Author Topic: Sassy chic 44 - Outcall in Leicestershire  (Read 2202 times)


3 review(s) for Sassy chic 44 (3 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative) [Indexed by Goldfinch]

Offline chrisintcov

This was an outcall to my home, 2 hours for £250.00.

Kelly gives her age as 47 and I have no reason to doubt that. Physically she is in fantastic shape for her age, don’t worry about the lack of photos on her profile.

I enjoy kissing, caressing and licking my chosen lady and no part of her was off limits and we spent a lot of time cuddling and stroking each other.

Kelly was quite happy to spend time with my uncovered cock in her mouth :-) and I don’t think cim would have been an problem. To finish Kelly covered me up and rode my cowgirl with gusto.


External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only



Offline Taggart

While you clearly had a good time, the lack of any pictures whatsoever on her profile will not instil any confidence in other punters to book her - though her feedback is very positive.

Offline Conviolo



Offline MajorPayne


Offline Hotdogboy88

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,967
  • Likes: 13
  •  
  • Reviews: 71

Offline winkywanky

I think £150/hr Outcall with such a very varied and comprehensive Enjoys list (inc. Anal, Rimming, CIM, Watersports etc) is not too bad.

Perhaps even more so if she's as hot as the OP and AW FB suggests (the latter, yes, I know...).

However, having just searched her AW number on here, reveals that she has barebacked another (well-known for BB) UKP member.

Offline chrisintcov

I did notice that feedback too, although it was eventually denied and there are only two people who were actually there and know what actually occurred. I didn’t enquire about bb and I didn’t get any sense during the booking that it was available.

Offline winkywanky

No, I'm referring to the UKP review by Horizontal Pleasures.

Offline chrisintcov

No, I'm referring to the UKP review by Horizontal Pleasures.

I was also referring to the report by horizontal pleasures, and the discussion that followed. There were still only two people at that booking, everything else is conjecture.

Offline winkywanky

Despite your being on UKP for nearly two years, you are nevertheless very inexperienced here (very few posts, only one review).

HP, although a respected member here (for his honesty, if not his punting habits) is a renowned bareback punter. Perhaps his subtlety in his review of her has gone over your head?

He fucked her without a condom, and came inside her. But I feel sure she washed before she saw you, especially as it was over 2yrs ago  :hi:.

Offline winkywanky

OK, I have now read the whole debate that followed his review.

I would say from experience that without a doubt, HP's initial assertion of BB was quite true, but upon realising that Kelly's 'reputation' would be damaged he retracted the claim.

Of course, you may think otherwise, that's up to you.

Offline chrisintcov

Despite your being on UKP for nearly two years, you are nevertheless very inexperienced here (very few posts, only one review).

HP, although a respected member here (for his honesty, if not his punting habits) is a renowned bareback punter. Perhaps his subtlety in his review of her has gone over your head?

He fucked her without a condom, and came inside her. But I feel sure she washed before she saw you, especially as it was over 2yrs ago  :hi:.

I do not see what experience has to do in this matter.  You state that he fucked her without a condom.  This was not stated in the report, although it was implied.
When this was pointed out to horizontal pleasures he eventually denied it.
On what basis are you stating that he fucked her without a condom when the facts of the meeting are disputed by horizontal pleasures himself? You weren’t in the room with them.
I note on your profile that you are a forum helper, I don’t see how you are helping when you are asserting as fact something which cannot be more than speculation on your part.

Offline winkywanky

What doesn't help here is edj's semi-literate posts, which are as clear as mud.

But read through the whole thread carefully again and you'll see that:

HP reviews the girl with a very thinly veiled reference to fucking her BB.

Mike the Bike alludes to the BB aspect, HP thanks him for his post.

Buttons then questions it, and HP states he paid £30 extra for the pleasure of BB, along with Kelly stating to the effect of: 'well I don't normally do it, just so's you know' (as well she would, not displaying it openly on her profile).

edj than says (Reply #15) that he has contacted the girl to ask if she does BB, and he mentions the review on UKP. She Googles it and is horrified to find her non-BB reputation in tatters. So she texts HP and gives him an earful, and of course denies outright to edj that she ever does BB.

edj posts that he won't be seeing her now because of the HP BB.

