Now she has a new tattoo:
I criticized tattoos in general here, in 2009. But Cole's tattoo goes far above and beyond -- or rather below and beyond -- most ink.
What Cole doesn't seem to understand is, men are aroused by the sight of naked female bottoms. Naked female bottoms. But she has now transmogrified hers so that even when naked, it will seem partially covered. And when the magical moment does arrive, the tattoo will be just plain disconcerting.
The only thing worse than pulling down a woman's slacks and discovering that monstrous tattoo would be pulling them down to discover a penis.
That tattoo fairly screams: Look at me! Aren't I cool? Admire me! Now!
This is not an enticing message. The sweet little girl persona Cole reportedly employs will now be a bit less convincing.
There are probably a few men who like their women covered with tats. But they are in the minority. The majority will probably find it about as attractive as the majority of women find facial tattoos on a guy:
Flower gardens can be beautiful. Women's behinds can be too. But each is appealing in a completely different way, with zero overlap. Why conflate the two? (Does Cole think that with these tattoos in place her behind will always smell like a rose garden?)
I know of men who are attracted to other men. I know of men who are attracted to children. I know of men who are attracted to lingerie. I even know of men who are attracted to animals. But I've never heard of a man who is sexually attracted to roses.
The whole thing wouldn't be quite so tragic if Cole hadn't had such a nice tush to begin with. It's a little like drawing a Van Dyke beard and sunglasses on the Mona Lisa.
And frankly, Mona Lisa wasn't nearly as good-looking.
Although Mona probably had more sense: we'll never know for sure, but it's highly unlikely she had a gigantic tattoo on her ass.