The risks with overly negative reviews

[Esclar]

We've had a few threads on the value of negative reviews, which makes sense.

Im beginning to think there's a flip side  - sometimes negative reviews actually hurt us punters.

After seeing a couple of great reviews for sexy Danielle of fun girls, I've been keeping an eye on AW to see if she's doing in calls on a day I could visit. A few days back she had a negative review. It wasn't even written in a nasty way, but you can see why some of the wording might be upsetting.  Next day her profile vanished from AW.

Had a quick look on a WG's forum, and sure enough when they talk about reviews, it's mostly them saying how they hate it.

I know I've little experience compared to many round here, but I am fairly sure I know a few things about whores:
1) They are not all cold hearted bitches who only care about money. Many will care about what's said about them in public, just as much as a civvy woman does.
2) Women on average care  more than men about what's said about them in public. Whereas a bloke might laugh most stuff off, there are reports of women killing themselves for something as trivial as being called fat online.
3) Some of the best WGs can easily find other things to do as soon as the fun & money they get from whoring is outweighed by the negatives.

So I guess the point Im getting to it seems likely that overly negative reviews can cause WG's to retire from whoreing, not just to make a new profile.   And so they hurt us punters.

None of this  refutes all the good arguments for negative reviews, but it perhaps means it's worth taking extra care to make negative points about WG's in the least hurtful way.
Interested to see what fellow punters think?

[The_Don]

Negative reviews have value IMO.

There a reason why UKP is the number 1 punters forum.




Other sites like to suppress or the systems in place, that can and will manipulate reviews/feedback. That's not in the punters benefit 

[NigelF]

They need to grow up and improve their service (or appearance or at least stop putting up misleading photos or lying about their size etc). WGs may well get upset at negative reviews but they don't quit because of them (they'll just say that in an attempt to make others feel bad or as an attempt to sway people like you). 99% of them can't "easily find something else to do" unless they're happy with earning a lot less money or at the very least working a lot more hours (and probably still earning less money).

Hang on, sorry I misinterpreted a little, you're not even saying they quit because of negative reviews - you didn't actually say that and you have no evidence for it either - you just know that many WGs hate reviews (based on their forums). The only WGs who hate reviews are the shit ones. The good ones love the positive publicity.

[Zimbaman]

Negative reviews are by far the most valuable. Your points about women caring more than men and killing themselves are nonsensical. If a whore pretends to be a size 10 but is an 18 stone heifer when I get there, I’ll call her fat so others are aware of what they are buying. Simple 

[Esclar]

Negative reviews have value IMO.

There a reason why UKP is the number 1 punters forum.

Agreed.  All I was just suggesting we might have more WG's to chose from if we say things in the least hurtful way,  e.g.  still write a negative review when warranted, but maybe say   "a BBW , face not as pretty as her pics" rather than "fat & ugly"

But maybe it's just me being annoyed a WG I liked the look of has retired before I could fuck her....

[NigelF]

but maybe say   "a BBW , face not as pretty as her pics" rather than "fat & ugly"

But maybe it's just me being annoyed a WG I liked the look of has retired before I could fuck her....

But that's not as helpful. Reviewers need to be honest otherwise some people might still think it worth going ahead and then they'll be disappointed when they see that she's fat and ugly.

Anyway, you don't know why the WG has retired. It won't be down to the review, especially if she has other reviews which are positive.

[Happyjose]

Agreed.  All I was just suggesting we might have more WG's to chose from if we say things in the least hurtful way,

We would certainly have more shite whores to choose from

[Esclar]

The only WGs who hate reviews are the shit ones.

    Maybe.  I doubt it. I've known many instances of really good looking civvies, like 8/10s and better, getting seriously upset when they were slagged off over their looks.

As you though, I don't have real evidence that WG's quit due to bad reviews or that it's not just the shit ones who hate them.  So I'll guess  I'll stop arguing the point, just wanted to see what fellow punters thought....

