I've had guys tell me they wont see a provider who has a bunch of tats.

WTF? why should it matter?

It's a simple matter of taste, or preference, or what someone finds visually appealing or not. Everyone's different. It's a turn off for some guys. It 's a turn on for some. And the rest are indifferent.

Your question, "why should it matter?" I turn back to you, "WTF, why should it matter to you what other people like or not?"

but that's me.

But that's my personal taste.

I used to think lots of tattoos was the height of sleaze, tackiness, low class, and possibly a sign of drug problems.  My inky views have changed vis a vis the hobby entirely.

Think about it --   any girl that will suffer that kind of pain, and doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks, and is a free spirit, is going to be a freak in the sheets 99 times out of 100.  I have about a dozen "Kinky Inkys" I see regularly these days and there are usually few limits with these girls. There's one I'm looking forward to seeing in 2 weeks that is insatiable.

Whether that's true or not is another issue entirely, but that's the perception.

I find them quite sexy!

To each his own. I like a lot of ink, or absolutely no ink.  One or two tats doesn't do it for me

I don't pretent to speak for others but I'm an older guy, just turned 60.  I have always loved the classic beauty of a woman's body.  Fair skin, tanned skin, exotic skin shades complementing her curves.  Tats are destracting and in my opinion detract from her natural beauty.

One gal I see has a couple of tats & they are quite faded & un-noticeable.  

Guys are visual...  I know I am.  I book with ladies I find attractive.  Real pictures are a big deal.

I prefer ones who don't but one of the sexiest women I know has a lot of ink. It's all well planned and professionally done. What I can't stand is when it's Photoshopped out and not mentioned in the ads. I understand the reason for hiding it in the pics for this world but not mentioning they have ink in the ads is lame. It's even worse when they show up and it's skateboard park, jailhouse tatts.

between 2 providers who I consider equal, I'd pick the one with no tats or piercings. I would not avoid a women who has a few tats, but no tats would be my ideal scenario.

I do think personally it is a little silly for men to flip out over one or two tattoos. Of course, I am a little biased on this issue...I do have a few small tattoos (all of which are awesome, I may add! :P ). But hey, some guys are really, really against them. Some are just old fashioned that way; some just have very strong preferences. Nothing I say or do is going to change anyone's mind. However, I will go on record to say that not liking a full sleeve is one thing, but to not see someone who has one or two is a little silly, in my humble opinion. Especially because, in this day and age, so many people in their 20s and 30s have at least one. And that's not likely to change anytime soon. So those who have those strong opinions about tattoos may have to get over it over time ...just a little.

is piercing - especially nipples.... with loops in them! want to tug on them a little... play with them.... jiggle the boob with the ring!

anyone up for that?!  Next would be pussy piercing.

I've had it go several ways: (a) some guys don't like it for whatever reason. That's totally fine with me. Everybody has their personal tastes. (b) some guys are apathetic about it. (this is usually the case). Or (c) some guys really dig an inked chick (in which case I'm stoked!).

As far as their reasoning, some find tattoos trashy. Fair enough, I was aware of that stigma when I started getting inked. Others prefer a more natural/innocent/girl-next-door kind of look. Also fair. Like I said before, everybody has their own tastes. Another less common reason (albeit a perfectly valid one) is health. You never know where someone got their ink. It could have been in reputable shops with impeccable sterilization requirements (always using brand new needles, autoclaving equipment, requiring artists to wear gloves whenever touching a client or anything in their workspace, etc.), but it also could have been done in a basement at a party by some junkie that bought their equipment on eBay and has no knowledge of sterilization. People have gotten VERY sick because of janky tattooing practices.

In summation, yeah, there are plenty of guys out there who find ink unappealing. But there are also plenty of guys who appreciate the aesthetic value and artistry that comes with heavy ink. Of course, I adore the latter sort.

I can personally confirm the accuracy of this post.

I see a few providers with a lot of ink. I'm not exactly sure what I like about it. Perhaps I desire to see what they're expressing (a person is not likely to have a lot of ink that doesn't express who they are). Perhaps it's just the bad girl look. I don't have any ink myself and don't foresee myself getting any but it's hot on some women. I really like looking at and touching every inch of a woman's body so if there are pictures telling a story while I'm worshiping her body that's cool.

