Hello everyone, long time member/lurker (since 06) but this is officially my first post, eventually I hope to chronicle some of my past adventures and give back. The one thing I think is totally out of whack is the rating system, I have seen a few providers who's looks have been rated 8+ and I was like WTF, did the walk of shame and I'll never do this again speech. Anyone else notice that the rating is out of whack? Maybe the dude should rate himself first then rate the girl...that would give everyone a sense of the playing field...just a thought.
Rating System
- Thread starter Da Hammer
- Start date
Forget the rating system. Let's face it what a person of 50+ considers to be a good looking woman is going to differ from what a person of 20 is going to drool over. As to guys rating themselves first, again the age difference, plus do you really think any guy on here is going to consider themselves the Phyliss Diller of pooners ?
What I was trying imply was if men stated what age they were it would give you a better sense, but even then it doesn't mean it's the same cup of tea for all. Unfortunately or fortunately any service that is provided is rated, the web is a powerful source of knowledge and we all us it to research anything we are uncertain of, in this scenario it's looking for that moment of bliss for an hour or so...then back to reality.
Ah, Da Hammer for all of his years of lurking seems to have missed a minor detail, just how many of the other services being rated are services where the participants place a premium on remaining anonymous ? True, on a lot of the sites where services are rated people use "handles" but they still give out enough information that they could probably be identified by anybody that knows them, plus they have no problem telling friends and family that they put in their two-bits. Here not so much.
Obviously the age of the SP and the age of the client needs to come into the equation.
Personally I find all the ratings way too subjective based upon the old YMMV thing. Some clients are bordering on way too picky iMHO. I saw a couple of 20 somethings in 2010 and thought they were really quite attractive facially and had hot bodies too. My ratings were 8's in my review. Someone PM'd me and thought I was way off and one was only a six
One does wonder though if all of these posters are GQ models too? Might be interesting to have the SP retort about the reviewers looks. Now that would be a great thread!
Personally I find all the ratings way too subjective based upon the old YMMV thing. Some clients are bordering on way too picky iMHO. I saw a couple of 20 somethings in 2010 and thought they were really quite attractive facially and had hot bodies too. My ratings were 8's in my review. Someone PM'd me and thought I was way off and one was only a six
One does wonder though if all of these posters are GQ models too? Might be interesting to have the SP retort about the reviewers looks. Now that would be a great thread!
the looks ratings being posted are pretty laughable in most cases. they seem to all start around 6 or 6.5... huh? so this is either one very skewed population or somebody hasn't grasped even elementary statistics. i also notice that the better the time a pooner has, the higher the looks rating... again, huh? ...and that the worse a time he has, the lower the looks rating - a Total Waste Of Time (TWOT) might be judged a 3 in looks... for the third time, huh?
an average looking female - not ugly, not gorgeous - should be a 5. anybody less pretty than average should rate less than 5, anybody prettier than average should rate over 5 - all these ratings should be completely independent of service and attitude ratings. A rating of 9 means that the woman is in the top 10% of looks IN THE WORLD! We're talking Miss Universe looks here! 8's should be complete stunners. on the down side of 5, a 4 should still be doable, and a 3 would be getting pretty sketchy. less than 3 would have to be one hell of a screw to still stay in the market
service ratings should start at 10 for a woman that does absolutely everything your heart (or your cock) might desire - kiss your face off, tongue down the throat, bbbj, cum wherever you would like it, rimming, digits, msog, toys, greek, russian, italian, french and any other language you might wish to speak, etc. etc. for everything on that list she doesn't do she loses a point. period. simple. this means that a simple rub and tugger, no matter how good she is at what she does is not going to get a 9 for service. a lot of guys don't agree with this approach but that is the way it was when sp ratings were first introduced on the Internet back in the early 90's and i firmly believe that is the way they should stay
attitude ratings are even more subjective than looks ratings, but here is where a rub and tugger might score a 9 or 10, but an all out pse queen might only score a 1 or 2
all the above of course imho
an average looking female - not ugly, not gorgeous - should be a 5. anybody less pretty than average should rate less than 5, anybody prettier than average should rate over 5 - all these ratings should be completely independent of service and attitude ratings. A rating of 9 means that the woman is in the top 10% of looks IN THE WORLD! We're talking Miss Universe looks here! 8's should be complete stunners. on the down side of 5, a 4 should still be doable, and a 3 would be getting pretty sketchy. less than 3 would have to be one hell of a screw to still stay in the market
service ratings should start at 10 for a woman that does absolutely everything your heart (or your cock) might desire - kiss your face off, tongue down the throat, bbbj, cum wherever you would like it, rimming, digits, msog, toys, greek, russian, italian, french and any other language you might wish to speak, etc. etc. for everything on that list she doesn't do she loses a point. period. simple. this means that a simple rub and tugger, no matter how good she is at what she does is not going to get a 9 for service. a lot of guys don't agree with this approach but that is the way it was when sp ratings were first introduced on the Internet back in the early 90's and i firmly believe that is the way they should stay
attitude ratings are even more subjective than looks ratings, but here is where a rub and tugger might score a 9 or 10, but an all out pse queen might only score a 1 or 2
all the above of course imho
I'm not in favor of a rating system, nor do I rate women. For me, i'm looking for a lady who is fun to be with, easy going, can laugh, who is a good listener, etc..(looks,body type, breast size etc. are not always that important to me) I find a lot of times, for lack of another term, it's "different strokes for different folks". I've been with ladies and had a great time, only to read a negative review of her and see low ratings. Sure, I read the review on this site, but they don't always influence my decision to experience the company on the lady.
