Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Savannah & Paris Duo of Amour Byker/Walker (False information))  (Read 3156 times)

Offline Part Timer

External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
1hr in call £120 per Girl

Arranged via the agency, smooth coms throughout, asked to confirm on the morning of. Better rate going through the agency. The usual WG hiding behind the door scenario by Savannah, she was wearing a tight black dress, walked into the open living room to be met by Paris who was dressed in lingerie. A quick run down of the do’s & dont’s, they said nothing anal, no fingers, no spanking & no holding of the head during oral. Savannah is the prettier of the 2, Savannah took her dress off to get started, she went in for a kiss then she kissed Paris. Paris then kissed me whilst Savannah provided OWO on me whilst standing up, quite light but acceptable. Whist I was kissing Paris I had a little explore of her body, large false bolt ons, pumped up lips and false lashes which were pissed/hanging off and looked ridiculous, chav looking type. Savannah is natural, real tits, a little heavier than the stated size 10 with a slight C Section scar.
I was asked to move to the bed where both girls provided OWO with direction from  Savannah, lots of talking which spoilt the moment, Savannah then sat on my face and told Paris to stay down there on me, I was expecting Savannah to get in the 69 position so they both could give oral on me together but she faced the other way, but nice looking up whilst licking her pussy and being sucked off at the same time, eventually the point of no return happened and Paris took my load in her mouth then eventually disappeared to get rid of it.
A little break and more chit chat between them whilst I cleaned myself up. As a recently formed duo the pair did not seem good together, quite an odd duo, I couldn’t put my finger on it but it felt like Savannah was mothering/guiding Paris. I’m not sure if its the age difference but Savannah is clearly loads older then Paris who actually looks younger than the stated 30 yr old, Savannah is stated as 38 yr old, but we all know about WG’s ages, they knock some years off their actual age. The meet just simply did not flow, too many stop/starts with instructions from Savannah, which simply constantly broke the flow of events, it was simply not natural. Very mechanical movements.
Round 2 started with more kissing from Savannah, I was given a condom & told to bag myself up for doggy on Savannah this time and apply lube on myself once done, Savannah done the same to herself, (another flow killer) whilst giving Savannah doggy she appeared to give Paris oral, i’m not sure this was actually happening as Paris was very quiet and not much reaction reaction from her, maybe it’s just for show & just adopted the position to presume it’s happening. I asked to switch positions, CG with Savannah on top to save me the hat change, Paris sat on my face, but I couldn’t give it much attention and her pussy was not fresh, it smelt pissy, I had a little go around the edges but it was like trying to lick a battery. I asked for another position change as I was not comfortable with Paris’s pussy near my face. I asked for doggy again, Savannah appeared to give Paris oral again but I could not actually see any girl on girl pussy action happening at all (appeared to be for show again, if it actually happened the first time) after banging away for some time I asked for a CIM finish from Savannah, after more oral from her which was better the second time round, with a bit of spit involved, I eventually off loaded in her mouth, Paris just knelt beside us on the bed watching. Savannah disappeared to the bathroom to get rid of my cum. Not the best duo I have had for various reasons, I doubt I would return. Even thou I finished twice, the overall experience was neutral, a borderline negative. I took a chance on this appointment as there have been no other reviews of them to go by, maybe the above is why. I was asked to provide a review which I was taken back by this, it came across like they were trying to whip up business, my hard earned cash is spent better elsewhere, onwards & upwards as they say.
Banned reason: Posting untrue details in a review due to EAS rejection.
Banned by: daviemac

Offline stardust

Thanks for ypor review. Your punt sounds like a complete waste of time and money. Savannah and Keeva were one of the best duos going a while back. Savannah maybe needs to find another partner to work with.

Offline Lamnguin

Savannah and Molly were pretty good, too.

Offline MagpieToon

A shame, thanks for the warning

Offline bbanks

The title confuses me. False information?

Offline FLYING BLUE

The title confuses me. False information?

Banned reason: Posting untrue details in a review due to EAS rejection.
Banned by: daviemac

Online Weatherman21

Are you able to share what details were incorrect?

Online daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,256
  • Likes: 380
  • Reviews: 24
Are you able to share what details were incorrect?
Savanah distanced herself as he was getting too attached, with the evidence of EAS etc I've seen the only thing I would personally believe is the booking took place, but after considering previous reviews and the information given on this thread members should make their own minds up on what parts to believe and what parts not to believe.

One thing I am confident of is the review is not a true reflection of what took place in the booking.

One thing to note, the OP has been a regular of her's for some time, hence the EAS, but hasn't reviewed until now. 




Offline Mixedracegeordie

Seems a bit of a harsh ban? From readinng the review PT stated he saw thecduo via the agency so the booking took place and there were no concerns aired by Savannah when accepting the booking? He wasn’t on the agency’s banned list?

I’ve not seen either WG but there didn’t seem to be anything in reading that that would necessarily put me off seeing each individually though.

I think there’s plenty on here who see WGs regularly but never post about their experience but PT did seem to have a number of different reviews with different WGs with varying experiences.

Otherw have been rightfully banned and there’s probably others who are a bit of a white knight, but this one seems harsh especially as he didnt have a chance to possibly defend his position or provide an explanation.

Online Shutty238

I guess we haven't seen the private information Davie has to be confident enough to move this out of the review section.
Savannah got a red review recently where the validity of the OP was called into question and he was heavily discredited too.
She's having an unlucky run it seems.

Online daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,256
  • Likes: 380
  • Reviews: 24
Seems a bit of a harsh ban? From readinng the review PT stated he saw thecduo via the agency so the booking took place and there were no concerns aired by Savannah when accepting the booking? He wasn’t on the agency’s banned list?

