To be clear, I went into my session blind as there were no reviews then. Had I read the above review based on FB I Probly would have had more confidence to toftt, and been very disappointed. Also pretty telling that no one else has since chimed in that Love is a looker
Couple new girls started at BGC this week with nice pictures but having just been burned I’m staying far away unless multiple good trusted reviews come thru. This is what what happens when u are deceptive, real smart BGC. I’m sure I’m not alone in this sentiment
I was aware that you probably hadn't seen the positive review. But I realized that not being disappointed in provider's looks is a common thread. It's at the basis of complaints about fake and inaccurate, non current photos.
I realize that it's probably a lost cause getting accurate physical descriptions. Part of the problem is the very wide range of monger response, perception, etc. Some, I think don't get dissapointed, partly even if her looks initially are disappointing, they don't in the end feel disappointed if the service and attitude are good. Reading Yuffie's reviews you can't tell her body is in the 5 range since her service and attitude are 9-10. In fact, service, attitude seems more important than looks.
Which is why orgs are deceptive on pics to get the monger in the door. LSC is famous that all their providers rate high on service and attitude. Only Cora ymmv, but that's apparent in the reviews and she is good looking.
Although good service and attitude are I think recent developments driven by review sites and competitive internet porno. In the past, guys just wanted to screw or get bjs from a hot looking girl, and didn't care about service, attitude, connection, whether she came, etc.
To be fair, about half of all reviews, don't mention specifics plus or minus about looks or body. Or, "hot body" qualifies as specifics rather than "curvy, but not fat, MM C cone shaped tits balanced by moderate hip width". However, if a bunch of reviews say "hot body", then it's not just an in individual reviewer opinion, but likely to be true for the reader.
I find taut skin, muscle tone, more youthful and more appealing, some guys care about that while others don't care about that type of feel, sometimes only whether skin is smooth, or only looks.
In the - see women, but no touch - world, it's difficult to explore touch sexuality, awareness.
I suspect a lot of mongers are are rarely disappointed in a providers looks or skin feel if they get good service, and consequently don't get the point of warning other's about that.
If a monger doesn't observe a body fault, or consider it a fault, then why report it?, unless from reading other reviews, they get some guys have issue with it. Also, if you personally think it's a fault, others may consider it a virtue. I hate big booties, but others love them. I report that I don't like them if the provider has one, so the reader knows I probably won't do a good job on elaborating, just like I'm not into bjs, so don't ask me about the provider's bj technique.
One of the common defaults of newbies is that all mongers like the same thing. I get pm's from newbie's asking me who I reccomend at LSC as if, if I like them, they will like them. If I asked them what they liked, they wouldn't be able to tell me, type of tits, ass, toas, curvy, etc. all the stuff the provider doesn't have control over, vs service, attitude, connection which are learned responsiveness of the provider.
I'm amazed that since tits are such big sexual attractors, there is less description of tit shape than for booties, yet if you google tit shapes, you will get a dozen shapes, while only about 4-5 butt shapes. Only tit size, A-DD is typically mentioned and if MM or not.
There is this common logic that natural like organic is better than MM, but guys forget that the whole point of MM boobs is to make them look bigger and better than natural. They are also mistaken in thinking that only natural boobs are soft, partly because saline boobs put in through armpit holes are softer than natural (BGC Jamie has these). Guys think that because they can't see the under boob scars, the boobs are natural. Real young boobs have some firmness, the most natural are silicone with correct viscosity.
Lots of misinformed judgements which are meaningless, but are passed off incorrectly as detailed description. FBSA ratings are not detailed descriptions. I find FBSA ratings are only meaningful averaged over a dozen reviews and then in comparison to other providers (TER ratings do work). Even FBSA from same reviewer relative to different providers doesn't work and is too dependent on monger's biases.
