That is probably because it is not a full-fledged site. It is just a landing page within the DDF site. It also does not appear on their list of sites within the DDF main site. Odd. Clearly still in development.
Wait, where are the "No" and "Hell NO!" options? There are maybe 3 women in all of porn that I would consider downloading a non HD video of and they would have to be doing something a-mazing (because I already have every released video ever produced of them...)! All of my non-HD porn has been relegated to an archive drive along with a few million images that are postage stamp sized on a modern monitor.
I just signed up and am looking around now, but DDF has several VR videos! When I search VR it comes back with 61 videos! I will be sure to include this in a review within the next month or so.
Unfortunately, it looks like these are VR but not 3D VR.
I just got a $9.99 email offer and decideed to take them up on it. Filled in the card info, UNCHECKED the two cross sales and clicked sign-up. Error and the card number went away. re-entered it, went to click sign up and noticed that the cross sales had been re-checked. THIS IS HOW THEY GET YOU FOLKS! The default for the page is checked. Anything resets, the boxes are checked again.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Very Entertaining site
Newscasters of every age, shape and ethnicity
You can download and keep the newscasts
pricing is good.
Cons:
Can be a little monotonous sometimes.
A few of the newscasters are not great newscasters.
Slightly higher percentage of tattoos than I'm used to. (personal preference only)
Bottom Line:
OK, first off, the site is EXACTLY what it is named. Naked News. It is not a porn site, exactly... The newscasters don't have sex and don't do anything more than strip. But... I watch an hour of regular news every morning at 6AM and many of the same stories are on the day's production of Naked News at 7PM. But I have to say it is MUCH more entertaining to watch the 7PM show. This site has been producing news for nearly 2 decades (December, 1999!) so clearly they are doing something right!
Naked News is a softcore site with primary focus on the day's events in a newscasting environment. The only difference between this and a broadcast news show is that the newsgirls strip as the newscast progresses. There are different segments like headlines (called bulletins), sports, movies/hollywood and there is even a travel segment along with guest interviews with porn stars and nude models.
There are 6 HD shows a week and the shows last about 20-25 minutes. You can sign up to get an email when the show is released if you want and the show can be streamed or downloaded in one piece or just in the segments you want. The production quality is every bit as good as most national news shows.
I gave the site an 85 because, although it is one of only two sites in this genre that I know of (the other is a not-so-great Playboy branded production), this site does what it does very well. Just DO NOT expect anything other than what the name implies.
Honestly, a few of these women would make terrific regular news anchors, but they are probably having way more fun doing this. And some of the news interview and remote segments are so good you would not know they were not on broadcast TV.
Let me ask you this. Do you have a favorite news show? Is there a hot newscaster on that show? Well, if the answer is yes, it is because that show has tweaked the newscasting formula to keep you watching. Naked news does the same thing, only they aren't sly about it. They KNOW why you are watching.
There are a few ancillary features of the site also, like a cam site, snapchat subscriptions and even clothing optional vacation options like a naked cruise to Alaska! They have some interesting streaming options, too, like a subscription to watch the show on Roku.
Downside? Well, sometimes they have guest or audition newscasters that are a little rough in one way or another. And once in a while I skip a segment because I don't like the look of the newscaster (personal preference again). And there will be times, maybe, when the news is actually more interesting than the naked girl talking about it.
Bottom line: This is a different kind of site. It isn't porn but it IS entertainment. If you watch the news regularly like I do, but you don't like the boring way news is sometimes presented, than this might be a great site for you. Or...if you just hate watching regular news but feel it is important to stay informed. Ta Da! Naked News is PERFECT for you!
After watching it for over a month, I've found a good balance between actually watching the news and watching the generally hot newscasters strip down to their fully shaved nothings. I don't think you will never find a more entertaining news show! Try it for a month at the discounted price.
I bought a VR headset (HTC Vive) to play games over a year ago, but the gaming environment is still in a developmental stage...like the early days of apps for iPhones. I probably use the thing about 50% for VR porn, I've signed up to (and reviewed) most of the VR porn sites, I have a couple of annual subscriptions to get the weekly VR videos and I have about 5 terabytes of VR porn (just checked...waw!). It is completley immersive and very entertaining. I think Onyx and I are the flagbearers for VR porn here on PU and between us, we cover most of the VR sites and have slightly different perspectives.
If you are VR curious, I strongly recommend that you buy a cheap $20 cardboard or plastic headset for your smart phone and grab a free VR video from any one of a multitude of sites. This will not reflect the video quality of VR, but it will give you a pretty good idea of what it is like.
