Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Decent collection (about 1000 sets, I think)
Generally very attractive models
Many familiar models
Excellent value for the money
Photography is generally very good
Images available up to 3200x4800
For the price, you will not be disappointed!
Cons:
Navigation is extremely basic
Site formatting is also very basic
Only a couple of videos (it is a photo site...)
Only 2 zip file sizes (but good choices)
Only 2 image file sizes (but big enough)
Bottom Line:
For less than $10, I figured I didn't have much to lose and I ended up getting MUCH more than I expected.
This site has several years worth of about 5 updates a week. The models are generally Eastern European. Many have been in Femjoy or MetArt, but there were also many, some quite beautiful, that I had not seen before. Some of the best European models on the planet are on this site, although most have different names. If you like Dominika, Katya or Mila on Met Art, they are all here. There are even a few nice sets of the now-retired but forever revered Marketa.
Neither the site nor the sets are quite as polished as some of the more expensive softcore sites, but I guess that is to be expected in this price range. There are many models that I've seen elsewhere and I just cant tell if the sets are from when they were younger, or if the girls just aren't wearing make-up. The tendency here is to use less or no make-up, so if you are not into the glam look, this is another treasure-site.
The sets are generally good quality, both indoors and outdoors. Lighting is good. The amount of "reveal" depends on the models, but most sets start out in lingerie or fully nude and about half have close-ups. There are no toys, insertions, etc., although there are a few scenes with two girls. This is not an "in your face" site...more of a girl-in-the-woods or girl-in-her-bedroom thing. Interaction with the photographer is generally very good, depending on the experience of the model, and many look like they are having a pretty good time. Kudos to the photo crew for that.
All sets are dated on the main thumbs page for each year. File names are reasonable for both the images and the zip files, so you don't have to go through hoops to save them. Since each set is listed since the site was created, you can tell that there is no recycling going on like at some other sites.
The navigation on the site is very, very basic. The update page is not formatted, so the update thumbs just go down the left side of the screen for ever. The two choices under each thumb are "screen sized" (currently 934x1400) or "print sized" (currently 3930x5988) older images are slightly smaller, but still pretty big.
So for navigation, you click on an option under a set image (screen or print) and then click on an image. To get back to the main page, you back out with your browser. There are no pop-ups or viewers. Once in a set, you can also download a zip file of images in the size you chose to get into the set (screen or print). NO toggling between image sizes or even choosing multiple zip file sizes once you commit to screen or print for the image sizes. No forward or backward movement once you chose an image to look at. Just page back and pick another image (or shift-click to open a new window). This works, but it seems so 1990. Perfectly acceptable, though, for the no-frills price.
I would have scored this site a little higher if it were not for the navigation. It is an honest site that is in the business of providing quality softcore images. They don't fluff it up and they don't steal your money. That is a rare and terrific thing in this industry and I will be back both for the images and to help ensure they stay around.
Bottom line? This site is a terrific deal! If you are tired of paying $30 to get into a new site only to be disappointed with quality or quantity of content and you like the softcore genre, then this site is a must-visit. C'mon! for under $10, you've got absolutely nothing to lose!
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Huge collection of photos and videos. Good navigation. A full decade of material available. Newer videos are excellent quality. Models come in all shapes and sizes. Nearly every big-name model you've ever heard of. Mostly US models who actually speak!
Cons:
Be careful with the cross-listing when you join.
Waaay to many ads for other sites. Once you log in, you are redirected to a page with dozens of other sites to join. You have to scroll down to find the site you paid for. Not cool. Oh, and any discount offers to join the other sites are only valid for as long as you are a member at Twisty's. So if you want to join one of those sites, go find the discount someplace else.
Main sign-up is through Pro-biller in Europe someplace. These guys are pretty obscure and the only way to cancel is to contact them. One of the most important quality metrics about any website is the ease with which you can cancel. This one? Not impressed.
Scoring/ranking/search system used to be top-notch but seems to be broken now (See below).
Old categories that made it easy to find the talk-dirty-to-you videos are gone.
Bottom Line:
My old review expired and I joined again, so I'm updating that review....there are several changes since last time.
Do you remember the original Danni's Hard Drive? You know, before Danni sold it? Twisty's is practically an exact replica of the original Danni site. There is a HUGE collection here that spans over a decade. New material is very good. Most of the models are big american names, mostly in porn. Decent variety in the sets locations and models. And people seem to be having fun.
All that said, there are a few things that I feel obligated to point out. First, most of the models, though popular are..um..more mature. To be fair, the site also has some very popular younger models including Malena Morgan, Dakota Sky and Michaela Isizzu. One thing about a site that has been around this long is that you can find sets that span a models entire professional career. For example, if you like Sasha Grey, there is a terrific collection here from 2009 and before. But in general you won't really see any knock-out new discoveries here as the stable is mostly pros, many of whom have had more than a little work done. A few of the more popular models are still unaltered, though...thank god.
I noticed one thing that has changed since my last visit. Most of the older models have slipped down in the "top models" list, but the sorting of "most popular" or "top rated" no longer works. Instead, what you get for both options is a list that looks like it is ordered by the webmaster's belief of what the ranking should be. Top rated lifetime model today? Dakota Sky, even though she only has 4 sets, an 84% approval rating and 483 votes. By comparison, Malena Morgan, number 4 on the list, has 7494 votes, 35 sets and a 94% approval rating. In fact, there are a lot of models rated higher than Dakota (No offense Dakota...) Something funny here... How much do you want to bet that Dakota will be a Twisty's Treat of the Month in the next few months? That kind of manipulation... uh..weirdness is a little too common here.
Lately, it looks like there has been a shift from solo model sets to full guy/girl or girl/girl sex. This might just be based on the recent models preferences, but I can't tell. I also can't tell if this is a good thing or not because it is hard to video or photograph sex well and the site will be competing with a much, much larger section of the porn market than they did with the solo girl being bad niche. What I really liked about this site before were the videos of girls paying attention to ME, talking to ME, showing themselves to ME. Lately, that attention is going to somebody else. Apparently, they've figured out that this is what live-sites are for and that there is much more money in just promoting the live sites for those who liked the "talk' sets. Too bad I don't buy live sets. A few of these talking sets show up once in a while, but they are no longer a category and don't seem to be as frequent as they used to be. If you like that kind of set, there are still some very good ones here but you will need to look through a lot to find them.
The photo sets are generally good. They are not overly staged, there is a decent variety of indoor and outdoor sets, the mix of full-body and close-up shots is good and the lighting is correct. The models are mostly solo, some with toys, but there are a few girl/girl scenes and two and three way sex scenes. There are NO shy girls here. Eventually, every girl in every solo set puts it in your face.
The network structure has changed a bit, too, but the other sites that you get free access to are still the same sets that are in the main site, just repackaged into different categories. In fact, once you enter one of the other sites, you can't tell it is a different site at all.
They have a girl of the month theme with a series of photo and video shoots released throughout the month. These range from interviews to hard core, depending on how far the models go. Long ago, these models were chosen by the subscribers. These days, I think it might be more a matter of availability or something. No real formula that I can figure out. These sets are good if you like the model.
Overall, this site is well above average with a huge selection of images and videos. The girls are mostly mature, large breasted and in many cases enhanced a bit. The images are good but not too glam-ee and, from what I can tell, not overly touched up. I got in on a discounted rate but since it is difficult to cancel, I ended up getting hit for a second month at the full price. Ouch. Still, it is positively worth a visit at least one a year, especially at the discounted rate.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Generally high quality material
Beautiful, natural models
Wide variety of sets, locations and models
Many solo masturbation/insertion and girl/girl scenes.
Very "artsy" site
Good range of image sizes to view/download
Generally good video options
Navigation is generally good
Fast download speeds
Several popular European models
Good navigation
Cons:
Very "artsy" site.
Billed as a "kink" site but just kink costumes
Very little model eye contact with camera
Creative edge takes precedent over practicality
Landing page focus is on cross-selling live site
Entire site including all sets are very dark!
Many sets in black and white or oddly tinted
Many shorter sets
Many models only have a set or two
There are more tattoos here than other Met-art sites. (not always bad, but not good on otherwise beautiful models)
Seems like some is B-roll from other sites
The unified login system on the metart network has become a NIGHTMARE!
Bottom Line:
Stats (Deduced):
1 new update a day
Some older sets are not exclusive
The site has been around since 2009 but some of the sets pre-date that.
The models are generally young and all shapes, sizes, ethnicity, hair color, some hairy, some tattoos, etc. Some are unique to this site.
At some point, MetArt decided to make this more of a fetish network, but it isn't really a fetish network at all. There are some fetish costumes and a few girls that start lightly tied up or wearing fetish clothing (in SOLO sets). Many of the sets are female masturbation sets that range from boring to pretty interesting. And about 10% are girl/girl scenes. I need to say that the majority of these are very conservative sets with few money or close-up shots. (There are some Oh My God models, but they are not necessarily doing OMG things....) There are notable exceptions, though. It depends on the model, I guess. There also is a wide mix of eye contact. Some sets have models that never make any eye contact with the camera at all. Most of the sets start out with the model(s) clothed. I noticed some models remained clothed for 75% or more of some sets.
The first thing that strikes me about this site is how dark it is. Everything is dark. The site, the sets, the lighting, the videos, EVERYTHING! Older sets are a little better in this regard, but you will generally think there is something wrong with your display. Newer images are dark, contrasty, very shadowy. Distracting. Annoying. Generally awful. I batched a couple of sets through Photoshop and auto-adjust increased the brightness in most images by 50% or more. That is a heck of a lot and it is not accidental. They are deliberately turning down the brightness on these sets. You have to work to make images this dark. Really work.
The second thing I noticed was how hard the webmasters are trying to get you to go to the live site. There is a large section on the right half of th elanding page that highlights active working cam models.
Another thing is the almost complete lack of playfulness, compassion or interaction with the viewer in many of the sets. Some of these models have all of the expressions of a check-out girl at K-Mart, meaning none. Even models that normally shine are somehow less expressive here. This is not in any way erotic as the name implies.
And the last thing to note is how inconsistent many of the sets are. More recent sets seem to follow that dark psuedo-kinky theme for the most part, but some sets are not like that at all. Some sets are very short, some are filled with close-ups, some are not. Some girls are almost entirely fully clothed for the whole set, some are not clothed at all. Some have eye-contact, many do not. If you are familiar with other Met-Art sets, you can see that some of these sets seem like they might have been B-roll or too weird to put on Met-Art.
