West wrote:
"A certain touring WG who is a forum favorite told me something I found hard to believe: that after paying for her travel, food, toiletries and hotel, she often failed to break even."
And so you argued from the specific to the general, which I'm afraid is fallacious. You cannot generalise like that. All it proved was that at least one WG wasn't making a lot of money at that time.
I know some very well off WGs that don't always make ends meet on tours but do it partly for the enjoyment of travel and if they make good money that's a nice bonus (these girls are financially secure enough to do so). Also ones that do it for fun, have zero business sense, get a two hour booking and blow the lot the same night and find they only have the bus fare for an outcall in one direction. The amount of variations is truly staggering and I think that is one of the reasons why punters with perhaps rather broader experience have ridiculed you (but these things quickly snowball, for instance...) :
Your rating system is a nice try but looks like a beginner's stab to squeeze more out of artificially engineered number-crunching that can be supported by reality:
P - Personality
A - Attitude
L - Looks
S - Service
Looks and Service are simple observable categories.
Looks should, I think, also include a mention of whether the photos in the advert or other sources of expectation were accurate, but unless you happen to be blind as well as sex-goggled most people will agree that a film star is better looking than a fat middle-aged woman with acne and a hairy chin. But, as with all the categories, a rating only has meaning if it is compared to something. Prostitutes do not, believe me, look like film stars. So the easiest comparison-set is "other prostitutes. Now if the "other prostitutes" in your admittedly very small sample (out of tens of thousands) are all in the 8 to 10 range, then there is little point in having a ratings with more than three options.
You could perhaps instead have
"Good / neutral / poor." Another advantage of this IMHO would be it also avoids giving the false impression that such things can be judged with such a high degree of accuracy as to distinguish by a tenth of a degree.
(I admit that there is also a common parlance between long-time international punters that uses a rough "out of ten" but not in a way to suggest that it is that accurate or any more than a personal rough estimation. Your reviews are really not in that vein.) Good/neutral/poor might be an easier option, as long as you spread them about a bit (if they are all going to be more or less equal then not much point in mentioning it though is there?)
Service is really about services received, whether services advertised were offered or refused, and whether the services received were performed "well". Again, if someone thinks every prostitute he has seen has given a good blowjob (out of good/neutral/poor) one has to ask, compared to what? His wife? Shaggy the sheepdog?
Personality and Attitude are only really meaningful if battened down a bit. A prostitute's personality is actually either no business of punters; or else, if you happen to discover it outside of her working performance, not really relevant as it relates to her as Janet Thomson or whoever, not as "Selina Seductress the AW Shag" or "Selina Slag the High-Class Coutesan", who performs a service with whatever personality she can conjure up for the job. Easier to merge them into one and base a rating, (good, poor or neutral), on observable factors. Was she pleasant, polite, threw herself into the work? was she avoiding interacting much just doing it as if on a production line? was she downright rude, shortchanging on time, uncooperative over simple things, using her mobile phone during the time you had paid for? These are all useful to know.
Venue & Comms is often mentioned, as a smelly bed with noisy people in the next room and a shitty or unsafe area that is hard to get to ruins a punt for some people. Comms just looks at how much time she wasted (or didn't) in setting up the appointment.
UKP only has three categories for reviews. There's not much need for additional ratings although I personally think a note on the above lines is useful, especially confined to observable things. If I met another punter after a punt and we shared a pint, his experience might be worth a quick word: it only relates to one of many he has had and many I have had. So I'd probably expect him to say something like "Yeah, it was pretty good" or "It was ok, emptied my balls" or "Nah, it was a bit rubbish, best avoided." That for me would be three meaningful categories. If I asked him for more info (ie red the review beyond positive/neutral/negative) I'd probably want to know the sort of things mentioned above, just enough to bear in mind should I happen to think of seeing her in preference to many others. I won't take his opinion as gospel, just his opinion, but nice to know.
Vast detail about what you did with your knob might be entertaining for a few minutes in a crowd after a few beers. But I do know what a blow job is, thanks, without having it explained!
Good luck. You have set yourself a bit of a hill to climb. Maybe considering throttling back a bit.
