Author Topic: Sweety Reiko, Mayfair  (Read 4052 times)


3 review(s) for this service provider (AdultWork - 5839454) (0 positive, 0 neutral, 3 negative) [Indexed by WARSZAWA16]

Offline zoeh01

Link:  External Link/Members Only

First of three meets to report from the short period between lockdowns.

Comms:  The comms were fine, or at least I thought they were at first - see below. Reasonably quick and comprehensible responses to all my texts.

Location: A rather odd apartment block just off Portland Place. It’s been referred to in other reviews, and has a weird, almost dream like quality - not in a particularly nice way. Kind of Adams Family meets Rising Damp.

Paid: £100 for a hour. But I didn’t stay the hour.

Looks: Nothing like the photos on the website. Rather than the petite willowy Asian beauty they promise, she is dumpy, plain faced, spotty, greasy haired and sweaty.  Not ugly but in no way attractive, at least not to me. And it certainly doesn’t look like she showers between punts.   Not the first time I’ve found myself paying for sex with a woman who I wouldn’t consider trying to pick up in a pub even if she was offering it free.

Service: This is where it went badly wring, I said what I wanted by text before the booking (just massage, B2 and oral) and she said OK. I confirmed again before I handed the money over and she said yes again, But then the service was awful. A complete non-massage – basically she just squeezed my legs a bot and tweaked my nipples. No attempt at any B2B and no oral – she just wanted to give me a hand job. I complained and started to get dressed to leave. She then claimed I hadn’t asked for either B2B or a BJ, but after showing her the texts she claimed she didn’t understand them and agreed to do a BJ. I shouldn’t have bothered because it was possibly the worst BJ I have had in my life – toothy, very shallow and basically her wanking me off with her lips on the bell end.  I’m not sure how I managed to come but I did, although it is the least pleasurable one I have had for some time.

Would I go again: What do you think?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 12:11:40 am by zoeh01 »

Online Alexmck

Might need to change to a negative

Offline zoeh01


Offline Dashing

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,613
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 4
Many thanks for the review :hi: zoeh01. Sorry to hear the experience was so disappointing.

Is even a single one of the photos her at all? If not, might be useful to add 'B&S' to the title of the review unless too late to do so. Would give the most explicit warning to this profile, currently seeking to sting punters for £150hh/£200hr.

Also, did you get any sense of her age? Profile is stating '21'.

...Looks: Nothing like the photos on the website. Rather than the petite willowy Asian beauty they promise, she is dumpy, plain faced, spotty, greasy haired and sweaty.  Not ugly but in no way attractive, at least not to me. ...
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 12:38:29 am by Dashing »

Offline zoeh01

She probably is in her early 20ss and seems inexperienced more than wilfully useless. But that and her disappointing body, looks and hygiene do not make for a good experience. Most of the photos are definitely not her. One or two may just be her, but I would guess not,,

Offline Dashing

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,613
  • Likes: 1
  •  
  • Reviews: 4
Linking in relevant comments by @SamOmar from a separate thead:

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=294970.0 

The varying descriptions of the SP ('she is tall' vs 'she is dumpy') raise the possibility the 'Sweet Reiko' profile is shared between different SPs, the only common factor so far being the incompetentent provision of basic services.

Offline SamOmar

Linking in relevant comments by @SamOmar from a separate thead:

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=294970.0 

The varying descriptions of the SP ('she is tall' vs 'she is dumpy') raise the possibility the 'Sweet Reiko' profile is shared between different SPs, the only common factor so far being the incompetentent provision of basic services.

I think we saw the same lady just better described n this review, I wish he had saw my comments and saved some money. The lady I saw was tall size 10 but with no curves and definitely not accretive. The pictures on the profile are correct but they are heavily retouched with a myriad of filters and certain angles that make them look ok. The service although he opted for a massage was on par.
Banned reason: Undesirable, convicted sex trafficker / pimp
Banned by: daviemac