If I may interject here, the application of make-up is to disguise flaws or imperfections -- human women are not perfectly made even when pleasing. Tattoos are adding imperfections (which get only more imperfect in time), in my opinion, so there's the difference and YMMV.
I'm just sayin', if we're gonna hold a standard that says adding personal touches to ones appearance is arrogance (an argument I'm open to), then it has to be a consistent standard. Does the application of makeup lend visible evidence that a woman will put her own wishes before God's through immoral behavior? Where is the line?
See, I think the line is "you know it when you see it". And that line is 100% subjective. One woman's foundation, eye shadow, eye liner, and lip gloss is another woman's large feather earring and arm tattoo.
Actually I always found women without makeup more attractive - or maybe they had makeup on, but I didn't notice. Which is the point.
There IS a line you cross. Pandora seems to suggest the proper place for make up is for hiding imperfections and subtle enhancement of natural features. There is a huge difference between that and making yourself up to look like a cheap whore. If you look at a woman and notice her make-up first (or Tat, or nose ring, or blue hair) , I suspect she has crossed the line.
And yeah, its a stereo-type, and I may have passed on getting to know a good woman because of my prejudices in this area, but dating for me was always work, and I wasn't going to invest a lot of effort into women who, by their outward appearance, thoughtfully informed me that there was a 99% chance that I would hate their guts ( and they would hate mine)