....same girl in the picture. That is a bare minimum. I have done a reverse image on a few providers and found pics stolen from Instagram hotties. And these were not cheap providers either - all $500+ per hour. I read on here that some agencies interchange girls like a sweatshop and count on racial biases to get away with it. You know what I mean.
Angles and lighting are part of the photography game, but where it becomes unacceptable is when it is used to make an overweight woman look slender or to emphasize curves that are not there. You may think you are being slick but if you want repeat business, the client should be getting close to what they desire in terms of hair color, body type, and even age (I personally don't care if she looks older than her pics).I’m curious where the community draws the line on photo editing. We all want flattering pics, but no one wants bait-and-switch. Where do you personally set the boundary between fair presentation and something that misleads?
For example, are basic lighting and white-balance tweaks, simple cropping, light blemish cleanup, and consistent color grading acceptable in your book? Do privacy blurs for tattoos or identifiable items feel reasonable, or do those make you wary?
On the flip side, what pushes it too far for you? Body reshaping, heavy smoothing that erases natural skin texture, face swaps or AI glam filters, or worst of all using images that aren’t the person at all?
What actually builds trust when you’re deciding to book: a natural-light “no filter” shot, a casual mirror selfie alongside the pro set, or a short walk-around video in the same outfit and room? Do you prefer polished studio sets or candid, everyday photos, and why?
If you could ask agencies to change one thing to make galleries feel more honest, what would it be? I’ll collect the best suggestions here and turn them into a simple checklist for newcomers so they can spot trustworthy galleries faster.
While “fair” can be a subjective and a somewhat vague term, I would define it as this...if a provider's photos depict a version of her that is clearly unattainable in real life i.e. images that she couldn’t reasonably resemble in person, then those photos cross into the territory of being misleading and quite possibly deception.
.
I think most prospective clients understand that professional photos will present the model at her absolute best. Lighting, makeup, wardrobe, posing etc are all part of the process, and that’s generally accepted. However, this is precisely why candid, natural selfies are so valuable as they offer a more authentic glimpse into the ladies's everyday appearance.
.
Personally, I have no issue with minor edits or alterations made to preserve anonymity, such as obscuring tattoos, birth marks or background details that might reveal personal information. I don't think anyone has any real pushback against those methods. That’s not deception, as it’s a form of self-protection that virtually every women should pursue, if they so chose. But maybe offer up a brief disclaimer? As an example, “Some skin editing done to conceal identifying tattoos” would be more than sufficient and completely reasonable, imo.
.
To answer the underlying question of what constitutes “going too far,” I’d say it becomes problematic when the look presented in photos is one the model could not reasonably achieve in person. Admittedly, that’s a somewhat subjective standard but reminiscent of the famous quote about defining obscenity...“I’ll know it when I see it.” lol. But I think most guys can instinctively tell the difference between an attempt at putting your best foot forward and outright misrepresentation.
I prefer raw images with as less editing as humanly possible. Professional photography can be very misleading with utilizing way too much photoshop. When you meet the provider in person you should never feel bamboozled.
* I never get tired of hearing.. “You look prettier in person!”
I don’t like stretch marks or scars. The rate I’m playing at I don’t expect to see any. So when I see pictures and they aren’t present. I expect to see the same in person. Excessive tattoos is another thing I dislike. Especially on the hands and face.
There is editing to enhance. And there is editing to deceive.
The more the image is manipulated the more deceiving it will be. Covering a single, unique tattoo on the shoulder for privacy may be ok. But covering a full sleeve and full torso is deceptive (I just don't like the "Inked" look.)
Consistency also matters, if one image has a unique feature covered or obscured and another does not or shows a different feature, that's a huge red flag of a catfish.
Life is good
The Cat
says it all. Unfortunately, the line between enhancement and deception is not fixed but changes from person to person. Generally, one of the biggest complaints among reviewers is that girl was not the same girl in the photos. She usually is, but the manipulation is such that it sometimes fools even the most jaded of mongers.
