" or "dangerous."
Motorcycle gang members who ride loud choppers and festoon themselves with tattoos ... now that's edgy and/or dangerous. But every middle-class dad with a weekend Harley and a barbed-wire tattoo on their upper arm ... that's kind of pathetic. Inked-up girls from White Bread Suburbia are in the same boat ... they just don't have the credibility necessary to pull off the look. It's a little like watching children playing dress-up -- only much more permanent.
I also recognize the fact that it may be a generational thing. I'm in my 40s -- my early 40s, thank you -- and tattoos have certain connotations to people of my demographic. I get that those younger than me consider inking themselves up as merely adding decoration (an unnecessary act, I submit). For them, I say body art isn't being at all freespirited or original -- it's hewing to mediocre trendiness.
In my opinion, that is.
Cheers, DL
P.S. -- Sorry for the term-paper-length dissertation. Just moving the conversation forward.
Posted by FIASCo (Member # 1899) on :
Here are a few for those who like them.
Tatted Feet Posted by National (Member # 8568) on :
If the tattoos are kick-ass and edgy, then I won't mind them. I generally don't mind her having tattoos in many places of her body. Again, I'm talking about ink that has been done buy some top-notch artist. For examples, those Suicide Girls have amazing tattoos.
Amazing tattoos, that girl! I wouldn't mind messing around with her. But if I had to make a choice between a girl like her and a female without them, I'm going with the one who sports no tattoos at all. Tattoos on feet bother me more than tattoos on other parts of the body.
quote:Originally posted by A&F_FootDude_05: Now I almost feel like I want my girl to have a foot tattoo of some sort.
For me, that's where the party stops. If I held an audition to look for the Perfect Feet, those with any tattoo on it will be automatically disqualified. Same goes for the woman with a perfect body. I don't understand how a tattoo on the foot makes it perfect? To me, the design will have you looking at the tattoo more than you would the feet.
Tattoos like the one from that girl whose picture I just showed look best on HOT and YOUNG chicks. As she gets older, they look more disgusting. It'll make her look older than what she actually is. It makes them look more trashy Older women without tattoos look better than those with them. I think those with tattoos don't stop and think how they might look on them 20-40 years into the future.
To sum this up best, Kim Kardashian was once asked why she doesn't have a tattoo. She answered by saying, "Now why would I put a bumper sticker on a Bentley?"
Regardless of how you feel about Kim, she does have a good point.
--National
Posted by lust4latinafeet (Member # 32686) on :
quote:Originally posted by FIASCo: it depends on the girl, the feet, and the tattoo.
I agree with this & some other comments.For me it depends on the girl,the feet,the tattoo/design as fiasco said.Some chicks feet may have looked nicer before getting the tattoo,where as on others tattoos may enhance the appeal
[ July 27, 2010, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: lust4latinafeet ]
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
overall, i'd have to say i do like well done tattoos on a woman's foot and i have liked the idea of my wife getting one. on the other hand, i typically dont care for tattoos in general and the biggest reason is that i cant imagine what ever someone tattoos on themselves being there FORVER. sure, that ripped skin showing your ribs looks pretty nifty on your fit 24YO body.. but what the hell is that gonna look like when you are 50 and your skin is looser and sagging? taking that forward, i know that i'd be nuts over a nice tattoo on my wife's foot, but what is it gonna look like in 30 years? a good point that i hadnt thought of was also.. would i get bored with it? no how much i might love a nail color on her toes, i do enjoy a change.
so bottom line is.. i guess i like them on feet that i am not going to have to look at for years and years. Posted by Dick Lipschitz (Member # 127) on :
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: i guess i like them on feet that i am not going to have to look at for years and years.
And therein lies the rub. If it's a temporary thing -- like piercings, odd haircuts and unusual nail polish colors -- game on. They let you be exotic without doing any real personal damage (for the most part). But tattoos are different. They're permanent. And they'll reflect particularly poorly on the bearer's decision-making skills in 20 or 30 years, when that cute little dolphin on the ankle starts looking like a bruised Easter egg.
The fastest-growing segment of the cosmetic medical industry? Tattoo removal. Painful, skin-searing, dermal-scraping tattoo removal. And the hell of it is, it's less effective the older you get. So good luck with that, kids!
The Kim Kardashian quote that National referenced sums it up perfectly. It's actually a play off a classic Chris Rock line, about putting rims on a Bentley, but either one applies here.
