I've been reading some posts about guys complaining about some things in P4P.
They do have legitimate gripes.
And I believe they were, at least mostly, about indies.
But reading them I compared them to the Kscene and thought, IMO, it is good with Kgirls and Korgs!
But people *just* got to put 'em down.
Really funny to read that stuff, but always the talk about how fucked up the Kscene is!
Now nothing is always perfect all the time in P4P, but for me I do like KP4P!!
All MO and POV!

Just the other day a guy I know got greenlit, walked to the door and the door never opened. The po made him circle a bit and then apologized as the girl canceled right there. At first I thought the girl didn't like how the guy looked but she's seen him before so it wasn't that.  

 
While yes girls aren't robots and shit does happen, imagine yourself in the customers shoes. I wouldn't be a happy camper at all. Many mongers take meds and also look forward to an appointment all week long. Talk about last minute blue balls!

And this is a high priced girl with an org that has ties all throughout California.

 
Being unhappy with something and documenting it publicly != "putting 'em down"

Of course not. I agree in general. I think when comparing to a lot of situation reported about independents or some of the other agencies I think the K-agencies I deal with come out looking pretty good. But there clearly are some people that don't seem to like the K-girls (or perhaps any Asian?) and will only have negative (and often skewed) statements about the girls or the agencies. Why is something of a mystery to me. Just too easy not to seem them if you don't like how they work.

 
But I also find it somewhat odd that some people seem to think things work differently here than in other areas of life -- they believe the ads are always true so see a hot picture and then get upset when it's not of the woman they see even when that information was available (and sometimes even seen if what they say is true) but would never make the same decisions in some other purchase if given the same advertisement and reviews or other "word of mouth" feedback. But I guess that's why you hear "think with your big head" mentioned a lot.

"It's her pussy, so it's her rules."  She has the right to cancel up until you paid the donation, and if you break her rules, she has the right to cancel at any time.  

 
This is typical of your "I know a guy" stories.  Maybe partially true, but never completely true because you never give all the details.  Girls KNOW the are going to get blowback if they ghost you at the door, so something has happened in the past that made her willing to take whatever heat comes from standing the guy up.  The booker is powerless to override a girl that doesn't want to see a particular customer.  The most common reasons for this type of behavior by a Kgirl are rough treatment during the session, staying overtime, failing to pay the upcharge for BBFS and stiffs and shorts in general.  Guys that post shit like this has offended the girl and so he probably knows the reason, but instead gives that, "Who, ME?" in his explanation.  Of course, You, Rocket always fall for the story because it fits your narrative of the org being the bad guy, but in this case, the org did not make the decision.  It was personal for the girl.  

 
The link below to my post of 9 years ago, which is the most-read post on TER will give you other possibilities why a Kgirl might see who you are through the peephole and not open the door.  

Rocket, I've been in the shoes you talk about.
IMO, if you haven't been in them you don't play in P4P very much.
Before you go off again, you are not *the you*, it means everyone.
And I did say it's not always perfect and for me the putting down is the cum dumpster, non English, high volume not being clean and other racist bull shit thrown at them just to name a few things!
You, and this is the you, are something else! I never say hide anything about the girls or orgs, but either you can't remember that or choose not to and come at me every time.
Holy FUCK, give it a rest, at least, with me, because I don't either condone or hide any of the bad practices on either side of P4P!  
Write that down in your notebook for future reference, so you don't look so repetitive and obsessed.

because I thought it was a trip that the Kgirls are put down and the posters that put 'em down act like the providers they see are perfect when attacking the Kgirls & orgs.
I believe the KMongers are so despised and that's, at least, one reason the Kgirls are attacked too, just MO.

 
I agree about the pics and info. It's been out there a long time, so take them with a handful of salt and be smart enough to work with what is given to make the best choice/move for a good session.
All common sense to me, but, also MO, not a lot of common sense out there!

Is replying to a thread made by you = coming at you? Come on now with this nonsense.  

I simply said that because indie scene is worse than K-scene doesn't mean one should ignore problems with it. I did not imply you (as in YOU) are ignoring them!  

