Middle aged men are irrelevant to young women, yes... but not if they're harassing them! It does not seem to me completely outrageous to consider that young women - whose priority is their own aesthetic and self-esteem and peers - might quite like it if the average middle-aged man's reaction to their look was "what the fuck is she wearing" as opposed to "pwooaaarrr". Call it an added bonus.
You are still taking your own personal opinion on 'tattoos and piercings' (which actually has nothing to do with the thread by the way) and extrapolating that out to every middle aged man.
From Statista: Differences in the way respondents view people with tattoos, in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2015. With the exception of those aged 60 years and older, the most common response indcated that their views are not influenced by tattoos. 56 percent of respondents in the 60 years and older bracket indicated that they regard a person with a tattoo less positively.
Middle age is 45-65, is it not?
Then they actually studied this where they sat women down alone on a beach wearing the same bikini, 110 'sit-downs' tattoo'd and 110 of them not. With tattoos were solicited 24% of the time and without 10% of the time. With tattoos solicited on average within 23 mins vs without within 34 mins.
The second part was asking males if they thought they could get a date with her, and if they thought they could have sex with her on the first date, and again the results were significantly higher.
So it would seem (despite the limitations of the study) that males might think women who have tattoos are more promiscuous.
Which might actually be relevant to the ops original topic i.e men judging women as more promiscuous based on their appearance.
But although women who are perceived as being more sexually promiscuous are more likely to be solicited by men... does this automatically mean women who are perceived as being more sexually promiscuous are more likely to be attacked or assaulted by men (either sexually or traditionally)?
In my experience no.
For the majority of female victims of rape, the offender was a partner or ex-partner (45 per cent) or someone who was known to them other than as a partner or family member (38 per cent), according to the Office for National Statistics. Some 13 per cent of female victims reported the offender as a stranger.
So I've tried my best to find evidence to disprove that:
Women get tattoos and piercings in order to put men off them.
Women getting tattoos and piercings actually puts men off them. So no 'added bonus', sorry. 
And that even if none of that were true, if anything did or didn't give the impression to a man that is woman is more or less sexually promiscuous... it doesn't actually matter when it comes to actual harm. The head of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre says there is no evidence that the way a women dresses is likely to lead to sexual assault or rape. And I think she would probably know if there was?
Or does the fact she is not A Man With An Opinion make the evidence (or lack of) irrelevant?