BackPage Advertiser Reviews

**Wasntme** · 02-25-11 08:45

I'm pretty familiar with posting trends for Dupont and Thomas Circles. Lately there have been an increase of posting at Thomas Circle. In the past you would find about one out of every fifteen posts for downtown in / around Thomas Circle. Now you may say to yourself,"well, maybe a lot of the providers are migrating there now". I would think that to be the case, except that most of these Thomas Circle ads popping up all have local numbers and the SOME pics don't really look like providers! In the past I barely ever came across a local number ad in Thomas Circle, or Dupont for that matter. Call it bait and switch, LE, paranoia, or whatever, but I would steer clear.

All the following ads have local numbers:

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...-me-24/4637639

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...nny-21/4635438

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...nde-21/4631651

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...irl-29/3473909

Then there are the ads that say "message at a studio apt near Thomas" that have different girls with different local numbers posting the same location:

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...uty-24/4370000

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...688-24/4485009

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...age-24/4346307

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...248-24/4551178

**Wasntme** · 02-25-11 08:15

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...als-21/4638945

I called this one up and when I got to the spot she definitely wasn't the chick in the pic. Interesting enough, as I'm writing this review I just saved the images from BP and the filenames have "melah" in them. She said she was with two other girls, so either Melah is on of her friends and they switched on me or this was a total facade to begin with. When she opened the door and I got in I couldn't remember the pic perfectly but I knew she wasn't the one. She is darker, very short and has a totally different face. I told her she looks nothing like her picture and she says "you don't think so?". I tell her no, and ask "is that a friend of yours in the picture?". She says "no, its me!" B. S. I'm out'a here. Look out for the number ending with eight-nine-two-four.

Waste of time!

**Pimp Trick** · 02-24-11 23:00

This one had the Pimp come to a Crystal City Notel and stood me up. I was SO blown.

Thanks for the review. I was curious about her.

Originally Posted by Wasntme [View Original Post]

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...lay-22/4597751

I've seen her ad several times in the past but never took the bait for some reason. After reading a few reviews I felt more comfortable indulging. I gave her a call. She said she was checking out and didn't have much time, luckily I was only 5 minutes from her incall. Typical two-call system and rates are average. I would say her pics are accurate but she looks slightly different in person. Its like meeting a chick after only seeing her pic and something about her looks different. I would say she just needs more variety of pics to capture her true self. Anyway, I get in and get comfortable. She laid beside me and began giving me a rub down. I was starting to have flashbacks Celeste (salaciouslyaddictive. Com).

After a bit of pillow talk and body rubbing she began her head action. I'd give the CBJ about an 8/10. Nice bit of head movement and messy enough to keep the hand stroke from catching friction. Not having much time I moved right into doggy and finished off. She wasnt as into it as I would have liked. Yes, she did make the noises and the typical squirms, but she didn't greet the stroke with much movement of her own.

Pros: Good convo, nice slim body, attempts to be a bit GFE.

Cons: Not very physical in the sack, pics are a "gauge" of what she looks like (I think she is slimmer than what the pics portray)

**Justforme** · 02-24-11 18:20

The only exception would if some posted and admits it is not her photo but a simulation. If the simulation is close to accurate she should be permitted a pass.

Can you help me with this perfet ass (who can make a perfect ass out of me) , she is in Gaitherburg sorry about the wrong site, I am willing to go the distance if she is real.

http://eroticservices.********.com/e...view&p=2040891

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...now-22/4052126

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster [View Original Post]

We're drowning in these fake ads, and spending a lot of time trying to avoid getting scammed. Other than walking out after arriving and seeing a different girl, has anyone thought about imposing a cost on the fraudsters themselves? There's no FTC enforcement available for false advertising, so why don't we take it on ourselves to make it expensive for girls to scam?

For starters, a few dozen guys calling to tell the girls we know they're using fake pix would take up some of their time, and burn minutes off of what are likely pay-per-minute cell phones. It would also let them know that people are on to the scam.

