|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » User Ranks » User Post History |
Post History:
skippy (0)
|
| 1-50 of 55 Posts | Page 1 | 2 | Next Page > |
| 02-17-20 04:41am - 1770 days | #106 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User  Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hello all, I just saw a new site/network and decided to try it out. Would love to see a review and other opinions. The site is called Domingaview.com. It is part of a network that includes a glam site and a VR site. Working through it now. A couple of well known models in unusually open shots (I joined because of Danica) but the display and zip download images are genuinely tiny by today's standards. Trying to figure out if there is a preferences page to change image sizes...so far all I've found is that clicking on "hi-res" under everyu image gives you 1365x204 This site deserves a review. Skippy Edited on Feb 17, 2020, 04:46am | |
|
||
| 01-12-19 03:23pm - 2171 days | #12 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
So far, in addition to Suicide Girls, I've joined Burning Angel and one called alterotic.com, which is a small, all-inclusive network that has everything from softcore strip and masturbation videos, to hardcore sex, several fetishes, latex to actual piercing and tattooing videos. Wide range of meodel, some fairly popular. I would rate them in the high 70s if there was a review opportunity, primarily because I am an image person and this place is mostly videos with screen caps. Many of the vids are pretty good. Navigation is so-so. I will mention more as I find them if they aren't already listed in PU. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-12-19 03:11pm - 2171 days | #8 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Voyeurweb used to have a webcam house that was pretty interesting. A bunch of very free spirited college girls lived there and many had their own room. Cams were in the rooms and in common areas all the time and it was sometimes fairly entertaining to watch. I seem to recall something went horribly wrong when one of the girls, against all rules, told an on-line client where the house was. It was in a residential neighborhood and none of the neighbors had a clue. Word got out. Local authorities got involved. They had to shut the thing down after that. I do not know if anyone was hurt or charged. This was over 10 years ago, before webcams were much of a thing. Voyeurweb is still an interesting, sort of social-network softcore place and Redclouds has some very good user-submitted harder material. Some of it is "nude in public", which is all consentual shots in public, "what I saw" which is usually nude beaches, sex in public, that sort of thing, but there is no true vouyer stuff anymore othr than the collections from nude beaches. It is still af fun site, though, and a lot of it is free! If you go, start at the ranks and listings tab, which is where they rank the best material. Otherwise, you have to sift through a lot of stuff you don't really want to see. Redclouds has the better stuff, but there is an annual subscription fee. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-10-19 12:48pm - 2173 days | #10 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Daizha Morgann... I had not seen her before but now that I have, I have to wonder if that artwork isn't off target by about 2 inches....or maybe not complete. Yes, I also joined Burning Angel and it has some very keepable sets. Jook, I think maybe my drift into the "alt" sites...places with a totally different set of models, most of which have tattoos, is just the next effort to find something new. I'm not sure who branded them alt sites, but it seems like a good name. Alt covers Emo, Punk, tattoos, and probaly cosplay and anime style modeling. You can google the term to find many lists of sites in the category. What strikes me as interesting is that I once thought that the tattoo niche was dominated by older biker chicks with bolt-ons. That does not seem to be the case, although a few are 30-40+ (Joanna Angel, of Burning Angel, is 3 . Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-07-19 11:35am - 2176 days | #12 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
GODDAMMIT! I just wrote a long comment about this and got logged out when I went to post it! Once you click submit and the login page reappears, the posting is gone! Damn that is annoying! Tumblr does not compete with pay sites. They are a photo repository site. Other sites like Imgur will step in and take the traffic. Tumblr gets about 950 MILLION hits a MONTH so any new site that charges a nominal subscription fee, say, $20 a year, might do well filling this niche. It's important to understand what Pornhub and pirate sites are to the pay sites. They are marketing. Pornhub is provided with custom, watermarked content from pay sites as a referral process. Pornhub gets referral fees from the people it directs to these sites. People also go to pirate sites, see watermarked content and go to the site and sign up. These sites are not threats to pay sites because they do not have an impact on pay subscriptions and often actually generate subscriptions with no referral fee involved. I, for one, go to a lot of free sites in search of new material and sites. The content at these sites is usually not high enough resolution to keep but I will follow a watermark to an actual site and occasionally sign up. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-04-19 07:37pm - 2179 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
OK, First thing. Let's talk about tattoos in porn. There are sites where the viewership doesn't like them, sites that accept them and sites where the viewership celebrates them. People have preferences and it is a topic not unlike shaved or bushy, heels or bare feet, etc. I do have a comment and I have a question. Comment: as far as I can tell, PU does not have any specific reviews or list any sites that fall into what I think has recently been deemed the "alt" genre. This would include Suicide Girls (not a traditional porn site but there are some OMG beautiful women with amazing artwork there), alterotic.com, and a few others. If we can have reviews of fringe sites like Naked News and Mr. Skin, I think it is time to identify this niche and start rating sites within it. It is clearly a growing genre. In general, I have not seen a huge change in the softcore sites like Met-Art and Femjoy, but European sites and several of the VR sites have accepted that their porn stars may have many ornate and intricate tattoos. Question for readers: As tattoos become more commonplace and as they seem to be constantly improving, have you become more accepting of them than you once were? Reply with your thoughts..... Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-04-19 07:09pm - 2179 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Saw it. Really sucked. Might have walked out except my wife and daughter could not stop laughing (at parts that were not supposed to be funny...). The opening scene included CGI to make Kidman and Morrison look younger. Dumbest move ever. All I could think of was the awful CGI of Superman's upper lip in that other DC movie. And that was just the first 5 minutes. Apparently little things like physics, chemistry, gravity, engineering and architecture don't matter. The list is absolutely endless but I'll give you a few. How can voices be the same in air and under water? How can one float when covered with armor but still need to flail your hands (just a little) to move around. How can you clearly see lava flowing underwater when it instantly vaporizes water and solidifies into tunnels in real life? How can Atlantans stand and run and fight on land when they spend their entire life floating in water? And one of my favorites, why were the palace floors polished when nobody ever actually walked on them? I am all for a little creative license (telepathy, waterbending, magic) and there were some campy moments, but overall it was really, really awful. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-01-19 08:30am - 2182 days | #14 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I have 3 tower desktop computers and one tower server in my home used for a lot of things. Total drive storage? About 50 TB on-line and another 50 offline. I bought a bunch of drive caddies that allow you to swap standard drives in and out of computers without opening the computers. I bought the ones below. Black is out of stock but there are other colors. