She’s the most famously tattooed actress in Hollywood so, is that a bad thing or not?

Jun 19, 2014 16:29 GMT  ·  By

Regardless of her merits as an actress, Angelina Jolie is a gorgeous woman. She might be a bit too skinny for some tastes or she might dress too conservatively for others, but the bottom line is that she’s beautiful no matter if she’s all dolled up for the red carpet or going all-natural to run errands.

Angelina Jolie is also heavy into body art, being the most famously tattooed woman in Hollywood right now. There are women who have more ink than her, that’s certain, but they’re not even close to playing in the same league as she does.

Right now, Jolie is believed to have somewhere around 13 tattoos scattered all over her body, from her inner thigh to her arms, the back of her neck, her lower back and even in the vicinity of her nether regions. She would probably have more if she hadn’t covered up several tattoos that she came to regret, including the death symbol on a shoulder blade or Billy Bob Thornton’s name on her arm.

Some of the tattoos she got that she came to regret were from her “dark” period, which coincided with those years when she would wear Billy Bob’s blood in a vial around her neck and she would do drugs like there was no tomorrow.

The woman simply loves tattoos and proof of that is to be found in the fact that she continued to have them done even after she “cleaned up” and she started showing signs of the woman we know today. To Angelina, tattoos aren’t just beautiful, they’re very personal and intimate, reminders of important moments in her life that she carries with her wherever she goes. To her, they’re art.

Which brings us to the topic of conversation announced in the headline. Earlier this week, one report came out saying that Angelina’s 6 children with Brad Pitt were becoming “obsessed” with her ink, asking her questions about each piece, asking her to show it to them again and, more importantly, asking her when they too could get a tattoo, “just like mummy,” as the saying goes.

Angelina’s oldest child is 12, while her youngest is 5, which, for many, was reason enough to go online and trash her for getting all inked up and then setting a bad example for the kids. Not few were those who reacted to this report (which, by the way, could very well be false because it was never confirmed) with something very similar to rage: rage at this person they never met for “setting a bad example” for a bunch of kids they would never get the chance to meet or know from a distance. Not their kids, hers.

Reactions were very virulent on all kinds of online forums and, while Jolie usually prompts heated responses no matter what she does, this time it was different, because she was being attacked for what is, at the end of the day, a very personal choice.

The debate on whether tattoos are art or classless self-mutilation has been around for years and I’m not that conceited to pretend that I have the absolute answer to it. I don’t. However, I find it ridiculous that we still live in an age in which one person can be written off like this based on appearances only, based on preconceptions.

A tattooed parent isn’t less of a parent. If this parent’s kids end up getting tattoos as well, that doesn’t mean they’re less worthy individuals. It’s other things that diminish our worth as individuals, not the markings we get on our skin for whatever reason.

Back to Jolie’s case: when this is a woman for whom tattoos clearly hold such a deep significance, who are we to discuss if they’re art or self-mutilation on her? As the saying goes, that which is garbage for one person can be another’s treasure, and I do believe the same applies: Angelina’s tattoos could be trash for us, but they’re art for her.

And if they’re art for her, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation, because it’s her body so it’s hers to do whatever she likes with it.