Search Box

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Cheryl Cole's new tattoo

Cheryl Cole is a British singing star and television personality. (I'd never heard of her till I saw this article.) According to Wikipedia, she is also a fashionista, and FHM has put her at the top of its 100 Sexiest Women in the World list twice. Two fairly recent shots:



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.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Textbook definition of a sociopath, here. Tattooing giant roses all over her buttocks screams to the world, "My shit doesn't stink!"

John Craig said...

Anon --
Honestly, I'm not sure I agree. I see this more as a function of misguided stupidity. (I'm not saying she couldn't be a sociopath, but I don't see the tattoo as proof.)

Anonymous said...

Maybe she misheard Citizen Kane: "Rosebutt"? ;)

bluffcreek1967 said...

John, I read your 2009 article on Tattoos and I totally agree. I've never quite gotten the tattoo craze among so many of our young people (geez, don't I sound old?). I'm glad I grew up in a generation that didn't go overboard on that stuff. Even though I was in the military, I never felt the need to get a tattoo. Now, that I'm in my 50s, I'm glad I never did. It would have probably looked old and faded by now.

In the case of the beautiful model, I think she ruined the image of her nice little butt! Like you indicated in your post, most guys (myself included) enjoy the sight of a natural, firm and un-tatted butt on a woman. The last thing I want to see is a massive blooming rose!

John Craig said...

Ambrose --
Couldn't agree more. I always figured whatever tattoo I got, I'd be tired of in pretty short order, not that I was every really tempted to get one.

And yes, Cheryl Cole, what a pity.

What branch of the military were you in?

bluffcreek1967 said...

U.S. Navy. Enlisted in 1979.

John Craig said...

Ambrose --
Thank you for your service.

Anonymous said...

John,

If you could speculate the reasons why anyone would get themselves tattooed I'd appreciate it. I'm amazed at how many otherwise ordinary and even conservative and intelligent people (outside of prison) get tattooed. I'm not talking tiny ones either. Thanks, Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
My impression, they think it makes them appear (a) cool, (b) sex, and (c) rebellious and (d) badass.

I disagree, obviously: I think it makes them look trashy and stupid and unattractive.

To each his own.

Anonymous said...

And I guess the word perpetuity doesn't mean much to them.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Exactly: there's no better way of saying "I don't plan for the future" than to get a tattoo.

I meant "sexy" and not "sex" two comments above.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't going to comment, but couldn't resist after i saw Bluffcreek's post on his own blog (plus, your previous post on tattoos).

I don't have a tattoo but i'm planning to get one. i see it simply as a way to customize your body.

You may not like tattoo and you may want to share your dislike, i get it. But it seems as if you're trying to justify your point of view, which is -to me- ridiculous. It is almost as if, if you were given the chance, you would ban getting tattoos:)

Apart from medical concerns, being a stupid decision that will certainly be regretted, being repellent, and many more are just, JUST, your point of view.

It's quite funny that Bluffcreek even proceeds to call elder people happy with their tattoos 'immature'.

Pardon me, but i'll say this is bigotry. And, as for the job interviews, I'm pretty sure that tattoos do not interfere with the job performance, if -of course- performance is of concern. You should change your minds.


John Craig said...

Anon --
Isn't justifying one's p pint of view what any opinion piece is about?

I certainly wouldn't ban getting tattoos. I'm a libertarian, I think people should feel free to desecrate themselves in whatever manner they wish. And I should feel free to express my opinion. (Accusing me of wanting to ban tattoos is as silly as accusing you of wanting to ban expressing opinions.) I usually find that people who need to put words in my mouth to win an argument don't have a winning argument.

And you can call my opinion "bigotry' if you like, but I would be equally justified in calling your opinion against my opinion "bigotry" -- which I would never do.

And of course tattoos don't interfere with job performance; but my guess is that the type of people who get tattoos are not the type of people who think too far ahead, which means they're -- on average -- less than ideal employees.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there's an inverse correlation between tattoos and IQ scores. It's not a perfect correlation, but it's probably there. I'd even go so far as to suggest that you're a good example of this correlation.

Anonymous said...

let me try once more. i'm not against you expressing your opinions. I am also aware of the way you like to express your opinions. As for the tattoos, you're presenting your opinions almost as facts and i'm saying, they are not.

I'm not trying to win an argument and i would love to take an iq test for you. Bringing about the iq-tattoo correlation is not surprising; i'm generally against your opinions on iq, as well.

Anyway..just wanted to let you know that there are people -believe it or not- who are sane, are good at their jobs, certainly have plans for the future; yet, they also have/will also have tattoos which they don't/won't regret.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I meant "point," not "p pint," two posts ago. I should proofread.

OK, your honest opinion: do you find Cheryl Cole's bottom more attractive now that it has been covered in ink, or would you have preferred it without tattoos?

Anonymous said...

I didn't like her tattoo at all. I also didn't like her publicizing her tattoo, or her bottom, whichever. The answer will be: way less attractive.

Yet, the fact that I find most of Angelina Jolie's tattoos attractive makes me think that there may be others who actually like Cheryl Cole's new tattoo.

It may as well be that the whole point is making her bottom unattractive, shifting the focus to her brains:)