Couldn't have said it any better 👍
No, we don't ALL want flattering pics. Why would I want to look better on a pic than on average in my life? I have no idea why. I'm not trying to sell anything but maybe that's why I have no idea.
Many will not want to admit it, but there's a very thin line between marketing and manipulation because marketing IS manipulation. Making someone buy something they wouldn't otherwise have is, in fact, behavioral manipulation. Making something appear a lot better than it is, is in fact manipulation.
"Where do you personally set the boundary between fair presentation and something that mislead"
Any "elephant in the room" features must be presented. Such as excessive tats - you may blur them out but you still want to see that's how the body is going to look when you're doing your thing. If there's a lot of loose skin, this shouldn't be an oh shit surprise when I walk in the door. If you're preggo, goes without saying. If you have facial features showing on pics, I expect them to be there. If you have notable features or defects and they got airbrushed out, once again I personally don't like surprises.
Age and weight and height should not be more than 10% off the numbers. It takes five seconds to update those numbers if time and food happen. If you're listed at 20-something and you're in your 40s, no matter how much you tell people it's not your age it's how you look, it likely won't work.
I don't think theres a type that "feels" honest. I think this is a wrong way to go about this imo. An uncurated selfie with blurred face if you must and blurred identifying features, plus perhaps not very detailed resolution would probably be best. But honesty of it will be judged upon comparison to the real life thing. I guess my point is just like with marketing - focus not on appearing more honest, but just being more honest.
You say there's a "very thin line between marketing and manipulation," which suggests that while they're close, they're still fundamentally different. But in the very same sentence, you claim that "marketing is manipulation" which is a direct contradiction. So which is it? Are they distinct, or are they the same thing? You can’t have it both ways.
.
Also, no one is "making" anyone buy anything. Unless someone is being coerced through threats, blackmail, force, etc which would all be criminal behavior, then it's a CHOICE and thus NOT manipulation. Suggesting otherwise implies that consumers are incapable of intelligently thinking through a purchase or lack any self control whatsoever.
.
That’s a pretty cynical, and frankly condescending, view of people. Adults are responsible for their own decisions and yet you want them treated like children. Exercising self restraint and discernment is just part of being a consumer.
It's a thin line because there is basically no line. They are the same thing.
It seems you are confused as to what "manipulation" is. You can have manipulation and predatory behavior without any threаt, coercion and other stuff you listed. In fact, that's how most manipulations happen.
Manipulation might not be illegal, but for something to not be good to the customer it doesn't have to be illegal. And if it's not good to the customer, why condone it? I'm a simple man. If it's not good for the customer, I don't fuck with it. If it's making the product appear better than it is, I'm gonna call it out.
Manipulation is nudging somone in a certain direction, most loften with the person not even realizing they're manipulated.
And because they don't realize it, they are being manipulated. And this is precisely why you putting the blame solely on a customer's final choice and absolving the manipulator of any blame, is absurd.
Marketing is behavior manipulation of prospective and current customers. Marketing is very often putting lipstick on a pig and photographing a pig from the most "favorable" angle to manipulate a customer into thinking it is not, in fact, a pig.
Or into thinking that a pig might not be so bad after all.
Manipulating someone might be as easy as only listing positives and omitting or glancing over the negatives. This is very common with reviews of providers,by the way.
If marketing wasn't manipulative, why is advertisement of tobacco and alcohol products heavily regulated by the government? Why are lotteries required to publish odds? Why are there tiny print disclaimers about "professional drivers/actors, do not attempt" in advertisements?
No, Robert, marketing is manipulative inherently. You have psych majors and human behavior patterns specialists giving advices on marketing strategies on how to manipulate consumers behavior into engaging with the sellers product the most.
You absolving the manipulator of any blame while placing it on person being manipulated is very indicative of what you think of customers. Hey Robert, do you understand why "If you got scammed then it's you who made the decision therefore it's your fault" is a very fallacious line to take?
