That's funny, I always thought the more attractive models always ended up at ALS Angels, at least that's how it was in the beginning. I would read about a popular model's photoshoot in the blog at ALSScan, then I would find out that the shoot was only over on Angels. I even commented about it on one of my early reviews. I suppose this is only a little worse than, say, Met Art listing additional sets of the model you are looking at along the bottom of a page even though many of the sets are on a different site.
In any case, Scan used to be the really young, really skinny, small breasted girl site and Angels was the site where the young, C-cup or better girls and pros went. I think it is still that way to some extent. I do not think there is a D cup anywhere on Alsscan. The delineation is STRICTLY a way to break one site up into two to generate more revenue as the type of material is identical.
Yes, the Caribbean trips were nice. But the industry has changed a lot and I'm guessing good models are much less common and much more expensive these days. I don't know what the contracts looked like back then, but the days of "Hey, I'll fly you to the Caribbean for a week along with 10 other bi/lesbian girls and all you have to do is a couple of photo shoots" is long gone. Now it's probably 10k a week per model regardless of where. Oh well.
AlsScan is affiliated with Met-Art. AlsAngels is not. I think it is pretty clear that the guy who runs these sites has always separated out the models by body type and put the curvier ones on AlsAngels. I wrote reviews years ago mentioning this. I hope he is doing really well with the Met Art arrangement, but for whatever reason, he is keeping ALSAngels for himself so the resources they provided to make the ALSScan site more functional are not available here. I think it is also clear that he has some specific tastes that apparently a large number of people share that are pretty much unique to these two sites.
But, like you, I am completely turned off by some of the bizarre, more clinical things on this site and would be much happier if the huge 200+ image photo sets were broken out into, perhaps, stripping and spreading, maybe masturbation, and whatever else is going on in them. By breaking out the sets, the site could draw people who are just looking for straight nude or sex stuff without forcing them to look at the more extreme items that are present in every single set. Ultimately, I think that compartmentalizing the sets would draw and keep more subscribers. It would also provide an opportunity to break up what is now one huge release into two. Webmaster, I hope you are reading this!
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.
I'm guessing that somebody out there likes the embroidery hoop spreader things they use on this site but I'm curious...do you? The question is a little specific for a survey but if you are a member of this site and don't mind responding, what are your thoughts on it? Ever seen it anywhere else?
HI Pinkpanther. Thanks for the comments. I must admit I keep coming back to the site, so there is a certain appeal there, probably because of the great interaction between the girls and the crew or just between the girls. But I pass on a lot of the videos and also cull about 50% of the images in the zip-file sets because they are not to my taste or are a little too clinical. The site is very popular, so I'm sure SOMEBODY likes the embroidery hoop things. :-)
Hi Eric, Thank you for your timely and eloquent response. I can appreciate that the older photo sets have been remastered and additional images have been included. And I now see that the remastered sets are labeled and appear every 12-14 posts. So I was mistaken about the frequency of reposts, but I can tell you this with some certainty. It FEELS like there is more older stuff here that is being re-used and there are probably a couple of pretty good reasons for it.
First, with the exception of the vacation shoots, all of the material has maintained an absolutely identical look and feel for a long, long time. Some subscribers may love this, but I find it a little frustrating to see current photo sets that look exactly like 5-10 year old sets in terms of image quality, set-style, direction and content. Most sites are diverse enough that you can tell different sets have been shot on different days in different locations. Here? Not so much. Second, although, some sets of certain models may have never been published before, they may look like older shoots when the models involved were younger. That can be pretty confusing.
Now, to be fair, I see Kimmy Granger, Blake Eden, Alex Grey and Gina Gerson on the site and they are clearly contemporary models/porn stars, but the lack of make-up on Gina, for example, makes her look years younger than she does on other sites. She's been on your site since 2012. Are the most recent sets from 2017 or from 2012? Can't tell. This gives me the impression that these, too, are older shoots.
A simple solution to this might be to include a "first published" date on the remastered sets or perhaps a "shoot" date.
I will be sure to go back through the site and look at the sets with an open mind regarding the feeling that sets are somehow older. I'll also compare the remastered sets with the ones I got from prior memberships. My collection goes back to about 2004.
