General Reports

**Mr Fuzzynutz66** · 05-21-07 13:19

Just making a test post. New to the forums, but not to the game. I have been trying to make posts and add a few pics, but having no luck.

So hopefully this will go through, and I can join in the fun.

**Mike 80** · 05-21-07 12:42

Originally Posted by CookyJar

Under no rating system could Julie be rated a one (1), if one is the bottom/lowest point on the scale....I see beauty where there is beauty. Take the pictures of Diane for example. True, there is a certain charm to her pictures, but would you rate her near Julie? Where would you place her on your scale?...Would you introduce her to you buddies as your date?

It sounds like you're directing your questions mainly to Sjman, so I'll let him respond.

You know how much I love your pics and reports, Cooky my friend, but I am hoping that you selected Diane from your large, wonderful collection because even you (lover of all kinds of women) have to admit that Diane is probably the least attractive (or let's call her like she really is - kind of frightening-looking) woman you've ever posted. I can already hear the keys flying on old Dr. Monger's keyboard down in Baltimore reminding us again how ugly our SWs are. That close-up of Diane's face will haunt my dreams tonight.

I'd say Diane rates about a "2.5-3" on my SW scale (face is a definite "1" but the body is not a complete disaster despite the clownish implants). In a weak, horny moment I might close my eyes and bang her. Sad to say, those of us who have been at this hobby awhile know there are even less attractive women to be found on our nation's strolls. But to answer one of your other questions, "no" I don't think I'd be all that eager to introduce her to buddies as my new girl. I think I might give Julie just a wee bit of an edge here. Yikes.

**Mr Fuzzynutz74** · 05-21-07 12:39

And I know you are all saying. Who the hell is Fuzzy and why do I care. The answer to that is. You shouldn't care, but Hopefully my tales will entertain and be informative.

I have been a Glory seeker in Camden for close to four years, got my start in Asbury Park. So I have grown into a seasoned Vet when it comes to the ladies. Made my mistakes and learned from them.

But all that to say is, I took a break from Broadway due to the girls were not looking all that great, alot of LE activity and was getting into the Swingers scene.

But in the last few weeks, especially one Sunday I have been venturing out to see how things were.

And hot damn there seems to be a fresh crop since I have been around.

Two notable ones being Dana and the very popular Rachel

I have racked up 8 visits, and damn me for forgetting their names, but like I said Dana and Rachel stuck out to me.

Rachel was fantastic, I seen her before I read a single post, and they are all pretty much on point. I am 6'6 so it was a quilty pleasure that attracted me too her, (gotta love the Spinners LOL)

Dana was the other girl who stuck out, Her face reminds me of a another popular girl Cathy, but taller.

But her oral skills, and the fact she likes to her time was reasons why she is currently my top girl.

Here is a pick of Rachel in action. Like I said a true guilty pleasure LOL and a bonus pic of Melissa. She is one of the few who demand using protection for oral service Nice frame, God knows why she doesn't have any eyebrows. But she said she dances at Club Risque. Anyone seen her? Sweet kid, well worth another visit.

**CookyJar** · 05-21-07 09:45

Originally Posted by Mike 80

As for your comments about different tastes, that's true. I like all kinds but for the most part I prefer tight, slender, small-breasted and/or petite women, so Julie's body looks great to me. But I realize other guys prefer big tits and more curves, so they'd rate her lower.

Originally Posted by Sjman

I took Mike's comment in good spirit…

Before I started picking up SW's on boradway, most of my experiences were with Eastern Europian girls in Europe or in EU spas in US, that's why it's not easy for me to rate a SW very high. Fact is a girl in a sub standard ***** house in Prague is way better than what I have seen in a AMP or on camden or in playhouse.

I hope both, Sjman and Mike, take my comments in good spirit.

I understand the point you make. There is a flaw. Under no rating system could Julie be rated a one (1), if one is the bottom/lowest point on the scale. Let’s forget the Eastern Europian and EU spas scales for now (surely you must have realized by now that you are not in Europe or in a spa). Let’s forget the SWer scale (a scale I never understood anyway). Let’s just talk about average people. Let’s rate Julie as if she was just another girl you pickup at a football match. Certainly, she would rate above a one (1).