Obligatory dilbert pic
http://sarahkford.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dilbert-dogbert-as-vp-of-marketing2.jpg
-- Modified on 8/20/2025 1:56:41 PM
My fav was when Dilbert had to address the board of directors about a product and when seeing a talking point exclaiming that the product was, in fact, killing its users stated:
There’s been a drastic reduction in the number of unhappy customers.
I'm glad you're a fellow Dilbert fan!
There are so many good ones I don't even know if I have a favorite.
Here's another one, I was just talking about how issues such as bait and switch are masked as "opportunities"
To your point:
There's an old joke about a guy taking his first parachute jump. While gearing-up, he asks the person who folded the parachute "Do you know what you're doing?" The folder responds "Well, I haven't had a any complaints!"
ATTB
Per you, marketing and manipulation are one and the same. So per your own logic, you're not just pointing out the problem, you're part of it.
.
If all marketing is manipulation, then all providers are manipulators. You paying them for their services makes you a manipulator supporter, as you are well aware some of the money you pay them will certainly go to their marketing of their services.
.
This means you’re complicit in something you claim to condemn. That is the very essence of hypocrisy.
....so you could get your "gotcha" moment. Imagine if you would have spent all that time with a self help book or taking some testosterone enhancements and pick up/use a tool or other manly thing for a few minutes. Enough positive reinforcement and you could give up being the whiney cuck that can only get laid by paying for it.
First of all, my intiial post wasnt directed to you but rather the agency that started the discussion.
Why are you trying to make this some kind of gotcha bullshit, Robert?
I never called all providers manipulators or even insinuated that.
This topic wasn't even about providers but what degree of photo editing is fair.
I disagreed with the agency that "all of us want flattering pics", explaining that some of us aren't trying to sell anything or be judged on the basis of the pic, therefore some of us don't care how unflattering our pics look.
Then I mentioned some pointers, in particular that some of us would prefer the photos are honest rather than "appear" honest.
You then lost your shit - not the first time when it comes to me saying marketing is manipulation of behavior - and started your off-topic convo about marketing.
What is your gotcha here? That I buy products that are inherently marketed therefore I'm a hypocrite? Have you thought this through?
I simply pointed that out, and now you are obfuscating to cover yourself, as in your want and apparent need. 
.
In response to your question, no, purchasing marketed products does not inherently make you a hypocrite as we all participate in consumerism. Stop playing dumb.
.
The massive distinction lies in the fact that YOU, specifically, choose to support individuals and organizations that you yourself have described as "deceptive" and "manipulative" since they market their product/service. I gave you the chance to clarify, and separate the two, but you doubled down on stupidity when you said marketing and manipulation are the same. I can get the court reporter to read back your words if you wish. lol.
.
Your "logic" and word choice was SO egregious that even my new stalker, a dimwit like Snafucked, had to agree with me. Let THAT sink in. lol.
.
Dont make this worse. Just take the loss here, own your own words and stop with the mental gymnastics. That just comes off as intellectually dishonest, logically inconsistent, and flat out...dare I say it? Deceitful.
.
You can’t rage against the machine bro while simultaneously wearing its clothing, using its loyalty points and buying it dinner.
Great, you admit this. So there is no hypocrisy here.
"The massive distinction lies in the fact that YOU, specifically, choose to support individuals and organizations that you yourself have described as "deceptive" and "manipulative" since they market their product/service."
This is nonsense. You just said purchasing products that are marketed does not make one a hypocrite.
One more time, you are upset that I equated marketing to manipulation. Yes, it is human behavior manipulation. If a consumer wasnt even considering buying a product before the product was marketed to him, and now he is, what is it but a manipulation?
Why are you so upset when I tell an agency that is looking for feedback that its better for the consumer for pics to BE true than APPEAR true?
Wouldn't you agree that is the case for the customer?
" You can’t rage against the machine bro while simultaneously wearing its clothing, using its loyalty points and buying it dinner."
What machine? Capitalism? If I don't like something capitalism or how us works now I must move it join a violent uprising or something?
I don't like lawyers either. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna use them. Use your head for once, Robert.
Heres a quote for you -
"One may dye their hair green and wear their grandma's coat all they want. Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead."
