I usually only view hetero cunnilingus if the woman is taking charge and climbing on top of him. Lesbians? Well sure. I especially like the new POV style of filming lesbian cunnilingus.
I'm reminded of the old saying about locks only being there to keep honest people out. Why would a pirate searching through torrents notice and care if a site required higher costs or ridiculously restrictive limits to downloading content? I guarantee the paying customers like us would notice and care, though. I've marked a couple of sites off of my "to join" list for that very reason.
I bet both paying customers and the torrenting crowd notice when the paying customers who want to pay for legal content leave reviews saying it's both too expensive AND too much of a PITA to download, though.
It would be interesting to see data on whether heavier restrictions encourages more piracy of the product. I'd bet my $29.95 it does.
I'd be more inclined to suggest the "Top Rated" section of PU should be based on a running average and definitely more than one review. Naughty Alisha/Pornicate and Stiffia were some of the worst sites and networks I've ever seen, and all I would have to do to make them rank at the top for weeks would be to review a few times and then give them 100.
Blacks on Blondes is another that is puzzling. Decent content, but I was locked out of the associated network after I ran into a download limit that the webmasters say doesn't exist. It's still a "Top Ranked" site that beats MetArt, Brazzers, Reality Kings, etc. with only one review able to do the trick.
The only listing on the PU top ten that seems somewhat legitimate is Kink (3 reviews).
EDIT: All to say that the user reviews of PU seem to be a large part of the PU site appeal, and having the rankings so easily tilted seems like a poor approach.
And this is probably the entire wrong place, and I apologize. The sites are connected, though, and the scores are there for similar reasons.
I wrote a lengthy reply but wasn't logged in and it was eaten when I submitted. Sorry.
Short version- My idea was bad because I'm old and out of touch and yeah, you should probably go with social media unless you can figure out a way to get a big time rapper to mention you or repeatedly wear a baseball cap with your logo on it.
FWIW, I found PU by googling and being impressed with detailed reviews from actual users instead of a bunch of "THIS SITE SUX AND I HAT IT!!!" in the comment section after a webmaster's glowing 99/100 score.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Very attractive models, mostly European
- Great video sizes/quality
- Site uses names in the videos now. A+, Gamma.
- Images available (zips)
- Images available in both lower and high resolution, with appropriate sizes for both (30MB or 300MB). A+
Cons:
- Locked videos.
- A pretty small site. All those videos you can't watch don't count towards site size, guys. D-.
- You'll get automatically logged out fairly routinely.
- Way, WAY too much cross-selling baked into the cake.
- I encountered some major variations in download speeds
- Too many "best of" compilations that seem to just be padding.
- Watch for auto checked additional subscription purchases at the payment page. SITE OWNERS- Is it worth that small percentage of affiliate or referral cash to never, ever have a paying customer return to your site after getting burned?
Bottom Line:
This is another offering from the 21sextury folks. Overall it's not a bad site. It's a bit small, but the quality is good and the models are beautiful. The major problem, as is the big problem with the other 21___ sites, is the preponderance of locked videos that you can't view without joining other sites.
On one of Kattie Gold's video's there are 15 advertisements for other sites. They're not discrete, either. The default "Recommended Videos" tab is automatically chosen and shows you the ads, and the "Kattie Gold" tab, you know, the actress you're interested in and are currently viewing, needs to be clicked to see more. Click it and you'll see the other major problem of this site: There are seven videos of the actress listed on the site, but one of them is for the page you're currently viewing, and four of the clips have lock icons on them. So in reality there are only two other videos available, but seven are shown.
A more obvious example is someone more popular and who has done more work. Click on Aletta Ocean's thumbnail to view her scenes, and there are 25 pages of the actress. Wow. Twenty five pages. Begin clicking at page one and you'll quickly realize most seem to be "best of" compilations that involve short clips of her along with other actresses in unrelated scenes, or that the scenes are locked and unavailable. I started at page five and clicked through page 14, and there was one clip available for downloading. Ten pages of thumbnails of the actress, and only one clip available for downloading.
Worse? It wasn't even really one of her scenes, but one of the "best of" clips.
I encountered some substantial speed fluctuations at times. I tested other sites and my connection and speeds were fine, so I'm not sure if it's a problem or an intentional measure similar to auto logouts. Not a dealbreaker, but something to be noted.
I don't really understand the automatic logouts. It seems to happen at least once a day. It seems like it would be more secure to allow the user to control the logout, because if a username and password combination is in continual use, an attempt at hacking and logging in using stolen usernames and passwords would be automatically rejected. I'm sure it's something related to bandwidth or the like, but I've also been logged out at the same time I was downloading a file on the same computer. It seems odd that a user actively and continually using the legitimate account wouldn't have to worry about such things.
I don't want it to appear that the bad outweighs the good, but the site has so much potential that the bad is extremely obvious. Overall I like the site and would recommend it IF only the available videos were shown and it required a simple click if the user interested in looking at other sites where you could spend additional money to see more work by the same actress. Having to scroll through and click past on the actual site I've paid money to join is very irritating, though, especially when one discovers that the listed, clickable actress only has locked scenes.
