This is designed sort of as a (newbie) guide given some of the replies we've had to reports and to wanting feedback removed. It also serves as a guide to typical AW responses and UKPunting reviews. I've tried to make it as balanced and fair as I could. Also check out this thread: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=33152.0Punter:
"Cara Cumlips was disinterested, didn't offer OWO and DFK despite advertising it"Prossie response:
"Mouth smell of shit and the rest you don't even want to know"Reality:
These are classic\cliched prossie rebuttals. It is implied the man had a cheesy knob, maybe even genital warts or similar without saying it. Notice how the prossie hasn't denied not offering these services. She was simply caught out so used Ad Hominem, she might not have fancied the customer, but shouldn't be mis-advertising services.
If the man did have genital warts or stunk he should have been offered a shower or refund and sent on his way, notice how she took his money, indicating to me she is dishonest.Punter:
"Cara was fatter than in the pictures, looked a lot older than her stated age of 25 and had a different hair colour"Prossie response:
"The pictures are 100% me, I have put on some weight since, but other men like it. I've had no complaints"Reality:
The prossie used old pictures or possibly fake pictures as implied. There is no reason for the prossie to use old pictures, while some are busy it probably takes less than 30 mins to get a new picture taken. As for lying about her age, IMHO there is no excuse, just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right.Punter:
"A crap shag"Prossie response:
"Punt never happened"Reality:
A typical AW response. While a pimp or rival WG might use fake feedback to put people off seeing the competition, this is rare. The prossie wants to deny the punt took place rather than acknowledge her poor service. Punter:
"The worst on AW. Avoid."Prossie response:
"This man is a serial stalker. I refused booking"Reality:
If, it is a stalker it is a police matter. Let's not deny stalkers exist, but it seems to me everyone with bad feedback has one. A typical Ad hominem argument. If the punter has seen the girl multiple times and gave her a negative everytime, Why? In which case discount it as fake or a shit stirrer. AW girls can also block messages (and bookings) from members.Punter:
"Cara Cumlips was great, did everything on the tin and with enthusiasm, quiet discreet house in Nuneaton"Prossie response:
"These reports out me to my husband, kids and I have been threatened because of them. My kids are now in custody"Reality:
Maybe she didn't offer the services such as OWO to everyone and doesn't want other punters to find out. Maybe the husband twigged long before. But, I fail to see why it would be contentious or an issue, the only thing I could think of is if the prossie was planning on retiring. It is not the punter's responsibility for what goes on in a prossie's private life.Punter:
"Closed lips kissing, crap BJ tried mainly wanking me off, cowgirl and doggy tried to make me cum as quick as possible"Prossie response:
"This is untrue, since this report my phone has stopped ringing."Reality:
It's a case of who do you trust? A proper prossie rebuttal with the reasons why kissing wasn't offered, would be better. IMHO if the sex was that bad, I hope punters save their money and see someone else. As we all know one report is not enough to put a bad prossie "out of business".Punter:
"A cold experience, no English, rushed me out after 15 minutes, has a cum once policy, but said I could cum as many times as I liked on the profile"Prossie response:
"Man was a boundary pusher. Tried to do things I don't offer. He was also abusive. I asked him to leave".Reality:
We know prossies deal with abusive punters and I think woman beaters and the like should just fuck off and die. Her response is hidden in innuendo, abusive could mean a number of things at worst violent. Boundary pusher once again innuendo, the implication being he forced her to do something. Without clarification, the report is masked in innuendo by both parties, but if it was written by a trusted punter I would presume the punter was rushed out due to a double booking and a cum once policy (mis-advertised services). Maybe OWO was mis-advertised and the man asked for a refund. Once again, needs clarification.Punter:
"Looks 10/10, Personality 10/10, Service: 10/10, Location 10/10."Reality:
Write this off as an easily pleased fluffy. Obviously, looks and personality are subjective, but I've never met a prossie that is a 10/10 and nor will any girl with a tattoo score a 10 from me. I see these punters as trying to score brownie points for a future booking. Some may disagree on this one.Punter:
"Saw Cara Cumlips yesterday, boy can she talk, she looked disgusted when I suggest we have sex, after an OK blowjob and a bit of doggy, I came. She offered a massage I accepted, it was OK. With 10 minutes left on the clock it was clear she wasn't going to do round two"Prossie response:
"I thought that's what he wanted".Reality:
I have a theory many prossies use a check list or a sequence. This man should have been more communicative in what he wanted. I always check if I can cum more than once in an hour booking. The reality is this prossie had planned not to offer round 2 and offered an easier option in this case, massage instead to run the clock down. She was talking incessantly as implied, not necessarily to make him, be at ease or to be nice, but to run the clock down as the suggestion of sex was met with disgust. This is a disingenuous act, as the prossie was nice to him, not cold, offered the services listed and did them to an OK standard, but he didn't get value for money. It has happened to me in my early punting days and now it would be an automatic negative. While, the punter is not to blame, as she had no intention of offering a full on sexy session, he could have asked for sex earlier or not accepted an (OK) massage.Other rebuttals:
"If the man wanted to bang away for an hour like a rabbit he sould have seen someone else".
Erm. It's a bit like saying if someone want their pipes unblocking, they should get a different plumber.
"How dare you review me. We're not pieces of meat, we are human not "prossies" and I have a string of regulars".
A typical response. Once again, doesn't deny a bad service or tries to improve it. Can be discarded IMHO.
"You little dicks can't afford me anyway"
Often posted when prices are criticised. Once again, a person can pay what they deem reasonable given market values. And just because a punter chooses not to pay £400 an hour, doesn't mean they can't afford it.
"My adultwork pictures are copyrighted. I'm seeking leagal action"
Note the deliberate spelling mistake. We only link pictures which are widely available. None are uploaded to this site. Maybe they should chase people that upload rips of their webcams.
"This review is vile. Remove it now"
No-one wants a banned review list. No-one wants to see they can't review Cara Cumlips and can only review one girl from LMP a month and can't review threesomes.
"I wouldn't trust a review posted on a Neanderthal site full of sexist pigs"
She obviously, took time to read it. Maybe she is more used to the fawning "too much of a gent to say" reports that offer no value to the punter and are pointless. A lot of prossies do take this site seriously and a good review works wonders for their trade.