Grand Rapids Pugilistic Society

Teddbear. I just wanted to post a comment and my opinion on the matter of something you said on the other thread. You stated a monger shouldn't give a negative review of a good performer based off the provider's look. That's a tough subject, I think both should be weighed independently and possibly provide an average of the two for the final score with the caveat that any monger reading would need to do a deeper look into why the score is that way.

Shallow or not, at the end of the day we're the customers and paying customers should have a good idea of what they're purchasing. It's why I typically share only factual information. If the item is subjective. I'll state it. The problem is there are mongers that can't tell the difference between the two and post "Smoking body" when in reality the body is 200 pounds with childbirth scars or "She's petite and hot as all heck" but in reality she's rail thin with track marks. One is subjective the other is factual. Mongers need to focus on providing factual information over subjective information.

I can't imagine why this needs to be debated but what the fuck.

Looks and performance are clearly two different things and both are very subjective. Everyone knows that every review is full of subjective info, any monger who has been around the block a few times knows this. There is an implied YMMV with every review. I don't see any more validity to the notion that a monger should gloss over a providers looks because of good performance than I do for the idea that poor performance should be excused for good looks. The primary benefit to review boards has always been about safety issues; LE stings, ripoffs etc.

I have been amazed at how many times I have met women that were reviewed as being hot and found them to be mediocre looking to downright unattractive. I don't care how well a woman performs, I don't pay twice for unattractive. But that is me, admittedly I am as shallow as a mud puddle and I am not going to apologize or feel bad about it. The other thing that I think comes into play a lot for looks oriented mongers is the "going through the motions" performance that you get when the provider knows that you are disappointed in her appearance. Many of the board favorites are average to below average looking (and they know it), so when they sense the monger isn't into them they naturally don't perform as well. Conversely, I think it stands to reason that a young hottie will perform better for a decent looking guy than she will for a 50 something year old fat sweaty pig. You can't knock the fugly chick or the hottie for this, chemistry matters both ways.

This is what I meant that it is a review of providers ability and looks together not just looks my point was Jenn is a good provider as reviewed by many yes she has body flaws but it's not fair to poorly review her by looks alone is shallow and not very accurate bobby Joe77 head Bobby doesn't realize this and wants to call me an ass hole well fuck him keep whining instead of fucking and reporting about fucking instead of getting fucked.

[QUOTE=LandRover20;3620948]Benz, this looks great. I added a few things like a spot to put a link for provider, how many visits to this provider, rate / tip, overall numerical ratings for skills and attitude and a few other things. See below for the first review using this system. Still honing it. It does take a little time to fill this out, but seems like it will save us all time in the long run. This review is for Angel, who works out of Royal Touch with Chloe, but I saw her as an independent at her apartment a few months back and it was bland enough to not inspire an immediate review, but it's perfect fodder for our new form:

Name: Angel.

Service Type: Massage.

Link: [URL]http://grandrapids.backpage.com/TherapeuticMassage/new-neglecting-yourself-chloe-and-angel-royal-touch-616-214-7078-we-love-our-job-it-shows/25912573[/URL].

Rates: $60 + $20 for topless and I left a $20 tip.

How many visits to this provider? First.

Appearance? BBW that could've benefitted from at least some makeup and not being in sweats.

Nude? No.

Topless? Yes, after upsell.

Massage Skills? OK, not great.

HJ? Yes, and a fairly decent one.

CBJ? BBBJ? CIM? Swallow? CFS? BBFS? Daty? Prostrate massage? Rim Job? Pegging? GFE? MSOG? I didn't ask about these services because wasn't inspired to.

Taste / smell of pussy? Good_ ok_ Bad_? And / A.

Body type? BBW, but wouldn't know just how big from pics. Big girl.

Accurate Pics? Not really, it's the girl in the pics but she wasn't made up at all when I visited and in fact was in sweats without any attempt at appearance. Also heavier than in posted pics.

Phone Number: List 7 of 10 digits: (616) -8400.

Email: and / A.

Independent? Agency? Both. She works out of Royal, but she had me come to her apartment.

Age: Posted? And / A Looks like? Early 30's.

Ethnicity: Not sure, but kind of Mexican / Italian-ish.

Skin Tone: slight olive.

