Profiles without Face Pics . . .

[Jimmyredcab]

I am one of the most particular (although some would say picky  ) punters, a face pick is a must for me and time and money is so precious for us all unless reliable sources can attest to the WG's beauty.

Good for you.     

If all punters had your outlook the pro$$ies would have to think again -------------- show a face picture or go back to minimum wage stacking shelves.     

[johnnyboy61]

I have punted with WGs that don't have face pictures. The main reason seems to be that they don't want to be recognised by friends and family. OK there have been a couple where I'm sure it is because they don't want to show the reality until you arrive in their doorstep, but I do think those that dismiss a girl with no face-pics are missing out.

Some girls offer a good compromise. There are no full-face pics on Michelle Independent's profile, but she shows enough to see that she is no munter and of course the reality is quite the opposite as the reviews on here will attest.

[Jimmyredcab]

Some girls offer a good compromise. There are no full-face pics on Michelle Independent's profile, but she shows enough to see that she is no munter and of course the reality is quite the opposite as the reviews on here will attest.

She used to have full face pictures on her private gallery, I don't know if that is still the case.

The odds of "friends or family" seeing photos hidden in a private gallery are about the same as me pulling an 18 year old virgin down the pub.     

[johnnyboy61]

The odds of "friends or family" seeing photos hidden in a private gallery are about the same as me pulling an 18 year old virgin down the pub.

That's as maybe, but a WG who wants to protect her identity would still feel very exposed with full-face pictures on AW, whether or not the chances of them being seen by friends or family are extremely small. I have a list of about seven regs, only two of which show face pics. I don't subscribe to private galleries.

I know one WG who is very careful of how much of her flat she shows on her photos in case friends recognise it.

(By the way, have you tried rohypnol? I've no personal experience, but if you are determined then it's possible that an 18 year old virgin could be yours for the taking.)

[Jimmyredcab]

That's as maybe, but a WG who wants to protect her identity would still feel very exposed with full-face pictures on AW, whether or not the chances of them being seen by friends or family are extremely small. I have a list of about seven regs, only two of which show face pics. I don't subscribe to private galleries.

I know one WG who is very careful of how much of her flat she shows on her photos in case friends recognise it.

(By the way, have you tried rohypnol? I've no personal experience, but if you are determined then it's possible that an 18 year old virgin could be yours for the taking.)

I don't really think that comment is appropriate -------- do you.     

[johnnyboy61]

I don't really think that comment is appropriate -------- do you.     

No, just a little joke, but agree that it was in poor taste. 

[Jimmyredcab]

That's as maybe, but a WG who wants to protect her identity would still feel very exposed with full-face pictures on AW, whether or not the chances of them being seen by friends or family are extremely small.

That is of course their choice however lack of decent photos could cost them thousands in lost bookings. 

[johnnyboy61]

That is of course their choice however lack of decent photos could cost them thousands in lost bookings. 

Yes, that's their choice, but this site has the interest of the punter at heart. If you choose not to see a WG without face-pics, despite recommendation on here, in my view that is quite short-sighted and also shows a lack of understanding that many WGs do not put up face pics not because they seek to mislead, but because they are genuinely concerned about being exposed.

[Mr Sinister]

No so bothered about full face pics if I can see the bottom half of the face then that's fine usually bad teeth will put me off.

One thing I don't like is girls hiding their body and using to the tactics of weird camera angles, covering belly etc to hide weight and so forth. Don't know why they go to so much effort to hide themselves when I don't think it will make much difference is they do not.

[Jimmyredcab]

Yes, that's their choice, but this site has the interest of the punter at heart. If you choose not to see a WG without face-pics, despite recommendation on here, in my view that is quite short-sighted and also shows a lack of understanding that many WGs do not put up face pics not because they seek to mislead, but because they are genuinely concerned about being exposed.

I don't give two shits about the girl remaining anonymous ---------------- £120 to me is a lot of money, I prefer not to take risks.
Some of our members have appalling taste, they would shag anything.     

[Mr Sinister]

Some of our members have appalling taste, they would shag anything.     

Each to their own mate, we all have different reasons for punting it's an open market.

[Jimmyredcab]

Each to their own mate, we all have different reasons for punting it's an open market.

My reason for punting is because I am never going to "pull" a pretty young girl.     

If I wanted an ugly old dog I could find one down the local bingo hall.     

[smiths]

Good for you.     

If all punters had your outlook the pro$$ies would have to think again -------------- show a face picture or go back to minimum wage stacking shelves.     

If ALL punters thought the same prices might go down and punters might get better service but they don't, many punters wont know about or be interested in UKP for example and pay what they pay because they choose to, some will be mug punters, some with be punters who think paying more guarantees a WG is better than a WG that charges less which isn't the case as what makes a good WG is her attitude as proven on here over years and from my own personal experiences. The best we on here can do is punt smart and read the reviews of punters we find credible to increase the chances of a good punt, or be prepared to take a risk in search of a gem as some of us are prepared to do on occasion with a plan B option.

Of course in your case you advised a WG to raise her prices which she did but keep you on her old rate which she didn't do anyway, and have posted you would do the same again so your a prime example of a punter that has a different outlook to some of us on here who wouldn't do such a VERY stupid thing that ends up costing other punters more money.

[johnnyboy61]

I don't give two shits about the girl remaining anonymous ---------------- £120 to me is a lot of money, I prefer not to take risks.
Some of our members have appalling taste, they would shag anything.     

And neither do I, that's their concern, as is if they are losing money by not publishing their face pics. What I am saying is that you may be missing out just because they do no publish face pics, especially if recommended on UKP, however, if you don't rate the judgement of many of the members on here and are not prepared to take a punt then I can see where you're coming from.

Each to their own. All I can do is repeat that of the WGs that I have returned to recently 2 from 8 have face pictures. I wouldn't wanted to have missed out on the other 6, 5 of whom were strong recommendations from UKP, and only one a real gamble.