I simply said - if NK govt is bad and worse than US, that doesn't mean we should consider it all good in US and never criticize he US because there's NK and it could be worse. We should focus on problems regardless of what anyone else does and "it could be worse" is not a valid response to criticism.  

 
I did think your "putting them down" referred to criticisms as well.

If you're talking about people who look down on kgirls, there's very few here. Bigp is one and I think - like you mentioned to Jensen - it's really more of a pushback on kmongers. And my understanding is it's because a decade ago some of the kdoll founding fathers were on GD forum aggressively putting down indies to prop up kgirls.

Other than that, it's just ignorant people who don't know or haven't seen kgirls much. They either lump all Asian girls together and think they're all trafficked, and similar racist or nationality based stuff. I would just ignore these. They're ignorant opinions that won't change.

-- Modified on 4/19/2026 1:38:57 PM

Every single person buying anything with their money should be upset if they get something that was not advertised as such.

I don't care if it's a private jet or an order of fish an chips

And in real world, entities do get sued for false advertising. Unfortunately due to getting a slap on the wrist nothijng is changed. If once in a while if a ceo of a lying company was fed to the pigs for making money off lies, I'm sure things would be different.  

"You see what I mean? Its plump, it's juicy, it's three inches thick. Now look at this sorry, miserable squashed thing. Can anybody tell me what's wrong with this picture"?

 
http://youtu.be/Vy5vkTqpk8M

I think some of you need a reality check. The whole industry is built on a fantasy—GFE included. Why are we losing it over whether pictures are 100% real when even the stage names are fake? We don't complain about the names, do we? Photos are just a 'representation' of the provider.

If a booker double-books or fails to communicate with the store, call them out. That’s a business failure. But you can't please everyone, and there are plenty of asshole customers who just bitch about everything.

My own experiences show how the systems work:

CORG: I had a young J-girl refuse sex after the shower. I talked to the house sitter and they gave a partial refund. Their C-girl pics are total bait-and-switch, which is why I only go for J-girls there.

KORG: I’ve paid upfront for a K-girl who failed to deliver. The booker couldn't do anything but file a complaint because bookers and store owners are separate. Bookers don't run the rooms.

We need to realize that these girls are pushed to high frequencies by owners and bookers. When you add in customers being rough or disrespectful during the session, it’s totally understandable why these girls break down at work.

Finally, I see guys calling these girls 'cumdumpsters' and then turning around and eating them out or sticking their dick in them. Why the fuck are you doing that if that's how you view them? It’s a total double standard. Even if they don't speak perfect English or they're from Korea, they are still HUMAN. Treat them with some damn respect.

Yes, there are a few people who consistently do that, both on this board (though not that recently that I recall) and on other boards. And it's not only from the customer side.

 
There is that old saying about common sense not being all that common and it does seem more true than not. But to me the other bit is both taking the world as it is and then making your choices in that context (you control your choices, not the world). To the extent we can do things that shifts the way the world is to a better place there are more than one way of doing so (maybe the world is a cat or something). If we see little result from some approach then the conclusion should be that it is not all that an effective solution to the problem. (that itself could be a whole separate topic on it's own but most tangential and likely boring in the context of playing with K-girls).

We've had the discussion 1000 times by now. That is the way advertising and (poor) marketing works in our world. The extent of the divergence has some relation to the nature of the game we play. So the first question that should be asked is why should anyone believe the ad without much first hand experience with either the agency or individual? You hear some complain about the pic versus the girl even when the profile says of a different person or older pics (or whatever the text is for that).  

 
Now if they have a profile that says pics are accurate, the profile in only a couple of years old, none of the reviews make mention of the actual woman looking much different than the pictures and some guy walks through the door and finds someone that is nothing like the pics, such one would expect them to react. And if they would not have wanted to see such a woman, or have some strict principle about never going though with such a situation -- will not support deception even if what they are offered is attractive -- then sure, they will be upset. And nothing wrong with them posting about it.  

I'm a little bit confused this is actually a serous question.