Navigation is generally good. There is an options section that allows you to set defaults for image size, number of thumbnails on a page, etc. like some other Met Art sites. The search function has user defined tags, which helps if you are looking for a particular trait that others are likely to define, like ginger or spread. But it could be better. There is also a consolidated MetArt web site control at the very top of the page, but it does not work very well....
I've had HUGE issues with passwords and common access across MetArt sites. The pull down menu will say I am a member of 6 sites,for example, but when I try to access them, something breaks. Every time I add a new site or have to reset my common password, I lose access to one or more of the 6 or so sites I've signed up for for and pay for. Sometimes it take DAYS and dozens of email exchanges to get it all fixed again. I'm not sure what the issue is but it appears to be related to the different credit card service providers MetArt uses.
Bottom line? Good site to visit once, I guess. I personally don't like it anywhere near as much as other Met Art sites. You can actually see the weird evolution/devolution from a site similar to Met Art in the beginning to a site that now looks more like a bad graphic novel than a soft-core porn site. There is a decent amount of material here and some of it is pretty good, but be prepared to sift through a lot of dark, odd and often slightly off pictures to find things that really float your boat.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic, but this site just doesn't live up to Met-Art standard
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Wide variety of VR porn types
Very large collection for this genre
Generally very good quality
Huge mix of actresses/actors here
At least a few major porn stars
Excellent navigation, sort and search functions
New video every couple of days
Unique "position" icon on each video shows whether you should be standing, sitting up, laying back or flat on your back to watch the video. (Very nice feature!)
The site remembers what type of VR you have so you don't have to select from a list for each download. (Nice!)
A few of the upskirt/face sitting scenes will, ah, take your breath away.
Cons:
Many scenes don't really take advantage of VR
(i.e. some scenes are across the room)
Huge mix of actresses/actors here.
Girls are generally more mature.
Videos are not quite as polished
Bottom Line:
Disclaimer: My goal here is to compare VR sites and to explain particular VR things that a site does well or not so well. As always, my objective is to share my experience. If your experience is different, you are welcome to share yours too!
=======================
HoloGirlsVR is large for a VR site. But to be this large, it has perhaps made a few sacrifices in quality meaning you have to sift to find really good stuff that appeals to you.
HoloGirlsVR Stats:
105 Videos
74 models
Models appear to be popular US, Canadian and European porn stars.
Most girls are in more than 1 video
One new set every 3 or 4 days
Release dates are listed
Each set is rated on a 5 star scale
Frame rates are not listed
File sizes are not listed
I'll use an analogy the webmaster may not like, but it is what comes to mind. Men's Warehouse. Now there is some pretty schlocky stuff at Men's Warehouse, but if you are willing to sift through enough stuff, you will probably find something you like. Conversely, Men's Warehouse sells a LOT of stuff, so SOMEBODY must like what they are selling,even the schlocky stuff. So this site is the Men's Warehouse of VR porn. Something for everybody. If that's what the webmasters are going for, they are killing it!
One of the ways that the site tries to categorize things is by defining niches or collections. Nice job on that! There are several niches/collections that really lend themselves to the VR genre, and a few that don't. The face-sitting series is a great example of what VR porn can do. These girls stick their junk just beyond your tongue's reach above your face and I guarantee you will groan in approval when you experience a good example of it. However, one of the drawbacks of HD is that you might not really want to see some of these girls that close in good light. Keep looking, though, there will be a few that you like. It's OK to groan. Really. Slightly more tame is the upskirt category. This takes the porn upskirt genre to a higher level because you are laying prone under the girl involved as she stands directly over your head. Depending on the set, there is a broad range of views here from white panties (that get pulled aside) to complete nudity. This can be awesome if you find the right girl. Find her.
Other collections include the Mistress T collection, which is a whole dom series where YOU are the submissive (not my thing but, hey, some folks love it.) and the GFE (Girlfriend Experience, I think) collection, which is generally a younger girl talking to you, masturbating and occasionally fucking you. There's an only girls collection that let's you watch two or more (up to about 8, I think) girls getting each other or themselves off. There are also a lot of uncategorized videos in a range of activities. I recall foot fetish sets and stocking sets and a LOT of girls covered with tattoos. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not something I'm used to. Sorry to bring this up, but something else I noticed was that several of the males in the sex videos were black. Seriously, Kudos to the site management for appealing to that potentially lucrative "blacked" porn market segment, but I'm a straight white guy who cannot get used to the idea of enjoying a VR segment with a hot girl when I look down and my junk is black. Again...men's warehouse. Something for everybody. Cool.
With the larger variety of videos comes a wider range of talent. I'm not sure how to define this other than some scenes are seriously over acted. A few of the girls seem to never shut up. I'm not sure if this is just the girls or if it is actually scripted this way. Again, different tastes....but less is usually better in this case.
The sets are generally nice, shot in homes or hotel rooms. The lighting is good but the masking for the VR is a little annoying when you notice it. They have blocked out anything that might distract you from the scene in front of you, which is more distracting than if they had left it.
File sizes are not listed but they are pretty big! Vive/Oculus files are a gig to 2 gigs each. Oddly, the high-res generic files are 2-4 gigs each. Download speeds are pretty slow.
File types:
Android 5.0+
Gear VR
Oculus (High and Low)
Iphone/Android pre 5.0
Generic H.264
Tech stuff
Update: I now have a dedicated VR computer with a very fast processor and video card. All o fthe Oculus/Vive files play fine.
...personally, although there are a few amazing sets on this site, I am a little disappointed. Why? Because many of the sets are watch others have sex sets rather than the fully immersive ME having sex sets. This completely defeats the opportunity available in VR.
Overall, this is a great site to visit because of some of the unique sets you can find here, but I'm not sure how long it will be before I come bac
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Pretty massive site
Wide variety of videos and images
Wide variety of models and types
Good layout
Reasonable navigation
Good search capabilities
Most of the new stuff says it is 4k video.
Cons:
Marketing is deceptive
"Network" of sites is all the same stuff
One update per-day for entire network?
All scores start as 10. Lot's of inflation.
Mostly similar indoor sets
Videos are competent, not stellar
You get a lot of trailers when you think you are getting videos.
Main page shows next week's releases instead of showing you what is available now.
Some of the sites have only older, SD stuff.
Bottom Line:
I'm not sure what category I should use for this "network" other than "Mega-site". Like other mega-sites, the emphasis is on quantity over quality and, although there is a lot of material here, a very small percentage of it is going to find it's way into my collection. I would put this site a couple of notches below the top mega-sites, which probably include Brazzers, Porn-Pros, Teamskeet, 21 Sextreme, etc. But that's just me so let me give you some stats (self reported by the site):
(As of December 12th, 2015)
Sites: 28****
Models: 1144
Images: 696,671
Videos: 4065
So...no matter how you slice it, there is a ton of material here. Almost all of it is hardcore. This is all mainstream, trendy porn. Lot's of anal, lot's of cream pies, something that passes as traditional (hand job) POV site, another site that passes as a progressive (full session) POV site, an old-man/teen girl site, etc. At the bottom there is even a gay site and 2 she-male sites. There is a 4K site at the top that get's updated about once a week. But as anyone who has a seen a close-up of their favorite actress or model in 4K, just because you can do something in 4K doesn't necessarily mean you should. There are a few sites, like the "athletic girl" site, that appear to only update one a YEAR. This probably has a lot to do with why I am so unimpressed overall. I saw an amazing video ad for a site called "Dirty Coach" that started with a very fit girl in it doing things that impressed me. Then, when I joined, I NEVER found the video I saw marketed and discovered that the site I signed up for only updates once a year. That is pretty deceptive in my book.
The "28" sites listed (I count 32 on the main page) are mostly just a rehash of the material from the main page. A few sites at the bottom are so poorly done that I don't blame them for not counting them in the total. (1 hasn't updated since 2006 and another since 2009.) Overall, there is one, 1, single update for the entire network per day. Probably the single most annoying thing I experience with the site is that the main page shows updates that are happening up to a week in advance and there is no way to discern them from current releases other than the date. You might not realize this until you click the link and only get the trailer. This happens throughout the site as the related upcoming sets are mixed into the display for each sub-site.
The navigation is pretty good. Once I realized that most of the scenes are on the main site, I started using the sub-sites as category searches. That works well for the true network sites, but for the really obscure stuff, you have to go to the bottom of the sites list and search in whatever way that site provides....sometimes none.
There are a few models you know, but most are folks you've never seen before and may never see again. Almost entirely Eastern European from what I can tell with a handful of English-speaking folks mixed in. Anjelica is probably the most well known model on the site and behind her comes....no idea because the ranking system doesn't make any sense. Maybe 3 girls I recognize in the top 50 or so. Every model starts as a 10 so there are several models with 0 or a few votes that are rated higher than Anjelica who has 2700+ votes, almost double the votes than the next girl. Suffice it to say that the rankings are kind of strange.
Bottom line? This is a high-volume, medium quality site with moderate variety and too-infrequent updates. I do not approve of the marketing strategy, which involves marketing the individual sites even though they don't update and are only subsets of a mega-site you may have already joined or are not particularly interested in. There is absolutely no indication of how frequently a marketed site is updated until after you've joined.
However, there is a ton of decent quality hard core porn here so if you are into just watching other people fuck, than add this to your list. Personally, I prefer the sites that glam it up a bit and would rather have a few really good videos (i.e. Wow-Girls) than thousands of mediocre ones. What is the use of having a boatload of porn if takes forever to find something good enough to excite you? So I probably will not be back unless they dupe me into joining again.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Generally high quality material
Beautiful, natural models
Wide variety of sets, locations and models
Very "artsy" site
Good range of image sizes to view/download
Generally good video options
Navigation is generally good
Fast download speeds
Many popular European models
Good navigation
Cons:
Very "artsy" site.
Very little eye contact with camera
Creative edge takes precedent over practicality
Landing page focus is on cross-selling live site
Entire site including all sets are very dark!
Many sets in black and white or oddly tinted
Many shorter sets
Many models only have a set or two
There are more tattoos here than other Met-art sites. (not always bad, but not good on otherwise beautiful models)
Seems like some is B-roll from other sites
Bottom Line:
Stats (Deduced):
About 1500 photo sets
About 500 videos
About 320 models
1 new update a day
Some older sets are not exclusive
The site has been around since 2009 but some of the sets pre-date that.
The models are generally young and all shapes, sizes, ethnicity, hair color, some hairy, some tattoos, etc.