As I said in my review, Alsscan is a very good site. I will update it later this month to reflect your points.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Huge quantity of material.
Many popular models here.
The girls are all very young, say, under 25. Newer videos are very 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.
Sets are dated and are available all the way back to 2004.
Sets are scored
One update per day.
Navigation is good.
Search function is good.
Cons:
About 1 in 10-14 releases are actually re-posts or remastered sets of older material dating back as far as 2001...OK if you are a first time member but not cool if you are returning.
The narrow range of girl types, sets and specific types of odd fetish shots makes the site a little monotonous after a while.
The girls wear very little or no make-up, making some that are solid 10s at other sites about a 7 here.
Bottom Line:
I last reviewed this site back in 2012. Some things have changed since then. Most, not so much.
About 4900 photo sets/videos
Several thousand models
1 set a day (many recycled)
Combination of US and Eastern European models
Most videos are of photo shoots
Solo girl, lesbian and fetish sets
ALSScan is primarily a lesbian and off-beat fetish site. Nearly every girl is young, petite, small breasted and, of course, shaved. Many of the girls from older sets and some from newer ones are truly beautiful. A few headliners like Kimmy Granger, Gina Gerson, Dakota Skye, Caprice, Malena Morgan and Franzeska, are easily recognizable from other sites even without much make-up.
ALSScan "screens" a lot of models, evidenced by the proliferation of casting shoots throughout the sets, but only a small percentage of these girls are above average looking. The really great looking ones have sets that are re-posted, which is serious cheating. There is a lot of new content, but the way the site re-uses content, you can't really tell if it is new or not. Considering there is no recycled content anywhere else within the Met-Art network, this sin takes about 10 points off of my score for the site. This would be a much better site if they stopped recycling content.
But the success of the site must mean that many people like the signature items they provide, even if some of it is recycled.
Until recently, there were NO boy/girl sex scenes. None. Lots of girl/girl scenes, though. Just since 2016, a very small number of B/G scenes have appeared. In typical ALS style, though, many of these scenes are unusual in that the guy inserts something into the girl, like a bottle, her fist, his fist, a vegetable or dildo, before he inserts himself into her. There are only a couple of B/G scenes so far.
Practically every model gets fisted at some point. If you like that, this is paradise.
There is an odd fascination with otherwise unviewable 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.
Just about every model has to pee at some point. The photographers show you exactly when that moment is.
Ladies, care to have your nipples, clitoris or entire vagina vacuum pumped? Yep, they do that a lot here!
The first time I saw a set where a model put a lollipop in her vagina I thought it was cool. That was about 200 lollipops ago. Now I find myself wondering what flavor the lollipop is.
This is not a glam site. As such, 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.
To be fair, each set, new or old, 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. In one video, Gina Gerson uses an inflator dildo and the photographer keeps saying "Are you OK?" That about sums up my thoughts when I see the stuff they insert into the girls.
Alsscan has a sister site called allsangels that is not within the Met Art network. The "Director" has no qualms with showing you a set of girls in his blog and picking out the more attractive girls to send over to ALSANGELS in an effort to sell you membership there. Models at THAT site include Lucy Li, Dillon Harper, August Ames.....all it does for me is piss me of that these good looking, curvier girls are there instead of here.
The photographers here have a tremendous rapport with the models as the models are usually having a lot of fun. I think this is because the models are not forced to please the camera so much. (heck, they hardly even LOOK at the camera.) Instead they are encouraged to please themselves and any other girls that happen to be nearby..and perhaps they are encouraged to experiment, which they do.
There is a section where some of the girls go to a tropical island. Once there, they run around naked and have sex with any girl they want. Unfortunately, the last time anybody went to one of these tropical islands was in 2009...doesn't stop them from re-posting them as new daily sets though.
Bottom line: I've been to this site about 10 times since 2001. For the last few times, the material has been so similar and so many sets have been recycled that I can no longer tell what is new and what is not. It is a great site to visit once. Just once. I keep forgetting
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Fantastic quantity of material. The girls are all very young, say, under 25. Newer videos are excellent and in HD. Newer photo sets come in high resolution. The girls appear to be having genuine fun. They use ample amounts of oil, lotion, various types of fruits and vegtables and many, many types of battery operated devices. Sets are dated and are available all the way back to 2006.
