I don't really have a preference, as long as the tattoo itself isn't stupid looking. My boyfriend only has a few (an arm band, a shoulder tattoo, and one on his back) and I love them all because they are all either symbolic of something important to him or cool looking.
I typically am a little less physically interested in people who are covered in them, but that is definitely not a deal-breaker. I dated one guy who had his arms and legs completely covered, but his tats consisted of very awesome scenes with zombies, demons, and sweet sh*t like that. So it really just depends.
Depends on the guy. I like them to be able to be covered (like by a shirt for work) meaning no sleeves, no calves, no neck tats etc. Used to be into "the more the better" but grew out of it. No tribal, no dragons. No chinese/japanese lettering. Nothing stupid or completely unoriginal.
I think tattoos should mean something. Not just "oh hey man, this goat puking on a midget is hilarious - I'm going to get this tattooed on me so I can laugh at it til I die, ha ha ha."
I think it all depends. Sometimes it looks good on a guy and sometimes it doesn't. And if it's stupid looking or not.
A few here and there doesn't bother me but when they start getting carried away and get sleeves of tattoos, or on their necks, faces, hands, it's just terribly unattractive to me. It can be hot when it's on their back, chest, or ribcage.
Hott, hott, hott! I mainly like their tattoos to be on their upper arm, wrist/forearm, and chest. On the neck is good, too. I don't like tattoos below the stomache :P &&The only way they're hott to me on a guy's back is if it's ginormous, covering basicly the whole area ;]
guys with tattoos are hot especially on their arms (forearms are just me personally) but guys without tattoos are hot to, so its all up to if you want one or not. They are real conversation starters especially when they have good stories behind them.