Have a preference?
I like them as long as they're not on the face lol
I'm smitten by a dancer that is sweet as peach pie and hotter than hell, and tatted big time.
However, there is something to be said for soft flesh that hasn't been touched by the machine yet.
What do you like?
Very original topic.
I prefer them to be somewhere less visible like inside her nostril. I don't remember any tats killing it for me like nipple piercings do, though.
I'm sure it's been discussed before. Didn't see anything recent, so bust my balls all you fucking want.
Have an opinion, or just wanna be a dipshit troll?
Nothing to be ashamed of. We discuss every topic 17 times
ha okay then. I just ventured into the discussions area real recently and I expect static, so it's cool.
I very much dislike them, but my ATF has tattoos. All else is nearly perfect, so she is still my AFT. She knew I didn't care for them and I actually stopped her from getting one. She got none during our years together, although one she already had she had embellished..
^ Ditto. You don't put stickers on a Ferrari and she has something much more beautiful than any Ferrari.
Not a fan of tats. My ATF has none and my CF has one small one.
I came of age at a time when tats were the mark of outlaw bikers, ex-cons or hard-ass combat vets. It has taken me some time to get used to ink on women, but I'm learning to ride with it. I am still shocked when I see dancers with ink all over like a billboard. That's a lot to do to your body in your early 20s, when you might not like the look when you're 50. I was floored once when I was moving toward DATY and saw a tat on the inner upper thigh--a large arrowhead pointing the way. We laughed and..then.
I'm fine with tattoos. Sometimes it's a plus.
I have learned to disregard them and evaluate dancers on their performance and attitude. But I kind of cringe when a dancer gets a new one and asks if I like it. I usually don't think it adds to her beauty.
I find all tattoos gross, especially both of the ones my wife used to mar herself. having said that, it has zero impact on whom I choose to be with.
I don't like tats, period.
-->" We discuss every topic 17 times"
Somehow I have highest hopes for this, our 12th time this year discussing this topic :)
With rare exceptions, tattoos are at best neutral to me, and usually a negative. They just almost always have a negative connotation to me: trashiness, poor judgement, poor taste, immaturity. And yes, I realize the excruciating irony that those are EXACTLY the qualities that a 20-something year old girl needs to have sex with me for money :)
If I only stuck with strippers with no tattoos, I'd have very few options. So tend to be able to ignore them.
Tattoos that are so unattractive that I have trouble ignoring, from least objectionable to most objectionable, include: sleeves, ghetto looking tats, anything on the front or sides of the neck, anything on the face (not counting microblading and shit like that)
i prefer none.
If she has a phat ass, big tits, and a pretty face, things like tattoos and piercings are of little importance.
TUSCL seems to lean a bit older and a bit more-conservative, thus a lean towards not liking tattoos.
I grew-up in the 80s (my teen years) and back then tats were not as big the fashion statement they area today, as SuperDude mentioned, in previous decades tats were associated w/ the criminal element, low-class people, or service-men.
As others, I'm not into tats but have become somewhat immune to them and actually like some that make a dancer look a bit more of a bad-girl - so I like some small-ones that add a bit of bad-girl quality but do not like big-ones like full-sleeves or an entire-back - also dislike them in certain areas like the back of the calves, forearms, chest (right below the neck), those look gangsta/low-class vs sexy - don't mind a small sexy-one on one of her boobs, perhaps a small-one on her butt, the lower-back, maybe the thigh - as long as they are not too-big and not many of them.
" in previous decades tats were associated w/ the criminal element, low-class people, or service-men."
Aren't they still?
^ nah - us older guys often still think that way today - but for young-people today is more of a fashion-statement and much-more mainstream
I prefer no tattoos. But, if I see a hot dancer with a few tattoos that aren't too distracting, then I am OK with that.
Sometimes a few tattoos can make a really hot dancer even hotter if done tastefully. I don't mind small tattoos in any of the following areas
Now, if their body is covered in tattoos, it will be very hard for me to see past that. I will most likely be completely turned off. The sad thing is, a lot of these girls were probably really hot before they got all those tattoos.
Papi,
You're correct them being more "mainstream", but not always, at least at present. I know a number of the younger set that can't get certain jobs with visible tats. I think isn't so much the tat as it is quantity and/or subject. Just my guess.
Prefer no tattoos, but especially these days I'm not passing up a dancer just because she has ink.
It's an acquired taste. At first look, generally a turn off. Some are too distracting and always will be a turn off. The ones done well, I become accustomed to and start to fully enjoy.
Still if were to be asked for a new girl, no or yes to tatts. I'd always say no, despite some of faves I'll now always vote yes to keeping.
-->" I don't mind small tattoos in any of the following areas"
While I always prefer no tattoos, I, too, find that some types don't bother me at all, and there's a few that just scream "dirty slutty girl" and can get me going when I'm in the right mood (read: drunk).