Cons:
Navigation is not as good as other sites. (For example, you can't scroll through the images in a set but have to page back out to the set menu and select the next image.) About 1 in 4 releases are actually re-releases of older material dating back as far as 2001...OK if you are a first time member but not if you are back for the 2nd or 3rd time. The narrow range of girl types, sets and specific types of odd fetish shots makes the site a little monotonous after a while. The girls wear very little or no make-up, making some that are solid 10s at other sites about a 7 here. Many of the newer models are not as attractive as models from prior years.
Bottom Line:
OK, bottom line? This is a lesbian and fetish site that is interesting to visit once just to see the show, but it caters to a relatively narrow taste. Nearly every girl is young, petite, small breasted and, of course, shaved. On the surface, that's not at all bad. Many of the girls from older sets and a few from newer ones are truly beautiful. A few headliners like Caprice, Malena Morgan and Franzeska, are easily recognizable from other sites even without much make-up. But the majority of recent girls are not particularly memorable and at best rate a notch above amatuer. Maybe after years of visiting this site I'm a little jaded. I apologize in advance if what I'm about to say seems harsh. The success of the site must mean that many people like the signature items they provide. Here are a few of those signature items:
1. There are NO boy/girl sex scenes. None. Lots of girl/girl scenes, though.
2. Practically every model gets fisted at some point. If you like that, this is paraadise.
3. There is an odd fascination with the inside of otherwise unviewable areas on the female anatomy. Examples include almost every model agreeing to use a speculum so you can see what her uturus looks like. Many models agree to use what looks like an ambroidery 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 rectum. I guess folks are into that. I find it niether sexy, nor flattering. In a word, it makes the models clinical.
4. Just about every model has to pee at some point. The photographers show you exactly when that is.
5. Ladies, care to have your nipples, clitoris or entire vagina vacuum pumped? Yep, they do that here!
6. The first time I saw a set where a model put a lollipop in her vagina I thought it was interesting and might be tasty. That was about 100 lollipops ago. Now I find myself wondering what flavor the odd color lollipop they use is.
7. This is not a glam site. As such, 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.
8. Allsscan has a sister site called allsangels. The webmaster/owner has no qualms with showing you a set of girls from auditions in his blog and picking out the more attractive girls to send over to ALSANGELS in an effort to sell you membership in that site much smaller for $25 a month. Sorry, all it does for me is piss me of that these better looking girls should have been but aren't on the site I'm a member of.
Ok, before you send me a nasty email, let me put a thought in your head. ALSSCAN is a bit of a sideshow. Sideshows have an odd combination of allure and freakiness that makes you want to go in to see what is there. I've seen this particular show about 5 times since the late 1990s and every few years I find myself wandering back in to see what the next big thing is going to be. (This time I think it is those emroidery hoop-clothespin things....)
Now, it is clear that the photographers have a tremendous rapport with the models as the models are usually having tremendous fun. I think this is because the models are not forced to please the camera so much. (heck, they hardly even LOOK at the camers.) Instead they are encouraged to please themselves and any other girls that happen to be nearby..and perhaps they are encouraged to experiment. Some of the best photo sets and videos come from annual outings where a dozen or so girls are chosen to go to a tropical island. Once there, they can run around naked and generally have sex with any girl they want...and they do.
So, again, bottom line...interesting place to visit but you might not want to stay for more than a month.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
A few recent videos are pretty good
Layout is OK
Navigation is straightforward (28 pages, 24 videos per page) and consistent.
Choose your own PW and it can be saved for future logins. (There is a very easy captcha at login.)
Cons:
One new video per week
Seems like a lot of 3rd party stuff
Many more recent Japanese videos are Pixelated
Only HD since about 2013
All HD videos are 720p
Videos are average quality
Many videos are non-nude
No photos
Only one video format per set
Older videos do not stream and must be downloaded
No video details
No model details
No search
Many, many broken videos in the bonus sites
Nobody seems to be enjoying themselves.
Bottom Line:
I joined this site because the previews show very flexible, relatively fit looking women, which happens to be a niche I like a lot. But the site was a pretty big disappointment as the updates are only weekly and the video quality is generally pretty bad. There are a few pretty good videos, but you really, really have to look for them.
