| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
351
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
jake07621's Reply
> Well, LOL, you are obviously correct.
:-)
> At least I occasionally like the illusion of reality.
Me either, but I prefer "real reality" sites like UltimateSurrender, where it is known that they're models (well, no way around it), but the action is unscripted, or like NudeInPublic, where action is scripted but not completely (at least onlookers aren't scripted). Unfortunately, there are very few decent sites like this (not much besides UltimateSurrender) :-(.
|
11-28-07 06:04am
|
Reply
352
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
Reply of
jake07621's Comment
Real women? In porn? Are you serious? Professional models in more or less real situations, that's the most we can expect IMHO, and all the b/s from BangBus and other "reality" sites along the lines of "we've met this girl on street and made her fuck us in 15 minutes" is just as it is - s**t that comes from a bull.
|
11-28-07 01:46am
|
Reply
353
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I'd still say that it is necessary to start doing something. Unfortunately, I have no idea what exactly can be done :-((.
|
11-28-07 01:40am
|
Reply
354
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> I guess it starts with you, me and others out there to suggest that porn movies should be all condom.
The problem is to bring this message to the public and producers :-(.
|
11-27-07 02:38am
|
Comment
355
|
Nude in Public
(0)
|
|
11-27-07 02:35am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
356
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
> Anyway one down, one to go.
:-). Thanks a lot, it will help.
Question to admins: given this discussion, don't you think it is a good idea to have separate (from sites) rating/comments of credit card processors? Might be difficult to implement, but should be very useful for this community. Or at least to make another type of "rating" poll (with ratings) and make the first such poll about credit card processors?
|
11-27-07 02:04am
|
Reply
357
|
N/A
|
Reply of
TheViking's Reply
> But think it would be great if you submited yours too, you might have a better angle on it with "the WORST" processor.
Submitted, let's see if it comes out.
|
11-26-07 12:09pm
|
Comment
358
|
Big Sister Live Sex
(0)
|
|
11-26-07 04:41am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
359
|
Big Sister
(0)
|
|
11-26-07 04:37am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
360
|
N/A
|
Reply of
TheViking's Reply
> That would be an interesting topic for next poll.
You're right; will you submit it yourself or want me to do it? (to fit it into current poll system, I'll probably make it something like "Which CC processor do you think is the WORST?")
> Myself, I allways see it as a big plus if a site is ccbill caus i never had any problems with them
Ditto.
|
11-26-07 04:12am
|
Reply
361
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Please shout LOUDLY if you recognize them (maybe in site comments?). It's really important to know who's who in this business.
|
11-26-07 04:08am
|
Reply
362
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
> This technique has nabbed two "unscrupulous" sites that rebilled after I cancelled a subscription (it was not ccBill, by the way)
Wow, and can you tell which processors were involved (it is processor which is of interest here)?
|
11-26-07 02:39am
|
Comment
363
|
Nude In Public.tv
(0)
|
|
11-26-07 02:35am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
364
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Completely agree. Plus condom-only porn would play an important role in educating people (especially young ones) to use condoms in their private lives. The only minor thing left is to make it happen :-(.
|
11-26-07 02:25am
|
Reply
365
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> I think you'd agree that none of us eat it straight from the source
It's not exactly "straight from the source" either; IMHO, getting it from other guy's poorly washed hands via handshake differs only in quantity, and I have no idea if this difference in quantity makes difference from medical point of view.
> The industry probably doesn't want this kind of information made public.
Come on, this is not the industry where I'd expect conspiracy (they're not tobacco companies after all :-)). More likely doctors just cannot imagine that somebody in sane mind will do it (unlike A2P, which they warn about).
|
11-26-07 02:20am
|
Reply
366
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
And about condoms and STDs - here I agree that it is definitely a risk, but... that's the way people like to see it and until it changes, I don't think industry will go for condomless porn.
|
11-24-07 07:44pm
|
Reply
367
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> To them I say you eat shit and then tell me you feel OK
Strictly speaking, some very small amounts of shit get into people mouths all the time (it's not sterile world after all), and the only difference between this and eating shit is that of amounts, with A2M somewhere in between (don't forget that models wash themselves very thoroughly before doing it). So without any medical opinion (doctors don't rush to advise on it, unlike A2P) I still have no idea if it's really dangerous.
|
11-24-07 07:17pm
|
Reply
368
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> he fact is that wearing one would be beneficial to the male performer's health only, since he'd be proctected but the female would still be doing atm.
Most of A2M on the market is "ass to the same girl mouth", so it would indeed help with STDs, and I don't know if A2M itself poses any risk (A2P does, but no idea about A2M).
> Far too many performers catch a variety of STD's
Do you have any statistics on it? I've heard about one quite big case somewhere in US, that's it.
> I'm actually curious to know how many people have a problem between condom and bareback sex. That might be an interesting poll.
