No argument there...but, I have yet to run across anyone whose physical looks or wardrobe were enhanced by tattoos...especially women.
E.g.: Picture that young lady in a strapless evening gown at some gala or soiree...then picture her wearing the same gown at the same event sans tattoos.
Or, better still; picture her in her fifties or sixties attending a similar event wearing a similar gown whilestillsportingthosetattoos. (I'd bet by then those GTs would, at the very least, need some extensive 'detailing'.)
Yeah, I know; 'very sexist and judgmental of me, huh...but, I'm entitled to be that way 'cause I'm so darned purfeckt my own darned self...
It's just the permanent ink bit that I don't understand. Why fix it it so it has to be lasered off with attendant smell of burning flesh and weeks of pain.
I mean what if you decide you like the GT40 Mk2 best and you have just been branded with a Mk1? Quelle horreur!
'BIGGGGGGGGGGGGG DIFFERENCE between 'detachable' (if you will), "wearable art" that one can change every day OR completely remove anytime at one's whim and forget about...and "art" that amounts to what reality dictates is "PERMANENT art" one is forced to wear day-after-day for life no matter where one happens be, no matter what the occasion may be (formal or informal), no matter in whose company one may be, and no matter if said art may be/IS/would likely be deemed 'offensive' by the standards of any reasonable person who may see it.
Therein lies my baseline 'issue' with tats.
JMPO. YPO obviously differs.
But, like I said; at least she (the GT40s gal [...obviously your daughter as well for that matter]) didn't go this route:
Again I say, 'We all have choices, some turn out to be a long life of explaining themselves over and over.' Daily I see examples of 'poor choices made' in courtrooms or partners for life.
Nice art, but it would look better on a wall.... framed.