tisonlyi

It's all about the combination of tattoo, lady, personality type and originality or lack thereof.

If you're a fairly dumb sort, watching reality tv and reading celeb magazines as your guides to happy living, then tramp stamps/tasmanian devil/copycat tribal/flowers/li' devil/etc tattoos might be just your things. If you happen to have a brain that is capable of independent thought, then something more original might float your boat. If you hanker after purity, then not a spot of ink is required.

I've been with a lady covered in tribal style ink all over her arms, back, breasts and legs. She WAS bad ass, so it made perfect sense. I've been with a lady whose only tattoo was a beautiful pre-raphaelite style painting on her back. It suited her perfectly. Several exes had absolutely no ink, for most that was the perfect decision, for others, they either had plans or should have had - to suit their personality types, etc (IMHO).

I love tattoos on women. I love plainskin women. I love women who are themselves with a look that matches. End of story.

Although, kiddie portraits are EVIL and WRONG.

Go to BMEzine, look around on the web, you'll find yourself incredibly wrong.

IMHO.

Mileage may, of course, vary.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--