Author Topic: Kinky_Cindyy - Adultwork  (Read 6461 times)


4 review(s) for Kinky_Cindyy (3 positive, 0 neutral, 1 negative) [Indexed by ]

Jason

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
MEETING DETAILS:
Escort name: Cindy (AW nickname: Kinky_Cindyy)
Website: External Link/Members Only (image form External Link/Members Only)
Phone: 07749613616
Date of Visit: June 2015, Type of Visit: Incall (Paddington W2)
Current price structure: 0.5h £80, 1h: £120, 1.5h: £160, 2h £200, 3h: £300
Time Spent: 1.5 hour, Fee Paid: £160

PREAMBLE:
Cindy is a Lithuanian international escort having previously worked in several other countries and her stay in London will be short (leaving in one week). She says she goes back to Lithuania for holidays but it is unclear whether she will return to the UK after that. I wouldn't normally write a review for such a supposedly short-lived profile but like with the case of her compatriot Aviv (who had eerie similarities) and Jazmin I will make an exception to this rule. In fact I would rank Cindy as highly as Aviv or Jazmin but some negatives (neutrals mostly actually) prevent this high ranking/title. Still a very positive experience. For the record she is currently working in the same establishment as the well-known Sweet & Kinky Nicole who apparently now works for a new pimp according to some previous comments on here. Anyway here is the review.

ABOUT THE VENUE: (mostly positive)
A flat in W2, 4 mins walk from Paddington tube station. Location is very discreet and quite. The flat is shared between 4 girls (Cindy, Amanda, Nicole and Nat). Apparently there are 4 bedrooms (presumably one being a converted living room) and one bathroom. Cindy’s bedroom is good sized (about 16-18sq metres), equipped with a nice bed, clean and tidy.  You can see Cindy’s bedroom in External Link/Members Only. As you can see in this pic there is a wardrobe with mirror doors which provides good visuals during shagging. The room was relatively hot and it wasn’t that hot outside so imagine what will happen when it is hotter. The window was opened (although with the shutters closed) but it made little difference. Instead the wind was annoyingly blowing the shutter back and forth. Anyway. Soundproofing wasn’t the best either as I could hear the flat door opening and closing whenever her flatmates were welcoming their clients (that said I couldn't hear any of the sex action once the clients entered the bedrooms). Regarding the bathroom it is shared with the other 3 girls but it is nonetheless clean. It has shower/bathtub, the water pressure is good and there is a good amount of shower gels. A fresh towel was handed to me by Cindy at the beginning of our session. Overall a decent venue for the purpose.

ABOUT THE ESCORT’S PHYSICAL APPEARANCE: (positive)
Cindy is a beautiful girl in her early-20s (age 22y.o. is real, she was born in 1992). She has dyed beach blond hair with black roots. The pictures are genuine but especially this External Link/Members Only doesn't do her justice. This other External Link/Members Only captures her beauty better and I would say it is accurate. In the flesh she reminded me Australian actress Margot Robbie as in External Link/Members Only albeit Margot is a couple of clicks better looking. External Link/Members Only showing her body is a bit unflattering. Not that the body in the pic is not good but compared to the 3D real version it is. She is better than that. Her height is 5ft8in-5ft9in (1.74m barefoot) –note that the height 5ft5in currently stated in her profile is a mistake. Her dress size is 6-7 and has a perfectly shaped, pair of 32C boobs. Like her compatriot Aviv, she possesses a ballerina-photomodel slender type of body although in Cindy’s case her body has not yet been utilised for these purposes. All in all Cindy is quite stunning. According to External Link/Members Only which you can read here her face score is 8.8-8.9/10 and her body score 9.4/10. Overall 9.2/10.

ABOUT THE ESCORT’S PERSONALITY: (mostly positive)
Cindy is quite friendly and polite. She is modest, honest and down to Earth. Not an extrovert or bubbly personality, rather serious instead but nonetheless smiling and during sex she was quite playful and cheeky. We did have some good moments, with laughter and humorous remarks to matters related to sex. Any other conversation though for as long as it lasted was quite awkward and one-sided. Her English is not bad but any topic I initiated was answered rather monosyllabically. From a social skills point of view I am partly to blame as well as I wasn’t quite in the mood to employ them properly and since Cindy draws a very clear line between her life and escorting, starting topics requiring some background about herself (even a very little background) proved the wrong way to go. In retrospect I figured out about what I could change and what I should have talked but yet again given that 95% of our time was sexual that awkward conversation didn't last long enough to bother me to force me to come up with better ideas. On the other hand it shouldn't be the punters’ responsibility to work hard to engage a girl in a full blown conversation. After all it is not like trying to pick up a civvie girl in the bar. Anyhow I wouldn't suggest booking Cindy for longer than 1 or 1.5hr but if you do book her for a longer meeting make sure you avoid making the same mistakes that I made and choose your topics carefully so that you get her out of her guard mode, get her interested and engage her more. Good luck with this…