Fortunately for me, I like women in all of their versatile deviations. I can appreciate the large as well as the small. I see beauty where there is beauty. Take the pictures of Diane for example. True, there is a certain charm to her pictures, but would you rate her near Julie? Where would you place her on your scale? Let’s go back to the ball game. Where would you rate Diane if you met her at a football match? Would you leave the match holding hands with her? Would you introduce her to you buddies as your date?

Remember, you’ve already given the number one slot to Julie. Are you planning to classify Julie and Diane as equals? Would you honor Diane with a place higher then Julie, after all, she does have large boobs? And, while there may be some who would rate Diane higher, I doubt if anyone would see her present condition as anywhere near a ten (10).

I offered a suggestion in the Philadelphia Streetwalker Photos thread (see: Sophia - The Solo). So far no one has commented on my suggestion. It might not solve the problem but it could be fun.

CookyJar

**Mike 80** · 05-21-07 07:06

Originally Posted by Sjman

... most of my experiences (have been) with Eastern Europian girls in Europe or in EU spas in US, that's why it's not easy for me to rate a SW very high. Fact is a girl in a sub standard ***** house in Prague is way better than what I have seen in a AMP or on camden or in playhouse.

Okay, at least now I know your "neighborhood" and your basis for comparison. I guess I need to check out these EU girls in their native land or in EU spas in this country.

As for your comments about different tastes, that's true. I like all kinds but for the most part I prefer tight, slender, small-breasted and/or petite women, so Julie's body looks great to me. But I realize other guys prefer big tits and more curves, so they'd rate her lower.

Re your question about senior status, you'll be automatically upgraded when you have 25 reports AND have been a member for 6 months.

**Sjman** · 05-20-07 19:27

Originally Posted by Mike 80

I'm not mad in the slightest, Bill. And I'm not calling Sjman a "dumb sap." I appreciate that he's just started street mongering and he's posting his first conquests on the board. All good stuff. I was just amazed at his comments about Julie and Rachel being "1's" or "2's." ...Of course right after I posted my comments his 'official' ratings appeared. Better, but still harsh in my view.

Fair enough, but if you checked out CookyJar's sexy shots of "Cherry" (Julie) here and on the Philly board, you've seen the "whole story" and it's a good one. No touch ups, no lighting tricks. Trust me.

I took Mike's comment in good spirit, never thought he is mad at me. I am new to SW scene and it will take me some time to adjust. In any case, every one has a different taste. If you like skinny girls, you may rate her 8 but for some one else who is into big boobs and fat ass she may be just a 4. Before I started picking up SW's on boradway, most of my experiences were with Eastern Europian girls in Europe or in EU spas in US, that's why it's not easy for me to rate a SW very high. Fact is a girl in a sub standard ***** house in Prague is way better than what I have seen in a AMP or on camden or in playhouse.

Some of you may ask, if you have such high standard then why you are looking for sex on street. It's all economics guys, I am trying to control my expenses on this hobby, because I can't control my small head. LOL

I will keep posting my experiences.

**Nnmyemail** · 05-20-07 19:22

When doing the loop and if you want full service, where are the "safe" places to take them? Well, safe and cheap.

**Mike 80** · 05-20-07 16:54

Originally Posted by Bill Buxton

Why get mad at the dumb sap for fucking up the sw scale.

I'm not mad in the slightest, Bill. And I'm not calling Sjman a "dumb sap." I appreciate that he's just started street mongering and he's posting his first conquests on the board. All good stuff. I was just amazed at his comments about Julie and Rachel being "1's" or "2's." ...Of course right after I posted my comments his 'official' ratings appeared. Better, but still harsh in my view.

Originally Posted by Bill Buxton

Post the pics let the others decide if they want to have the gal. Beleave me never take anything less than a pic for a good assesment of scale.And some pics don't tell whole story.

Fair enough, but if you checked out CookyJar's sexy shots of "Cherry" (Julie) here and on the Philly board, you've seen the "whole story" and it's a good one. No touch ups, no lighting tricks. Trust me.

**Niceguy3** · 05-20-07 15:28

Ran into a fairly busty long haired brunette named Kim on Broadway today, not far from the train station.

