xx ~ Amber ~ xx - Sheffield TOFFT (Almost)

[demonic]

External Link/Members Only or External Link/Members Only

Not sure whether this actually qualifies as a review as we didn't actually meet. It can be moved if necessary.

Amber's profile had been floating around my HL for a while solely based on the fact she looks FAF in her gallery and she is local. I could only find one reference to her on UKP so decided I would take the chance.

Communications:
Phoned her on the number published and had a pleasant chat with her. She was available that afternoon and I agreed for a 1 hr meet. She was working from a well known hotel near Nether Edge.

I called her again as I arrived in the car park. It was at this stage that the great advice frequently shared on this forum and the experience of previous meets kicked in. Rather than go into the meet hoping what I was expecting was going to happen, I decided to clarify before hand.

"Amber, I have read your profile and you make it clear that you do not do oral without, I assume that is still the case?"

"Yeah, I only do covered oral"

"Do you kiss?"

"No ....."

"Do you do reverse oral?"

"No ..... I'm not saying you have anything however STI's can live at the back of the mouth"

"Arh, ok .... that is a game changer for me as I do enjoy that. I will not be seeing you....."

And at that point I decided to bail. Meet would have been £130 ...

That is it .... Not the most comprehensive review however if someone is planning to meet her, gives a little bit of background.

 

[mrfishyfoo]

I'd say that qualifies as a review as she agreed a time and place with you.

I've looked at her several times as she looks FAF but her poor list of services has always put me off.

[agentsmith]

I think you're being harsh mate.

You look at her profile and you can clearly see she hasn't got kissing, owo, or reverse oral selected.

You should have clarified when organising the booking before setting off.

And if those services are dealbreakers for you, you should have instantly binned her from the list and moved on.

[Thechaser]

I think you're being harsh mate.

You look at her profile and you can clearly see she hasn't got kissing, owo, or reverse oral selected.

You should have clarified when organising the booking before setting off.

And if those services are dealbreakers for you, you should have instantly binned her from the list and moved on.

+1

[BP96]

Fair enough, it's up to you to grade her as you see fit. I for one after that type of conversation would expect a very lacklustre service. Others can read and make their own mind up.

[demonic]

I think you're being harsh mate.

Implying that I should have rated it Positive or the fact that I should not have written it in the first place and not contributed to the forum 

[agentsmith]

Yeah I don't think it deserved a review.

All we've found out is that she refuses to do what isn't on her likes list. Which is her choice.

As far as I can see it, she never misled you or tricked you into a booking.

I wouldn't book a vanilla gfe girl for a bdsm session and then give her a bad review when she won't let me tie her up and flog her.

[Thecunninglinguist]

Implying that I should have rated it Positive or the fact that I should not have written it in the first place and not contributed to the forum 

Sorry but personally I don't think you have anything to "contribute" here anyway. If you had read the profile properly you would have seen that the services you wanted weren't available to you and like someone else said, binned her straight away.

[Darkepool]

Yeah, probably shouldn't have reviewed her. Her conversation with you just confirmed her list of no no's...  for all you know, she might rock at OW and be the best fuck til Tuesday, also no issues with comms so it's a little harsh giving her a neutral based on her just confirming her profile...

Sorry dude...

[mrfishyfoo]

Implying that.................I should not have written it in the first place............

The site rules MrD are very specific on this.

- Reviews
A new review thread can only be created once a service provider has agreed to a booking (e.g. verbally or by textual messaging). A meet does not need to take place, money does not need change hands, the only requirement is that the she had accepted the initial booking. Only one review thread is permissible per punt. Do not combine multiple punts in the same review thread, neither should a single punt be split into multiple review threads. Do not post the same review in multiple regions. Only sex workers can be the subject of a review, not a whole agency / establishment / brothel. Past or current sex workers or anyone related to a sex worker (e.g. boyfriend) may not review any other sex worker. Reviews must contain either a link, contact details or address (if publicized by the service provider).

[sheffielder]

Shes Faf and she is charging alot for a very limited list of services but imho in this case it is harsh as she does say on her profile she doesnt do them..

Having said that I have tried to arrange a meet with her and her coms are very hit and miss

[Thecunninglinguist]

The site rules MrD are very specific on this.