Hair color: dark.

Teeth: All there.

Bust size: Large.

Bust Appearance: Semi-saggy.

Tattoos: Yes.

Piercings: None that I could see.

Feet: Toe sucking? No.

Smoker? Yes, but not during session.

Incall:

Safe? Yes.

Neighborhood? Just off 28th near airport.

Residential? Yes, decent apartment complex in quiet neighborhood, but a smoky, smelly mess.

Repeat at this incall? No.

Repeat with this provider? No.

Date of Meeting: April 2017.

Overall rating: Massage Skills? 5/10 Attitude? 5/10, not unfriendly, but not really caring.

Description of Experience: Total YMMV experience. I saw an ad for Angel on BP that listed her as independent (it was later that I would see her ads with Cloe at Royal). Her pics made her look like a hot curvy girl with great massage skills. I got to her place and she had on sweats and no make-up kind of like she didn't give a damn. Not attractive. Got inside to smelly messy place with cats. Table was in a small bedroom. Lightly rubbed lotion on me with occasional pressure here and there. No teasing. No verbal play. Flipped and had to upsell to get topless. Got to work on the HE and actually did well there. Overall, just wanted to get me in, get me off, get me out, and get paid. I've had too many better experiences to ever go back.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LandRover20;3620954]Forgot one other very important thing to add:

Length of time advertised for this rate? 1 hr.

Length of time actually spent with provider? 40 min.[/QUOTE][B]If you fellas try just a little harder, you might be able to fill a full fucking page with your silly-ass form. Do you guys really take getting some pussy this seriously? Must be something in the water up there. I'm waiting for someone to add something about bowel movement consistency to the list of shit to grade.[/B]

I'm running out of toner printing out all of the SUPER Monger info in this thread! The amount of valuable info is Staggering!

[QUOTE=RogerOver;3621159][B]If you fellas try just a little harder, you might be able to fill a full fucking page with your silly-ass form. Do you guys really take getting some pussy this seriously? Must be something in the water up there. I'm waiting for someone to add something about bowel movement consistency to the list of shit to grade.[/B][/QUOTE]I agree there is definitely two ways to look at this shit.

If you read the original post from Rome123, he spent time and money that could have been avoided with this form. The Provider had been reviewed many times with no mention of Physical flaws that might be a turn off to others.

Reviewing some quality pussy that will not Rip you off is the main reason this site exists. Because mongers often review providers differently, this will help sort out the issues of what we like to spend our money on.

RogerOver, if you notice I included a line for you on the form. (TEETH). With all this info, mongers will not have to post a question and wait for an answer. Possibly using less space overall and saving Ink Toner for NoseJelly to print all of it.

This whole argument and Review Form is because a regular monger visited a senior monger's ATF. Honest thorough reviews could be better for all of us following other mongers trails.

This could be all be avoided if we quit using links in our reviews, only share with like minded members through PM. We could Shut down the lurkers opinions on this board by using pm to share digits and li

I'm not sharing an opinion of what is better for any of us, I'm showing options and possible solutions.

Happy Hunting.

[QUOTE=WaltK;3620984]Looks and performance are clearly two different things and both are very subjective. Everyone knows that every review is full of subjective info, any monger who has been around the block a few times knows this. There is an implied YMMV with every review. I don't see any more validity to the notion that a monger should gloss over a providers looks because of good performance than I do for the idea that poor performance should be excused for good looks.[/QUOTE]I agree. They are different things, and as said before, should be judged separately, and usually are. That said, it's not PURELY subjective all the time. Obviously if a gal has a nice curvy body (as seen in link in post), but the poster complains that she's trying out for Shindler's List II with bruised holes all up and down her legs and arms -- much like persona like being high -- yeah, it should be judged. That's also what this is about. Usually the judgement call on looks isn't a bad thing -- although yeah, one shouldn't incorporate Their tastes as "Ugggh" or "Ahhh!" They should apply an objective perspective, which has been done -- like "She's BBW, not the way out type but not by thing, so if it's yours, she's worth a shot," that sorta thing.