[NigelF]

    Maybe.  I doubt it. I've known many instances of really good looking civvies, like 8/10s and better, getting seriously upset when they were slagged off over their looks.

As you though, I don't have real evidence that WG's quit due to bad reviews or that it's not just the shit ones who hate them.  So I'll guess  I'll stop arguing the point, just wanted to see what fellow punters thought....

I said hate reviews not get upset. The ones that hate reviews, particularly the ones that moan about them on forums, are shit WGs. That's a fact evidenced by 99% of the WGs who come on here and whinge about a negative review. That's plenty of evidence for you (have a look around this forum).

[Spunky34]

it perhaps means it's worth taking extra care to make negative points about WG's in the least hurtful way.

If the review is honest and factual, then it will automatically be as positive or negative as it needs to be.  Most negative reviews are the result of the actual experience not being as promised on the profile, so I always think the right way of addressing that is the plain facts.  I wouldn’t shy away from, for example, saying someone is fat if that is the truth (obviously I wouldn’t do this if a girl’s size was obvious from the profile and therefore there was no deception). 

I have suffered from this before - one of the girls I wrote a neutral review about on here contacted me on AW about 18 months later when someone brought it to her attention (referring to it as a “damning review”), which gave me cause to reread what I had written - but everything in it was factual, and I stand by it as an accurate view of the meeting with her.  And not a single word of her message disputed it at all, she just wanted to let off some steam and tell me why she’s a better person than me. 

If someone gets upset when an accurate review is posted which shows her in an imperfect light, my view is that she should just grow up a bit and hopefully learn from it.  We are not here to look after WG’s feelings.  And if the review is inaccurate then she can ignore it or dispute it.  This is not an industry in which a thin skin is helpful.

[McSwell]

If the Negative review is accurate and just states what disappointed the punter then the girl should learn from it and it could help her in the future.

[vw]

Agreed.  All I was just suggesting we might have more WG's to chose from if we say things in the least hurtful way,  e.g.  still write a negative review when warranted, but maybe say   "a BBW , face not as pretty as her pics" rather than "fat & ugly"

But maybe it's just me being annoyed a WG I liked the look of has retired before I could fuck her....

 

why are you annoyed, prossies come prossies go

[Ramone78]

We've had a few threads on the value of negative reviews, which makes sense.

Im beginning to think there's a flip side  - sometimes negative reviews actually hurt us punters.

After seeing a couple of great reviews for sexy Danielle of fun girls, I've been keeping an eye on AW to see if she's doing in calls on a day I could visit. A few days back she had a negative review. It wasn't even written in a nasty way, but you can see why some of the wording might be upsetting.  Next day her profile vanished from AW.

Had a quick look on a WG's forum, and sure enough when they talk about reviews, it's mostly them saying how they hate it.

I know I've little experience compared to many round here, but I am fairly sure I know a few things about whores:
1) They are not all cold hearted bitches who only care about money. Many will care about what's said about them in public, just as much as a civvy woman does.
2) Women on average care  more than men about what's said about them in public. Whereas a bloke might laugh most stuff off, there are reports of women killing themselves for something as trivial as being called fat online.
3) Some of the best WGs can easily find other things to do as soon as the fun & money they get from whoring is outweighed by the negatives.

So I guess the point Im getting to it seems likely that overly negative reviews can cause WG's to retire from whoreing, not just to make a new profile.   And so they hurt us punters.

None of this  refutes all the good arguments for negative reviews, but it perhaps means it's worth taking extra care to make negative points about WG's in the least hurtful way.
Interested to see what fellow punters think?

If a Punter is not provided with the Services offered / agreed and the Girl is not as pictured / advertised / described then its a Neg.
There is no flip side and quite how telling the truth about a WG is "hurtful"to us punters is beyond me.
If they would rather take the Hump & retire than up their game then its job done as far as I can see.
But then again I am very pragmatic

[Esclar]

There is no flip side and quite how telling the truth about a WG is "hurtful"to us punters is beyond me.