Do you know why there's no "N" in FBSA scoring system?
Because we don't fuck names. We fuck bodies and faces (well, blowjob). Face and body - something extremely important to most customers - are part of sex we pay for with our money. We don't pay for names. Literally can be anything.  

Face and body are on what's on the picture.  

 
I hope this answers your question.  

 
"We need to realize that these girls are pushed to high frequencies by owners and bookers."  

This isn't really true anymore. Almost all orgs in LA are girl-ran.  Especially after girls basically walked out on sesang/SKS.  

In the bay area Id say only lsc "pushes" girls to high volumes. That's like one out of like over ten orgs.  

 
Finally, I'm not sure it was addressed to me but I've never called any woman a cumdumpster.

I treat all sellers of anything as human. It's their service that is sold for money, that is criticized or praised. Just like I can criticize a lawyers service, a trainer service, a chefs service, a babysitting service and so on and so forth. Not a single service that is sold for money should ever be immune from criticism.
Public criticism.

comment, I was talking about you always reminding me about 'public criticism' of Kgirls and Korgs.
Once again, all bad practices on both sides of P4P should be exposed/talked about publicly in forums or using a bull horn on the corner if somebody wants to do that.

 
IMO, the thread got side tracked. I posted because I was reading other posts complaining about the girls and situations that they see and run into in their P4P activities.
Quite a few are anti Kgirl and racist, all MO, and acting like they have zero problems when they hobby.
So, it struck me as funny and I did the thread.  

 
The put downs are insults, not criticisms, also MO.

 
Yeah, about ten years and on the LA board. The haters said it ruined the board, but when a Kgirl board was started did they go back and revitalize the LA board? Doesn't look like it to me.

 
You are right, the ignorant, racist opinions will not change.

And the first reviewer is often a shill.

So now, if that's the case we have a profile where it says "pics accurate" while they're actually not.

Profiles do get updates by other reviewers so it doesn't really matter who creates the profile as long as others are doing what they are expected to do on TER -- report inaccurate data when they find it.  

 
Also, anyone relying on the profile data for more than the first slice for their search, and not READING the review has no one but themself to blame for their decisions.

I would estimate very few people ever submitted a pr.

That's not their job. And it never was.  

When will you ever start blaming consumers for rusеs made by the seller?  

 
You made a claim that someones expectations should be in line with "pics accurate" field.  

I gave you an extremely common scenario in which the field "pics accurate" is off. And if the customers can't tell that this field was populated by someone who has conflict of interest, then their expectations will be according to the field.  

 
First you blаmed the consumer for not reading the field and now when I pointed out that the field is often off, now you move the goаlposts. And also - between the lines - you seemed to think the customer should be satisfied uf given someone completely different looking but "attractive" (note that of course you lack any criteria here, just a blanket statement word that means absolutely nothing)  

 
When the fuck will you start blaming the producer for a ruse?  
Rhetorical question really, as you can't even bring yourself to be critical of seller for six years I been on there, I certainly don't expect you to do so now.

-- Modified on 4/22/2026 4:13:32 PM

I think you're way off on the "never was" claim. TER has traditionally been a member driven result effort and the TER admins and owner did want the members to take an active role in keeping profiles accurate. You might be right that the new batch of people coming into TER (say post COVID) are less engaged and don't see any obligation for helping to keep it successful (which absolutely requires quality control of reviews and profiles which TER simply is not in a position to do without a lot of changes and costs). Certainly would explain the decline in value of reviews.

 
Blame other people all you want but I don't spend much of my efforts trying to make people change with things that offer no leverage in terms of influencing them.  Yell all you want but if you're not willing to say those submitting and use the reviews here don't have some good reason, and I would say either obligation or self-interest, in trying too keep the information correct then all your "review, review, review" shit is just that, shit that does nothing. If people work on keeping the review information correct and updates then at least improved information is available for decision-making. That could lead to more people changing their choices that can lead to a decline in revenue to the providers/agency. THAT will start having some influence on their behavior. But individually we can all do that too, if providers or agencies are acting in ways you don't think are right then STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY.