Here are some stats:
Site has been open since 2004.
1 update a week
672 videos.
NO images.
HD videos began in 2013 (about 150)
About 60 HD videos (2013-present) are Japanese and pixelated due to Japanese porn laws.
The models are a mixed bag of mostly eastern Europeans with some western girls and the aforementioned Japanese videos. There are very few memorable/savable girls in the entire collection, which took me about an hour to go through. This is the only site where "flexible" does not always equate to fit. I now know that even the plumpest girls can lift their legs over their heads. That's not something I ever really wanted to know...or see.
Each video provides just two options: Watch or download. The older videos will not play in Chrome or IE11 and MUST be downloaded, which means you will be downloading, watching and deleting a lot of videos. Fortunately, they only take a few seconds to download because they are small. A large number of bonus videos are broken and
The video sets are broken down into 3 or 4 videos/segments for each shooting of each model. So, since they release one new video a week, it takes a month to get one complete video shoot.
Sometimes they are sequential, sometimes not.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about this site is that although the girls are flexible, and a few are even attractive, the video and choreography is so poorly done that it really feels like a couple of horny middle school kids filmed their older brother's girlfriend. The videos are are not stable, not framed well, not focused and rarely positioned in an appropriate way. The girls rarely look at the camera, rarely pause in open positions and only a few recent videos actually provide an unobstructed view of things while the girls are flexing. Most of the sets have a video of the girl flexing while clothed, flexing while partially clothed, flexing naked from the side or back (not showy), then BAM some guy shows up and, without the slightest hesitation of foreplay, starts fucking them. The sex is not particularly good and the girls are either clearly not enjoying it or making faces that are the worst porn orgasm faces on the planet. These videos could have been so much better! All they needed to do was slow down, let the girls enjoy themselves a little and showcase the natural talent from rarely seen angles for a few minutes.
Before I forget, the site uses a couple of different charge providers. Make sure you get one you trust like Epoch as it is easy to cancel through them. I tried to cancel through the cancel page on the website and they were unable to find my account. Fortunately, I found it immediately on the epoch site and cancelled it there.
Now, to be fair, the site advertises free access to a bunch of other sites in their network, which is called "Extreme Movie Pass". I found these sites, at least the ones I ventured into, to be about the same or a little worse than Amateur18. These sites have names like EXGF Sexxx, Crazy Monster Cock, Crazy Beauties, Crazy Old Moms, Big Breast, Asian Hot Bunnies, Rubber Babes, Nylon Worlds (sic), Extreme Tranny Movies and many more. One, called Flexidolls.com, is both interesting and creepy. Each video starts with a guy taking a girl out of a box, a suitcase or a closet like she is one of those real girl dolls. He then poses her in an impossible looking position and immediately proceeds to do something to her with a dildo or his dick. The entire time, the girl has a totally blank expression and is staring into space because, you know, she's supposed to be a doll. I recall that most credit card servicers will not allow site videos to simulate drugging a woman in any way. These are as close to a "play with an unconscious girl" videos as they can get away with, I guess. Meh....
In general, all of the other sites are mostly standard def and fair-to-poor videos. Many videos are broken.
Bottom line: At $30 a month, this site is not really worth it when you compare it to all of the other top-quality sites out there. It might be worth it for a month at $20, though. with all of the bizarre other sites that comes with it, there might be something you like but there almost certainly will not be much of it and you will have to sift through a lot of junk. Be careful about cross-checks when you sign up and be sure to use a known service provider. I've put about three hours into looking at ALL of the content on this site and most of the network sites that look interesting. I will almost certainly never be back.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Exclusive content
Some exclusive models
Many "petite" top European models
Site claims no silcone, all natural.
Some very early sets of current popular models
Tons of content (Since 2006!)
Decent navigation
Over 320 models
Many of the models seem to be having fun.
Good quality images
Generally good quality videos
Cons:
Site design is a little busy
Navigation could be better.
Many videos are rather slow when watching.
Constant use of teen and pre-teen props can get old.
Although all models were legal age when the shoots were done, some sets do seem a little borderline.
Bonus site is marginal.