There's different ways to tell the truth. In the case of women,  being 'blunt' isn't always the best option.   My theory - admittedly unproven - is that when some of the younger & less hardened WG's read harsh comments about themselves,  they might retire.  Many might  be good looking and good service girls  (allbeit   not in the eyes of whoever writes the harsh reviews.).   

This can't be good for punters as too many WG's retiring is likely to push up prices, and make it harder to book.

Maybe this is a none issue to some of you guys as you're loaded , have lots of AW feedback and have no problems booking. For some of us  newbies it's hard enough to book the well reviewed AW girls as it is...

This was my thinking anyway  - I take the point you guys are making, that maybe the more sensitive women just shouldn't be WG's.

[Ramone78]

There's different ways to tell the truth. In the case of women,  being 'blunt' isn't always the best option.   My theory - admittedly unproven - is that when some of the younger & less hardened WG's read harsh comments about themselves,  they might retire.  Many might  be good looking and good service girls  (allbeit   not in the eyes of whoever writes the harsh reviews.).   

A Spades is a Spade in my life and as for "different ways to tell the truth" just tell it as you see it.
You are the CUSTOMER afterall

[NigelF]

There's different ways to tell the truth. In the case of women,  being 'blunt' isn't always the best option.

This site isn't for women though, it's for the benefit of punters. If you're having to consciously sugar coat what you say then you're not actually being truthful (at least not quite). This site succeeds because it's members are often honest and very straight/clear with what they mean.

My theory - admittedly unproven - is that when some of the younger & less hardened WG's read harsh comments about themselves,  they might retire.  Many might  be good looking and good service girls  (allbeit   not in the eyes of whoever writes the harsh reviews.).   

This can't be good for punters as too many WG's retiring is likely to push up prices, and make it harder to book.

Maybe this is a none issue to some of you guys as you're loaded , have lots of AW feedback and have no problems booking. For some of us  newbies it's hard enough to book the well reviewed AW girls as it is...

This was my thinking anyway  - I take the point you guys are making, that maybe the more sensitive women just shouldn't be WG's.

WGs don't exist as a fixed number. New girls get into the game all the time and that helps offset those who retire. You might have to wait until things pick up but they usually do (although that's just the numbers, the quality might well not improve).

WGs get fluffy idiots telling them they're beautiful and amazing everyday in person and on AW (as well as other forums). If they have a negative on here but have other positives then while they may well get upset, they won't retire from it. WGs are surely going to get more upset when they eventually encounter an unclean punter, someone who's rude, pushes boundaries, is forceful, haggles etc etc. If they can handle that then they can handle a negative review. If they have no positive reviews on here then they won't be missed even if they do retire (but it still won't be due to the negative).

As a side note, it's not hard to get a booking on AW without feedback, especially if you just book using the phone (call or text) and then get them to leave you AW feedback.

[Thecunninglinguist]

I think that over time here you get to trust the reviews of certain members who's interests and punting needs are similar to your own. Especially when you have both seen the same WG and your views of the meet are similar. Yes you do read others and take note but sometimes it is obvious that their attitudes and yours aren't the same. There is no critism of anyone here at all. We all have different perspectives. All reviews are usefull but your personal preferences will colour your view of them. We are all right in our own way.

[vw]

Maybe this is a none issue to some of you guys as you're loaded , have lots of AW feedback and have no problems booking. For some of us  newbies it's hard enough to book the well reviewed AW girls as it is..

so its other reviewers fault that you need armbands to punt?   

[Ramone78]

so its other reviewers fault that you need armbands to punt?   

Yes apparently 

[The_Don]

Maybe this is a none issue to some of you guys as you're loaded

External Link/Members Only


You External Link/Members Only that punters here, all have more     Some people will have more, others less, the fact is we don't know, if that is, truly the case.