 
But I don't think you have done that yet, have you?

 
Edit: As for the when am I going to start blaming.... shit. We've been through that so many times. Water is wet. I don't see a need to make a bit deal about saying something is not (pick your own term for what level of divergence from whatever ideal state you choose). Yes, if someone says something that is untrue, it's not saying the truth.  If some agency always used fake pics, or some provider always uses fake pics, they are using fake pics. I don't promote such a choice but if that is how they have been doing things for 10+ years I don't think I have to say much about it -- other than don't trust the pics (which I have said many, many times). So I'll follow up on your question as ask when are you going to start asking everyone to start taking responsibility for their choices rather than just the agencies or providers? When will you stop treating everyone here as if they are little children that needs someone to hold their hand and protect them for willfully ignoring available information and then crying when things don't fit their unjustified expectations?

-- Modified on 4/23/2026 4:59:47 AM

For someone who's reading a review, it is not their job to fix shit. Again, the question was - why shouldn't mongers be upset if they don't get what they expect and what is told them?

 
Do you agree that the label "pics accurate" can be flat out wrong on man profiles? If so, why should the monger reading it and assuming it's true be at fault here? This is erroneous information.  

But your assumption is here instead is that  the monger always ignores this information ?  

 
An average monger reads the review, believes "pics accurate" and then is disappointed because the pics weren't accurate. Why shouldn't he? Not only did the ad lie, but also the review site - a site that is supposed to guide him - failed him as well.  

 
Your point seems to be that mongers always possess enough info to make the decision. And I said no, that isn't the case.
Why would you blame investors for investing in enron?  

Guys take responsibilities for their decisions if they possess good truthful info. If the info is manipulated and obfuscated the responsibility is on those who manipulate and obfuscate.  
That's like blaming an enron investor in investing into enron stock instead of enron being a ponzi scheme.  

 
Maybe instead of chiding mongers for not submitting problem reports, just maybe you would chide some mongers who openly say they don't write negative reviews even though they have negative experiences?  

Oh right, never mind. You never have chided anyone for that. Never once you cared about mongers not having enough information there. Information that may have saved someone time money and stress = just fine

 

So I still don't get why shouldn't the monger feel disappointed if what he was told was not the truth. Why shouldn't any buyer of anything be disappointed if what they bought was not what was advertised and/or reviewed?

That's like gouging someone's eyes out and then ask why are they disappointed they can't see.

It's not even just hypocritical or ironic. It's straight up a "laugh in your face" thing.

 
Maybe if there was immediate info on her being a rebrand and her reviews being available under another name,  a monger wouldn't go see the girl and wouldn't be disappointed.

 
Maybe if there was an explicit negative review, a monger wouldn't go see the girl and be disappointed.

 
How can you be so pro-information hiding from mongers, and yet blame mongers after they, due to lack of information you recommend to withhold, are disappointed?  

At least at storefront mps I can walk easily with zero string attached, zero wallet hits and zero "good standing" hits if I feel I've been hoodwinked.

So just make the problem report. Not very hard -- though it might need to go through the Contact Us link. But as people start making that report TER will have to take action. NOT doing that, and suggesting it's not members responsibility insures that the inaccurate profile remains.  But you pick how you think people should act to get better results here.

 
No, I don't suggest that people always have good enough information. I suggest that always have to evaluate the information they get. If they do that poorly they will have more disappointments, just as everywhere else in life. What they should do is work to assess the sources and value/accuracy of the information for their use and set a bar for what they decide is insufficient to have confidence. I suspect most should set the bar higher as accept that more of their sessions will be closer to TOFTT than "I get what others are claiming" for the first visit. If the sensitivity to risk of a TOFTT is too high they need to accept they should make fewer appointments or increase the ratio of repeat appointments to new experience appointments.