This site is, to a large extent, sort of an evolution of the "girl in the woods" theme with the idea that you are observing a model in a more natural environment instead of a studio environment. Often the idea is that the model doesn't really know you are there or doesn't pay much attention to you, the viewer. About 50% of the sets are solo girl in a straight modeling scenario. Many of these sets are of very, very attractive girls that are just standing or in other conservative poses. Another 40% are female masturbation sets that range from boring to pretty interesting. And the remaining 10% are girl/girl scenes. I need to say that the majority of these are very conservative sets with few money or close-up shots. (There are some Oh My God models, but they are not necessarily doing OMG things....) There are notable exceptions, though. It depends on the model, I guess. There also is a wide mix of eye contact. Some sets have models that never make any eye contact with the camera at all. Earlier sets are better, but the quality of those sets is not as good. Oh, most of the sets start out with the model(s) clothed. I noticed some models remained clothed for 75% or more of some sets.
The first thing that strikes me about this site is how dark it is. Everything is dark. The site, the sets, the lighting, the videos, EVERYTHING! Older sets are a little better in this regard, but you will generally think there is something wrong with your display. Newer images are dark, contrasty, very shadowy. Distracting. Annoying. Generally awful. I batched a couple of sets through Photoshop and auto-adjust increased the brightness in most images by 50% or more. That is a heck of a lot and it is not accidental. They are deliberately turning down the brightness on these sets. You have to work to make images this dark. Really work.
The second thing I noticed was how hard the webmasters are trying to get you to go to the live site. When you get to the landing page, you don't see a single girl on the site you are paying for. instead you get a full page of images from the two live-cam sites that seem to be taking over the Met-Art network. You have to scroll down to see the contents of the site you already paid for. The webmasters are apparently experimenting with where best to put these live-cam ads as they can be found in different places on the various Met-Art sites. This is the most intrusive placement, right at the top of the main page and present on every page on the site. Stop it! Really. Just stop.
Another thing is the almost complete lack of playfulness, compassion or interaction with the viewer in many of the sets. Some of these models have all of the expressions of a check-out girl at K-Mart, meaning none. Even models that normally shine are somehow less expressive here. This is not in any way erotic as the name implies.
And the last thing to note is how inconsistent many of the sets are. More recent sets seem to follow that dark theme for the most part, but some sets are not like that at all. Some sets are very short, some are filled with close-ups, some are not. Some girls are almost entirely fully clothed for the whole set, some are not clothed at all. Some have eye-contact, many do not. You can tell if you are familiar with other Met-Art sets that some of these sets seem like they might have been B-roll or too weird to put on Met-Art. For example, there is an outdoor set of Lorena, beautiful Met-Art regular, where she is entirely covered in red mud in every single image. Really? Has to be a B-roll.
Navigation is generally good. There is an options section that allows you to set defaults for image size, number of thumbnails on a page, etc. like some other Met Art sites. The search function has user defined tags, which helps if you are looking for a particular trait that others are likely to define, like ginger or spread. But it could be better.
Bottom line? Good site to visit once, I guess. I personally don't like it anywhere near as much as other Met Art sites like Met-Art itself or Errotica Archives. You can actually see the weird evolution/devolution from a site similar to Met Art in the beginning to a site that now looks more like a bad graphic novel than a soft-core porn site. There is a decent amount of material here and some of it is pretty good, but be prepared to sift through a lot of dark, odd and often slightly off pictures to find things that really float your boat.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic, but this site just doesn't live up to Met-Art standards.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
High quality video and photos of sex scenes and solo scenes. Many Met-Art models but less softcore.
Cons:
Not enough content, although it is improving. Navigation is not consistent with Met-Art.
Bottom Line:
This is basically all the stuff that the photogrpahers wanted to shoot for Met-Art, but the relatively softcore nature of that site prevented them from publishing it. Or...to put it another way...it is a way for Met-Art to expand thier network and make more money without having to use anything more than ask the assets they already have to have sex, which many of them do on other sites anyway.
The emphasis is on glamorous sex scenes but there are a lot of solo acts and decent photo sets with all kinds of toys. The girls, of course, are awesome....as usual for this network. The only problem is that there still is nowhere near enough material.
Navigation is fine for a small site, but when it gets big, they will need to switch over to the same system they use for Met-Art. For this site, you have to page forward and back to get anywhere quickly, or you can follow the "back to gallery" links...which ever is your preference. I have accidently left the site many times because I thought I was on Met-Art.
The cross-advertising is still very frustrating.
They cross-advertised based on models and photographers, so at the bottom of a page, you will see a link back to Met-Art or one of the other sites in the network (all charging separately).
I was fortunate enough to see this site for $12.50 because I was already a member at Met-Art. Look for bundle packages and consider doing one $12.50 secondary Met-Art site at a time because there just isn't enough content here for you to keep all four $12.50 sites for long.
Overall, this is a pretty good site, especially if you get in on a package deal. But it won't be a great site until they get a lot more content.
You see a nice girl on one site, there is a picture of her from another set at teh bottomfg
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Several very popular Czech nude models here
Site layout is decent
Updates every other day or so.
Top notch photography
Models are tastefully done-up
As the name implies, this is a glamour site.
Cons:
All of the sets are older.
Site sometimes makes you log in again.
Kind of pricey for what you get.
Not all models are fully nude.
Most sets are not very explicit.
Downloads are very, very slow.
Sets are not dated, just numbered.
No original shoot dates.
Bottom Line:
Glamour.CZ is a fairly well done site overall, similar to the photographer-centric sites in the Met Art network, probably most similar to Arrotica Archives. The models are familiar and most are OMG beautiful, Iveta, Little Caprice, Monika Vesela (104 sets!), even a bunch (33 sets) from Marketa Bolonova(which is why I joined). But although the sets are generally very good to excellent, they are older material. Monika and Marketa have not been modeling for at least 8 years, probably more like 10+.
The overall format of the site is model-centric, so if you go to a model page, you will see a listing of all o the sets and some thumbnails. Click on a set and you will see thumbnails of every image in that set.
Most of the sets are not very explicit, although the models do look pretty amazing just posing. Monika Vesela, who is known for relatively explicit sets elsewhere, is for the most part just standing around in most of her 104 sets here. She is quite young in several sets, but they are not in any kind of order. All of Marketa's sets are from later in her career and when she was no longer very explicit. This is well done glam stuff mostly.
This is an image-only site and images come in small and large. Large is 4000x2666. No idea what small is. Downloads are very, very, VERY slow. A 145MB zip file takes about 12 minutes to download. Images take painfully long to display. I can almost hear the modem crackle.
Sets are between 25 and 45 images each and it is fair to say that they break up sets a little....well...a lot.
Overall, this isn't a bad site, especially if you fancy some of the models that they seem to have a lot of. Go browse through the model directory in the free section. If there is anyone there that you lust over, go ahead and sign up.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Good quality VR videos
Young Attractive European models
Several resolutions available.
Navigation is straightforward
Images provided are representative of vids.
Cons:
Site is small (34 vids)
Navigation is extremely basic
Video download selection process is a little cumbersome.
50%+ of vids are observation only.
No release dates or schedule
No scoring
several formats, but they are not very consistent
Bottom Line:
OK, real quick....
RealJam is another start-up VR video provider based out of Budapest using Eastern European models. They are still pretty small, but so far they are doing things pretty well in terms of production.
RealJam Stats:
About 34 videos
About 18 models
Formats include Gear, Oculus/Vive, smartphone.
Largest format for Vive/Oculus is about 3200x1800 but not all vids are that high.
Videos average about 10 minutes.
Largest format file sizes are about 2-2.5 gigs
(That is shorter and smaller than most)
Download speeds are good.
Overview:
When you log in, you get get a listing of videos with representative images and download options right on the listing page. There are 4 videos per page and there are currently 9 pages, so that's about 36 videos. Each model actually produces 2 or 3 videos. At least one is an observational strip show/masturbation video and the others are participatory. They don't always fall in sequence.
Sets are nicely done, high end with no real distractions...large homes or hotel suites. Lighting is generally good. There is almost always a kind of funky logo prop someplace visible in the room that Say's Real Jam with the sylized Ass made out of the L in Real and the J and Jam. Kind of clever.....kind of. That logo tells me these are all made by the crew and not brought in by an independent and purchased.
I find selecting a download format to be kind of clunky and have accidentally downloaded the wrong format more than once. For each video, there are 4 tabs across the top for the format (Gear, Oculus, Vive and Smartphone). Within each tab are the resolutions available for that format. Oculus and Vive are always the same and could easily be combined. What trips me up is that I think I hit the Vive tab and then hit the high-resolution format to download, then move on to look at the next set. It isn't until the file is downloaded that I realize I forgot to hit the Vive tab before downloading. The tab option is a reasonable approach, but there should be some way to see all or choose a default. Before I realized what I was doing wrong, I opened a Gear video thinking it was the best they had and was very disappointed.
Let's see....The models act pretty well and are directed well. There is a surprising amount of English dialog (monologue, really) with heavy eastern European accents. It doesn't detract from the videos any, though,...probably adds a little, especially since the dialog is generally pretty polite. You know, "You like?" and "You want to see?" kind of stuff.
The video releases are not dated, which I find a little frustrating. And as I mentioned, the resolution varies sometimes between videos.
Bottom line: For $20, go ahead and jump right in! It is well worth it for the collection of quality videos that they have.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Very unique, playful style - a true "indie" web site
Unique look and feel
Fairly exclusive European models
57 of the girls are French according to site
A few popular models
True High resolution images to 4000k- crisp images
HD videos for most models
Newer site so no old low res material!
Great search options
Model mouseover summary and "exposure limits" very helpful
Newer models/sets are very good
Coolest "Shop" area I'v ever seen.
A good deal for the price!
Cons:
Collection is not that large, but growing
Information is sparce once at the model pages
Rating system is confusing (model or set?)
Can't search by model score.
Many Models are not very engaging
Many models are pretty but not knockouts
Many models/sets are not nude
Navigation/viewing options are limited
(i.e. 10 models per page, 18 sets per page)
There are a few minor navigation issues (page back does not work so you have to reload a lot)
A few broken/incorrect links (might be in the middle of upgrading )
Set dates are not universally available.
Bottom Line:
This is the type of site that reminds me how incredibly difficult it must be to run a popular, successful porn site. They do many, many things really well here, but the overall package falls a little short, overall score-wise, of the big players.
