Just saw this newly listed at TBP and it's intriguing. I'm definitely a nylon fan, and IMO the more layers the better... as long as they come off eventually!
I've never been tempted by OT - I like the T but I think I'd find the O merely frustrating. Would be interesting to see how explicit this site is and whether it leaves us wanting... just a shame the preview is fairly poor compared to the other OT sites, there is little sample material to see.
Well, the concept sort of works for me - I suppose it's a submissive fantasy of sorts - but that the site is non-nude doesn't.
If you're into girls and guns, there is plenty of material in film, manga, TV etc... the added bonus here should be naked girls with guns, - but it's not. Hmm.
The company seem to have a number of interesting fetish sites - in terms of bizarreness, I prefer the premise of (although am unlikely to subscribe to) Tiny Fetish Fun - and Ripping 4 Fun also appeals.
Thanks for the reply, tangub. I'm still not quite sure about the site, but for the price it's perhaps worth a try, I'm still keen on some of the models... but there are a couple more in the running too (which brings me to another comment). Your review was, as ever, most helpful :)
There are a few models I like here, and for $12.50 am thinking it's worth a try. But I also notice LSG Videos - which has just video content without the photos, for a higher price. But it seems that the videos are available on LSG Models too... am I missing something?
Not as such - but it's part of Premium Pass, so check the reviews on the other sites there - it very likely follows the same formula. They all seem to have rather mediocre TBP scores, which is a shame - there are a few stars included in it who I like, eg Katsuni, Tori Black, Alexis Texas.
Thanks for pointing this site out - a new one to me so although no longer updating, I'll definitely add it to my list - pinup girls, and other retro-themed smut is very much my thing!
Thanks for the good, helpful review - this genre sort of appeals to me. But when you say Soapy Massage is disbanded - do you mean it is is no longer updating? The site seems to work OK - I assume all the older scenes are still there and available? And are they included in the membership here?
Many thanks for this great review! I've never joined a massage site, but I have been tempted - I like the idea of the tenderness in the sex. This certainly looks like one of the better ones too - but as you suggest, may be worth waiting a little while for more content.
Thanks for another great review, tangub :) This had long been on my list due to the diversity of models; but it is a shame that diversity doesn't extend to age. I certainly don't mind the 18-21 group, but would get bored if the whole site was centred on it. Still, one to keep an eye on!
Hi tangub - thanks for the tip here. This is a site on my list - the broad range of models they seem to have is quite appealing and some of the sets look fun. But it seems like the kind of site that would have somewhat dull videos anyway (?) so the lack thereof wouldn't be a deal-breaker. Either way, look forward to your review!
Just had a peek here after seeing it listed. Models on the 18-21 side, not really my focus, but they seem to be from pretty much everywhere; E and W Europe, S America, Asia - I like that kind of variety.
Only up for 6 months, so not much material so far; there are other more established sites higher on my list for $15, but if it were $10, I might try it...
Another good review, manholelover. You'll have to forgive me being so amused/curious to learn of all these niches in gay porn, even though I guess they should be obvious! I mean, I like material featuring girls stripping out of businesswear, so it shouldn't really be a surprise that there are guys doing the same...
BTW gaypornolover - sorry to hear you had trouble with some sites on the Mac, I haven't had any issues - the only thing I can imagine is DRM as you suggested, but I wouldn't subscribe to a DRMd site. For anyone on Mac (or Windows and Linux) it's worth downloading VLC, since it plays pretty much anything.
This is quite an interesting development. I find Met Art largely unerotic; this isn't specifically down to the lack of explicitness but more a lack of any lewd intent from either the models or the photographers.
Maybe they have taken a tip from their stablemate TLE - who manage to be significantly more erotic even with some of the same models and photographers. Anyway, worth keeping an eye on!
Good review - and welcome here. Met art is a very divisive site - like you I find the lack of any actual erotic behaviour rather frustrating. I've seen more exciting, yet less explicit stuff; I'd much prefer a girl with her panties on and her hand inside them, than off but not doing anything about it!
Met Art seems to be a very divisive site! You can't argue with the amount of material or the beauty of the models but I have to agree with you. It's not so much the level of explicitness; just that in most cases they just don't have much in the way of seductiveness or tease.
FTV is on my list; I could also recommend Breath Takers or Petites Parisiennes if you want to stick to fairly soft material but with a bit more personality; or if you want a bit more but still glam and well-produced, perhaps Digital Desire?
Excellent review, tangub - I'm glad you found Met Art a little more exciting than I did! Also glad you noted Jenya D - probably my favourite model there, her sets have a bit more of a spark and more eroticism than most - I found many lacking that, even sets from models who do harder stuff elsewhere.
Wasn't expecting to see a review from rearadmiral on this - but I too am easily swayed by a good offer and I'm glad you liked the site!
