| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
2451
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Thanks pat. I can't check it out right now as I'm in a hotel with a poor internet connection, but as soon as I can I'll be checking that out.
You've hinted that this stuff is bad quality. What's the issue with it?
|
11-08-11 06:28pm
|
Reply
2452
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I'm not familiar with porno dan, but I'll have to have a look anyway! I've heard rumours of an anal scene, but I figured it wasn't mainstream since it or they weren't listed on IAFD.
|
11-08-11 09:11am
|
Reply
2453
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
Reply of
dracken's Review
I haven't been a member here for maybe five or more years and I can't really explain why. Of the stuff I bought at that time, Nubiles gets viewed very regularly as so many of the models are really beautiful. I think I'll have to head back for another membership soon.
|
11-08-11 04:14am
|
Reply
2454
|
Casting Couch Teens
(0)
|
Reply of
dracken's Review
Great review of what looks like a great site even with the shortcomings you pointed out. I suspect I'll give it some consideration, but for now I probably won't join thanks to two simple words in your review: "no anal." Thanks for that detail. I'm sure I'm not the only member here who like to see at least some anal on a large site.
|
11-08-11 04:11am
|
Reply
2455
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
If the fates deemed it so, then who would I be to argue with them? ;-) I'd be like Grampa Simpson when he came in to some money: "Now I can afford that crazy stripper wife!"
Hmmmm... maybe Tanner Mayes would finally do anal...
|
11-08-11 04:08am
|
Reply
2456
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I think previous comments have summed it up well, but I'll add my thoughts anyway...
Solo and POV, yes. Lesbian and hardcore, no.
|
11-06-11 02:29pm
|
Reply
2457
|
Mary Alicia
(0)
|
Reply of
gaypornolover's Reply
I'm mixed on it. I don't like it because I'd like to see it, but it does add to her allure. I suspect that for straight versus gay porn it might be different though since vaginas are pretty much all alike whereas penises are quite differnt from guy to guy. A solo female model could do this, but I doubt a solo male model could get away with it.
|
11-05-11 06:23pm
|
Reply
2458
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
"Other" for me too. In my case that means 'nothing.'
|
11-05-11 09:03am
|
Reply
2459
|
Playboy.com
(0)
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Comment
Too little, too late really seems to sum it up. Playboy is a brand with a lot of recognition and like so many older studios and brands (I'm looking at you, Hustler) they seemed to miss the boat with the internet. I haven't looked at the Playboy site in a while, but the last time I did look I wasn't compelled to join. If Playboy wanted to do it right they could have a huge success on the internet.
It speaks volumes that most of the active PU members are of an age where Playboy means something and no one has posted a review.
I suspect I'll stop in and check out their tour pages.
|
11-05-11 09:00am
|
Review
2460
|
Mary Alicia
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Very good-looking, natural model
- Site appears to update (but that may end – see below)
- Supports download managers
- Simple design
- Pics and vids available
- Pics available as zips
- Bills through CCBill |
| Cons: |
- Not full nudity (T+A only)
- The website doesn’t do the model justice
- Resolutions for photos and videos are poor
- Small site
- Material seems to be removed periodically
- Not a good value
- Many (25+) dead links
- No options for files sizes or types |
| Bottom Line: |
First let me get this out of the way: I joined this site because I like Mary Alicia’s look. She’s petite, small breasts, beautiful bum, beautiful face (with freckles!), and captivating eyes. I have no complaints about Mary Alicia herself. The website, however, needs work.
I can’t tell how old the site is because it appears that not all material is kept on the site. There is a link for ‘archived galleries” where older sets are listed. That’s not a bad idea, but since you can’t actually access those sets what’s the point? Server space is pretty cheap these days, and the whole site has less than 5GB on it, so why remove material? The site reports that at any given time there are between 70 and 100 photo sets available, though there are closer to 200 now, which is a mix of updated sets and older sets.
I can say with some certainty that the site has been around since at least 2002 since one gallery announced that it was number 900 since that year. That also means that Mary Alicia may be pushing 30 now, but she doesn’t look it.
The site does appear to update, though not on a set schedule. The sets are dated by month and day, but not by year so it is impossible to tell how old the sets are.
