Her web site, P411, etc?  Every time I've seen photos with obscured tats it was either real obvious from the pics that some tats had been obscured, or the provider mentioned someplace on their web site, P411 profile etc. that photos have obscured tats--sometimes the retouching is so deft you can't tell from looking at the photos where the tats are.

But I agree that if the photos were touched up to obscure tats, the provider shouldn't have said the photos are "un-retouched".  I hope providers understand how important it is that they be truthful in their advertising.  If mongers find out a provider has been dishonest in her ads, we may wonder, what else will she be dishonest about?  

-- Modified on 4/3/2016 2:01:32 PM

What I would of herd is... My retouched photos, have not been modified. Honestly!!

Seriously, I am a huge fan of body art, ink, piercings, etc.  Right now I'm watching a DVR'd episode of Ink Master: Redemption.  I follow tattoo artists on Twitter & Instagram, go to conventions. etc etc etc.

My profile states I have a few tats.   Some guys I've met didn't even know I had ANY till our 3rd or 4th encounter, while others think I have way too much ink.  It's all personal preference.  

My point (and I do have one) is that "many" or "a few" can be as subjective as beauty.   Some people don't like black tattoos, others can't stand the bright, colorful ones... some men think skulls on a chick is a turnoff while more don't care what the subject matter is because they don't like ink on women, period.  
She might only have 2 or 3 tats, but to someone who didn't care for them, that's too many; and so he might select "many" on her profile.    

The explanation really could be that simple.  

Now, in these Easter photos, was she completely butt-naked, and posed in enough different ways that you saw every millimeter of her skin?   Or was she perhaps wearing clothing over certain areas in each shot?  Or always angled in a certain way?   No photos, of say, her back or ankles?  
 Whatever area of her body is NOT shown in these pics is likely where the ink is!  

 
Most of my pics don't require any re-touching to obscure my artwork as I often cover it up with lingerie, a strategically placed blanket or other prop, or I'm just posed so that the viewer doesn't see them anyway.  
Photoshopping isn't ALWAYS the culprit.  

 
xoxoxooxoxoxooxxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxxoo

within the heart of the provider I have no problem. In fact, They add to her beauty.

-- Modified on 4/3/2016 2:46:41 PM

It's an identification mark for some girls who don't want to be recognised by anyone from their private life, but I think they're worth mentioning in your blurb because not everyone likes them.

Why is it, every time there is a post about tattoos(truth in advertising) people defend tattoos or say they don't like them?

That isn't what the post was about.

Last year a visiting lady was advertising as "all natural," and in her pics, it was really obvious she had boob implants. Her profile showed implants, she had reviews before and after, and the after ones mentioned the new enhancement. She also mentioned it on her website, so she wasn't hiding it, but I had an issue with the "all natural" wording in her ad. I actually emailed her about it and she said that referred to her hair because she was a natural blonde. Lol. I told her she was false advertising because that's not what "all natural" means. She could have said "natural blonde."

An ad I was looking at just a couple days ago, wording said, "Realest, all natural..." Her pictures showed collagen lips, painted on eye brows, 1" long eye lashes, tattoos all over her body, and multiple piercings on her face. What is "all natural" about that? Was she born with all that?