Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ Seems to enjoy herself for real
+ Very good collection of various fetishes
+ Fetishes are combined with sex
+ Tons of material
+ Decent video quality
+ "Lady Sonia Personal Journal"
Cons:
- Very few models (something like 2 guys + 3 or 4 girls in recent videos)
- Lady Sonia herself is well past her 20th and even 30th; looks more like her 50th or 60th.
- Somewhat repetitive
- Poor site navigation
- Stills are screenshots only and are outright poor
- Cameraguy work can be better
- Rather high price
Bottom Line:
Lady Sonia positions herself as 'Masturbatrix' rather than 'Dominatrix', and this is very true. I will go even as far as stating that this site is mislabeled and 'Femdom' is inappropriate label for this site; there various different fetishes represented on the site, but Femdom as this term is commonly used is not one of them: there is no CBT or spanking or anything else like that on this site (not that I really insist on having it, just think that potential users should be made aware what's inside), the most hard femdom you'll see are tease and denial games. There are several other fetishes covered (from pantyhose to fucking machines) though, with a decent amount of sex thrown in.
It seems that the models enjoy it for real, with very good collection of different fetishes covered by herself and by other girls.
On the negative side, there are very few models featured on the site, which leads to lots of repetitions. Also most of the models are not exactly gorgeous.
Video quality is decent (recent ones are 800x450x2600kBit/s), though it is upset by rather poor lighting and cameraguy work, which IMO makes such good encoding quality a waste of bandwidth; fortunately, there is alternative download provided (284x216x500kBit/s).
Bottom line: if you're into fetishes (like pantyhose), combined with sex - it can be your site despite rather high price. But for those who looks for hardcore FemDom with whips, chains and CBT - don't bother, it's just not here.
It seems to me that 'Female Domination' niche is quite inappropriate for this kind of content; it is generic/various fetish site but there is almost no domination there.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Results of review of non-member area: girls are ugly, but suck lollipops as advertised. Comment is advertised as exclusive, and looks so (confirmed by TGP review). Updates are advertised as one per week, and it was confirmed by TGP back then, but without dated updates it doesn't look that they're still updating the site.
Bottom line: if you're REALLY into this fetish, you might want to risk it despite girls being outright ugly and probable lack of updates. Chances of site being "unethical": IMHO, quite high because of updates.
Thanks for explanation. From my point of view (as a customer of LostBetsGames) getting old stuff which has already been eaten (oops, sorry, sold) isn't a good thing, so I'm going to keep revised rating of 72 :-).
Thanks for insight, but [beep], [beep] and once again [beep] (sorry for being rude, but I cannot help it). Obviously, reselling old content is much cheaper for them then making new one, but reselling old content using new production dates is something I can't consider an honest business practice.
BTW, maybe you can submit an error report on TBP to challenge their claim that "All content is exclusive (advertised as 100% exclusive.)."?
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Updated:
02-02-1005:03am (Update History) Reason: Rating has been changed based on Capn's report that content is not exclusive, but re-used old content from Clips4Sale
Pros:
++ original idea
++ supposedly unscripted action
++ variety of games
+ girls seem to have fun
+ frequent updates
+ no pre-checked cross-sales (YMMV)
Cons:
-- girls are often on ugly side
-- video quality is poor for year 2010
- action is very soft (almost "strip-only")
- games are indoor-only
- no stills
Bottom Line:
As a big fan of sex games, I am really happy to find various sites with the same idea popping up recently. In addition to LostBetsGames, launched in Oct'09, there is SpicyRoulette, launched in Dec'09 (see my review a month ago), and FuckingGamble, launched in Jan'10 (stay tuned for my review upcoming in few days).
LostBetsGames is yet another site, similar in spirit to DareRing (now not updated anymore for a REALLY long while) and to StripGameCentral. It looks as it is about real people gathering and playing real strip games. I LIKE this idea (unscripted amateur action), I like it a LOT, the thing I do NOT like is amateurish implementation of this idea. I can understand that it will be "girl next door", not a pornstar, but LostBetGames IMHO went too far, often crossing the line between "girl next door" and "outright ugly girl". Videos are shot and processed in obviously amateurish style (lighting, cameraguy work, and color balance being almost nonexistent). And about encoding - come on, I do NOT think that in year 2010 320x240 qualifies as "medium quality", and that 640x480 qualifies as "HD". And on LostBetsGames, 320x240 is the MOST you can get for WMV, and 640x480 - the MOST you can get for MP4.
If they could overcome their technical shortcomings, it would be a VERY good site, mostly because of (at least mostly) unscripted nature and girls having real fun playing. And they update once a week, with every update being a single game from 5 to 15 minutes.
Bottom line: While LostBetsGames back in Oct'09 probably was a VERY interesting thing, now, with arrival of SpicyRoulette and FuckingGamble, I think they need to add more professionalism to become really competitive. Real girls having fun is great, but decent video quality (including cameraguy work, lighting and encoding) should also be there. On the other hand, if REAL strip poker is your thing, it easily can be worth a look.