Would I recommend? Probably not as is unless you're looking for every piece of work from one actress. It's a bit small and irritating for the price. As a part of a combined network with all the ubiquitous locked-icon 21sextury and 21sextreme clips available? Yes.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Good looking (mostly euro) actresses
- Multiple sizes of videos available to download in newer clips
- No download limits that I encountered
- Good download speeds
- Kink brought to you by the folks from 21 Sextury
Cons:
- Video count is huge, but padded somewhat by compilations
- Surprisingly glitchy site
- "Lock" icons over unavailable videos (see below)
- No naming scheme for downloaded files
- Not terribly "extreme"
Bottom Line:
A decent but fairly vanilla "extreme" site. Granted there is some fisting, some bondage, some urine here and there, a couple dozen clips of older, lower-quality shemales with men and women, and an old/young angle with MF and FF scenes (and apparently some puking that I thankfully never came across according to another reviewer), but overall it's pretty tame. The eyeball test indicated a great deal of the site is simple female masturbation and stuff you'd find at the sister site "21sextury" or even Team Skeet (literally- it looked like the same filming and directing style). That's not bad, but the site presents itself as extreme while just coming across as an excuse to use content that would otherwise be fine on another nearly identical site or simply on a larger combined network including both sites. The site agrees with me, unfortunately, because I discovered more than a few of the 21sextreme videos with 21sextury watermarks.
It's another site without any naming system for the downloads. You can download clips, but you'll end up with a folder full of "88756_03_HD" type files. They work fine, and I'm sure it's convenient for the owners, but there is no useful information in that for the end user other than the first five-string number representing a particular movie that all the clips were pulled from (#03 in this case). That's a made up example just to make the point, btw.
Video quality is good even with the non-HD clips, and file sizes are appropriate for the resolution.
I ran into a glitch here and there. I would discover an unknown actress in a scene with a known actress, and clicking the unknown actress' name/link would take me to her page. Unfortunately, her page showed her thumbnail but not videos. When I would refresh or return to the page the scenes would appear. I suspect some sort of javascript / flash error. Some actresses' names/links would take you to pages other than #1 when clicking, too. Whee!
Biggest complaint: Similar to the sister site "21sextury," the site shows all the videos available across the owner's sites, and not just the videos available to view/download on the site *you* paid for. There will be lock icons over the scenes you can't have, and those locked scenes will quickly begin to irritate you. For example, there are four pages of 50 or so scenes of Cherry Jul available, but only three unique non-compilations are available for download. The rest have little lock icons over them indicating that yes, they exist, but no, you can't download any of them without paying for a subscription at a separate site. Cameron Cruz is the similar, with four pages totalling 40+ videos, but only four or so are available for downloading with the subscription you bought.
Bottom line- Would I join again? Possibly, but it would have to be at a greatly discounted rate OR after the three "network" sites are combined into the full network they clearly are meant to be.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be so irritating if they arranged them so that, after clicking on an actress, the videos you can honestly, actually, truly, 100% download were lined up in front of all of the advertisements for the other sites.
Clicking through to look for more might be okay, but having to click through to look for ***any*** on a paid site that shows the actress is a major problem.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- No download limits (data-wise) that I encounterd
- Multiple video sizes
- .zip photo sets for shoots
Cons:
- Actress thumbnails with no content available
- Videos have no names, only numbers.
- No limits, but download links in DTA die when the site logs you out every day
- Newer photo sets are huge to enormous
Bottom Line:
Not a bad site, but pretty disappointing when you spend any time there.
You'll get a folder full of 32234_01_HD type videos, and no idea who is in them or what they're about.
Actresses are listed and thumbnailed even when there is *NO* content available. Example: Eveline Dellai shows three scenes, but every scene has a lock icon on it. If you want them you'll need to join these other TWO sites. Betty Style has four pages of videos, and there are up to nine videos on each page. Here's the problem: On page one there are two videos actually available. One on p2. One on p3. One on p4. So five videos available out of thirty shown, with the rest all having lock icons on them and you don't have access to them unless you pay to join the other two sites.
I understand wanting to show users that there is more content available and that you'd happily sell them another subscription, but it would be better to have a "MORE CONTENT AVAILABLE AT OUR OTHER SITES!!!" link below her image.
If an actress has zero scenes available on your site, which happens to be the same site that I paid money for and have access to, don't show her photo and don't have a clickable link pretending you do. Don't do it dozens (hundreds, maybe thousands, when you count actresses that may have a scene or two but the rest locked) of times, especially.
Strange choices regarding what's on the site, too. You get ladies wrestling in an actual ring with your membership (saw a lot of those offered), but a middle aged MILF having sex has a lock on it.
It automatically logged me out every evening around 8pm, and queued downloads in DTA would fail. This isn't exclusive to this site, but it was much more noticeable since it seems to be on a schedule. Is it like a restaurant where other users can't have a seat at the server until I leave, or is it just a good way to try to make people stay one more month? FWIW, it does the opposite for me, and I doubt I'm alone. More than likely I'll get the actresses I like and remember "Oh yeah, their site logged me off and killed my downloads every evening" when I'm tempted to re-join.
A lot of the non-euro content looked very familiar and like scenes you'd find at Videobox. I'd be shocked if it's exclusive. On the bright side, they don't have pages and pages of thumbnails with lock icons on them that let you know you can buy scenes at Videobox.
There are often photo sets available for viewing and downloading, but the .zip files are as big as a video clip. 250MB or the non HD, and 1GB for the HD wasn't unusual. Someone with a fiberoptic connection will have to chime in on quality comparisons, but non-HD photo zips should be under 100MB. I think even at MetArt the big files were only occasionally 500MB or so, and that's a photo site.
