Escorting

(11-02-2016 21:04 )jayz1876 Wrote:  Obviously you won't post names on the forum!? Perhaps we should re-evaluate the purpose of this thread in that case!? LOL. Buddy by all means feel free to DM, there are some high quality guys here who are all well aware of what you are talking about, we know photogirls and its erstwhile sister sites to be legit, we have deep knowledge of UTR girls, we know that a grand will usually go a long way and we know with whom and we know for what; we are familiar with Lourdes in the US, we have whatsapp threads on our phones full of convos with glamour models about dos/don'ts/price/availability - you are amongst friends here and we are in the habit of sharing, discreetly or otherwise. Please do not think that we don't or won't like what you say, because you're actually preaching to the choir fella. Moreover, I think we are all agreed that it is extremely frustrating to be rebuffed by a girl on her high horse who we all know is P4P. So brother don't be scared to hit us up. I am sure that we can all learn some invaluable information from each other.

And to all our valued forum member friends, (yes, even you terence) I would urge you to remember the sagely words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who on the cross with his dying breath said to the penitent thief: "Truly I say to you, today bitches ain't nothin' but tricks and hos."

Boomshakalaka

Disagree with you there, the purpose is not to out the individual activities of ladies who don't want their extra curricula activities publicly advertised. That's no different to the private ticket tout selling tickets on behalf of Twickenham debenture holders who doesn't advertise his services simply because he doesn't have to - the principle is the same, let people get on with their affairs/business without being interrupted by others tire kickers /public embarrassment or the law.

I'm not preaching to you or anyone else, many on these boards like to believe their favourite girls wouldn't consider escorting, some of whom have even claimed to be . I have no wish to offend such persons hence the "you might not like it".

You want names, it's so easy to work out it's untrue. I'm sure a lot of you guys do know the right people but many here don't seem to know where to start. All it takes is a little research and credibility that you have the money to those with the right access.

(12-02-2016 00:51 )hairbald Wrote:  To pick up on a couple of points raised by Maxwelljam and Florida.

Photogirls - they have not been legit for a while. Basic rule of thumb with them is that if the face is not blurred then it is who they show. Blurred out even though everyone knows who the photo is, then its bait and switch. See the blurred photos they had of Alice 6 months back, and this girl http://www.photogirls.net/Sammi%20G.htm who is indeed a famous lads mag girl but is currently heavily pregnant. Get the feeling Max was dealing with them a few years back but general feeling now is dont trust them

To Floridas point about the purpose of this section. I think coming on here and blaring out all the UTR girls will help no one (most of all ourselves) and indeed Terence may get the banning club of doom out to us all. Starwoks (legit fella) started on the forum recently, listed a load of girls, which some of us would have been surprised at but others less so. They were largely known about but its always good to get some direct feedback (because whilst I've got a fair amount of disposable, keeping covered from the other half is a challenge); he was kind enough to give me some feedback and I hope to reciprocate at some point.

So I think that's where are. You kind of get a feel in a couple of postings whether someone knows their stuff, and then you have the conversation offline. You get the occasional PM from someone asking whether XXXX babe escorts, when they've never made a post - so I usually ignore them.

Having said that I had another blinding session with Molly of London and her mate Olivia Rose at lunchtime on Weds for the grand total of £400, so frankly the babeshow ladies can f**k off for a while

Photogirls has always had a tendency for bait and switch based on their webpages. Frankly, you have to take a risk and dish out a chunky "consultancy" fee after having a track record with them. You'd be right that I haven't spoken to them for some time. Others I know have, they haven't been disappointed.

The main lead out here (Middle East) is clubillrepute. Again, costly.

(11-02-2016 20:34 )hairbald Wrote:  Sadly the "won't turn down a grand" seems to have gone up to one and a half grand if recent experiences are anything to go by. This is meant to be recession?

To be fair, with the exception of one or two, the BS girls seem to be at the lower end of the pay scale... No idea if that's down to regional variances. The competition out here is a fair bit higher and few would care if a girl has been on a UK adult chat show.