Cheers, DL
P.S. -- We're losing Constitutional rights by the day in Washington, we're taxed up to our eyeballs by the government, multinational corporations are screwing up our oceans and marshlands, and terrorists are trying to obtain nuclear weapons to precipitate Armageddon and kill us all. But tattoos? That's where I draw the goddamned line! My outrage starts here! Posted by oscarthemonkey (Member # 1692) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dick Lipschitz: I get what you're saying and appreciate where you're coming from, goodguyneighbor, but it's apples and oranges.
By the numbers, Phil Collins' music, McDonald's hamburgers and Axe body spray also are quite popular, but it doesn't make them particularly good. And by the same measure, a foot fetish is more palatable to the average person than a steaming pile of animal waste left on the doorstep, but there's no relationship between the two. Putting the popularity of tattoos vs. the acceptability of foot fetishists is a false comparison.
If you enjoy seeing human graffiti, knock yourself out. I don't personally care for it, and I wouldn't go out of my way to voice my opinion (except for the fact that someone asked the question in the original post ), and I wouldn't stop you from getting one or enjoying one on someone else, or even try to change your mind.
But I don't see body art as a sign of a freewheeling spirit -- I see it as blind obeisance to a faux sense of being "edgy" or "dangerous."
Motorcycle gang members who ride loud choppers and festoon themselves with tattoos ... now that's edgy and/or dangerous. But every middle-class dad with a weekend Harley and a barbed-wire tattoo on their upper arm ... that's kind of pathetic. Inked-up girls from White Bread Suburbia are in the same boat ... they just don't have the credibility necessary to pull off the look. It's a little like watching children playing dress-up -- only much more permanent.
I also recognize the fact that it may be a generational thing. I'm in my 40s -- my early 40s, thank you -- and tattoos have certain connotations to people of my demographic. I get that those younger than me consider inking themselves up as merely adding decoration (an unnecessary act, I submit). For them, I say body art isn't being at all freespirited or original -- it's hewing to mediocre trendiness.
In my opinion, that is.
Cheers, DL
P.S. -- Sorry for the term-paper-length dissertation. Just moving the conversation forward.
I 'm on board with both your posts .......
Posted by National (Member # 8568) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dick Lipschitz:
The Kim Kardashian quote that National referenced sums it up perfectly. It's actually a play off a classic Chris Rock line, about putting rims on a Bentley, but either one applies here.
Yeah. She said this on an episode of the Wendy Williams Show a few months ago. She and her sister, Khole, were guests on the show. Khole was talking about a tattoo she has on her wrist (?) of her husband's name. That's when Kim was asked about why she doesn't have one. And that's where the quote came from. When Kim said that, the crowd saw that as Kim's little way of dissing her sister, and you can tell that Khole wasn't too happy about it. She thought that was Kim's way of saying that she's not hot. Kim apologized and said that Khole is also a hot car. But she didn't compare her to a Bently. Khole felt she was put down by her sister.
--National
Posted by lust4latinafeet (Member # 32686) on :
I wanna see the episode from i don't know what show it was,maybe "keeping up with the kardashians"where Kim talks about foot fetish & people wanting to suck her toes Posted by mfdooms (Member # 18036) on :
quote:Originally posted by goodguyneighbor: I've always loved them, because foot tattoos readily signal that they're at least 18 and probably open minded. Makes my job easier+ they're cute.
In most states, you can get a tattoo if you're under 18 with parents permission. Also, many tattoo parlors don't ask for ID or she can find somebody to do it for her who simply has the equipment. It's not that difficult, I remember many girls back in the day who were 15, 16, 17 and had tattoos.
Also, how does it show that she's open-minded with a tattoo? It might simply mean that she's a sheep, and gets a tattoo because "all her friends" have tattoos, it has nothing to do with being open-minded. Shit.
That being said I don't mind a simple tattoo, usually above the ankles. A girl I used to know had a tattoo on her foot that read: R.I.P. 'her cousins name' May got be with him. Shit, I don't wanna lick her feet and think about somebody who died, and with all the "sinful" things I'll be doing to her feet, I sure as hell don't want to be doing it with the lord's name on it.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), and I wouldn't stop you from getting one or enjoying one on someone else, or even try to change your mind.![[Drool]](graemlins/drool.gif)
![[Hump]](graemlins/hump.gif)
![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)