This is currently a nude and non-nude modeling site. mostly passive, candid, single model, photography. No sex, nothing kinky in any way with the exception of a very small number of VERY light B&D sets. In this regard, it is kind of like the local strip club....the girls you WANT to see more of are not the girls you ARE seeing more of, if you catch my drift. If you have an appetite for sex scenes, toys, bondage, close-ups, spread legs, anything more than passaive nude modeling photogrpahy, this may not be the site for you at the moment, but check back as it looks like the folks here are making some very positive improvements in both the site and the collection. If you are the type who likes passive scenes, dressing room shots, that kind of thing, then this may be an EXCELLENT site for you. Frankly, there is a lot of variety here and my tastes, admittedly, run toward more engaging solo scenes.
Here are some basics from what I can tell...
About 100 models
About 350 sets
1 new set every 2-3 days
Sets have between 30 and 60 images
Models all seem to be 18-24
Model are, as the name implies, petite.
Most sets are in studio.
The design of this site makes it fun and different. I think the webmasters were trying to incorporate a Moulin Rouge kind of feel, and they came very close to pulling it off. Model thumbnails are shown full sized and they go nude with a mouse-over. Saw the technique in a french body study years ago and it is VERY effective here at showing you exactly what the models look like. Clicking on a model brings a pop-up that shows all of her sets. Once you select a set, you get about 36 images per page, a "stars" score, and a thumbnail slider that allows you to go to other sets of the same model. Very nice concept. In execution, though, the name of the model does not show up on the model page anywhere, only in the hard-to-read thumbnails, the stars scoring is not immediately clear (model or set? SET!), the model bio is not available from here, the sets are not dated here, the cover images are included for sets scheduled for up to a month away (so you click on a model and a set and THEN find that the set isn't on the site yet). Some navigation options are missing, but don't hit back-page here (or ANYWHERE) or you will have to reload your browser. (I also clicked on something once or twice and got dropped into a shell directory where I shouldn't have been...looks like they are in the middle of upgrades.) I love the navigation style here, but it could be much better with a few small tweaks.
When you first look at the site, it really does give a Moulin Rouge feel. The sample images are representatative, so you honestly see what you get.
The photography, though competent, is sometimes a little weak. There are some excellent studio sets, but many sets are passive, so you feel like you are following the model around through her apartment or something. There is a little model interaction with the photographer (and therefore the viewer), but not much. This may be more about the models,as the more popular models are more interactive (it is part of what makes them popular) than the neophytes. But the incongruity between the playful feel of the site and the passive feel of many of the sets is what makes things a little...off here. They need a little more of the sexual energy you find at Twisty's or ALSscan...you usually only get that with the hyper-confident pro-models or with a photographer/shoot team that is ungodly talented. I noticed that many commenters like the passive stuff and frankly have no idea how one would balance the two styles. I have to say, though, that the newer photography is much, much better in terms of interaction and content than the older stuff, so clearly somebody here gets it.
I really want this site to be a success. It is different. It is unique. It is not a formula web site. It deserves to be successful. I could easily and rightfully compare it to an Indie in the movie industry. But the problem with indies is that, although they are often critically acclaimed, they just as often don't get the popular vote simply because they are not following the popular formula or because of one or two faults. This site COULD be a Kill Bill, a Pulp Fiction, A Quentin Tarantino kick-ass example of a web site. Unfortunately, it isn't quite there....yet. Clearly, I am rooting for it, though.
Bottom line: A very unique site that is worthy of a look. With a few tweaks in the site and content, this could be among the top players and it seems as though the webmasters here are figuring that out. I will absolutely be back in a year or so to see how things have progressed.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
High quality material
Beautiful, natural, mostly very young models
Many Met Art models but also many unique models
Wide variety of sets, locations and models
Part of the Met Art network but a separate site
Good range of image sizes to view/download
Generally good video options
Navigation is generally good
Fast download speeds
All European models
Good site layout and navigation
Met-Art single sign-on means you can get here from there without having to log in.
Cons:
Overall quality and update frequency has declined somewhat in the last 6 months.
No consistency in release timing or between videos and image sets.
Only one set a week lately and 3 of 4 November releases were videos.
Overall site quality is not as good as it once was.
Site navigation is not quite as versitile as Met Art but it is still very good.
Occasional issues with sign-ups for existing network members.
Model names are not consistent with the rest of the Met Art network.
Bottom Line:
I'm going to go a littel Jeckyl and Hyde in this review. Bear with me.
Stats (Deduced because the numbers are not published):
About 1000 photo sets
About 260 videos
About 200 models
1 update a week but prior to 2018, there were 4 updates a week.
The site has been around since 2013
The models are generally young and all shapes, sizes, ethnicity, hair color, some hairy, etc.
All sets are dated.
All sets are scored.
images and zips come in 3 sizes up to 3000x4500.
Videos come in multiple sizes and formats.
Stunning 18 is one of the satellite web sites in eh Met Art network established, I think, for the photographer Antonio Clemens.
This is the third or fourth time I've joined this site and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed since the last time I joined. Apparently, Antonio Clemens is no longer shooting for Met Art and, since this was essentially his site, they are scrambling to keep things going. The last time one of his sets was published was in September but it appears that his sets since April or May were from the files. Thierry Murell has stepped in, but things have changed....alot!
The number of releases has dropped to one a week, which is pretty awful considering the release schedule was 4 times a week just a year ago. And the sets that are being released are...inconsistent with the prior theme of the site and not up to the prior quality of this site or of the Met Art network. Some sets look like they were borrowed from ALSscan and some others seem like odd videos. Here's another example and this one is DAMN WEIRD! 5 sets in August, 7 sets in July, 8 sets in June and 8 sets in May. These were the last sets by Antonio Clemens and ALL OF THESE 28 SETS EXCEPT 1 were of the SAME MODEL! Now, the model is Irene and she is beautiful, but some of these "sets" were partials and the next release would be the rest. Like I said, this is just weird, especially for a site in the Met Art network. You would think they would have the collective resources to keep this site up and get it looking right again after 6 months.
Now, aside from this relatively recent weirdness, there is a lot of great 18-22 YO material here from before about May of 2018 all the way back to January of 2013. About 60-70% of the models are young, pretty and many of these models are girls you will not see elsewhere. You can tell they are new and, although there may be a few open-legged shots, you can also see that many have not yet found their confidence. All of those prior sets between 2013 and earlier this year were shot by Antonio Clemens. They are consistent and generally very good. Focus, lighting, sets, exposure, poses, etc. are all excellent.
The other 30-40% of the models in these sets are maybe a little older and much, much more experienced and open. For example, Anjelica, the pretty young porn star, has 8 videos and 3 photo sets from 2013-2015. She's not shy at all. Melena A, the little cat-tattooed gymnast turned flexy nude model is here with 17 fairly early sets, mostly photo sets. Her first set is called "Juicy Pussy". It is an accurate title but it easily could have been applied to any of her sets. There are others here, too, like 21 sets from the glam-style model Danica Jewels, here called Delilah G., and 24 videos from the wonderful naked ballarina Annett A. You get my point. The pre-2018 stuff on this site is a wonderful blend of young, light, fresh, delicate, sometimes a little shy beauties and OMG sexy porn stars and experienced, confident models that usually know how to give you what you are looking for.
This is another of the Met-Art sites that almost has the same navigation as Met-Art, but not quite. There is no option to open anything in another window. As a result, you have to either do this manually, or back up a lot. It really needs to be the same for all of these sites.
Although pricing is separate for each of the Met Art sites, they do have a nifty single sign-on feature that allows you to access any of the MA sites that you are a member of via a little pull-down menu on the main Met Art site. Once you log in using this option, the sight keeps track of you and allows access to any othe site you have subscribed too. Nice feature.
There is one other issue you should be aware of. If you are already a member of one of the Met Art sites, the single sign-on sometimes limits your "new subscriber" options to a higher rate than the one you asked for. If this happens, use a different email or contact support.
OK, almost out of room. Bottom line: In spite of the recent failings, there is a TON of great material here. If you haven't visited this site yet, there is a holiday special of only $9.95. For that price, joining is a no brainer. I will keep an eye on this site and update the score and recommendation accordingly when the site theme and new material quality stabilizes. For now it is recommended with some reservations regarding new material.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
High quality videos and images
Great variety
Reasonable download speeds
Many pornstars and models you've heard of
Sets have dates added
Cons:
Alot of non-exclusive content
Some "teaser" scenes from other sites
Navigation can be circular at times
No counts or easy way to see how often updates occur.
"in-network" sites don't have much content.
Bottom Line:
Whoever owns this site probably really is a porn mastermind. He managed to talk several other sites into giving him content for referral. Unlike a few other sites that I've really complained about, this one is pretty clear about the source of their content and the list of other sites that some of the content comes from is pretty impressive. The only thing I can't figure out completely is which sites are part of THIS network and which sites are referrals.
So, here goes:
The sites that look like they are in-network, meaning you get all of the content, includes:
NewgirlPOV.com: This site has maybe 25 video sets. The girls are attractive and the sets are well done. Some good POV stuff here.
Fuckedhard18.com/massagegirls18.com: This is two sites, but the sets seem almost interchangable. Several popular porn models in this mix. Massagegirls18 has about 218 videos dating back to 2009. Some good stuff here, too. Fuckedhard18 also has over 200 videos but it appears that some overlap with the other site.
All of these sets can be watched or downloaded either complete or in smaller pieces. Most are in HD. All of these sets for these two sites start out on a massage table. The girls get oiled up and fucked.
The next site is called fuckedhardGFs.com. This is a collection of videos in many different locations and scenarios. Lots of popular porn stars here. Some good, some just OK. Looks like about 96 videos here.
Next is a site called Epicsex.com. Similar to the site above, but more of the "white room" style shooting. Not bad. About 45 videos here.
The last site that appears to be in the network is called bangable.com This is a solo model video site that is totally softcore, kind of playboy-esque. There are a few nice models here, but nothing special going on.
I suggest you check out pornmastermind.com for a month both for the videos in the network and for access to samples from several other sites that you might not otherwise know about.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Good variety
Several niche sites
Many attractive models and porn stars
Video quality is generally good
Navigation generally good
Good search functions
Cons:
You get one update a day for ALL sites
Many sites have not been updated in YEARS!
"Premium" sites you are supposed to pay more for.
