My theory on tattoos has always stayed the same. I believe tattoos are an embodiment of risk-seeking behavior, which inevitably attracts women in droves. I've overheard countless women drooling over so-and-so with tattoos. They always mention the tattoos. It's a big turn on for them. And it makes sense, why wouldn't it? Women are predisposed to be attracted to alphas. Alphas display risk-seeking behavior. Tattoos are a great signal for this.
Enter female solipsism.
Women find tattoos attractive, therefore they falsely believe tattoos are attractive.
This would be akin to a man growing tits to attract women, because he's turned on by them.
Women, as clueless as they are, adopt these risk seeking behaviors, hoping these will appeal to men. And since men are thirsty, it appears to work. But what they don't understand is: men are attracted to them in spite of the tattoos, not because of them.
Now I chalk it up to female solipsism, but there are a few theories I've seen floating around about self-handicapping as a sexual strategy. I'm afraid I don't quite understand it beyond it possibly being a slightly more effective filtering mechanism.
Anyhow, looks like there's some research to show that tattoos aren't just pretty pictures on your skin, but are literally signs of risk seeking behavior and signs of poor long-term planning. Exactly what women look for in men, and exactly what men don't want in a woman:
Before anybody chimes in to say they find tattooed chicks sexy, answer this: Would that same exact girl look sexier with or without the tatts?