Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Attractive semi-amateurs
- Multiple sites in the network
- Playful scenes shot in Hawaii
- Scenes available in multiple resolutions
- Photos available
- Supports download managers
Cons:
- Site design is a decade old and it shows
- Scenes aren't dated
- Doesn’t appear to update frequently
- Scene resolutions are just okay
- Photos not zipped
- No TBP discount
Bottom Line:
For the purposes of this review I’ll treat POV Porn, Peter Girls and Beach House XXX as a network since a membership to one gets you access to the others. At least one other site also used to be included with this membership, Lap Dance Gone Bad, and while that is still shown in the tour pages I couldn’t find any way to access it.
I last joined this site in 2010 and I really liked what they had to offer so I rejoined recently. The porn is still very good but the site hasn’t grown much or improved in the past seven years. In fact, it’s hardly grown at all since all I could find that seemed new over those years were approximately 50 scenes.
One thing that I really liked about the site was that most of the scenes had a really playful nature about them and allowed the model’s personality to show through. I’m a big fan of outdoor scenes and there are a lot of them here as the site is based in Hawaii. Several scenes are available with beach nudity, blowjobs and even sex.
This network had a lot going for it in 2010: it offered some hot solo, lesbian and hardcore scenes with many models who didn’t seem to appear elsewhere. While that is certainly a positive aspect it can also be seen as a negative one because it is less likely that prospective members would be enticed to join to get access to scenes from a specific model. The only well-known models that I saw on the site were Cody Lane and Taryn Thomas, both of who have been retired from the business for many years. (As an aside, when I first joined this site seven years ago one of the scenes that I particularly liked was a scene shot very early in Taryn’s career. She wasn’t even using the name Taryn Thomas at the time.)
Assuming that a prospective member would be looking to join for the first time in 2017 the biggest detriment to the site is that it really is a relic from 10 years ago. Whether you are looking at the tour or the member pages you are likely to be struck with how dated they look. Unfortunately, this late 2000s feel to the site also shows up in many of the scene resolutions. While many of the newer scenes do have acceptable resolution you don’t have to go back too far into the past to find resolutions that were probably just marginal even 15 years ago. To make matters worse, many of the older scenes are only available in segments. I’m not technically astute, but it seems to me that a webmaster would want to consider remastering some of the older material or at least stitching together into one download. To be fair, some of the resolutions aren't bad. The best I saw was 1440x1080. Interestingly, this resolution is usually offered with two bitrates, one around 3000kb/s and the other around 8500kb/s. These higher bitrates are only offered on the few scenes posted in 2013 and 2016.
While the heyday of the site was certainly the late 2000s there have been some more recent entries. While a majority of the scenes show a copyright mark from 2009 or early there are some scenes that have copyrights from 2013 and a few that have copyrights from 2016. I have been a member at the site for just under a month now and can report that there have been no updates during that time. On the main page there is a list of 17 future updates but there is no timeline for when those may be uploaded.
Further indicating that the site is not particularly active is the fact that the site owner, Peter Romero, has a blog on the site where the most recent entry is from 2009.
The site does also offer photos and it is entirely possible that back when the site was active that the intention was that it would appeal equally to video and photo collectors. Unfortunately, that probably didn’t work out all that well because for some reason the photos are not offered as a zipped download. Like the videos, the photo resolution varies widely.
The site supports download managers and I had no issue using one. This is largely irrelevant, however, because the file sizes are not particularly large. I didn’t encounter any download limits but given that I downloaded fewer than 40 scenes it is unlikely that I would have hit one anyway.
Deciding on whether or not this site merits a recommendation is difficult. On the one hand this collection of sites offers some exclusive porn featuring some beautiful ‘amateur’ models who don’t seem to appear elsewhere in scenes shot on location in Hawaii. On the other hand this great porn is let down by a site and technical aspects that belong in the last decade. My opinion might be different if the site offered a generous TBP discount but at full price I just don’t think it offers enough for anyone other than a serious collector to consider it.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Good quality POV scenes
- Part of a bigger (but relatively small) network
- Mostly amateur models
- Some porn stars, before they were stars
- Good selection of scenes
- Updates (I’m unsure of the schedule though)
- Pictures (but no zips)
- The scenes aren’t over-produced; they have a ‘fun’ feel to them
- Good value when joining at the TPB / PU price
Cons:
- Download speeds aren’t up to industry standards
Bottom Line:
Two things to start: 1) this review pretty much applies entirely to Peter Girls too. They are part of the same network. POVPorn.com is hardcore-themed, while Peter Girls is more softcore, with some oral and handjobs. 2) I wouldn’t normally submit two reviews for a network, but I joined through Lap Dance Gone Bad which turned out to be just a small secondary network site. POVPorn.com and Peter Girls are the main sites and deserve a separate review.
