|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » User Ranks » User Post History |
Post History:
skippy (0)
|
| 1-9 of 9 Posts | Page 1 |
| 01-04-19 07:37pm - 2178 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 | |
|
||
| 02-19-18 03:34pm - 2497 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 | |
|
||
| 01-02-18 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 07:53pm - 2545 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 | |
|
||
| 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 | |
|
||
| 02-11-17 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 | |
|
||
| 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 | |
|
||
| 01-15-17 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 | |
|
||
| 08-11-16 12:23am - 3055 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
skippy (0)
Active User Posts: 78 Registered: May 19, '07 Location: out there |
The last few times I've written reviews, the PU system has managed to log me out while I was writing it so that when I hit submit, the entire review was lost. Once I was able to get it back, the other four or five times, I was not. It takes me an hour or two to write thorough reviews of web sites. I even use the "auto login option". This only started happening recently. Has anyone else had this issue? Skippy | |
|
||
| 1-9 of 9 Posts | Page 1 |
|
