Korean Agency BB

[PlutoKiller]

LOL, so now it's a semantics issue.

It's very simple. False advertising, bait and switch, whatever. If the girl from the pics looks completely nothing like the pic, the customer has a right to walk without being bullied. And it's not his fault.

There can be a million excuses of why the pics have to be completely fake, but if that's the case, meaning customer rolls dice blindly, then customer should have an option to say no thanks after seeing his blind date. Without being threatened of BL or BL.

Blaming the customer.

Are you aware that prostitution is still illegal in California? Most K-girls are here on tourist or student visas. Posting their real pictures could result in visas being cancelled and get them deported and banned for 10 years. AI has become very powerful and is being used extensively by the DHS.

[RocketManP]

Brah, this is isn't a Ma & Pa shop bending over to make customers happy. No free refund for you.

It's way more profitable to use super model pics to get dudes in. No repeat? Eh, there's unlimited horny dudes out there. Less then 10% even bother looking at message boards so anything said here isn't going to make a difference.

Tbh, even when the girl isn't the one in the pics, it's still going to playtime with a hot chick.

Oh I get it, it's the customer who needs to bend over. How about no. You tell the PO you're walking because the girl looks nothing like pics, and if the PO threatens or BL lists you, you post on every forum you can. Like this one. About your experience. And no, it's not the customer's fault for being BLd if all you did was walk from someone who is looking nothing the pics.

Not too long ago someone here was talking about how orgs in the bay like their photoshop. But guess what, we can and do walk when the difference is big enough. Maybe it's the lack of air of exclusivity and lack of fear that the golden ticket inside secret society will be revoked, idk.

And BTW I'm not sure when a three became a "hot chick". Maybe you spelled "warm hole" wrong.

[AmericanDog]

Are Hana's pics of angelsinwla real?

[BuddhaHead]

I got to say that Hana comes pretty close to that.

That's like saying that the pictures are "representative" of how the girls look. In other words, meaningless. Also, an average looks rating of 8. 38 is not considered "pretty close" to ddg.

[BobThunderBall]

New girl Emma at Sexy Angels. Pics are fake and she's known previously as Baby Irina. Young (22), cute girl with YMMV service I guess. I had a good time with her when she was in NorCal recently but others complained of less than stellar service and attitude.

https://sexyangels.site/emma

[Vibing13]

I thought orgs want repeat business? Then treat customers like customers and not like fools who can be tricked and then strong armed into paying for girls they don't want to fuck after seeing their real looks.

Brah, this is isn't a Ma & Pa shop bending over to make customers happy. No free refund for you.

It's way more profitable to use super model pics to get dudes in. No repeat? Eh, there's unlimited horny dudes out there. Less then 10% even bother looking at message boards so anything said here isn't going to make a difference.

Tbh, even when the girl isn't the one in the pics, it's still going to playtime with a hot chick.

[Toungsten]

Your expectations are unrealistic. There are no DDG (hourglass or otherwise) kgirls in LA.

I got to say that Hana comes pretty close to that.

[RocketManP]

In my opinion, bait and switch is different from false advertising.

In defense of J, she never baits and switches. Half her stable is represented well in the pictures and are consistent good providers. The other half are a revolving door of what we might call false advertisement. But J never does bait and switch. If you're wondering if a girl is one of the good ones, you only need to do a search here in this forum.

LOL, so now it's a semantics issue.

It's very simple. False advertising, bait and switch, whatever. If the girl from the pics looks completely nothing like the pic, the customer has a right to walk without being bullied. And it's not his fault.

There can be a million excuses of why the pics have to be completely fake, but if that's the case, meaning customer rolls dice blindly, then customer should have an option to say no thanks after seeing his blind date. Without being threatened of BL or BL.

Blaming the customer in such situation is preposterous. All you do is enable orgs and bookers to do it more often and without repercussions.

I thought orgs want repeat business? Then treat customers like customers and not like fools who can be tricked and then strong armed into paying for girls they don't want to fuck after seeing their real looks.

[BonerAppetitty]

I don't think the OP ever got approved with J. He was talking about OC booker. He walked out on two girls Jane and Crystal in OC as a newbie but I think OC booker probably did not BL him yet. I didn't want to try Crystal and I saw Jane years ago. Her pics look familiar to me but look like old pics. I don't know if he rated on a 10 point scale but a 3 / 10 is unheard of for me. There are some good and attractive girls in OC but can't recommend until I understand his grading scale.

Can't expect accurate pics and profile of new girls these days. This is a TOFTT era.

In my opinion, bait and switch is different from false advertising.

In defense of J, she never baits and switches. Half her stable is represented well in the pictures and are consistent good providers. The other half are a revolving door of what we might call false advertisement. But J never does bait and switch. If you're wondering if a girl is one of the good ones, you only need to do a search here in this forum.

Got BURNED. Bait & switched man. Asked for Caits nuru price & janes, (OC was the menu they gave me). Went and checked out, jane was not the same girl, a lot uglier than the photos unfortunately. Booker called me and insisted I see another girl, crystal (also not like her photos & not just P.S. Like he insisted). Such a shame. LA kgirl lineup looks nice too especially with Cami. Sigh. Anyone know good newbie agencies. Don't even know how to use HX tbh.