Overall it's not a bad, and it has a lot of content, but it's tainted with bad decisions. Would I recommend? Maybe. It's a decent resource for some good euro actresses.
Would I join again? Definitely not at full price. PU's $20? Doubtful. $5 for a month? Maybe.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- The actress' name is associated with a website.
- Photos are available for viewing for some of the corresponding videos.
- Not all of the dozen videos are "behind the scenes" or interview filler clips.
- No download limits that I encountered, but the entire site's total content is probably under 5GB (I'd wager closer to 2) so how would there be?
Cons:
- It will take you just about the same amount of time to read this review as it would to scroll through the entire website.
- Website won't load at times.
- Photos, but no photo zips that I could find.
- The photos are sometimes just screenshots of the low-res video.
- The videos are low-res 360p clips that aren't worth watching.
- It appears that they haven't updated in years.
Bottom Line:
I really don't see the point of this site. I'm not just saying that, either. I truly, honestly, 100% don't see why someone would go through any time and trouble to make a site that has a handful of clips, a few photos that you have to individually click, wait for the script to pull up, and then click a few more times to download if you have any interest, and little to nothing more. I especially don't understand it when it's... Okay, okay. That's not entirely true. I understand that it seems to be little more than a blatant cash grab and exists in the hope that there are a few suckers out there who might want to have all of Abbey Brooks' material, and that one of those suckers might spend the money joining the site for one month. Either that or it's just crappy padding for a similarly overall horrible network. Take your pick.
According to IAFD, Ms. Brooks is still working and has nearly 200 movies to her name. That doesn't count photos shoots, and I'm sure she's got well over 100 of those in her past, too.
So, If I had to guess, I'd guess that a studio/site bought up the name and owned a few licensed clips of the actress. There ARE some clips the studio owns of said actress, so it's presented as the actress' website.
The dozen or so video clips are stated as being 360p. It's probably technically correct, but I've seen 360p clips elsewhere that, while not great, are still fairly watchable. For simplicity's sake just think of a low-res tube site or a crappy gif flashing in an advertisement. That's essentially what you can expect for video quality of most of the clips here.
If that's too crisp and wonderful for you, there is a lower quality option as well.
Photos exist, but I never saw a link for zip files. If you like a set, be prepared to click through each image individually to allow it to load so that you can choose "save as" for every one you want. It looked like the photos were often just screenshots, too.
On the bright side, I didn't run into any download limits when downloading the three videos that looked worthwhile. They weren't, btw. The video quality was borderline unwatchable once I tried to watch them, although in fairness I knew it said 360p when I clicked to download them. Nonetheless, I didn't encounter any download limits when downloading the 300-500MB worth of clips.
Bottom line: It's an almost uniquely lousy site. It's either a cynical money-grab or filler for a network of similar cynical money-grab sites. It's the first site I've come across in a long, long time that deserves a score much lower than 50, and I only gave it the extra point so that it wouldn't be viewed as some knee-jerk score out of spite. That single point is there to show that some thought went into why this site is so bad. Frankly, the site shouldn't even exist. The unwatchable clips could easily be part of one of the studio's other sites as some sort of worthless "bonus" content that no one intentionally clicks on.
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Lots of content
- Quite a bit of variety.
- Frequent updates
- Photos available with the video sets
- HD videos available
- Download managers allowed
Cons:
- Lots of behind the scenes filler
- Scenes probably aren't always exclusive
- Navigation can be a bit irritating
- In house biller
Bottom Line:
Milehighmedia.com is a megasite offering quite a few different niches and a strong value. There's everything from milfs to lesbians to masturbation to bi MMF scenes, and everything in between. With the pornusers discount it's worth a shot because you're going to find something you like, and probably a lot of it.
I realize I mostly just wrote the "bottom line" section right at the beginning of my review, but that's okay. There's very little wrong with the site, and it's well worth spending the $15 to try it out and another $15 every few months to see what's new.
The videos are generally filmed competently with good angles and lighting, and they are offered in multiple sizes. I don't remember seeing any 4K offered, but there were 720 and 1080p choices available for downloading. There are usually other sizes, too, and the 540p still seems to be the best choice for finding the best balance between size and clarity. Older videos will have non-HD choices, but that's sort of to be expected.
The complaints are few. Not using Epoch or similar for billing is one. To cancel you'll be directed to "fameaid.com" and enter your info there. Not a huge strike against them, but I always feel better using Epoch.
The "tour" leaves a lot to be desired. A huge site and you get one page of image stills and are directed to the pay portal when you click on one of the other page numbers? You'll get a LOT more buyers if you let the consumers see what they're about to spend their money on, guys.
One of the worse things about the site is the navigation. There is lots of content, and each page will have thumbnails showing what's available. The problem is that the options for moving forward or backward are extremely limited. I remember ten or fifteen pages being linked from the page you're on, so if you're on page 12 and want to go to page 44 because you closed the window and are starting over and need to get back where you stopped browsing, you have to click multiple times to get there. It's more an annoyance than anything, but it's something I noticed.
There are filters to prevent you from seeing genres you're not into. Unfortunately there are no filters that I could find that would remove the behind the scenes videos from showing up everywhere.
Bottom line part II: Would I recommend? Yes. A large, mostly user-friendly site that offers good value for the money with the PU discount.
