There's a lot being said, especially about Jes 189; regarding whether a WG girl should be as completely honest about her size and physical appearance, when using gallery photographs.
Isn't this debate a little moribund?
The very nature of prostitution is the commoditisation of sex. All consumer commodities are advertised in attempt to sway the opinion of consumers. Basic rules apply regarding misrepresentation, but ultimately caveat emptor applies.
If I turned up to see Jes and felt that she had misrepresented herself in a way that was unreasonable, then I would simply not go through with the "purchase". I do not have to pass over money until I have assessed the purchase up close and personal.
Obviously punters feel aggrieved if they have made an effort to visit a store to find the advertised garment doesn't quite look the same as in the fashion magazine, but they keep doing it. Equally, when one visits a hotel to find the rooms are not as good as in the brochure then one is not obliged to stay, but free to make a report on trip advisor regardless.
Ultimately it's up to a WG how she markets herself and up to punters to remark freely, on forums such as this, as to their feelings.
Punters have the chance to walk and girls have the option of to avoid this. It's no good punters expecting different rules in this game than in any other exchange of consumer goods. Equally, WGs can't complain if punters have a good look and then say "no thanks I'm not buying after all".
Perhaps there is an argument for saying that WG's profit from the embarrassment factor, but surely it is up to punters to get over this and learn to walk.
Misrepresenting services , after money has exchanged hands, is obviously a more intractable and unfair practice. Jes 189 does not seem to be breaking this (admittedly voluntary) code of conduct.