Tattoos for Girls and Why We Won’t Touch Them
Time was that the only people sporting a tattoo were sailors, pirates and army personnel. We examine why choosing ‘arty’ tattoos for girls could be a wrong choice.
Going back only a few years, one of the attractions at any fairground would be the ‘Tattoo’d Lady’ sideshow, where you could pay your bucks and go in to ogle this lady covered in tattoos.
Personally, I’ve never been an advocate of freakshows, so I never went in.
Now we have this weird demand from otherwise quite nice looking women who deem it necessary to cover themselves in tattoos for girls.
They either want to ‘make a statement’, to ‘look different’ or to make themselves ‘highly desirable’ – though out of that lot, I suppose that ‘look different’ might apply.
The ‘in-vogue’ statement here is that the girl is getting ‘inked’.
Personally, though, we would suggest that the girl is getting messed up.
Going on past, present and future experience, it is quite plain and obvious to see that even a minimal amount of paying clients would tolerate shagging an art gallery.
Nor would they want to see someone with a knock-off’s name emblazoned on their tits, or someone with leopard skin legs regardless of how far those legs reach up to their tattooed arses.
And we can see what the clients are on about with tattoos for girls – try searching on any ‘naughty’ website for ‘schoolgirls’, and see how many hits you get for girls with tattoos dressed up as schoolgirls, making them look a little silly.
In fact, anyone with a tattoo would have to look pretty damn spectacular for us to even consider her.
We have no problems with girls with tattoos – I’m sure that they will find a place in their lives somewhere. But please think twice about applying to join an escort agency as many won’t even consider you.
Before we leave you this time, take a look at ‘Grandad’ chatting up Tara on Babestation and also remarking on the tattoos for girls that she is sporting:
Lead Image –