I was hanging out with some friends not too long ago at a certain gin mill. The conversation changed over to a few younger than us females across the way. One of us brought up the look that a number of those females have tattoos, piercings, hair style or color. So the question came up, would any of us guys there date a younger female if she had anything that any of these younger ladies had…or even if we could get a date with her.
These guys know my history, so they asked if I ever saw an escort in the past or plan on seeing one in the future…like the ladies across the way. After looking at plenty of ads or sites lately, I’m becoming more open on it. Is it an age thing that older guys do not want all the “extras”, and maybe you younger guys are ok with? Does it even matter, or it’s just what happens between the sheets that matter.A preference that older guys like me don't look for because we grew up with fantasizing about super models and swimsuit pin-ups without the ink and piercings. Now it's mainstream and desired by many of all ages. I used to try to avoid it but it's rare to find a lady in this business without any ink so I don't mind it BCD. I still feel uncomfortable with metal in less common places or large visible tats on a dinner date but I'll eventually get there.
I find that a good looking woman comes in many ways. Tats and hardware don't distract me on some it may enhance there appeal unless they are over done.Hygiene is a must but overdone make up is a turn off.I guess some older guys don't understand woman's fashions but women certainly do and right now tats are in and so are hardware of some kind.Although some of that hardware has to hurt. To me a young lady with a hot body look as good in yoga pants a revealing top a attractive that or two pierced ears and a face pierce look as good as one with a dress on and a lot of make up. I'm a sucker for short shorts as well as short skirt. I'm not critical of woman's dress as are some beauty is beauty I'm not here to control them I'm here to enjoy them.
... if they dye their hair purple or pink or whatever, Usually (but not always) those who dye their hair an alternate color also have short, cropped, chopped hair which doesn't appeal to me.
When I see a woman with tats or hardware my brain automatically translates to my dick that she's a bad girl, a naughty girl and it wants to be touched by her. And, we all know that naughty bad girls just love dick!
Tats means insecurity. If you are happy with yourself, you don't mark yourself up. I don't find insecurity sexy. But manifestations of insecurity like tats signal that you might be easily manipulated -- an "easy lay." And of course guys are going to gravitate to easy lays. But that's not really who they would pick for arm candy.
Of course it is that nature of women to be insecure about their looks -- as it has been, is, and will be the primary determinant of their mating desirability. But if they can suppress the urge to mutilate themselves out of insecurity, their appearance will benefit from it.
And there you have it . Souls labeling certain providers as losers. And after all women are by nature insecure. And have to mutilate themselves because they hate themselves.
Now maybe being tongue in cheek, but I'm sure if a few a others posted that there would be collective outrage. Pass for Souls?
Ladies maybe he'll explain next your daddy issues for you.
-- Modified on 10/7/2017 12:38:01 PM
Really? Care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? After all, wearing makeup and putting on fancy clothes are ways of marking oneself up; the effect simply aren't long lasting. I also imagine that when you go see someone, you make the effort to cleanup and generally make yourself presentable as opposed to just walking out the door in whatever state you are in when the time comes.
Good job Vorlon. Souls must be spreading his version of Dr.Phil. Read betwee the lines ladies , your tats = damaged goods,and and men aren't banging you and planting their seeds primarily for your intelect and charm .
Where did you come up with that shit Souls.. Put down the crack pipe for fuck sakes. Or at least put that stupid theory on the General board. That should give them all a laugh.
My daughter, for one. She's neither insecure nor an easy lay. I know why she decided to get each of her tats and it had nothing to do with insecurity. Each of them has a special meaning to her. I know other women for whom their tats each have a story behind it.
The women I know who have tats aren't any more easily manipulated than women I know who don't have tats. In fact, if I were to generalize I'd have to say the women I know who have tats have stronger personalities than those without tats.
You can say that tatted up women have stronger personalities, but we know from recent history that ladies getting tats is a trend that has exploded in recent years. People who are slaves to trends don't strike me as strong personalities.
