The photos (complete with pink thong) released by her tattooist Nikko Hurtado look downright weird and disturbing. Which surely can't be the point. Is that bit her back? Is that bit her bum? What is going on?
It (the tattoo not the bottom) looks too big, too red, too intense and just too ... too ... much. To put it plainly, it's ugly.
Cheryl may be pleased with it now and it may – as she says – be full of private meaning. But how is it going to look in 10 or 20 years' time when everything – even the tightest, toned buns – begin to obey the laws of gravity and start the long journey south?
Or when CC is a little old lady and the petals look in need of a some crushed aspirin and a touch of 7-Up?
Wrinkly, faded roses just look unbearably sad.
But of course that will probably not prevent thousands of young people from trying to copy the Geordie lass. And between inferior tattooists and inferior bottoms they will look a ghastly mess.
There is a contradiction at the (badly inked) heart of the tattoo phenomena. Why do young people want to embellish a work of art when its already in its prime? I'm sure 10 out of 10 blokes (and a huge proportion of the ladies) would have said that Cheryl's bottom was pretty close to perfection as it was. Now? I'm not too sure. More a case of freaky flower bum lady.
Cheryl, there is such a thing as gilding (or, more accurately, inking) the lily. Or the rose, for that matter.