I enjoy Women's Health, but by gosh I have no clue how this article got passed and printed. I'm almost stunned at it's stupidity.
It's called 'Falling Ink Love' and promises a "two step guide to decoding his tattoos". They quote behavioural psychologists as well as the Personality Research Reform Manual. I hope these doctors and professors are embarrassed.
Here is a sample:
"<tattoo placed on> Lower Arm/Leg - On the inner arm? It shows vulnerability....and on the top? He thinks he's a tough guy with old fashioned values"
"A Red Rose - He appreciates inner beauty over traditional good looks....Look out for thorns - it means he's been hurt in the past"
"Nautical - He's seeking direction. If he's under 30, he won't commit"
"Chinese Symbols - Sadly it's not necessarily a sign he appreciates culture....Don't expect him to let him into your life easily."
This tripe sounds like it comes from a teen magazine, alongside a quiz about reading your own tealeaves, or working out whether the boy you fancy will like you back by counting the number of letters in his name.
I'm actually more offended that this sort of article got published in a health and fitness magazine, even more than I'm offended as a tattooed woman.
But let us not gloss over how offensive it is to people with tattoos, but particularly women I think. The article makes all tattooed people seem pretty dumb, but it also completely marginalises tattooed women. Because of course only men have tattoos.
I would love to hear a defence for how this article got comissioned, edited and published in a fitness magazine (although it being published anywhere is still pretty darn offensive....it's still completely ignorant, behind the times and downright dumb).
Tattoos do not need decoding.
I'm really struggling to take this magazine seriously about anything they now have to say, fitness or otherwise, considering they included this piece of nonsense.