OTHER FACTS
1. Cindy says she has been working as an escort for 2 years and that prior to her arrival in the UK she worked in several wealthy EU countries. To be honest I didn't find her to be that experienced but anyway.
2. Her level of English is currently B1-B2 as that is defined by External Link/Members Only
3. She is leaving UK (supposedly for good), because escorting in UK is not profitable enough. She wants to charge a higher fee (as she did elsewhere). She believes she deserves to be priced higher but market dynamics and saturation don't let her do so in London. What I write in italics is what she told me when I asked her why she is leaving London for good. Interestingly this was the same reason quoted by her compatriot Aviv (who also departed for good) and Aviv was even priced £200ph. I guess that those guys in Brussels are richer than us but can a girl in Brussels really sustain back to back bookings at £500ph? It never ceases to amaze me how WGs fail to realise one simple thing: In the long term the maximum they can make per day or per week is fixed no matter how much they charge per hour.

ABOUT THE MEETING:
(A) Meeting arrangement: (positive)
Sent a few texts which were answered promptly and accurately. Got the address and when there I called her to get the number. I spoke to Cindy on the phone – not to a receptionist. That said I can't tell about the texts. My impression is that there is a receptionist but due to the time and day it happened Cindy to be free and answered the phone herself. Anyhow.

(B) During the meeting: (positive)
Cindy greeted me wearing a nice black dress. Very pleased with the way she looked and behaved so I went straight for 1.5hr (£160). The original plan was to start with 1hr and extend but she wanted to know from the beginning. Fair enough. I went to the bathroom to take a shower and my return we started. By the way she no longer offers a duo service with Amanda (not sure whether she does with her other two flatmates - my guess is no).

Services used: French kissing with tongue, protected vaginal penetration sex in several positions, OWO, cunnilingus, clit stroking, CIM, handjob.

POSITIVES :
1. Very passionate proper, sensual, prolonged French kissing. Also worth mentioning that she was constantly initiating French kissing.
2. Quite playful attitude during foreplay. Despite the issue about the monosyllabic conversation answers, the things during sex were different. During sex she was cheeky and generally the GFE illusion factor was quite high. If we had “clicked” better the gfe illusion would have perfect.
3. Very enthusiastic and passionate during sex and she really gets into it.
4. Responsive during RO. I believe she genuinely orgasmed when after prolonged cunnilingus I combined it with fingering (nb. she doesn't normally allow fingering).
5. Willing to please and hard working. Obliged to every request about positioning, etc. She had me smiling when at some point after instructing her in quick succession two different things she humorously said: “OK boss” and and gave me a French kiss.
6. She appears to enjoy herself. Although she is quite quiet her reactions were genuine with no fake moans.
7. Very nice sensual sloppy slow blowjob (OWO). Also CIM offered and taken (she spits).
8. Good handjob. Initially was way too soft but after giving her feedback her strokes became harder and close to ideal. Eye contact during HJ as well.
9. She didn't rush me to cum.
10. In an hours’ booking or longer you can cum as many times as you can.
11. No clockwatching (meeting even went overtime by 4-5mins).
12. Freshly showered.
13. Nicely presented with very nice dress and lingerie.
14. Punctual (meeting started on time).

NEUTRALS :
1. No shower together.
2. She prefers CIM over COB. Also COF is not available but yet again facials are on her enjoys list either so fair enough.
3. No deepthroating.
4. No ball licking/ball sucking.
5. Although she did let me finger her while she was approaching orgasm via oral, she doesn’t normally permit fingering and she refused it later on.
6. Cowgirl was a bit amateurish. Not bad but it could have been a lot better.
7. No dirty talking. But she is more GFE and not PSE as she states on her profile.
8. As I said she is generally quite genuine in her moaning. So beware that if you don’t get her off she will appear as passive or going though the motions. I know because there were two phases. One that I did got her off and one afterwards where I didn't.