No rushing, lots of licking (which I like) and totally worth the .2 she asked for.
She didnt do CIM but she did let me go on her lips which was sexy as hell.

She offered FS for .4 but it being the first time I ever met her I declined.

I'd pick her up again.

**Bill Buxton** · 05-20-07 15:05

Why get mad at the dumb sap for fucking up the sw scale.I have chased many here that have been 2's 3's and they looked better than the gal next door.I have also scooped up many talked about on the boards here that were no way in hell a 7-8 or above like the other guy said.

Post the pics let the others decide if they want to have the gal.Beleave me never take anything less than a pick for a good assesment of scale.And some pics don't tell whole story.

B.B...

**Sjman** · 05-20-07 13:16

Originally Posted by Mike 80

WTF, Sjman?! In your first week of mongering, you say you've been w/ Julie (aka "Cherry") and Rachel. As for Julie, you said she looked "way better" than in her CookyJar photos that caused mongers from across the U.S. to rave about her as being one of the hottest SWs they've seen. She and Rachel are two of the best looking SWs working Camden or Philly right now, both in the top 5 IMO. On a 10 point scale you would rate them a 1 or 2 max? You must be blind or insane. The only other explanation I can think of is maybe you commute from the Playboy mansion or you're a fashion photographer who doesn't get out much.

Yes as Trav Pokerman mentions we definitely inflate ratings over how we'd rate a real world girl. However I don't inflate my ratings as much as making a "4" an "8" on the SW scale. I probably give girls more of a break at the lower end of the scale - like maybe giving a SW a "6" who might be a real world "3." But at the top end of the scale, I'm not that generous. I will rate a SW an "8" if I think she's a "6" by real world standards, a "9" if she's a real world "7," and a "10" (and I've only dated two SWs that rated that high - one in Philly a couple a years ago, 18yo smoking hot "Yummy") if I think she'd rate a real world "8" or "9." I've definitely seen but not dated several real world "9's" and "10's working as CGs in Las Vegas and one in AC who was the hottest of them all. I still get wood thinking about that girl in AC who combined all the best features of Sharon Stone and Michelle Pheiffer in their prime. OMG was that girl hot. I think I posted at the time that I probably would have paid $$$ just to take her clothes off and stare at her for an hour. She was Maxim Top 10 material.

Rachel's teeth were a big turn-off for me and i also noticed some blood on her pants. She was not clean as compare to Julie or Karen.

Anyway, how many posts I need to be a Senior Member?

**Sjman** · 05-20-07 13:10

Originally Posted by Mike 80

WTF, Sjman?! In your first week of mongering, you say you've been w/ Julie (aka "Cherry") and Rachel. As for Julie, you said she looked "way better" than in her CookyJar photos that caused mongers from across the U.S. to rave about her as being one of the hottest SWs they've seen. She and Rachel are easily two of the best looking SWs working Camden or Philly right now, both in the top 5 IMO. On a 10 point scale you would rate them a 1 or 2 max? You must be blind or insane. The only other explanation I can think of is maybe you commute from the Playboy mansion or you're a fashion photographer who doesn't get out much.

Yes as Trav Pokerman mentions we definitely inflate ratings over how we'd rate a real world girl. However I don't inflate my ratings as much as making a "4" an "8" on the SW scale. I probably give girls more of a break at the lower end of the scale - like maybe giving a SW a "6" who might be a real world "3." But at the top end of the scale, I'm not that generous. I will rate a SW an "8" if I think she's a "6" by real world standards, a "9" if she's a real world "7," and a "10" (and I've only dated two SWs that rated that high - one in Philly a couple a years ago, 18yo smoking hot "Yummy") if I think she'd rate a real world "8" or "9." I've definitely seen but not dated several real world "9's" and "10's working as CGs in Las Vegas and one in AC who was the hottest of them all. I still get wood thinking about that girl in AC who combined all the best features of Sharon Stone and Michelle Pheiffer in their prime. OMG was that girl hot. I think I posted at the time that I probably would have paid $$$ just to take her clothes off and stare at her for an hour. She was Maxim Top 10 material.