HP realises that because of edj's absolute idiocy in informing Holly of the UKP review, he has probably lost her a load of custom and is mortified (HP is a good guy, he just likes to BB and is always open about it). So he retracts his BB claim in an effort to make amends.

Basically, this is all edj's fault for bringing it up with the girl, and of course also Holly's fault for doing BB. HP just told the truth.

I don't imagine Holly does BB regularly (although we can't know), but HP does, and he frequently receives flak for doing so on here, he does get a lot of grief over it, from many members. He doesn't BB to win any popularity contests, he does it because he likes it and he documents it here

One thing I would say about HP, is that I wish he wouldn't try it on with SPs who don't state BB, because then he forces other UKP members to share in his BB against their will. Punters who don't BB with SPs rely on the honesty of girls who state they don't. I don't BB with SPs, so I purposely choose not to meet those that say they do. If SPs are BBing punters by the back door, then that's my choice out of the window.

You can make what you will of all this, but from where I'm standing Holly fucked HP bareback, 100%. He doesn't lie about it, why would he start now? He's not a bullshitter, he's not a boaster.

As for yourself, well he saw her 2yrs ago so I wouldn't be particularly worried about having picked anything up. But if you're worried, then have a check-up.

Finally, it's worth noting the very many discussions here of whether WGs ever BB at all, with anyone. It has to be said, the vast majority probably do, in their private lives, be it husband, BF, a guy they Tindered or met at a party, whatever.

But yes, for those of us that choose not to BB with WGs it's a pisser when a girl who states 'no BB' does, or is persuaded 'just this once' to do so.

Offline winkywanky

I note on your profile that you are a forum helper, I don’t see how you are helping when you are asserting as fact something which cannot be more than speculation on your part.


I'm helping by trying to get you to use your loaf, and not just be in denial  :hi:.

Offline chrisintcov


I'm helping by trying to get you to use your loaf, and not just be in denial  :hi:.

Please do not patronise me. Prostitution existed long before this website existed and I have indulged for many many years. On balance I don’t doubt that she did accept a bareback booking from HP, my irritation with you is in you asserting this as a fact when the facts are in doubt and you were not present. We are all responsible for our sexual health and I don’t book girls who openly invite bareback and I didn’t bareback Kelly.

Offline winkywanky

Please do not patronise me. Prostitution existed long before this website existed and I have indulged for many many years. On balance I don’t doubt that she did accept a bareback booking from HP, my irritation with you is in you asserting this as a fact when the facts are in doubt and you were not present. We are all responsible for our sexual health and I don’t book girls who openly invite bareback and I didn’t bareback Kelly.

I merely stated the bleeding obvious, and now you seem to be in agreement. Which you weren't before.

If you choose to see that as 'patronising', that's up to you. It wasn't meant that way.

My reference to experience was also valid, unless you're in lurking mode 99% of the time it would appear that I spend a lot more time on here than you, and I will have read many more of HP's posts than you, also, I have shot the breeze with him here quite a bit, and also debated his preference for BB directly with him.

Offline winkywanky

As for your personal risk, because you choose not to BB a girl, even if she's a BBer (of any frequency) then you reduce your risk to virtually zero with penetrative sex, and even OWO will carry only a small risk.

So I'm sure you're fine.

What is annoying of course, is making the choice not to BB, then having it scuppered by others who choose to do it covertly.

Offline RogerBoner

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,819
  • Likes: 21
  •  
  • Reviews: 53
I would say from experience that without a doubt, HP's initial assertion of BB was quite true, but upon realising that Kelly's 'reputation' would be damaged he retracted the claim.
+1
WW is an erudite contributor to this forum but I wonder if some might be intimidated by his eloquence and IQ.
BB is too too taboo on here.

Offline Hotdogboy88

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,967
  • Likes: 13
  •  
  • Reviews: 71
I’m with WW on this after reading the other review. Even a blind man could see from the review that BB occurred. Don’t know what Chris is getting so upset about it intact it is Chris and not sassy chic trying to rebuild her reputation.

Offline winkywanky

+1
WW is an erudite contributor to this forum but I wonder if some might be intimidated by his eloquence and IQ.
BB is too too taboo on here.


I'm not very clever....but I do like a bit of cold logic, and I can be a bit blunt sometimes.

Either I'm getting old and grumpy, or perhaps I'm actually on the 'spectrum' a little and don't care to hide it any more? I think the latter, and there are others in my family.