Author Topic: Gorgeous Georgia X- Guildford  (Read 4938 times)


111 review(s) for Gorgeous Georgia X (81 positive, 19 neutral, 11 negative) [Indexed by scutty brown]

Offline flylow

Link:

External Link/Members Only or External Link/Members Only

£120 for 45mins

Sorry, doing this on a small phone....

Met Georgia last month in Guildford. Comms to set up were easy, clear and straightforward through text.

At the alloted time I was given the flat number and easily accessed the building. Georgia met me behind the door and shown to bedroom. Flat is modern and clean and perfectly functional.

Georgia was in a lovely underwear set and stockings which she promptly removed as we were exchanging pleasantries. Personally, I like a bit more connection and build up and felt that we were missing a connection. However, I followed her lead and got onto the bed naked.

Georgia's description on her profile is accurate and she had a lovely pair of breasts and her body was as per her profile pics. She did seem to have a lot of foundation on her face but I still found her attractive.

Unfortunately we just didn't connect but I couldn't fault her attitude throughout. Whenever I gave her some direction she immediately complied. Her OWO was really good and not rushed. She was lovely to indulge in RO. Various positions during sex and happy to take my load across her breasts. It was just a bit functional and without intimacy.

I can't fault Georgia's service and she is a friendly, open girl....we just didn't click.

Would i go back....prob not.

Offline stonebow1

She's a bit like that to be fair. Unsmiling and a touch mechanical. But at the same time she's good at following instructions and is a very attractive girl.

Offline Bornslippy

Yep pretty crap tbh. She still has those God awful photos on her profile too  :dash:

Offline timsussex

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,340
  • Likes: 86
  •  
  • Reviews: 33

Offline Bornslippy


Offline Steve2

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,510
  • Likes: 35
  •  
  • Reviews: 95

Offline timsussex

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,340
  • Likes: 86
  •  
  • Reviews: 33
17 is a bit young mate  :cool:

very good - actually you got the right digits but the wrong order !

Offline DouglasReynholm

Hidden Image/Members Only

Perhaps shouldn't call herself that. Still, 103 reviews and 77+ though.

Offline JonasG

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,232
  • Likes: 60
  •  
  • Reviews: 129
She's a weird one lol.

No denying her strike rate but so many of her positives when you read them aren't actually that glowing but she seems to do just enough to rack up the positives.

Offline Bornslippy

Most of her clients are happy with a rather lacklustre punt, but over the moon that a young girl will let them fuck her....i gave her a positive few years ago but looking back it really should have been a neutral. I wouldn't return. And yes, gorgeous is a bit of a trading standards issue....

Offline sensualencounter

She's a weird one lol.

No denying her strike rate but so many of her positives when you read them aren't actually that glowing but she seems to do just enough to rack up the positives.
Completely agree with you and bornslippy. It’s like she just about does enough to scrape the positive but her attitude seems to be often stand-offish. It does appear that she scores bonus points for being fairly young and that’s what tips a lot of reviews into positive territory. This again highlights the importance of reading the reviews and not just taking the numbers of positives / neutrals / negatives. The devil is in the detail.

As for her looks, then they are always going to be subjective and she’ll be gorgeous to some and not to others. But she does at least have face pics, so any punter will he fully aware of who they’re getting before booking. If she’s not your cup of tea then don’t book, that’s what I’d say.

Offline Imnotreallyhere1991

As others have said, the gorgeous part of her name is absolutely up for debate. I'd say facially she's probably about a 4/10 imo...

Also, does anyone else get the impression that she's not completely there from her photos?

Offline DouglasReynholm

As others have said, the gorgeous part of her name is absolutely up for debate. I'd say facially she's probably about a 4/10 imo...

Also, does anyone else get the impression that she's not completely there from her photos?
That's rich coming from someone who says they're not really here. In 1991 for some reason. But yes and there are hundreds of them. You should subscribe to this thread: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=10615.msg3865640#msg3865640

Offline Imnotreallyhere1991

That's rich coming from someone who says they're not really here. In 1991 for some reason. But yes and there are hundreds of them. You should subscribe to this thread: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=10615.msg3865640#msg3865640

I'm sorry, Matt Berry. At least I'm not throwing myself out the window like your father :P

Thanks for opening my eyes to that thread, some lookers on there!