- Reviews
A new review thread can only be created once a service provider has agreed to a booking (e.g. verbally or by textual messaging). A meet does not need to take place, money does not need change hands, the only requirement is that the she had accepted the initial booking. Only one review thread is permissible per punt. Do not combine multiple punts in the same review thread, neither should a single punt be split into multiple review threads. Do not post the same review in multiple regions. Only sex workers can be the subject of a review, not a whole agency / establishment / brothel. Past or current sex workers or anyone related to a sex worker (e.g. boyfriend) may not review any other sex worker. Reviews must contain either a link, contact details or address (if publicized by the service provider).

I have no personal interest in this whatever. She is not my type/offer the services I require but I do think that now this rather unique set of circumstances has arisen, maybe the "rules" need to be reviewed? As they stand the rules seem to have been adhered to here, even if some think they have been stretched a little. It's like others have said if you go to someone who advertises a vanilla GFE you can't complain if they refuse to give you a damn good thrashing and how many times are we advised here to make sure of what is on offer before travelling?

[demonic]

I will start this by apologising for opening what appears to be a can of worms.

My rationale is this ..

1/  I started my "review" by self questioning whether it is actually a review.
2/ I did do a search of UKP info on this provider and found very little. This steered me towards wanting to post something.
3/ I deliberately ranked the review as neutral as I have nothing positive or negative to say.
4/ If someone is considering seeing the SP it is only a good thing for them to have as much material to consider prior to making that decision. Nothing I wrote was malicious or wrong ...

I get the comments regarding post/don't post however I pitched this as neutral. If neutral is actually viewed as being negative then I am sorry. This was not intended as being negative. From a personal point of view, I would rather read 10 posts on a SP and have the opportunity to make my own mind up rather than no posts at all.
Apologies for contributing albeit inappropriately

 

[mrfishyfoo]

I will start this by apologising for opening what appears to be a can of worms.

My rationale is this ..

1/  I started my "review" by self questioning whether it is actually a review.
2/ I did do a search of UKP info on this provider and found very little. This steered me towards wanting to post something.
3/ I deliberately ranked the review as neutral as I have nothing positive or negative to say.
4/ If someone is considering seeing the SP it is only a good thing for them to have as much material to consider prior to making that decision. Nothing I wrote was malicious or wrong ...

I get the comments regarding post/don't post however I pitched this as neutral. If neutral is actually viewed as being negative then I am sorry. This was not intended as being negative. From a personal point of view, I would rather read 10 posts on a SP and have the opportunity to make my own mind up rather than no posts at all.
Apologies for contributing albeit inappropriately

 

Well MrD what to think of this ?? 

OK you fucked up on her likes list and made a twat of yourself.  BUT she accepted a booking and the rules clearly state that once a pro$$ie accepts a booking a punter can do a review even if the booking never then happens.

Unless I very mistaken the rules say nothing about you can't do a review if you cancel because services aren't as expected.

[Delfrommem]

I will start this by apologising for opening what appears to be a can of worms.

My rationale is this ..

1/  I started my "review" by self questioning whether it is actually a review.
2/ I did do a search of UKP info on this provider and found very little. This steered me towards wanting to post something.
3/ I deliberately ranked the review as neutral as I have nothing positive or negative to say.
4/ If someone is considering seeing the SP it is only a good thing for them to have as much material to consider prior to making that decision. Nothing I wrote was malicious or wrong ...

I am more informed by the review than I was merely reading her profile.

Whether the review merely confirms something that might get overlooked as she definitely doesn't kiss or offers the detail of the hotel she is operating from then Im a bit more informed than previously.

So overall, I found it more useful than not. 

[Roth]

Ok. Let me get this straight her enjoys doesn't include kissing and it doesn't include OWO. So you book an appointment with her and then confirm that she diesnt do kissing and OWO.  You then decide to bail cos of this.

So why are you giving her a Neutral just cos she already advertised that she doesn't do the stuff you want?

[agentsmith]

If this was ukprossies.com, demonic would get a negative for being a timewaster. 

[Marmalade]

It's a review and quite an acceptable one (reviews only rate the particular punter's experience, it's up to the reader to rate the prossie).

It's also a big dumbass in my opinion and a valuable lesson to other punters to check any game-changer requirements, whether by text, email or phone, and double-confirming what's offered (even tho the likes list of profiles are often unreliable) before you drive all the way to her house.

Whether the prossie felt pissed off is not really our business guys.

[CityTillIDie]

Ok. Let me get this straight her enjoys doesn't include kissing and it doesn't include OWO. So you book an appointment with her and then confirm that she diesnt do kissing and OWO.  You then decide to bail cos of this.