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816215323 You should be able to find something similar. There are even some that fit in 3 5.25" slots and mount 4 removable 3.5" drives inside them like this. (note: this one required mounting the drive in the cage so you willneed spare cages) https://www.amazon.com/Rosewill-5-25-Inch-3-5-Inch-Hot-swap-SATAIII/dp/B00DGZ42SM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1546359875&sr=8-3&keywords=hot+swap+cage If you have a non-tower, they also make these things to connect externally but they cost a little more and you will need some additional cabling. If you install two or more of these into your computer, you can easily copy everything onto a relatively inexpensive standard hard-drive and then remove it and store the backup. If you want to make an incremental copy of just your new stuff to a backup, it is pretty easy. Here's a script. This will copy everything from the date listed and later and will replicate the source directory structure at the destination. Put this into a text file and call it xcopynew.bat. place it in the top folder that has everything you want to copy under it. xcopy *.* "\\{computer name (if other computer) and directory location of your backup directory tree}" /S /Y /D:12-27-2018 pause Once you save it just click on it to run. You can automate this further if you like to run automatically or copy everything that is less than X days old. It will copy everything in all directories below it and then pause at the end so you can see what it copied. If you run it automatically, you can omit the pause or write output to a file. (type "help xcopy" at a cmd prompt to see the options). With these two solutions, I have at least one copy of everyhting in my collection! Skippy Edited on Jan 01, 2019, 08:34am | |
|
||
| 01-01-19 07:56am - 2182 days | #13 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
SSD drives have a limited number of reads and writes so although they are are solid state and will never fail mechanically, they data on them may degrade over time. Yes, that is a long time, but some of my collection dates back to the very early 2000s, so 10 years is not unreasonable. These SSD drives are best for boot partitions and operating systems that are loaded into memory when a computer starts. All of my 4 desktop computers have SSD drives to boot from and then all data is stored on large mechanical drives. I have one "hybrid" ssd/mechanical drive, that moves huge blocks of data from spindle to SSD as you use it so the data is accessed my quickly, but I have not yet decided if that is a significant benefit. Skippy | |
|
||
| 12-14-18 08:14am - 2200 days | #402 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
A belated thank you! I often use these to pay for other things so I can subscribe to more sites! Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-19-18 03:34pm - 2498 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I'm wondering what you guys think of this... I notice an increasing trend on porn sites to include links to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and even Pinterest on their sites. At the most basic level, the sites are hoping you will "like" them so your friends can see whatever porn sites you like. Of course this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard, since, you know,, our parents, our kids, sometimes our bosses or employees are linked to us through Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter, etc. But there is a slightly more complicated reason these links exist on all the porn sites. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest PAY these webmasters to include them as links. Why? Well.... Perhaps many of you have read that the links provide those sites, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. the ability to TRACK YOU! It is an extension of the cookie system. This is not an aggregate process. Any site that has a social media link is tracking YOU and where you go. The reason is to target you for marketing based on your likes. There is waaaay to much data moving around for anyone to actually track you individually (today), but the algorithms generate ads and suggestions when you go to these sites. It is the exact same system that keeps showing you that toaster you looked at on Amazon whenever you go to Weather.com or wherever. Ever notice that there are suggested groups to join along the right side in Facebook? Facebook does not allow nudity, but I noticed that some of the groups suggested for me, and I rarely use Facebook for anything, are a little more on the risque side. And Pinterest? That site does have nudity and somehow "pins I might like" includes some pretty interesting stuff that I'm certain would not show up there if Pinterest did not know the sites I've visited. I also get a small number of "friend requests" on Facebook (and, oddly, on Linked-in) that are pretty clearly escorts, but I am guessing that this is just some kind of targeted blast from someplace and, hopefully, not related to cookie tracking and porn site links. Yes, you can disable cookies, but then your browser wont keep your passwords. You can use incognito mode but, same thing, no passwords. Your virus scanner eliminates the most malicious tracking cookies, but these are usually not considered malicious. So, all that said, whether you believe tracking is happening or not, I'm curious. Has anyone ever actually "Liked" a porn site on Facebook, Twitter, etc. by clicking through the link on a porn site? Has anyone even liked a porn site on social media? And has anyone else noticed the subtle recommendations that imply that these sites know where you've been? I'm not a conspiracy theorist and frankly, I don't care enough about any of this to be concerned, but I am curious. Your thoughts? Skippy Edited on Feb 19, 2018, 03:37pm | |
|
||
| 01-16-18 09:45pm - 2531 days | #28 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Ok, I'll bite. Personally, I think that DISCLOSURE is the most important thing here. There are dozens of "Networks" where each site is free-standing and separate (i.e. Met-Art, etc.) and more sites where when you sign up for one site, you get 5 or more micro sites that come with the subscription. All is fair here, as long as the relationship between the sites is explained. I have observed a couple of times that TBP reviews don't always explain what the relationships are and what other sites are included. I personally have written reviews of microsites within larger networks when there is a niche involved, primarily VR sites. Naughty America and Teen Mega World, for example, both have VR micro sites in their all-inclusive network pricing. But I also think that it isn't really worth it for reader or reviewer to write separate reviews for CzechVR, CzechVRcasting and CzechVRfetish, all of which come in one subscription but have separate reviews in TBP. So for the most part, I agree that the denominator should be by subscription, but exceptions are fine as long as the reviewer explains the relationships. Oh, and one other thing. TBP generates revenue by referring people to these sites. It is like shelf space in a department store. The more shelf space you have, the more product you are likely to sell. It is not in the best interest of TBP to lump all of these networks into one space on the shelf when they can review every micro-site and get more referrals. I'm sure the sites like that, too so it might even be part of the referral agreement. All we can do is roll with it and try to come up with suggestions for improving the ways reviews are written. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-16-18 09:19pm - 2531 days | #20 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
