samantha pics

[pants]

Isn't this interesting, check the difference between pics

http://www.escort.sexcia.com/escorts/post_20738.html
http://www.dejavumassage.com/samantha/samantha.htm

 

[xinvaderchrisx]

Hahahha. Busted!!

 

[johnnybravo299]

Busted about what?

Samantha has openly stated that the pics are not of her. Its a privacy thing. Although the pics are damn close to what she looks like!

 

[Steve Ray]

Samantha has openly stated that the pics are not of her. Its a privacy thing. Although the pics are damn close to what she looks like!

If it is a privacy thing then she should not post pics at all. She is misleading clients unless there is a clear disclaimer on the website that the pictures were stolen from another website.

 

[kenizstpeter]

Sam...

They aren't her pics, but her body type is VERY close to the pics.

Probably the finest bod in the biz. But only if you like 'em tight, lean with buttery soft skin.

 

[foggyglasses]

Right on the Money

You hit right on SR. I saw her once (and never again) based on her pics. This is the second time she has posted false info on the DV website. These new ones (also not of her) are updated fakes to from another person. I don't care if they are close it is still misleading to the people paying good money to see her. If she is so concerned about privacy don't post pics or get out of the business.

FG

 

[trawler]

Tommyo ...

I agree. Although I am not a fan of "misleading pictures", the ones posted by Tanya @ DejaVu for Samantha are so close to her real look they do not "bait and hook" the Pooner.

In any event, she is a World Class SP, with looks 8+ and that alone makes the pictures irrelevant. For those who are stuck on the principle of "Fake Pictures" being wrong, therefore I will not see her, give your head a shake, swallow that f..king principle and have a wonderful experience with a beautiful Courtesan.

NUFF SAID ... T

 

[Gentleman First]

So false advertising is all good now is it.....

Bullshit....either real pics of the SP or none at all.

Maybe i should post pics of Ferrari's and just photoshop the badges a little, and pretend they are a new line of car I am making, and take peoples money on deposit to order them to.


I could care less what the false pics are of, or whom they are of.
The point is simple, they are false.
In my books making her a liar and scam.

If she has any morals she will remove the pics completely till she has her own taken and posted.....or if too worried about her privacy then stop working as an SP, or at least remove any pics and leave a text description of herself only.

Damn I hate liars

 

[wannabe]

and not 2b forgotten...........

Is she also the gal that had some sort of scare and will not perform F/S??

If so I wouldn't mind seeing that posted as well.

These are all things I think help pooners make their choices.

 

[littlejonny]

Before you guys single out Samantha too much, it's my guess that there's at least four other girls on that site using photo's that are not of themselves. Reasonable facsimile's are used in advertising all of the time. Deal with it.

I remember this whole issue get hashed over years ago when Emily had pictures on there that were from some Playboy spread back in the seventies. The pictures were very close to what she looked like, it's just that she was laying on some kind of shag rug. I didn't really see any harm done then either.

 

[perbedm]

Fake pics suck.

I've seen lots of pictures of SP's with the face blurred, or not in the shot.
This is the way to retain privacy if its important to her.. NOT FAKES.

I've seen multiple fake pics on DejaVu's site.. And its one of the reasons I don't go there..

S.

 

[Mick Shagher]

I remember this whole issue get hashed over years ago when Eve had pictures on there that were from some Playboy spread back in the seventies. The pictures were very close to what she looked like, it's just that she was laying on some kind of shag rug. I didn't really see any harm done then either.

It was Emily who had the fake Playboy pictures. Eve's pictures are indeed her.

 

[Sexy BBW]

If it is a privacy thing then she should not post pics at all. She is misleading clients unless there is a clear disclaimer on the website that the pictures were stolen from another website.

I agree and second that, be honest with what you have, different flavors of SP for different guys

 

[burnman]

Samantha has really become sensitive to what she does. Don't get me wrong, I think it is certainly her right not to post pictures of herself and restrict her services. I remember when she worked at Penthouse, she had real pictures of herself and not even her face was blacked out. She has changed quite a bit. It's too bad and I'll have to seriously consider if to repeat with her or not.

 

[WickedWeasel]

To me the issue isn't that the pics aren't of her, it's that there's nothing admitting to it: simply put a small note at the bottom of the page saying "Some of these aren't me but they give you the right idea.".

This industry is built on trust between the client and the provider due to the, how you say, "lack of regulations". This is also the neccessity for privacy on the part of both client and provider, both parties should understand why it's required for the other.

Clients want 2 things in a provider: looks and services: if one of those is misrepresented, you can't help but wonder if the other might be as well. However if you're honest and up front about these it'll keep everyone happy.

 

[ScottyTwoHotty]

Just so you know. I am considering becoming a male SP. I will be using photos of Homer Simpson, and airbrushing my face on his head. My rates will be 1 case of Duff beer per hour.

 

[littlejonny]

I stand corrected. It was indeed Emily, who now goes by the name of Danielle at another studio. My apologies to Eve. I have now edited the post.

 

[WickedWeasel]

Just so you know. I am considering becoming a male SP. I will be using photos of Homer Simpson, and airbrushing my face on his head. My rates will be 1 case of Duff beer per hour.

Deal. What's your schedule like?

 

[Dark_Knight]

Well I don't have an opinion one way or the other right now. I do like to see what I am getting into so to speak, but these are people we are dealing with here that have lives outside of this and emotions. If they choose not to show their real selves that is their perogative. I also know that I have never once gotten a Big Mac from McDonalds that looked anywhere near what the pictures of them do. So as you can see, "Fake pictures" abound in marketing. I think we should just cut Samantha some slack and talk about other things. For instance, how perfect her body is. She is one damn fine looking lady. I just wish I had been able to experience full service with her.

DK

 

[SweetDoc]

I'm not going to make any judgements about anyone's character or personality here. I will say one thing however. False advertising. If the pictures on the website aren't of her, it doesn't matter how close they are, it's wrong unless stated on the site they are not her, which it doesn't. Speaking strictly about business laws and not lifestyles, this is misprepresentation and poor business ethics. It misleads customers. These kind of businesses are legal and work within the laws, as such, they should be subject to consumer protection legislation. I don't have anything against Samantha, I'm sure she's a really nice lady, however if she wanted privacy, I suggest removing the pictures on the site that are being used as misleading advertising or add a small disclaimer under the pictures disclosing the appropriate information. Honestly, it's good business to be truthful, it implies integrity and gives clients confidence. I'm not sure if that matters to anyone, but it does to me and I operate that way.