Bottom Line:
Have you ever noticed how on some web sites, there will be an article that looks interesting, so you click on it, only to find that the actual article has a slightly different name and you've read it before? That's how I've signed up to Team Skeet 2 or 3 times in the past couple of years...by not realizing I've been been here before..because that's what the webmasters want you to think. That sounds a little odd, I know, but the individual sites don't advertise as "Team Skeet". They advertise as one of the many sub-sites under the umbrella of "Paper Street Media". (Even PU doesn't immediately show this as a network...you have to go to a site and then look at the company profile to see the sites in the network.) Most recently, I got pulled in by "The Real Workout" which looks like a site full of fit models working out and then getting boned. The site is listed separately and gives no real indication it is part of the Skeet network. What it doesn't tell you on the teaser page is that you are looking at EVERY video on the site..73 videos in total SINCE 2007!!!! That's one video a month and some are tiny! I was duped. Consolation prize? Team Skeet and access to all of the same stuff I purchased as part of "Exxxtra Small", another sub-site, 2 months ago.
To be fair, it does look like they provide 1 new set a day these days, but I can't really tell. What I do see is 2088 sets TOTAL across all the sites and the earliest sets date to 2005. That is 4 sets a week for 10 years. Oh, and this is almost 100% video. There are no images of sets.
The quality of material is generally pretty good but it is mostly shot in little skits. Think classroom, dorm room, office, car, gym, etc. the solos are done in hotel rooms, mostly. As a result, the lighting is not always great, the settings are OK and the scenes are usually very real-world-ish. (Not necessarily what I'm personally looking for in a sex scene).
The names of the sub-sites are about as self-explanatory as can be. Titty Attack, Teen's Love Money, POV Life, Teen Curves, This Girl Sucks, Teens Love Anal, Teeny Black, Exxxtra Small, Innocent High, the list goes on and on...at one update a month per site for many of these sites. And I also notice that many of the videos could be on any of the sites, it's just the way the video is edited.
The models are generally 18-24-ish, good looking and professional. Many are porn stars or video starlets. The top rated girls are Riley Reid, Cassidy Banks, Lola Foxx and Kaylee Haze, all in sets dated 2014 or 2015.
Navigation is OK. You can see all updates or you can drill into a particular site and see what is there. You can search by model or keyword/tag and there is a list of tags down the left hand site of the main page.
There is a LOT of cross selling. the skeet live-models site take up the top of every page. Other sites are listed down the right side and along the bottom. That leaves about 50% of the main pages for listing things that are actually on the site you have paid for and are looking at.
Bottom line? I would classify this as similar to Porn Pros, Pornstar Network or maybe 18 girls. It is an all video site that is worth visiting once. But once you do visit, double check to make sure the next site you stumble over isn't just this book with a slightly different cover.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Updated:
04-08-1206:17pm (Update History) Reason: corrections and updates
Pros:
Girls are generally very attractive. The site includes the typical collection of European girls that are on other (softcore/glam) sites, but there are also a few that are unique to this site. Image quality is high. Video quality is generally high. Tech support response to my issue was practically instantaneous.
Cons:
site navigation is not up to par with many other similar sites. Page refresh and image downloads are nat very fast. Zip file image naming structure is absolutely infuriating! (ie every set has an image named 1.jpg, 2.jpg, 3.jpg, making downloaded image management impossible! Saved images in older IE browsers appear to be only BMP, not JPG., making them much larger than they need to be for both downloading and storage. (Google Chrome and other browsers are probably fine)
Bottom Line:
Overall, this is a pretty nice site, but it is not up to par with the best-of-class (i.e. Met-Art, Femjoy, Erotica Archive, etc.) This applies in four areas. First, the navigation of the site is ok, but not great. You can't, for example, sort the models based on user rating. Even sorting by name is a little clumsy. Second, actually downloading files is truly painful.
Once you are in a set, clicking on an image opens a small thumbnail. To open an image large enough to download, you have to click on an icon below each image. When downloading ZIP files, there are no model name or set references, just numberd image files starting at 1. The only workaround to this is to create folders for each set. Very frustrating as there is no reference to the model, the set name, anything in the zip files. ...where was I.. Oh, the third and fourth things are the models and photography. The models are attractive, but there is something a little off about either the models, the shoots or the sets. The only way to describe this is that it appears nobody is having a good time. Very few geniune smiles, little laughter, no conversation at all in the videos. Not much fun. In many of the sets, out of dozens of pictures, there are only a few where the model looks like she is even remotely enjoying herself. Compare this with, say, Femjoy. It is the interaction with the photographer, or somebody else on the set maybe, that brings out the absolute best images in the models. So the models on Eva's Garden may be beautiful, but the images are not engaging. I compared many of the same models between this and other sites. Something is just not as good here. These girls should be surface-of-the-sun hot. They are on other sites. Somehow, not as much here. There are a few outstanding sets and OMG models, but many, as I said above, are a little off. Oh, and the fourth thing, is the sets. Out of the dozens of sets I've looked at so far, and probably hundreds of overviews, nearly all of them are indoors in carefully controlled lighting. A few are outdoors on a cloudy day or under a covered awning. Many images are shot with what appears to be a wide angle lens(probably to increase the depth of field and get more of the model in focus), but the result is a distorted image. I've never seen this on any other site. The indoor sets vary, of course, but the lack of variety contributes to an almost monotonous feel to the site. I never thought a website full of naked beautiful women could be monotonous. Apparently, I was wrong. If you have not already been to one of the top softcore/glam sites, I suggest you try those before you try Eva's Garden. This site is nice, but just not top tier in the genre.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Very good quality videos
Decent sized collection
Dates back to 2007
Almost entirely young (under 20), petite, slender attractive models (no unibrows, etc....some eastern block teeth, though.)
Several popular European models from when they were younger
Most models are shaved but a few are trimmed or full.
Every update is dated
"Bonus" videos from other sites like Wet and Puffy
Cons:
The site IS updating, but only one small addition once a week.
When updates occurred before, they were once or twice a week but were very small. one video segment from a larger set, just screen caps, just photos, etc.
A few choice photo sets, like one of Caprice, have broken links.
Some MPG/WMV videos are actually avi. No idea why.
No scoring of videos or sets.
No ability to tag favorites.
Downloads are very slow.
The price ($29.95 USD) seems a little steep for the content, but not outrageous.
Bottom Line:
This is another "18" site
Mostly solo but some girl/girl sets
Stripping, masturbation, penetration, some speculum, some peeing, some panty stuffing.
The name says it all. Some serious close-ups of mostly really cute, young models!
The site video content is very similar to InTheCrack.com (ITC) and it also reminded me a little bit of ALSScan.com (ALS) or First Time Videos (FTV). ITC does a lot of close-ups and ALS is almost entirely teen models. FTV is another site similar to this one except this one is almost entirely indoor shooting. The collection here is nowhere near as large as those sites, but it is larger than many other similarly priced but lower quality sites
The girls are all eastern European and several have been on other sites over the years. Caprice and several others will be easily recognized, although some have different names here. There are also many that I don't recognize from other sites. Most are quite pretty and many have that "cute" factor that is solid gold for teen sites. Sadly, as is the case with many semi-pro eastern European models, their expressions can be a little off by American standards...a little goofy, frightened or spooky. Fortunately, the majority of the videos are not focused on faces at all.
At first I thought the site had stopped updating. I think that was because navigation for the site is a little tricky. The Videos page shows recent updates but the Photos page shows mid 2015 as the most recent update. And the upate log page has not been updated since 2015. Some udpates can only be found by scrolling down on the "home" page. The page only shows 6 sets from mid-october back to September, so anything that might have been here between September of this year and July of 2015 might not be showing up anywhere. They are not updating in the update log, in models, etc. Updates are occurring about once a week and they are single videos of a larger model set, or images, or bonus content. Honestly, this is one of the most confusing sites I've seen when it comes to finding stuff.
Some quick stats:
126 models or female couples
About 725 video segments
About 25 20 meg photo sessions (1333x2000)
Screencaps for most videos
Sets date back to 2007
There is an update log (through July of 2015)
Everything is dated.
Videos come in multiple formats, usually 3 sizes. Unfortunately the format of the files is often incorrect (MP4 instead of WMV, AVI instead of MP4, etc.) The sizes are usually correct, though.
Downloads are slow. Very slow.
Navigation is pretty basic. You can view by update or by model or you can view the update page or look at the update log to see all updates through mid-2015. I have no idea why they continue to post updates on the home page, but do not add them to the log or update model info. Something is kind of messed up with that.
There is a search function, sort of, but it allows you to search by a specific attribute or video activity like anal, boobs, cervix, discharge, finger, gape, etc. Kind of odd, but it does seem to work, at least with newer videos.
One thing I like is that all of the videos include a little synopsis of what goes on in them....similar to ITC but without the check marks for the best videos.
Also, the file names seem to make sense. Girls name and segment number.
There are about 21 bonus videos from Wet and Puffy, Wet and Pissy and Nubiles.net. These are full length videos, not just teasers.
Bottom line: I'm giving this site a 77 because a) it has some really good solo girl content, but b) navigation is very basic and links are broken or mislabeled, c) the webmaster is not posting/cross referencing updates correctly, and d) downloads are very slow.
If you like "InTheCrack.com" but also have a preference for the younger models, this site might be worth a visit. Take a look at the models and know that none of them are the least bit shy.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
Large collection (Over 400 scenes)
All college aged models
Mostly attractive models
Mostly exclusive models
Access to a couple of other sites with similar themes.
Cons:
Photo images sizes are small
Identical format for each video can be monotonous.
Seems like one guy just recording his conquests...
Navigation is very basic
Bottom Line:
I apologize, but I cancelled my membership here before I had a chance to collect stats and do a review. Here's is what I do have.
This is obviously a "college-girls paying for tuition" site, real of fake, I can't tell. The videographer/blurred out male star of the scenes travels to different colleges and records his meeting with, conversing with, squeezing, fingering, often jamming a sex-toy into and ultimately fucking and then coming all over the young, relatively attractive girl in each scene. Being relatively attractive is kind of easy when you are in the most admired demographic on the planet (18-22 female), but a few of these girls are truly beautiful. There are many scenes, although only the recent ones are in HD (720p) and the oldest ones are an unwatchable resolution like 640x480.
The newer scenes alternate between POV and fixed camera off to the side. Some of the POV and POV-like (i.e. camera at foot of bed recording a reverse cowboy) material is quite good, but much of it is jittery and the field of POV view is limited.
Some of the scenes have a split video (POV and from another angle) which I personally dislike a lot. I do not recall any issues downloading the videos or zip files. Images are small, like 1200-1400 pixels on the wide-side small.
