Two buyers, one clip

When a couple commissions a review, the person in the photos must confirm consent themselves; one partner cannot agree for the other. It looks like a single purchase but is two decisions layered together: whether to ask at all, and whether the person pictured agrees to be looked at and discussed by a stranger.

Both matter, and only one of them is optional for the other partner to make.

Consent has to come from the person pictured, directly

Whichever partner writes the message, the person in the photos needs to confirm it themselves, in their own words, to the judge or through the platform's intake.

One partner cannot consent on the other's behalf, even inside a long relationship, and this is not a technicality. US law now puts the person pictured at the centre of intimate-image consent too: under the Take It Down Act, covered platforms have had to comply since May 19, 2026, according to FTC guidance, removing intimate photos or videos "shared without their consent" within 48 hours of a valid request.

A message that reads "my partner wants this done, here are photos of him" with nothing from the person pictured gives the judge no way to know the yes actually came from the right person, and a professional judge who notices the gap should ask for it before doing anything else.

The fix is one line: the pictured partner adds a sentence in their own voice, on the platform, confirming they know a review has been requested and they are fine with it.

That sentence is the whole requirement. It does not need to be elaborate, and asking for it is not distrust, it is the same basic check any professional service runs before handling someone's likeness.

Who writes the brief

Either partner can write it, but the brief should say, in the first line, who is being assessed and whether both partners are involved in shaping the request.

A joint brief - both of you deciding the register, the length, what to mention - reads differently to a judge than one partner directing a review of the other, and both are fine, but the judge should not have to guess which one they are looking at.

If one partner is doing the asking and the other is the subject, say so plainly: "this is for my partner, written with their input" is a very different brief from "this is for my partner, they don't know the details yet," and only the first one is something a judge should accept once consent is confirmed.

Who the clip is addressed to

A review can speak to one partner, both partners together, or one partner about the other, and each is a genuinely different piece of content, not a stylistic choice.

State it. "Address this to both of us" produces different pacing and language than "address this to him, I'm just sending it," and a judge working from an unstated assumption will guess wrong at least some of the time.

This is a separate question from what the clip actually contains once the register and specifics are settled, which what a couple's review actually contains covers on its own.

What this does not cover

None of the above explains why a couple asks for a joint commission in the first place - play, reassurance, curiosity - which is a motivation question rather than a consent one, and why people commission for a partner is the better place for that.

It also is not the place to send anything a service like Rate Cock would call product questions: which judge to pick, what a joint booking costs relative to two solo ones.

If what a couple actually wants is a quick side-by-side number rather than a considered response, that is a different tool doing a different job, and an automated score built for exactly that is worth knowing about before booking a person to do it instead.

And if the underlying question is a measurement one - who is bigger, by how much - that is not something either a human judge or an algorithm should be guessing at from a photo, and a proper method for taking it together settles it faster than any review would.

Some couples ask for the automated version first just to see the mechanics before committing to a person, and how that scoring actually works is a reasonable thing to read before deciding a joint commission is what you want at all.

Consent, authorship, addressing: get those three stated plainly in the first message, and the rest of a couple's commission runs the same as any other one, because it is one.

The only genuinely different part is that two people's names are attached to the request, and a judge needs both to be real before they start work.