With all this talk about negative reviews, I felt compelled to post this about a recent review of Mara that was quite unflattering and in my opinion inaccurate and unfair.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Mara in a non-professional capacity.  In my opinion (and I think I am a pretty fair judge), not only is Mara a wonderful person with a terrific personality, she is quite beautiful.  While I understand that people have certain "types" that appeal to them more than others, there is no way in hell that objectively she could ever be viewed by a sane person as she was characterized by this reviewer.  Nor do I think that Mara misrepresents herself such that someone would be surprised at what he was getting when she showed up at the door.  

Guys, get a grip.  Reviews are supposed to be useful tools for others.  Think before you post.  What would someone else want to know about the person you are reviewing when making a decision as to whether to see her?

Having seen Mara for a session, she is in no way a "4" in looks.  I had a wonderful time with her and would see her again providing I had the time.  She is fun, playful, and really tries to make the time you have with her memorable and enjoyable.  She is a quality lady inside and out.

What I don't understand is how a guy can give a 9 or 10 in performance and such a low score for looks.  I couldn't do that, but I guess to each his own.

Bottom line, hobbiests that do their homework will discount that rating.  Given the fact that all of Mara's ratings have always been great, I would chalk this up to the guy wasn't attracted to her.

Bond

as I don't think there is any need for such rude, hurtful wording such as "OK if you're drunk". And, we all know that neither the score, nor the wording fits Mara. Now, 'fun to get drunk WITH, is more like it!' LOL

I vote we change some of the wording.

This man only has two reviews and he scored low on appearance with both, so at least we can see that that is his trend.

Thanks, guys.

I have been saying that since I started reviewing.

And Mara's ta-ta's warrant at least a "7" on their own! (That is my thanks for that pic you sent me once, Mara.

A four is ridiculously low.  I thought the poster just accidently posted the wrong score.  I wish the descriptions of the scores were less demeaning too.

Having seen Mara numerous times I agree a 4 for appearance is just wrong. Mara just consider the source. I also agree with Sedona change the wording, TER has more class than that. TER should consider allowing providers to rate reviewers after reviews have been posted. Like a point counterpoint section.

Just a plain 'on a scale of 1 to 10' rating.  This shouldn't be too intellectually challenging.  Both for appearance and performance.

Besides being simpler and fairer, it would put finally put a stop to the endless "what does it mean to say once in a lifetime" debates.

...everybody has one.

It is pretty clear that the reviewer in question doesn't like women with a little meat.  I'm not sure how he could have arrived at the opinion that somebody with a 36DD chest didn't have a little meat, but we've seen all levels of stupidity in the hobby.

One failing of TER, in my opinion, is that they have tried to use some sort of standardization with respect to ratings.  You cannot standardize opinions.  You want some sort of statistical measure?  Fine - we have more than enough of a sample population here to ascribe meaning to it (maybe TER should display simple average, standard deviation, and histogram statistics).  But the readers and providers have to take these things with a grain of salt.  Saying that a "7" means this and a "10" means that, and then deducting scores based on it, biases the system.  No insult intended, but it the entire TER system seems to me something designed by a computer geek with little background in anything else, thus the stodgy approach to ratings.

They can correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that most of the providers that post to TER find this board and rating system to be a positive influence overall (after all, if they didn't, they probably would quietly request that their information not be displayed and leave it at that).  If that is the case, then why whine so much about a few outliers?

I agree with you.  Everyone should be entitled to an opinion.  Just because it doesn't conform to popular opinion - we shouldn't hang the reveiwer out to dry.  Just think how worthless the reviews would be if every provider got what they (or their friends & admirers) THOUGHT they should recieve.  Also - just think how bland the discussion boards would be if you had to agree with those that were most popular.  That busines model won't last very long - esp. with paying customers.

I just wish guys here are not so pandering to providers that read their reviews and this board.  I've seen many of the popular providers here and found most to be quite ordinary looking, nothing wrong with that, they're just far from model material.  If this is a truly hobbyist-only forum, I bet the average score would be closer to 5's than to 7's.  

As for this particular review, I agree that some of what he said is demeaning, but if he felt she is a 4 in looks, then what's wrong with that?  It's fine if you think she's the hottest looking woman in the world, but his score is his opinion, it has nothing to do with yours.

First nobody said she is the hottest looking lady in the world.  However, I just don't quite understand how a guy can give a 9 for performance and a 4 for looks.  I couldn't do that.  Maybe he and other people can.  In my opinion (and others), she rates a higher score.  If he wasn't attracted to her, then why the hell did he stay (and had a wonderful time)?

He is entitled to his opinion.  I just think that performance and appearance each have something to do with each other.

Bond

Not according to all the people who review Suzy in OC.  She seems to avg. around 4 in the looks department and solid 7.5 in performance.

what?  you never had sex with an average/below-average looking chic that turned out to be great in bed?  And you know guys would do any woman unless she's downright repulsive, and maybe less than 1 in 20 women fit into that category, lol.