 
I never claimed they won't feel disappointment -- I'm not going to start making normative claims about how they *should* feel. But they certainly should acknowledge they are never going to escape the problem of information quality until they see a provider for themself. In sort they should not just *believe* ANY of the reviews and accept the YMMV aspect of life. Anyone that has ever repeat often with a provider has experienced the fact that each session is a bit different in terms of post session feeling about the session -- some are always better than others and sometimes, if you repeat a lot, one might even be just off and you leave wondering what happened. (We see those reports and questions often enough here.)

 
Sure, you can blame the others for what they do but that still does not absolve anyone from taking some responsibility for what they do after getting their first hand information or how much unjustified faith they might have put in the second hand information they used in their decision making. Your defense of such outcomes amounts to saying it's okay for people to continue making the same mistakes over and over, it's not their fault bad results occurring. That is wrong and unhelpful.

 
As for your follow up, I didn't really read it but to address one question you pose, how and the anit-"bad things" guy blame customers, you have two options as far as I can see. Accept that you are going to be biased in your position and arguments here, in which case you have to drop the repeated claim about caring about honesty or your own ethics related to that or fairly apply your critical skills. In the later case there is no problem with being both anti-X and blaming customers, even in the context of X occurring/existing. Again, this is a choice you can make.

-- Modified on 4/23/2026 10:09:52 PM

You are shifting the blame to the customers instead of people who actually mislead. As usual.

You are never blaming the initial shill for putting wrong info in the first place, yet you blame some customer who doesn't submit a problem report to fix something?  

 
How many problem reports with kgirl profiles have you submitted? Let's hear it. I bet anything you will say you yourself don't care about misrepresented info.

 

"I never claimed they won't feel disappointment"

Bullshit. That's what you said -verbatim :

"
But I also find it somewhat odd that some people..... then get upset when it's not of the woman they see"  

You found it odd, and I simply explained how it's not only not odd, it's a normal reaction especially if the if the info available to them is not truthful.  

 

 
Oh BTW. If you didn't read my post, you probably shouldn't reply to it.  

No, critical thinking says it's pretty dumb to blame someone for a decision when they lacked honest info to make that decision.  

When you DELIBERATELY suppress truthful info that may lead to a monger NOT making a bad decision, and turn around and blame the monger, you are no better than the pieces of shit who do the misleading themselves on purpose.  

While never blaming people who obfuscate the info in the first place. How cool. Not.

-- Modified on 4/24/2026 3:26:36 PM

And you're missing the point. The blame being assessed is different, you want to roll it all up under on target.

Try understanding my point more from the old saying "Fool me once same on you. Fool me twice shame on me." You want to keep the whole discussion in the "once" case. I'm considering once and twice. The blame in the first case is about the con's actions (e.g. fake pics). The blame in the second case is one the other person believing the con once they know the person is a con and not trustworthy (they know the agency uses fake pic but they still make an appoint and expect to see the person in the pic). In other words, when someone lies to you and you learn that it's on you to change how you interact with the person who lied. Yes, it would be good if the other person doesn't lie but you have no control of that, you do have control over how you choose to approach the person in the future. (Which, btw, is not the same as saying telling others the person lied should not be done. But you're frequent claims that is my position seem driven by your need to put everything in the one context and filter all other aspects of the larger situation out.)

OK, so you're saying it in the context of "if he got fooled once (or many times already) why was he surprised the next time he was fooled"?

that's a valid question, fair enough. doing the same thing expecting different results is insanity... so hey I agree there.

 
But the thing is, sometimes the profiles or reviews are true. That's why people still read the reviews right?  

So I will say... while expecting it all the time would be odd, I think expecting and hoping for it and not getting it is still  
disappointing to some people and I can't blame them for it.  

 
BTW badger I do apologize for the prolonged discussion. I couldn't stop myself from replying.

It does happen.

Yes, while I don't particularly like the framing as blame, different aspect can be separated and blame falls on one side or the other without and relationship to some other aspect where one can assign blame. I'm glad I've finally been able to clarify that view.

 
I completely agree that the general situation is much messier so the decision process is complicated. But that itself suggest trying to assign the blame only on one side is problematic from the start. I would also note that saying that in no way suggests that someone cannot be disappointed for any number of reasons, including what they expected based on an ad or image.