Perhaps as a hardcore fan it's more a breath of fresh air to see softcore; whereas I tend to soft/midcore material so found this lacking in tease/playfulness a bit; it's not even the nudity levels since I've found non-nude material that I find more exciting. Agree with Ergo Proxy in that their better stuff seems to be from a while ago; many of the sets I downloaded were a good few years old.
I'm glad you expanded on the technical aspects of the site; I didn't stress enough that it just can't be faulted in size or features.
And definitely concur about the animals :| I am fond of animals, but not in that way; I prefer my smut without any at all!
Thanks readadmiral & Denner for your replies. My opinion is of course very subjective - some folk may find the stuff here exciting and sexy - but my tastes are generally pretty tame and this just doesn't work for me at all.
I would, though, again recommend my previously reviewed site Juliland - possibly art, but creative, exciting stuff.
Thanks for the reply, Cap'n. I agree about the thumbnails; it's not at all easy to find anything that leaps out from the sea of them while browsing.
After discussing the site with a friend, one other point occurred to me about the 'Met Art' look - that, by somehow desexualising the models, it somehow objectifies them even more; which bothers me slightly, since like I hope most folk here do, I have a huge respect for all the girls we ogle over. Would you agree, or am I just overanalysing? :|
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Lots of beautiful young models
- Good search options/tagging
- Browsing by photographer is useful
- Lots of good lingerie/outfits
- Most sets good resolution
- Amusingly pretentious set names
- Massive archive and approx 4 updates/day
Cons:
- Would prefer a few more mid/late 20s models
- Age search option is daft
- Lingerie doesn't necessarily suit the models
- Some older pics quite low res
- Massive archive is bewildering
- Annoyingly pretentious set names
- Some sets too large
- Lacking in erotic content
- Videos uninspiring and soundtracked to death
Bottom Line:
Met Art has been vaguely on my list of sites to try for a while, mainly because it features work from a couple of photographers I like (I tend to follow photographers rather than models), and last month's special offer gave me the incentive to sign up. There are plenty of other reviews, including TBP, which detail the specific stats on the site, so I'll be a bit more subjective here.
Firstly, the site is vast; there is so much material, so many models, so many photographers, that it's hard to know where to begin. Fortunately, the search options are good; sets are tagged so you can just type in any particular keyword - eg nylon, stockings, etc and get a number of results. Sadly this doesn't work well with multiple keywords, getting sets with any of the words rather than all, but it's still useful. Search is also available on height, age, ethnicity, country, photographer - all useful, although unlike height, where you can search on a range, age is done purely on a single year, so you can only find eg all 25yo models... but it is smart enough to find sets where the model was 25 at the time of the shoot, as opposed to now - potentially a big difference in a site that's been running for a decade or more.
My biggest issue, though - and this is quite personal - is that the material here just isn't exciting. The girls are all stunning but - although there are some exceptions - have little sex appeal to me; the concept of the site seems to be to emphasise the beauty of the models at the expense of any sexuality. Even the models who do hardcore elsewhere seem uninspired here - and the same for the photographers, eg there's quite a bit of material from Michael White and Roy Stuart, both favourites of mine, but it's a toned down version of their other stuff.
Similarly, I'm quite keen on lingerie and nylons; there is actually a lot more nice stuff here than I thought, but most of the models are too young or inexperienced to carry it off; they look dressed up, posed, in it rather than comfortable and sexy.
Reading between the lines of some of the blog posts there, I suspect both model and photographer are constrained by strict guidelines MA put on what can and can't be shown - with a veto on any kind of lascivious behaviour, so there is little teasing, no touching, and rarely even a lewd glance. They may even be getting stricter, since of the sets I did enjoy, most seem to be going back a few years. Even though the photos are of course fully nude, I've genuinely been more turned on by some of the better lingerie catalogues & sites.
As others have noted, the videos here are also insipid; drowned out by supposedly sexy sax music and the like; and unlike the photo sets I didn't really find any worth keeping.
Scoring this puts me in a bit of a quandary. It's a good, well-organised site, with a vast quantity of solid photography and frequent updates; so it would be really unfair to give it less than 80. However, this is PU and I struggle to see it as porn, or even particularly erotic or arousing - It's just too... wholesome, like a glamorous naturist site and I kind of agree with hugow that if you wanted to cure your porn addiction, this could do the job. I'm not even sure about art - to me, art is doing something unusual, creative, pushing some boundaries, which MA doesn't really - but by that definition, my last reviewed site, Juliland, is art, so maybe I'll skip the whole subject :| Anyway, a (very generous) 80 it is.
I'm on the Met Art email list for news and offers etc. The latest one struck me as odd; a combined deal for Met Art and Videobox. I figured they'd be very different markets; I wonder how many folk have/do subscribe to both?
BTW I find it amusing that when searching here on PU for 'Met Art', I also got Heavy Metal Pussy Party.
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.
