Today's Cover Photo: description at odds with pic

[MrMiniver]

First, I don't know today's cover photo guy and don't wish to seem like I'm a questioning anything (I'm not) but I often think that the physical descriptions of guys are at odds with the pic that is provided. Today's was so glaring that I thought I'd bring up the subject.

 

The escort pic is of a guy who looks around 165 lbs with a sort of athletic build (although my young gym rat friends would probably call it average). No six pack abs, not particularly defined arms or legs, etc. However, the description says 180-190 lbs and muscled. It's very much at odds with the pic.

 

I see this all the time. First, I think it does a disservice to the escort when the description is not accurate. I also realize that we all see things the way we want to see things but often I wonder if we should be more realistic?

[Bosguy]

On his Rentboy ad, he lists his build as "average" and also notes he has very large thighs (that would certainly complement his gorgeous man butt). That might account for some of the weight variation. Anyway, I think he is an extremely sexy macho man and would definitely hire him if our paths crossed.

 

Boston Bill

[MrMiniver]

On his Rentboy ad, he lists his build as "average" and also notes he has very large thighs (that would certainly complement his gorgeous man butt). That might account for some of the weight variation. Anyway, I think he is an extremely sexy macho man and would definitely hire him if our paths crossed.

 

Boston Bill

 

I was making no comment on that just on the disparity between description and pic. Reviewers should be more careful!

[Sailor]

In response to that I would say firstly:

This guy Clark Rogers is adorable, sexy and not average by any means and he looks real and like himself and no I don't know him, I've never met him, but I work in the biz and most guys touch up their pics too much and this kinda nit-picking is what makes it such a nasty business sometimes.

[+ Gar1eth]

I looked at his ad after I saw the description in the review. And I saw that he lists his body type on his Rentboy ad as average. I agree with his assessment of himself although I will add that he is an extremely good average bordering on athletic.

 

Gman

[Bart]

I think if you were to look at his rentboy ad and look at his first pic, that pic seems to match his description best. Pictures can also be very deceptive for determining weight and height.

[MrMiniver]

In response to that I would say firstly:

This guy Clark Rogers is adorable, sexy and not average by any means and he looks real and like himself and no I don't know him, I've never met him, but I work in the biz and most guys touch up their pics too much and this kinda nit-picking is what makes it such a nasty business sometimes.

 

It's not "nitpicking" when the escort's own ad lists him as "average" and the reviewer lists him as "muscular." You sound like you have a bug up your ass ... you think he's adorable, sexy, blah, blah, blah ... and you've never met him? Then what's your problem?

 

You really didn't seem to get the point at all, did you?

[MrMiniver]

I looked at his ad after I saw the description in the review. And I saw that he lists his body type on his Rentboy ad as average. I agree with his assessment of himself although I will add that he is an extremely good average bordering on athletic.

 

Gman

 

 

I agree. That's what I thought and have no idea why the reviewer listed what he did. Don't the review instructions tell you to use the escort's description anyway or am I misremembering that?

[gallahadesquire]

I remember, many many years ago, I was 5'9" and 185. For most of my life from high school to about5 years after medical school.

Although I wasn't so muscled, I was about his shape. So it's right for his height and weight: Been there, sone that, and trying to re-create it.

[Nvr2Thick]

I was making no comment on that just on the disparity between description and pic. Reviewers should be more careful!

 

I agree. Being somewhat size obsessed it annoys me when a reviewer lists an escort's endowment as 9-10" or "huge" when the escort's pics and/or actual description don't reflect that. Sometimes a reviewer is IMO overly enthusiastic and possibly trying to impress the escort. Other times the reviewer is just lazy. Either way detracts from the credibility of the actual review. I may be sure that the encounter actually happened, but I don't know how much of it to believe. As you said, it's a disservice to the escort.

[DaddyCub]

I agree. Being somewhat size obsessed it annoys me when a reviewer lists an escort's endowment as 9-10" or "huge" when the escort's pics and/or actual description don't reflect that. Sometimes a reviewer is IMO overly enthusiastic and possibly trying to impress the escort. Other times the reviewer is just lazy. Either way detracts from the credibility of the actual review. I may be sure that the encounter actually happened, but I don't know how much of it to believe. As you said, it's a disservice to the escort.

 

I have often been bothered by both reviews and ads that claim certain measurements that in-person prove to be gross exaggerations. If I have a dildo with a 7.5" insertable length, and you are shorter than that, don't tell me it's 9 inches. I usually subtract 1.5 to 2 inches from every ad and review I read.