Author Topic: Sexy Thai Taryn - Nottingham NG5  (Read 959 times)


1 review(s) for Sexy Thai Taryn (0 positive, 0 neutral, 1 negative) [Indexed by Iloveoral]

Offline casualdragon69

External Link/Members Only

Short and Sweet - Not a great one, should have walked at the outset but wrong Brain was engaged.
 
Comms - Pretty decent, Time and location all Sorted, 30 mins + OWO (£100)

Venue - Newish Flats on the North Side of Town, a Stone throw from Sherwood

Girl - Here is where it fell apart from me, Photos are nothing like, Description is not close. Girl was around 5ft, and a lot larger than the sizes on the page, possibly size 14/16, facially not my type at all.

Action -
Onto a Massage to start very light and not really doing anything, after about 5 mins told me flip over, then spent next 5 mins using a foam cleaner, Wouldn't have been too bothered but id showered just before setting off,
Onto some OWO, not great, could feel the droop coming, so onto some Sex, a bit of Mish and some Doggy, no Noise what so ever.

Was not getting anywhere with that so she offered a HJ, this was Rough and no Rhythm, couldn't even get myself to pop so gave it up as a bad job, was in for the full 30 mins but just wish i hadn't been


Online scouting

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,731
  • Likes: 314
  •  
  • Reviews: 185
Two older profiles which I have indexed. She was well reviewed previously but from what I gather has removed DFK from her services. From your review it sounds like she's also put on some timber.

Offline koshkaj

That is not the same Thai Taryn that the other reviews are about. It is someone new who i suppose is trying to trade off her name.

I have confirmed this with the original SP in question, who is currently in Peterborough and has never been to Nottingham. She has not lost access to her AW account or phone number.

Don't think I can report the profile as there are lots of Taryns around these days and technically this one is just allowing punters to think she is the same, without explicitly saying that she is.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2026, 07:24:41 pm by koshkaj »

Online scouting

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,731
  • Likes: 314
  •  
  • Reviews: 185
That is not the same Thai Taryn that the other reviews are about. It is someone new who i suppose is trying to trade off her name.

I have confirmed this with the original SP in question, who is currently in Peterborough and has never been to Nottingham. She has not lost access to her AW account or phone number.

Don't think I can report the profile as there are lots of Taryns around these days and technically this one is just allowing punters to think she is the same, without explicitly saying that she is.

OK, if that's the case we need to check when this may have happened to unravel the indexing.
This is the 3rd review on this profile. I think I've worked it out;

It started when Benny8800 advised it was the same girl, he visited twice, once the old profile, next the new one  - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=444353.0
Welshpunter's was for Taryn_Thai_Busty including pics - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=454279.0

Maybe Benny 8800 was mistaken in his belief he had seen the same girl. Otherwise it would imply that the new profile for Taryn has been moved on very recently. The new profile also includes a line to say it replaces her old number. Maybe that should be reported?

Though I can see the profile for Taryn_Thai_Busty is still live, currently Peterborough and Sexy Thai Taryn is in Nottingham, so what you say makes sense.

I'll ask the Moderators if they can amend the indexing as follows;
this review is only for Sexy Thai Taryn
Welshpunters for Taryn_Thai_Busty & Beautiful Taryn Thai
Benny8800's also for Taryn_Thai_Busty & Beautiful Taryn Thai - although it was he who said Sexy Thai Taryn was the same girl they clearly aren't.

Offline koshkaj

Apologies for making extra work for you/mods and hope this does not come across as touting.

As soon as i saw the pics, i knew it was not the OG Taryn (plus in the year or so she has been working, to my knowledge she has never hidden her face), and i could potentially see this new profile racking up multiple negs under her name.

Perhaps there was a period where OG Taryn did use this ID which is why Benny said he had seen her? I see that in the link you posted to Benny's review I posted a month or so later with the current ID which was new at the time.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2026, 11:33:44 pm by koshkaj »

Online scouting

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,731
  • Likes: 314
  •  
  • Reviews: 185
Apologies for making extra work for you/mods and hope this does not come across as touting.

As soon as i saw the pics, i knew it was not the OG Taryn (plus in the year or so she has been working, to my knowledge she has never hidden her face), and i could potentially see this new profile racking up multiple negs under her name.

Perhaps there was a period where OG Taryn did use this ID which is why Benny said he had seen her? I see that in the link you posted to Benny's review I posted a month or so later with the current ID which was new at the time.

No probs, thanks for highlighting it. I thought it strange when I read she was size 14/16 but put that down to inaccuracy. I have summarised and requested indexing be changed, leaving Benny's as he said it was the original girl and your final paragraph may be correct.

Offline casualdragon69

I did look on here, and think I took some of those indexed reviews into account when I booked,

Will have to be more mindful when using Indexed ones that there is the risk of them not being the same provider,

If i had realised I would have marked it as a TOFTT

Online scouting

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,731
  • Likes: 314
  •  
  • Reviews: 185
I did look on here, and think I took some of those indexed reviews into account when I booked,

Will have to be more mindful when using Indexed ones that there is the risk of them not being the same provider,

If i had realised I would have marked it as a TOFTT

Yes you were unfortunate. This result was not due to your negligence, rather some fast practice by the new girl or her handlers. Ordinarily you would have been fine with your checking. Thankfully between us all we have reset the stats on this girl.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2026, 08:25:30 pm by scouting »