The network includes a "casting couch" site, and a "broke model" site. Both of these sites followed a similar, narrow scenario which made me immediately fast-forward in search of the good stuff. There was also a site called "net video girls" which just seemed like a lot of unrelated amateur nude-model stuff thrown together like a slightly pornographic subreddit.
Bottom Line: There are a lot of sites that use this format but this one is as good as any of the others that I've seen, perhaps a little better. So if you like the format, you have nothing to lose by signing up for a month...well...except for $25 if you really hate the site.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Huge collection.
Many reasonably attractive girls
Network includes multiple sites, depending on what you signed up for.
Many models have different types of sets listed (masturbation, foot fetish, lingerie, etc.)
There are early sets of a few popular models here.
Site is multi-lingual
File download speed seems pretty good.
What you see in the previews is representative of what you get.
Every set is exclusive to ATK
Cons:
Site is often slow
Site often crashes (lots of 504 server-database errors)
Pages time-out so you can't go back or refresh
Lots of cross selling
Can't tell how many images there are.
Can't tell how many videos there are.
Navigation is a bit more challenging than it needs to be.
Many sets are nearly identical.
Some sets appear to have been recycled (Sets in only small resolution from 2011?)
Since every set is exclusive to ATK, chances are good you will see it elsewhere on an ATK site.
Bottom Line:
I'm having a hard time finding a lot to like about this website. Perhaps the best way to describe it is middle of the road. The models are your basic cross section of college-age Kmart or maybe Target shoppers. Some are attractive, many are not. None are truly stunning and almost none are truly hideous. This is a side effect of the amateur-type site status, I guess. There is a wide variety of body types from super skinny to...um...super plump, so if you like bigger girls, this might be a good site for you. These girls are all natural, ranging from nothing up top, to some giant melons, but breast size is proportionate to overall body type (i.e. fat is distributed evenly). There are no really fit or smoking hot bodies here, but a lot of nice 18-24 year-olds. The grace/awkward ratio is about even. Overall, there is a huge collection.
Navigation Is difficult. It is single threaded, and if you try to open multiple windows, the servers either throttle access or time-out...in other words getting through the images quickly is simply not possible. You can set how many thumbnails you want to see but, again, everything is single threaded so you have to wait to open a picture and then wait to return to the gallery.
The photography on this site is about average. The images are clear and consistent, but the lighting in the mostly indoor sets is not well developed or particularly flattering. You can tell that many of the sets with a model were shot on the same day in a different corner of a room or a different room in an apartment or hotel room.
The sets are a very standard formula. Girl starts out standing, clothes on, peekaboo, strip (often bottom first for some reason), show ass, spread, gaping spread, then depending on the type of set, on to other things like toys, masturbation, foot fetish, watersports, etc. "Artistic" is really just a normal set that they converted to black and white. Really dumb. This image shooting sequence makes many of the sets monotonous, even boring. In general, the girls do not look like they are having a very good time. It is all pretty much just straight show-me-the-money stuff, not very glamorous. Lots of gaping close-ups if you are into that. A handful of sets are girl/girl or guy/girl scenes but the vast majority are just solo.
Images come in three sizes, 682x1024 (who uses this?), 1080x1600 and 2000x3000.
Make-up is generally very good. No goofy eastern European eye shadow that I can find. I also noticed that the girls are generally very clean and well groomed. Mostly no pimples (anywhere), slap marks, bruises, razor burn, bad tattoos, etc. I don't think there is any or much photo-shopping...
The ranking of the models is a little odd. On a 1-5 scale (5 highest), there are a lot of unknown young models at the top of this list with only a few votes. Shyla Jennings is a 28th, Tiffany Thomspon is 15th. Early Zoey Kush is 94th. Early Jessie Rogers, complete with original Brazilian tan lines, is 62nd. Riley Marks is 85th. These model scores are not the sum of the scores of the sets, but a separate score for the models themselves. The reason I mention this is because it is not really possible to find the "best" girls or sets using the ranking system. You might find a model you like down in the 100-200 range. Oh, there are 657 ranked models. Surprisingly, most at the bottom are not bad looking, just victims of a bad photographer. Just reinforces my point about how useless the ranking system is. Might be more about the images than the girls.
There are quite a few videos of the models. Some masturbation videos are quite good, but many are just videos of the photo sets. Even a few guy/girl videos are just the photo sets, which is immensely disappointing. There are also a handful of behind the scenes videos...a big NOPE on those. Some of these girls you simply do NOT want to see before they put on make-up. Finding a video with the right combination of attractive girl and decent videography is very, very rare, but there are a few. Forget about anything hardcore, though. There are a couple, but it is extremely rare.
Perhaps the thing that taints my opinion of this site the most is the navigation speed and server response. When you try to open multiple windows, even to view images, the site times out. Oddly, download speed seems OK, though.
Bottom line? Well...if you are into amateur-ish solo photography, there is a huge collection here. Take a look at the previews and determine if this is the type of thing you like.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
A few pretty good videos.
Some top models/porn stars
Good layout
Good navigation
All videos are tagged (180,360,male POV, Voyeur POV) and you can search by tag
Cons:
Fully half of the videos are "Voyeur" POV, i.e. VR observational, not participatory.
Video quality varies a lot (upscaling?)
Video format varies a lot
Searching by tag doesn't always work.
Release dates are not listed (although x months ago is shown)
Nearly all of the photo sets are marketing related. A large number of the images include somebody wearing a VR headset...
Several videos are tagged "moving 180" which means the camera moves around a lot on these non-POV videos. (basically a regular porn video shot in 3d.)
Bottom Line:
I think somebody decided they wanted to build a top-notch VR porn site so they put a lot of pieces together including a pretty good website. But then they ran into problems, at least initially, developing and acquiring content. The site has about 86 videos as of 12/28/17. I can't quite tell how many of each type of video the site has (because the tags don't work correctly), but if I had to guess, I'd say there are about 30 Male POV (participatory) videos, 30 non-POV (observational) VR videos, maybe 15 2D videos and 2-4 female POV videos. The last 5 videos offered are all "voyeur POV" meaning they are observational only.
Video length varies from about 10 minutes up to about 28 minutes.
File sizes for the Oculus/Vive range from about 2 gigs to nearly 6 gigs.
Download speeds are OK.
There is roughly one new video a week.
The site has some top-tier porn-stars here and they even have a VR video with Nina Hartley, who I haven't seen in a decade or so. Adria Rae, Chloe Amour, Riley Reid, Abella Danger, Megan Rayne and Adrianna Chechick, to name a few.
So, all of the pieces are there for this to be a pretty good site. But....it falls a little short in my book for a couple of reasons.
First, the videos vary quite a bit. Some are side by side, some are over under, some are 360 and some are 180. Many ore observational and not participatory which, no offence to those who like the voyeur style, defeats the purpose of VR porn in my book. And the biggest issue for me is that many of them are difficult to watch because they are either in lower resolution or where not encoded properly. I have an HTC Vive and only a couple of the videos I downloaded are in high enough resolution to actually enjoy.
My theory is that they purchase VR and other videos from independents who use different methods of filming and encoding. This inconsistency wouldn't be a terrible thing if the end result was a good quality video, but often it isn't. All of the great porn stars in the world don't mean much if you can't comfortably watch the video.
I have well over 400 VR videos now and I have not had any kind of viewing issue since building a new high-end computer a year or so ago. But some of these videos are hard to watch because of resolution or lens or encoding issues. So far, I've downloaded 23 videos (most of the male POV videos) and although the content looks OK, there is something wrong with the Vive versions. I have to say, though, that the 2 or 3 that ARE encoded correctly are very well done, so maybe it is just a Vive thing. Still, I can't really dismiss the poor quality videos because I signed up to use them with my Vive, so the review rating reflects this issue. I am also not into the "Voyeur POV" style, which is about half of the videos on this site.
If you are using something other than a Vive, this site is probably worth signing up to for a month, especially if you are equally into the "voyeur POV" and male POV video styles. They do have an A-list of porn stars here, but be prepared for a wide variety of shooting styles, lens types, etc.
I'll provide an update if anything changes in terms of Vive video quality.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Huge quantity of material.
Many popular models here.
Body types tend toward curvy/larger breasts.
Generally one release a day
Newer videos are good and in HD.
Newer photo sets come in high resolution.
Mostly solo/lesbian site but some newer B/G scenes.
The girls appear to be having genuine fun.
Videos are dated.
Cons:
Site design, presentation and navigation is horrible.
No search functions
Some releases are actually re-posts, remastered or previously unpublished sets of older material dating back as far as 2001.
Teeny-tiny thumbnails for photo shoots.
The narrow range of sets and specific types of odd fetish shots makes things a little monotonous after a while.
Rather than break sets up into fetish types, each set includes the full range of material for each model (strip to speculum or whatever)
The girls wear very little or no make-up, making some that are solid 10s at other sites about a 7 here.
Un-named billing service posts site name on CC.
Bottom Line:
I haven't been a member of Als Angels since about 2005. Amazingly, the format and overall type of content seems EXACTLY the same as it was then. Really. The site design may have changed a little from 2005, but it is just as clunky.
It is very difficult to determine volume because of the antiquated layout.
About 3500+ photo sets/videos
Several hundred models
1 video and 1 photo set a week (some recycled or previously unpublished old material)
Combination of US and Eastern European models
Most videos are of photo shoots
Mostly solo girl, lesbian and fetish sets
Videos are dated but photo sets are not.
No scoring.
No search functions.
Horrible navigation.
ALS Angels is the other site run by the guy who runs ALSScan, now a part of the Met-Art network. ALS Angels is still independent (NOT part of Met-Art network) and it includes many more full-figured and popular models (Like Lucy Li). It also includes some material that used to be on ALSScan, like the old body-paint and nude-in-public sets. The type of material on this site is identical to the type of material on ALSScan, but the models are not limited to the super-young, relatively thin girls on on ALSScan.
ALS Angels is mostly a lesbian and off-beat fetish site, but there are a few newer boy/girl sex scenes. The girls on this site are more large breasted, curvy, perhaps a little older, but all are shaved and many are quite beautiful. A few headliners like Lucy Li are easily recognizable without much make-up.
Just like ALSScan, practically every model gets fisted at some point. There is also an odd fascination with otherwise un-viewable areas of the female anatomy. Examples include almost every model agreeing to use a speculum so you can see what her uterus looks like. Many models agree to use an embroidery hoop with clothes pins spreading the labia to provide a more detailed view (think dental headgear for the pussy). Some models use glass tubes allowing a view deep inside the vagina or rectum. I guess folks are into that. I find it neither sexy, nor flattering. In a word, this stuff makes the models clinical.
