Quote:
	
	
		
			
				
					Originally Posted by  Lucky 1
					 
				 
				.....or has no more than say one or two small ones....not on the body but on an extremity like the foot or ankle. 
			
		 | 
	
	
 
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.