Allusion & Illusion – bait and … ?

Date & time: Friday past.

In my 2018 bucket, http://forum.sex141.com/eforum/v ... &extra=page%3D2, list one of the most anticipated ones had been #290 at popular hotel place very near Luohu Station that has been referred to in the past as MZ Spa, or HK Spa depending on who was posting.  This lithe nymph was an exact allusion to a 20-year-old version of a Thai girlfriend of mine. Her younger photos are almost identical to those of #290, and I was looking forward, with more than eager anticipation, to a back-to-the-future experience with her!

We arranged the day and time for this guilty pleasurer’s pairing. Surprisingly, unlike others, she readily agreed to photos, and when I asked if she would wear the same pink dress as in her photo – she instantly agreed.

A few hours before our appointment I touched bases with her to confirm our appointment, and again was met with a very prompt reply of "she was ready and waiting."  Then I asked her if she had brought the pink dress – no, she had forgotten! A reasonable thing because, I’m assuming, to a WG, such a request for an hour-fling was trivial, but to me it raised alarms. A mini illusion becomes cracked and suspicions raised – what if there was no pink dress?

I sent another text, “What colours are you wearing – will they photograph well?” Instead of describing them verbally she sent an at-work photo … expectation's illusions instantly shattered!

Gone was the flowing to the lower back raven-hair, perfectly proportioned lithe form, the flat belly; all replaced by a stocky, bellied, possibly hairy legged (it’s more than likely pixelization’s shadows); any and all desirability had been removed too!

No thoughts of being a gentleman, and keeping an agreement, entered my mind. After an amount of time I deemed polite, I canceled our rendezvous, saying my schedule had suddenly changed and we would have to look at some day in the future …

[ Last edited by  hotjac at 21-1-2018 12:35 ]

Re: Mister - Let’s “face” it: With photo-editing apps becoming ubiquitous, all WG pix have to be subjected to a discount.

True to a degree, but I've been trained in both photojournalism and studio lighting and it's relatively easy to toss out the obvious photos that are being used for "marketing" purposes only, and it's as easy to spot the whitening of skin that removes most blemishes by using excess light, or Photoshopping.

However, sometimes a photo is borderline, as in this case and could be plausible - it's obvious whoever took the photo had some training, but there were no excessive exaggerations: The background is not over-the-top, the girls poise is relatively normal, and her clothes are simple and plausible to be considered everyday wear.

In 2017, I only had one photo ad that was obviously not the WG pictured, one that was iffy, but very acceptable, and  in two cases they actually exceeded the qualities of their photos, which happens often when the photographers are not pros.

With all that said - this one got me: hook, line, and sinker. So much for experience