The Creator made men find body hair on women unattractive

Nah he made the hair and made the reproductive mechanism we call sex which is fueled by attraction, clearly the intent (which frankly is a ridiculous concept to argue w.r.t biology so I guess we're working within a religious framework at this point, biology cannot have "intent," being a concept) was that we be attracted to the hair God put there, the attraction to hairlessness was born relatively recently to homo sapiens' existence. I'd believe relative hairlessness is attractive to our species as a whole through a holdover of self selecting us VS neanderthals, except that we didn't war them to extinction, we interbred.

Frankly shaving at all is spitting in God's face removing the hair he created you with, by the "architect" logic.

So do guys like tattoos on girls? Most guys do find tattoos on women attractive

So you again dispute your own argument that all tattoos are interpreted by the brain as "blemishes" and therefore "sickness." If you won't listen to my argument at least listen to yours.

as long as they are feminine, delicate,

And women? Do they have the same requirements w.r.t attractive tattoos on men, or do they prefer tattoos that are manly and tough? Perhaps straight men just prefer women who are feminine and delicate, which duh, and this tattoo preference is an extension of that. It also applies to facial features, hairstyles, clothes, so why wouldn't it extend to tattoos?

I conclude that you conjure conclusions where there are none. Do you come from a country or culture that actually does view tattoos that way, like Japan or (apparently) Korea, by chance? Just a hunch. Japan thinks tattoos are only for criminals, for instance.

You are overstating your sources.

A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.

Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.

Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.

The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.

Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.