Gonna do a Tom Brady and pop back in for a minute, then re-retire. Cause a new sports analogy hit me. Can't just keep that to myself, can I?
Now to answer this question since I promised to.
And yeah, you did fulfill your promise. I was feeling extra cranky yesterday, because of this damn thread. But then I remembered I was failing to follow the teachings of our beloved Saint Victoria H and her infinite grace. (Speaking of which, recently met DDY Grace - might be worth it in a pinch, but doesn't strike me as a must see). Infinite grace isn't easy. But last night Saint Victoria H sent a spectre to me in my dreams, a vision of Christmas Whores Past. A ghost with DDs (at least) and a teeny tiny waist, and in this vision I was doing all sorts of unspeakable mutually consenting and mutually gratifying things. When I awoke my Tiny Tim had transformed into a rock hard Christmas Goose. (OK, Christmas Goose is a little weird here, true, but let's go with it anyway). Better yet, I was able to book that past fav for today and make her my Whore of Christmas (season) present. So my mojo is back and I'm in a much better mood today. Not a bad way to start the year.
I do appreciate that, big picture, you're on the right side of history here. Yay! I ask you in return show some grace to me, because your nitpicks had some modifiers that could come over as unduly confrontational. But let's just call that some combination of sloppy writing and simple misreading - because who has the time to read the whole thing through? - and assert your heart is in the right place. Lesson: modifiers are important! Use them with care.
So to everyone who has ever used "very very" and to everyone who has ever urinated, my sincerest apologies.
Glad we all agree this review was problematic to say the least. But let's address these minor nits.
Let's start, AGAIN, with how we talk about looks.
No, this was not a critique from an English Composition 101 perspective.
I thought I was clear the first three times that I believe it's more than OK, that it's important to speak honestly about your impressions on a girl's appearance. I have used "overrated" myself from time to time. I even said leading with the title "very very overrated in looks" is not inherently sociopathic. I'm saying that is unnecessarily rude. But I'll stand by "abnormal". Not abnormal in the sense that the writer of such a phrase automatically suffers from some abnormal personality disorder, but it's abnormally and unnecessarily rude.
When you're talking about a girl's looks, sorry, it's NOT exactly the same as a Yelp review. There's a big difference between "the steak at Peter Lugar is very very overrated but the burger is good" vs "she is very very overrated in looks, but her service is good". These are human beings and that is simply hurtful to any woman in a way that the steak critique is not hurtful to the owners or chefs at Peter Luger. And in a way that is unnecessary - the extra verys don't add any information, just cause extra hurt. I do think it's incumbent on all of us as decent human being to try to balance the needs of informing our fellow potential customers, while doing so in a way that respects her humanity. It's not easy to do, sure. But we should try. For example, read some reviews of NYAF Taylor, for better examples of how that balance can be achieved. (Well, some seem to say she's cute, but some seem to convey the truth tactfully).
Look I've crossed that line. I've been rude. 2 years ago I wrote a mostly positive review of a girl, but included some things that in retrospect were gratuitously mean about the work she had done on her face, even as I said in the mirror her face suddenly became beautiful. I heard that this girl read my review and was really upset, and that was one (not the only) reason she left NY. How could you not feel bad knowing that? Even if I had no intention of ever repeating with that girl?
Few months later I wrote an absolute rave for a girl, but called her face something of a "peasant face". Now, I had clarified in an earlier review that when I say peasant face, it's effectively neutral - not much different from saying "a round face", and that there are some very (VERY) pretty peasant faces, and unattractive non-peasant faces. But I didn't clarify that in this review, so how would she know what I meant? So again, I heard the girl flew into a rage when she read that. Luckily she never realized it was me! What's wrong with trying to minimize that? It so happens that I've heard 2nd hand some things about both of those girls indicating that they might be problematic human beings outside of the room. But that doesn't matter. They are still human beings, human beings who were generous with me and gave themselves to me completely and enthusiastically. So yes, I do kinda owe it to them to try to be as nice as possible while still being honest.
So here's my take
"Overrated in looks". OK, and even necessary (if that's your true feeling) if it's in the body of the review.
"Overrated in looks" as the 1st thing in the title. Pushing it, on the edge of rude. Is that really the first and foremost most important thing to highlight?
"Very overrated in looks" in the title. Straight up rude
"Very very overrated in looks". Abnormally rude, and frankly, if I read that I'm on DefCon 3 for someone who enjoys demeaning girls for the sake of it. And in this case, based on what happens after, it was clearly the opening salvo in an assault on her humanity, her dehumanization reducing her into simply a hole. It's clear he takes great pleasure in putting her down. By itself it's abnormally rude. Together with everything else it's vile and disgusting. This is like 7 baseball cards forming one of the eyes and part of the nose.
You can quibble on the examples I laid out above, but what's wrong with trying to have some basic human decency here and trying to seek that balance?
Oh, and you don't think his putting down her looks is part of the dehumanization? He revels in proclaiming he has no interest even in fucking her and thus rejects her. It's not because her BJ is so sublime, it's because she's not even worth fucking. And that's because in his view she's an unattractive run down whore. Just a hole he can use and throw away like a rag doll.
