Okay, I've been a TER reviewer for a while and posted many reviews. I try to be honest about everything.  Sometimes its hard because the provider is really nice and you don't want to say anything negative. But come on guys - thin is thin and I've met several providers reviewed by others as thin who are no way even close.  Thin is a size 2-4 dress.  When a gal is a size 8-10 and she's listed as thin, there's something wrong with a few peoples eyes.  I'm not stuck on thin. I like average and athledic and skinny.  But I want a realistic expectation.  Please guys, lets be more realistic.  When you rate a gal the totally wrong build, one begins to wonder about the honesty of the entire review. It's a little off putting to walk into a room expecting thin and meeting a body builder - which is excatly what just happened.  Now the provider was excellent. But I was really startled at the beginning of the session.  I would have seen her anyway based on the reviews - but I;m afraid I may have given her a bad impression by my first reaction. Save the rest of us the embrassement - and her. Please be honest.

I've ranted enough.
- CD

Along the same vein, I've seen ladies described as "Athletic" who haven't seen a pair of Reeboks or the inside of a gym in years.  Too often I think "Atheltic" becomes an in-between descriptor for "not really thin" and "nearly baby fat".

If the reviewer didn't properly describe the girl ....it was probably a fake review. The person didnt' really see her and
simply made up a description to keep up his TER subscription

Along the same lines..."baby fat."

Baby fat is on a baby or a young child. When referring to an adult, it's just fat!

Princess Di -- very fit, large-boned, not a lot of extra fat (Ath, Ave, Thin?)
JLO -- fit, very curvy (Ath, Ave?)
Cindy Crawford -- fit, curvy, medium-boned (Ath, Ave, Thin?)

Best to do your research, look at the other guy's reviews, read the woman's stats, view her pics once more, read all the other reviews....

Size 2-4 is often gangly and sickly.  Met a few women described as thin, and they all were, but not to their benefit.  Prefer a 6-8, like the above mentioned three women -- Di was an 8-10, but also 5'11".

But these gals were listed as 5'6-5'7 and thin. They weren't. They were athetic and average. Skinny is a 0-2. Maybe you saw some thins tat should have been listed as skinny?
- CD