That's fair. I think all of the new stuff is in HD but many of the better looking models are in older SD stuff. The popular models I mentioned are in HD. I'll change the review to reflect "many" instead of "most"
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
A few attractive models.
2 models you've seen that are now pretty popular
Decent number of sets
Newer videos are full HD (1080)
Straightforward navigation
A few pretty good videos
(I'm really..um..stretching here to find Pros)
Cons:
No dates on sets
No indication of frequency of updates
Mediocre photography
Older sets have no video or really poor video
Several of the "Naked Gymnasts" aren't naked
Very basic navigation
Image downloads in one size (medium or small)
Many videos are SD
No model pages or search.
Site layout and design is ancient.
Bottom Line:
This was a clone site for Naked Gymnast, which apparently is gone, but this site is identical. My original review was for NG, but since that site is gone, all of the reviews are gone also. So...I'm writing an updated review here.
I saw a couple of very nice sample images from this site someplace and decided to sign up. The site is somehow affiliated with Club Seventeen and there was a cross-check that would have signed me up for it if I had not unchecked it.
I like the flexy-sexy type of images and the girls in this category are usually very fit. For this site, the analogy is more like that of a nude beach. What you think of and what you experience are usually two very different things. This is the reality version of nude beach. A few honeys and a lot of forgettable things. It isn't that the site is horrible, it's just nowhere near where it should be compared to other sites today. Even among sites in this niche, this site is sub-par and a little less than truthful in the way it presents material.
This site has about 500 sets that are not dated. There is a little log that announces updates about once a week. An update might be a set or a video. No idea if they are recycling. Most sets have between 50 and 100 images. One size, 1670x2500 or so max. Older sets are 1200x700 or so. Older sets also have NO ZIP FILES. Most models have 2 ore 3 sets, so there are probably about 100-130 models. Just 4 pages of sets with about 140 sets per page. The sets on the last page are really odd and many are not nude at all. There are no model pages so if you see a girl you like, too bad, you have to look through 500 sets to find her again. A few sets are linked though, but the logic of why some are linked and some are not escapes me. A few girls have different names in their different sets. Purchased stuff? Maybe.
Watermarks on the images say different things: Most say Flexyteens.com. Many say naked-gymnast, which was a clone site.
The models are typically young, but there is an odd lack of sexiness that one would normally associate with young, fit gymnasts. Most of the sets are practically clinical and many of the poses are neither gymnastic nor flexy and certainly not sexy, just strange. Curl up like a ball on a bar-stool strange. These are all eastern European girls with eastern European names. There is very little make-up...well...maybe it is gymnast make-up, I guess. And zero glam. Most girls start out dressed and in some sets the girl stays dressed. Oh, and for most models there is little to no eye contact with the camera. That is a significant factor in the clinical feel.
The two models that I see here (I went through the entire list of 500 sets in about an hour with a lot of "nope, nope, nope" on the first page), are Melena A. and Annett A. from Met-Art, both very popular. The sets of these two models here are different from the other sets on this site...better...almost like they are the marketing teasers. Purchased, maybe. Certainly shot in a better studio. And unlike pretty much every other model on this site, these models know how to look sexy...and how to look at the camera.
Here's another gauge. I just looked to see what I saved from the 500+ sets on this site. 6 photo sets and 6 videos from 4 girls I considered attractive (two were the ones I mentioned above, more recently at Met Art.). The rest were totally forgettable.
Bottom line? Pass. Maybe if it is a side-bar on club Seventeen for $10 or so, but for $30 this site is not worth visiting by itself. There are better sites in this niche for your money.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Lots of popular porn stars and models of all ages, shapes and sizes but a lot of D-cups and above. (i.e. curvy girls)
Perhaps one of the last "Glam-core" porn sites but with a lot of extra stuff like insertions.
Very high quality all-in-focus images
Mostly solo but some G/G and B/G
Good quality videos that include masturbation.
Several newer sets/videos that are full-on hardcore.
Several download sizes/formats for images and videos.
2+ updates a week.
Affiliated with the Met Art network
Great navigation (search on Model name, tags, etc.)
All sets dated.
Cons:
Number of images in a set is sometimes rather small.
Some of the porn-star models are rather mature...
Some older sets seem a little monotonous (same shoot sequence formula).
Some newer sets may be unreleased older sets.