BTW, as another example, this discussion prompted me to search "overrated" in title reviews, and was reminded of this Arie review from a few weeks ago.
https://ampreviews.net/index.php?th...ed-overrated-and-utterly-unremarkable.169215/
I was going to say, this is on the edge, it's tough, and the use of "utterly" might be too much, but "utterly unremarkable" doesn't seem as bad. It's pretty rude, but it's not QUITE "abnormal" per se, and certainly not rapey. After all, it's a legitimate summary of his perspective (I mean Arie is polarizing around here), but not rapey.
Then I reread it. Turns out there's one line in there that's actually pretty damn rapey. In the current court, sometimes I'm the swing vote, but I think this one is 5-4 rapey review. So more evidence that there IS a correlation, albeit an imperfect correlation, between that kind of language and the rapiness.
Now about urination. Wow, this is a fun way to start 2024, huh?
Once again, I never ever remotely implied there's anything wrong with literally taking a whiz on your way out of a bordello. I probably take a whiz on my way out of a bordello 30-50% of the time, depending partly on whether Mrs K is texting "where the fuck are you?"
Let me repeat that. It's OK to take a whiz on your way out of a bordello
One more time for the folks in the back.
IT'S OK TO TAKE A WHIZ ON YOUR WAY OUT OF A BORDELLO!!!!
Now reporting on it is by itself innocuous. I do think it's a little weird, as it imparts no useful information unless you're telling us about the bathroom itself - a description of the facilities is minor but useful. But in the example you provided, the weirdness is completely benign, because it's not attached to anything vile, and so it evaporates harmlessly into the air.
Actually, you know what? I just reread the review. In your example it IS somewhat pertinent, as the reviewer mentions he had to go and and thus had to cut his session short by 5 minutes. So in this case, it's not weird at all. Some readers might have been concerned if he was able to find relief in time. Part of the story. The resolution of a suspense thriller of sorts. So here, it's totally fine.
You'll laugh at this, but I think in retrospect there's also some sub-conscious significance that he used a paragraph break.
BTW, this review you found is a great counterexample - it's of the same Taylor who apparently is not the most beautiful woman in the world, and he notes her pudge without being nasty about it. In the session he does many of the same physical things our original furious reviewer did - in fact starts doing things that make it difficult for her to breathe. But notice that he says "she loves it". It's not really relevant for our question here if that's true or not....he believes she does (or wants us to believe she does), and it seems important to him that she does. Her mindset matters. She is a human. So this is an 8-1 not rapey situation here.
So what's wrong with the urination in Sara's review? By itself, the urination is maybe a little weird, but harmless. But when it gets attached to everything that happened before, it takes on new meaning. Baseball cards. I'm going back to Hannibal Lecter. Nothing wrong with a nice chianti. (Or...is there?) But when you attach it to eating a liver, it becomes waaaay more sinister. "I ate his liver" could be a crazed maniac who's in some drug-induced or brain-damaged state and isn't fully aware of what he's doing. "I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice chianti" is now an outwardly civilized man in total control, shows he knows exactly what he's doing and has even planned it out in advance in a cold calculating way. Gives the sociopathy that extra umph. In this case, "She served her purpose" is DefCon 10 rapey sociopath. "She served her purpose. I urinated and left" (no paragraph break!) takes it to 11, Spinal Tap style. These are adjacent thoughts, so it's evocative of pissing on this object he just used, demeaned and disposed of. But it's also like a nice chianti in the way he uses the cold clinical term "urinated" instead of "took a piss" or "went to the bathroom". It's precisely because it's clinical that makes it extra extra creepy. Takes things from: this guy is a savage, to: this guy is a sociopath. Chilling. Most of us reacted to that at some level, even sub-consciously. That was 23 baseball cards right there: the Mantle, the DiMaggio, the Yogi, the Whitey Ford and a bunch of others, forming 1/3 of the face. It's all subconscious on his part as well I'm sure, but there's something there, I'm telling you.
Hey, I'm sure some of you will say I'm overthinking it. Well of course I am! Apparently I had to overthink it in order to articulate the intuition most of us had that this thing was so fucking creepy and so very very wrong. Even without knowing anything behind the scenes. So I had to try to figure out what precisely it is we sensed that others did not and why. I'll compare it to a major league outfielder who knows where the ball is going immediately - he doesn't stop to think: the exit velocity is about 95 mph at a 45 degree angle, and the wind is blowing at 15 mph from left to right, and it's a left-handed batter so the spin is going to make it hook right, and this is my best path to maximize my forward momentum on the catch for me to hit the cut-off man. He just knows. From the crack of the bat. From a lifetime of shagging flies. With this review, most of us just knew, from a lifetime of human experience...we knew even before we got to "She served her purpose". Some of the guys here have hope: they're decent infielders, but in the outfield might not get the best jump on the ball or slightly misjudge the angle and let a few drop in. Then some of them are DH's and while they might be able to handle their own bat pretty well, frankly seem totally lost in the outfield.
Make sense? Good. Glad we're all friends again. So if you'll excuse me, I must now take my leave and go explore the question of the day: should auld acquaintance be well fucked? Spoiler alert: there will be much shagging.
PS - No, going to art school doesn't mean you're a genocidal totalitarian war-mongering dictator. But it might show something's a little bit off. (I kid. I kid).