UPDATE: based on Capn's report that content is not exclusive, but re-used old content from Clips4Sale (which also explains why looks so out-of-date), rating has been dropped by 10 points.
> Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or
> anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but
> I've never joined a site like that.
Wow, you've got REALLY lucky. I would say that from my (pretty extensive) experience at least 1/3rd of sites these days are trying to swindle users using PRE-CHECKED trials (especially typical for the sites which credit card transactions are handled by Epoch).
> It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
For me it would work as an exact opposite (unlike classic "bait and switch", these guys don't have good excuse of "being out of stock" for advertised item, which weakens their position greatly). On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm a typical user in this regard.
> We're not outside of the adult industry.
Well, if the court would ever consider such a case of deceptive practices in adult industry, it will VERY LIKELY consider common terminology and practices not only within this industry, but on much broader scale. And it is the court which ultimately decides what is fraud and what's not, isn't it?
> The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones
> that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's
> redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I > consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when subscribing) in this industry, so compared to those "pre-checked" guys unannounced trial limitations don't look that bad to me.
> the company has a duty to tell you what to expect.
Right. But as I've said, the question is that if the very word "trial" implies some restrictions or not. And (playing devil's advocate) IMHO it can be easily argued that it does imply at least some restrictions (number of limited trials even in adult industry is not that small, you can see it on TBP, and if we'll go outside the adult industry, trials will become obviously limited). And if it is implied, what is the need to tell it once again?
> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all of it or even more for the transaction itself). The very idea of trial is to get you to stay more, and that's one of the reasons I think that limited trials (except for DL limits during trials) are more much more "stupidity" than "fraud".
> There is a word for this: Fraud.
While in general I like to tell that some site is swindling it's customers ;-), I don't think I would name it "fraud" in this case (it's stupid on their part, but that's another story). And that's because at least for me, "trial" means something to try :-); kind of test drive without any guarantees that it will be the full thing. For example, when I'm taking a car for a test drive, I won't complain if salesguy will be in the car and I won't be allowed to drink my coffee and spill it all over the place :-).
Overall, it's all about expectations, but IMHO trials are generally not expected to be full; if somebody gives me full trial - good, if not - tough luck, but I don't have much to complain about.
So IMHO "Don't even bother with trial" is a useful warning, thanks, but naming it "fraud" is IMHO a bit too much.
> Sometimes it requires as little acknowledgment as taking the document
> into your possession.
As far as I've heard, usually in such cases courts are VERY reluctant to upheld these conditions :-), so it's mostly a weapon of frightening customers who're going to complain. Still, whenever I notice such conditions, I feel that such guys are trying to cheat me, so why I should do business with them, especially if there is a choice?
> doesn't it make more sense to give us your experiences with five or ten > sites you've actually joined?
My understanding this is a completely different thing. The question as I read it was about sites out there, not about sites one cares to join (which means pre-selection process, especially for PU users). I think poll results confirm my interpretation too (I don't think that somebody was mistreated by 75% of the sites he joined).
> if there is disclosure of elements in the site that you may not like > in the free area or the terms and conditions, isn't that ethical
> business practice? I think it is.
Yes, and you should note that there were several sites I've considered "probably ethical but definitely not worth to join", so it's not about liking or disliking free area, but an estimate of chances of them lying in free area (if garbage site doesn't promise anything, it's ok, but if it says they have daily updates, it's suspicious). About terms and conditions, I didn't say these guys are necessarily unethical, but outrageous terms and conditions make me quite suspicious, so I wrote "unethical: unclear" for them. Sure this whole exercise is all about personal interpretation, but I hope mine isn't too far out :-).
> In business in general it is common practice to reserve as many rights as you can think of...
You're right, but on the other hand everything has it's limits. I'm reading documents I'm signing VERY carefully, and I'm sure that if my bank would write "we reserve the right to charge you for excessive inquiries at our sole discretion", I wouldn't be a client of that bank :-).
From http://www.nolimitweb.nl/terms.htm :
"The occurrence of complaints from Customers, inquiries, Credit Backs or Charge Backs with respect to the Client's program or service may be cause for termination of this Agreement if such events occur with unacceptable frequency as determined in the sole discretion of the Company. In addition, The Company reserves the right to charge the Client reasonable fees and recover its expenses on account of Credit Backs, Charge Backs, or excessive customer inquiries." - have anybody seen anything like this? These guys seem to reserve the right to charge members as much as they wish, at their sole discretion.
This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on https://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical".
Ok, here goes the price of reviewing RANDOM sites :-(. But to maintain experiment as clean as possible I shouldn't avoid even as filthy stuff as this is (sorry guys who love it, it's not my cup of... oh, forget it).