Because we all live different lives. But most genuine members/punters try to share and help each other on UKP.

As this pass-time (that many of us, partake in)  is expensive and where, there money to be made. Some people (pimps, bad providers, etc) will try to negatively exploit others. In order to get some of it, without putting in the effort, that is suitable, for the paying punter.   

For some of us  newbies it's hard enough to book the well reviewed AW girls as it is...

I learned to take W/G, feed back on A/W with a pinch of salt. A system that's to open to abuse and misuse IMO

Currently I have 0 feed back on my A/W account (and its going to stay that way of some time). That alone states how much faith I have, in that system.

I punt when it suits me, If a W/G isn't offering a time and date. Service and attitude that fits my requirements. I just move on, book elsewhere (plan B etc) but I'm willing to call time on punting that day. If I, don't think there VFM to be had, at that time.

I don't jump though hoops and I've made my current view clear, on A/W and the way I book W/G.

[CheeseBoard]

Negative reviews are by far the most valuable. Your points about women caring more than men and killing themselves are nonsensical. If a whore pretends to be a size 10 but is an 18 stone heifer when I get there, I’ll call her fat so others are aware of what they are buying. Simple 

+1

They don’t get a pittance for the services they provide, so if they choose to lie about their size and they are fat, BBW they are not.  (BBW has the word beautiful in it right?).
I’d be happy for someone to call it as they see it, so save a fellow punter being essentially ripped off. 

Let’s add balance to your post.  Go read the prossies forum and let us know what you find.  They are just as ruthless about fleecing us ‘horrible feeling hurting punters’ 
To

[Moby Dick]

So I guess the point Im getting to it seems likely that overly negative reviews can cause WG's to retire from whoreing, not just to make a new profile.   And so they hurt us punters.

Interested to see what fellow punters think?

Hopefully the better ones (worth seeing) take it on the chin and improve their services.
The shit ones, liars, fakes, scammers, time wasters, with bad attitude can retire for all I care.
As long as the reviews are honest, and the punter does not have unrealistic expectations (eg rimming a shitty arse) then this site has a valued part in today's punting.

[JonasG]

Do people actually go through the effort of booking through AW?

I swear most people just get the number off it and ring or text them.

I never don't get a booking cos she wants to know my AW name and check it out.

[bearcat69]

You could go to all the effort in the world to make your negative review as fair and as least hurtful as possible, but still offend the prossie or her fluffy fanboys. Some just see the word negative and are instantly offended, and any sense of logical discourse of the more finite points goes out the window.

This isn't a hobby for the fainthearted. If a prossie can't take a bit of online criticism, then how the fuck is she going to be a prossie who see's a range of different men, all of whom will have different personalities, looks, and say all sorts of different things to her, and manage to keep a level head with each punter, providing as good a service as possible to every punter?

Some things in life just are what they are. The benefits of UKP reviews far outweigh the possible downsides IMO. Would sooner have an easily offended prossie retire than possibly have a bad encounter with one. If it means less choice, then that's just the way it goes really. Unfortunate, but I blame the prossies with the bad attitudes for that, not the reviews.

[maxxblue]

My theory - admittedly unproven - is that when some of the younger & less hardened WG's read harsh comments about themselves,  they might retire. 

...or maybe they'll take note and provide a better service.

[TTGR]

That can't be common surely, and if a liar/swindler gets forced to withdraw, that can only be good for punters?

Anyway, I put a negative review up recently, next thing I noted...the particular WG has put her price up! 

[smiths]

We've had a few threads on the value of negative reviews, which makes sense.

Im beginning to think there's a flip side  - sometimes negative reviews actually hurt us punters.

After seeing a couple of great reviews for sexy Danielle of fun girls, I've been keeping an eye on AW to see if she's doing in calls on a day I could visit. A few days back she had a negative review. It wasn't even written in a nasty way, but you can see why some of the wording might be upsetting.  Next day her profile vanished from AW.