Bottom Line:
If you don't know who Holly Randall is, she is a 2nd generation past nude model and current erotic photographer. She and her mother both shot for Playboy as well as several other magazines like Hustler. They practically invented that trademark large format everything is in focus image style that was/is common in those publications. She has shot for websites as well, like Twistys. She has won all kinds of awards for her photography and videography - awards she totally deserved.
I haven't been a member of Holly Randall since 2012, so I thought I would join to see what has changed and to collect the best of the 6 years of material that has accumulated since I was last here. I was not at all disappointed. The sets, models, make-up, lighting and image quality are all excellent, just like I remember.
The glam look is still there, too. I really like that done-up look and whoever is doing the doing-up here, um, knows what they are doing without over-doing it. Models you know, like Connie Carter and Candice Luca, look like a million bucks. Every pose is perfect. Nothing is out of place or overlooked.
Just take the best from Met-Art or Femjoy and turn up the glam a little bit. That's Holly Randall.
Couple of things I really like about this site.
In almost every set, there is nearly 100% eye contact. None of that voyeur, girl-in-the-woods or innocent looks into the distance crap. These women are all looking at you because they know exactly why you are looking at them. Nice power play.
There are a few close-ups in every set, but they are almost unnecessary because the sets flow naturally and already show everything. Some photographers on other sites (Met Art, for example) tend to add close-ups into sets as sort of an afterthought. On Holly Randall, the girl is making eye contact and striking many different poses with progressive levels of openness. Also, and this is huge, Holly knows how to use depth of field so EVERYTHING you want to see is in focus in almost every image, from her eyes to her high-heels and everything in between. None of that six shots focused on her face and one identical shot focused ONLY on her not-face nonsense. (I really don't like it when a photographer uses depth of field to tell you where to look.) Here you get the whole picture, all in focus and you get to look wherever you want in every image.
What's new since my last visit is the affiliation with Met Art, which has brought an updated and improved web site. Holly Randall is not on the Met Art pull-down sites menu, though....not sure why.
The site has been around since before 2009, but that is as far back as the sets go. Figure 15 sets a month for over 9 years, that's about 1600-1700 sets. Of course, the older ones are not in today's image resolution, but they still aren't bad. Around 2012, the site started to go a little harder. Many sets include an image or two with spreading, fingering, insertions and/or masturbation and the more recent sets almost always have them.
So....what's not to like? Well, there really isn't much. Some tiny things, really. Like although navigation is generally the same as it is on other Met Art sites, you can't set your preferences so images in a set show up in a new window. Big deal. Maybe a few of the porn-stars are a little past their prime (but Holly makes them look awesome). Not a deal killer. Occasionally, images are a little grainy or soft. Might be because they have ben resized? Not sure. Also not a deal killer. Ok, here's one. The sets are sometimes pretty small. Some are only 40 images or so. But when that happens, the images you get are usually very good. Most sets are at least 50 images and some are nearly 100. And lastly, there may be some photoshopping here and there, but I don't think it is obvious.
Ok, bottom line. If you like glam-style images of past and preset popular models and porn stars (like the images from Twisty's), then this is a site you really have to visit. Unlike Twisty's this site is easy to navigate and is managed by a highly reputable group. The only reason I am only giving it an 85 is because of the more mature models/pornstars that are not my taste.
It has taken me a couple of weeks to sift through all the material that has accumulated on this site since my last visit several years ago and I downloaded a lot, which says a lot.
Interesting that so may responded "don't watch football". I wonder what that means..... I don't really watch it either but I think New England will win because they've been there so many times before.
There is always a site or two that deceives you. For example, any site that charges extra for zips or downloads, but you don't find this out until after you sign up. That really sucks. Mindgeek has a bunch of sites set up that way like Twisty's and Playboy Plus. The taglines usually say "Access to" which is a fancy way to say you can see but not keep.
I often find myself at the sign-up page for sites that don't have very good pricing and move-on. I really think a lot of sites don't understand basic marketing. Example. In The Crack. They have several usage and resolution based tiers of access but the most popular is $39.95 a month. That is a ton of money but I went ahead and joined for one month. One month. $39.95 one time and Fuck you very much. I inquired about annual pricing but they simply have none. None! Clearly, this left a bad impression. Compare that to Vixen. Vixen is currently subscriptions for $10 a month. Holy shit this is an awesome site for $10 a month. They only update 1 or 2 times a week but the stuff is every bit as good as ITC and there are no stupid download limits. For the "special" rate $10 a month, I pretty much didn't care that I was on a monthly subscription. I only recently looked to see what the annual subscription rate was and have been paying monthly for about a year now. So from a revenue stream perspective, I paid ITC $39.95, grabbed what I wanted and left with mixed feelings about the greediness of the site. Vixen got at least $120 from me, which I now know is more than the price of an annual subscription, but I feel damn good about Vixen because they are very generous with the low subscription rate.
