Some people love them. Some people hate them, and some are indifferent.

For me peronally, I dont care for them. I prefer to see providers with no ink. However, I make exceptions if there are a lot of other things I like about the lady.

It's not like tattoos are a dealbreaker one way or the other.  Tattoos on a hot girl are gonna get me excited; no ink on an ugly girl isn't.

For me, it's more of an issue of where I am going to be seen with the girl.  If I am going to be taking her to a music convention or a concert, tattoos are fine and maybe even preferable.  If it's a black-tie event, probably not.

And if it's just a trip to the bedroom, I am ambivalent, subject to the rest of her looks.

...some folks like 'em, some don't. No hard feelings if a client doesn't like them.

As for me, I LOVE a man with ink. Yum.

If you're going to get them, do everyone a favor and spend the $ to see a real artist and get fabulous ones done.

If we are going out, what is the situation? Casual or more formal?  How visible are they for the setting?  Some wonderful ink is only visible BCD.  How good is the quality of the work?  I have seen some really beautiful work and some that left me wondering "what in the hell were they thinking".  There is no right answer.  It really is a matter of personal taste.  In my case, it has never stopped me from seeing someone who I thought was attractive and I wanted to meet.  One of the first providers I saw did not show her ink in her photos.  After we had set the appointment, she let me know that she was heavily inked on her upper body so I wouldn't be surprised when we met.  I appreciated the head's up and in my case it only added to the attraction.  It was a great experience and have repeated.  For her, it fit her personality and was very attractive in my opinion.

have seen many providers with as few as one small one to many of varying sizes.  Have to say, in no case did they detract from the session.  I just don't care for them.  To each his/her own.

Swim