Had a quick look on a WG's forum, and sure enough when they talk about reviews, it's mostly them saying how they hate it.

I know I've little experience compared to many round here, but I am fairly sure I know a few things about whores:
1) They are not all cold hearted bitches who only care about money. Many will care about what's said about them in public, just as much as a civvy woman does.
2) Women on average care  more than men about what's said about them in public. Whereas a bloke might laugh most stuff off, there are reports of women killing themselves for something as trivial as being called fat online.
3) Some of the best WGs can easily find other things to do as soon as the fun & money they get from whoring is outweighed by the negatives.

So I guess the point Im getting to it seems likely that overly negative reviews can cause WG's to retire from whoreing, not just to make a new profile.   And so they hurt us punters.

None of this  refutes all the good arguments for negative reviews, but it perhaps means it's worth taking extra care to make negative points about WG's in the least hurtful way.
Interested to see what fellow punters think?

I couldn't care less if a WG retires after getting a negative review, or is upset or angry, she should of offered a better service to the punter. I doubt that will be the real reason anyway, if it is such is life.

Changing how negatives are done in case a WG retires is a fucking stupid suggestion in my view. And certainly not something I would be any part of. If I am fucked over by a low life so do a negative review her feelings are totally irrelevant to me.

[Jerboa]

Agreed.  All I was just suggesting we might have more WG's to chose from if we say things in the least hurtful way,  e.g.  still write a negative review when warranted, but maybe say   "a BBW , face not as pretty as her pics" rather than "fat & ugly"

But maybe it's just me being annoyed a WG I liked the look of has retired before I could fuck her....

Hidden Image/Members Only

[smiths]

Agreed.  All I was just suggesting we might have more WG's to chose from if we say things in the least hurtful way,  e.g.  still write a negative review when warranted, but maybe say   "a BBW , face not as pretty as her pics" rather than "fat & ugly"

But maybe it's just me being annoyed a WG I liked the look of has retired before I could fuck her....

Its got FUCK ALL to do with you what other punters put in THEIR reviews, YOU suggesting censorship wont work on here.

[NigelF]

Anyway, I put a negative review up recently, next thing I noted...the particular WG has put her price up! 

In my experience this happens much more than their profile disappearing (which still doesn't mean the review caused it). In fact, I don't think any of my negative reviews have been followed by the profile disappearing (except maybe 1 or 2 here today gone tomorrow Romanians and perhaps a couple disappearing after a few months).

If anything, it's a shame more girls don't quit after getting a negative (if they're not going to bother trying to improve, which most don't).

[mr.bluesky]

Perhaps with a negative review it's all down to the wording
For example. Not exactly a looker = ugly
carries a few excess lbs or curvy = fat fucker
doesn't offer all services on her profile= lying bitch
To save causing any offence always use the first terms of the above.

[vw]

Perhaps with a negative review it's all down to the wording
For example. Not exactly a looker = ugly
carries a few excess lbs or curvy = fat fucker
doesn't offer all services on her profile= lying bitch
To save coursing any offence always use the first terms of the above.

Why, we are not advertising professionals putting spin on things to make poor escorts feel better.

Sure op has some more delicate phrases to use in his reviews.

[mr.bluesky]

Perhaps with a negative review it's all down to the wording
For example. Not exactly a looker = ugly
carries a few excess lbs or curvy = fat fucker
doesn't offer all services on her profile= lying bitch
To save causing any offence always use the first terms of the above.

Above quote said with tongue in cheek

[Health and Fitness]

Negative reviews are by far the best and most helpful to everyone and if the service providers moan and complain about it then that's just tough.

Maybe they shouldn't provide a poor service that leaves customers unsatisfied which makes us reluctant to return. It's down to the provider to make the necessary improvements.

[RedKettle]

Interesting thread this one.