Review of non-member area of the site is easy: there is only one page, so there isn't that much to see, but there is a movie on this page, so it isn't that uninformative after all. There are very few promises on this page, so there aren't much things to break (except for content being filthy enough, which is somewhat confirmed by sample WMV), but there is one interesting thing there in their "Terms and Conditions" (http://www.nolimitweb.nl/terms.htm , see my other comment to this site for a quote). I have no idea if some provisions was EVER used by them, or if similar conditions are present for any of the other sites, but this is IMHO nothing short of outrageous (they seem to reserve the right to charge members at the site discretion).
Bottom line: not only content is filthy, Terms and Conditions are not less filthy and I would stay away from sites with such Terms and Conditions at any cost.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ "mega penetrations" as advertised
+ hardcore action in addition to "mega penetrations" (often up to DP, sometimes DPP)
+ reasonable variety (different toys and setups)
+ easy navigation
+ "one big clip" download
+ access to Jerk-Off Pass network (27 more sites)
+ CCBill as card processor
Cons:
- sometimes action is disgusting
- girls aren't really cute (expected for this kind of content)
- probably infrequent updates (just as with other sites of this network)
- pics are just screenshots (quite blurry 640x480)
- annoying login (with difficult to recognize image recognition), auto-logouts.
Bottom Line:
Here comes yet another review of yet another Jerk-Off Pass site. While it isn't exactly my cup of tea, I'll still try to review.
Unlike most of the other sites of this network, there is not much plot in videos. Still, there are indeed "mega penetrations" as advertised, plus lots of hardcore action in each episode (often up to DP, sometimes even with DPP). Variety is here, but sometimes this site crosses the line going into things I consider outright disgusting (sorry guys, but eating stuff which sticks out of girl's ass isn't really my cup of tea; fortunately, it is just an occasional twist rather than typical for the site).
There are about 30 episodes on the site, each is 20-30 min video. Cameraguy work is decent, but video encoding quality is typical for this network and is "very average" (not really clear 1.2MBit/s 640x480 WMV).
Pics on this site are just 640x480 screenshots, so pics lovers don't need to bother.
As with the other sites of this network, updates aren't expected to be too frequent (see other my reviews of Jerk-Off Pass sites).
Bottom line:
For big dildo lovers, who don't care about pics, it should be a very good site. For others who aren't that much into this kind of things but (like me) can take an occasional look - can be a valuable addition to the Jerk-Off Pass network.
IMHO his review is still MUCH MORE useful than facts like number of pictures (which can be easily found on TBP, and even if they're not 100% up to date, they're most likely pretty close):
380+ Photo Shoots (avg. 100 pics each)
Hi-Res Pics: N, Model Index: N, Small & Large Pics: N, ZIP Files: N
Watermarks: Yes, medium-sized (all pictures).
Videos: 205+ Videos (approx. 4 min. each)
Full Scenes: N, Multi-Bandwidth: N, Vid Caps: N
Watermarks: Yes, medium-sized (all videos).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ young chicks in hardcore action
+ chicks are HOT
+ most of girls seem to like it
+ variety of setups
+ all MMF action you can get, up to 3M+3F and up to DP/DPP/DAP
+ easy navigation
+ "one big clip" download
+ access to Jerk-Off Pass network (27 more sites)
+ CCBill as card processor
Cons:
- pics are just screencaps
- not many updates expected (as with other sites of the network)
- annoying login (with difficult to recognize image recognition), auto-logouts.
Bottom Line:
Here goes yet another review of yet another Jerk-Off Pass site.
As the site name suggests, this site as about gangbangs (no idea why they named site "messy gangbangs", but gangbangs are here in every episode, no doubt about it :-)).
Site has about 30 episodes, 20-30 min each. Each site has plenty of MMF action, starting from 3M+1F and ending with 3M+3F or 4M+2F. Action always involves some DP, sometimes DPP or DAP. And IMHO the most important and attractive thing about this site is that girls seems to REALLY like most of the action, including anal and DP; IMHO it's a nice change from the most of the "reality" sites playing "abuse" theme.
Cameraguy work is decent, setups are good, but video encoding could be better (as with other Jerk-Off Pass sites, it is not really crisp 1.2MBit/s 640x480). Pictures are just 640x480 screencaps. Updates are not dated and most likely are infrequent (as well as for the other sites of the same network).
Site also borrows some good and bad features from the other sites of the same network, such as "one big clip" download on the plus side and very annoying login system on the minus side.
Bottom line: a very good site for those who like MMF action, and if updated frequently, could even stand on it's own. Without frequent updates, probably wouldn't be worth it as a standalone site, but access to whole network easily makes up for lack of updates.
Just a purely personal opinion :-): for me fake smile is SO MUCH worse than fake boobs, and in "fake smile" department Met Art is FAR ahead of the Playboy :-((.
Good comparison with Playboy, but you know, Playboy IMHO wins this comparison hands down. For me, Playboy models feel SO MUCH more "alive" then MetArts' "dead fish" ones.
> If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome.
Do you mind if I amend it a bit? "If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes WITH BORED "I'M THE QUEEN AND YOU'RE DIRT" EXPRESSION CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THEIR FACES" - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome." would be MUCH better description IMHO :-).
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.