[QUOTE]I have been amazed at how many times I have met women that were reviewed as being hot and found them to be mediocre looking to downright unattractive. I don't care how well a woman performs, I don't pay twice for unattractive.[/QUOTE]Good point. We can subjectively be affected by a gal who's OK in looks in our book, but if she acts sexy and is open + into it big + GFE if that's what we like -- *we* can feel she's "hot" in the general sense, and make us biased in her looks and express it. That's why I say guys should judge her looks like a robot -- not while immersed in the feelings of the awesome BBBJ he was getting. .

That said, we're all "shallow" on looks to one degree or another. They mean something. To some, not that much. Much the same as going to a parlor. To some, the massage itself? Ehhh, as long as it isn't hurting me, I'm fine. To others? Oh, they want a Good massage. So the same can be said on many fronts.

In the end, judging the looks -- yeah, definitely. But be Objective about it, looking from a general crowd's POV when expressing it as how she universally looks, is all.

Thanks Benz! My Laser Printer and I appreciate it!

[QUOTE=Charlie441;3621310]I agree. They are different things, and as said before, should be judged separately, and usually are. That said, it's not PURELY subjective all the time. Obviously if a gal has a nice curvy body (as seen in link in post), but the poster complains that she's trying out for Shindler's List II with bruised holes all up and down her legs and arms -- much like persona like being high -- yeah, it should be judged. That's also what this is about. Usually the judgement call on looks isn't a bad thing -- although yeah, one shouldn't incorporate Their tastes as "Ugggh" or "Ahhh!" They should apply an objective perspective, which has been done -- like "She's BBW, not the way out type but not by thing, so if it's yours, she's worth a shot," that sorta thing.

Good point. We can subjectively be affected by a gal who's OK in looks in our book, but if she acts sexy and is open + into it big + GFE if that's what we like -- *we* can feel she's "hot" in the general sense, and make us biased in her looks and express it. That's why I say guys should judge her looks like a robot -- not while immersed in the feelings of the awesome BBBJ he was getting. .

That said, we're all "shallow" on looks to one degree or another. They mean something. To some, not that much. Much the same as going to a parlor. To some, the massage itself? Ehhh, as long as it isn't hurting me, I'm fine. To others? Oh, they want a Good massage. So the same can be said on many fronts.

In the end, judging the looks -- yeah, definitely. But be Objective about it, looking from a general crowd's POV when expressing it as how she universally looks, is all.[/QUOTE]That was well put my friend that's what I was getting at is exactly what you said it wasn't about Jenn being my ATF it was how Rome123 put his review that put me off he needed to word it better is all. You can be objective with out trashing a provider.

[QUOTE=TeddBear;3620471]I should have put my opinion on this board if Bobbyjoe77 wants to buttfuck Rome123 for being shallow then so be it I don't usually get in to arguments I just state my opinion weather it be right or wrong they can't eat a dick it's still my opinion.[/QUOTE]I think this is a little harsh. I don't know you and you don't know me either. There is no reason to make this personal. I wrote a review and I stand behind it. The physical flaws were to much for me. Saggy boobs and major baby damage it not something I want at all. Good service or having a nice personality does not offset the physical flaws for me.

For me this matter is closed and it's time to move on.

[QUOTE=Benz1;3621189]I agree there is definitely two ways to look at this shit.

If you read the original post from Rome123, he spent time and money that could have been avoided with this form. The Provider had been reviewed many times with no mention of Physical flaws that might be a turn off to others.

Reviewing some quality pussy that will not Rip you off is the main reason this site exists. Because mongers often review providers differently, this will help sort out the issues of what we like to spend our money on.

RogerOver, if you notice I included a line for you on the form. (TEETH). With all this info, mongers will not have to post a question and wait for an answer. Possibly using less space overall and saving Ink Toner for NoseJelly to print all of it.

This whole argument and Review Form is because a regular monger visited a senior monger's ATF. Honest thorough reviews could be better for all of us following other mongers trails.

This could be all be avoided if we quit using links in our reviews, only share with like minded members through PM. [b]We could Shut down the lurkers opinions on this board by using pm to share digits and li[/b]
I'm not sharing an opinion of what is better for any of us, I'm showing options and possible solutions.

Happy Hunting.[/QUOTE]That's always my first question and the fact that you've used the plural form is a good effort!

