I've just now noticed, though I can't imagine how it escaped my attention how. The last few sets with those big honkin' tats on her right thigh. She had nice thighs. Keeps herself in pretty good shape generally. And here I was finally getting over those stupid piercings she had. Does anyone who subs to her site happen to know if she mentioned any reasoning behind the renewed illustration of a body that, quite frankly at least in my opinion required no embellishment. Certainly not random artwork. Did she acquire a scar that needed to be covered up or something of the sort? I subbed to her site, long ago. And to Phil's as well. Indeed even Christina's. But her long tease wore thin. Still I admired her looks and for the most part I consider tattoos the same thing as deformities. Especially big, blatant and random ones. I make exceptions for women who obviously go into the idea of the thing with purpose, but otherwise I guess I'm just old fashioned. For the record, I approve of small tattoos in limited locations or covering the entire body. No half-assing it. As for piercings, normal numbers of regular ear piercings are fine. Nothing to distort the earlobe. Earlobes are erogenous zones and don't need to be screwed with like that. Also the likelihood of the pierced individual being in a tribe seems remote. No piercings on the face/nose. They just distort the symmetry. Also nose studs look like warts... and I never found moles sexy either. Apart from nipple piercings - nothing needs to go below there. Now, understand these are just my own standards. But I find it difficult to be attracted to the prettiest or most beautiful woman if she insists upon defiling her body beyond a certain point. YMMV.