Pippa Knight in the EM retired (I am told by another WG) because of the "nasty" comments on here about her size.  She was a regular of mine and a really good fuck, excellent!  So I was disappointed she left, but as someone says earlier in this thread girls arrive and girls go and it was not long before I had put my disappointment to one side and had searched out new girls.

Were the comments too much?  Well I thought the threads got out of hand but there was a underlying issue, indeed as I had said in my review of her she was larger then the profile pictures suggested.

Overall the greatest value on here is from the negative reviews and whilst some will go over the top it would be counter productive to in some way restrict reviewers.

So although I have directly suffered from the consequences the OP highlights (suffered in too strong a word as I quickly fucked other girls) I do not believe that there is any case for trying to change the way things are done around here.

[PatMacGroin]

You could go to all the effort in the world to make your negative review as fair and as least hurtful as possible, but still offend the prossie or her fluffy fanboys. Some just see the word negative and are instantly offended, and any sense of logical discourse of the more finite points goes out the window.

This isn't a hobby for the fainthearted. If a prossie can't take a bit of online criticism, then how the fuck is she going to be a prossie who see's a range of different men, all of whom will have different personalities, looks, and say all sorts of different things to her, and manage to keep a level head with each punter, providing as good a service as possible to every punter?

Some things in life just are what they are. The benefits of UKP reviews far outweigh the possible downsides IMO. Would sooner have an easily offended prossie retire than possibly have a bad encounter with one. If it means less choice, then that's just the way it goes really. Unfortunate, but I blame the prossies with the bad attitudes for that, not the reviews.

+1

If a couple of disparaging words in the odd negative review was the reason they quit, then it sounds like they weren't cut out for the profession. You can lament that you didn't get in there for a fuck before they quit, but the negative reviews would suggest you dodged a bullet and saved your time and money.

I'd say best of luck to them in the future if UKP helped them realise that it was not the lifestyle choice for them.

[Ramone78]

Interesting thread this one.

Pippa Knight in the EM retired (I am told by another WG) because of the "nasty" comments on here about her size. 

Well I guess she could have always put her current size on her profile and maybe joined a Gym and / or eaten less ?

Just an impartial observation

[munterhunter]

But maybe it's just me being annoyed a WG I liked the look of has retired before I could fuck her....

I don't follow the logic in this. A WG retired "before you could fuck her" and you're annoyed. So woukd it have beek ok for her to retire AFTER you fucked her?
She says she retired because she didn't like reviews.
She's a SERVICE PROVIDER. There are review sites for everything these days it's a fact of life! I know WGs who ask not to get feedback because they prefer to be very discrete in what they do but if one gave me crap service then I'd review her and detail my concerns. Do some of the reviews here cross the boundies of social ettiquette? Well no more than fucking and sucking strangers cocks for money!

[One Eyed Snake]

I couldn't care less if a WG retires after getting a negative review, or is upset or angry, she should of offered a better service to the punter. I doubt that will be the real reason anyway, if it is such is life.

Changing how negatives are done in case a WG retires is a fucking stupid suggestion in my view. And certainly not something I would be any part of. If I am fucked over by a low life so do a negative review her feelings are totally irrelevant to me.

+1

[Yogi_bear]

IMHO negative reviews are the most important as they allow other forum member make an informed decision.

I tend not to review girls that already have many positive reviews and I have a positive experience with, dont see the point.

[RedKettle]

Well I guess she could have always put her current size on her profile and maybe joined a Gym and / or eaten less ?

Just an impartial observation

I think everyone involved in that particular incident would agree with you.  There was no dispute over the basic facts, she was bigger than the profile led you to believe.