My 1 or 2 ratings was based on my experience with EU girls.Those girls are hot buddy. I do realize that i need to rate SW differently that's why I have posted my revised ratings after reading Trav 's post. I am not a senior member yet and hopefully you will see my post tomorrow.

**Mike 80** · 05-20-07 10:10

Originally Posted by Sjman

I am trying to figure out how you guys rate a SW.on my scale what i have seen so far is a 1, max 2.help me out here, so i can rate these girls properly.

WTF, Sjman?! In your first week of mongering, you say you've been w/ Julie (aka "Cherry") and Rachel. As for Julie, you said she looked "way better" than in her CookyJar photos that caused mongers from across the U.S. to rave about her as being one of the hottest SWs they've seen. She and Rachel are two of the best looking SWs working Camden or Philly right now, both in the top 5 IMO. On a 10 point scale you would rate them a 1 or 2 max? You must be blind or insane. The only other explanation I can think of is maybe you commute from the Playboy mansion or you're a fashion photographer who doesn't get out much. If they're "1's" or "2's," please take me to your neighborhood.

Yes as Trav Pokerman mentions we definitely inflate ratings over how we'd rate a real world girl. However I don't inflate my ratings as much as making a "4" an "8" on the SW scale. I probably give girls more of a break at the lower end of the scale - like maybe giving a SW a "6" who might be a real world "3." But at the top end of the scale, I'm not that generous. I will rate a SW an "8" if I think she's a "6" by real world standards, a "9" if she's a real world "7," and a "10" (and I've only dated two SWs that rated that high - one in Philly a couple a years ago, 18yo smoking hot "Yummy") if I think she'd rate a real world "8" or "9." I've definitely seen but not dated several real world "9's" and "10's working as CGs in Las Vegas and one in AC who was the hottest of them all. I still get wood thinking about that girl in AC who combined all the best features of Sharon Stone and Michelle Pheiffer in their prime. OMG was that girl hot. I think I posted at the time that I probably would have paid $$$ just to take her clothes off and stare at her for an hour. She was Maxim Top 10 material.

For the record, using the standards I mention above I'd rate Julie a "8" on the SW scale. I like the body (8.5) a little more than the face (7.5). Redhead, tight, slender, small breasted, no marks, just one small tat - that does it for me. I'd rate Rachel's face a 8 on the SW scale (downgraded from the "8-8.5" I mentioned in my original report b/c one monger who saw her in daylight said her teeth aren't in good shape) but since it was dark and I didn't undress her I can't rate her body. Looking back at your Rachel report, maybe you didn't pick up the same Rachel that I and several other mongers have reported on very positively.

**Sjman** · 05-19-07 23:32

Originally Posted by Trav Pokerman

Below is a rating guide suggested by a poster on the Baltimore board. One very important thing to consider when mongering is that you must adjust your rating based on a girl being a SW. For example, a girl who is a "4" when judged by mainstream girl standards could be a SW 8.

I'm guessing your 1-2 is actually a 5, or even 6.

Rating System for SW Looks:
1. Fugly no teeth, hair or skin, scabs only
2. Curtis Bay Ugly don’t let your friend f**k her
3. Regular ugly not f**ckable unless stoned
4. Minor ugly ok to f**k if drunk
5. Average ok to f**k any time (this is where Big Red tries to draw the line)
6. Pretty well groomed
7. Attractive face and appearance
8. Hot and sexy looking
9. Model Material
10. Goddess perfect in every way

Keep in mind , I have only done BJ with these girls. No FS yet and I think it may take a while before i decide to go for it.

Kristin - 5 (First trip to Camden)
Rachel - 4 (First trip to Camden)
Cherry aka Julie - 6 (Second trip to Camden)
Joyen - 3 (Third trip to Camden)
Karen - 6.5 may be 7 (Fourth trip to Camden)

**Sjman** · 05-19-07 23:25

I made another trip to camden on Friday around 8 PM. Saw few SW, no LE in sight, decided to go back then spotted a WSW near Walnut, she was around 5' 6', red head. Quoted 20$ for BBJ, 10$ for the room. Overall nice experience, she was smelling fresh and very friendly. Got the digits, may try FS next time. On a SW scale, she is 7.