Bottom Line:
Amour Angels follows a fairly specific formula in that it often attempts to portray its models in a very innocent, young or teen-oriented way. The models are generally very young looking and very petite, mostly A or B-cups although several are larger, and the sets and props help promote that type of fantasy. Most of the time, this portrayal can be very effective. The majority of the models are shaved but some have very mild or trimmed pubic hair. Many of the models here are also on other sites like Met Art, but here they look or are made to look younger. This is in part because many of these models WERE younger, probably just 18+ and just starting out when these sets were shot. A great example is a model named Marika on this site. She is petite and looks extremely young in sets from 2016 with a more mature looking set from 2017. Today she is a featured model on Watch4Beauty who goes by the name of Helga Grey. Other models like Emily Bloom and Sarena Woods are on Amour Angel with several sets from very early in their careers and a few more current sets.
Note that this is JUST a solo girl model site with an occasional two or three girl "friends" set. There is no sex, no masturbation, no insertions and very little spreading, although many sets do include fully spread legs. The emphasis, for the most part, is on the beauty of innocence.
The teeny-bopper effect is achieved by the use of primary colors, props like lolli-pops and hooded pajamas, striped leggins and tights, rainbows and hearts, chocolate, etc. Many of the sets don't include any specific props like this and would probably be just as home on another site like Met-Art, except that the models, as hard to believe this is possible, are even more petite. Just find the youngest looking girls on a Met Art or similar site and chances are good they are here.
The site is posting images and videos as far back as 2006. They have been posting a photo or video set every other day since then, so that means there are, what, roughly 1600+ sets. There are over 320 models. It is a LOT of material. You can sort by top models, top sets or update date and you can always go directly to a specific year and month. Sets are dated and model and photographer names are listed. (At least 120 photographers, some of whom I am sure shoot for other major sites.) Models are ranked on a user-generated 10 point scale. There are top models of the month and year and profiles of new models. Like Met Art and some similar sites, Amour Angels gets content from many photogaphers so there is a great deal of variety in sets, lighting etc., but set quality is typically very good.
Navigation is good and download speeds are good but the site is a little more ornate or busy than most due in part to the teeny-bopper them.
Older material is sort of "girl in the woods" with just posing and varying levels of eye contact. More recents sets are very well done with plenty of eye contact and fairly revealing poses. Images come in three sizes and videos come in 4 formats (2 mp4 sizes, a WMV and a DIVX format) plus streaming. Oddly, the resolution of the videos is not clearly listed,although the few files I pulled down were 720 or better. Ther is no 4K. Image sets have from about 40 to about 130 images. Videos are 10-30 minutes with the model undressing and frolicking around.
Oh, there is a bonus site called "Teen Art Club" that appears to be similar material but much, much older,perhaps the prior generation of this site. The largest images on Teen Art Club are 1024 by 682, there are no videos and I don't recognize any of the models.
Bottom Line: If your tastes run toward young, petite models then this is a site you should visit. There is a TON of material and some of it is quite good. I joined after searching for discounts and finding one for $19.95. At that price, there is a lot to like here.
Thanks for the great review, Wraith0711! I like POV stuff and may try this site as ATK is usually pretty good quality stuff. I do , however, usually fast forward to the good stuff... :-)
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.
Nice review! Thanks! Sounds like the place hasn't changed much from when I reviewed it 4 years ago. Too bad as this used-to-be (like...a decade ago) one of my favorite sites. But it sold and the group that has been running it doesn't understand that it is easier to keep a customer by treating him/her well than it is to get new ones. Oh well.
Oh, if you like oil scenes, there are some prettty good ones over in the Fantasy-HD network on a site called lubed.com. Most sets are POV also.
I just want to warn you that Babesnetwork.com/Babes.com is doing the same thing that Twisty's is regarding tiered pricing. (They are all run by the same group.) They offer discounted pricing and then when you sign up, you learn that the price you paid is for STREAMING ONLY and there are no zip files for photosets. If you want to download, it will cost you another $10 a month for the VIP membership. Nowhere when signing up does it explain any of this.
There is also a very expensive "premium" membership, but there is no real information on what that is other than additional material. Both Babes and Twisty's have removed a lot of old material so the premium membership may include that. Not sure.
