IMHO Tattoos ruin spanking images

I'm still curious. A lot of the people here seem to have connections in the business, or know someone who has participated in a movie. Is it so that it's more common among the actors in this kind of movie to have a tattoo than the average American or Brit (because that's where all the movies seem to come from)?

Ryan R. Williams, L.A.-based on-camera coach, founder of Screen Actors System:

I don't know a single successful actor who is glad they got ink. Hundreds of hours in makeup are required to conceal these tattoos on a shoot. And you can still see them by mid-day. Touchups waste time. Who needs it? An actor should look at anything that limits casting very seriously. Tattoos don't play for most of the roles that exist in Hollywood. Fake tattoos on the other hand look very convincing if baby powder is applied. This is a no brainer. Avoid tattoos.

I quite agree, unless you want to act the really bad girl off the street sent to reform school. But when trying to impersonate someone in school uniform, it's mostly laughable. But how come so many in the business are tagged? Is it a typical preference?

It brings to mind a sketch in a humour program here aired about two decades ago when tattoos had really taken off and each and everyone seemed to wear a tribal. It was about a journalist standing at the central square in Stockholm interviewing a man said to be the only Swede left who wasn't tagged and the reporter asks with emphasis, "How does it feel to be a weird outcast?"

I would guess it is because the money is good and it attracts girls who for one reason or another struggle to find employment. I do sadly suspect that many of the girls come from deprived or disturbed backgrounds, but if the money they earn helps them improve their lot in life that is great, just as long as they are not taken advantage of.

I just find it confusing that that should go with tattoos. I mean, they are not exactly free, so if I was struggling with my economy, it wouldn't be the first thing I'd do.

Once, at a (private) spanking party, I spanked a girl who had 'SPANK - HERE' tatooed across her bottom-cheeks. It's certainly not something I'd want to see every time I gave a spanking - but just that once I did find it rather fun, and quite sexy. (She also had an exceptionally shapely bottom, which probably helped.)

I really do not object to tattoos that much, provided that the girl appears to be the type that would get a tattoo-not for example a prissy goody two shoes at a church-affiliated school. As for uniformed schoolgirls don't care for that stereotype period.
The fact is that nowadays many a typical college girl, young mother, young professional, etc might well sport a tattoo although maybe not carried to extremes. Its not just the rebels and "weirdos" anymore.
What does bug me are spankers whose appearance does not fit the role they are playing. Like a scruffy dressed guy with a greasy ponytail who is supposed to be a school principal. Or a mother/daughter scene where the mom looks as young as the daughter.
Know those who film these are big on certain appearances but much rather see an F/F scene where the spanker is a big, heavyset, stern-looking middle age woman, her hair up in a bun, not a model-looking type in a tight mini skirt holding a hairbrush. Not a very convincing "Domme" if you ask me. Thought occurs that instead of her spanking the guy he should be lifting her mini skirt and spanking her!

Agree, I find that so awful. I tend to avoid any spanking videos because in the few I've seen I found the people so wrong for their roles.

For me, tattoos are in the same category as graffiti, lima beans, liver, and hot dogs.

Are you often out, spraying your tag on a wall, while munching on a Lima bean and liver sandwich?