Topic: Hotter than without? NWS
started by: Leisher
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 11 2013,06:52
Please examine the following picture:
Explain why this is hotter than if the girls didn't have tattoos.
Isn't this the same as having random artists with FAR less talent go around with spray paint and adding their own touches to existing works of art?
I'm sure the Mona Lisa would look a lot better with a Bart Simpson in the corner...
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 11 2013,07:16
"In the dark" it doesn't matter, but when I can see her I wonder what is wrong with her. I tend to look at women holistically.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 11 2013,07:54
The only value to tats is signalling. A chick with tats is more likely to put out than one without. I should get a grant to study that. It's like the modern version of "if she smokes, she pokes"
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 11 2013,14:37
I vote "hotter with." In this case, however, I will note that choice of image is critical. The tattoo on the blond chick's left leg is one of those, "Christ, I hope that's temporary" ink jobs.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 11 2013,16:41
In my experience, girls with large tattoos are more likely to go naked because they feel a bit less naked with the tats. And I approve of naked girls.