At the end of the day, the on-line porn business is no different than any other. The goal is to GET and KEEP customers. Crappy, greedy sites just want a fast buck from you. Good ones know they need to treat you right. That means discounts for annual subscriptions, discounts for sister sites and "Please come back" discounts. I'm really amazed at how many sites don't get that.
My first owned porn video was a VHS tape in the mid 80's. My local video store had a back room and I would buy the videos I really liked. I was given well over 1000 VHS tapes in the late 80s and early 90s as a big family oriented video chain bought out smaller ones and I got the back room inventory that would otherwise have been discarded. I only kept the best few of those though and now all are long gone. Funny to think that I probably have 100 times more HD digital content on a couple of hard drives than I did with many boxes of tapes.
This reminds me of the statistic that says 75% of Americans think they are smarter than average and that 80% think they are Democrats..... Good to know that so far we are honest with others and ourselves here at PU. :-)
Ever notice how movies that you know got bad critic reviews actually have pretty good reviews on Netflix or Amazon? That's because the people reviewing like the genre or subject or cast, chose to watch the movie and in most cases actually paid for them and THEN chose whether they liked it, 1-5 stars. So there is a known psychology about why you might rate a site higher than a reviewer. You wanted to go there and you paid for it. My average site rating is 81.1. Why would I want to sign up for a site that rated less? (Unless it was a new site or I wanted to visit it to write a review...or it had a particular model that I liked...)
What I think is interesting is when PU reviews differ significantly from TBP reviews or when, occasionally, TBP misses some key aspect of a site that makes it better or worse. At the end of the day, TBP writess professional reviews and gets revenue from referrals. Reviewers at PU, although we do occasionally get rewarded for our reviews in the weekly drawings, generally are not professionals and don't have anything to gain from our reviews other than letting people know the good and bad about sites. As the cyber porn Neighborhood watch, I'm not sure anyone is really expecting our reviews to be spectacular, just honest.
I started buying annual subscriptions for my favorite sites and have maybe 8 now (Met Art, Femjoy, Hegre, Watch4Beauty, MPL Studios and some VR sites)..about the same money as I would have paid for a year of monthly subscriptions for just two sites (2x $30 avg x 12 mo=$720 vs. 8 x $90 avg=$720). Oddly, that still leaves enough $ to visit other sites for a month. So right now I probably have subscriptions to 11 or 12 sites including a couple of sites thrown in for free with longer term subscriptions (i.e. Playboy and Naked News for a free month with the $99 lifetime subscription to Mr. Skin). Damn, that seems excessive...but after spending over $100 a month on just 4 sites a month for over a decade, I finally decided to see if I could be a little smarter (and honest with myself) about it. The trick is waiting for the deals on annual subscriptions.
The folks at Mr. Skin seem pretty busy these days. I signed up for their lifetime deal and have since been offered several others for $99. Today it was this Interactive GF site. Funny how I just asked PU folks about it yesterday....
Now....I just went straight to the site to see what the regular prices are and notice there is NO monthly option. There is a trial (one scene, $0.95), a 90 day sign-up ($59.95) and a 1 year sign-up ($119.40). If I didn't know any better (I don't), I might think these guys are cash strapped...either that, or they grossly overestimated the appeal of interactive material and invested too much into it.
I was once asked if I wanted to invest in a then-popular strip club. I thought about it and decided to pass. The club was gone a year later.
Producing a quality web site these days takes money. A lot of money. And the revenue stream is only as good as the continuous flow of content. Now, if somebody asked me if I wanted to invest, say, $50k in Met-Art, I'd think about it after seeing the books.
And the term "owner" here is a bit of a misnomer. There are really not much in the way of assets to own. All the physical or virtual assets are leased, the talent is contracted and everything, even the content, has roughly a 5 year useful life. It is a business.
That said, if you know of a site that scores 90 or above here on PU that is for sale with management intact, I'd like to know about it. I was lucky enough to retire very early and could always use another hobby with the potential to break even.