I’ve not seen either WG but there didn’t seem to be anything in reading that that would necessarily put me off seeing each individually though.

I think there’s plenty on here who see WGs regularly but never post about their experience but PT did seem to have a number of different reviews with different WGs with varying experiences.

Otherw have been rightfully banned and there’s probably others who are a bit of a white knight, but this one seems harsh especially as he didnt have a chance to possibly defend his position or provide an explanation.
Banning someone is never a decision taken lightly but from your comment you seem to think posting less than honest reviews for retaliatory reasons is acceptable and that is only one aspect of this.   :unknown:

BTW the agency accepts the bookings not the escort, all the escort gets is the name the punter gave them, the time and duration booked.

Apart from that you will have to trust that enough evidence has been provided to warrant the action taken.




 

Offline Mixedracegeordie

Banning someone is never a decision taken lightly but from your comment you seem to think posting less than honest reviews for retaliatory reasons is acceptable and that is only one aspect of this.   :unknown:

BTW the agency accepts the bookings not the escort, all the escort gets is the name the punter gave them, the time and duration booked.

Apart from that you will have to trust that enough evidence has been provided to warrant the action taken.

I meant as in i couldn’t see the bit where he was necessarily being retaliatory? It came across as a neutral punt but that seemed to be more down to chemistry.

Of course everyone should be posting an accurate review but if it was inaccurate i would have probably expected one of the WGs to comment (if they are on here) and call him out or for him to have been given tge opportunity to amend his version if it was too harsh.

Plenty of well reviewed girls with positives but with the odd negative here and there. I’d be more wary if this had been his only review or if he was white knighting. As for not posting about previous punts with Savannah plenty on here don't but will then pipe up on someone else’s review to say ‘she’s great isn’t she’ but never actually post a review.

Just a shame to lose a regular contributor who seemed a bit more normal compared to others that have been banned (eg sar major for calling in favours etc which 100% was the right thing to do)

Online Kev3773

I meant as in i couldn’t see the bit where he was necessarily being retaliatory? It came across as a neutral punt but that seemed to be more down to chemistry.

Of course everyone should be posting an accurate review but if it was inaccurate i would have probably expected one of the WGs to comment (if they are on here) and call him out or for him to have been given tge opportunity to amend his version if it was too harsh.

Plenty of well reviewed girls with positives but with the odd negative here and there. I’d be more wary if this had been his only review or if he was white knighting. As for not posting about previous punts with Savannah plenty on here don't but will then pipe up on someone else’s review to say ‘she’s great isn’t she’ but never actually post a review.

Just a shame to lose a regular contributor who seemed a bit more normal compared to others that have been banned (eg sar major for calling in favours etc which 100% was the right thing to do)

You should leave decisions like this to the mods who have more evidence than you and I have as has been stated. It's your choice if you don't trust that of course.

Online daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,256
  • Likes: 380
  • Reviews: 24
I meant as in i couldn’t see the bit where he was necessarily being retaliatory? It came across as a neutral punt but that seemed to be more down to chemistry.

Of course everyone should be posting an accurate review but if it was inaccurate i would have probably expected one of the WGs to comment (if they are on here) and call him out or for him to have been given tge opportunity to amend his version if it was too harsh.

Plenty of well reviewed girls with positives but with the odd negative here and there. I’d be more wary if this had been his only review or if he was white knighting. As for not posting about previous punts with Savannah plenty on here don't but will then pipe up on someone else’s review to say ‘she’s great isn’t she’ but never actually post a review.

Just a shame to lose a regular contributor who seemed a bit more normal compared to others that have been banned (eg sar major for calling in favours etc which 100% was the right thing to do)
You don't give up do you. It is not up to you to be concerned about any other member's contributions, that is what the mods are for and we consider all the facts and evidence before taking action.

All you have to do is take from the OP's post the information you find useful and act accordingly and leave the moderating to those who have all of the relevant information.

I refer you to this earlier post. -
with the evidence of EAS etc I've seen.

From the Cambridge Dictionary  - ETC  abbreviation for et cetera: used at the end of a list to show that other things or people could also be added to it.



« Last Edit: February 16, 2024, 02:27:45 pm by daviemac »

Offline catweazle


You should leave decisions like this to the mods who have more evidence than you and I have as has been stated. It's your choice if you don't trust that of course.

This ^^^^^.  Just be mindful of not straying too far in criticising mods.

Offline hotstepper

Savanah distanced herself as he was getting too attached, with the evidence of EAS etc I've seen the only thing I would personally believe is the booking took place, but after considering previous reviews and the information given on this thread members should make their own minds up on what parts to believe and what parts not to believe.

One thing I am confident of is the review is not a true reflection of what took place in the booking.

One thing to note, the OP has been a regular of her's for some time, hence the EAS, but hasn't reviewed until now.

Excuse my ignorance, I’ve tried looking for the dictionary/acronym meanings but can’t find it. Whats EAS? Also if someone can direct me to where I’d find the meanings again that would be helpful.

Thanks


Offline catweazle

Excuse my ignorance, I’ve tried looking for the dictionary/acronym meanings but can’t find it. Whats EAS? Also if someone can direct me to where I’d find the meanings again that would be helpful.

Thanks

EAS: Emotional  Attachment Syndrome, getting attached to an SP, maybe even thinking you're  in love with her

Online daviemac

  • Forum Moderator
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,256
  • Likes: 380
  • Reviews: 24
Excuse my ignorance, I’ve tried looking for the dictionary/acronym meanings but can’t find it. Whats EAS? Also if someone can direct me to where I’d find the meanings again that would be helpful.

Thanks
External Link/Members Only

Offline hotstepper

EAS: Emotional  Attachment Syndrome, getting attached to an SP, maybe even thinking you're  in love with her

I see. Thank you