That $10 a month extra applies regardless of the length of subscription you purchase. So if you find the super-cheap annual membership for $59.00, you will pay an additional $10 a month/$120 a year for the privilege of downloading, making this a very, very expensive $179 annual membership. This is one of the sleaziest money-grabs I've seen lately.
Twistys/Babes really needs to be more forthcoming with their pricing structure and what is included. The guys at TBP mention the download thing in passing, but the tiers need to be up there with the pricing.
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:
Good quality VR
Very consistent
Multiple downloadable formats
Many popular US porn stars
Decent navigation
All vids are dated and scored
File sizes are listed
Cons:
Site is still a little small
Highest bit rate files don't work well on underpowered PCs.
(but other formats do and I can't really tell)
You can't sort vids by score or model. (Everything is in reverse chronological order.)
Models are not in alphabetical order (also reverse chronological order)
There are only a few representative images for the sets and no zip files. I get that images seem counter to the technology, but you can't really tell what goes on in a VR video without them.
Bottom Line:
My viewing tools expanded recently and now includes an HTC Vive. If/when you buy one of these, be prepared to lock yourself in a room to binge a little on the relatively indescribable experience of VR porn. Remember to eat.
That said, I joined 3 sites in search of quality VR porn and of those three, BadoinkVR is the best for my tastes, which is full-on straight sex.
You can't rate these the same way as a "flat" porn site because the tech is new and there just isn't that much media out there...yet. So I'm going to score these a little differently, comparing them to each other rather than to a traditional site.
BadoinkVR stats:
About 90 sets
About 90 models (some sets have multiple girls)
So far most models only have one set.
Models are mostly popular US porn stars with a few young eastern Europeans in the mix.
1 New set each week.
Each set is dated and scored on a 10 point scale
The scoring is pretty honest, maybe a bit lower than it should be.
The frame rate is either 30 or 60 frames per second. Most are 60, which is terrific.
File sizes are listed
(Update: I recently built a new desktop computer that is dedicated to Vive VR use. On that machine, all of the High-res Oculus/Vive VR files from this site work perfectly.)
Nearly all of these videos are 180 degree with side-by-side 3D. (This is nice because you can set your player once and not have to change it when the video format changes.) Most are shot with a person's body (AKA you) in the foreground laying on his (your) back. There may be a portion of a scene where you are standing (i.e. getting a BJ or ramming a girl from the rear who is also standing or doggy on a the edge of a bed). Typical POV-like stuff. If you line everything up right, you can be 20 again with a buff porn-dude bod. The males in these scenes never make a sound, which is terrific and correct for the scenario. (You WILL hear a male voice while watching these, but it will be your own.) The thought that I was really watching somebody else fuck that girl truly never entered my mind...in other words, the video crew did it right.
The sets are typically very nice...most are in nice homes or buildings...but not too distracting. The lighting has to be perfect for these things and it is. The acting is pretty decent and the scripts are not embarrassing. Overall, the quality of the sets and the videos is impressive. I swear I could feel breath on my face a few times and caught a whiff of stripper perfume once or twice as well. Funny how the mind works.
The vast majority of these sets include full-on sex but some are just VR masturbation scenes. Whoever runs this site knows what they are doing. There is a solo masturbation/toy scene with Tori Black, who is a world-class sexy-talk teaser. Also, there are one or two straight sex scene from a woman's POV and a few scenes with other couples. (Most notable is a 360 degree scene from 2015 with August Ames and 2 other couples. Yes, August ends up riding you.) Some scenes have an extra girl or an extra guy that the girl you are screwing is messing around with. A few scenes are two girls getting each other off. Noticeably absent from this site so far are any two girl scenes with one girl on your dick and the other on your face. I'm sure they will have that here eventually...
Formats include:
Mobile LQ
Mobile HQ
Vive/Oculus
Gear VR
Playstation VR
(Some of these files are the same, but they spell it out by device to make choosing easier)
These files are HUGE so expect it to take some time to download. A 25 minute video ranges in size from about 2 gigs for low-res mobile to about 5.5 gigs for high-res Oculus/Vive files. Overall, though, download speeds are not too bad considering the size of these things.