So why are you giving her a Neutral just cos she already advertised that she doesn't do the stuff you want?

+1
I'm not sure why you reviewed this. Certainly not sure why you reviewed this as neutral. It's like seeing a vegan restaurant website and calling to book a table; then outside the restaurant you call again, to be put off by the facts that (a) they don't serve meat and (b) they don't serve fish. And subsequently to post a neutral review on TheFork. Seems a little unfair. Perhaps should have rung and said: 'I just wanted to check you're a genuine vegan restaurant' before then not booking and certainly before giving a less than good review.

CTID

[Delfrommem]

+1
I'm not sure why you reviewed this. Certainly not sure why you reviewed this as neutral. It's like seeing a vegan restaurant website and calling to book a table; then outside the restaurant you call again, to be put off by the facts that (a) they don't serve meat and (b) they don't serve fish. And subsequently to post a neutral review on TheFork. Seems a little unfair. Perhaps should have rung and said: 'I just wanted to check you're a genuine vegan restaurant' before then not booking and certainly before giving a less than good review.

CTID

Most vegan restaurants will suck your dick these days. It provides a sustainable source of protein. 



--

[Marmalade]

+1
I'm not sure why you reviewed this. Certainly not sure why you reviewed this as neutral. It's like seeing a vegan restaurant website and calling to book a table; then outside the restaurant you call again, to be put off by the facts that (a) they don't serve meat and (b) they don't serve fish. And subsequently to post a neutral review on TheFork. Seems a little unfair. Perhaps should have rung and said: 'I just wanted to check you're a genuine vegan restaurant' before then not booking and certainly before giving a less than good review.

CTID

I get your point, but reviews are not always fair to some absolute extent. In fact the review was fair in that it was an honest account. You appear to be complaining that it wasn't fair to the prostitute. My sympathies are with the punter. His time was wasted. Maybe his own fault, yes, but still a bummer. Why do you care so much about the hoe??? It's her job. Any prossie has a few no-shows. And with her no-no list she maybe even gets more than most. It goes with territory. He's not done anything dishonest. She might have double booked anyway and as it is at least she'll have time to wash properly before the next punter.

[Marmalade]

Implying that I should have rated it Positive or the fact that I should not have written it in the first place and not contributed to the forum 

Fuck what he implied. You were quite correct. There is an unfortunate culture where people say things and services are good when actually they were neither good or bad. Prossies feel offended if they're not all given 10 out of 10 on AW unless they were utterly shite (and the shite ones expect a neutral  ).

This is why writing reviews is a *contribution*, a gift to UKP out of respect for its ethos and what we've got from it. Being honest in a review is generally a thankless task. The slightest thing that might considered unfair the bloody prostitute is leapt on by the human-rights-for-whores squad. WFKs.

As for these people that want to tell you how you should write your review, they are clearly a bit fucked up. Did you ask for their 'review' of your review? It was within the rules, it seemed almost self-effacingly honest, yet some people clearly think you should send her a bunch of roses and £150 for the time she spent doing fuck all except a short phone conversation. 

I'm afraid it's par for course. Like when your kids want to explain to you in no uncertain terms how you should spend your wages, what car you ought to buy and how their pocket money and trainers aren't up to their ideal standards.


+1 to this chap's comments: (thankfully not everyone is part of the prossies' rights movement  )

I am more informed by the review than I was merely reading her profile.

Whether the review merely confirms something that might get overlooked as she definitely doesn't kiss or offers the detail of the hotel she is operating from then Im a bit more informed than previously.

So overall, I found it more useful than not. 

[CityTillIDie]

I get your point, but reviews are not always fair to some absolute extent. In fact the review was fair in that it was an honest account. You appear to be complaining that it wasn't fair to the prostitute. My sympathies are with the punter. His time was wasted. Maybe his own fault, yes, but still a bummer. Why do you care so much about the hoe??? It's her job. Any prossie has a few no-shows. And with her no-no list she maybe even gets more than most. It goes with territory. He's not done anything dishonest. She might have double booked anyway and as it is at least she'll have time to wash properly before the next punter.