I disagree with your logic about Looks. We do not have access to 100% of the female population in the world. We have access to 100% of the SP's in Vancouver or where ever we are located. Therefore of the 100% we can easily state that our experience with such and such SP was an 8 or a 9 versus her colleagues in our vicinity. This should not be misconstrued as an 8 or a 9 versus all the women in Vancouver obviously because not all women are SP's.
My $0.02
the reason i disagree with you is that in order to be able to rate looks in this special sp category you're talking about, we would all have to have seen the same sp's (since they are a considerably smaller subset of the general population of women). this is not the case, and it never will be. however, we have all been exposed to the much larger category of women in general all our lives and should be able to make reasonable comparisons to it
Looks are a bonus but not a top priority, it's all about the experience for me. I am sure there are a lot of men here(especially the ones who gripe the most), that would fall into the average to below average in looks based on current society scales, good thing the ladies here do not base thier clientel off that, as they would be poor and many men would be SOL.
Let it be known how you judge people can come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later, I would hate to get on any companions badside as result of an unfair review due to a persons inability to appreciate people for who they are, over what they look like.
Just Saying.
Let it be known how you judge people can come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later, I would hate to get on any companions badside as result of an unfair review due to a persons inability to appreciate people for who they are, over what they look like.
Just Saying.
I visited a couple of girls on Madison in Burnaby a few months back, their names escape me (eventually I'll have a list of reviews) but they were rated 7 to 8 in the looks department and were talked about on here quite frequently, to me they were no more than a 3-4 in the looks department but that's just my opinion, sure their service was great but I wouldn't go back as the look just didn't do it for me, if you want a GFE then I think she's gotta be decent looking to really get the full experience. Some might not like the rating system and think it's cruel to rate a girls looks but we are on a review board and it's an important piece of information to most, the girls know it's a business and they advertise and sell their best features, nothing wrong with us providing feedback even if looks are scrutinized.
I don't do ratings but a 5 is not average prettyness - it is the median woman (50th percentile) in a population, and that woman is butt ugly. Look around - most people are not attractive. If you packed a room with 100 random women between 18 and 50 years old, of all races, sizes and socio-economic backgrounds, most guys would not be attracted to the 50th "best looking" woman. Same goes for guys. A 5 is not pretty (or handsome) and certainly not average pretty. The reason we notice really attractive women is that there are not that many of them.
I do agree that 9-10 should be reserved for stunning, and I have only seen a few that are close to that category in the escort community (Shelby Luxx, Quintessential Taylor, Erotic Christine and Mya Dream come to mind), but that is still just my opinion. Most escorts are 7-8 in my opinion.
I do agree that 9-10 should be reserved for stunning, and I have only seen a few that are close to that category in the escort community (Shelby Luxx, Quintessential Taylor, Erotic Christine and Mya Dream come to mind), but that is still just my opinion. Most escorts are 7-8 in my opinion.
Last edited:
right on, that was what i was trying to say. although this is where the age factor comes in - when i was twenty no way would i consider women with looks that i quite happily drool over now. i happen to ride the bus to and from work every day so i see lots of everyday women - and in a busful of everyday women, i would gladly get nekid with half of them... well with half of the young ones anyway lol! i'm sure they are completely grossed out when they see me giving them the once over
but i disagree that most escorts are 7-8. most of the high class ladies that advertise here are, but not most escorts in general
Not all of us guys are like that and I can say it is one reason I stick mostly to pm's if people have a question about some one I have seen. I dont go into lurid deatail but I give enough info in a dignified manner to assist in helping somone make a decision.
I have enjoyed my time with every companion I have been with and consider every one of them a positive experience thus far. I can say it has been a bonus to me taking time and researching those that catch my eye.
The reason for that is that when you are 20, you restrict your selection to women in the 18-23 range, and women of that age are automatically above average simply because of their youth. And in that group you focus on only the very best, so the top 5% as it were. Once you get older you look at all women younger than about 5 years older than your age, and of course the number of "hot" women in the top 5% is going to encompass a much wider group among 18-23 year old women, possibly as many as half of them, simply because the ranks of "unattractive" are being filled up by the older ones.
It is all relative, and your benchmark changes as you get older.
So, girls, if are not supermodel quality in appearance and you want to be with a guy that thinks you are gods gift to men, date an older guy!!
There is another factor as well, as you get older style and character become more significant in determining attractiveness, it is not just looks. It is the whole package. Whereas a younger guy might simply notice features that imply sexual availability and see that as attractive, an older guy would see the same feature as slutty and go for a more refined look (which is something a woman has more control over).