I'm just inquiring if you have any scientific or scholarly articles that affirm and back up your assertion? Or is this just from your personal experience?
Right after torching another rock. But the bullshit should be good. So put on a pair of comfy slippers , get a glass of wine and enjoy the show London
When is the feature presentation start time Souls? No one wants to miss it.
From Psychology Today:
"a number of studies have found ... that men and women with tattoos tend to have an earlier age of first intercourse, engage in more frequent sexual activity ... and have a higher number of lifetime sexual partners .... people of both sexes with tattoos have higher rates of smoking, drinking and drug use than non-tattooed people .... Tattooing has also been found to be associated with risky behavior more generally.... boys and girls with tattoos and/or body piercings were more likely to be involved with a range of high risk activities such as multiple drug use, illegal activities, gang affiliation, problem gambling, school truancy .... tattooing and body piercing were more prevalent among girls than boys .... Tattoos have even been found to be associated with disordered eating, as one study found that females with tattoos had more symptoms of bulimia than females without them...."
"...people with tattoos tend to have a higher need to feel unique, and tend to have certain personality traits associated with risk taking, such as low agreeableness and conscientiousness, higher extraversion, higher sensation-seeking (a desire for novelty, variety, and stimulating experiences) and higher sociosexuality (willingness to engage in uncommitted sex) .... Low agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated with impulsiveness, and extraversion and sensation-seeking are each associated with risk-taking for the sake of excitement. Hence, people with this kind of personality profile are particularly prone to drug and alcohol use, and to be rather uninhibited in their sexuality."
Thank you for those excerpts. As a current student I'd like the links to these articles so I can read further. I want to hear more about their participation selection, questions asked, when the articles were published. While I can see the potential correlation, I have to ask why you are so judgmental of tattoos in real life or even the industry?
If we are talking purely "in real life" (re: taking the industry out of it), I think the dating game has altered the landscape so much it allows ALL women to partake in hook up culture more often than not.
If we are speaking in regards to the industry, at the end of the day, even an un-inked provider (re: "pure" as I feel you are insinuating), is partaking in high risk sexual activity. Aren't even the un-tattooed then "an easy lay" as you put it?
I wrote eight sentences in my post. Five of them included the base word "insecure."
PT says "people with tattoos tend to have a higher need to feel unique"
Not only feel, but aggressively express it. Why does someone secure in themselves need to extravgantly express their "uniqueness" in order to engender constant affirmation?
I said insecure females are more easily manipulated -- "easy lays."
PT says "a number of studies have found ... that men and women with tattoos tend to have an earlier age of first intercourse, engage in more frequent sexual activity ... and have a higher number of lifetime sexual partners.
I said it. Science backs it up.
That's great you said that. Now, can you provide the links to the articles please? I only ask because as I board this flight to bring me & various but small tattoos back to Minneapolis, I'd love to read it when I land. The most recent articles I can find are from 2002 citing the same info you provided. Out of date much? Provided I see other research that is actually cited I'll gladly fall back.
Here's a little hint to improve your google-fu. Whenever someone provides quotes, you can put the quoted section in the google search bar and usually go straight to the article it was quoted from.
So take anything that looks unique between the ellipsis and it will probably point you right to the original article.
How long you plan to keep London and everyone else on your merry go round?
While you are correct that if quoted it will show up in original article, but it will also show up if quoted in other articles or discussions . Now she said info was was from 2002, are you disputing that?
Makes it real convenient for you to not give exact source of information by providing a link to the webpage you actually read. Who knows if there is more to this article/ study . If you cherry picked info to state your science. London is making you look like a fool . You must be insecure in that a chick is going to make you out for a chump. All she us saying is I want to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples.
You take your avoidance lessons from TER ADMIN , when someone asks for specifics
CharlieMurphey, I found the article Souls was referring to. I'm all for civil discourse but I don't want it to turn into a match of us belittling one another. Now, Souls... you could have been sweet and linked the article it's not that hard. Alas, I found it.