[dubhcarr]

Im really surprised by your post OP.......you can read on UKP almost daily where punters have been no showed B&S'd ripped off mugged abused provided with little service short timed charged extras etc need I go on?.........some of these arrogant little princesses and skanks think that we pay just cos they want money........this is a service industry where the best providers earn a good whack (deservedly so) and the poor providers get burned......(they can fkk off)....if we dont review honestly then these piss poor providers have the last laugh and I suspect many will find your thread amusing or at worse pathetic.....I for one appreciate honest reviews and posts from credible contributors as it saves me money and for those who feel precious about a special girl or two ....I dont give a fkk cos they are corrupting this punters forum.......

[Aj280]

I kinda see your point, OP. I think there should be a distinction between simply slagging off and giving the facts. For example, if the girls service is not up to standards, I don't think there is any reason to call her bitch or fat cow. Just my view. Tact can put across what you're saying equally well and sometimes can be even more effective in getting people to listen and learn. Obviously exceptions for if the girl scams or blatantly lies about service. Not like any this can be enforced though, so all pointless.

[Happyjose]

I kinda see your point, OP. I think there should be a distinction between simply slagging off and giving the facts. For example, if the girls service is not up to standards, I don't think there is any reason to call her bitch or fat cow. Just my view. Tact can put across what you're saying equally well and sometimes can be even more effective in getting people to listen and learn. Obviously exceptions for if the girl scams or blatantly lies about service. Not like any this can be enforced though, so all pointless.

You, like many others, completely miss the point

This is a punters forum for punters. The purpose is not to get prostitutes to listen and learn, it is to share and discuss information between punters. If prossies come here and don't like what they read, then tough, don't come here. The forum works, and the systems in place, in terms of weedling out fake reviewers and undesirables are robust and clearly work.

Prossies who last the course, need amongst other attributes, a certain mental resilience. If they lack this, their exit from this industry is inevitable.

The concept that things should be changed to suit a prossie audience would be counter-productive and detrimental to the site.

.

[Danger!WillRobinson]

You could go to all the effort in the world to make your negative review as fair and as least hurtful as possible, but still offend the prossie or her fluffy fanboys. Some just see the word negative and are instantly offended, and any sense of logical discourse of the more finite points goes out the window.

This isn't a hobby for the fainthearted. If a prossie can't take a bit of online criticism, then how the fuck is she going to be a prossie who see's a range of different men, all of whom will have different personalities, looks, and say all sorts of different things to her, and manage to keep a level head with each punter, providing as good a service as possible to every punter?

Some things in life just are what they are. The benefits of UKP reviews far outweigh the possible downsides IMO. Would sooner have an easily offended prossie retire than possibly have a bad encounter with one. If it means less choice, then that's just the way it goes really. Unfortunate, but I blame the prossies with the bad attitudes for that, not the reviews.

I'd be interested to see if the "easily offended" ones are by and large younger/newer. As someone who has worked with young people ranging from 18-25, the sense of entitlement and inability to take even constructive criticism has certainly become more prevalent in recent years. "Snowflake" generation and all that...

[hungrypunt]

its also about balance. Some wouldnt visit a girl with just 1 neg, some would, some maybe have visited a well reviewed girl and had a neg experience and NOT posted it, some folks negs may not be a neg in anothers eyes. Its all about your own judgement. See the reviews, decide if you want to see her, post your own words.

WE can then all make judgements on more reviews.

[bearcat69]

I'd be interested to see if the "easily offended" ones are by and large younger/newer. As someone who has worked with young people ranging from 18-25, the sense of entitlement and inability to take even constructive criticism has certainly become more prevalent in recent years. "Snowflake" generation and all that...

Hmm... That's an interesting point... I think it probably does account for a large amount of the easily offended crowd. But I have to say, some of the worse most set in their ways types I've encountered have been fluffy old duffers afraid to offend their precious queens, and bonkers old prossies who have clearly built up all sorts of layers of neurotic nonsense through the years, in an effort to shelter themselves from reality.

They say wisdom and perspective comes with age, and do I think this is generally true, but I think it is also true that there is no fool like an old fool.