Spare me the hypocrisy bullshit. Marketing is behavior manipulation that preys on human psychology pitfalls. Lobbying is legal bribing. So on and so forth.
Let's look at market manipulation, for example. It is illegal under ftc.
Market manipulation doesn't involve threats, coercion or anything Robert claims something has to be to be manipulative. The customer always has free will to buy or sell any stock they want.
So why is market manipulation illegal under FTC? Because by spreading false info, pump and dump strats organizations and individuals manipulate customers into thinking something and then buying or selling stock. Such as manufactured fake news or false rumor.
Similarly in the p4p industry, glowing reviews bought or shilled by the providers manipulate the customers in thinking the product /service is actually better than it really is. Same goes for any commercial.
Anything that depicts a product or service that is sold, in a light that is extremely favorable and makes it look better than it actually is, is in fact a manipulation of the consumer.
Only a fool or someone extremely biased would think manipulative refers only to something that is done via threats or coercion. In fact most time people are manipulated without any of these tactics.
deserve my support for reasons known to you, right is right. Most manipulation in the marketplace is very subtle and does not involve threats or coercion. As a former marketing guru in more than one industry, marketers use targeted manipulation of emotional responses in order to create action on the part of the buyers. For financial products, we primarily used greed and fear, separately or together, and these are still the primary motivators in this industry today. (Example: "Do this and you can get rich, or don't do this and you might lose everything, and your children don't go to college." Over simplified, but you get the picture.) For luxury items (including pussy), they primarily use ego massage and exclusivity. (Example: "Only a limited number of people can be in this club, buy this super-car, take this cruise, own this diamond neckless, go into space on a rocket, or fuck this super-hot girl, etc.." Another way to look at it is, "Nobody buys a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari because they need reliable transportation to work.") You can make a list for every industry of how they use emotional manipulation to get people to buy.
To Robert's point, there are things where force and coercion are used, but this doesn't work in most cases. The point of manipulating emotions to make a sale is that after the sale has been made, the buyer stays sold and has no remorse about buying. An example of this is by shaming someone into buying something. Social climbers and people who are trapped in mediocrity are particularly susceptible to this approach. They may buy it, but they are immediately sorry they did it.
And YOU support those manipulators financially! You keep making my point that you are a hypocrite! lol.
You forget, of didn't know, rocket comes at this from the perspective of an addict so the idea of having any significant will power to refuse shiny looking things he (or those he claims to be representing) wants is lacking.
What is this about?
Do you also seriously believe that because I buy products that are marketed in any way I am a hypocrite?
Both of you sounding like Mr gotcha
What "gotcha" are you talking about? Where do I say or imply "hypocrite"? I'm simply reminding you, and others, of claims you have made in the past. I'm not going to go hunting for posts but will simply note they were always made in response to my suggestions that people spend more time and effort on understanding how the world really is, in other words, these ads, and not make appointments if you don't like some reasonably formed expectations, based on one's own experience, what others say in discussions and what they say in reviews. You wanted none of that because many here are sex addicts and cannot over rule their urges. Which was a justification you offer for your truth in advertising crusade.
I don't remember doing this at all.
Right now what you're and Robert is doing - and you have done this very often - is to blame the customer for their own disappointments simply because he has the final yes/no, and never blaming the people who lie and mislead, do false advertisements and so forth.
Instead of blaming people who willingly mislead and manipulate, you instead blame people who get manipulated by them.
Do you know why people getting scammed is not a cr1me and llllpeople scamming is a cr1me?
Sure, there is some accountability for those who habitually get manipulated and scammed. They may be gullible weak or whatever.
But also - at the very least - you need to tar and feather people who do scams and lie outright. You refuse to do this even in an anonymous online setting. But to blame customers? You're always here to do this, always..
yes,you did exactly that in several of our exchanges in the past. Cannot help that you don't remember but if you really don't perhaps that means you should start checking some of your own premises before making claims when you might not actually hold them but say things trying win your debate points.
