| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
176
|
Wifey's World
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Review
Nice review, roseman. That last trust vote was mine. I don't know why it says anonymous. I could swear the 'vote anonymously" box was unchecked.
|
07-29-08 04:22pm
|
Review
177
|
In The Crack
(0)
94.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Lots of content available.
- Beautiful models, mostly professional.
- Videos are top-end and can be downloaded in different sizes (you can view specs in guest tour). Fewer options with older material.
- Zip files for pics, in medium or large.
- Photo quality is superb, often simply stunning.
- Detailed descriptions for each video.
- No DRM.
- Search function for type of vids you want to see.
- Lots of options for how you wish view each pic set. |
| Cons: |
- Site borders on fetishism on two accounts: anal and watersports. Way too many pee-pee videos.
- Sometimes the camera angle is disorienting and downright annoying. Even stupid at times.
- That "fish-eye" lens thing can be silly and makes all the models look like Jennifer Lopez with butt-implants. Not that there's anything wrong with a big ass.
- While downloading, you can't open any of the pictures. Haven't tried to DL 2 vids at once but that's probably disallowed.
- Speculum shots are pretty much useless, as far as I can tell. |
| Bottom Line: |
Ever imagine what it might be like to have Eve Angel park her delectable keester on your face? Well, this place will give you a pretty good idea. As someone else said, this site is all about ass. It's ass directly in your mug, for extended periods of time. It's a flea's-eye view of the female anus in all its pursed and pleated glory. Oh, and let's not forget the vagina. You can see that too. Proctologists and gynocologists could use these clips for reference purposes. Did you ever wonder what a girl's pancreas looks like? You just might get a view.
While it's decidedly ass-obsessed, there are plenty of beautiful breasts to see as they are lathered, oiled, and bobbled. Personally, I could watch Alexis Love and Eve Angel wash their breasts for a good long while. I'd even offer to help if their hands got tired, seeing as I'm such a gentleman.
As for pics, I don't know of any site that offers such crisp, close, detailed photography of the female plumbing system. If you like pics of women from the ground up, or if you like to imagine what it would be like to be a beautiful woman's chair, this place is for you.
I don't know what else to say that hasn't been covered by the others. While I have nits in particular about the sometimes dizzying camera angles, and the sometimes puerile fixation on pee-pee, they are negligible when compared with the benefits of a membership here. I have a pic of Eve Angel winking at me on my desktop.
You can see her eyes too. |
|
07-18-08 03:41pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
178
|
Panty Amateur
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hi messmer,
I think I said "no download options", meaning you can only DL one way. That's my fault, bad wording there.
All videos (and there are over a thousand now) average about five minutes and are each downloadble in a single mpeg file. The quality is excellent and they have been moving into hi-def over the past few months. I can't even watch the new ones because my pc can't handle it and the replay is all choppy. Even the oldest vids are high quality and look great fullscreen on my 22" monitor, though I have to mention I'm not an afficianado in technical matters. This is the best panty-video site I know of. Bear in mind, this is a British site and the Brits tend to be old school (full-backs) when it comes to knickers, though the emphasis is not on cotton. Also very few thongs or boyshorts here. There is no graphic nudity though the girls do get into their birthday suits from time to time and bare breasts abound. There is some masturbation and lesbian content but the emphasis is heavily on solo tease.
|
07-18-08 02:51pm
|
Reply
179
|
Oh La La Glamour Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Ok, UK Upskirts links to both sites, to UK Upskirts if you hold the mouse over the UK part, and to Upskirts if you hold the mouse over the Upskirts part. Same thing with the Amateur Upskirts link.
Very strange. Or my computer is going crazy. Or I'm an idiot. Is this normal for links to function this way?
|
07-14-08 10:58pm
|
Reply
180
|
Oh La La Glamour Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Here's the link to the UK Up-skirts site
https://www.pornusers.com/review/ukupskirts/
|
07-14-08 10:45pm
|
Reply
181
|
Oh La La Glamour Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Review
Hi messmer,
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would fit the bill.