Y'all, here is the link from the article that as published in 2015. I haven't had time to read it yet but just wanted to let you all know Souls did at least use a resource that had other scholarly articles cited within it as well from 2006 - 2015. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201504/fifty-shades-tattooing-body-art-risk-and-personality).
Personally, I still struggle with taking a body of research and just making the assertion that every single person that fits the archetype is like that.
Well done London . Now all can view same source of info in same context if so choose to. That's only right honest thing to do
...AS a certified all American body art inspector I have come to the conclusion that tats are now more common than bumper stickers & just convey the message the subject wants others to know about them & they don't even have to have a car. Volumes are written every year analyzing nearly every aspect of human behavior & I believe the current trending of piercing & tattooing body art is just fodder for psychiatry students to have something to print. I believe it is foolish & unfair to judge someone for their body art.
Citing psychology today
= Luddite.
I find it anecdotal and unfairly biased against the subject aside from being a poorly written article already,
The fact that there's quite a few tatted up as well pierced individuals who out number what this article says statistically.
It's one thing if you dislike body art and piercings on someone which is perfectly fine but to quote Psychology today in order to make yourself feel better about your biased opinions on what someone else does with their body just so you can be right ?
P.S. you aren't.
Why are you here again?
I was asked to cite published research so I did.
Psychology Today doesn't publish research. They publish opinion pieces based on research papers.
Risk taking , well what the fuck makes you any better than tatted people. For fuck sakes , Souls you like all of us are plowing someone that has had 100- 1000's of partners which for most part we know shit about.
Easy lay , well what is easier for you than passing a screen getting a referral and paying a chick to blow you and let you bang them and bust a nut Souls , unless you are out picking up untated chicks left and right in civie world , are you? Pretty fucking easy lay for you now isn't it. But your better than them . No tats
Maybe they get tattoos for personal reason, that may hold deep significance personally not following a trend . What you personally interview every woman with a tat as that is who you directed this bullshit to. Rather sexist of you isn't it fucktard. And maybe they actually have strong enough personality to tell people with your thinking to fuck off. Rather than bowing to your ideals. Of course you will say that is just aggressiveness. To make your point.
And the final stupidity regarding your science . Higher willingness to engage in uncommitted sex. And you bring this shit to a P4P fuckboard. What you in commited relationship with all the hookers your banging? T his is the pump and dump theatre. Which means both parties mutualy agree to walk away when seeds are spilled. How much crack did you smoke today?
Your so called scientific study backing up your claim include men and women retard , but you spoke about women only in your original post. So right there is a big fucking problem and it goes right off the rails .
You already said it grow a pair claim it. Hookers with tats are losers . Don't fucking hide behind a scientific study. That just is ridiculous.
That is a general correlation. Correlation does not prove causation and more importantly it does not show that everyone with tattoos is the loser you label them.
Because finding pics of heavily tattooed people on the internet is not remarkable.
Exhibit B:
Jesse James had Sandra Bullock as arm candy but was fucking human billboard Michelle "Bombshell" McGee on the side.
...Where do I find this Michelle Mcgee & does she provide ?
I certainly don't begrudge a lady for her tattoo choices. I just find it distracting ... kind of like litter on a beautiful landscape. Small and tasteful ... ok. Large, armband style ... not for me. I recently had a promising date set with a hot lady, but when I was sent a picture of her with "suicide girl" tats, I decided to cancel. To each is own.
I've seen some that I thought quite attractive and others not so much. In general though I don't find it attractive when there gets to be a lot of it.
For the Suicide Girls /Kat Von D look. I eat wimps like Souls Harbor for breakfast.
-- Modified on 10/9/2017 11:38:36 AM
I was thinking maybe I should be a good girl & use my alias for this post, but your choice of the word loser really makes me not care if I seem insulting toward you.
You're being nothing short of rude, narrow minded & ....well I think everyone else made great points already.
Your conclusion is simple & silly maybe this can sum up your personality too.
Here's my other thought:
I'm betting you have a small tattoo yourself, souls....DO YOU?
