Users' Guide to 161sex Ads...
Well, I ventured forth and tried my first 161sex girls tonight. For those of you who haven't scoured the alternative site, i think it's fair to say that 161sex is targeted at a slightly different WG demographic. For starters, they don't have ads for HGs... not one, ever.
My focus this evening was CSW and SSPo -- and mostly CSW. To give you some sense for the demographic differences, the average FS cost in CSW on 161sex is about $300; on sex141, the average is about $380.
The general reputation of 161sex is that that the women are older and the pictures and descriptions are less truthful. I really can't say, because my sample of sex141 ladies is still quite small. But on the basis of three experiences tonight -- admittedly too small a number to have an meaningful sample (I was game, but it was getting late) -- I offer the following observations:
(1) 161sex ads list ages. In CSW, many of the girls are in their 20s. But some are listed as "unavailable." I saw one "unavailable" tonight. "Unavaiiable" does not mean that the advertiser simply forgot to supply an age. It means that the lady's age is so high that you don't really want to know what it is... It's probably in the vicinity of her bra size -- which for some of these women is pushing 40. For example, the lady I saw tonight moved to HK 16 years ago when she got married... Do the math...
(2) All pictures lie. That's a given. I rated each woman's pictures on a 0-5 scale prior to my visits. Then I formed a second rating based on the actual in-the-flesh experience. What I observed -- again on the basis of a miniscule sample -- was as follows. The ladies in their 20s had figures about 1/2 point below their pictures. The lady whose age was "unavailable' was using old pictures -- accordingly, herr actual marks were more like a full point lower than her "picture" scores.
(3) The vast majority of the pictures have blurred faces. In general, I think the women blur their faces for privacy reasons, rathe than to deceive us punters. All three of the women I saw tonight had blurred their faces. The two ladies in their 20s had faces in the 3.5 range (or perhaps slightly higher). The one women who was older was in the 2.5 range. In general, I think all that we can reasonably infer from a lack of facial pictures is that a woman will have an average face -- the reality, of course, will be better or worse. What I think is true, however, is that younger women -- on average -- have more attractive faces. So the default expectation for a woman in her 20s should probably be 3.0 to 3.5, whereas for an older woman, 2.5 to 3.0 is probably more reasonable.
I would love to hear feedback from other guys who have ventured forth and tried 161sex ads...
P.S. After my first appointment, I was standing on a street corner in CSW trying to bring up a girl's info on 161sex. OK, I'm the only white guy in CSW at 10:30 pm on Saturday night, and I'm peering intently at a BlackBerry screen while standing on a street corner. If you have no idea what's going on, you might just assume that I'm a clueless gwei lo. But if you have a clue, you know exactly what I'm doing. So this young couple walks by. When the man passes me, he makes snorting pig noises at me... Like he expects I will care? :-)
[ Last edited by Caligynephiliac at 11-1-2009 04:42 ] | |
