Today's Review of Vincent Romen

[Guest DickHo]

Another non-review--why are these allowed to be posted?

 

Experience: I first sall Vincent on rentboy.com. His photos are very nice and his profile sounded great. I called him up and planned on meeting. When i arrived i was so surprised to see that Vincent looked even BETTER then his photos. Ripped body, beautiful face, amazing white smile.

 

Hes penis is HUGE and not to mention thick. The thing i liked the most is that he doesnt shave his body so there is no stubble on his skin. Very manly thick bush aswell. I will be planning on seeing his again as soon as i get back to FL.

 

He is everything his profile says and more.

[doctordoctor]

these not-so-detailed reviews seem to upset many of you...there are also the reviews that read like Penthouse Forum letters - too detailed...this review of Vincent seems OK to me...in my opinion, the reviews should comment on reliability, appearance, attitude, expectations that were met or not, etc....they should not be of the "his ramrod cock penetrated my willing manhole...."-type...

[Guest DickHo]

I don't need a blow-by-blow description but a mention of what transpired is necessary. All I know from this review is that he doesn't shave and his advertisement is accurate.

 

Imagine if Zagat or movie reviews were that descriptive.

 

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Dick

[pierrot]

I agree with DickHo, too little description is suspicious whereas too much is not really a problem as long as the essential info is there somewhere.

When there's no detail at all, you can't help but wonder if this person really met the escort or just wrote a review for his friend (or himself).

[VaHawk]

>I agree with DickHo, too little description is suspicious

>whereas too much is not really a problem as long as the

>essential info is there somewhere.

>When there's no detail at all, you can't help but wonder if

>this person really met the escort or just wrote a review for

>his friend (or himself).

 

Gee, never heard of Penthouse Forum??

 

Someone posts a lurid, explicitly detailed review of an encounter with an escort, and that makes it more valid than a "no details" review of an escort encounter???

 

So, again??? just HOW does some fantastical, graphic review of an encounter with an escort give it more validity than a tepid, "no detail" review of an encounter with an escort???

 

Let's review: which is more believable?? The type of review that you are criticizing or one of those "raving", in-depth sexually explicit reviews that you demand, and as such, which is more likely to be written by the escort or a "friend" of the escort???

 

Do the math?!

 

Perhaps, and this is a BIG perhaps, all the fawners will WAKE THE FUCK UP?! NAH! as I'm placing all my bets on that not happening! :7

[+ Lucky]

The review in question could have been written by simply looking at a picture of the escort. How the guy is in an actual encounter is what most people want to know. This review didn't tell us that. Right on, Dick Ho!

[VaHawk]

It is a review, and that is all it is! It is not a "gospel" testament to the escort!

 

I could, if I chose, pick any escort off any web site, and write a glowing or devastating review, without ever having met him! That is true, especially, if I have a history of posting reviews on this site.

 

So, if the tepid reviews are, as proposed, written by the escort himself or his friends, then WHY?? would he/they write a tepid review??? WHY wouldn't they write one of those lurid, praise the Lord, HOT reviews instead?

 

Six of one, half dozen of the other?? :o

 

Now, logically, that means that the ONLY valid reviews are the NEGATIVE reviews!

 

If the escort reviewed doesn't respond, then the review was spot on!

 

If the escort reviewed posts a response, then that response is discussed endlessly on this mc, where current and previous clients, who also participate in the mc, who chose not to review the escort, then reveal their experiences with that escort.

 

In turn, if a potential client is not a lurker or poster to the mc, then, a review of any kind, raving, tepid, or negative all have the same weight in the decisioning process.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Today's Review of Brock Lachey

 

Does The Hawk really want to read reviews with such crap as seen in one today reviewing Brock Lachey:

 

"Unlike the last few posters, I will not go into great detail about what went on in the bedroom, Brock acted like a gentleman, and to go into a lot of detail, I feel, would be disrespectful to him, but I will say that it was money well spent.

I will say that after we got started, I wished I could have done a little more with Brock, BUT..... I did not bring up doing more with him while he was here, because I didn''t discuss doing it in our pre-meeting conversations."

 

Gosh, he's writing a review of the guy! But it would be "disrespectful" to tell what happened??? Gimme a break!

[pierrot]

VaHawk. Of course there is no guarantee that anything written here actually happened. I am merely pointing out that to write a few lines with no specifics takes little time, thought or creativity. So of the two types of review -- long and explicit or short and vague -- the latter is the more likely fake.