To my mind, accusing a WG of being Post-OP is potentially as serious and damaging to their custom as an accusation of harbouring an STI. It has the potential to ruin their business and livelihood. And perhaps even worse, since an STI 'gets better', a hole where a cock used to be, doesn't.
Accusing a WG of having an STI is not allowed on here of course, it's against the rules.
I'm not naive enough to think some WGs aren't Post-Op, clearly some are, they are lying and they are deceiving the punter. For most guys this is deeply offensive and even damaging. However, some of the WGs posted up as being Post-Op are to my eyes clearly not, good quality photos on profiles confirm that. Many of the accusations are from guys who have never even seen the girl IRL, along with all kinds of comments about jawlines and hands. The fact of the matter is, not all girls are sweet-looking and totally feminine, just as not all blokes look like Desperate Dan (if you're too young to know who he is, Google him to find a picture of someone who looks just like you do
).
May I make a suggestion? If a punter actually goes to see a WG and comes away thinking the girl is Post-Op, then of course put a clear warning in the review. That's quite correct and in keeping with site ethos. But having a thread(s) dedicated to warning punters about
possible Post-Ops is IMO deeply unfair (some of the ill-advised comments are laughable) because inevitably some of those 'opinions' will be incorrect and cause great damage to the girl's income.
So to be clear, within a review such comments would be fine, but threads dedicated to such amateur analysis would not be allowed. As for such allegations being part of a general discussion about the girl, then I think that is debatable. But threads dedicated to shooting down these WGs with no real evidence is deeply unfair.
