Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: WG's posting to defend themselves.  (Read 8232 times)

Roland D Hay

Personally I don't have a problem with WG's on here, one or two provide balanced and interesting input. Also, lets be honest, some of the funniest most entertaining threads relate to WG's spouting shite. So let them entertain us for at least a short while before smacking their bottoms (speaking euphemistically) and sending them on their way.

In regard to WG’s joining here to make genuine postings I think if they are open and honest then it’s a brave decision for them to make.

Let’s not forget the primary default setting for searching girls on AW is - By number of Ratings.
Hence it is not surprising that the more savvy one’s will try to improve their marketing to punters by getting as many reviews as possible, by whatever means!

Sadly like many things in life it would appear that more than a few WG’s seem to now seek or create themselves (or by phantom review writer) a plethora of fluffy positive or fake sickly affirmative reviews as to how good they are in services they provide.

Long time ago I used to give occasional glib one liner reviews on AW until one lady I saw asked me to do a review and a field report as she had received a negative from a punter (rare on AW, I know) So I naively did my usual one liner review and then a FR (my first) which was not fluffy at all but rather to the point and gave 9 out of 10. When I next visited her she thanked me and asked if I liked her good feedback on me. Post the session she asked if I would again do another FR on her and maybe this time say X…Y…Z…, she even said she would help write it if I wished. I assured her I was more than capable and left, I never wrote FR or nor went back again and never ever did a review again.

Guess finally light came on and realised how false it all is and did I really want an profile from WG’s giving sickly sweet comments ending in “can’t wait, cum back soon hun”     

Many on here have probably experienced same but as genuine punters are no longer taken in by these ever more ridiculous reviews nowadays. I suppose there are some punters using AW who do love the WG’s feedback (kinda badge of honour award) on them claiming they are “true gentleman, clean genuine or exceptional stud with nice clean thick cock …da da da.. etc you know what prossie dross they can spout.
Hence the archetypal question we have all thought of after a punt or even screw with a new partner in our civvie life is that perennial unanswered one;

 Was I any good?

So in regard to this post topic it is therefore apparently obvious that when the response is;

 No you were absolute shit!

It will provoke a somewhat negative or enraged feeling and invariably provoke further response.
So I say let WG’s join here if they are indeed genuine and use their published AW profile name and disclose openly why they are posting and allow to have their say.

As earlier posts say if she is not just ranting in tit for tat manner or just being abusive then it is maybe acceptable on a specific punter site to hear her view and any defence she may make so that we can consider both sides.

Offline Jimmyredcab

For me, there are 3 things that need to be 100% accurate on an escort's profile..... A genuine photo, the girl's real age and her country of origin.  Her likes list should also be accurate, but if on the day she doesn't feel up to providing certain services, e.g. No French kissing because the punter has foul breath, then that remains at her discretion.

All too often the girl has no intention of providing a certain service (such as Anal) but they say at discretion just to get you through the door, very few punters walk.     :thumbsdown:

Offline vorian

In regard to WG’s joining here to make genuine postings I think if they are open and honest then it’s a brave decision for them to make.

Let’s not forget the primary default setting for searching girls on AW is - By number of Ratings.
Hence it is not surprising that the more savvy one’s will try to improve their marketing to punters by getting as many reviews as possible, by whatever means!

Sadly like many things in life it would appear that more than a few WG’s seem to now seek or create themselves (or by phantom review writer) a plethora of fluffy positive or fake sickly affirmative reviews as to how good they are in services they provide.

Long time ago I used to give occasional glib one liner reviews on AW until one lady I saw asked me to do a review and a field report as she had received a negative from a punter (rare on AW, I know) So I naively did my usual one liner review and then a FR (my first) which was not fluffy at all but rather to the point and gave 9 out of 10. When I next visited her she thanked me and asked if I liked her good feedback on me. Post the session she asked if I would again do another FR on her and maybe this time say X…Y…Z…, she even said she would help write it if I wished. I assured her I was more than capable and left, I never wrote FR or nor went back again and never ever did a review again.

Guess finally light came on and realised how false it all is and did I really want an profile from WG’s giving sickly sweet comments ending in “can’t wait, cum back soon hun”     

Many on here have probably experienced same but as genuine punters are no longer taken in by these ever more ridiculous reviews nowadays. I suppose there are some punters using AW who do love the WG’s feedback (kinda badge of honour award) on them claiming they are “true gentleman, clean genuine or exceptional stud with nice clean thick cock …da da da.. etc you know what prossie dross they can spout.
Hence the archetypal question we have all thought of after a punt or even screw with a new partner in our civvie life is that perennial unanswered one;

 Was I any good?