 
But I also toss that into the same "water is wet" bucket -- that's not to dismiss anything but to acknowledge that is what one expects. Perhaps it's just me here but I tend to go into every session with some expectation along with some epsilon to give a range that defines if I think the session met expectations or didn't. I'm fortunate that the large majority of my sessions fall within that range. For the ones that don't meet that standard my first response is not "someone lied to me" but rather "did I miss something and if so what so I can avoid that in the future". That response is not absolving the agency from it's role in presenting inaccurate information but is me saying "What can I do in this imperfect world to get the most out of it?"  

 
Now, if you want to cast that as saying I was to blame, or when the same happens with others they are to blame, okay. But I think that is where the framing in a blame context for where different people are taking different actions is shedding less light than needed. Putting things in a slightly different frame, I don't object to anyone saying they had a bad session or the pic were fake and they are upset that they girl was different. That is something that many people want to know. But it that has limited impact on the the use of fake pictures on it's own. However, if people actually respond to that information, and enough do, then you might see change. (There is the problem of repeated games and one time games, and unfortunately there are a lot of one time game player here so I see the individual's response to the information in terms of their success as more important.)

 
And, as you said, we have gone on for a bit which has often been annoying to the general experience in the forums but I think this has been one of the more productive exchanges we've had. Not about changing what the other thinks but just understanding the positions.

Setting aside the fake photo thing, I find korgs to be incredibly efficient in their booking and screening. Yes, you have to get into one, but then you can usually get quickly accepted by others with minimal fuss. Between measurements, reviews, and booker recommendations you can get a fairly good idea of kgirl looks. At least you are not getting old photos that show a girl 20 years younger and 30 pounds lighter. I’ve never visited a kgirl who was described in reviews as a spinner who turned out to be fat!

This KGirl agency in AZ has turned into a Ponzie scam.  They keep asking for investors, once they get enough buy in from you they block your phones and emails.  

They recently went with "new" management to cover this new investment scam.

Yes, it also looks like a scam rather than an actual K-agency site. Hope no one is sending investments.

CDL's "most-read post on TER" has 12,191 reads.
I have a post with 45,000 reads:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/newbie---faq-33/also----dining-at-the-y-the-phrase-originated-many-many-years-ago-when-1055?page=
And I'm sure my post is NOT the "most-read post on TER."

 
CDL - a legend in his own mind.

I will clarify my post to state that it is the most-read post that contains useful information for Kgirl mongers, so I will limit my claim accordingly and stand corrected on my overbroad claim.  

 
I notice you were able to answer the probing question about what it means to DATY.  However, your explanation is confusing because you say it originally meant dining at the YMCA, which shows that for you, DATY means dining on cock rather than pussy, which would have been YWCA.  I'm not being judgmental.  You are allowed to enjoy whatever you prefer having in your mouth, but since it was 24 years ago, it does help explain why you only have two reviews that involve women, plus a slew of questionable white lists allegedly from women that you did NOT review.  Not sure what the legitimate point is in doing that?  Maybe you can explain this discrepancy.

-- Modified on 4/29/2026 10:49:00 AM

CDL has obviously never seen a pussy.  When the mons pubis and vulva are viewed from the front, they resemble a "Y."

 
AI Overview is your friend:
"The use of the letter 'Y' to refer to a vagina is largely based on visual, symbolic, and linguistic associations rather than a direct anatomical translation. It is primarily used as a discreet abbreviation (or) a visual metaphor.
The letter 'Y' is commonly seen as a stylized, symbolic representation of the FEMALE pelvic area, pubic hair, and vulva structure, with the V-shape at the top and the single line at the bottom."