UK Upskirts, as well as most of the sites from that company, has very high quality videos, but there is no nudity. Also the pics are smallish. Amateur Upskirts has plenty of nudity but is heavy on the cotton, which I know you don't like, and the last time I was there the vids were just not up to par quality-wise and the pics were tiny. Panties Pulled Down is not upskirt-focused but has lots of upskirt material and plenty of nudity, but while the Quicktime vids are top-notch quality-wise the content is masturbation-obssessed and hence boring to me. And the pics there are great but are just too small to get excited about. LV Panty has big, HQ pic sets which you might like, as they always end in nudity and are not fixated on cotton, but the vid section is less than mediocre, or at least it was the last time I checked.
Like you, I have a next to impossible time finding stuff that is completely up my alley. Good luck hunting!
Edited: the site UK Upskirts links to IS NOT UK Upskirts....
https://www.pornusers.com/review/ukupskirts/
|
07-14-08 10:38pm
|
Review
182
|
Brandi Belle
(0)
76.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Site is original and unusual.
- Brandi is very cute.
- Multiple DL options. |
| Cons: |
- It might not be fair to state it here, but the trial is a rip-off.
- For every (or nearly every) vid there are links for vidcaps and "pictures". The "pictures" link simply tells you that there are no pictures available. Why do this?
- Brandi is sometimes too deadpan, too nonchalant, which makes her appear bored.
- The male participants often leave very much to be desired. They are sometimes dead bored, ugly, sleezy, or crazy.
- Vid quality (640x480/1048k) should be improved, since this is a video-only site. Vid caps are a negligible feature. |
| Bottom Line: |
I went into this site with high hopes, since I like the multiple-girl on one guy approach. The first vid I downloaded featured a tall skinny guy with big glasses getting "molested" by four or five girls in a shower room. It took at least half the video for the guy to even get it up, and he seemed totally uninvolved through-out, resulting in a complete waste of time. In another video we watch Brandi jerk some overweight guy off for about ten minutes and at the end the guy finally announces he can't come. Another complete waste of time.
I ended up downloading about twenty videos before getting bored with this site and abandoning it long before my sub expired. For this kind of thing to work well, you really need somebody like Peter North or Hubby from Wifeysworld, because, let's face it, what good is ten or twelve minutes of willy-yanking without a doozy of a climax? It's like waiting for an hour and a half in a fine restaurant and having the waitress bring you a Big Mac and an order of fries.
On the plus side, the best vid on offer features Brandi and another girl, who take turns exploring one another's naughty bits. And in case you haven't seen it, Brandi has one of the most plump and delectable naughty bits I've seen to date.
I wouldn't recommend this site except to handjob, femdom, and CFNM enthusiasts, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if they were disappointed. |
|
07-07-08 09:43pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
183
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
|
07-04-08 11:21pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
184
|
Tawnee Stone
(0)
|
Reply of
silver's Review
I've been wanting to join Lightspeed World for some time, as I'm an avid pic collector and am mainly into softcore, with emphasis on soft; but 800x600 is just too small. The bigger your monitor gets, the higher res your screen gets, and consequently, 800x600 looks puny.
|
06-03-08 10:22pm
|
Review
185
|
Full Bush
(0)
65.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- A lot of content on offer.
- Several good pic sets.
- Zips, but see cons. |
| Cons: |
- No browse features, zero, nada (see BL).
- Small pics: 684x1024 is about the largest.
- Site is still updated, but with sets dating from 2004. This is bullshit.
- Zips for each page within sets instead of all in one. As these sets are dinky in size this is also bullshit.
- Vids look lousy in mpeg or in wmv format, and are sliced into three minute bits. Can't tell you the bitrate since my Realplayer program died and Windows media player doesn't indicate it.
- Some sets are also from Aunt Judy's. |
| Bottom Line: |
Here's the kicker, folks: On the tour you get search options: you can look at the list of models, and/or search by letter. On the member's page, however, you get nothing of the sort. All the member's area offers is a single page with a giant list of text links for both pics and vids. Good luck if, like me, you were planning on searching for the work of a few photographers whose work you admire, or for a few particular models you've always liked.
What possible reason could there be to include search options in a guest tour and leave them out in the site proper? This is just plain stupid. Stupid or lazy. Or both. Okay, both.
To add insult to injury, the site is updating with material that is at least four years old, as far as I can see, and the material is NOT high quality. Some sets have been imported from Aunt Judy's and, I would guess, from other company sites as well. Not much effort has been put into this site and it is far too expensive.