And thank you, webmaster, for not incorporating expiring links for paying customers. I suspect that level of user friendliness is one of the biggest reasons customers become repeat customers, and I would wager that allowing paying members access to the content they paid to have access to is probably a great way to discourage piracy of your product, too.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
$5 promos in your spam box
Lots of attractive actresses. Some well known, some less well known.
Good site to build an immediate collection of various and quality material.
Very good variety. Euro, milf, hairy, old/young lesbian, bisexual MMF, etc.
No download limits
Good speeds
Multiple streaming and download options
Cons:
Like the sister site Euro Angels, the encoding is strange on some videos and seems to be much, much too large when compared to other videos of similar length on the same site.
I can't confirm, but I believe another reviewer said the scenes are shared with another separate site, so this might be considered a best-of or greatest-hits situation.
The "favorites" option works poorly. A set amount displays on-screen and there are no page numbers to see the rest. To see them you have to remove actresses and refresh.
Not a huge con, but an actresses' total available scene count can be deceptive since they'll include behind-the-scenes, cumshots, foreplay, and other DVD-extra type clips in the total count. Some people may enjoy those, but it sucks to see that (arbitrary name) Bailey Bae is in four scenes, but when you click into her page you see that three of them are BTS or compilations and she's really only in one actual scene.
Bottom Line:
I was surprised at how good this site is when I'd recently been a bit disappointed at Euro Angels and its associated network.
This offers a tremendous number of quality videos, good speeds, and photos from a variety of niches, and it's offered as a single site.
One of the things I was most surprised at was the directing/lighting/camera-work in a number of the clips was so professional. I haven't joined any of the couples hardcore sites like Erotica X yet, but there were scenes I'd imagine were very similar to their offerings.
The sweet spot for downloading seems to be their 540p clips. I downloaded some 720p of my favorites, but the quality doesn't seem quite as good as it should be at that resolution. Their 1080p is the same. I'm not sure if they're using lower-grade HD cameras or what, but it often doesn't make sense to get their highest quality 2gb+ 1080p offerings.
Photos are available in zip files for download but the file size often seems way too large for the quality and quantity. It's still probably worth getting your favorites, but not up to the standards set by the rest of the site.
If you're so inclined, the 100+ Bimaxx-quality MMF bisexual clips in HD is probably worth the $5 by itself.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
**Maybe the best website I've seen from a "collector" standpoint. Well done, owner/webmaster.**
Attractive older women, most in their 30s and 40s.
Good download speeds (can saturate my 6Mbps DSL).
Not only allows but encourages download managers.
Multiple video formats (MPG, MP4, MOV, WMV, and Flash).
Two sizes of photos in downloadable ZIP files or galleries.
Some surprises here and there in models you might not have seen before (we're looking at you, Scarlet).
A fair price with the PU discount for what is possibly considered borderline niche material (older women).
Cons:
It's a matter of taste, but most content is masturbation. I'd wager 30% or less is hardcore MF content.
Another matter of taste, but there seems to be quite a few fake boobs.
The HD videos are less sharp than those offered from some other sites, but the reduced sizes seem very reasonable for the quality. Probably a decent tradeoff.
The high-res photos are the same. They don't offer the incredible resolution of some of the artsy softcore sites, but they're still high quality and probably a reasonable tradeoff on size/bandwidth.
Bottom Line:
I've never seen a website set up to allow me to grab the pictures and videos of particular models so easily. I used a download manager and could click on the woman's name/image, go to her associated page, and, by using the filter option for downloading specific items, I could right click and add that model's pics and videos links to the download queue simultaneously. No individual clicking on links, no wading through multiple pages to get to each separate set, and no dead links a couple of hours after adding them.
From their FAQs:
"Download as much as you can, we encourage that."
FWIW, and if the webmaster (or other sites' WMs) is reading this, I didn't have much interest in the Nubiles.net sister-site, but this approach encouraging customers to add to their collections will make me join.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- 100 or so videos
- Photos and photo zips available for some clips
- Some clips that I would guess are fairly exclusive
Cons:
- Small site
- Pages wouldn't always load or load correctly.
- Horrible 360p maximum resolution for most videos
- Of the 100 or so videos, there are fewer than 40 photo sets
- Lots of filler. BTS, masturbation, etc.
Bottom Line:
I'm a pretty big Ashley Fires fan, and this site was a disappointment to me. There were some keeper videos and photos here and there, but there doesn't seem to be much of a motivation to keep members. Or, I suppose, to get new ones when you factor in the notion that people might be leaving reviews telling other potential subscribers what to expect and why it's not worth spending their money on.
One of the worst things, and that's really saying a lot for an OpenLife Network site, is that there are more than a few photos that, when clicked on, are what appear to be the thumbnails blown up to whatever "photo" size they're supposed to be. Blocky and jarringly bad, and not something that someone would intentionally post as a photo. Think of the Japanese blurring of naughty bits. Now apply it to the entire photo. It looks like that.
If you're still not getting a good image (ha) of what I'm trying to convey, go to your picture collection, open any thumbnail image, and press ctl and "+" ten or twelve times.
That.
Pros? Sure. Pros include having some photo sets you may not have seen before, and offering what I have to assume are fairly exclusive video clips. The problem, at least regarding the exclusive video clips, is who really cares? There are video clips of performances in strip clubs, which I guess is fine. Somebody may really, REALLY want to see that sort of stuff, so good for them for offering it. Except it's in glorious 360p, which is nearly unwatchable. But that's not the worst of it. Part of the padding is giving subscribers the exclusive opportunity to watch exclusive video clips like film of the audience during the filming of said exclusive performances in strip clubs. In 360p.