Within each picture set there are varying numbers of photos, though to have more than 50 photos in a set is rare. The sets are described on the site, but the set name is non-descriptive so if you find some sets you like you’ll have to rename them on your own. The pictures are available as singles or as a zip file. The biggest letdown for the photos is the quality of the images. The resolutions would be considered acceptable by standards a few years ago but by today’s standards they’re barely average. The best resolution I could find on the site was 968x1400. Most are 968x1300. Maybe I’m asking for too much by wanting a higher resolution. It is also possible that the photos were taken some years ago and were high res then.
Videos are available though the problem with most of them is the camera. Apparently Mary Alicia does (did?) a regular webcast and most of the videos are simply captures of those webcasts. The resolution on those is just 320x240 at 140kb/s. There are a handful of videos that are posted at 640x480 at 2100kb/s, but those are rare. Several of the videos are just slideshows of photos. There are less than 40 videos on the site.
For all the photos and videos there are no options for files sizes. For videos, the only format is wmv.
One choice that Mary Alicia has made will likely limit her audience. This is definitely a softcore site. While there are other women on the site, there is only posing. Don’t look for hot girl-on-girl action here. And don’t expect to see Mary Alicia’s naughty bits either. I can understand a choice to not do b/g or g/g sex on camera, and I can even understand an unwillingness to do ‘spread shots,’ but if she’s gone this far, it seems odd to not let us have a peek at the Holiest of Holies. While I don’t understand it, I can admit that it actually does add something to her mystique.
The site itself is very simple, but it doesn’t need to be complex. There are links to photos and videos on separate pages. That’s pretty much it. There are ‘bonus’ links too, where Mary Alicia has a forum, some FAQs, and a few more photoshoots.
This site’s updating days may be coming to and end. Mary Alicia posted a message recently stating that she is pregnant and hasn’t yet decided if she will continue. If she doesn’t, I hope the site continues as she is a very beautiful model. If she does, the guys with a pregnancy fetish may want to take note. I’ll admit that it is entirely possible that this is outdated information as no years are given with the updates. She could have been pregnant two years ago for all I know.
So would I recommend this site? I would if you meet a certain criterion: if you go to the tour page and find that Mary Alicia is just your type (as was the case for me) then go ahead and join. With CCBill as the biller, you can be confident in security and ease of cancelling. At least you can go in informed and knowing the site’s limits. I don’t want to downplay this as an option: Mary Alicia is VERY good looking and I’m sure many people would agree with that. I certainly don’t regret taking a membership, but I wish there was more material. If, however, you prefer a different look in your models, then don’t bother. The site’s design and limitations wouldn’t make it worth your while to open your wallet. |
|
11-05-11 08:55am
Replies (2)
|
Reply
2461
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
RustyJ's Reply
All indications are that the confusing membership is gone. I realize that there is still a risk, but I think I'm willing to take that risk now. Thanks for the info.
Oops... I should have read the post above from the webmaster. I guess that settles it!
|
11-05-11 08:40am
|
Reply
2462
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Reply
That's another great one. That whole scene is great.
|
11-05-11 08:38am
|
Reply
2463
|
Sex And Submission
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
I agree with you. Most times I skip those. My guess is that the reason for these interviews is 75% law and 25% because Kink does try to be a better network than most. They seem really woman-friendly and want to promote that. I know the average woman would think I was insane for saying that, but it really is woman-friendly. These site are all about showing women with certain fetishes getting off on those fetishes. I do like some of the post-scene interviews where the model sits there and talks about what she liked about the scene. That could suffice for compliance I suspect.
Other BDSM sites don't use the interview as much, if at all. Society SM comes to mind.
|
11-03-11 07:38am
|
Reply
2464
|
21Sextury.com
(0)
|
Reply of
RustyJ's Review
Excellent review. Thanks for all the information. Sometimes I think I'm the only regular here who has never been a member to this site. The reason I've never joined is the confusing membership. My concern was that I'd sign up for a specific site and find that I need to wait for three months to get it. When it comes to porn, I'm a bit impatient!
But your comment on the membership is the closest I've heard that the old 'structured' membership is gone and replaced with 'you get what you pay for' membership. I think it's probably safe for me to add this to the list now.
|
11-03-11 07:33am
|
Reply
2465
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Failing to use multiple camera angles would make the scene loot too amateur. It'd be like a couple sets up a camera to record themselves in the act. That might make a for an interesting setup once in a long while, but I'll take my porn with higher production values, thanks.
