It's my skin and it's my ink

Not surprising, I was most interested in Revolting Bodies: The Monster of Tattooed Women By Christine Braunberger. I didn't get a feeling that Christine condemned, nor did I that she condoned tattoos. She discussed the history of women with tattoos. I am sure Christine does not have tattoos. I am not a fan of her writing style, and it seems she lacks experience. I wish someone else had written this article. I doubt that she's been to many tattoo conventions. She probably went to one for the sake of the article, or just interviewed people who had been to them. Two of my best friends are tattoo artists (both women) and my ex is a tattoo artist, so I've been dragged to many-- in Nashville, LA, Vegas, Tampa, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, St Louis, and back again. Christine seems to imply that tattooed women are treated like the objects of beauty pageants, which is not the case. No one wears much (male, female, or a bit of both), because THEY WANT TO SHOW OFF THEIR TATTOOS! It's not a sexual experience, even my ex who is a horn dog, is his most respectful and professional at tattoo conventions. Everyone gets on stage baring most of their flesh so that photos can be taken of individual pieces. Most women don't have big breasts, blond hair, or any of the other pornographic fantasy attributes assigned to women. In fact, a healthy percentage of the chicks you meet at a tattoo convention are lesbians, and not at all interested in strutting their stuff to impress men. People are there for the art. They're there to feel comfortable for one day of their lives. Tattoos are personal, they are not displays. I, and everyone else I know who has tattoos, hate when people talk about them, or try to touch them, or ask questions about them. We complain about it all the time. Most of us try to hide our tattoos in public. I've noticed that people with tattoos don't grab my arm to examine, but the naked skins do. To me, people with tattoos are so much more attractive than those without, because they are individualized. They didn't get highlights or an Abercrombie tee shirt. They don't want to be themselves. They want to as much of themselves as they can be. They are all quite beautiful and unique and brave. It's hard to face the world of zombies day in and day out with your head up, proud to be as you as you can be. That's what a tattoo does. They don't make you less of a person, they make you more of yourself. Tattoos in America have gone from deviation, to iconic, to some personal blend of the two. I don't understand why the bare fleshed people want to touch tattooed people. We, probably more than any other subculture, don't want to be touched! How is that appropriate? If you have a cool t-shirt, I don't grope it! If I like your hair, I don't tousle it! Speaking of which, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a hair cut body modification? A cut and color is like a temporary tattoo, as is a dress, a pair of shoes, a bracelet... We want to know why we're conscious, why we're here... Our likes, dislikes, and experiences give us insight into who we are and how we want to spend our lives, and we're only going to live so long, so why not display yourself proudly? How could that be perverse? How could that be degrading? What could be more beautiful?