Yep. You get access to exclusive video of old men with mustaches and balding heads as they stand behind the barricades to watch strippers. Even better, you get to watch the old, balding men in 360p.
(I'd never considered that low-res stripper POV, as in from the POV of the stripper, might be a fetish, but I guess you should join this site right now if that's your thing.)
There are some HD videos. It looks like about half, which is nice, but since the site doesn't appear to be updating any longer (there are no dates associated with the videos that I saw, and the rep confirmed it back in 2014), it will remain half for the rest of time.
Sadly, the webmaster's 2014 reply in the comment section to the right sort of sums up the problem. Quote: " I love Ashley Fires. Lets hope that she comes back with new content! That would be awesome!"
But IAFD shows Ashley is still working, and still doing work for myxxxpass.com as recently as this year, and myxxxpass.com is affiliated with the openlife network (more about that in my future tragi-comedy Manuel Ferrara review, though).
She has worked. She's apparently even worked for, if not THESE people, people directly connected to these people. It's never going to be on this site, though. This site is old, stale, outdated stuff, and it looks like there will never be any updates.
It's not the worst Open Life Network site I've encountered, but it might have suffered more because of it. They look like they sort of tried on this site, and it comes across as equally crappy when compared to ___________ (insert almost any other openlife blatant cashgrab site here).
They really, truly tried with ashleyfires.com, and it's still not worth joining.
The issue is less the armpits and more the forced and obvious focus on them to the point of nearly being comical.
Replace "armpit" with "inside of the knee" and imagine joining a site where you notice many, if not most, of the hundreds of sets you click through have the model showing the inside of her knee from different angles for multiple shots within the first 10-12 photos. Then you notice quite a few of the shoots involve the model pulling at the skin or licking the inside of her knees later on in the sets (yes, I know the latter is not physically possible, but it's just for comparison's sake).
I'm fairly indifferent to armpits overall. Even hairy ones. Attractive women are attractive women, period. However, armpit licking and/or pulling at armpit hair is a different thing entirely, and definitely catering towards a fetish.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Billing through ccbill
- Lots of models
- Lots of different bodies, hair styles, colors, etc.
- Quite a few stars before they were big
Cons:
- Not entirely exclusive?
- That ATK underarm thing.
- No distinct names of downloads
- Ads inside
- Fairly frequent logouts
Bottom Line:
I thought it's a pretty good idea to have an "archive" site for content going back ten plus years. I'm not personally convinced it should be priced as high as it is considering the quality of the older stuff is often fairly low, but there is a large amount of overall content available.
I'm not sure it's exclusive material. I don't doubt it's likely exclusive to the ATK brand, but some of the sets looked like I've seen them before on the other ATK sites.
More of the ATK underarm fetish present. I've joined three of their sites now, and it's definitely not coincidence. It's not so bad to be offensive, but it's very noticeable if you're not into underarms.
As long as we're here, there are some hairy underarms in there as well. Again, not enough to be a deal-breaker even for those of us who aren't into it, but know you're going to see some when you're browsing. Or, if you're into hairy (or not) underarms, go buy an annual subscription right now because this is an excellent resource.
Numerous different studios taking the photos. I thought it was interesting to be able to pick out specific photographers/studios before even clicking the link to take you to the sets. It's neat how distinctive DDF (and others) methods and styles are, and also neat how you might not have noticed it until you see them lumped together with other studios'.
There are videos here and there, but it's very much a photo site. The quality of the sets I looked at varied from okay to good, but it's an archive site so that is forgivable. Even in the videos I'd guess the majority of the content is interview and/or masturbation with a bit of lesbian or BG hardcore here and there. Don't go into it for the videos. Accept them as added benefits of the models' sets that you liked.
It's fairly common to have 50+ images in a .zip file that is only 5-15MB in size. Don't expect zoomable MetArt shots. Again, everything is tempered by the fact that these are archives and you joined an archive site, so it's forgivable.
The files will often share a name, so if you download a hundred sets featuring "Jennifer," and there are a dozen models named Jennifer, you'll have no idea which Jennifer is which or what is happening in any of them until you go through each individually.
Bottom line: Not a bad site, and a lot of pleasant surprises finding models I'd forgotten about or didn't know about at all. Would I recommend? Sure, but. The "but" being if I found out all the sets were shared with another larger ATK site. It would be silly to not just join that site, wouldn't it?
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Good search engine
- Tremendous number of models and sets.
- Downloadable .zip files for photos, download links for videos
- Looks like the newer sets have three resolutions available for .zip downloads
- Links to site's sets by specific studio/photographer
- Great selection of women, body types, hairstyles, etc.
- No retouching that I could see, although that could be a con in some cases.
- No problems opening multiple tabs of a model's sets.
Cons:
- Underarm fetish is prominent
- Ads inside, and not just to other ATK sites
- Logs you out fairly often.
- No distinguishing features for downloads. A dozen photo .zips of Charisma will each be named the same "Charisma_all.zip"
- Art =/= "holding fruit and/or wearing a hat"
Bottom Line:
A pretty good site with most of its focus on photos but quite a few videos available as well, and some videos are available in HD (newer clips I'd imagine). There are lots of hidden gems, and you'll come across early sets from models like Lucie Theodovora and Addison O'Reilly in addition to hundreds of unknowns.
Lots of girls, and lots of different bodies. It's a nice way to appreciate all the various shapes and wonderfulness.