 
The Urban Dictionary also says CDL "stands corrected."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dine%20at%20the%20y

 
Yet all CDL can do is fall back on his tired, old homophobic rhetoric.
BTW - who says "I stand corrected" instead of ADMITTING "I was wrong?"  Only a weasel would do something like that.

what a "Y" is.  I've eaten over a thousand Kgirl pussies.  I note for the record that you have no explanation why you thing DATY referred originally to the YMCA.  For me, it referred to the YWCA.  I can show you superior dictionaries that say the men's version YMCA, and the women's version is YWCA.  The Urban dictionary is two guys in a basement guessing on a lot of stuff.  Can't you find a more intellectual source?  I have no doubt that you know at least some of the answers to questions on the Newbie board, regardless of the fact that you are not showing even a modicum of experience in the P4P scene.  You seem like little more than a lurker, here.  But you have to admit, there are MANY guys here who are secretive about preferring cock over pussy, so I can appreciate WHY that is your choice, and IF that is the reason you have only seen one women in 24 years.  (You may have seen two, but Carla admitted a long time ago that she was not involved in your review that claims she was.)

 
I note for the record that you have completely dodged the question about why you have been here 24 years and only have two reviews that involve sex with women, or WHY you have white listings for providers that you have not reviewed.  Most white listings for TER members have a corresponding review from the member that matches the lady that white-listed them.  It seems you are making a tacit admission that there are providers who are vouching for you as a customer who have not seen you.  I haven't looked up the specific rule, but it seems like this should be a rules violation.  These other providers are asking other women to accept their vouch when there is no proof via a review that proves they ever met you.  

...distraction and diversion.  You sure know how to pack a lot of bullshit into one post.  You threw in everything but the kitchen sink.  Your post reeks of utter desperation.  

to explain the discrepancy between your reviews and your white lists?  I'm not the one distracting and diverting.   It's a legit question.  Are you admitting that you did not see these ladies that gave you a white listing so you did not review them because you never really saw them for a session?  Many members here have declared themselves bisexual and I don't have a problem with that.  It takes a certain degree of courage to be transparent and I applaud transparency.  You have given up on trying to persuade anyone that DATY refers to the YMCA, and not the YWCA.  Good decision.  

 
However, you have no explanation why you have white listings from providers that you have not reviewed.  What other conclusion can there be, absent a reasonable explanation from you, that concludes anything other than you being a phony who is hustling white listings from unsuspecting providers to give the impression that you see women as well as whoever else you are seeing.  Sheep farm owner?  Lol  You like to call people out to ADMIT things, so how about you start with your own admission on what kind of scam you are running here on TER?  Let's hear from your own lips how this discrepancy came to be; why you would NOT write a nice review for a woman who gave you a white listing and is therefore vouching for you to other providers here?  

One way to find out is to try to schedule an appointment with one of the models, while declining any investment offers. If it happens, then you know they operate at least as a K-agency, and you can continue using them in that capacity. If it doesn't happen, at worse it could be a scam. Now, which one of you dudes is going to TOFTT?

ME:  
CDL: "...my post of 9 years ago, which is the most-read post on TER..."
CDL's "most-read post on TER" has 12,191 reads.
I have a post with 45,000 reads.

 
THAT is what this sub-thread is about.  That is the ONLY thing this sub-thread is about.
It was YOU who desperately decided to deflect, distract, divert, and digress to avoid looking foolish by claiming your post is "the most-read post on TER..." when I have a post with almost THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND MORE READS.

 
You can ask me 1000 times in your vain attempt to change the subject, but the FACT is your massive ego has embarrassed you yet again.

the right not to incriminate yourself, but I think your avoidance of a legit question like this pretty much tells everyone here what you have done and there is no way to erase the stain of dishonesty.  You're famous for post-pulling when you get your ass kicked, so I wouldn't be surprised if you cried to Admin to ask them to remove it.  

I've seen this on more than one occasion where the guy has a whitelist but no review. I do not think a review is required for to get a whitelist from a provider?

is not a significant enough sampling to question the norm on a site with over two million reviews.  There are always outliers and that is why I try never to speak in absolutes in my posts.  I learned not to say "always" or "never" on these boards, because somebody will always chime in with, "But what about this exception?"    

 
There could be many reasons why some don't match up, but since the poster in question doesn't want to answer the query by his list goes against the norm of reciprocal white lists and reviews, I can only speculate as to the MOST reasonable explanation.