Honestly, and have said before in other cities I travel in, it would be just grand if we could simply agree on some sort of "looks" scale. That's never been anything I've seen folks get behind either. Regarding your point about "lurkers", [I]Emphasis was added by me above regarding lurkers.[/I].

I think there may be something of a downer attitude towards "lurkers" here. From things I've read and having been involved in a board or two, I can tell you that those of us that review isn't keeping the lights on around here. It's the "lurkers. " They probably outnumber the posters by a factor of 20-to-1. They get ad impressions and it allows the admin here to monetize the site. Personally, I'm all for subscriptions, but that's not the way this board works. So without lurkers to come here and read the reviews, you won't have a place to use your three-page form OR the opportunity to run out of ink toner.

[QUOTE=WaltK;3620984]I can't imagine why this needs to be debated but what the fuck.

Looks and performance are clearly two different things and both are very subjective. Everyone knows that every review is full of subjective info, any monger who has been around the block a few times knows this. There is an implied YMMV with every review. I don't see any more validity to the notion that a monger should gloss over a providers looks because of good performance than I do for the idea that poor performance should be excused for good looks. The primary benefit to review boards has always been about safety issues; LE stings, ripoffs etc.

I have been amazed at how many times I have met women that were reviewed as being hot and found them to be mediocre looking to downright unattractive. I don't care how well a woman performs, I don't pay twice for unattractive. But that is me, admittedly I am as shallow as a mud puddle and I am not going to apologize or feel bad about it. The other thing that I think comes into play a lot for looks oriented mongers is the "going through the motions" performance that you get when the provider knows that you are disappointed in her appearance. Many of the board favorites are average to below average looking (and they know it), so when they sense the monger isn't into them they naturally don't perform as well. Conversely, I think it stands to reason that a young hottie will perform better for a decent looking guy than she will for a 50 something year old fat sweaty pig. You can't knock the fugly chick or the hottie for this, chemistry matters both ways.[/QUOTE]I'm not disrespectful towards the women, but I do in fact get to grade looks and performance. I spend time looking at reviews and asking questions just to make sure I'm not disappointed and neither her or I have a negative encounter. BUT! Since I'm the one dropping the cash, it's pretty much on them to make sure I'm having a good time. If she doesn't want to, she is welcome to ask me to leave and we can both move on, no harm / no foul.

I'm pretty shallow myself.

Certain number of posts? Also, how long does it take for a mod to approve a comment typically?

It would be great if reviews were a bit more organized. I find it difficult to find info with the search function.

Like maybe, there should be one folder that is strictly reviews. Even better if using that new review form.

Regular Members are automatically upgraded to Senior Member when they have been a Forum Member for 6 months AND have posted 25 or more reports.

[QUOTE=HagStrom;3621620]Certain number of posts? Also, how long does it take for a mod to approve a comment typically?

It would be great if reviews were a bit more organized. I find it difficult to find info with the search function.

Like maybe, there should be one folder that is strictly reviews. Even better if using that new review form.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Benz1;3621189]I agree there is definitely two ways to look at this shit.

If you read the original post from Rome123, he spent time and money that could have been avoided with this form. The Provider had been reviewed many times with no mention of Physical flaws that might be a turn off to others.

Reviewing some quality pussy that will not Rip you off is the main reason this site exists. Because mongers often review providers differently, this will help sort out the issues of what we like to spend our money on.

RogerOver, if you notice I included a line for you on the form. (TEETH). With all this info, mongers will not have to post a question and wait for an answer. Possibly using less space overall and saving Ink Toner for NoseJelly to print all of it.

This whole argument and Review Form is because a regular monger visited a senior monger's ATF. Honest thorough reviews could be better for all of us following other mongers trails.

This could be all be avoided if we quit using links in our reviews, only share with like minded members through PM. We could Shut down the lurkers opinions on this board by using pm to share digits and li

I'm not sharing an opinion of what is better for any of us, I'm showing options and possible solutions.

Happy Hunting.[/QUOTE]I think the form idea is a great idea imo. Although the site lacks for this geographical area at times, it sounds similar to what The Erotic Review has in place. Non-subjective information for reviews is best especially when mongers have vastly different tastes. I like what I'm reading lately on here fellas, makes me proud to be a monger LOL. All jokes aside these are great ideas.