There are links to the photographers' sets, so if you like the way one set looks you can click on the photographer's name and see his others on the site.
Less good:
Lots of average girls, so you're just as likely to see below average as you are above.
If videos are available they seem to be mostly masturbation. That's not all bad, of course, but know what to expect going in.
I think I saw some of the same models' sets in Aunt Judy, but I'm not 100% positive. They may have just looked extremely familiar. This didn't happen often, but there were one or two models' sets that I'm pretty sure I'd seen elsewhere. Maybe the webmaster can verify this.
Like Aunt Judy's, it's sort of comical to watch for the models lifting their arms within the first dozen or so frames. It becomes so obvious that you notice when the girl DOESN'T do it more than when she does. There are some fairly hairy women in there, too, so be aware of what you might stumble across if you join. Not my thing, but I do think it should be advertised more. Of course, it might already be a known quantity in the underarm community and it's a way of not pushing away other customers.
Apparently you get a folder when they haven't made a .zip file for a set, and you can't create another zip file until you delete one of the .zip files you had to make because they didn't. "You have more than five zips in your folder. Please delete some of them to continue your custom zip selection." That seems like a weird way to do things. Frankly, not having a simple zip file to download without "creating" when the majority of the other sets on the site have one seems pretty weird, too.
Models will be in multiple scenes but link associated with her name leads nowhere. (Amber in Paulina scenes for example).
The majority of "artistic" photos are amusing. They look a lot like all the other sets, but the lighting is worse and there might be fruit, hats, or a barn in the frame. Because art. That's not really what the site seems to push itself as, so it's forgivable.
Would I recommend? Sure, why not? It's a decent photo site with a lot of variety.
Thanks for the interaction. I think that's one of the things that makes these sites valuable for both producers and consumers.
FWIW, I think the highest score I've given ANY site is a 90 or 91, so a 77 is pretty respectable. I really do think you might improve subscription numbers if the hairy angle was advertised more.
Since we're here, this model was one of the big reasons I joined but she wasn't on the site. I tried to keep it from influencing the score since there are people who would possibly look at her and say "Ugh, yuck!", but it was a bit disappointing to not find her after seeing the set and watermark:
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
Preface: Different strokes for different folks.
- I cannot recommend this site enough if you're into old, out of shape, marginally attractive, downright unattractive, and/or outright fat and ugly women, many with varying degrees of three-day stubble hairy armpits, never-shaven hairy armpits that they try to lick, hairy crotches, hairy thighs, and hairy calves.
- Some good looking women here and there.
- Download managers allowed, but see cons.
- Some sets have high quality photos (50-100mb+/set) for optimal viewing of all those hairy legs, thighs, and armpits.
- Often .zip files are available for images.
- Some of the models have dozens of sets available.
- Some of the less attractive models are made slightly more appealing by wearing age appropriate clothing/lingerie and seeming to enjoy what they're doing.
Cons:
- Only 10-20% of models are, ahem, "traditionally" attractive. Think Victoria Tyler, Mimi Moore, Kayla Synz, Daryl Hannah, Heidi Hanson (still with hairy armpits, though), Betsy Blue, etc. The other 80% or so are Saturday afternoon at Wal-Mart.
- A truly shocking number of old, out of shape, marginally attractive, downright unattractive women, and a great deal of outright fat and ugly women, many with varying degrees of three-day stubble hairy armpits, never-shaven hairy armpits that they try to lick, hairy crotches, hairy thighs, and hairy calves.
- Download managers will yield a 400 error after X amount of time. I don't know what X is, but I suspect it's logging the member out or changing the long and elaborate download links since there were instances where the download failed while I wasn't required to log back in.
- Quite a few models have no picture or video sets, and lots of videos have no preview image whatsoever.
Cons continued below...
Bottom Line:
- Many (most?) sets have standard (7-10mb/zip) or medium resolution images. (10-50mb/set). Larger sets are sometimes available.
- Sometimes you get the extra step or two of having to tell the website you want to create a zip file of the images that you can then download.
- Depending on your interests there is more softcore posing than hardcore, but there is a bit of hardcore here and there.
- Did I mention the main focus seems to be on hairy crotches, armpits, thighs, and legs.
- .zip file names are shortened to be unrecognizable or identical. Heidi Hanson's sets might be "hei013XYZ_838320.zip" or dozens of "heidi_all.zip", which might be exactly the same thing Heidi Smith (made up) set's are named.
- It wasn't unusual to go through a page of sixteen or so models before seeing one that looked like it might be worth clicking.
- In case you missed it, lots and lots and lots of body hair.
*END CONS*
Bottom line?
There's a substantial amount of hairy leg and hairy armpit fetish material on a site that is, according to TBP, simply a mature site. The armpit/leg hair fetish angle may be played down, but when the models are licking their own bushy armpits or a lesbian scene focuses (literally, the rest of the photo is out of focus) on one model licking the other model's hairy legs... well, it's hard to deny. You've got a hairy fetish site.
Again, different strokes for different folks. I like a nicely kept bush, and don't mind it going beyond and behind what is typically kept these days (Jamie Lynn on the site is a good example).
Thigh hair? No thanks. Calves? Put your pants back on, please.
I'd never, and still haven't, considered the underarm genre, so I was a bit taken aback when it began to dawn on me that nearly every model has her arms up to expose her stubbly, hairy, or sometimes shaved (oh thank goodness) underarms within the first five or six images.