First, if you are attracted to a lady, whether she is below average or not, has no bearing.   Me, if I am not attracted, I won't enjoy myself.  Additionally, if I am paying a fair amount of money, the lady better be attractive to me.  If she isn't, thats a waste of money in my opinion.  

If you are seeing a lady just to get off, hell, I can think of cheaper ways.

Bond

I too think there is some pandering that goes on on this board, and I have seen looks ratings on the upside that I cannot understand.  However, I am not pandering here.  

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  However, an opinion, for it to have any value, should be founded somewhat in fact (or you could be like George "I never let the the facts influence my opinions" Bush--but let's not get political here).  I just wanted to point out that, because the reviewer's opinion is not founded in fact, it should be given little or no weight.

My point in starting this thread was to state MY opinion (and apparently the opinion of others), based on fact, that the reviewer must have been smoking dope (or just been a dope) because, irrespective of taste, no one in their right mind would see Mara as a 4.

I think my reviews show that I try to call a spade a spade, and provide useful information to those that deign (I had to go to the dictionary on that one) read them.  I do not believe the subject review provides useful information.  

At any rate, I made my point.  No need to belabor it further.

BTW, for what it's worth I disagree w/ 007 re the looks/performance issue.

Atleast it woke everybody up, and brought a lot of discussion. Any publicity is good and I think it may help rather than hurt, the lady I have never meet. Some will have to know, and from what I've seen, she'll be fine.

I also agree with Sedona that some of the wording should go.  I have not personally spent any of my hobby time with Mara, but I have found it difficult to rate some women low on the looks side simply because of the wording was too harsh.  I will simply not leave a review at all.

I do find it sometimes difficult to pick a single score for looks, especially when the body doesn't match the face.  Haven't you seen that provider with the kick ass bod but the face was a little on the "hard edge" side, or vice versa, the gal with a beautiful face but the rest was BBW?

but as I understand it, the rating for looks is supposed to encompass face and body averaged together (and of course added in that all important spark of personality that makes someone sexier than they would be just standing there stonefaced and silent). This could be broken down with a separate score for face and body.

Anyway, the way I read it, a "5" is Average. Now does this mean if you took 10 random women and lined them up, this woman would be right in the middle as far as attractiveness? Or does this mean if you took 10 random PROVIDERS, this woman would be right in the middle as far as attractiveness? It's complicated.

I have noticed that providers get upset about a "6" for looks or a performance score - when a "6" still means above average. I have also noticed that ripoffs are invariably graded down in looks (really hot ripoff women are given 6 & 7) while providers with fantastic performance but average looks get graded up in looks. This probably has to do with the fact that any woman is bound to become infinitely more attractive to you when they are giving you a BBBJCIM instead of a cash and dash! Understandable.

MM

You are right that performance influences appearance - that during (or after) the woman becomes more beautiful. I'm sure we've all had relationships where we didn't think much of a person on first glance but after getting to know and love them, this individual became the most attractive person you could imagine.

But the appearance score is there to tell other potential clients about the physical attributes of the lady in question and should really be decided upon when you first walk in the door. This is purely a rating based on the way a provider's face and body appeal to that particular client. Conversely, the performance score should be decided upon at the conclusion of the session.

MM

I had the pleasure of meeting Mara.  I would not rate her a 4 by no means and I believe I am very picky with looks too.  She has beautiful eyes, great natural breasts and she has a great attittude as well as personality (an all around great human being).  

To the rater's defense, to each his own.  There are not many people that rate under a 5 unless they had a horrible experience and try to ruin the person's average ratings.  I believe if you weight average all the ratings, you will see the average looks and the average performance ratings are way above 5 (I would guess 7).  Maybe he is super picky on looks and thinks she is average looking.  I do not know his reasoning.  Still with that said, it is still amazing and admiralable on the rater to get her a 9 in performance, considering he gave her a 4 in looks.  He gave his other person a 5 in looks and a 8 in performace, at least he is consistent.

You know, Mara is one hot lady. I had the pleasure of having her come into my work one time, and don't think it didn't stop me dead in my tracks. And, I wasn't the only one, the other guys were stumbling over there feet trying to get a better look at her too.

This guy was just a jerk to give her a 4, and if she ever dropped by her work he wouldn't be able to concenatrate either!!

Ridiculous. We should note that review.

I find her very beautiful in every way. Her looks, her personality, her sexuality, her values...ect It's the whole person that makes it's wonderful for me.

I really do take offense to the post by sandiego2. Everything you said was mean. I'm so sorry that in this world......there are guys (sandiego2) who just like to demean ladies for any reason.

Just me,
1dogg12

I just removed that post.  I don't know how I overlooked it until now.  It was mean and out of line.