There are SO many beautiful porn stars these days....my favorite changes monthly. I think it is interesting that Melissa Moore looks so much like Riley that they could be sisters. Melissa is 5 years younger. 5 years is a long, long time in porn. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-16-18 08:43pm - 2531 days | #19 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Perhaps you don't realize that most of PornHub's content is provided BY the websites. It is a simple and free-to-them way for the providing sites to promote their content. Any site content on the PH site for more than a few days is authorized by the providing site. If not, it is taken down pretty quickly. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-16-18 02:32pm - 2532 days | #6 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Otrvine, I'll point you to a site I think is interesting, but you won't find reviews for it here. A guy named James Bertoni doles out some really good bondage stuff using popular European models. There isn't any hardcore SM, but the sets involve seeing girls like Lorena Garcia get tied up and mildly to aggressively vibrated. It is borderline glam compared to Kink, but the video and photography is excellent. The site I joined is called triple-bbb.com. The only issue is that the sites are expensive and that each release is a very small portion of a larger video, which in turn is released at the end of the set. He has a couple of other sites also and there are links you can get to when visiting triple-bbb.com that show several other BDSM and fetish sites that I have not tried or seen reviews for. If you follow those links, make sure your PC virus protection is current because a few of them tried to give mine a virus. The only other site I can think of that you might not have seen is the fetish network (fetishnetwork.com). This is a collection of sites that range from old-school BDSM to what I call "simulated peril" sites where, for example, a girl's car breaks down on the side of the road, or there is a house break in where the girl ends up getting tied up and fucked, sometimes rather brutally and occasionally rather convincingly. Some of the older sites are no longer updating and the newer ones, while good, are more on the glam bondage side. (i.e. the girl could easily escape, hands loosely tied, etc,) Both of these sites are probably at least worth a visit. If I think of any others, I'll let you know. Skippy Edited on Jan 16, 2018, 08:35pm | |
|
||
| 01-04-18 10:11pm - 2543 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Lk2fireone, Hi. Thanks for the response. First off, the whole rant was about whether or not my personal definition of beauty was skewed by the altered images in early Playboy magazines. I think it may have been. I too have met other past Playboy models and some have been quite beautiful in real life. But I'll never know how retouched those images from my wonder years really were. I also agree that the Playboy Plus site is pretty marginal by today's standards. Their models are, for the most part, large breasted girls that are the Playboy standard. What surprised me was how altered the girls are in PB. Emily Bloom, for example, is a sweet looking girl with a killer body on other sites. In several PB sets, she is totally unrecognizable. And in a few shots her legs are open and there is pretty much nothing there! Wuuuuut?!!  As for unattractive models, I look at it this way. These days, there are only a few countries where "nude model" is an acceptable profession and/or industry. Although there are still many beautiful models from these countries, many come with issues...like bad teeth for example. And these girls generally only last in the industry for 2-4 years. But the money is good and the industry needs models, so there will be a LOT of girls that are of marginal quality and only do a few shoots. It's all good. Now I'm off to look at 10,000 more images in Playboy plus in the hopes of finding 5-10 more that I actually want to keep. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-02-18 10:49pm - 2545 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
As much as I loathe the "pay extra to download" model that some sites use, I got a holiday deal that included one free month at Playboy Plus. It has been a few years since I was a member there, so I thought it would be fun. There are many comments about how the site has changed, but this isn't really about that. It's about the realization that nearly all of the Playboy world is fake and probably has been since the beginning. I'm not just talking about bolt-on boobs and airbrushed tats, but the way the models and the images are manipulated. What is perhaps more troubling is that when I was young, Playboy was sort of the gold standard in terms of hot, mostly naked babes and I think I subconsciously used that as a standard of beauty for most of my life and perhaps I still do. But if Playboy did then what they appear to be doing now, my childhood standard of beauty was about as realistic as a barbie doll. Examples: Playboy has multiple sets of at least 5 very popular European models that frequent Met Art and Femjoy as well as several other solo and softcore sites. Mila Azul, Niemiera, Lorena and Candice B are familiar Met Art names/faces that are on Playboy Plus. But these girls are almost totally unrecognizable in the Playboy sets. In most cases, the folks at Playboy decided to trowel on so much make-up and eye shadow that it looks like the girls may have been beaten. Candice B, named Alice on PB, looks like a girl might look the morning after passing out at a crazy party. She even looks crazy in some shots. I mean wide-eyed, strange grin, bat shit crazy! ....and then there is the airbrushing/photo shopping. Some sites routinely shop some things in some images, but some of the images on PBP actually look like they are CGI. Faces, boobs, thighs, you name it, enhanced beyond recognition like they were lifted right off of the Deviantart web site. Shadows are weird. Vaginas are...well...often not natural looking at all and occasionally not even there! And when you compare the Playboy shots to the Met Art sets of the same models, the Playboy sets sometimes make these girls look kind of monstrous. We all know that Playboy is not the powerhouse that it once was, but I always thought that the women were, although a little curvier in general, very beautiful. But now I have to wonder....can Playboy take ANY model and make her look good? My guess is yes. Unfortunately, as I realized looking at these popular European models, the process also changes the basic way they look. Decades ago, I knew a few girls in college that posed for Playboy and although their images were nice, even hot, I didn't think it did them justice. They just looked different. So I guess my first pubescent lust, Marilyn Cole, miss January, 1972, was probably a lie. Damn. Those early magazine images are probably why I still enjoy looking at images from soft core sites like Met Art and Femjoy today. Funny how that works. Do you think porn had/has any impact on your definition of beauty? Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-02-18 07:56pm - 2546 days | #2 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
OK, well, a Google search turned up some info and, interestingly, a whole thread here on the PU forum on the subject. Looks like they are gone. Too bad. Here's the link to the other thread. https://www.pornusers.com/forum/forum_thread.html?threadid=5049 Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-02-18 07:53pm - 2546 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
MC-Nudes was a glam softcore site and I last did a review in 2013 and was last a member in 2016. I was just looking around to see if I should rejoin, but it is gone. Sometimes when a site changes names, prior users aren't notified and PU does not really keep track of name changes. Does anybody know what happened to MC-Nudes.com? Skippy | |
|
||
| 05-29-17 07:18pm - 2764 days | #197 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I can't seem to find vixen.com when I search for it although I swear I saw it here someplace. Very small site but good quality stuff. Skippy | |
|
||
| 05-29-17 07:15pm - 2764 days | #167 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Thanks much! I'm travelling for the month of June but will bring more reviews later in the Summer! Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-17-17 08:02am - 2865 days | #11 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