The girls don't really wear much make-up. You get to see every pimple, freckle, sore, scar and bruise, whether it is on a face, a leg or a butt.
Each set, regardless of age, starts out with the girl wearing a skimpy outfit or ALS signature tiny bikini and the girl undresses, lubes up and spreads. it can be quite nice up to here. Then they break out the bottles, vegetables, fists, vacuums, inflators, speculums and embroidery hoops. You might like it, at least at first.
The photographers have a very good rapport with the models and this shows in the sets. They are encouraged to please themselves and are often helped by another girl.
Navigation on this site is among the worst I've ever seen for such a large site. There is no search function. Models are listed alphabetically with an index. Photo-sets are displayed 10 sets across with no dates, names, or other info about the set with over 1000 sets on ONE PAGE! Once you open a photo set, you get between 5-10 pages of images, 6 images across, that are also very difficult to see. The sets are large, but many images are very similar.
You get two size options for display and 2 size options for downloads.
For me, the most frustrating thing about this site is the all-inclusive nature of every single set. I'll compare this to In The Crack, for example, that has many of the same types of scenes. Here, you get one scene or 1 video that includes everything from stripping to fisting to, speculum use to peeing in THE SAME LONG VIDEO or photo set. I don't want that. I want to see these beautiful girls naked, maybe oiled up and spreading, but that's about it. ITC separates out the sets so I can download the scenes I want and pass on the ones I don't. ALS should be doing the same thing. Compartmentalizing the fetishes will make the basic sets much more appealing to non-fetish folks and allow the people who like specific fetishes to just pick them. Win Win!
I also don't like that the photo sets aren't dated. You have no idea if the photo set you are opening is from 2001 or 2017. That's OK if you are a first-time visitor, but not OK if you are looking for material that has been published recently. ALL SETS SHOULD BE DATED. This failure troubles me enough to take away about 10 points from the score.
Bottom line: If you like ALSAngels, you will probably like this site. Keep in mind, though that the models are curvier here, which is a good thing, but the navigation is terrible.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Good quality images and videos
Popular,attractive US nude and porn models
Huge selection
Nobody is the least bit shy here.
Cons:
Bait and switch up-sales
Downloads cost more (videos AND image zip files)
Access to old material costs more
Streaming videos, although they say HD, are not.
You are not TOLD any of this when you sign up.
Cash-grab cross-checks (i.e. upgrade for an additional $39 at sign up. Upgrade is only $10 after you sign up.)
Up-sale landing page at login
Up-sales at every click.
Did I mention bait and switch up-sales?
upsales
upsales
Annoying? Yes, it is.
Main biller is MBI-Probiller. Only way to cancel is to contact them.
Bottom Line:
I have been a member of Twistys almost every year since about 2002. For some reason, TBP/PU decided to start a new listing when they changed the name from Twistys to "Twistys Network". I have a prior review from 2015 listed under just "Twistys" that is still fairly accurate but it isn't here because...no idea.
Twistys, Twistys Network and Twistys Hard are all the same site. It isn't a network at all. It has been this way for over a decade. No one site has material that isn't on at least one of the other sites.
This time, when I signed up using the Porn Users discount, I learned AFTER I joined that downloads of any sort cost extra. The "VIP" option was $39 a month at sign up. Once I was in the site, it was only $10 a month. And every time I login or click a page, I get a "One time offer" for access to everything Twisty's has to offer for "only" $59. Wow, what a bargain... If this were Met Art or Kink or any of the dozens of other true networks, I might jump on that. But it isn't. What they are giving you is the ability to download material that you should already be able to download, and access to mostly lower resolution archives that you should already have access to. It is a money grab and it sucks.
When I contacted support, they said there had been piracy so they changed the pricing. Nice try since Chrome plug-ins allow one to download all the videos on the site that can't be downloaded without paying extra. So by not allowing downloads they are actually creating piracy. Smart.
OK, enough bitching. Clearly I am pissed off at being treated like shit by the owners of this site. Let me tell you why I wanted to rejoin Twisty's in the first place.
Twistys is one of the last of the old 90's style creative glam sites. The photographers (or photography studios) are world famous folks that shot for Playboy and Penthouse. Names like Holly Randall, J. Stephen Hicks (Digital Desire Studio) and others. They know how to shoot images and videos so the material is generally top notch. The lesser known photographers here follow the teachings of these great, great photographers. So you get perfect sets, perfect lighting, perfect make-up, absolutely no distractions from the reason you are here and a come-hither effect that you only see on a few sites these days.
The other thing you find here is an old-school creative vibe that is reminiscent of Danny's Hard Drive from the 90's. Many sets have themes like politics, some kind of fantasy scenario or just general whimsy. Sometimes this works. Sometimes it doesn't. but you have to give them credit for being good enough to try things.
And lastly, the models/porn stars are nearly all popular, English speaking and typically very attractive. They strip, they play, they fuck, they masturbate. They do everything you want in a straight-style porn website. Many of them talk to you while they are doing it and the best of them look at the camera in a way that makes you think they are looking right at you. When it is good, it is very, very good.
Those things are what has kept this site alive for the last 15+ years.
Now, there are a few nitpicks.
Many of the porn stars here are on the more mature side. Although some are new and on an upward trajectory, many are beyond peak and a few are really well beyond peak.
Physical enhancements are plentiful. It seems that as porn stars mature, they decide or are coerced into doing things that ultimately damage their natural beauty. A few girls, like August Ames with her lip work, (Sorry, August) are sometimes uncomfortable to look at. Porn stars age. Some gracefully, some not so much. Both types are here.
Subscriber scores sometimes don't seem to matter. I first noticed this several years ago. The site has something called "Twistys Treats", which is a long, long standing monthly profile that includes an interview and several photo and video shoots. They used to pick the treat based on the highest number of subscriber votes. The highest voted model became the Treat. Then there were a few months where the highest vote DIDN'T become the Treat, then they stopped the voting. I think this may be a porn studio thing and not a subscriber thing. My guess is that Twistys is as much a venue for the studios as it is a site for subscribers and studios are paying to profile their stars. I can't be sure about this, but it FEELS like it. If you don't know the history, it isn't a huge deal, but I do, so it is to me. So I don't trust any scores now.
So...bottom line. Is Twisty's worth a visit? Well, if you haven't been here before and you like high quality glam-style porn, absolutely. It is still a very good site with a huge volume of excellent material. But if you are a returning subscriber, be prepared to be annoyed by the up sale and bait and switch tactics that they use here now. In other words, be prepared to be treated like shit instead of the valuable customer that you are.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
About 120 VR videos on CzechVR alone.
Site is part of a larger network.
A few Czech models you might recognize.
Fetish videos on sister site are interesting.
Decent navigation
Mostly young models
Site does a few things that are unique
OK quality videos
Cons:
Models are young but several are not necessarily fit or conventionally pretty
Lots of distractions
Models are not always enjoying themselves
Bottom Line:
I have been scoring these sites based on their VR-only content for the most part. I have also been comparing these VR sites to each other, not to non-VR sites, so my scoring is a little different. The assumption is that you are here looking for VR material.
Quick stats:
VR videos:
CzechVR: 120
CzechVR Fetish: 42
CzechVR Casting: 55
65%+ observational.
Unknown number of models (model page includes non-VR sets)
There is a VR update every 2-3 days.
Entirely Eastern European models that are mostly not well known elsewhere.
Downloads available for Smartphone, Gear and Oculus Rift
Most files are 60 FPS.
Resolutions and file sizes are good and listed.
Run times are listed and vary from 10-20 minutes.
Publish dates are listed.
Download times are OK
multiple downloads are OK
Videos are user scored thumbs up or down (highest score: 100% lowest score: 33%)
CzechVR is part of a larger group called Mentalpass. It includes two other VR sites CzechVR Casting and CzechVR Fetish and 6 non VR sites . In total there are about 200+ VR Videos here. That is a very large number for a VR site/network.
One interesting thing they do here is what I'll call the missionary mimic. Basically, the girl lays down and the VR camera moves forward very close over her. She makes appropriate sounds and moves as though the viewer is mounting her. Then she gyrates up and down as though being fucked. The technique is sometimes used in those solo simulated sex sites and it is an interesting experience in a VR setting. The only issue is that the camera moves, which can be unsettling in VR. When done well I'm sure it can be very satisfying.
The other thing that they have here are VR fetish videos. This includes virtual face sitting, fisting, nylons, latex, peeing/pee-play and girls getting golden showers from the male participant. If you are into those things and you have VR equipment, this is a pretty good place to get it. I grabbed a couple of the face-sitting videos and was highly entertained. The rest are not my taste.
That said, as much as I would like to say this is a great site, it falls short in a couple of key areas.
First, the girls are all young and some are quite beautiful, but several are not conventionally attractive. Some are a little large and/or flat-chested for porn roles and some have a (politely) average look. Combine this with oddly done make-up, poor dental work and occasional hygiene issues and this makes a few of the videos difficult to watch. I was asking things like "Where did this girl get her neon eye shadow?..." Some girls also "pull faces" which didn't help. Now, to be fair, I'm a white American. What the fuck do I know about the tastes of people in other countries? Nothing.
This site also illustrates how prevalent tattoos are in eastern Europe. There are also some unusual piercings in places that I have not seen before. Again, these are all things that distract from the scenes. I should be enjoying the scene, not wondering what something tattooed on a girl says.
Only about a third of the videos are participatory. The rest are observing sex, have the girl masturbating or are lesbian scenes with no male participant. Somebody here doesn't get VR. I do not want to be watching, I want to be DOING!
The sets vary a lot in location, lighting and quality. There were a few scenes where the VR perspective (i.e. the camera) moved unexpectedly. In VR, this can be VERY disorienting. Many scenes have unexpected noises that make you want to pull off your VR gear to see what's happening in your room or who is at the door. Table and bed thuds, sirens outside, things dropping and noises that simply shouldn't be there. This was VERY distracting. Several sets also had distracting things within view. I found myself looking around far more often than I should have been.
To be fair, the majority of the models are pretty good looking and they seemed like they were enjoying themselves. But a few almost seemed to be in pain... When a girl looks to be in pain and never takes the guy all the way in, the scene can be unpleasant to watch. Culture, maybe...
Several of the girls spoke English, but a few spoke native (Czech?). I was guessing which line was "Do you want me to take my bra off?" and which was "I want you to fuck me!" Sometimes it was pleasant. Sometimes not.