I meant that the neutral review was unfair. Frankly the fact he had his time wasted was his own fault and nobody else's. Why not call to clarify the salient points before travelling to the meeting? I wasn't siding with the SP at all. If anything, the review should have been positive as she simply confirmed that certain pieces of information on her website were indeed correct. In effect, the neutral experience stems from the OP's decision not to seek clarification before setting out. Not everyone shares your negative view of the average WG, incidentally

CTID

[Widescreen]

Ok. Let me get this straight her enjoys doesn't include kissing and it doesn't include OWO. So you book an appointment with her and then confirm that she diesnt do kissing and OWO.  You then decide to bail cos of this.

So why are you giving her a Neutral just cos she already advertised that she doesn't do the stuff you want?

+1

[Marmalade]

I meant that the neutral review was unfair. Frankly the fact he had his time wasted was his own fault and nobody else's. Why not call to clarify the salient points before travelling to the meeting? I wasn't siding with the SP at all. If anything, the review should have been positive as she simply confirmed that certain pieces of information on her website were indeed correct. In effect, the neutral experience stems from the OP's decision not to seek clarification before setting out. Not everyone shares your negative view of the average WG, incidentally

CTID

You're entitled to your opinion but unfair to who? And do you not think other punters can make up their own mind about the validity of someone else's review? I think dozens of reviews are unfair: on the punter - but it is up to me to assess them, and balance them against other reviews and my own independent analysis of whether a prossie is worth seeing and whether another punter is full of shit or not full of shit.

You are, at best, taking a review as a judgment of the prossie, rather than a review of the punter's experience, so I think your comments are 'unfair' but it is not very important. The review was factual, which is more than I can say about a lot of reviews. To have a go at the punter for expecting things not on the likes list is valid enough if you want to do that: to have a go at the punter for accurately reviewing his experience is not.

At least one other experienced punter found his review useful: but it seems you feel you know better than Admin on the rules and guidelines governing reviews and you want to say for everybody whether you think a review is "fair" or useful for punters. Your comments might be appropriate on UKE but although I have so far avoided calling them white-knighting, that is what I think. You are attempting to censor, and if you were a newbie I think you'd get your arse well and truly kicked; the fact that you are bit more established than that persuaded me so far that you just don't really see the difference between rating an experience and casting some god-almighty judgment on a prostitute. But maybe you never say anything controversial enough to upset prostitutes. Whatever you think, the reviewer is an independent adult with a decent track record. Why not have some respect when someone puts themselves on the line? You don't have to agree, but I'm fucked if you should be able to say how another punter rates his experience. 

[CityTillIDie]

You're entitled to your opinion but unfair to who? And do you not think other punters can make up their own mind about the validity of someone else's review? I think dozens of reviews are unfair: on the punter - but it is up to me to assess them, and balance them against other reviews and my own independent analysis of whether a prossie is worth seeing and whether another punter is full of shit or not full of shit.

You are, at best, taking a review as a judgment of the prossie, rather than a review of the punter's experience, so I think your comments are 'unfair' but it is not very important. The review was factual, which is more than I can say about a lot of reviews. To have a go at the punter for expecting things not on the likes list is valid enough if you want to do that: to have a go at the punter for accurately reviewing his experience is not.

At least one other experienced punter found his review useful: but it seems you feel you know better than Admin on the rules and guidelines governing reviews and you want to say for everybody whether you think a review is "fair" or useful for punters. Your comments might be appropriate on UKE but although I have so far avoided calling them white-knighting, that is what I think. You are attempting to censor, and if you were a newbie I think you'd get your arse well and truly kicked; the fact that you are bit more established than that persuaded me so far that you just don't really see the difference between rating an experience and casting some god-almighty judgment on a prostitute. But maybe you never say anything controversial enough to upset prostitutes. Whatever you think, the reviewer is an independent adult with a decent track record. Why not have some respect when someone puts themselves on the line? You don't have to agree, but I'm fucked if you should be able to say how another punter rates his experience. 

Your points are entirely valid and I apologise. I'm afraid my intentions as to what point I was trying to add were not properly represented in the way I wrote them. Something got lost in the translation, so to speak. I just felt that if a future punter were looking at booking that particular WG, he might be fractionally misdirected by the Neutral. Again, I'm probably explaining appallingly.

 

CTID

[sanchez]

So has anyone actually fucked this chick??? 

Whenever I have spoken to her over the phone, despite having a green light on AW, she always says she is busy or or doing some shopping or errands in town. Body looks banging but service wise is a bit hmmmmmm.

[Delfrommem]

The Comms seems to confirm what is reviewed here. The conversation seemed to indicate  someone who is not that interested.