Inked Mags: More Ink & less "naked" skin

Back to Topic Index

  • 164521_494434042907_513607907_5946660_5510389_n_small

    oneteaspoon said on February 2, 2012

    im sitting here about to go to bed reading an aussie inked maz summer 2010/2011, now i dont know if i should be judgmental or not as a fellow inked person but im actually quite disappointed at the lack of ink these girls have, i am a girl but heterosexual but i love looking at women with ink and metal....

    sure all of them in the mag are beautiful... but id:

    a)more likely to buy the book if they had more ink

    b) more likely to buy if it had a SHORT bio of them & their ink

    & finally

    c)i forgot what it was but ill let you know when i think of it...

    i dont class myself as having a lot of ink ( i have both ribs, lower back, feet, calf, hips), sure i may have more than the average jo blow.. however most of mine can be hidden when i want but for an inked mag i want lots of ink to look at, get inspired by and say WOW now thats good ink and she pulls it off well

    (oh that was my c) point, id more likely to find the girls hot if they had more ink lol!!! and piercings for that matter, but then again i guess im implying that if you have tatts u have piercings, i must be the only weirdo lol!!!!

    I'm not saying they have to be covered from head to toe in ink however one girl on here, im not knocking her beauty, she is really beautiful from a model sense however she has 2 stars on her hips & writing on her ribs which i think is her name. I dont think it is enough for readers...

    i'd love to hear what you think on my opinion..

  • Girly_enough_small

    misfittat2 said on February 2, 2012

    I completely agree...I'd also like to see more "normal" girls with big coverage, Im getting sick of over airbrushed model types with one or two little tattoos, or tattoos that are so obviously re-colored in photoshop that they dont look real. Some of the girls have so much computer touch up done that Im having a problem telling if they are real, or just "art" themselves....it gives people A) an unrealistic view of what REAL tattoos look like. B) an unrealistic view of what tattooed girls look like, and C) an assumption that you have to be a model type to get in a magazine. (well C is kinda true at this point) and where the hell have all the men with nice ink gone? Tattoo mag's have basically been turned into soft core porn...its not about who did the art, or why the person got it. Its all about "wow she's hot"! Now I appreciate a good looking girl with big tattoos, but fuck I want her to look REAL, like I could run into her at wal mart and have an epic conversation!

  • 164521_494434042907_513607907_5946660_5510389_n_small

    oneteaspoon said on February 2, 2012

    Couldn't have said it better myself.... I want more realistic girls too.. And guys... I want the tradie who has a full back piece or the biochemistry lecturer who has both arms inked, balled and a wacky sense of humour (I know him from my studies). On the other side... I will contradict myself... I could look at Didier Cohen the male model with good ink and I could look at ALL day lol

    I've been keen to get some professional photos taken to send off to mags but I've recently put on weight due to breaking my ankle but yes I agree I would like to see more of the general population with ink, maybe a segment on regrets? I regretted one only because I rushed into it n got a copy instead of hand drawn... Or people with fucked up ink to warn people... I see too many underage girls with ink who think "I'm so cool, I'm soo hot, guys will like me better" (but proove me wrong) who in 5-10 years mAybe covers in ink but wish they had of thought about it more..

    Anyways enough is said

  • 525661_10150821647018417_506043416_11793399_714248565_n_small

    tatt2edkitten said on March 27, 2012

    I just talked to my husband about this.In one magazine they had some chick with 3 small tattoos almost naked and you could barley see the tattoos at all.But they had a great shot of her crotch.When in the hell did they stop being about tattoos?

  • 164521_494434042907_513607907_5946660_5510389_n_small

    oneteaspoon said on March 28, 2012

    If I wanted to buy a porn mag I'd buy one (I'm sure they are cheaper than ink mags too)

    I don't mind if they are naked as long as I can see some ink, and not have it hidden

  • April_small

    dxgirly said on March 28, 2012

    I TOTALLY agree. It kinda pisses me off when they put girls with two tiny tattoos, just because the girl is gorgeous and eye-candy for the male target audience. I want to see beautiful tattoos, not practically naked spreads on girls. Sometimes it really makes me not want to renew my subscriptions....

  • Dscf1330_small

    tattedupsoldier said on May 23, 2012

    While I do agree with everything that you women are saying. The problem is that sex sells and always will. I do agree that there need to be more magazines that promote the actual art and not just a bunch of women with so so work showing everything under the sun. While I love looking at the female form in all of its glory I want to buy a tattoo magazine and not a playboy. Another thing is that there need to be more quality work posted in these mags. Take "Urban Ink". All that they show is a bunch of ghetto booty women with for the most part horrible tattoo's and celeb's with pretty much the same stuff.

Back to Topic Index