There was some not-bad logic behind the decision to go non-nude. They basically wanted to put the magazine on news stands in places that they could not before. Many stores won't sell nude magazines but they will sell Maxim, etc. Many states and cities have laws preventing it. By changing the format, they were able to increase news stand sales and sell at a significantly higher margin than they do elsewhere. What they didn't count on was the HUGE decrease in subscription sales. They thought there would be a small decrease, but not the 30%+ that they experienced. That outweighed the news stand sales increases. You heard it here first: I'll bet that within a year or two, Playboy has a spin-off non-nude magazine intended for news stands. Now, you and I may not care much about Playboy today because there is such a proliferation of harder material out there. But my first hard-on (and more) at a stupid-young age was Marilyn Cole stolen from my brother's stash. Met-Art, which is a clean and beautiful solo girl site, is the number porn site on the planet, and Playboy has always had the ability to find unbelievably beautiful, curvy girls that would simply never pose for any other publication. As for the brand, the brand name is still gold. There are times when great brands decline or become less popular, like Lincoln, Chanel, Bugatti, even Levi's, but the top quality brands always seem to survive because somebody is willing to buy them, market them and continue making them the best. For this reason I don't think we've seen the last of Playboy. Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-17-17 07:43am - 2865 days | #10 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
OK. It wasn't a time-out. I'll write another response when I get a minute. Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-17-17 07:42am - 2865 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I get your point but I see some cases where guys pay truly ridiculous amounts of money to see a girl "get off" live. I'm talking thousands. Even TENS of thousands. There is a girl on Chaturbate who dubs people earls, dukes, princes and "the king" based on how much they tip her in one payment. The king? Over $14,000! IN ONE PAYMENT! WTF????? That's a week on a private tropical island with the best looking Eastern European hooker on the planet! (Some rich Saudi guy, no doubt, but still....) I also agree about movies. I can't watch network TV (i.e. Modern Family) anymore because the situations are so unbelievable. Even reality shows (like Hunted) are beyond my tolerance level for believability. I'll watch sci-fi though, because you have to throw all reality out for that. I'm even that way when it comes to porn. Taboo themes like "I did it with my stepbrother/brother's friend/boyfriends best friend", etc., don't do it at all for me. What does do it for me is a good POV, a really beautiful woman and really great sex. But the question remains. How much of the live stuff do you think is fake? I think it is probably about 99% on most sites and about 90% on Chaturbate, mainly because some girls on sites like Chaturbate are literally getting off on the idea that hundreds of guys are watching them. Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-15-17 09:20pm - 2866 days | #7 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Oops. Either my reply vanished or I somehow sent a direct reply to Amanda....damn. Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-15-17 09:18pm - 2866 days | #6 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I don't follow anybody, but lately I have noticed some porn starlets on Chaturbate. Yesterday I saw Dakota Sky AND Emily Bloom in separate chats. They did not appear to be performing, but were interacting with their fans. (Didn't stop people from sending them tips, though....) I do not think this was a Chaturbate promotion thing, but I might be wrong. Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-15-17 09:05pm - 2866 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
So lately, I've been visiting a few of the webcam sites, particularly MyFreeCams and Chaturbate. Most of the solo girls have lovense or Ohmybod vibrators that are sound activated by the different sounds that the apps make when people give tips. The apps generally provide different frequencies and durations of vibration for different sounds, generated, of course, by different tips from 1 token to 1000+ tokens. Tokens are 7-10 cents a piece, so 1000 tokens is $70-100. The concept, cool enough, is that you can bring a webcam girl to orgasm by providing an adequate succession of tips. This, of course, encourages the hundreds, sometimes thousands of people viewing a girls webcam show to tip. I've seen guys throw down as much as $1000 in a matter of minutes by consecutively tipping the amount needed for one minute of vibration on high (500-1000 tokens). It will go on for 10-20 minutes. When that happens, the show usually gets pretty good. But how real is it? Does it even matter if it is real or not? I call bullshit and want your opinions. I see some of these girls, after several minutes of no tips, (i.e. no vibrator) start shaking uncontrollably, as soon as somebody tips 15 tokens, which is something like 6 SECONDS of medium vibrator time. Nearly all of the girls that use these things start shaking immediately as soon as they get a tip. With several fairly popular girls, you can't even tell whether they are using a vibrator and a bunch of girls have the thing inserted in their asses. And, of course, you absolutely cannot tell if it is turned on or not even if it is present. Now, of all the girls I've ever dated, I've known ONE that was fairly easy to get off (assuming she wasn't faking it for 6 months) and a couple of girls that could get off repeatedly,. after a brief break, once they got off the first time. Most of the girls I dated could not handle continued direct stimulation (oral or with a vibrator) after a certain point of orgasm and would make me stop. And most girls have sort of a movement at the point of orgasm, like an arched back or something similar to a mans sort of involuntary thrust. But as far as I can tell, very few women actually shake or shudder. Some do, of course, but not all. This isn't exactly scientific, but it seems like it might establish a baseline. All of the solo webcam girls HAVE MULTIPLE ORGASMS AND ARE IMMEDIATELY SHUDDERING! Could some of them be genuine? Sure, I guess so. Some of them could be enjoying forced orgasms like you sometimes see on DBSM sites, I guess. But Really???!! 5-10 minutes of uncontrollable shuddering on a webcam? Panting and moaning and groaning more like a foot in a bear trap than an orgasm? Don't get me wrong, I want to believe it is all real. There are very few things as amazing as that special motion and guttural, savage sound your partner sometimes makes at orgasm. But we all know that doesn't happen every time. I think 90% of it is fake on these webcam sites. What do you think? Does it matter? Skippy Edited on Feb 15, 2017, 09:10pm | |
|
||
| 02-15-17 07:33pm - 2867 days | #15 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I also use the video streaming to sort of preview a video before deciding to download it, fast forwarding through it to get an overview. Of course, a lot of sites just stream the teasers. If streaming isn't available, then I'll use the screen caps or accompanying photos if they are present. I'm guessing most of the better non-tiered sites sort of expect the streaming options to be used to preview, so that is built into the pricing model. Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-15-17 07:20pm - 2867 days | #14 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Mike C, That is very good logic and totally true...I think... But help me understand this a little more. I'm sort of seeing apples and oranges. I get that with downloads, many people are downloading multiple files at a time but once downloaded, each file is not downloaded again. so an all-download site potentially has files downloaded in a burst, requiring more bandwidth for the burst, but once downloaded the files are not queued again, never requiring server bandwidth. For a streaming site, all users are streaming files all the time and many, at least some, are streaming the same file multiple times. So if all subscribers are streaming all the time, it seems like the overall bandwidth requirements should be very similar...especially when you consider that downloads can be throttled but streaming cannot. Of course, I'm not considering that users might not try to watch all the stream-able videos, but might try to download all downloadable videos and I'm not sure what that would do to the equation. I'm looking at my download bar right now and have 4 downloads running from WankzVR. These files are HUGE. 9-15 GB each. Total time remaining for the largest one, a little over 4 HOURS. If I look at the running time for all 4 of the files and add them up, I get....4 hours! So in this case, the download time for