Who’s fault, if the pic don’t match the person?

[Hectorsilverman]

First off, I’m not Playgirl Material, but also not posting pics.

So who’s fault is it, if a provided pics don’t look anything like her in person? Should it be shame on her for false advertising, or shame on us for not doing enough homework?

[BBW Mamacita]

Well to me that's false advertising, she totally catfished you.

[BLM69]

They are the liars for false advertising, they mostly do that if they're older trying to look younger or if they have gained weight or both lol

[ProFun]

Shame on her for doing it and shame on reviewers for not speaking up. You cannot say homework unless the reviewers consistently say it.

[FunMonday]

100% her fault for using old or photoshopped or fake pics. If the misrepresentation did not take place negative reviews about her appearance would not be necessary. Even if reviews repeatedly cite outdated pics these women manage to sucker men in everyday. Or a large percentage of men see these women without reading the reviews.

[Admiral Giggle]

off with her head!!!!

Burn her at the Stake!!!

Get the horses and Draw & Quarter Her!!!

Get her drunk, then make her drink warm buttermilk and lick the bottom of an ashtray!!!

It's 100% on her for false advertising. But then again, I know many women who look like 2 different people with and without makeup. It's all a show.

You act as though there is Honor Among thieves in the world of prostitution. There are ladies on here and OH2 that are still using pics from ASPD days.

[BLM69]

Pics from ASPD? must the same provider who's still in her 30s for almost 20 years now

[Precious_b]

Giggles is right about the makeup.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's GF had two different looks depending upon the lighting.

Another reason not to have their actual pictures is that they don't want to have RW people identify who they are. I don't mind this as long as the pictures they use are an accurate representation. As for the face (usually hidden) y'all just have to rely upon reviews.

[jasonray2199]

It is false advertising no doubt. Some of the things I look for are snapchat filters, they are standing a long way away from the camera, the image is faded, poor lighting, old images and of course photoshopped images that are no brainers. So does this mean we can alter the donations where they are not valid? I wonder how that would go over with them if they got it from us. I would never do that because it is not my style but it is funny.

[pmdelites]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

.....
Another reason not to have their actual pictures is that they don't want to have RW people identify who they are. I don't mind this as long as the pictures they use are an accurate representation.

if a provider didnt want her actual image out in internet land (which i understand) and used photos from the internet (no matter if close or not close to what she looks like),
BUT she EXPLICITLY STATED in posts, ads, website "these pics are not of me but pretty damn close!!",
then she's get some major cred in my hobby book for being straight-forward about it. might not see her (esp if not my type), but i'd give her the cred.

have yet to see a provider be that straight-forward wrt pics, though.

[BLM69]

This is just like catfishing! I'm sure there's ML talk about certain women doing this, we need a public list going on outdated pics and the ones that use filters and photoshop

[bocajun1234]

Just had an experience like that and I am hesitating leaving a review. I do not like saying anything that may seem like it is not nice.



I had not seen this person for a while and they said they looked the same even though they knew they didn't and they were using old pictures. What is messed up is she still looked good but I do not like being lied to and misled which spoiled the session