Gents, help me out here.

...give one example.  If you want to state your case you'll have to give more examples.

and some guys may not even consider "curvy" to be fat.   The drop-down list for "Build" has them all, STARTING with curvy.  After that, in order, it's "Few Extra Pounds", Flabby and Plus Size.  On TER, there are degrees of fat, so a reviewer has some leeway in the use of euphemisms.  Positives include Athletic and Slender, so there ARE euphemisms on the positive side.  
Likewise, positives for breast appearance include Youthful, Perky and Super-Nice, in addition to the negative euphemisms of flat, droopy and really saggy.  

That's fair.

my last two reviews and I didn't use any euphemisms, IMO.
I have used curvy before, but not to mean fat.
I used it to mean figure 8ish, wider hips and larger breasts, mostly MM's on a smaller girl.
Or even a bigger/taller girl.
I just try to use descriptive or maybe they are euphemistic words, but not to deceive anyone.
I also try to add in an explanation of my description if I think it's needed.

But they might be generational since we are if a similar age.  I would not use Rubenesque because the artistically illiterate would have to look it up. I use “robust” instead.

My take is that most of this is due to old history, passed along by mongers learning the tribal mores from older mongers.  
.
Some years ago, euphemisms were considered necessary to avoid LE and bluestocking action when reading sex ads.  I won't debate whether that was effective, only observe that it became entrenched standard practice.  A secondary reason for it is probably the human impulse to create jargon that demonstrates that one is an "insider" of some tribe.  Most of what is considered clear these days was once intended to obscure -- the Monger Acronym Dictionary stuff like "CFS".  
.
These days most mongers don't really subscribe to the idea that obscurity gives any safety, or any freedom from censure by the aggressively tender-minded, but old habits seem to linger on.  It is a continuous mild surprise to me how seldom one sees the word "fuck" used properly in reviews and on this forum, for example.  
.

I’m going to take exception to your description of “reubenesque “ as “Monroe’59-‘60”.

right to see it that way.
But you should check her in other pics from the movie your pic came from.
And that was the movie I came to that conclusion about Rubenesque.
Check her sitting on the piano near the end of the film!
Also, if this is what you think, I wasn't calling her fat!
Rubenesque/voluptuous are fine with me, had plenty over the years!

Sex acts, etc. But I doubt the Leo's care whether the girl was fat or curvy. Plus, I don't know. The same people have no problems writing in detail the juicy details of a girl they really liked.  

you might think they are euphemisms but they might really be the accurate wording (at least to the author).  a difference of opinion does not euphemism make.

There's always a line between a difference of opinions and euphemisms. If there wreen't, then you can attribute anything and everything to a difference of opinions.  

is not so much differences of opinions as much as perspectives.  We all look at women in our own way.  Each of us have preferences that may be shared by some, but not all, so it makes perfect sense that we will not all describe women the same way, or more particularly, the same way you would describe them.  Trying to insist that descriptions of women that differ from yours are because of some agenda is pure speculation.  I think most reviewers call it like they see it, which is often different from the way another reviewer might see it.  That's why you can have a girl with a TER average above 8.0 over 100 reviews still get an occasional 5 or 6 for looks or performance.  She is not everyone's cup of tea, but this is why the negative reviews are often the outliers and not the positive ones.

The thread was about negative or non-positive reviews in which people use euphemisms to make the negatives appear less harsh.

people in order to support your manifesto.  I said that on MY scale, where 7 is below average, it would be bashing to go any lower, as I feel saying she is below average and not recommended to others is enough to make my point.  It doesn't change anything for me to give her a 5 and say she is below average when 7 means the same thing to me and those who follow my reviews.  

What manifesto?

...of K-girls?  Simple - it's because they ARE K-girls.  As with other K-mongers,  CDL doesn't want to "bash" them so as not to hurt their business.  CDL's entire scoring system which is at odds with TER's scoring system is specifically designed not to "bash" K-girls.  He gives them a good score but only in the narrative of his review will he deign to say anything barely negative about them.  And CDL will blame HIMSELF for the session, rather than the K-girl.  He'll do whatever he can because he's "not going to bash her to the point that no one will see her":
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girl-113/if-you-are-driving-down-the-----25400?frmSearch=1#25400

twice, but it's a good one, so you have my blessing.  However, your speculative conclusions are pure BigP bullshit, as always.   I, for one, would love to see the CDL restaurant reviews you are talking about, or is that pure bullshit, too?  

The topic was more of why people in general use euphemisms and hold back on criticism.  

Let's say reader a, b, c read a review filled with euphemisms and cannot get a full picture. They book the girl and are disappointed because the reviews euphemisms obfuscated the reality.

to play to your narrative.  You are talking about "a review", anyone who sees a girl with only one review and no private intel from their own network of buddies to corroborate the review is taking a risk and should consider it the same odds of having a bad session as TOFTT.  

rocket CLEARLY stated that he knows a guy who saw a provider "after reading reviews" (PLURAL).  Yet you avoided answering rocket's question by playing "gotcha" and pointing to another part of his post where he said "review" rather than "reviews."  Why bother replying at all if all you're going to do is nitpick in order to deflect and distract?

Nowhere did I say the girl only had only one review. I said "I know a guy who wasn't sure about a girl after reading reviews and". Multiple reviews.

That's because he can't answer the question directly.

I dont believe they have.

Let's seek to eliminate them in reviews and help out mongers!  

The majority of posts here disagreed with your take, yet you seem to believe that there’s a consensus behind your opinion. Still tilting at windmills, I see.

No one besides Valida brought up even a semblance of argument as to why people do it.

What you do best?
Lose arguments, declare yourself the winner of said arguments, and then launch ad hominem attacks.  

What argument did I lose?