Bottom line? Well....The fetish stuff is interesting and there are some pretty good videos here, but given the huge volume of VR videos here, the overall score is a little disappointing. You will have to sift through a lot to find the good ones. Those websites that list CzechVR among the top 10 porn VR sites clearly haven't looked lately. The site has some videos out on Pornhub if you want to sample them. After seeing some of the best VR the internet has to offer elsewhere, I have a hard time recommending this site for the general porn viewer. You decide
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
High quality light, often playful bondage videos
Wide variety of related fetishes as well
Photo sets included with most video sets
Popular European models and porn stars
Roughly 176 "sets"
Been around since 2005
Sets are dated.
Cons:
Very slow release schedule. 1 2-minute portion of a video set or a portion of a photo set every couple of days (6-8 minutes a week?)
Photo sets are broken up into multiple 20-30 image releases.
One image size per set (varies)
One video format (currently 1080p)
This is a "one-man operation" so the site lacks many typical features.
Very, very simple navigation
No search function
No scoring or ranking
Without a doubt the slowest downloads I have ever seen.
Bottom Line:
I'm not sure exactly what to make of this site. I really like some aspects of it, but it is a one-man operation for the most-part, so many elements are completely exasperating.
The images and videos are actually very good for this genre. The girls allow themselves to be tied up or appear to be unconscious at the beginning of each video. Once tied they then struggle a little (and I mean a tiny amount since their restraints are often loose) and then they are mechanically masturbated or dildoed by somebody else or they do it themselves with barely free hands. The models are pretty consistently clothed in stockings and heels or long boots, with lace body suits or something similar, sometimes crotchless, usually with panties. Many sets have models wearing latex dresses, skirts or body suits. I don't think the girls are completely nude in any set. The doms in these videos are either an unseen man or often another female model or porn star. Ashley Bulgari seems to be a little bit of a fixture in recent sets as either dom or sub. Lorena Garcia, the reason I joined the site, is the current model with about 10 sets. Girls include Eufrat, Monica Scott and many others.
The videos are high quality and reasonably well "acted". The girls are usually clearly enjoying things and there is no brutality or hard-forced orgasms. I see a consensual light neck-grab or two and a little light spanking, often with a flat-palm-touch warning to the model. There is no B/G sex at all, but a few of the lesbian scenes are pretty interesting. The videos and shoots are fairly modest with no close-ups, spreading, or things that I perceive the crew thinks would be interpreted as disrespectful to the models. Many of the vibrator close-ups, for example, are over panties. These are site standards since I've seen many of these models elsewhere doing some really open, revealing and close-up things. Still, the sets are more realistic than some of the totally fake bondage I've seen elsewhere, but this is all pretty much bedroom stuff that you would do to your significant other. Fun first, experimental second, limit testing, probably not at all.
Before you sign up, I have to tell you about the not-so-good stuff. First, the sets are broken up into multiple pieces. I personally hate that when it happens on a top-tier website, but I can understand why the webmaster here is doing it: If you only have one set every two weeks, people won't sign up. So, you get about 2 minutes of video every few days. Or you get about 30 images of a 90-180 image set. So that is a full photo/video set about every two-three weeks. Fortunately, they have been releasing the entire video at the end of the run for more recent videos, but you still have to go pull multiple videos to get an older set. And the photo sets are rarely combined so you will have to search through the set history to find the images. It makes me feel like I'm groveling for the goods and the Dom is doling them out to me....which, unfortunately, is true.
But the absolute worst part of the site is the slow download speed. It takes FOREVER to download files. 15 minutes for a single 200 meg file. That's just insanely slow compared to other sites. I think they need to upgrade their modems...
So, do I recommend this site? Well, yes, with reservations. For $25, you get a decent amount of high quality soft bondage material with popular models. But be prepared to spend a lot of time waiting for downloads and an eternity waiting for a complete set update. I joined for a month and will add it to my schedule to consider joining again when there are several more complete sets......in, what, January of 2020?
Go take a look if you like this type of stuff. The images and sample videos you find are representative of the content of the site.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
High quality videos
Top rated models
Decent photo sets
Good lighting and sets
Cons:
Site is small
Must pay extra to access "network"
Far too much cross-selling
Difficult navigation
Site is oddly generic
1 New video released every other day or so.
No scoring system, just "likes" Really?!
Acting reminiscent of 16mm porn movies
Almost no model interaction with the photographer whatsoever.
Very little chemistry...either between models or between models and crew.
Nobody is having any fun!
Bottom Line:
Note: I think it is possible that they reworked this site since 2013 as I can't find some of the features mentioned in prior reviews. This is not the same babes.com website I was a member of 10+ years ago.
Well, here's another one of those sites that looks good from the outside, but it leaves you oddly unexcited when you finally buy in. It has all the right components, top models, great quality videos, nice settings, but there's something just a little...um...off about it. You would think that a video, for example, of Ariel and Caprice getting each other off in every way possible would be pretty heavenly, right? Well, it is nice, but the acting (and moaning) is a little artificial, the rhythm is a little too slow, the chemistry is lacking, the music is a little too 80's cheesy and the sex is just so-so. There are lots and lots of videos like this. Maybe the best image I can conjure up is this: These are like porn versions of Met-Art videos. Beautiful women but really, really boring videos. I have NEVER seen a boring Angelica video....until now (the fact that she is moaning while on her knees jerking the guy off doesn't add much). The more I think about it, the more I think it is just really bad direction. Really bad.
The photo sets are OK, but each follows the related video very closely and I can't tell if they are shot together or not. My guess is that they are. Some of these shots are at odd angles and a little off center like the photographer is standing beside the videographer.
This odd photography and video quality and the way the site is laid out makes me think these webmasters are much more about making money than they are about making quality product. They've put all the elements in place to make masterpieces, but every video I watch is a disappointment. I'm a jaded old guy who has seen a lot of porn, though, so feel free to think I'm crazy.
So, here's the kind of odd money-hungry thing I'm talking about. Across the top, you have options to join Fuck-now, Brazzers, Twistys, Digital Playground, Reality Kings or MOFOS. You can join ANY of them with what they call UNLIMITED ACCESS, for $69.00! Like any Ronco ad, they show that a lifetime Twisty's membership, for example, as a $349.00 value! I'm thinking, woa, that's a great deal! Ah, but of course, THERE'S A CATCH! It is unlimited access for AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN BABES.COM! Wait..what? No, I would not keep my membership to babes.com for more than a month (not enough content), so the unlimited membership would be pretty useless. They do have $10 off deals on the monthly rate for these other sites, but again you have to remain as a member of babes.com
Bottom line: Sorry, with so many other great sites to choose from, I can't recommend this one. This is the porn version of that movie with all the great actors that you ended up falling asleep in. My apologies to the webmasters.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Very nice high quality videos
Generally very nice looking models
Good lighting and sets
A few minutes of amazing POV footage in every scene
Navigation is simple
Nice layout
Mostly US models that sometimes talk a little
Considerable variety of girls
Cons:
Very little content
Some video is very distorted (think go-pro)
Many links to other sites you have to pay for
A few videos FROM other sites.
Infrequent updates
Inconsistent access and download speeds
Bottom Line:
On the face of it, this is a pretty interesting site and I joined because of their amazing POV videos peppered around the Internet. I knew the content would be small, but not THIS small. There are only about 40 videos TOTAL that are native to this site as of 5/15/2014. Fortunately, the site owners take pity on you and give you limited, rather inconsistent access to a few other sites.
This site is actually part of a network, but you don't have full access to the rest of the network. Instead, you occasionally get to watch one of the other-site videos and maybe download that content, but you don't always have access to the other sites...maybe there is a view limit to external material or something...I'm not sure. I am thankful, though, that the site owners recognize that giving away some content from their other sites is a good idea, but there really isn't enough content within this whole network to compete with some of the bigger sites out there. If you DO want to join the whole network, it will set you back $69.00 a month or so for a monthly subscription. Thanks, but no thanks. I've been a member of some of the other sites, and they are also very small (Passion-HD, Casting Couch-X, Fantasy-HD, Pure Mature and ExGF) although the video quality is usually very good. I get that these guys have to make money, but Geeez.... explain the rules to me, please.
This site is a video site so the images are secondary and mostly just from the video shoot. Some are screen-caps but it seems that there is somebody taking pictures as well and many of these are not bad.
Download times seem a lot slower than average and downloads time out a LOT and once stopped cannot be restarted. I can't tell if this is due to a download limit or something else. Again, it would really help to know the rules.
The videos themselves are generally very good and all are 720 or 1080p. I have no idea why it has taken so long for POV videos to take off. There is nothing quite like a virtual scene where you are looking down at a totally naked girl who is on her back with her legs in the air as your virtual dick rams into her. And you get to see it from your POV for pretty much every sexual position. There is one scene where "you" are lying on a bed and a girl sits on your face, but then as the camera angle changes (you tilt your virtual head a little), you see another girl bouncing on your dick. That just seems like the pinnacle of virtual sex to me....at least until they start creating porn for an Oculus Rift!
There are a few nitpicks that I am not fond of, but other people may really like. For one, the male actor in many of the scenes is into licking assholes. A POV close-up of somebody licking a girls asshole is something you can't really un-see and I prefer not to see another tongue going into an asshole from that close....ever again. Also, there are a couple of girls that, although generally very attractive, just are not ready for their close-ups when you are talking about being a couple of inches away from their snatch in the glory of high-def. Fortunately, only a few girls fall into this category. But the most disturbing oddity is that occasionally the POV switches to that of the woman. It is sometimes interesting when the girl is in the shower or something, but this is really, really weird when the girl is getting fucked. There you are drawn into an amazing scene imagining you are screwing the lights out of this awesome girl and suddenly, the POV perspective changes, you are the girl and YOU are getting screwed! Sorry. HUGE NOPE! Same thing happens occasionally while the guy is getting head. I suppose when it comes to POV, there is "give and take", but I am not a taker in this regard. Some Day I'll fire up my Adobe Suite and edit all the junk out of these...some day...maybe. My suggestion to the camera crew and website owners is to take that stuff and create a separate girls POV site. One hetero and one lesbian, even. How about gay POV? You never know who might show up....well, except it won't be me. Sorry.
Bottom line? There are a few OMG videos here that make it worth it to visit, but try to do it at a discount and don't sign up for more than the minimum time-frame....at least until they get their video count up quite a bit. The quality is great, but the quantity is just too low for now.
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.