Tech stuff:
I have been having trouble getting the Steam-based Whirlygig or Virtual Desktop players to work correctly for my Vive, so I've been using Simple VR and downloading the High def mobile videos instead of the "Vive/Oculus" videos. The high-def mobile vids work fine. Video compression is good and there is no stuttering, although there is some pixelation when I fast forward too much. One minute there's a beautiful girl bouncing on my dick and the next minute it is a block character from Minecraft. Woa! Pressing pause seems to fix it. (My very-fast AMD Opteron gaming rig is only about 2 years old but I had to buy a new 8-gig Radeon RX480 video card to support VR. The card is a little buggy and might be the issue.)
Bottom line: If you have a VR set-up and are into straight-sex, this is a "must join" site for at least a month. The site is well-run and what they lack in quantity, they more than make up for in quality.
I used to do something similar. I would write my review on the web page, then copy it to word before submitting it. That's just a pain, though, when there are multiple text windows (i.e. pros, cons, bottom line).
I actually have a technique that works really well most of the time. If you maintain two tabs to Pornusers and then check to make sure you are still logged in on the other tab, you will still be logged in when you click submit regardless of how long it has been. The cookie applies to all tabs so if one works, they all will. For some reason I forgot to open another tab when I was writing this review. Eh, stuff happens. :-)
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Part of Passion-HD network.
Young, popular attractive models
Good quality videos
zipped images from video sets
Cons:
Very small site
Many downloads are broken. (now fixed)
Very slow download speeds (compared to other sites in the network).
No support.
Not already included in Passion-HD platinum Pass.
Watermarks on videos and especially images are HUGE and very distracting.
Ever watch a silent movie and see all the exaggerated facial expressions? Lots of that, especially in the images.
Bottom Line:
This site is part of the Passion-HD network, but like a lot of the sites in that network, it is marketed separately and there is no indication from the preview or sign-up screen that it is part of the same network. Once you are a member of any site within the network, Baeb.com is part of the $69 Platinum Pass if you purchase it now, but is not included if you already own the pass, as I do. Pure money grab.
Details:
15 videos as of 4/1/17
Good quality but several were broken (fixed)
Videos are scored 1-10 stars
Videos are dated
Model index
Photo sets and zip with mid-size images
Several of the videos were broken when I first downloaded them, failing about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through when played. The downloads complete. The vids do not. I think this has been resolved but it is an odd issue.
When I tried to contact support about the download issue, the ticket system did not work. It kept asking me to put a name into the name field even though I already had. Giving up on submitting a ticket, I tried again to download the videos a few days later and they now appear to work.
The format of these videos is exactly the same as Passion-HD with the exception of a little less POV (no top-down or cowboy POV). This is all straight sex as far as I can tell. No anal or fetish. I think the logic behind this site is that it is supposed to be an actress showcase rather than a niche site. Not sure, though.
Bottom line: I can't recommend this site by itself due to the small collection size, broken videos, slow downloads and lack of support. Passion-HD is a much better value. Look for a deal on one of the sites (Including this one, which I saw advertised for $14 someplace) in the network and then consider forking out the $69 to get permanent access to all of the sites (That access is for as long as you maintain the original membership.) The network membership should then include this site.
Thanks for the quick response. First off, I did join Vixen and really like the subtle differences that make the content on this site better than many of the more established sites in this niche.
As for the issue I had, cross-checks are rarely beneficial to the purchaser since they are presented as a teaser with the goal of generating additional subscription revenue when the subscriber does not un-check the box or doesn't cancel within the very brief timeframe. Often times, if there is an error in the sign-up process, boxes that have been deliberately unchecked by the subscriber will check-themselves again. This is what I believe happened to me. OK, sure. My bad. But it just adds to the widespread belief that there is nothing good about cross-checks. If I want to join a site, I will go to that site (or look on Porn users for a discount) and sign-up.
In any case, I appreciate your response. It means you care about customer service and want to make sure your site is seen in a positive light. Only the best customer service organizations do that.
I just signed up for Vixen.com (for $10 since it is small) and unchecked the offer for bang.com ($1 for 3 days then $29.95 a month). Even though I unchecked the option, I still got charged. Fortunately, they bill through Epoch and I was able to cancel immediately. Still, I have to warn everybody that these guys are using deceptive practices to charge you for sites you don't want.
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.