Some of the material is good enough that I would recommend a membership IF:
The welcome page sold the site as an unsearchable and dead-plain archive of older and sub-par material, and if the price were cut in half. Short of these two things, Full Bush is pretty much a waste of time and money. |
|
05-30-08 09:44pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
186
|
Teen Charms
(0)
79.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Gorgeous, often downright stunning, models.
- Lots of content: nearly 100,000 pics and over 300 vids (but see BL re vids).
- High quality pics on newer sets.
- Zips
- A few vid DL options.
- Easy to navigate.
- Very tasteful site. |
| Cons: |
- Site has been dead since 3/07, but the homepage hasn't come to terms with this. What happened? Why do this?
- Video is negligible, unfortunately, since these models deserve better. No sound on any of them, though they say all vids have sound. Could be on my end.
- All zip files simply named "images". Creates work, particularly for those of us with no short term memory. Did I mention I have no short-term memory?
- Way softcore. This is in the con section for those who might be expecting sterner stuff. |
| Bottom Line: |
I ransacked Teenstars and am about half-way through Teencharms. I got a two-fer deal and am not disappointed, except for the crappy videos. Lucky for me I'm a pic collector, or I'd be very diappointed indeed. Some of these vids show a bit-rate of 450 or so Kbps. Now how useless is that in 2008?
I don't understand why they put up two sites instead of just one, except as a means of drumming up revenue. There is no difference at all, thematically or technically, between the two. Not that they share content. They don't.
Basically (and don't you hate people who start a sentence with that word?) this site has value in that there are over a hundred drop-dead gorgeous girls presented in tasteful, often artistic, picture sets of good to excellent quality. Some girls might not be Vogue material as far as their faces go, but I have yet to see one who wasn't a masterpiece from the neck down. Bear in mind, these are mostly 18 year olds, and they've got plenty of time to fill out. I like a full-bodied woman as much as the next guy, but I also love slender young ladies. I can't help it, I just do.
Thing is: these people need to re-do their homepages and take down the false advertising. And they should have offered good videos or simply stuck to being a picture site. Teencharms is a high-quality picture archive and not much more. The girls and the photographers get a 99.9999999, but the webmasters and the negligible vids draw the score way down.
Recommended for the pics. |
|
05-16-08 10:25pm
Replies (2)
|
Review
187
|
ATK Natural & Hairy
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Tons of content.
- True to the hairy niche. But see BL.
- Zips, but see cons.
- A few, but limited, video DL options.
- Good search function as with all ATK sites.
- Soft and hardcore content separated. This is an excellent advantage if, like me, you are sick of toys and/or masturbation stuff.
- Models run the gamut from 18 to nearly elderly, and from gorgeous to homely.
- Newer vids are offered in one big chunk rather than the standard 3 minute slices.
- Pics can be viewed in a variety of sizes. This is good for people with slow connections. |
| Cons: |
- Zipped sets broken into several bits. This is too much silliness and simply not worth the trouble.
- Pic size, on newer sets, seems to be app. 1000x1500 max. ATK has lagged in this area for a few years and it makes me wonder why.
- I would like to enable plain image links and have this work throughout my entire session without having to select that option for each set. This is an annoyance. |
| Bottom Line: |
I'm a huge fan of ATK and have been at the hairy site about four times, even though I'm not really into hair. As with all of this company's sites there is a spectacular amount of content on offer, and enlisting a long list of photographers keeps the material from devolving into a boring sameness which is the bane of a lot of other sites.
I have no problem with the "natural" niche at all, but this site borders on fetishism, as some of these models are so hairy they look simply preposterous. This being said they do keep the "scary hairy" models in a separate section.
I think the quality of the material needs to match the quantity of it at this point, but this is not happening.
The newest vid I downloaded (4/08) is 640x480, 1048 Kbps. It looks fine but not nearly as good as a great many other sites which are moving into HD. Some of the vids show higher bit rates - often significantly higher - but when played there is no significant increase in clarity or quality. I can't play the Quicktime vids (for some reason) but the file sizes for those are only a few megs larger than the WMV files, so I somehow doubt that the quality is much better.
As for pics, 1000x1500 is a good-sized pic but many sites are going much larger. The main strength here is the variety of photographers. Alexander B's material alone would be worth the price of admission. His sets are just stunning sometimes, even if the models aren't.
Recommended, but the quality could (should) be improved. |
|
05-16-08 09:41pm
Replies (3)
|
Reply
188
|
Brandi Belle
(0)
|
Reply of
Thaeral's Comment
Okay, this is strange. I went back to the site, clicked member's entrance, and got the member's page without a prompt. However, when I went to download a video, I got the prompt. Twice.
