Looks are so subjective and have nothing really to do with attractiveness anyway.
It all comes down to the connection that is or isn't made between client and SP. This generally dictates the success of a particular session. I've been with some positively well reviewed ladies but then the encounter was no big deal- and not for lack of her efforts either- there was just not enough chemistry.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't- that's simply human nature. There are no guarantees ever.
Too many guys start threads in the 411 or expect the reviewer to answer questions like "Who's a hot 22 y.o. spinner?", "Is she a head-turner on the street?", "Who does she look like? Compare her to a celebrity" and are then disappointed when the lady falls short of the image they have constructed in their mind's eye. One guy even said in another thread that although the girl in question looked "hot, great body and totally doable" he wouldn't be attracted to her based on her fat toes! To each their own. Maybe it's a mole on her ass, or an un-plucked hair on her areola. To me that's all minutia. But to others it's all-important and the expectation is perfection or disappointment.
Post your review truthfully, but how you see fit- whether it be glowing or inclusive of a few warts- and let the readers draw their own conclusions- you are not responsible for interpretation unless you purposely mislead the readers.