There was such a poll back in March; only 25% of people have said "I have no issue with condoms".
|
11-24-07 10:14am
|
Reply
369
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
Distant Lover's Reply
I've tried to make a distinction between photo content and photo quality. And while content can be different (which I've mentioned), technical photo quality (focus, lighting, color balance etc.) just plain sucks (I'm not sure that I've seen one picture with a good technical quality except for those obviously stolen from porno sites).
|
11-24-07 08:51am
|
Review
370
|
Newbie Nudes
(0)
73.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ free membership
+ premium membership is non-recurring
+ lots of new pictures daily
+ "nudles": ability to get premium membership for "free" (for clicks that lead to their site)
+ rating system which does work
+ profiles
+ community-oriented features (blogs, chat, forum) |
| Cons: |
- upsells of premium membership (including pop-ups, yuck!)
- upsells of all other things EVERYEHERE
- premium membership at $27.95 is way too expensive for the content that costs site owners nothing
- quality of pictures is way too amateurish even for amateur site
- no scenarios, just single pictures
- content is rather repetitive |
| Bottom Line: |
After all deliberations (see comments to IDoctor's review) I've decided to take a look myself to provide not that biased review.
First of all, quality of pictures is way too amateurish even for free amateur-submitted stuff (TBP reviews say "quality varies" - come on, quality just plain sucks; what kind of picture quality can you expect if a girl shoots herself in a mirror in her bathroom?).
As for the content of the pictures - some pictures are outright ugly, some of better ones are obviously stolen from paysites (come on, girl won't do DP with this kind of professional lighting in private life), and it leaves us with not that much decent ones. Fortunately, rating system seems to really work and those pictures that make it up to the top, are of better content (no dicks), but quality still sucks.
So (as messmer have already said in his comment) it doesn't make ANY sense to go there for pictures. On the other hand, as a COMMUNITY site it's not bad at all. Community is large, active, site provides most of the features needed for such a community.
Bottom line: if you're looking for pictures and you're NOT into amateur pictures of real girls (with profiles) of dubious quality, STAY AWAY. On the other hand, if you're looking for a community of exhibitionists - it's not a bad choice. As a result of this dual nature, I've had trouble with putting single rating for the site, so I've decided to rate it as 60 for pictures and as 85 for community, and take average. |
|
11-24-07 03:38am
Replies (4)
|
Reply
371
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> anything that puts a performers life in danger, is simply unaceptable to me.
Hm, I'd say that condomless porn puts performers life in danger more than A2M (not sure about A2P). Not that I'm a big fan of A2M myself, but your argument doesn't look too viable to me.
> What's the next fetish???
I agree that there should be a line drawn somewhere. And about the next fetish: I think that from softer to harder it goes like this:
softcore - oral - vaginal - anal - a2m - 'golden showers' - ...
So I've just submitted another poll asking the same questions about 'golden showers'; if it's accepted, we'll see how many people are into it (I don't think there will be much, but let's see).
|
11-24-07 02:03am
|
Reply
372
|
Thainee
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Good idea, but it can possibly help only if somebody really reads e-mails (which is not guaranteed :-( ).
|
11-22-07 03:28am
|
Review
373
|
Nude In Public.tv
(0)
60.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ unique content
+ real nude girls in real streets
+ FULL videos (unlike NudeInPublic)
+ girls are "girl next door" type, but not ugly
+ frequent (but disgustingly small) updates
+ picture quality is decent
+ girl date of birth and shooting place for each shoot are shown |
| Cons: |
- not so good attempt to mimick NudeInPublic
- repetitive (especially compared to NudeInPublic
)
- video quality is mediocre
- micro-updates of 20 pictures a time are disgustingly small
- bigger files hosted by 3rd-party (with separate login/password)
- not that much content |
| Bottom Line: |
After my recent (and not so successful) attempt to join NudeInPublic (.com) - see my review, I've decided to try NudeInPublic.tv . Unfortunately, it turned out to be even bigger disappointment.
It looks that it is an independent attempt to do something similar to NudeInPublic, but unfortunately it has lots of definiencies. The main one is that they lack creativity of NudeInPublic. There are no scenarios and different situations here, just nude girl going through the streets. Everything else isn't that bad,
and (unlike NudeInPublic) these guys don't try to sell the same thing twice, so videos are FULL), but unless some creativity is thrown in, the site doesn't offer much of useful content.
So much for my attempt to find site of this very niche :-(
Bottom line:
comparing them to NudeInPublic isn't that straightforward: these guys do have FULL videos (BIG PLUS), but with much less creativity (BIG MINUS). Overall, if you're a big fun of nude girls walking through crowded streets, I'd still recommend NudeInPublic over NudeInPublic.tv (but read my review of them CAREFULLY - it's not a picnic there too, and I gave them only 68 rating); if you're not a big fan of these things - don't bother. |
|
11-22-07 03:24am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
374
|
Thainee
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
You really think that you'll get better support for $10 site? I REALLY doubt it. Adult site support stinks regardless of price, that's it :-(.
|
11-21-07 08:47am
|
Reply
375
|
Thainee
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
!#*!&^@!*&^! I hate sites with non-existing support :-(. Unfortunately, in adult most of the sites are like that :-((.
|
11-21-07 07:50am
|