Personally, I am not a fan of half measures when talking tattoos.  Either go high end, highly artistic, highly meaningful, dramatic look.... or be bare.  I definitely get the "bad girl" concept and find it really hot on some chicks (one  I'm thinking of is almost *totally* tattoo'd), and I also love the pure, non-tatt'd, non-pierced, non-scarred (and this includes stretch marks that don't need a microscope to find, every human has those) beauty of a well maintained female physique.  

Its that in-between-I-can't-decide-who-I-want-to-be thing that annoys me (but its only a small annoyance, a hot chick is a hot chick, lol).  What is the point behind "one or two small, discreet tattoos"? Yes, a lot of girls have them but really... what's the point?  Either "express yourself" or don't!  If you started to "express yourself", why did you stop? Have you nothing left to "express"?  What is so meaningful about a butterfly, rose, star, angel wing, barbed wire or some Asian symbol that supposedly means something when you don't even speak/read/write the language (it could read "I'm clueless" not "hope" or "faith" or "eternity" or whatever the tattooist told you it meant and you wouldn't even know it)?  

Maybe someone will chime in with an explanation because I really don't get the whole half-steppin' thing with "a few small, discreetly placed tattoos".

Getting tats doesn't mean you have to go all out with a sleeve otherwise you're "half steppin'". Some people just aren't that extreme in things they do and they prefer less is more.
Otherwise if we went with your reasoning, we'd have to say to people who choose to have two conventional piercing in the ears that why half step? If they are going to get pierced then they should go all out with lips, eye brows, nipples, checks pierced otherwise they're half steppin.
It all personal preference.
And I don't have tattoos, but I can recognize that concept.

All I'm saying is that *I* don't understand the mentality of those who prefer just a few tats.  It apparently makes perfect sense to those who who are in that group, it just doesn't make sense to me ....and I don't make sense to you.  And it's all good. lol  

As for extending my "logic", well first of all, I never laid claim that my viewpoint was logical. Also, just because one scenario may be logical does not mean you can just slap that same logic onto every other scenario and if it doesn't fit the second, then the first must be faulty.  

I happen to see traditional, "normal" piercings as a world apart from other facial/body piercings.  Yes, if someone were so inclined, they could choose to argue about what is "traditional/normal/etc" but I think that's pretty silly to do so I won't engage on that topic. "Normal" as in "commonplace" is changing but I don't feel "normal" as in "acceptable" is keep pace with it (changes much more slowly)... at least in the circles I travel in and am familiar with.  

I also see traditional tattoos as a world apart from what goes on today.  Americans/Europeans, as  cultures, are not tattoo folks.  Maori, Samoan, other islander, certain African and Aborigine (and may other groups I'm sure) ARE traditional tattoo folks.  Yes, there are small groups within each non-tattoo culture that have engaged in tattooing for a long time but these groups are generally considered fringe/underground/elitist groups and are not indicative of the society as a whole. It is for this reason that I don't understand the half steppin (have to lol every time I write that).  If you are not from a culture that is tattoo oriented, you are being something of a rebel by being into tattoos (and god bless rebels as they make life interesting!). If you are into being this particular kind of rebel, why not just rebel all the way?

That's what I don't understand... but as I said earlier, it must make sense to those who are in that group and I was hoping that if anyone did respond to this, they could explain it in a way that makes sense to me.  The "it's just a personal preference thing" may be very true and valid; I am not arguing that.  I'm just curious WHY it's a personal preference. I'm hoping theres something deeper than "it just is".

I saw a provider back in November that was the first that would fit into the 'heavily inked' category for me.  She was, in a word, stunning!  I never had any aversion to tats...and would have probably said i was indifferent before that experience.  But, that night unlocked something for me.  Now...a woman with a bunch of tats instantly gets me turned on.  I suppose I should have known...I've always has a little crush on Kat Von D.  

With my November experience....I spent a lot of time just exploring each piece (full contact exploration, mind you ) and got to know a bit about her from the various tattoos.

I still appreciate a 'blank canvas' by the way.  It all adds to the fun of exploring the variety .  I just get a little something extra from the inked chicks.  Probably 100% in my head.  But, who cares!