Gabriela Valiente

[yaletownfuckboi]

Where are there hateful comments DavidWilliams? Everybody has different taste. Gabriella looks great to me. There is no sense to argue about her looks when she actually shows us what she looks like, in many different photos and angles too.

I understand that everyone has different tastes, and I fully respect that. However, the issue here isn't about personal preference, it's about the spread of false information. Also, if someone isn’t fond of how a person looks, there are ways to express an opinion while still being respectful. Sadly, that courtesy seems to be missing here. And really, what’s the point of repeating the same negative remarks over and over? It’s exhausting to read so much negativity.

What I find truly harmful is when members post untrue claims about her. I've noticed this happens with other women on this forum as well, being unfairly criticized with falsehoods about their looks, personalities, or services. I don’t know the motivation behind it, but it’s deeply disappointing and unfairly damages the reputations of these ladies. False comments like:

- “You should expect some sagging and stretch marks”
- “She looks significantly older in person, and has more blemishes, less symmetry  etc.”
- “She is a 4 facially, if not lower”

The other thread about Gabriella is worse (https://www.menz.life/forum/showthread.php?tid=116), there are even more disturbing remarks. These don’t sound like fair assessments, they sound like attempts to demean. It makes me wonder whether some posters have even met her. The comments are exaggerated, and frankly, don’t make sense.

Yes, everyone has different tastes but there’s also such a thing as common sense and basic judgment. Calling her a '4 facially, if not lower' is just absurd. If that were true, it would imply that 90% of people fall below that. Come on! Among the women I've met in person, and seen unfairly targeted with false information about their appearance, service, and/or personality, are Mia Kane, Elise Vissant, Cassia Green, Skyler Mack, Rose Paradis, Amelia Omar, and Camille Clarke.

I really hope this forum can become a space that encourages more kindness, accuracy, and ethics.

I think you might want to learn the distinction between objective and subjective. It's quite simple.

Sure, there’s a fine line where negative reviews might seem rude, but there's also a difference between honesty and rudeness. This is something these providers signed up for, given that they’re offering a paid service, especially considering that for most of these ladies they’re using non-representative photos, which is an objective issue. Photo editing, flattering lighting/angles, outdated photos, exists and is rampant, care to debunk that?

For example, you stated here, "Calling her a '4 facially, if not lower' is just absurd. If that were true, it would imply that 90% of people fall below that." This doesn't even make logical sense, wouldn't it just mean 60% then? And that's assuming we're grading on a perfectly evenly distributed 1-10 scale, which most people using the scale aren't.  

It's entirely reasonable for users to think she is less attractive facially than 60% of women in Vancouver who are 27 years old, especially if we're assuming a perfectly even distribution on a 1-10 scale, as you suggested. Personally, I’m in my late 20s, and most of the women I know in my personal life are around Gabrielle’s listed age. I believe this is a fair and valid assessment.

Wouldn't the most ethical and honest approach for users on this forum be to provide genuine, honest and objective reviews? To be honest, your reviews don’t seem very authentic, and I’ve noticed you tend to cherry-pick and only respond to certain observations and comments. Additionally, your "reviews" are quite vague, giving the impression that you haven't actually seen any of these women, and it’s possible you’re not even a man but a provider pretending to be one.

Regardless of your identity, you certainly don’t come across as very logical or capable of presenting a coherent argument or constructive criticism.