multiple files is just a little more than what the streaming time would be if I streamed each file sequentially. (If I could, but this is VR stuff that can't easily be streamed.) So, techically, it appears that the 4 downloads are conforming to the same bandwidth that I would be using if I were streaming. Thinking about this a little more, it only makes sense that each account type (user group) have set bandwidth limits are a parameter of group policy. That is easily done on most server set-ups. So that leaves the video resolution as the tie breaker. I noticed most sites that stream files offer a selection of resolutions to support your bandwidth from SD up to full HD. So theoretically, these sites ARE saving bandwidth by reducing the resolution of their streaming files to accommodate downstream bandwidth limits. That seems logical. There is probably some actuarial science associated with how many users are wired, wireless, and on cellular mobile that provides an optimal reduced upstream server-side bandwidth requirement. So in this case, it seems streaming would probably use less bandwidth because of potential downstream bandwidth issues. But then there's this little wildcard. Unless a site is streaming in Flash, browser plug-ins can find and save the files that are being streamed by mimicking streaming. Twisty's, for example, is not using flash so all of their "streaming only" videos can be downloaded in the highest stream-able resolution using a plug-in. This is especially ironic since tech support at Twisty's claims the two-tier pricing structure came about because of piracy. In reality, the two tier structure is CREATING piracy because they have not done anything technology-wise to prevent it. Although I won't go into the ethics of downloading plug-ins, it seems very likely that sites like Twisty's aren't seeing much of a bandwidth decrease and may actually be losing revenue by marketing a streaming-only tier without actually eliminating the potential to download in that tier. Which brings us back to my original argument. That this streaming-only tier pricing might be more of a marketing thing than a technology/bandwidth one. Now, I admit I'm an old-school download-and-save guy that has about 20 computers and 160 TB of hard drives in my house (plus a half-dozen apple iPhones/iPads). I understand how the infrastructure in many countries has skipped over wired homes and gone straight to cellular and community wireless networking but I have never had to experience it. Is the technology culture so different outside of North America that people just accept streaming over downloading? Is THAT where this strategy succeeds? What am I missing?  In an effort to get a little clarity, I did submit a couple of surveys regarding streaming and downloading that I'm sure Amanda will post soon. (Awesome that we have a user base to ask!) I'm betting those responses will be interesting. Holy crap. Sorry for the Novella. As always, I appreciate your time and thoughts. Skippy Skippy Edited on Feb 15, 2017, 07:39pm | |
|
||
| 02-13-17 08:57am - 2869 days | #15 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Mike! Hi Amanda! Thank you both for the terrific and exactly-what-I-hoped-for responses. You guys do great work and I truly appreciate it. I tossed this question out there in the middle of the night to see if I was alone in my thinking, to see if streaming-only pricing is becoming more common, to see if the unannounced-tiers was a growing issue and, of course, to suggest that a TBP reporting solution be developed. I think Lk2fireone might have provided the best analogy as this issue is similar to the DRM issues from previous decades. Often times, users didn't know about DRM until their subscription ended and they couldn't view their downloads anymore. TBP dealt with it beautifully by including DRM as a summary item. It also appears that different sites are dealing with it in different ways. Some are creating tiers and are doing a good job of publishing price lists. Some are not. I just happened to run into one that is now managing several sites that I used to go to fairly often and they are doing a particularly bad job of it. Funny thing, I would not have written a single word about this here, and I would have automatically opted for the additional $10 a month with no objections, had Twistys just defined their pricing model up-front instead of withholding that information until after I had subscribed. But the tiered pricing model, whether it is for any downloads or whether it is just for 4K material, does seem to be becoming more common. That makes sense, I guess, considering how much space and bandwidth 4k and 180/360 high res, high bit-rate VR videos consume.... I look forward to seeing this information in the summary sections for TBP review form 2.1.  Thanks again! Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-12-17 12:55pm - 2870 days | #7 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Mbaya, I don't think anyone can fault TBP for the job they do reviewing sites. They walk a very fine line because the TBP revenue model is based on referrals to the sites being reviewed. The TBP folks are pretty honest about the sites, but they need to be positive. If TBP reviews are too negative, the site owners tell them to buzz off and kill or limit referral agreements. Even if the referral remains, few people would use the revenue generating referral link if the review is bad. So ALL TBP reviews have to be moderately positive. This explains why so many TBP reviews are scored higher than the PU scores. It usually is not a major difference, but it is a difference. Again, overall, the TBP folks do a really, really good job of walking this line. Could the reviews be a little more detailed? Well, I suppose. But I write a lot of reviews for PU and I can tell you it is really hard to be detailed sometimes. Really hard. I'm sure it is just as hard or harder for them. (There is a pun in there someplace, I think...). I'm guessing that there are a few sites that have either flat out told TBP not to post anything about them or refused a referral agreement. I've written a review or two for sites that still exist that are no longer listed on TBP and suspect that there was a disagreement between the site and TBP because of a poor review. Referrals are a big source of revenue in the industry so almost every site supports them. This is why you see the "webmasters" links at the bottom of most sites and why you see dozens of links to other sites on some sites. They are there because they generate revenue with each click. The fact that PU exists is a clear acknowledgement that TBP might not be dead-on in terms of reviews and it provides a way for TBP to be positive, but still be honest by letting users review sites in an uncensored way on PU. It is a win-win for us users and it seems to be working well. I am not affiliated with TBP or PU and don't have any inside information, so it is possible that I am wrong about the inner-workings I'm talking about above. I would welcome corrections from TBP or PU folks if appropriate. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 11:12pm - 2870 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi E4M, Thanks for the response. Over the years, there have been cases where prices change, etc., and I don't think we can expect the TBP folks to be 100% current. They have their error report system to help and, of course, the PU community posts updated pricing sometimes. The DL limit thing is interesting. I am always amazed at how slow some smaller sites can be even when there probably are no actual limits. That is sometimes a server-farm quality of service thing that the site needs to deal with. The other piece of it is that "Prime Time" is rapidly becoming more commonly used for the evening internet slowdown due to Amazon and Netflix than it is broadcast TV. ...Funny how 100% of porn these days is HD but 90% of cable channels are still SD....and I pay more for cable than I do for porn! But this is as much or more about how the information is reported than how accurate pricing is. Clearly, the TBP reviewers know that there is a streaming only price and an upcharge for downloads because they mention it in the body of their reviews. They probably know that the discount price they are posting is the streaming only price. A starting place would be including the words "streaming only rate" next to that price. That would make it clear that there are additional tiers. I was reading elsewhere in the forum that some web sites say streaming is so popular that they don't want to support downloads anymore and that is why they charge more for it. Interestingly, all of the sites mentioned were from this website management company. (MG Premium). I'm an IT guy and know that this is a marketing response, not a technology one. Streaming is damn hard to support. But out of curiosity, I did submit a poll to see how many PU folks download and how many stream. Should be interesting to see the results. Of course, this wouldn't be a big deal at all if the sites in question were up-front about their pricing on the sign-up page. Unfortunately, they are not. Since getting burned by Twistys, I nearly signed up to two other sites managed by this group and if I had not read the PU reviews, would not have known that downloads are extra. Thanks! Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 09:31pm - 2870 days | #10 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Mike C, Thanks for the great answer, but as an ex-IT guy, that sounds more like a marketing answer than a technology one. I can tell you that the requirements for streaming are far more demanding than the requirements for downloads. QOS and bandwidth requirements for streaming servers are much higher because of the real-time nature of the service. I also notice that all of the sites you mention are from ONE provider. MB Premium. Outside of that company, I've only seen a few sites with tiered prices for downloads. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 09:10pm - 2870 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi All, I just discovered a pretty big issue that is a little disturbing and I am hoping that by discussing it here, the folks at The Best Porn might be able to resolve it. MG Premium/MG Billing is a huge website owner that owns or manages dozens of sites. They own or manage, for example Reality Kings, Brazzers, Babes Network, Twisty's Network, Mofos and Playboy Plus. A lot of these sites have switched to a tiered pricing structure and are not being particularly forthcoming about it. Several of the sites say nothing about this when you sign up until you go to download something and THEN they ask for an additional $10 a month for the ability to download videos and photo sets. In other words, you signed up for a streaming only subscription and didn't know it. Well, we all know some site owners are assholes, but this is pretty prolific with this particular group and the folks at The Best Porn are inadvertently contributing to the confusion and user dissatisfaction. For each site, The Best Porn provides a review and lists a discounted price. They DO NOT mention specifically that this is for a limited streaming only membership. In fact, they often go on to describe video download formats and image file sizes in the summary section of their reviews as well as comments like "No download limits!" To be fair, they often mention that downloads cost more in the body of the review, but that does not excuse the mismatch between the discounted TBP price listed for a subscription, and the summary of features that the website provides for a higher tier. For the price listed, there are NO DOWNLOADS, so there is no need to discuss download file sizes and certainly no need to mention that there are no download limits. This is clearly a mistake. If a discounted price is listed, there are two options here. Either include the price for the features included in the review summary, or do not include those features in the review summary. This probably sounds a little knit-picky and my intent is not to call out or embarrass the reviewers, but there is a pretty significant problem here. Go look at the PU comments for Playboy Plus, Twisty's and Babes Network, for example, and compare them to the TBP summaries and pricing. The review summaries are misleading. As a result, the PU user comments (including mine...) are complaining about the sites I know the folks at TBP know how to do this right. If you go look at the TBP review for In-The-Crack.com, you will see at the very top of the summary, all of the price tiers including basic and streaming all the way up to the top-tier 4K downloads. ...But ITC openly publishes their price lists. Given that I've gone to Twisty's on 3 different browsers on the same computer at the same time and gotten 3 different prices, I'm pretty sure that the folks at MG Premium have what they call a "regional" pricing structure (translation: charge as much as that market will bear) and they don't want TBP to publish actual prices. Heck it might even be written into the agreement between TBP and the site management, putting the TBP folks in a tight spot. But by perpetuating the vagueness of this pricing, TBP is doing a disservice to their readers. My suggestion is a simple one. When a site has tiered pricing, hidden or otherwise, the folks at TBP should feel obligated to provide ALL of the tier pricing in their reviews, not just the cheapest one. And if they are discussing features like downloads, they should state the minimum tier required to obtain those features. Look, I completely understand where the revenue comes from at TBP and why they might feel pressure to comply with a web site provider's request to downplay pricing. But I am also hoping that if that is the case, rather than just deleting my thread, we can have an intelligent discussion about it here and maybe establish some key words or something that can be used to describe this issue other than "bait and switch", which is what I've called it a few times. Heck, even Apple uses the term "In App purchases" to warn people that the "free" game they are downloading is going to cost them at some point. If we can't call out the sites that have hidden tiered pricing and we can't actually list the tiered prices, can we at least come up with terminology that adequately warms people about it? I look forward to hearing people's thought on this, especially the reviewers at TBP. Thanks, Skippy Skippy Edited on Feb 11, 2017, 09:16pm | |
|
||
| 02-09-17 09:10pm - 2872 days | #6 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Amanda! OK, first off, as you may know I already have an HTC Vive VR Headset and it is pretty awesome, so I won't be joining the drawing. I have had a few sets of google cardboard and similar plastic headsets for my smartphones, and that is a GREAT place to get a feel for VR. I commend PU for the effort you are making to get more people into VR. It is a totally new environment for most and will soon be much more prevalent in porn, I'm sure. But I can still talk about why I love PU, right? I have always called PU the Consumer Reports or Consumers Union of porn rating sites. Although the scoring at TBP can sometimes be a little optimistic due to the nature of the service, the aggregate scoring from what is often dozens of users who have scored a site on PU is a terrific and very accurate way to determine what a site is like. Taking the time to read the reviews gives potential subscribers a lot of insight into whether a particular site is right for them. Those reviews are often highly detailed and current and they usually call out changes and trends, like pricing changes, discount opportunities or a change in the update schedule, that occur in a site. And here we have the ability to look at the profile and rating history of the reviewer and compare his/her tastes to our own. Does this person like the same sites that I do? Does he not like some of the same sites? Yes? Cool, then I can totally believe that person when he/she says a site is great or not-so-great! On a different point, many of the better sites actually monitor the reviews here at PU in an effort to improve their sites or to help resolve customer issues. I personally have received several responses from webmasters after commenting here and I know others have, too. So in that sense, PU really stands for Pornusers Union, giving us a venue and organized voice that otherwise would not exist. And, of course, there is always the personal touch that you, Amanda, and the rest of the team provides with communication to users and within the forums. You can tell by the responses and suggestions that you provide that you care about your PU members. Those qualities, along with the knowledge that my comments might make a difference to those seeking information about a site, are what keeps me coming back and what keeps me writing so many way-to-verbose reviews and comments. Thanks for all you guys do! Skippy Skippy Edited on Feb 09, 2017, 09:13pm | |
