Lexi (Edinburgh)

[Anndyy]

External Link/Members Only
70 HH

Cant give a negative review, since she did what she stated on her likes.
Photos are of her too. But she is not attractive in person. Not the prettiest face, has scars on her stomach (also its not fat, but strangely shaped, kinda cylindrical). Breast implants, they are ok. RO just not an option.
On the plus side, decent fuck and a good BJ, doesnt use hands too much and plenty of attention to the balls.

So yeah, neutral.
Would not return though.

[Marmalade]

External Link/Members Only
70 HH

Cant give a negative review, since she did what she stated on her likes.
Photos are of her too. But she is not attractive in person. Not the prettiest face, has scars on her stomach (also its not fat, but strangely shaped, kinda cylindrical). Breast implants, they are ok. RO just not an option.
On the plus side, decent fuck and a good BJ, doesnt use hands too much and plenty of attention to the balls.

How is it 'neutral' if, as I gather from your Review, you left unimpressed and didn't even enjoy it that much? Isn't that like saying, "If a prossie said on her profile that she gives crap service, and she delivered that, I couldn't call that a negative"...? The bj and fuck clearly wasn't so good to make you want to go back again.

It's not a criticisim, just I'm trying to understand how some people write reviews. Is there some objective standard against which we should all feel pleased with a punt even if we don't? (I know I'm using your review to raise a wider issue so don't take offence.)

[Anndyy]

Well yeah, its hard to find a clear line for this. With my previous reviews it was easy to write negative, because they didnt do things they advertised on their profiles (although one of them was pretty hot, so maybe that one should have been neutral). Anyways I thought she was not attractive at all, maybe somebody doesnt, i dont know. hard to find an obvious fault pictures are of her , although somewhat misleading. And she does offer services that she lists. I am hoping when people see neutral they will actually read the review, its definitely not a recommendation. Maybe is negative, you made me doubt my review. Definitely dont want to mislead anyone. There is AW for that.
I mean I get they dont want to piss off the WG. But using words like stunning and gorgeous, FFS man.

But anyways I've had "positive" punts before. So i'll know it when I see it and I'll post.

Also, not offended at all.

[DickDiver]

It's not a criticisim, just I'm trying to understand how some people write reviews. Is there some objective standard against which we should all feel pleased with a punt even if we don't? (I know I'm using your review to raise a wider issue so don't take offence.)

I've seen this question come up a few times Marm and I struggle with it whenever I have a less than satisfactory punt. In my head I have it straight but would be useful to debate. For me:

- neutral: wouldn't return because of prossie mis-selling on appearance but not service.  For example "little white lies" on size and age.
- negative: wouldn't return because of big black lies eg CIM or OWO with no intention, shite service or bad attitude

[Anndyy]

With lies I am just as annoyed at the AW crowd as the WGs themselves. They go way too far to promote. Some of the longer field reports are just ridiculously fluffy.

- neutral: wouldn't return because of prossie mis-selling on appearance but not service.  For example "little white lies" on size and age.
- negative: wouldn't return because of big black lies eg CIM or OWO with no intention, shite service or bad attitude

Looks good, nice to have a simple guideline to follow.

[DickDiver]

I hear what you are saying on the fluffy field reports - two paragraphs on the minutiae of a lacklustre handjob spun to sound magnificent but no mention of an arse so big that it has triggered a second ice age.