On 2018-03-29 15:34:47 Caribbean Carla said:
I read that high end escorts should have absolutely no tattoos or piercings,which places me out I suppose.
But I found a profile of a lady advertised on "Cinderella escorts" (which is where Hollywood stars and billionaires shop for escorts). A overnight will fetch from $100,000+ a night.
And she has a full sleeve and upper leg done in ink.(I tried to post her pick but yea well...)
However it is the only lady with tatoos I have ever seen on a high escort site.
So it seems the rich and famous are ready to
embrace the more modern pinup muse.
So there is hope for me yet

On 2018-03-30 14:13:05 gary_g said:
Some last thoughts on Julia Knightly.

First, the ladies here are absolutely correct to be upset. Julia's contention that she does not compete for the same clients is ludicrous: if she did not compete for those clients, why would she advertise here?

She further mentioned that someone on the forum has actually seen her. That someone (who I remind everyone was sanctioned by ESA for a malicious post, undermining his credibility to me at least) has booked and reviewed other ladies on this site, so it is safe to say that any money he might spend on Julia takes away from the income of those other ladies he might book instead.

Julia messaged me to say that she plans to expand her business into a full-fledged agency soon (she has had Facebook recruiting page up for some time). This flies in the face of her claims of being so different and exclusive that she is not a threat to the other advertisers. It looks rather to me like she is just another agency, with a pretentious marketing premise.

What must be galling for them is the fact that Julia advertises here without having to show herself (remember the photos are not of her), or be subject to reviews.

And speaking of photos, Julia complained that I was not very gentlemanly in naming the model whose image she uses instead of using photos of herself. I will reply here that if I can find the model's name in about 45 seconds using a common reverse image search engine, perhaps she should have rethought using that model: either the model is happy to be used as Julia's "image", or Julia should have made clear what the image would be used for. Personally, I have no idea why Julia doesn't use photos of herself with the face obscured, but again, I would be furious if I were an advertiser here who has to submit herself to the forum scrutiny of "looks like photos", while Julia can use a gorgeous proxy for her advert.

Julia goes on to say that I compromised the dignity of the person whose name is almost identical to the name that Julia uses on her site as the person willing to do in-calls at her Bryanston home. I will admit that she has a more legitimate complaint there; but I will also mention that if I simply google the name Julia supplies on her site with Bryanston and model, it points directly to someone who lives in Bryanston and has done modeling shoots and has a nearly identical name. If there is a problem with an innocent identity being compromised, that fault would lie as much with Julia as with me.

Now I understand completely the antipathy expressed by many advertisers, but I struggled with my own reaction. But upon reflection, it is because I find the eliciting of so much personal information from potential clients seems suspect, the claims of exclusivity without any genuine justification seem false, and the generally poor English usage flies in the face of her claim to being highly educated and being uncompromising in attention to detail. My reaction to her is as it would be to any fraud: a disdain for her arrogance and smugness.

Julia, n'est pas gourmand qui veut.

I tip my hat to you, good Sir.