The previous poor service hadn't compelled me to make a review.
Is that OK or is everyone obliged to review absolutely every punt?
No automatic obligation and no criticism of you, but despite his abrasive ways VW makes a valid point. UKP is an information-sharing site. You and another punter have responded to this thread and convey further information that she -
- Tries to waste time with banal conversation rather than doing what she's been paid for
- Tries to charge additional fees for basic services when there's no mention of this on her profile
- When she finally gets round to sex she provides a reluctant and lacklustre service
- Her attitude and approach leave much to be desired
- She makes unsolicited further contact with punters who've previously seen her
- Etc, etc
With that information a punter may have decided against seeing her. However as things stand, her AW feedback makes her look like a good prospect
although your experiences of her offer more balance.
[Removed by admin]
I'm not paying for her private gallery, but I'd be careful about diagnosing from photos.
The whole matter of limiting the time of vaginal penetration and her rule about not coming in the condom is weird (and really ought to be explicit on her profile). I'd initially put it down to anxiety about condoms breaking, but it's especially peculiar when her photos and videos (screenshots) depict her having bareback vaginal penetration. I think the guy is called Sensi, and if so he does porn and will have barebacked many more women than your average punter.