IMO tattoos are extremely painful & I can just imagine as you were getting yours, you probably couldn't fathom how any female could intentionally undergo such pain, it must've drove you nuts realizing some peoples strength & pain tolerance & how you wouldn't ever be able to.....measure up. 
Using such a dramatic word like loser, makes me think you've got plenty of your own insecurities.
I could care less & guess what, even IF anybody has problems w/my tattoos I wouldn't care,
hell I'd probably even still 'sleep' w/them..... Uh oh, did I just expose my questionable morals 
LMAO.
Of course I have my own insecurities. More so than average, I would imagine. But "loser" is not a measure of someone's imperfections -- it is a measure of how they compensate for those imperfections.
Self-mutilation as a compensation for insecurity is loser-ville.
Now, or in the past. The census includes losers like Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Justin Trudeau, Barry Goldwater, Caroline Kennedy, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Rihanna, Charlize Theron, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba, Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Helen Mirren, Jamie Foxx, Brad Pitt, Heidi Klum, Emma Stone, Dwayne Johnson and many many many more fellow losers.
The funny thing is, they all seem to be (or were, if deceased) very successful people. But alas, they're losers because they decided to get one or more tats. How sad.
-- Modified on 10/12/2017 4:54:49 PM
Maybe it's her lack of hair idk, but man I could really just people watch all day long sometimes....
People are so fascinating....anyway SOULS what's your point today?
Because whatever it is I think I missed it. :|
I really find it ridiculous that you still seem to contend that people tat themselves up for reasons of insecurity,
yet plenty have pointed out the many reasons people chose tattoos...
Some for inspiration, some as a tribute to a person or a certain event, people do it to show unity such as soldiers of the same squad, many who've endured great pain & pride together.
People get tatted sometimes to display or remind themselves of new found ideologies or religious experiences....
while still others go thru their own events like surviving cancer & display it proudly. (cheers 2those strong)
Some are hopeless romantics & want to declare & display their love for somebody, others list their kids names maybe as a way of always keeping them near.
Of course there are even some who simply like the art that they chose, just because they like it.
I'm not sure why you felt you should join in a conversation that you knew you had such strong & unpopular beliefs about, I don't really care to try to analyze you either.
While your comments were rude & unnecessary, it did alleviate board boredom, but I'm back to being to busy to tune into this topic much further.
My thinking about participation in board discussions is this:
Why not talk about things you like in life rather then the oppositte...life's too short for the bullshit.
Extra smiles & less stress, that's the way 2be!
Only thing left to say now is .......Happy Friday the 13th everybody!
-- Modified on 10/13/2017 2:30:33 PM
Mindy, I think you pretty much nailed it!!
Trolls doing their thing on the board again, soulsharbor, another one to add to the long list on this board
"you knew you had such strong & unpopular beliefs"
Trying for popularity for the sake of popularity would be the indications of? ... Bueller, Buller, anyone? ... an insecure person.
... that If you have replied more than three times on a single topic, you've wasted your time.
Who was it who said that?
Damn good advice.
Souls you silly, silly, stuck in 'way back land', man.
Just because I point out a concept that might be considered unpopular should not somehow lead you into the the misconception that I would shy away from ANYTHING simply because it's not popular.
Believe that buddy & since real always recognize's real I certainly will not go on 2site specifics... as my word is good enough to me.
Just know this Souls: I've got more then a couple unpopular beliefs & when I've felt so inspired I've gone above & beyond to tell others some of those ideas, beliefs concepts..yet I ALSO realize where the majority might lie with regard to my thoughts, so I'll consider things like time, effort & pay off or value b4 bringing up said unpopular beliefs.
When (if) I realize I stand in the minority of public opinion, I know that'll it'll be likely I'll want to defend my position, so I calculate if I'll talk, based on my desire to have to debate & personaly tattoo talk (petty) seems like a huge waste of ones passions!
Alrighty guy, get me yet? That's just rhetorical. Good night Souls