I've been wondering about this subject for a while (actually I wonder about a lot of things and am glad to see that there is at least one that apparently others wonder about). I am simply clueless as to why anyone would do extensive tats. I wonder if any of the younger women realize that, unlike piercings that when you remove the items in the pierce close up leaving perhaps a small scar, unless you want to undergo expensive and painful removal, that tats are forever and may not be all that attractive as people get into their older years when skin ( and tits) wrinkle and sag. I can understand why someone would want to experiment with extreme hair styles and colors — all are totally reversible as the hair can be cut and color can grow out, etc.
Anyway, at my gym (higher end chain place — in price anyway) there are men and women who are literally covered head to toe in tats.
There appears to be more women with tats than men and for women tats covering shoulder and arms much more so than a flower on the shoulder or ankle. Men there either have no tats or tats covering forearms and legs from knee down with a couple having tats completely covering from the shoulder down to the ankle. I don't recall any men over, say 60, having any tats and women over 50 may have a single flower like a rose, on ankle. Many of the NYC firemen, active and retired, will have some type of relatively discreet tat, say something to do with their profession, on their upper arms.
Never seen any tats on Asian men or women (at the club anyway — lots in the Flushing AMPs — one even had a 6" diameter 8 pointed yellow and red star each one centered at her nips — quite a sight that I did not find attractive at all) and only one black woman I saw at the club had a tat. Haven't seen tats on Hispanic men or women at the club.
I don't recall seeing any men with beards other than a few blacks with closely trimmed ones.