So in regard to this post topic it is therefore apparently obvious that when the response is;

 No you were absolute shit!

It will provoke a somewhat negative or enraged feeling and invariably provoke further response.
So I say let WG’s join here if they are indeed genuine and use their published AW profile name and disclose openly why they are posting and allow to have their say.

As earlier posts say if she is not just ranting in tit for tat manner or just being abusive then it is maybe acceptable on a specific punter site to hear her view and any defence she may make so that we can consider both sides.

Liked you post you raised some interesting points to think about.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline potato

It could be argued that, since we do not really have a right to reply on AW, then why should a service provider have any right to reply on here?  A WG coming on here with all guns blazing can be entertaining for a while. Those that own up to their shortcomings and agree to improve on their services may even gain a little bit of respect. Some may even believe that they gave a good service and it was the punter being unreasonable! ( I don't doubt that this happens occasionally)

I suppose a lot of it depends on how you view UKP - its a site where punters come first that's for sure and where wg's not providing a decent service level can be outed and the good ones praised.  As it becomes more popular, it could even be seen to have some educational value to WG's (mainly by fear of a bad report!) to what punters expect at a meeting and what they won't tolerate.  It's too easy to see UKP as a bitching site, which is probably how it is seen by many girls, when all we want is value for money with a girl that matches her profile and does what it says on the tin. Those that don't should be wary about entering here.


Offline vorian

It could be argued that, since we do not really have a right to reply on AW, then why should a service provider have any right to reply on here?  A WG coming on here with all guns blazing can be entertaining for a while. Those that own up to their shortcomings and agree to improve on their services may even gain a little bit of respect. Some may even believe that they gave a good service and it was the punter being unreasonable! ( I don't doubt that this happens occasionally)

I suppose a lot of it depends on how you view UKP - its a site where punters come first that's for sure and where wg's not providing a decent service level can be outed and the good ones praised.  As it becomes more popular, it could even be seen to have some educational value to WG's (mainly by fear of a bad report!) to what punters expect at a meeting and what they won't tolerate.  It's too easy to see UKP as a bitching site, which is probably how it is seen by many girls, when all we want is value for money with a girl that matches her profile and does what it says on the tin. Those that don't should be wary about entering here.

Again imho another good post with soon valid points made.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline smiths

For me, there are 3 things that need to be 100% accurate on an escort's profile..... A genuine photo, the girl's real age and her country of origin.  Her likes list should also be accurate, but if on the day she doesn't feel up to providing certain services, e.g. No French kissing because the punter has foul breath, then that remains at her discretion.

Sadly then if you punt with foreign WGs you are going to be disappointed a lot in my experience on the nationality part unless you speak their language as lying is endemic as it is with many WGs when it comes to their real age. As i dont ask to see her birth certificate when punting or passport a rough idea is all i have sometimes. Now if a WG is really 35 but looks 25 to me then no problem, but if she is really 35 but looks 45 then it could be a terminal problem leading me to walking if i dont fancy the real her in the flesh. Honesty is always the best policy, if a WG hasnt lied she has nothing to worry about assuming she also offers a good service of course. She risks negative reviews and/or feedback otherwise.

In reality until a WG has seen the punter and smelt him everything is at discretion with those WGs that care about not sucking a cheesy cock or kissing a punter with terrible bad breath. I have seen a thankfully very small number of smelly punters arrive at parties, they are guided to the shower immediately. Same goes for Anal, unless a WG states she can take ANY size cock they have to see the cock erect to know if they can take it. An honest WG should make this clear obviously.

It is the case bad SPs latch on to these things to their advantage, there one goal is to get the punter to the punt and hope he stays and punts thinking with his dick, which is fatal in my own experiences. I think with my brain nowadays always having a plan B option making walking very easy.

It could be argued that, since we do not really have a right to reply on AW, then why should a service provider have any right to reply on here?  A WG coming on here with all guns blazing can be entertaining for a while. Those that own up to their shortcomings and agree to improve on their services may even gain a little bit of respect. Some may even believe that they gave a good service and it was the punter being unreasonable! ( I don't doubt that this happens occasionally)

I suppose a lot of it depends on how you view UKP - its a site where punters come first that's for sure and where wg's not providing a decent service level can be outed and the good ones praised.  As it becomes more popular, it could even be seen to have some educational value to WG's (mainly by fear of a bad report!) to what punters expect at a meeting and what they won't tolerate.  It's too easy to see UKP as a bitching site, which is probably how it is seen by many girls, when all we want is value for money with a girl that matches her profile and does what it says on the tin. Those that don't should be wary about entering here.

+100

Offline punk

I personally think that WG has the right to defend her self, if the criticism is un fair or un warranted, its just how they go about it thats the problem.