Hi Amanda, Thanks for the reply. I honestly can't recall the name of the pay-to-play site. May have been life Selector. I remember a teaser that allowed you to get a few choices in and then hit you up for tokens or something so you could keep playing. Seemed rather expensive as I recall...the cost seemed roughly the same as a live chat model. Life Selector looks like it might have been it.
In the isn't that funny department, I think I had a copy of the CD called "Penthouse Interactive Photo Shoot, Volume 1", hosted by Bob Guccione and released in 1994. It was interactive in the same way as these sites (well, except it was a photo shoot, not sex), and at the end you were critiqued by the voice of Bob Guccione himself. It was interesting the first time, OK the next ten times and cheesy after that. So the concept is far from new.
In a more pragmatic sense, I think a lot of porn consumers may be editing their own videos anyway. I do. Who has time these days to watch a 30 minute porn video that has a 5 minute lead-up, 10 minutes of fellatio and a 5 minute hand job at the end. The way to make this concept work in my mind would be to provide a monthly subscription rate, then allow the subscriber to build and DOWNLOAD his/her video after creating it to suit his/her specific tastes. BAM! New concept!
Oh, I just noticed that these two sites ( InteractiveGirlfriend and Life Selector) must be owned by the same group because the videos are the same. Maybe they can use my idea above....
I look at this site and wonder if it is any better than a regular site. There used to be a similar "pay to play" site that is now gone, I think. Has anybody tried this one?
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
The ultimate reference for every naked actress scene in every A/B and foreign movie ever made.
Good site navigation and search functions.
Auto-login
Montages by topic (steam rooms, GOT, tiny girls, best boobs, year in review, etc.)
Some scenes are slowed down and enhanced for lighting, etc.
Cons:
Not really a porn site, per se, but still...
Videos are streaming only
A few current scene examples have blurred bits.
A few scenes a not on the site.
Older movie scenes, of course, are lower resolution.
Still images are, of course, video caps.
If you are looking for nude actors, this is not the site you are looking for. None here.
Bottom Line:
The site slogan, "Fast forward to the good bits" is totally accurate. Every actress you've ever been enamored by is here in the most naked scene she is in. Alexandra Daddario? Check. Margot Robbie? Check. Turns out very, very few popular actresses have NOT done some kind of nude scene at one point or another. Now, there are a few teases here. A few actresses have had doubles or have been filmed in a way that doesn't really show much, but a lot of the fun is in watching the little montages that they put together and going "Wow, SHE did a nude scene?" And, of course, the best use of the site is when you spot a particularly attractive actress and wonder "Hmmm. I wonder what she looks like naked?" Whoever she is, if she has ever been naked in a film, chances are excellent that Mr. Skin has the clip that answers your question.
To be clear, this is not a site where you will get completely off on watching nude scenes of popular actresses...well...most of the time, it is more like a collection of reasons to go Hmm, Ah, or wow and fully appreciate how awesome many of these actresses are.
It is worth noting that this site catalogs actresses only. No actors. For example the reference for Movie Wild Things shows about 6 scenes of the actresses but the full frontal scene of Kevin Bacon in the shower is absent. (I suppose there is a Mrs. Skin?)
There are also a few nude scenes that are somewhat disturbing, or at least mood ruining. Scenes from horror movies or those odd cinematic cases where they move between a love scene and a bloody war scene, for example.
Can you find many of these scenes elsewhere on the Internet for free? Well, maybe, but they won't be as good quality, as easily found or cross referenced like they are here.
Bottom line: They are offering lifetime subscriptions for $99. I bought one.
I have used email, phone and live chat but prefer live chat followed by phone. Most of the better billing sites have live chat and several of the better porn sites do, too. My biggest issue is always with account logins while I am travelling.
I have been a member of this site a few times and just circled back around after 2 years or so. There is no preview and I can't tell if the site is generating new material or not. Funny that it is a Met Art site but isn't in the Met Art site list.....
I have annual subs to last 3 above plus SexBabes, I think. Naughty America has too many "mature" porn stars for me, though. Wankz might have been the site I had a lot of trouble with initially but finally got it dialed in with my player. I'll have to go back and really look at the video quality again. You need to try SexBabesVR. I think there may be some samples on PornHub.
Hey, not to draw this out much further, but does the MOVING in the VR videos at CzechVR bother you any? Some go forward and backwards, some tilt and some just go up and down. This is the only "top" site I can think of where the camera moves. (Lot's of lesser VR sites have camera shakes)
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.
