Not very interesting, I thought. I think in the current context (tattoos on women) this from the article itself is more relevant:
"Some things I have heard about women's tattoos: they are chavvy, common, tasteless. They are a mark of the slut, the slapper, the loose woman. Men's tattoos might be about allegiance to a gang, a subculture, a faith or a family. They might be to memorialise a lover or child, remember a journey, a period of time in prison or a religious conversion. Why are women's tattoos often viewed in terms of their sexual attractiveness, or the indicator they are perceived to give about her availability? Why is women's skin still considered public property she has no right to alter? Apparently, these marks of mine are a waste of money and they're just going to fade, blur and sag.
...
For others, I suspect the vehement dislike of tattoos is really a fear of women's skin. When a woman makes her own mark on it, she isn't quite as available to receive whatever fantasies you might want to project on to her. If skin is a screen, and a woman writes on it, she is telling the world (or even just herself) that her own standards of attractiveness are more important to her than the standards of anyone else who might cross her path. She is taking ownership."