NEGATIVES :
1. No 69 position. Despite offering OWO and despite accepting RO she is not comfortable in getting into the 69 position. I initially though she was playfully joking (as she said no and went down for OWO) but later it became very clear she was serious by explicitly refusing 69 when I insisted. When I questioned it her response was that she just doesn’t like it because she is not comfortable with it.

CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL VERDICT:
Overall Cindy is a very decent GFE style punt. Don't pay too much attention to my critical points about her service and personality. That is just what separates her from being amongst the very best. I don't know whether she will return after her holidays but if she sorts out some of these points I raised she might well get to the top. But in any case she is a high quality punt even as she is now. You certainly won't regret meeting her. I can certainly recommend her as a very good VFM Central London WG for combination of looks and available services. If she returns I will visit her again. 

DETAILED SCORES ABOUT THE ESCORT:
Attractiveness/Beauty: 9.2/10 (face score: 8.9/10; body score 9.4/10) – ratings are based on this scale and criteria
Patience & Politeness/Friendliness: 10/10
GFE illusion: 8.5/10
Willingness to please: 9.6/10
Energy: 9.2/10
Participation & Enthusiasm: 9.6/10
Expression of enjoy: 9.4/10
Available services: 9.2/10
Quality of available services: 9.4/10
Hygiene Standard: 10/10
Health level: 10/10
English level: 7.5/10
Location: 9.5/10
Premises: 7.0/10
Block’s Entrance Discretion: 9.5/10
Smoker status: Smoker (the smell/taste was faint though due to the usage of mouthwash)
Tattoos: Yes, two small ones.
Non-ear piercings: Yes, three small on the navel (as shown in the profile pic)
Quality/price ratio: V. Good

NONMENCLATURE OF SUBSECTIONS RATINGS:
positive=4.5 or 5 stars, mostly positive=3.5 or 4 stars, mixed=2 or 3 stars, negative=0 or 1 stars
neutral=something that either doesn't bother me personally generally or didn't bother me at the time although it would be preferable if it were available or avoided (depending on the subject). It might be decisive for others though that is why is mentioned.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 07:32:25 pm by Jason »

password02

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
Thanks Jason - she is a very stunning looking girl - great looks and if I had not booked a session already this week i would have seen her this week easy.

Shame she is leaving would love to see her

Offline PLeisure

Thanks, as always, for another immaculate review

On reflection, and with the benefit of hindsight, would you say that 1hr is sufficient to enjoy her services?

cheers,  :hi:

Offline Mr Br1ghts1de

Excellent detailed review as ever Jason and thanks for sharing.

Looks pretty, hopefully she will stick around and improve in the areas you mention.

Jason

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
On reflection, and with the benefit of hindsight, would you say that 1hr is sufficient to enjoy her services?
Generally I prefer longer bookings, especially 2hr ones, so when I say 1 or 1.5hr maximum it is because the girl is not suitable for a longer booking. I believe one hour should be sufficient for most punters to sample Cindy but personally I would do again the 1.5hr as the difference of £40 is relatively small and I can cover easily the vast majority of a 90min booking with sex or sex related activities. But I wouldn't recommend 2hrs.

----------------------

By the way I spotted two new girls working for agencies with the same postcode as the one of Cindy and Amanda. I thought they were Nicole’s and Nat’s substitutes in that 4 bedroom flat but I texted Cindy’s maid and she told me they are the neighbours next flat and unrelated (as such I couldn’t book directly these two girls). She also told me that Nicole and Nat will return next week. The "rival neighbours" are listed below. Manuela and Autumn are considerably more expensive (£200 and £180 respectively) but that is mainly due to the agencies taking £50 commission for a phone call!  :wacko:
 
1. Manuela: External Link/Members Only
2. Autumn: External Link/Members Only

Offline PLeisure

Very nice. External Link/Members Only in particular.
 - regrettably, £180/hr is beyond my budget but they do look good.

Thanks also for the clarification over recommended times with Ky_Cy.