More "regular" TV girls are at the prices you're talking about.

maxwelljam I hear you, hence my DM suggestion... I would hope the aim is not to stage a pissing contest of who can brag about being deepest into this world. The one man on this forum who absolutely is deepest in is a hands-off ghost and I commend him for his approach. For us more active members though, surely the purpose is to share our knowledge, not to come on and say I've fucked x, y and z so in your face cause I'm just straight-up grandstanding and not even gonna tell you how. So, to be clear, I am on your wavelength and yes it is the prevailing sentiment that we keep UTRs UTR... but in reality I don't like it. I am of the Hooman Karamian mindset - we should be free to talk about all these girls however and wherever we wish. This concept of the UTR verges on unjustifiable really and it is an increasingly untenable concept as far as I am concerned. Prima facie your ticket tout analogy is valid, but with a little thought, the comparison is superficial and doesn't really ring true to my mind, brother. Nevertheless, whilst on the face of it I am an abrasive personality on these boards, I am not so much of a disruptor as to wish to lose the crowd entirely, hence my revelations remain confined to private conversation with the many great individuals on this site and they will continue to be so. I put this to you all though - isn't it a tad beta for us to be in thrall to these girls to the extent that we are entirely compliant enablers in the sham of not talking about certain members of their community simply by virtue of the fact that these anointed ones present as being of an "elite" standard? Do we do the more easy going girls a disservice by being complicit in perpetuating the questionable UTR/non-UTR dichotomy? Just matters to ponder for the more cerebral amongst us. To you hairbald I would say yes indeed I need to clarify re: photogirls - I have known it historically to be legit and I have also known it to be sketchy as fuark - hopefully that clears up my meaning - the most recent points of maxwelljam, yourself and myself are on all fours, I am glad to say. As for the post directly above, it is with much interest I note the wording of what you have said maxwelljam and accordingly I would be intrigued to have some private back and forth with you on this subject, if you would be minded to do so.

I remain hard lovin', straight thuggin',

Feel free to DM.

DM?

Drivate Message?



What does everyone think about Hamiltons? Better than Photogirls and UK Glamour Girls?

(13-02-2016 15:19 )mrmann Wrote:  DM?

Drivate Message?



What does everyone think about Hamiltons? Better than Photogirls and UK Glamour Girls?

Direct Message mrmann, just a synonym for Private Message. Hamilton's probably in or about a similar standard. Obvs only referring to photogirls being of a decent standard when they come through with the talent they purport to have. Anyone know anything about Hannah Prentice btw? Fake tits, fake ass, highly desirable.

Am I right in thinking that Holly Hixton on Photogirls is Holly Gibbons? Anybody met her through them?

I don't think it is her as that profile had different pics until now. https://twitter.com/photogirlsxxx/status...12/photo/1

The other pics are clearly not Holly Gibbons, so either the last lot were wrong or it's bait and switch. The only thing that "may" mean it's her now is that the pics are not blurred. I was under the impression (Generally at any rate) that if pics are not blurred, it';s genuine and if they are it's fake on photogirls. It could be Holly GIbbons, but I would be surprised to be honest.

(13-02-2016 22:22 )Jay1 Wrote:  Am I right in thinking that Holly Hixton on Photogirls is Holly Gibbons? Anybody met her through them?

(13-02-2016 22:54 )sedsa Wrote:  I don't think it is her as that profile had different pics until now. https://twitter.com/photogirlsxxx/status...12/photo/1

The other pics are clearly not Holly Gibbons, so either the last lot were wrong or it's bait and switch. The only thing that "may" mean it's her now is that the pics are not blurred. I was under the impression (Generally at any rate) that if pics are not blurred, it';s genuine and if they are it's fake on photogirls. It could be Holly GIbbons, but I would be surprised to be honest.

Thanks for the heads up and info. I have noticed that 'Della's' (Adele Stephens) photos are now completely 'unblurred' but as you say, the two photos of Holly are obviously completely different girls.