For me, there are 3 things that need to be 100% accurate on an escort's profile..... A genuine photo, the girl's real age and her country of origin

I disagree because punters can always walk without having paid if they feel deceived over those things. I would cite worse deceptions - top of the list perhaps being lies about whether shower time cuts into punt time :)

Offline Ali Katt

I disagree because punters can always walk without having paid if they feel deceived over those things. I would cite worse deceptions - top of the list perhaps being lies about whether shower time cuts into punt time :)
The problem with walking is if you have invested an hour maybe even a few days in trying to organise a punt it's hard to walk. I think there's probably less than 10 profiles with the real age on.

Offline Jimmyredcab

I disagree because punters can always walk without having paid if they feel deceived over those things.

One tiny problem.
Sometimes I will drive round the M25 for an hour to see what I think is a suitable girl, if she has told me a pack of lies I will have wasted 2 hours of my time plus the cost of the fuel.   :bomb:

Offline punk

One tiny problem.
Sometimes I will drive round the M25 for an hour to see what I think is a suitable girl, if she has told me a pack of lies I will have wasted 2 hours of my time plus the cost of the fuel.   :bomb:

rather that than reward her for lies.

Offline Daffodil

rather that than reward her for lies.

Yes, but that's not the argument.

The point Jimmy is replying to is that there's nothing lost if you turn up and find the girl has lied. This isn't true, as you've lost the time taken to travel to and from and the cost of that.

Offline Dani

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,593
and here lies the problem if your going to allow wgs to join and post on here surely your going to get them defending themselves its human nature, imagine if it was tother way around and we could post on saafe with our real punter names and the wgs could say we were arseholes with bad teeth, fat, smelly etc, wouldn't you defend yourself ? course you would.


Why would they need to defend themselves though.  I have had comments made about the way I look, on here and I ignored them.  There is no point coming on and ranting when a comment or review is that persons own view.  You cannot argue about someones view of you as everyones view is personal to them.
a good prossie would know that she cannot appeal to everyone and would just ignore negative comments.  with a negative review she should know if what they wrote is true as in services not really on offer or old or fake photos etc and if it is should then apologise for whatever it was and offer to make amends in someway.  However if the review was just that they didn't click and he just didn't feel it but all services were offered then again no need to bother replying.

Its down to good business sense.  Going on a forum shouting that the punter is lying as they always offer this and that and always give a great service and the punter is a liar or a twat or whatever is just going to make herself look even worse (I think these posts should not be removed so other clients can see what her attitude is).

The best way to deal with it is either apologise if done something wrong or ignore if its just a personal view

Offline vorian

Why would they need to defend themselves though.  I have had comments made about the way I look, on here and I ignored them.  There is no point coming on and ranting when a comment or review is that persons own view.  You cannot argue about someones view of you as everyones view is personal to them.
a good prossie would know that she cannot appeal to everyone and would just ignore negative comments.  with a negative review she should know if what they wrote is true as in services not really on offer or old or fake photos etc and if it is should then apologise for whatever it was and offer to make amends in someway.  However if the review was just that they didn't click and he just didn't feel it but all services were offered then again no need to bother replying.

Its down to good business sense.  Going on a forum shouting that the punter is lying as they always offer this and that and always give a great service and the punter is a liar or a twat or whatever is just going to make herself look even worse (I think these posts should not be removed so other clients can see what her attitude is).

The best way to deal with it is either apologise if done something wrong or ignore if its just a personal view

As alway Dani,  imho a very sensible professional point of view.
Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Roland D Hay

Why would they need to defend themselves though.  I have had comments made about the way I look, on here and I ignored them.  There is no point coming on and ranting when a comment or review is that persons own view.  You cannot argue about someones view of you as everyones view is personal to them.
a good prossie would know that she cannot appeal to everyone and would just ignore negative comments.  with a negative review she should know if what they wrote is true as in services not really on offer or old or fake photos etc and if it is should then apologise for whatever it was and offer to make amends in someway.  However if the review was just that they didn't click and he just didn't feel it but all services were offered then again no need to bother replying.

Its down to good business sense.  Going on a forum shouting that the punter is lying as they always offer this and that and always give a great service and the punter is a liar or a twat or whatever is just going to make herself look even worse (I think these posts should not be removed so other clients can see what her attitude is).

The best way to deal with it is either apologise if done something wrong or ignore if its just a personal view

A very sensible viewpoint Dani but just wondered if you'd always been so pragmatic? I'm sure you won't mind me saying that you're a more mature WG so have you just developed a thick skin over the years or have you always been fairly laid back about these things?