This is still about the whole thing of "why are you giving money to people who mislead and deceive"?
Well if so then I might have said that if a girl A is better than girl B in bed I will see girl A. Regardless of whether she lies about something and girl B doesn't.
I think it's fair to point out that the girl A lies and make it publicly known. If everyone knows she is lying about some of her ad, then everyone is free to choose the girl they like, because they are informed.
To some like myself the fact she is twenty years older than her ad claims, it might not matter as long as she fucks me silly. To some it will matter and they will walk out.
Honesty doesn't make money. We all know that. That's why it's a virtue. That's why being honest and not manipulative is rare. And why it should be celebrated.
But, alas, honesty doesn't necessarily make dick hard. I don't see why I need to see a girl who is honest but not good in what I want over a girl who's dishonest but good.
Instead, I will talk online in places they're advertised, that girl is lying about x y and z but she's an excellent fuck if you like service. And that girl b has honest pics and doesn't lie, but she's not that great.
I hope that makes it clearer. I want honesty and transparency between sellers and buyers, as much as possible. I don't want buyers to boycott each org or provider or seller who engages in deception. Just let everyone know so they don't build unrealistic expectations. I think this is the little common ground me and you have. I think we both agree the having unrealistic expectations is a bad thing. And ads by sellers od on that.
Pictures that are like 10+ years old. A practice followed by many top-rated providers in NYC!
I don't mind if a lady has professional slightly touched up photos. But I prefer that's not all she has. I like when she mixes it up with some selfies too. That can be on her website, or on her socials. I follow some on Twitter who post selfies regurally. Seeing a provider who looks great without the touch ups always gets me more interested in seeing her.
(hate when I hit enter in the subject input thinking it will jump to the message box rather than posting)
First, just how much touch-up occurs for something like a family portrait? Certainly enough to remove some basic blemishes but not so much that anyone looking at the picture thinks its of a different family.
Second might be the amount one expects from any fashion magazine. Again, the person is recognizable but they can be some rather stark differences between the glamor pic and the paparazzi shot in some expose rag of her walking her dog Sunday morning. In this case the girl likely needs to be read and able to put that face on every day and keep it in place for everyone she meets.
I would expect that in any country where P4P is legal -- and I assume such ads would face the same legal and regulatory standards as any other ad. In locations where P4P is illegal it would be great but I've yet to really find any place that is even really top of the market much less a norm. So in such places, like here in the USA, I settle for consistency of what might be done.
-- Modified on 8/20/2025 5:41:15 AM
....same girl in the picture. That is a bare minimum. I have done a reverse image on a few providers and found pics stolen from Instagram hotties. And these were not cheap providers either - all $500+ per hour. I read on here that some agencies interchange girls like a sweatshop and count on racial biases to get away with it. You know what I mean.
Angles and lighting are part of the photography game, but where it becomes unacceptable is when it is used to make an overweight woman look slender or to emphasize curves that are not there. You may think you are being slick but if you want repeat business, the client should be getting close to what they desire in terms of hair color, body type, and even age (I personally don't care if she looks older than her pics).
Same skin tone, same weight, same body shape, etc...
I agree with others who say anything less is false advertising.
I don't expect 10 lbs more. I don't expect 10 years older. I don't expect a muffin top or cottage cheese thighs or a plain face.
I choose providers, in large part, based on their advertised appearance.
After 15 years of P4P, I can't think of more than 2 experiences when a provider's appearance was a disappointment and it didn't affect my overall enjoyment.
If you want the edited ones they are on my website.
Sample photos on the Ideas page of my website. They show what I do to most of my photos. I try to keep any tweaking in the same category as makeup—enhance only. And there are sometimes things or people that need to get removed.
Thanks for the comments about selfies. Coming up!
Xoxo
Jenny
I’m a big fan of selfies instead of professional photos. It’s easier to keep them updated & post frequently . While you still need some professional pics to look polished I hear men complain about them because of the heavy editing. I like a mix of both on my website and socials. I’ve seen some providers start posting videos and I think it’s a great idea to show how you really look.