Of course, we should be calling from our own hobby phones, not the cell phone accounts in our own names, or home or office phones. (Please don't tell me you use your personal phone for hobbying)

Next, we could make appointments and not show up, or cancel at the last minute. Preventing scammers from taking others' money is entirely ethical, is it not?

We could also press Backpage to reject ads with obvious pix from other sites, as they have an interest in avoiding copyright infringement. A few dozen emails to them pointing out violations should get them to start taking down ads, which will also discourage girls from using fakes.

Anyone have other ideas or suggestions? If we cause the scammers enough trouble, they may change their ways, and we can at least transfer some of the pain back onto them.

**Unforgettablej** · 02-24-11 15:45

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster [View Original Post]

We're drowning in these fake ads, and spending a lot of time trying to avoid getting scammed. Other than walking out after arriving and seeing a different girl, has anyone thought about imposing a cost on the fraudsters themselves? There's no FTC enforcement available for false advertising, so why don't we take it on ourselves to make it expensive for girls to scam?

For starters, a few dozen guys calling to tell the girls we know they're using fake pix would take up some of their time, and burn minutes off of what are likely pay-per-minute cell phones. It would also let them know that people are on to the scam.

Of course, we should be calling from our own hobby phones, not the cell phone accounts in our own names, or home or office phones. (Please don't tell me you use your personal phone for hobbying)

Next, we could make appointments and not show up, or cancel at the last minute. Preventing scammers from taking others' money is entirely ethical, is it not?

We could also press Backpage to reject ads with obvious pix from other sites, as they have an interest in avoiding copyright infringement. A few dozen emails to them pointing out violations should get them to start taking down ads, which will also discourage girls from using fakes.

Anyone have other ideas or suggestions? If we cause the scammers enough trouble, they may change their ways, and we can at least transfer some of the pain back onto them.

Great idea! I'm in.

**Me Too 3** · 02-24-11 15:17

Fairly new in the area and to the site, and starting to get the hang of things. Appreciate the information being shared. Wondering if there is any local info on this BP posting I'm seeing recently. It's also come up with different set of photos, but can't tell if it's the same person. Got me interested, but wondering?

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...now-35/4272779

**Bunker Buster** · 02-24-11 15:04

We're drowning in these fake ads, and spending a lot of time trying to avoid getting scammed. Other than walking out after arriving and seeing a different girl, has anyone thought about imposing a cost on the fraudsters themselves? There's no FTC enforcement available for false advertising, so why don't we take it on ourselves to make it expensive for girls to scam?

For starters, a few dozen guys calling to tell the girls we know they're using fake pix would take up some of their time, and burn minutes off of what are likely pay-per-minute cell phones. It would also let them know that people are on to the scam.

Of course, we should be calling from our own hobby phones, not the cell phone accounts in our own names, or home or office phones. (Please don't tell me you use your personal phone for hobbying)

Next, we could make appointments and not show up, or cancel at the last minute. Preventing scammers from taking others' money is entirely ethical, is it not?

We could also press Backpage to reject ads with obvious pix from other sites, as they have an interest in avoiding copyright infringement. A few dozen emails to them pointing out violations should get them to start taking down ads, which will also discourage girls from using fakes.

Anyone have other ideas or suggestions? If we cause the scammers enough trouble, they may change their ways, and we can at least transfer some of the pain back onto them.

**Justforme** · 02-24-11 14:21

You are providing a great serve to all who read this site and I that you. I thank you for the advanced warning. It is up to us to bite on these adds but now you are providing us a tool to avoid the feeling of fool. I hope the girls will learn to be real and if they do not want to post their photos be honest about it.

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster [View Original Post]

Loreal Luxx, who is 21, uses pictures that have a 2001 copyright on them from a porn website. 925-913-0435.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...-23-21/4631641

Aubrey has pictures with the watermark of a an opaque stocking fetish website. 202-718-2357.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...e-_-21/4632083

Haily 916-333-8376.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...-y_-22/4588752

And

Roxi 214-227-9439.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...ams-21/4203130

Are both obvious fakes, as shown by the porn TinEye hits.