|
||
| 01-20-17 08:49pm - 2892 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I recently stared download really large VR files to support my new...uh..hobby. These files range from 1 to 10 GB. Ookla tells me I have a 75 mbps download speed. That means that, theoretically, with network padding overhead, I should be downloading a 2 GB file in less than 5 minutes. In reality, from some sites it sometimes takes HOURS. Smaller files, and the Ookla test, aren't a problem but the large ones....wow are they slow. Am I missing something? This might be because of all the prime-time streaming from Amazon and Netflix, or it might just be those...people...at Comcast throttling things. They, of course, recommend that I get a new cable modem. They tell me I am paying for 150 mbps download speeds but I have never seen it that fast. Anyone else encountering the same kind of issues? What is your Ookla rated download speed and what are your actual download times? Anybody out there with Comcast and really fast (120mbps+) Ookla times? Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-16-17 11:48pm - 2896 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I think the point here is not that I travel overseas or that somebody used my card. (It is far more likely that somebody charged something to my card through POVDlive, i.e. one of the girls I tipped.) Consider this. I'm in the US. My card is in the US. Within a few hours of me using my card on a site while I"m in the US, somebody in Eastern Europe (where a lot of the girls are from) uses it on that same site. How could that even be me? Clearly, Epoch sees it is somebody else because they track all transactions and IP addresses when charges are made. They may have even seen that I wasn't logged in when the charge hit. That's why they credited me immediately. In addition, I had an account on at least one of these sites for a year or more after this incident. It wasn't until the system automatically flagged me because I forgot my password (I think) that it even came up again. Initially, somebody somewhere knew I was not the person who committed the fraud, but over time, perhaps, new lock-out measures went into place that didn't care. Can you imagine Macy's or Amazon not wanting my business because somebody used one of my cards fraudulently? And the "risk" they are talking about now is because I had so many accounts.....because they kept closing them automatically and I kept asking them to reopen one and they agreed to do it. Their own system is what made me a risk. The dumbest thing about this is that I have plenty of credit cards and plenty of email addresses and several IP addresses. I COULD have just created a new account, but I didn't because I wanted to make things right. Frankly, I don't want to do business with a company that has policies that are as fucked up as these are. I did nothing wrong. I've had billing issues with other sites, like Met-Art for example, and the people at the other end are professional and courteous and treat me like the good customer I am. These guys that run live.TV actually HUNG UP on me in chat sessions. TWICE! Even Comcast doesn't hang up on you and they are awful! As I think about this, another factor might be that I tried to log in from a hotel in California. I've noticed, for example, that I can't get into Met-Art sometimes when I try to log in from a hotel even though my username and password are correct. So....If somebody logs in from a hotel and does something stupid and gets thrown off of a site, I'm guessing that this means that the IP address of the involved also gets locked out. The site doesn't know and probably doesn't care that it is a hotel. They just know they've had problems from that address and lock it out for some period of time at least. Are they within their rights to deny me service? I guess so. But all they would have to do is check with their service provider to see that I legitimately spend a LOT of money on this stuff. Skippy Edited on Jan 16, 2017, 11:55pm | |
|
||
| 01-15-17 09:23am - 2898 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Once in a while, an otherwise good service provider can do something insanely stupid or inconsiderate to a willing, paying subscriber. Although The Porn Users site is a terrific venue for finding out how good a site is, I don't think it is in their best interest to be too negative about sites or service providers due to their revenue model. However, hopefully that doesn't mean that WE can't talk about them in the forum. So I'm going to post this here and hope we can share our run-ins with certain sites in an effort to either reconcile with the sites or at least provide some entertainment for others who are in similar situations. I'll start. Live.TV is a servicer for dozens of live webcams including met-art live (and all of their related sites), POVDlive (and all of that group's sites), and about a half dozen other web sites that advertise live webcams. From what I can tell, it is the biggest 3rd party web cam servicer out there but most people don't know it and TBP and PU don't list them among the webcam sites. Interestingly, you won't find all of the girls on all of the sites. Some of my favorites started on met-art but later I could only find them on live.tv. So I had accounts to a few of their webcam sites. Many, many years ago, I had an account on met-art live. It was pretty great back then because the actual met-art models were often available on the live site for private cams. (I actually had a session with one of my favorite Met-Art models that I will remember for the rest of my life.) At some point I tried to log into Met-art live while traveling in the US and could not. When I got home, I contacted them and got a terse response in broken english that said my account had been closed for security reasons. That was probably 2010. About a year later, I opened an account again and used it occasionally. A few months later, the account was closed. No reason given. Fast forward to 2015. I created an account on POVDlive.com and used it a few times. Spent maybe $50, which I of course paid. Then I got a bill from Epoch for something like $1250.00. I immediately called them and they said that somebody at POVDlive had charged this from another country and they would credit me back immediately, which they did. Next chapter, last year. I used my POVDLive account a few times but got locked out and thought it was a password issue. It was late and I was travelling. No problem. Went to Live.TV and created another account. Used it once and got locked out. I contacted them via chat and the guy said I shouldn't have tried to create additional accounts. (remember, these are different sites that have the same servicer so having multiple accounts shouldn't really be an issue.) He reset my account. A month later, the same thing happened again. When I opened a chat window to get my account reset, the terse person at the other end said. "Have you ever traveled overseas?" Well, yes, I have, but I've never used one of these accounts from overseas. When I responded, the chat ended with "Your account has been closed permanently and will not be reopened for any reason. Any attempts to open a new account will automatically be closed for security reasons." and the chat session ended. I also got an alert that $3.99 had been credited back to my credit card from POVDlive.com. I was pretty annoyed with this so I opened another chat and asked again what the issue was. The different operator on the other end dropped the same message on my chat and hung up. Another credit from POVDlive, this time for $2.99. I opened ANOTHER chat and said "Don't hang up on me. I want to know what is going on. Is this about the fraudulent charge to Epoch a few years ago?" The person just said to contact Epoch and ended the chat. Now, I'm a pretty open minded guy and I can appreciate that misunderstandings occur. I didn't have time to call these guys, so I write an email explaining in great detail my history, that I have a half dozen long-standing accounts with ccBill and Epoch, etc. A day later, I get an email back that just says "Your account has been closed permanently and will not be reopened for any reason. Any attempts to create a new account will automatically be closed by the system due to security reasons." I write back and say "Are you guys serious??? Did you even read the email below?" What I got back then pretty much told me how clueless these guys are. It simply said: There was a total of 7 accounts that were created. Due to every one of those accounts had issues we deem you high risk and decided to terminate doing business. If there is anything else that we can assist you with please feel free to contact us. Nobody stopped to think that there were 7 accounts because their system kept closing them...... I liked the webcam sites associated with the sites I patronize often, like met-art.com, hegre-art.com, POVD.com and others, but if the webcam servicer wants to blacklist me without really giving it any thought, then I'll stick to Chaturbate, Myfreecams and a few others that aren't part of the huge live.tv network. Thanks for reading! Got a similar story? Share it here! Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-05-17 08:53am - 2908 days | #7 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I think many of us are nomads when it comes to porn. What was exciting yesterday isn't so exciting today, so we search for something new. My tastes swing on a (straight) pendulum that ranges from young and nubile, to glam solo, to POV and VR to kink and back again. Always looking for something new and exciting. Occasionally finding it. Although I'm a gamer, the sex games have always seemed like too much work and not real enough to enjoy. And the Hentai stuff is occasionally arousing, but not something I can get off to. (And don't even get me started about the stupid Japanese censorship of genitalia, even on cartoons!) So I'll continue to look and continue to comment.  Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-05-17 07:58am - 2908 days | #5 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
The closest thing to this was that when I was in college, two of our Fraternity little sisters appeared in the "Girls of the Southeast Conference" spread in Playboy. I had a one-nighter with one of them and the image in Playboy sort of immortalized the experience. I never saw either girl after college but kept that magazine for decades. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-05-17 07:50am - 2908 days | #6 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I think a large percentage of people we drool over are married. Men are visually oriented. Once we fixate on somebody, it doesn't matter if they are married, 100 years old now or even dead. The images live on and are always, always of single, available girls that are standing right in front of us. No need to mess up a good fantasy with facts. Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-05-17 07:41am - 2908 days | #4 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
There are a lot of great porn star names to make funny scene names out of. Inthecrack.com does it all the time. I can think of a few....stuff like "50 splayeds of Grey" Skippy | |
|
||
| 01-05-17 06:57am - 2908 days | #6 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi, I've got an HTC Vive and have started writing reviews. A couple of updates for this thread. First, most sites allow you to download VR porn in multiple formats so it will almost always work with whatever device you have. Second, VLC is the player of choice for previewing VR on a flat screen. there is a free plug-in called K-Lite Codec pack plug in for VLC that will allow you to preview your VR on a flat monitor. You can't really watch the video because it is doubled and distorted, but you can see that it is working properly. The codec pack also works for the windows player, but the higher resolution VR videos won't play on it for some reason. There is another plug-in that removes the distortion and allows you to watch the video on a flat screen, but I have not tried it since, you know, I've got VR. And third, the best player I've found for the HTC Vive is called Simple VR Player. It will display flat or VR videos and will also display jpg images. You can scroll through, pause, reposition or skip using controller buttons. Hope that is useful! Skippy | |
|
||
| 12-15-16 10:05am - 2929 days | #213 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
A guy stuck his head into a barbershop and asked, "How long before I can get a haircut?" The barber looked around the shop full of customers and said, "About 2 hours." The guy left. A few days later, the same guy stuck his head in the door and asked, "How long before I can get a haircut?" The barber looked around at the shop and said, "About 3 hours." The guy left. A week later, the same guy stuck his head in the shop and asked, "How long before I can get a haircut?" The barber looked around the shop and said, "About an hour and a half." The guy left. The barber turned to his friend and said, "Hey, Bob, do me a favor, follow him and see where he goes. He keeps asking how long he has to wait for a haircut, but he never comes back." A little while later, Bob returned to the shop, laughing hysterically. The barber asked, "So, where does he go when he leaves?" Bob looked up, wiped the tears from his eyes and said, "Your house!" Skippy | |
|
||
| 12-15-16 09:57am - 2929 days | #212 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
My favorite so far is the gas station sex contest. Skippy | |
|
||
| 12-09-16 06:45pm - 2935 days | #117 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Woohoo! Thanks Amanda! I just started writing reviews for VR sites and have a few more to do. This will help cover joining a few more of those sites!  Thanks! Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 10-09-16 06:42pm - 2996 days | #96 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
So...I've been going back through my reviews and updating them for the ones that are more than two years old (gives me an excuse to rejoin a few sites also). I am certain that I did a review of CL-Erotic, one of the Crystal Lizard sites. I am looking, though, and see nothing there. The site does not even come up in a search. None of the Crystal Lizard sites do. So I started looking....none of the other review sites have anything for any of these sites either. So...how does a site get itself on the "Not doing business with" list? Do they just say "FU we don't want you to review us"? Or...as I pull on this thread a little more, is there usually a transaction involved when TBP does a review? I'm very curious.... I'm guessing that the webmasters didn't like that they were getting mediocre reviews and negative comments about the high pricing and asked to be removed. Does that happen? Did it happen here? Just trying to figure out why they are not on any review sites lists. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 10-09-16 06:11pm - 2996 days | #17 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Otravine, After literally a dozen or so lost reviews because I take an hour or more to write them, I FINALLY figured this out! OPEN TWO TABS for PU. You can type away on your review or whatever, but before you submit, go to the OTHER tab and click someplace. If it logs you out, just log back in again. Most websites only put one cookie on your computer and PU does too. So, after logging back in using a different tab, when you submit, the cookie will say you are still logged in! It took forever to figure this out but I am SO glad I did! Amanda, you might want to share this with the other folks that run into it. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 10-09-16 06:02pm - 2996 days | #100 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
Hi Amanda, Thought I would take a minute to say hi and thank you for the gift cards. You should see if CCbill or Epoch would be interested in providing some kind of gift card or coupons. I shop at Amazon all the time, but I am certain the recipients would be just as happy and probably more productive when it comes to reviews. ...Just a thought. Thanks, Skippy Skippy | |
|
||
| 08-11-16 08:31pm - 3055 days | #9 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
I think it is habit for me to just fill in the form rather than use MS Word. Usually, writing something on a forum is spontaneous so writing it in a WP might not make sense. One site I write tutorials on, Instructables, has a "Save" button so that when you are writing, you can save it. That site also automatically saves the info you write occasionally. Sadly, most regular forum systems don't have that capability. Skippy | |
|
||
| 1-50 of 55 Posts | Page 1 | 2 | Next Page > |
|
