Author Topic: Ruby - Kings Heath  (Read 3778 times)


5 review(s) for Diamond Ruby 87  (3 positive, 0 neutral, 2 negative) [Indexed by Littlefoot]

Offline P.O.G

External Link/Members Only or External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

Comms were easy, phonecall, she text over her postcode, and I call her on arrival, which she directed me in. It's not very discreet as it's a cul de sac with houses surrounding either side, and you cannot park in her cul de sac, as there's no spaces, but parking on the road just off her grove is fine.

Looks and bodywise Amber is in my opinion really attractive. She a few years older than me, as she's listed as 31, but could pass for younger. She's probably a size 12-14 with fantastic breasts and a curvy ass. She has a protruding tummy, but it's not huge and I didn't mind. Really really pretty face too.

We both stripped and I was rock hard instantly, we mutually touched and explored each other bodies. I couldn't keep my hands of hers. There didn't seem to be any french kissing on offer, and I didn't pursue it either. I think she gave me owo but I really cannot remember, but it was pretty good. sloppy with head twisting, she really went for it energetically (no deep-throat but this doesn't bother me at all). From there I requested doggy, to which was declined as she didn't want me to hurt her. So I settled for me on top in missionary. Her pussy was pretty tight, and we fucked with me on top for the rest of the duration. If I'm honest she wasn't the freshest in the hygiene department. She's quiet in the early stages, but once she gets into it, she gets vocal and makes the right noises.

This should really be a neutral with the lack of french kissing, no doggy, and the sub par hygiene, but I find her really attractive, so that pushes her to a positive. I've actually seen her a few times since with french kissing on offer. Her hygiene however was up and down (one day clean, another day sub par). If she wasn't my type in the face and body department, she'd be neutral or possibly negative.

Another thing to note, she's £10 cheaper on her vivastreet profile.

I think I'm caught up on my reviews now.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 09:02:13 pm by P.O.G »

Offline inbruges

Thanks for the info on this one as I've been debating whether to see her. That would definitely be a negative in my eyes.

Offline Thexan

When you mention hygiene is it bad breath, smelly pussy or BO?

Looking at her pics she seems right up my street but the hygiene thing is an issue as well as lack of DFK.

Offline smiley9

Thanks OP Your Punt Your Review

However Poor Hygiene and not allowing Doggy would have been a Negative from me  :timeout:

          :drinks:

Online Jasonk71

A hoe with bad hygiene  eeeewww

Offline P.O.G

When you mention hygiene is it bad breath, smelly pussy or BO?

Looking at her pics she seems right up my street but the hygiene thing is an issue as well as lack of DFK.

Not bad breath, unfresh smelling pussy

Offline Spurt

How is this not a negative, all for accentuating the positive but this takes the biscuit.

Offline jimmymac

How is this not a negative, all for accentuating the positive but this takes the biscuit.

Totally agree. I know it's up to the OP to say if it was a negative, neutral or positive, but surely with the poor hygiene in particular this has to be at the very least a neutral if not a negative.



Offline Arbetare

Damn shame about the hygiene side of things because otherwise, Ruby nails what I look for physically in an SP. The W.Mids is a desert for similar so it's doubly disappointing.