Offline tigerfeet

9.2 out of 10? Please, I've seen this girl and she's a solid 6.5/10 girl next door but no more than that. Nice, firm athletic body (probably a 7/10) with good tits but in no way would I describe her as photomodel or at all ballerina like. Overall a nice girl willing to please (happy to kiss). Age must be between 25 to 29 (she has very faint lines on her forehead that no 22 year old would ever have). Not in a country mile of Margot Robbie.
If she is 9.2/10 then Angelica of Barracuda / Kelly of Peachy I saw recently must have been a 20 (and that was probably her real age too)
Sorry if this is a bit harsh, but this is probably acedemic as she's off very soon
I like the cute little elevator in the building though - I give it 8/10

Jason

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
9.2 out of 10? Please, I've seen this girl and she's a solid 6.5/10 girl next door but no more than that. Nice, firm athletic body (probably a 7/10) with good tits but in no way would I describe her as photomodel or at all ballerina like. Overall a nice girl willing to please (happy to kiss). Age must be between 25 to 29 (she has very faint lines on her forehead that no 22 year old would ever have). Not in a country mile of Margot Robbie.
If she is 9.2/10 then Angelica of Barracuda / Kelly of Peachy I saw recently must have been a 20 (and that was probably her real age too)
Sorry if this is a bit harsh, but this is probably acedemic as she's off very soon
I like the cute little elevator in the building though - I give it 8/10

I like responding to the bullocks of these “critical” lurkers who instead of writing their own reviews come to shit on the reviews of others.
 
For starters a lower score doesn't make you a stricter judge or “Mr harder to please” if this is how you want to come across. I have a very particular set of rules when I judge attractiveness which I defined and documented in detail in my scale. You can read all about it External Link/Members Only. The scale uses decimal figures for a reason and each 0.1 carries a significant weight particularly when I judge facial attractiveness. If by awarding lower scores you think you are acting like a supreme harsh judge then fair enough go on and give low scores. But personally I pay way more attention in how accurately my scores represent reality. In my scale Margot Robbie’s face score is 9.4/10 at her best. And Cindy is in no way “girl next door”. She is 8.8-8.9 in that very same scale according to my judgement. As look at External Link/Members Only and External Link/Members Only of your 25year old Margot Robbie before you say she is a country mile ahead of Cindy or that Cindy is 25-29.

Regarding bodies, as I said in the description of my scale I am much more generous as each punter has a different type when it comes to bodies which is way more diverse than that of faces. But I reward particularly slimness and height and for that Cindy gets top scores losing only on the boobs size category. If you think that Cindy does not have a photomodel type of body then sorry but you have zero knowledge of photomodel requirements and perhaps you confuse them with glamour models or pornstars which are typically shorter girls with big boobs and/or big ass and/or hourglass figure.

As for the “20/10” agency Kelly/Angelica I am not aware of her neither you reviewed her. As I have pretty much punted or hotlisted any agency girl priced up to £350ph that has caught my eye that means her pics didn't catch my eye when she still had a profile so in my quick evaluation for her photoshopped pics she was most probably under 8/10 in my judgement. You also described Gia of Diva as “super-hot” which illustrates how differently we judge girls as Gia for me is a 7-7.5/10 at best. You also described Hannah as having an “outstanding body” and Jennifer Pussy as having a stunning body. I really can't see how you can say this about Hannah and Jennifer and yet  say that Cindy is a next door 6.5-7/10. But each to their own.

Finally rather than coming here to criticise my scoring system why don't you write your own review and use your own scores for us to see your taste and by comparison understand the calibration of your own scoring system? And before you say that Cindy is leaving and that’s why you didn't post a review about her surely she is not the only girl you have seen since your last review here back in February and you never mentioned that super hot Kelly of Peachy up until now.  I see you used to post reviews on prossienet. Either fuck off back there or start contributing here. The easiest thing is to be a lurker or a pundit and unfortunately we have plenty of those pathetic creatures here. :hi:

Offline poi

Quote
why don't you write your own review and use your own scores for us
+1

Quote
I've seen this girl and she's a solid 6.5/10 https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=60661.msg783816#msg783816

If you really seen her Please write your review

password02

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
A very good reply Mr Jason especially your last paragraph IMO says it all 100%

abad

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Guest
9.2 out of 10? Please, I've seen this girl and she's a solid 6.5/10 girl next door but no more than that. Nice, firm athletic body (probably a 7/10) with good tits but in no way would I describe her as photomodel or at all ballerina like. Overall a nice girl willing to please (happy to kiss). Age must be between 25 to 29 (she has very faint lines on her forehead that no 22 year old would ever have). Not in a country mile of Margot Robbie.
If she is 9.2/10 then Angelica of Barracuda / Kelly of Peachy I saw recently must have been a 20 (and that was probably her real age too)
Sorry if this is a bit harsh, but this is probably acedemic as she's off very soon
I like the cute little elevator in the building though - I give it 8/10

could not find angelica nor kelly?