**Bunker Buster** · 02-24-11 00:38

Loreal Luxx, who is 21, uses pictures that have a 2001 copyright on them from a porn website. 925-913-0435.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...-23-21/4631641

Aubrey has pictures with the watermark of a an opaque stocking fetish website. 202-718-2357.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...e-_-21/4632083

Haily 916-333-8376.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...-y_-22/4588752

And

Roxi 214-227-9439.

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...ams-21/4203130

Are both obvious fakes, as shown by the porn TinEye hits.

**Joseleche** · 02-23-11 21:38

Originally Posted by Pimp Trick [View Original Post]

Provider computer is down. Any intel on these providers being real and good?

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...als-21/4447435

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...tie-20/4617009

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...ion-21/4602642

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...now-21/3947101

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...oll-24/4023705

If not, then I will drop them into the Trick Lottery and see what ball comes up first. Let the Pimp bust in like the Kool-Aid Man. Oh Yeah!

I agree with others, most are fake except Laney. Some of the pix after been around for a bit. Good feedback by others on this. Good luck if you try any PT.

**Bunker Buster** · 02-23-11 16:01

Originally Posted by Pimp Trick [View Original Post]

Provider computer is down. Any intel on these providers being real and good?

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...als-21/4447435

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...tie-20/4617009

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...ion-21/4602642

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...now-21/3947101

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...oll-24/4023705

If not, then I will drop them into the Trick Lottery and see what ball comes up first. Let the Pimp bust in like the Kool-Aid Man. Oh Yeah!

Nothing shows up on TinEye for Kandi (678) , although the phone number also goes to pix of another girl.

Nothing on TinEye for Micki (636) , but her phone number brings up an ad for Amy http://sinfulangels.escort-site.com/...dule_id=276430#276430 and also Amanda (no pix). This one looks like an agency or shared phone, and may be legit.

Jessica (609) brings up a bunch of porn hits on TinEye.

**Pipes** · 02-23-11 10:29

I have seen ads of some of the ladies you mentioned. The first one Riley, is a fake. I have read reviews on other sites and she ain't worth it. Couple others look TGTBT.

The only one that might be worth a shot is Laney. Apparently she also goes by Nina Star. She has a few decent reviews and might be worth the investment.

Originally Posted by Pimp Trick [View Original Post]

Provider computer is down. Any intel on these providers being real and good?

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...als-21/4447435

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...tie-20/4617009

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...ion-21/4602642

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...now-21/3947101

http://washingtondc.backpage.com/Fem...oll-24/4023705

If not, then I will drop them into the Trick Lottery and see what ball comes up first. Let the Pimp bust in like the Kool-Aid Man. Oh Yeah!

**Wasntme** · 02-23-11 08:44

http://dc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts...lay-22/4597751

I've seen her ad several times in the past but never took the bait for some reason. After reading a few reviews I felt more comfortable indulging. I gave her a call. She said she was checking out and didn't have much time, luckily I was only 5 minutes from her incall. Typical two-call system and rates are average. I would say her pics are accurate but she looks slightly different in person. Its like meeting a chick after only seeing her pic and something about her looks different. I would say she just needs more variety of pics to capture her true self. Anyway, I get in and get comfortable. She laid beside me and began giving me a rub down. I was starting to have flashbacks Celeste (salaciouslyaddictive. Com).

After a bit of pillow talk and body rubbing she began her head action. I'd give the CBJ about an 8/10. Nice bit of head movement and messy enough to keep the hand stroke from catching friction. Not having much time I moved right into doggy and finished off. She wasnt as into it as I would have liked. Yes, she did make the noises and the typical squirms, but she didn't greet the stroke with much movement of her own.

Pros: Good convo, nice slim body, attempts to be a bit GFE.

Cons: Not very physical in the sack, pics are a "gauge" of what she looks like (I think she is slimmer than what the pics portray)