.....or has no more than say one or two small ones....not on the body but on an extremity like the foot or ankle.
Originally Posted by Lucky 1
I have no strong preference about providers with tats, but I wish you hadn't added the line above.
Now, the question becomes, "What is small?" And some follow-up questions...Is it determined by square inch? One square inch or less? Is it proportional (a big tat on a big woman can look small; a small tat on a small woman can look big)? Anyway, my point is "NO TATS" is very clear. "NO TATS, but..." is less clear. With a less-clear definition, it almost guarantees you will see this in an ROS of one of your acolytes,...
"Everything was perfect. Then, I saw that GODDAM, BIGASS 1.25 square inch tat on her ankle, and my dick went limp!!"
Well, good luck, and have fun.