This is a mature women body hair fetish site, and to a certain degree an armpit site. When it becomes a bit of a game to notice how many shots into the set the woman is raising her arms above her head to show the cameraman her underarms, you've probably got an armpit site.
(It's comical to reach the point where you're surprised when a model *did* shave her armpits and legs.)
Intentional armpit stubble is a new one for me, btw. /shudder/ Again, different strokes. There's nothing wrong with that, but go ahead and market yourself as the fetish site you are. Sure you won't get folks like me to sign up, but I won't be signing up again, anyway. You probably will get the people who ARE looking for that sort of thing to sign up more than once, especially once they initially know that's what your site is about.
There are a few good models here and there, and a decent amount of content overall (and 10% or so are not only attractive but also really nicely shot with business attire, lingerie, etc.) but I doubt I'd come back now that I'm aware of the hair-everywhere aspect.
tl;dr -
I'm giving a slightly better than average score because I found some previously unknown sets of a few attractive models and the site isn't bad once you accept what you're logging in to, but please consider marketing yourself as a hairy old woman fetish site.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Attractive models.
- Tasteful settings.
- Nicely filmed, but a con at times.
- Photo zips, too.
- Quite often enthusiastic and believable action. The scenes with Szilvia Lauren are possibly worth the price of admission. Holy cow.
- Epoch as a secondary biller.
- No download limits that I could tell.
- Decent size site. 70+ pages of 12 scenes per page.
Cons:
- Navigation
- Questionable lighting and cinematography at times
- Not much visual difference to my eyes between 720p and 1080p videos
- Download managers are mostly useless.
- No photo quality options
- CONSTANT login requests.
- Not necessarily a con for everyone, but pretty much all white girls. Quite a few extremely attractive white girls, mind you, but don't expect too much variation beyond blonde, brunette, and redheads.
- Tasteful lighting and filming, but some scenes are just a step above late night movies on Cinemax.
Bottom Line:
A nice looking glamcore site that I'd been considering for a while, and I'm pleased overall with the content and glad I finally gave it a shot. Quite a few scenes looked like they could have some sort of relationship with the crew responsible for filming some of the Sexyhub /Dane Jones sites.
BUT...
- Constant login requests.
At one point it let me choose a video, choose the download option, and immediately logged me out after clicking the 720p option. The video didn't begin to download and I had to re-login after the next click one or two seconds after choosing the video.
Inexcusable.
- Worse still were the login requests that led to an "Oops! It's broken! Try again later" page that was there after refreshing the page without needing to log in again.
- Poor navigation.
Want to see all the models in alphabetical order?
Go to the "Models" pulldown, and look for the... wait, there's not an option. Only "Top Rated, Most Viewed, etc." So you click on "Top Rated" and see that there's another pulldown on the following page that has "All" under the "Sort By" option.
And a few days later, after one of your dozens of login requests, you realize the "Models" pulldown button itself is a link to all the models.
- Dead links
I suspect these are related to their attempts at site security and their constant login requests.
Lots of 404 "Page Not Found" errors even when you're logged in and not prompted to log in again.
Click on a video and the 404 error comes up. Hit page refresh/f5 a moment later and the page is fine. Very irritating.
- Encoding
The 480p videos really seem to be the sweet spot for size and quality. I was surprised that the 1080p clips don't look that much better than the 720p ones in most cases. I suspect it has to do with the lighting and whatever filters they use to soften and romanticize the clips.
- Download managers work if you consider "work" to just mean "they can be used to download a few clips simultaneously just like if you didn't use one." The system logs you out so frequently that any clips that take more than a few minutes to begin will fault out and download a "default.htm" result. The site *will* allow you to resume a clip that's only halfway downloaded, though, so that's a plus, but I wouldn't say download managers really, truly work with this site. Not in the sense that you can load up the night before and wake up the next morning with a dozen completions.
-Bottom line-
A pretty good if occasionally irritating glamcore site. Lots of nice looking "couples" filmed in soft lighting with good backgrounds. Lots of solo and lesbian scenes (I'd guess over half of all scenes), and apparently very capable hair and makeup artists since I saw some actresses I don't often find attractive that looked quite nice in their scenes.
I'd join again.
*** To get to Epoch as the biller, (thanks and credit goes to malikstarks for the tip re: Bangbros user comments):
If Epoch isn't the primary biller, enter everything correctly except for your credit card's expiration date on the initial purchase page. Make it a year in the future, and the system will reject it. Do it two or so more times and they'll send you to the Epoch site.***
Thanks for giving everyone a heads up. I try to do the BangBros trick someone mentioned in their review/complaint with EVERY website that doesn't use Epoch these days:
If Epoch isn't the primary biller, enter everything correctly except for your credit card's expiration date. Make it a year in the future, and the system will reject it.
Repeat the year-in-the-future wrong date when it tells you there was an error and prompts you to re-enter your info.
On the third time (possibly fourth?), and assuming Epoch is a secondary biller, it should give you a different error message and say something like "please wait while you're redirected."
Sorry I'm late replying. I think the "Prime" designation just means you're a paying member vs some sort of free tier, so I'm guessing it's access to everything. When I click on "what is prime" it tells me you can download the videos, you have access to premium studios, access to photos, and some sort of early access to videos. I'm guessing the last is vs. the free tier, too.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- An almost inconceivable amount of content
- Newer stuff is HD
- Apparently the entire Videosz.com library but with Bang watermarks
- No download limits
- Long timeouts for download links
- No constant auto-logouts.