Offline mattylondon

Personally I don't have a problem with WG's on here, one or two provide balanced and interesting input. Also, lets be honest, some of the funniest most entertaining threads relate to WG's spouting shite. So let them entertain us for at least a short while before smacking their bottoms (speaking euphemistically) and sending them on their way.
I'm not too concerned about creating 'balance'. Forums are not democracies; they are dictatorships. Even if that dictatorship operates within a general consensus. If anybody seeks a true balance, then they've joined the wrong forum. The site ethos is that the punter comes first. And rightly so.

I also think there's a common misconception about the purpose of SAAFE. I don't think punters have any business on SAAFE anymore than I believe prossies have any business being on UKP, but that is a personal opinion. I think auto-censored sits somewhere in the middle; or at least it used to!

Let's consider this without all the emotion of punter or prossie, male or female and look at it from customer perspective. The site ethos is crystal clear. I don't think UKP was created to give customers and service providers an equal say. Even if many customers value the contributions of service providers, the customers interest will always have primacy.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 07:54:19 PM by mattylondon »

Roland D Hay

I'm not too concerned about creating 'balance'. Forums are not democracies; they are dictatorships. Even if that dictatorship operates within a general consensus. If anybody seeks a true balance, then they've joined the wrong forum. The site ethos is that the punter comes first. And rightly so.

I also think there's a common misconception about the purpose of SAAFE. I don't think punters have any business on SAAFE anymore than I believe prossies have any business being on UKP, but that is a personal opinion. I think auto-censored sits somewhere in the middle; or at least it used to!

Let's consider this without all the emotion of punter or prossie, male or female and look at it from customer perspective. The site ethos is crystal clear. I don't think UKP was created to give customers and service providers an equal say. Even if many customers value the contributions of service providers, the customers interest will always have primacy.

Don't misunderstand me, when I use the word balance it is not with regard to a balance of rights, it is simply with regard to having an alternative viewpoint and I do occasionally find that useful.

Offline vorian

I'm not too concerned about creating 'balance'. Forums are not democracies; they are dictatorships. Even if that dictatorship operates within a general consensus. If anybody seeks a true balance, then they've joined the wrong forum. The site ethos is that the punter comes first. And rightly so.

I also think there's a common misconception about the purpose of SAAFE. I don't think punters have any business on SAAFE anymore than I believe prossies have any business being on UKP, but that is a personal opinion. I think auto-censored sits somewhere in the middle; or at least it used to!

Let's consider this without all the emotion of punter or prossie, male or female and look at it from customer perspective. The site ethos is crystal clear. I don't think UKP was created to give customers and service providers an equal say. Even if many customers value the contributions of service providers, the customers interest will always have primacy.

Quite right too. Putting the punters first.


Banning reason: Two faced - Slagging off UKP and it's membership using fake account

Offline Dani

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,593
A very sensible viewpoint Dani but just wondered if you'd always been so pragmatic? I'm sure you won't mind me saying that you're a more mature WG so have you just developed a thick skin over the years or have you always been fairly laid back about these things?

I have always had the attitude that you cannot argue over someones personal opinions.  After all we all have our own and everyone is entitled to theirs.  In fact I am less laid back now than I was when younger.
Its not even about being thicked skinned.  Its about common sense.  Screaming and shouting has never changed another persons view so why waste the time and effort to just make yourself look and feel worse

Offline mattylondon

Don't misunderstand me, when I use the word balance it is not with regard to a balance of rights, it is simply with regard to having an alternative viewpoint and I do occasionally find that useful.
I do understand you.  ;)

I should've clarified that I was addressing a point of view, often held. And yes, I understand that some punters like you, find that useful. For example, I've never had a problem with the concept of a prossie right of reply to a negative review, providing that they're not spouting rubbish. The problem with prossies replying to any positive review, is that all the fan boys come out to openly play footsie and it becomes borderline touting, in my opinion. If she wishes to thank a reviewer, keep it to PM. 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 08:30:16 PM by mattylondon »

Offline Sailormack

I'm not too concerned about creating 'balance'. Forums are not democracies; they are dictatorships. Even if that dictatorship operates within a general consensus. If anybody seeks a true balance, then they've joined the wrong forum. The site ethos is that the punter comes first. And rightly so.


Can you imagine a Gooner being invited onto the Spurs Fanzone to "create balance" :sarcastic:

Offline mattylondon

Can you imagine a Gooner being invited onto the Spurs Fanzone to "create balance" :sarcastic:
:drinks:

Offline Daffodil

I must admit, I do like prossies coming on to defend themselves. They invariably end up tying themselves in knots and looking more ridiculous and losing more custom than if they'd have just kept mum. Good sport  :drinks:


Latest media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)