I drafted this review a few days ago but didn’t post it. I’m glad I gave it some time since I’ve completely changed my position on this after watching many of the scenes again. This review may be a lot more subjective than I’d usually write. I really like this network. Peter Romero makes some excellent porn. It isn’t technically superior, but that adds to some of the amateur allure. He reminds me of the early days of gonzo porn when it was being shaped by guys like John Stagliano and Joey Silvera. This porn looks like it was fun to make, and that makes it fun to watch too. (Peter – If you read this, PLEASE make more Lap Dance Gone Bad scenes! That is an under-served niche.)
It is difficult to say precisely how many scenes are on this one site because there is a lot of cross-linking between the two main sites. The sites appear to date back to 2001 and some of the scenes date back to then. Needless to say, the quality of those scenes is low as was the standard then. Most of the older scenes are also broken into smaller files. Between the two sites there are easily over a hundred scenes. The site says they update frequently and they do update though I’m not certain as to the schedule. The newer scenes are available in three sizes, with the best being 3300kbps. Download speeds aren’t up to industry standards. Average speeds are 250KB/sec. I can report that the medium quality scenes (1000kbps, 640x480) look good.
There are also photos available for most of the scenes, but there is no option for zips.
The best feature of the site is the models that they have. The site is not skewed to professional porn models, though some are here. Of those, most of them seem to appear very early in their careers. For example, Taryn Thomas appears in 2004 (her career began that year) as Brynne. It’s fun to see her and others so fresh in the early days of her career. Many of the other models are unknown to me and appear to be true amateurs.
I’m not a big fan of the POV genre, but Peter makes it work and is able to capture the action well without making himself the star of the scene or shaking the camera so badly that the scene is unwatchable. For POV, this is well done.
Joining the network through TPB / PU gets you a reduced price. For that price you get some really decent porn. It has a true amateur feel to it – and I mean that in a good sense. If you like amateurs, porn stars before they were stars or POV, this site is worth a membership.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+Drooler Plus Point #1: ASS gets a lot of “worship” here, and yes, it CAN coexist with toy play!
+Hot babes sometimes, BK Booty Babes (nod to jd1961) other times.
+Fast download speeds for pics. Plays well with DownloadThemAll. 15 Mbps!
+Studio pics are mostly nicely lit and sharp. Blurriness happens, but not often.
+Plenty of good quality images ranging from 300-800k each, but see cons and BL.
+Galleries generally range from 60 to over 300 pics, though there are a few with fewer.
+Includes 3 bonus sites (see some of the girls fuck and suck!)
+All exclusive content.
+241 updates and growing. Daily since Sept. 09.
+Most videos available streaming or download at 3 bitrates: 3300 (1440x1080), 1000 (1440x1080), or 500 kps (640x480), all in wmv. Audition vids stream in small viewer only, but I didn’t find many of those.
Cons:
-No zips.
-The WATERMARK on the pics. TBP says it’s “medium-sized.” See the Bottom Line.
-Are these really the first nude photos of these “amateur” girls? Sometimes, I’m sure!
-10% older, recycled content, posted as 2009 updates, but the WATERMARKS on the pics fairly shout “2007!” and “2005!” (BTW: Different watermarks, still way too big.) Well, this site was launched in 2007, but the “updates” begin in Jan. 2009. Go figure.
-Pic sizes. “All = 2106 x 1372,” says TBP. Oopsies! Actually, it’s about 90%, but some older pics are as small as 800 px! See BL for excruciating details.
-Studio set might get boring.
-Beach pics are usually too dark and weak in color (lower quality camera?). Dance pole pics are usually too dark, too.
-Slow video DL speed (280 kps), especially with the highest quality vids.
-Older vids are nominally 2100 (720x480), 1500, and 758 kps. Viewed a 2100 of Kylie Wylde. Ugh! (Not her, of course.) And some vids are older still (e.g., Shy Love’s)
Bottom Line:
Peter Girls? It’s not what you might think. This is a softcore photo and video site of “anatomically correct” women. (For b/g hardcore, see the “bonus” video sites.)
Some of the girls here might look, or even sound, familiar: Addison (of ATK Galleria, KarupsHA, etc.), Bree Olson, Destiny St. Claire, Isabelle Skye, Montana Raye, Nicole Graves, Shawna Lenee ... Ring any Dinglebells?
There are also some that I’ve not seen before, like the tall blond Jennifer. Whew! She’s got it comin’ and goin’! Fake tits that actually look pretty damn nice! And Sasha Von, from Denmark, is very sexy, and 100% as nature intended.
