Scottish Chloe Coatbridge.

[2 pair]

Was in the area, at a loose end, then contacted Chloe. Link to this Profile Page using External Link/Members Only or External Link/Members Only

All done by text.
Nice clean flat, hands her, the 50 quid, for half an hour, get's undressed.
She walks back in, then tells me, she doesn't do owo, despite it saying it does, on her profile.
Says she doesn't go on top, for intercourse either.

Start off, with some kissing, clearly a smoker, doesn't last that long.
Puts the condom on, does give good oral, despite it being protected.
On to doggy first, not a bad ride, then on to missionary.
Chloe's okay looking, but not a head turner for me, average scheme bird, looks older than 27.and I start to go soft.
Then get the condom taken off me, finished off with h.r.
Quite friendly, with a bit of a chat after, no rush to get me out.

Not the best, not the worse punt, but wouldn't go back.
If she had of told me, no owo and limited positions, I doubt I would have gone along, .
For 50 quid, can't complain, whilst I had time to spare.

[Clattypats]

Nice review

It does say on her profile though, OWO (at discretion)... You should probably have checked in comms what her stance is on this... Or before money was handed over...

It's always difficult to gauge when there are no previous reviews however, so worth checking... Some don't mind OW... it's a deal breaker for me though...

[Falkirk GND]

In my opinion, this “OWO (at discretion)” nonsense should be banned - either they do or they don't!

I believe it originally started as a get out clause for the girls if a punter turned up with an obvious disease or a smelly cheesy cock, but now it’s used as an excuse if they can’t be arsed or, worse still, as a lure in for those who want it. For me, it should be a straight negative if it’s refused “at discretion” unless there is a good hygiene reason why not. Otherwise don’t put it on your profile.

In short; I’m suggesting that “OWO (at discretion)” be done away with, and that OWO should mean OWO, with the caveat that poor hygiene is an acceptable reason to decline on a case by case basis. If there’s a shower or handbasin available, and no obvious signs of disease, hygiene should never be an issue.

[Clattypats]

In my opinion, this “OWO (at discretion)” nonsense should be banned - either they do or they don't!

I believe it originally started as a get out clause for the girls if a punter turned up with an obvious disease or a smelly cheesy cock, but now it’s used as an excuse if they can’t be arsed or, worse still, as a lure in for those who want it. For me, it should be a straight negative if it’s refused “at discretion” unless there is a good hygiene reason why not. Otherwise don’t put it on your profile.

In short; I’m suggesting that “OWO (at discretion)” be done away with, and that OWO should mean OWO, with the caveat that poor hygiene is an acceptable reason to decline on a case by case basis. If there’s a shower or handbasin available, and no obvious signs of disease, hygiene should never be an issue.

I do agree with you in part.... Some WGs will use it as an excuse if they maybe can't be arsed, of that I have no doubt ... On the flip side, some punters may not realise/admit to being unhygienic, smelly fuckers!...

Like I say, if there are previous reviews it's easier to gauge, but if not, alot may depend on comms, hence, in that case, I would rather confirm services by call or before money changes hands...

[Falkirk GND]

It is a tricky one, I agree Clatty!

Certainly some “gentlemen’s” idea of hygiene leaves a lot to be desired. That said - if it’s more than a quick shower or even baby wipe could fix,  then the girl has every right to decline!

But I don’t understand why many girls put “OWO” and “OWO at discretion”. It is always the girls right to say no to any particular service.  “Anal at discretion” has a greater degree of logic - size does matter! But there is not one that has put “Penetration - at discretion”  that I’ve found, and the same logic applies - no still means no, so there’s no need to but the caveat in. 

If a service is advertised, it is always “at discretion”, but that discretion should not be on the grounds that (a) they can’t be arsed or (b) it’s a con. 

Confirming services before going or even handing over the cash is a sensible precaution, does not solve the problem of lying wee cows - of which there seem to be more and more these days. I agree though - the more reviews on a girl, calling out false advertising if necessary, the better.

[2 pair]

Looks like, some lessons will be learned.
Everyday, is still a school day.
Thanks for the heads up, Clatty.

Owo, was never a option.
Once my clothes were off, I was told, all services, are protected, for health reasons.
So, yeah looks like I was conned, typical scheme bird.
I forgot, to add in my review, that there was fitted wardrobes, with mirrors in the room.
A good s.p, would have shown, or given me the option, of seeing myself in action, in front of mirrors, but she couldn't be bothered to move about, or show to much enthusiasm.

To be honest, at 50 quid, I wasn't expecting to much, so wasn't that disappointed.
The con trick, in to taking money off me, then getting me naked, to say no owo, was more of a piss take.
I'm not that fussed either way, regarding ow, or owo, but should  have been told, at least on arrival.

This, was a last minute punt, so not an awful lot of time, to get in to many questions.
There's not that much, to choose from, in Coatbridge either, without travelling in to Glasgow.
She's probably, aware of this, but probably, gets enough business, to offer a lame service.

[1980Tam]

Exact same experiance I had with this girl , she said she had stopped owo due to getting infection now cleared up from another client , I went with it , ow it was  , then doggie , then missionary , then shot over her tits , was glad to get out , felt like money wasted but it was a very  late and cheap plan C .Chatty girl wasting time to do the bare minimum for the money..