It's got to be some technical problem. No one who wanted to make money would do this stuff on purpose.
|
05-15-08 11:05pm
|
Reply
189
|
Brandi Belle
(0)
|
Reply of
Thaeral's Comment
I just signed up and the same thing happened. Can't log in after paying my money. Sent off email. Will see what happens.
If I get no response, boy will there ever be hard feelings.
|
05-15-08 10:57pm
|
Reply
190
|
Brandi Belle
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Comment
I tried the trial here and I've seen the preview vids, so I can say that it certainly looks as if this girl knows EXACTLY what she's doing, even though what she does will not cater to everyone's taste. She reminds me a little of Wifey from Wifey's World, not in her appearance, but in the way she does her thing. I'd gladly be putty in her hands. I'm about to take the plunge, I think. Thanks for the comment, jd1961.
|
05-15-08 10:19pm
|
Reply
191
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Good review. I might check it out in the future.
|
05-08-08 05:55pm
|
Reply
192
|
N/A
|
Reply of
mrcallen's Poll
Hell no. Couldn't.
|
05-05-08 04:34pm
|
Reply
193
|
Flower Panties
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Review
Thanks for the review, ace. I'm hard-wired to respond to the word "panties" like one of Pavlov's dogs, and I've been semi-tempted to try this place out. I'll probably ignore it for a good while now, before the word "panties" brings me salivating back...
WWW
**by the way, it's what's in the panties that counts, not the panties all by themselves. I don't huff them or wear them (OK, one time, when I was very drunk). Men in panties is a travesty! Nor do I hang around playgrounds in Highgate looking for Cross-eyed Mary! ;)
18+ please.
|
04-24-08 10:40pm
|
Reply
194
|
Gagging Whores
(0)
|
Reply of
Lionheart's Review
I retract what I said above. I sometimes forget that some women are actually into this kind of thing. As long as everyone's an adult and it's all consensual than my "sickening" comment doesn't apply. Thanks for the review, Lionheart, and apologies.
WWW
|
04-23-08 09:09pm
|
Reply
195
|
Sexxxy Celeste
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Comment
I know these are old comments, but I'm shopping around for a good NN site and saw this. I agree, Denner. It should be general practice just to avoid sites that won't give any stats as to the volume of material they have or the quality thereof, or specs for pics and vids. If they can't do that there is probably something they are hiding, like a lack of quantity and/or quality.
If you have high quantity, you'll use it as a selling point; if you have high quality, you'll use it as a selling point; if you have both, obviously you'll let us know.
|
04-22-08 07:51pm
|
Reply
196
|
Teenrotica
(0)
|
Reply of
ksauz's Comment
Sorry, I should have read the reviews first. Info is given there.
|
04-22-08 07:00pm
|
Reply
197
|
Teenrotica
(0)
|
Reply of
ksauz's Comment
Thanks for the comment, ksauz. What size are the pics, on average?
|
04-22-08 06:59pm
|
Reply
198
|
Gagging Whores
(0)
|
Reply of
Lionheart's Review
Sounds sickening to me. But each to his own.
|
04-22-08 06:55pm
|
Reply
199
|
N/A
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Poll
Vid (clean) on Youtube about the Ginger/Mary-Ann question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wrEqsTJCmg
|
04-21-08 07:07pm
|
Reply
200
|
N/A
|
Reply of
WeeWillyWinky's Poll
I'm guilty of assuming that most people here would know the Ginger or Mary Ann question, sorry for that. It's a pretty popular question among the male population here in the States, at least, and I remember it even from my high school days in the late seventies, early eightees.
Me, I'm totally into Mary Ann, and I could never understand why every male visitor to the island always went ga-ga over Ginger and treated Mary Ann like chopped liver. I mean, she was pretty, she was shapely, she had pig-tails, and always romped around in tight shorts. She was amazing. Ginger was fake and tacky and self-absorbed. Though I must say, she looked damn good in that same dress she had on for every episode.
Looking back, I think Ginger was a not-too-kind take off on Marilyn Monroe, what with the breathy voice and the air of seduction. And the ass, of course.
Anyone for Mrs. Howell? ;)
|
04-21-08 06:38pm
|
|