[PumpNDump]

I never had any issues with "j's" girls in the past. The guy that jumped that gun and came to that conclusion is rocket as he interpreted the original poster's post as bait and switch and then transitioned into false advertisement. I speculated Clifford as having high expectations which he himself has validated. Appearance is subjective and honestly if one has been in this game for an extended time then one wouldn't rely on the pictures posted as the absolute truth nor is it false advertisement, its a gray area where you get likeness / fair representation.

In my opinion, bait and switch is different from false advertising.

In defense of J, she never baits and switches. Half her stable is represented well in the pictures and are consistent good providers. The other half are a revolving door of what we might call false advertisement. But J never does bait and switch. If you're wondering if a girl is one of the good ones, you only need to do a search here in this forum.

[BuddhaHead]

Thanks for replying both of you, the two girls were jane & ? From cakdolls. Sorry the second girl they offered me after I walked out isn't on the roster anymore so idk her name but neither her nor jane looked like their pics. Though you could say the pictures were representative of their stature. I would say I was screwed by false advertisement though I am guessing maybe the girls were who J normally offers under those names or to newbies LOL.

I would say in general I do have high expectations but with the past two girls, belle & Victoria, they were at least attractive. Those other 2 were not. Either way. I have 2 refs now and am looking for DDG hourglass now.

Given that 90% of pictures are fake / altered / inaccurate, and most (experienced) hobbyists are aware of this (or should be), the notion that one is duped by "bait and switch" or "false advertising" is nonsense. That's why one toftt whenever they try someone new who hasn't been reviewed. If you think you got a "3" for someone who has been previously well-reviewed with an average of "8", then your expectations and view of looks are way outside the norm, not due to "false advertising", since it's already been established that the pictures are not real. Complaining about fake pictures isn't going to change anything anyway.

[KingsFoil]

I would like to also know who he claims is a "3". According to rocket's interpretation by means of English reading comprehension, it was bait and switch and now also false advertisement by the booker.

In my opinion, bait and switch is different from false advertising.

In defense of J, she never baits and switches. Half her stable is represented well in the pictures and are consistent good providers. The other half are a revolving door of what we might call false advertisement. But J never does bait and switch. If you're wondering if a girl is one of the good ones, you only need to do a search here in this forum.

[Toungsten]

M. Chanel, Moni.

Sunny. Sandy, Niya, Lyn.

Newtopasian.

Sexy Angels. Fanny, Emma, Erica, Sophia, Helen, Jenny.

SFK. Viki, Jessie.

PKL. Ara.

Sesang. Hana.

Angelsinwla. Hana.

KGLA. Haper, Piper, Mimi.

[BuddhaHead]

Thanks for replying both of you, the two girls were jane & ? From cakdolls. Sorry the second girl they offered me after I walked out isn't on the roster anymore so idk her name but neither her nor jane looked like their pics. Though you could say the pictures were representative of their stature. I would say I was screwed by false advertisement though I am guessing maybe the girls were who J normally offers under those names or to newbies LOL.

I would say in general I do have high expectations but with the past two girls, belle & Victoria, they were at least attractive. Those other 2 were not. Either way. I have 2 refs now and am looking for DDG hourglass now.

Your expectations are unrealistic. There are no DDG (hourglass or otherwise) kgirls in LA.

[Member #6715]

Thanks for replying both of you, the two girls were jane & ? From cakdolls. Sorry the second girl they offered me after I walked out isn't on the roster anymore so idk her name but neither her nor jane looked like their pics. Though you could say the pictures were representative of their stature. I would say I was screwed by false advertisement though I am guessing maybe the girls were who J normally offers under those names— or to newbies LOL.

I would say in general I do have high expectations but with the past two girls, belle & Victoria, they were at least attractive. Those other 2 were not. Either way. I have 2 refs now and am looking for DDG hourglass now.

Again as I have stated mr clifford needs to chime in on this and provide clarification to which girl
or girls was it that he booked and to the his personal rating of 3. I am not the only who is curious about this. None of us here know for a fact whether if its bait and switch. Was he really screwed over by false advertisement? Did the booker switch the girl (s) on him? Who the hell really knows if he doesn't chime in.

How am I siding with the bookers or agency? I've been asking for clarity to his claim and I hypothesized the poster as having high expectations. I don't see how that can be construed as siding with the booker or blaming a person for a review and in this case there was no review.

And yes a client has the right to walk when there's legitimate issues. But in his case the pig in the poke that was chosen was just not ddg model enough for him. Has there been other complaints of switcheroo or false advertisement by other's here for j's girls? The way that a girl appears is just subjective to everyone. A girl that I see may be a 7 or 7. 5 or 8 and he grades her a 5 or 6 and it can be vice versa. Now if he is fickle and keeps canceling because the girl isn't ddg model enough for him then yes I think it would be fair to say it's his fault if he gets blacklisted by that booker.