One semi-related issue is camera movement. You gotta edit out the bits where the cameraman is setting up another shot. You aren't filming a remake of NYPD Blue. (Unless you are filming a remake of NYPD Blue, of course...)
|
11-03-11 07:29am
|
Reply
2466
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Reply
I shouldn't be surprised that a with a bunch of us with similar interest in porn get together that there are other similarities too. That has to be in my top three favourite episodes. And... you'll remember that's the episode where Dave has one of the best lines ever spoken on TV: "It's like that movie, 'Interracial Hole Stretchers 2. She was white, they were black, but it didn't matter, man, they were in love!"
|
11-02-11 04:58pm
|
Reply
2467
|
Girls Out West
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Review
But where's Keitha??? (Please, please, please let someone get this reference...)
Great review, BTW. Not my kind of site, but interesting nonetheless.
|
11-01-11 04:00am
|
Reply
2468
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I'm a big fan of the genre and thankfully there are several companies out there that do it well. Kink.com has been mentioned, and everyone should be so lucky as to have a porn company do their interests so much justice. The second one is Society SM, which nip at Kink's heels.
I have no idea why I like it, as i have no BDSM tendancies myself. Maybe it's the intensity of a scene so well done. And, I might add, a well done scene is all about the sub female's pleasure. If a woman has those interests, there are probably few places she can look to get that itch scratched.
|
11-01-11 03:58am
|
Reply
2469
|
Young Legal Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Review
It does seem odd that a bunch of us are posting positive reviews, and in a way I guess you could argue that I got paid. The points I earned for the week I posted that review earned me the top spot in the raffle for the first time ever.
I suspect that a lot of the interest was started when slutty posted that there was a new site, Skinny Super Girl. (I still think that title doesn't do Gloria justice. It would be better if it were called "Holy-flying-fuck is She Ever Fucking Incredible!") I'd never heard of these sites before then. But like you, tangub, this will be a site I come back to over and over again.
Great review too. I didn't mention that the lack of biographical info on the models was a con for me too. Since many of them don't speak English it would be a good way to learn a bit more about them. I PROMISE I wouldn't stalk Gloria...
|
10-31-11 05:23pm
|
Reply
2470
|
Viv Thomas
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Reply
I ended up paying about $14CDN which still isn't bad. Maybe the site owners figure that since they give a TBP discount already that there is no need to offer a further discount. But it could just be a technical glitch too.
Oops... I should have read the whole thread of comments since the webmaster replied...
I'm looking forward to spending some time at this site. It isn't my normal kind of site but neither was Young Legal Porn and the related sites and I found those to be among the best I've ever had a membership to.
|
10-31-11 02:00pm
|
Reply
2471
|
Viv Thomas
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Reply
Thanks for the update. Based on what you were seeing I logged on to the site directly using my iPad and I was given the discount offer. The offer isn't exactly a 50% discount because it is only offered in Euros so it doesn't convert to half. But a discount is a discount and I appreciate it. I cleared my history on my PC and entered the site directly and there was the offer. So I signed up. These types of sites are not normally what I'm interested in, but most people seem to like it so I'll try it at the discounted price.
All that to say that DO NOT ENTER VIV THOMAS THROUGH TBP/PU or you won't see the discount offer. If you have, clear your history and you should be okay.
I'm not tech-savvy enough to explain what you're experiencing, tangub, but is it possible you haven't clicked off all the possible boxes for clearing your history and some category is remaining behind?
|
10-31-11 08:46am
|
Reply
2472
|
Viv Thomas
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Comment
As with the World Cup discount, the link to take advantage of the discount well hidden. I'll keep looking, but for now this seems to be more trick than treat. There is a huge ad for the offer on the main page, but clicking any link to join takes you to the main page where you can join for the $19.95 TBP price or the "Special Visa Offer" of $24.95.
I've tried every obvious way to locate the discount, including the pull-down menus on the join page but I can't find it. And since by the time I get home from work the offer will be gone I can't take advantage of it.
Why make it so difficult??????
|
10-31-11 04:05am
|
Reply
2473
|
Viv Thomas
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Comment
I'll add that the 'day' is measured in a European time zone, so you may want to take advantage of this now rather than later today in the North American zone. I lost out on the World Cup offer due to this timing issue.
|
10-31-11 03:57am
|
Reply
2474
|
Take 5 Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Reply
I had a look at BT and you're definitely right. BT seems to be miles ahead of Take 5 with the same style and even some of the same models. I might just pop in and have a longer, paid look.
|
10-31-11 03:56am
|
Reply
2475
|
Take 5 Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
I really can't understand why a site in 2011 that is primarily a photo site wouldn't use zips. That really baffles me...
|
10-30-11 11:26am
|
