Will Pink's "Manly" Tattoos Change The Magazine Industry?

I don't know what surprised me more: that I even noticed the latest issue of Cosmopolitan magazine or that I immensely enjoyed what I saw, which was a short-haired, tatted-up visual of Pink.

Normally, I make a concerted effort to avoid looking at the dozens of magazines, mainly women's interest, fitness, and tabloids, that litter the check-stand aisles. But the June 2010 issue of Cosmopolitan, perhaps the most hated lady mag of all, caught my eye at the neighborhood Shopper's. And I couldn't look away.

There was Pink, a bad-assed, foul-mouthed, tattooed singer after my own heart, covering a publication most known for their bizarre sex tips. She looked completely different from their average cover girl who is almost always sporting a bright, solid dress, long flowing hair and a perky smile. (They even made Lady Gaga a version of this.) That average cover girl, Beyonce, Rihanna, Lauren Conrad, or Jessica Simpson, is who women "should" want to be: Smart but not too geeky, sexy but not slutty, professionally successful but not threatening. And if one of them should become too much of a good thing, she should be apologetic about it. Or, as Beyonce has done, create an altar ego whom may bear the brunt of her smarts, independence, and sex appeal.

Pink isn't that chick. Her prettiness isn't the big-boobed, long-haired, fake teeth variety. Her body isn't perfectly proportioned to appeal to the largest number of men possible. And she has tats. Not tattoos, which can be small and traditionally girly, like the cute little stars Rihanna has everywhere. Tats, by contrast, are big, gothic, and meant to make a statement other than sexuality.

There is a debate among women about what type of woman willingly inks herself to the nth degree; the verdict is normally slutty, trashy, and some synonym of masculine. The author of a blog post on Sandra Bullock's soon-to-be ex-husband's tatted mistress, Michelle McGee, wrote, "I couldn't help but wonder what exactly it could be that James would find attractive about McGee. This is just my personal opinion, but people with tattoos all over their face and body just don't look good to me. Especially if they're on a female. Ew." The blog, "The Glamazons," followed this assessment up by fawning over celebs with itty-bitty tattoos in provocative places, like Britney Spears' tramp stamp.

This type of thinking is another, perfect example of "enlightened sexism." Tattoos, historically body decoration for males in the Western world, are fine for women as long as they contribute to her sexual appeal to men. A tattoo on, say, your lower back or near your boobs achieves this, while one on your forearm, bicep, or wrist may not.

This may be why the January/February 2010 issue of Women's Health, which I also bought on a whim because Pink was on the cover, only featured the two smallest of the singer's tattoos. Cosmo, though, decided to show off Pink's left arm sleeve — "sleeve" means an arm entirely covered with tattoos. And they didn't try to soften up her hair, but actually made it even more androgynous-looking.

It's too early to tell how successful Pink's Cosmo cover will be, but I hope that it might show the magazine industry (which Pink accused of telling her she wasn't pretty enough for other covers!) and other image-based businesses that not all women want to be the strangely disciplined, archetypal girly-girl women that their products generally promote. There's nothing wrong with the way those women personify femininity and sex appeal, but it is limited. Pink's appeal isn't better, but it is different and rings true for some women.

Photo credit: Jessica Higgins