They strip. They smile and show off their asses a lot (!). They sometimes get the groove on with Plasticy Dan. And on the Hawaiian beaches, they get moist sand on their tushies, often in the light of sunset, or even sundown. Sometimes the camera angles are very POV, but it isn’t like those totally-from-below “Upskirts and Panties” sets you sometimes get, like at ATK Galleria. You do get a fair number of “normal” shots, too, which include lots of sexy facial expression closeups.
I’d say the biggest problem here is the WATERMARK on the pics. It’s always CENTERED at the bottom of the newer PICS, but when you find yourself selecting which pics to DISCARD just because of it, because it’s so LARGE, so very THERE, that it’s on the girl’s ASS or overlayed on her LABIA MAJORA, well, let’s just say it’s your CONSTANT COMPANION.
Maybe it meets the definition of “medium-sized” at the TBP, but the effect on the viewer is what really counts. Such an unpleasant distraction cannot simply be mentally “tuned out.”
The solution? Reduce it to 25% of its current size! Then it would be closer to the size of the watermark at their bonus site “POVporn,” which is less of a nuisance.
Factoid Corner: The following models were all posted in 2009 in photo sizes smaller than 2106 pixels, usually with watermarks that predate 2009. It’s about 10% of what’s on the site:
1400 px on the long end: Gizelle
1200 px: Mallory, Tiffany
1024 px: Christina Applebottom (another is at 900px), Molly, Nia, Ria Lynn, Roxanne (another is at 900px), Shy Love, Veronica Jett
900 px: Barbie Addison (but another is good at 2106 px), Carli Star, Megan Joy, Summer Jewel, Autumn Breeze, Scarlet Fey, Summer Lynn, Shawna Lenee (but another is good at 2106 px), Sandy Sweet, Tuesday
800 px: Taryn Thomas, Tera Bond, “Jennifer Love” (not the better-known, Romanian Jennifer Love, btw)
The “older” videos roughly match the older pic updates.
I’d recommend this site to lovers of female solo masterbation captured on video. It’s more of a might barely recommend for pic lovers, thanks to the blasted watermark.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
+ Models of recent updates are more than average attractive
+ Haven't seen most recent update models on other sites
+ HD video quality of recent updates
+ even older videos well filmed and with nice looking models
Cons:
- older videos are poor quality
- relatively small collection of videos
- no quality bonus sites
- no zip picture files
- seems to be large discrepency between newer and older content, regarding updates
Bottom Line:
A previous review states that this site may be a buzzkill when you join up, due to the fact that there is some New,New content mixed with some Old, Old content, but to me there is enough to justify the $30 price for a one month subscription. At first, I didn’t think this site was worth a damn either, but it grew on me.
Who doesn’t want to watch Danica (or Sasha Von) in a POV scene, that’s awesome. There is some GOOD stuff here, some pornstars who are hot and I have not seen anywhere else.
Yeah, this site may not have the content AMOUNT that can stand up to Bang Bros or Brazzers, but the quality of the content is sufficient for a month’s worth, don’t worry, if you download and keep this stuff, you won’t be disappointed, regardless of the ratio of video to picture sets.
If you need a Steroid Dude banging a Fake Titted Blonde chick, this site is not for you, but if you live in the real world, this site is worth at least one month of your free time.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Maybe 15-20 good, new POV scenes worthy of download.
Cons:
There are a lot of dead links in this site.
A large fraction of the girls here that have nothing but photos. He produced scenes - but only using a lousy low-res single-shot camera. What an idiot.
Most of the girls have maybe 7 clips that combine to make up 50+ mb worth of video.
There are girls in the intro that I can't find in the site.
For the few good scenes that are high-res, he's so paranoid about people stealing his stuff that he put his logo right in the middle of the picture - what a douchebag.
Bottom Line:
I signed up, naive and curious - hopeful even. Here I am 1/2 an hour later, jaded and annoyed.
Basically this site is a scam. All the money went into the front page/intro. The moment you're inside you know you've been screwed.
The guy has a lot of talent finding and banging the girls, and I think he may be an agent out there in porn-land.
But he's just a total hack at filming scenes & building out a website. This is a mature industry. He could have bought a web-template or hired someone to help, but he didn't. And everything before 2007 is so low-res as to be throw-away anyway.
The point here is to get the $30 out of folks' initial sign-up. I've taken one for the team here - Beware!
*Newbie reviews and ratings don't count toward a site's overall score/rank until the user reaches the Rookie status level (5 points). This rule is needed to help prevent fake (or heavily biased) profiles and reviews.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