- Content dates back at least to 80s in some cases, maybe earlier.
- Original content specific to Bang
- Streaming and downloading available
Cons:
- No photos that I've seen, but I haven't looked too hard.
- Older content isn't HD (not much of a con because technological limitations)
- Some actresses will be listed but won't have any content available
- Old content is pretty poor quality
- Ads inside
Bottom Line:
Holy cow what a site. It's enormous. The site claims 117,000+ videos, and I believe it. It is one of those sites that you join and think to yourself, "Yes, this is how this entire thing is supposed to work." Search for an actress and (most of the time) there she is. Often with a dozen or more clips available. Want content from an actress? They've probably got it.
There are options to choose "channels" such as "Bang Originals", "Glamcore", "Hot Step Moms", and others, and there are tags to direct you to other clips. I find those a bit too vague, but something that is really nice is that the clip usually has the name of the actress, the name of the movie, the name of the series, and the name of the studio all underneath the streamable video, and all clickable. You also have options to make playlists and create favorites.
Even with the most recent Bang Original clips I've only seen up to 1080p video downloads offered, so that might be a con for some. I find the video quality to be acceptable and appropriate for the size, but most of the time the smaller 720p offerings look just as good to my eyes. Most of the middle-to-older content seems to be available in up to 540p, and it looks decent considering the source material. The oldest stuff is 360p or worse, and it looks it. That's not a dealbreaker, but it's something you'll encounter often if you look at actresses who worked a couple of decades ago.
Every video that I clicked on was available for streaming.
The content is apparently shared with Videosz.com, so if you join Bang you get all of the other site but not vice versa. I think there's a good case to be made to join Bang over Videosz for that reason, but I'm not a member of Videosz.com and can't say what may or may not be an advantage to lean the other way.
Every video's page has ads on the lowest part of the page, which counts against the site every time. I paid to be in here, guys. If you want to offer *me* discounts, make a page I can click on to re-direct and join with the affiliate link. Those ads aren't there to save *me* money, even though they ultimately may. Those ads are there to make the website money off of the same people who have already paid money to get past the paywall.
A nice touch is that there are additional actress suggestions underneath every video that is being streamed or downloaded. I'm not entirely sure if they are related to anything or might just share some similar tags, but it's a good way to discover actresses you might not know about.
The actresses will sometimes have duplicate scenes, but it's fairly forgivable just because of the vast amount of content available. Many actresses I clicked have over 100 clips to download. Wow.
The search option works well, and if you give it a moment while you type it will try to match your entry with suggestions in real time.
Also, it might be worth a look around to see what other sites share content. I saw some stuff from partyhardcore and some other familiar content, so you might save money at the other sites while also getting thousands of other clips.
Bottom line? One of the best adult sites I know of. Fairly vanilla but with wildly varying movies available, and it includes some raunchy stuff like gonzo, shemale, etc., too.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Probably the biggest player in an underserved niche
- Lots of content dating back years (300+ scenes according to TBP), but be aware that updates are sparse
- 1080p and 720p available for most if not all content
- .zip files for photos
- Quite a few big name Euro women
- Download managers (downthemall) work
- Not degrading or humiliation based.
Cons:
- Infrequent updates
- Went through a bizarre party / orgy stage and a page or two of content is dedicated to that
- Files have no distinguishing naming characteristics
- A bit pricey when it used to be part of a network (IIRC - see comments below)
- Uninspired acting/directing in many scenes and too many scenes where the woman is nearby but not really participating or even really invited.
Bottom Line:
Not a bad site and one of the main options for the genre, but it has some things about it that aren't ideal.
I joined back in 2011 or so, and rejoined recently. I was pretty disappointed to see there weren't many updates in the five or so years in between my memberships. Don't misunderstand, though. There's lots of content, just not if you've been a member before.
I think it was part of the Tainster network at one time, and the network offered tons of Euro MF/MFF content along with the bi site. Now you just get a membership to a gay site called guysgocrazy.com, too. That's fine since there are bound to be some gay guys who are straight-curious (is that even a thing?), but there's not really any incentive for guys who are more into women to stay on for more than a month, while bimaxx being in the Tainster network would probably be something to consider an annual membership for.
The new videos are all named exactly the same thing when you download depending on the resolution you choose. Interestingly, it's the same naming structure as Jim Slip's site. I'm guessing there is a central figure creating or managing these sites that sets them up this way. Regardless, it's a bad way of doing it. You'll end up with a folder full of files all named "1080p_complete" and with no idea what the scene is. It wasn't always this way, btw. My old files have the date (filming or release I'd imagine) and resolution. Not much better, but at least you could tell they were different without looking at the size column.
The content is fairly predictable hitchhiker, TV repairman, etc. setups. There are some good and passionate scenes hidden in the humdrum ones where there is actual energy between the men and women, but unfortunately there are way too many scenes with obviously homosexual men who are doing their homosexual male thing while a woman is sitting nearby and not welcome or necessary.
It's kind of surprising to realize how decent the acting and directing in the Reality Kings "Moms Bang Teens" scenes are, and that type of guidance would be very useful for this site.
The site went through an orgy period that I found ridiculous and awful. I doubt I was the only one since it looks like they moved away from that and back to the couples +1 scenes.
Bottom line- It's worth a try since the good outweighs the bad and since there aren't many choices in this genre.
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.
