Originally Posted by carve
But what are they to you: Tacky or beautiful. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess tacky. Why the distinction?
LOL- sorry to burst your bubble. I've never been dumped. You're not far off though: I am particularly peeved at the moment that that med student I mentioned who I'd otherwise be very attracted to (who is even more interested in me, BTW) is so heavily tattooed. Such a waste of a beautiful body. When she's covered up she's a 9. Uncovered she's a 3. Otherwise perfect skin, too.
I'm happy if I can discourage anyone from getting extensive tattoos, especially a beautiful girl like Sara. It's as attractive and feminine and permenant as getting laser hair removal across your head so the only hairstyle you can have is a mohawk. Ladies: If you don't have tattoos, you'll still be just as attractive to guys who like tattoos, but if you get them a significant % of guys will find you dramatically less attractive, particularly nice and successful guys. There's a reason the vast majority of models don't have 'em: 'cause they're ugly and limiting.
You sound incredibly lame - stick to prude and plain looking girls so your mom doesnt get mad when you have them over (yes I know you are 34, funny). I'm "nice and successful" (your stereotypes are also hilarious) and I have tattoos and think girls with tattoos and nice bodies are very attractive. Widen your perspective.
And I keep editing this because your comments about models is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Models are there to model a product (clothes, perfume, car, lifestyle etc etc). When appropriate, models will have tattoos or whatever accessory to get the message to the potential viewers. Second, even if its not related to the particular shoot/show, models can still have tattoos:
Google > You