I did my research. I considered the reviewers. It was in Texas. And the fee was double 200.... And she looked absolutely nothing like the pics. They were not even old pics - they were simply not at all legitimate or representative. This has nothing to do with beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Also, they did not show her face but that was not the problem - her figure was nothing like the pics
Both the provider and the reviewers defrauded me. And there is nothing I could do about it due to fear of being blacklisted - she basically threatened that. This happens far more often than people like to admit. It sucks. And thensystem is rigged against the hobbyist.
Shame on all those involved.
I will also state that on a number of occasions I have been very happy with the appearance of the provider. This only happens occasionally.
A reviewer should simply not post a review rather than post one with inaccurate appearance ratings
Posted By: London Rayne and the reviewers giving her 10s in looks...it is what they "thought." You need to start considering that the uglier the reviewer, the higher the scores might be. Just as my blacklist post suggested, a young guy might not always find a woman 20 years older than him to be the cat's meow, but she very well could have all high scores. Look what happened to that poor dude when he walked...blacklist, but he should not have given his real info. being he had 6 good refs. She DEMANDED it, or she would not have seen him...he would have been better off to pass right then.