Yes, you definitely get your money's worth for the first month, but after that it seems like a small discount or something would be in order if you were to continue as a member.
Their content does seem like a pretty good investment though, because even as HD video and hi-res photos become the standard, their older stuff is still unique enough and decently shot to be worth saving.
Thanks to PU, as well as the fact that I am still going to the bigger reputable sites with lots of good reviews, I have an average score of 84.6.
As others have said, we all have our own tastes and I try to steer clear of the sites that just don't interest me, no matter how high their average score is.
Yes, I was surprised mbaya did not mention price in his review -- $35 is not exactly cheap, despite how beautiful their content is. Even if they had better search functions, I would still give them a score in the 80s with their current price.
Yes, and I have, though the majority of models at most sites seem to be white American or European.
My question: is anyone really concerned whether their porn is interracial or not, because I only really want to see the girl, I don't care if she and the guy are "mixed."
That sucks, I get looks for some of the shirts I wear too, and they are only related to music, not porn.
I am still more on the anonymous side of wearing a PU shirt, as American culture is still way too hung up on fashion. I really do not care what people wear, as long as they are comfortable, but if I was to be offended by something, it would be a logo of a large corporation (pretty much any would do) or even a government organization, long before any band or porn site.
Justification for a high score, as well as lots of exclamation points, is what reviews should be about. We are all biased in some way or another, but I think a 100 or 99 can be validated, especially with the higher character counts that are allowed for reviews.
These reviews barely even read as advertisements, they just come across like every spam subject line we have had to read as we empty out the junk mail folder.
Is there a way to temporarily block reviews for this site until the flood of enthusiasm recedes some?
Hmm...this is the third review in just as many days for the same site, and the scores from these three range from 99 to 100. They are also all by three brand new users who have joined PU in the last few days and only reviewed this site.
If it wasn't for the newbie ratings, super high scores, and countless exclamation points, I might consider these to be at least somewhat legitimate.
Maybe I am wrong, and this site has gotten really popular in the last few days.
A beautiful setting can help, but sometimes it can be distracting because it is so overwhelming visually. For example, almost every beach scene I was taken in by the setting well before the girl or action. It definitely helps to have a nice set, but it has to complement, not compete with, the main action.
This also applies to more amateur looking settings; if there is a lot in the background it could draw people's attention away from the subject. Ever look at photos or watch a video, but you kept focusing on something in the background instead? (This is part of the reason why I don't enjoy public nudity or sex, too much going on in the background.)
I like simple, clean, but not overly luxurious settings. Seeing mansion after mansion, or paradise after paradise, emphasizes the fantasy aspect too much for my tastes. I also don't like the studio backdrops that a lot of photographers use -- too boring. Somewhere in the middle are the good settings.
Yeah, I am really lost as to what he or she is referring to. Maybe it is someone who works for the site (but I doubt it) or a really enthusiastic fan...either way I still hate the anonymous ratings, even with comments.
Excellent review! Nice to see a member being honest about this site; I mean really, what's with all the high scores?
Anyways, I am never sure how to classify this site. Like others said, it is too disrespectful to its models to be glamour, plus most photos and videos are not up to the more "artsy" sites' standards, and if they are it took too long to implement. It is not really hardcore either, or at least solo hardcore, due to all the repetition. I became so bored with the site so quickly.
I am not big on search features -- I prefer to just wander and wade through the material -- but here the quantity overwhelms you long before the quality does. I think this site has a lot of great content, it just doesn't present it to its fullest potential.
It's good that you have mentioned them in reviews, but I think it goes over a lot of people's head. Quality can be a very subjective thing, and quantity -- even high quantity with low quality -- is much more objective, especially since it is often just numbers. But bit rate can really determine a video's quality, even if everyone is more concerned with the resolution or length.
Maybe there is just not enough demand by members for sites to post them, though once you download a file you can see for yourself. I worry too many sites will just use high bit rates to claim they have good videos, just like they do with HD resolutions. Just because they captured a shitty scene in HD does not keep it from being any less shitty had it been captured in SD. In fact, higher quality often only reinforces bad lightning, camera work, sound, style, etc.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ Lots of beautiful, happy, sensual, and mostly French, girls who love what they do
+ Large amount of content: claimed 1028 vids, 70,358 pics, 327 girls
+ Nice range of choices, from soft to hardcore, with quite a bit of anal, fisting, and pissing too
+ DL speeds of around 500 kb/s
+ Easy navigation, with quick and advanced search features
+ Newest videos are 1280x720 HD, newest pics are 3000x2000
+ Few, if any, American or Eastern Euro girls, tattoos, or implants (quite a few piercings though)
+ Billing through CC Bill
+ Discounted price of $25 through PU
Cons:
- Older content is lower quality, and some scenes are quite short
- Some scenes that are both taped and photographed lose overall focus (see bottom line)
- Some models are not that hot, or just too hairy
- There is occasional camera work that some may find annoying, but it's not that bad
- Almost exclusively French, though site is offered in several languages (English, French, German, Japanese), so France-haters might dislike it
- Condom use may be a turnoff to some
Bottom Line:
Ah, France: the women, the wine, the food...the porn? Yes, I had my doubts about an almost purely French site, especially considering I prefer German and British content when I think of European porn. It is not that I do not like the French; I do, but I think of them as purveyors of more erotic material, rather than the crazy, but bland, style of perverted arts we produce ad nauseam here in the U.S. But this is exactly what I like about this site.
It is neither a pure closeup/gynecological style nor a beautiful, but boring, glamour photography one. Instead it is a mix of hot young, almost all French, girls who do only what they are comfortable doing, never what they feel they "have" to do. Fortunately that covers a lot of ground, from the soft through the hard, and lots in between, including quite a bit of fisting and some peeing (if you are looking for any of this).
These girls seem to be more on the amateur side, though not so much that they have no clue as to what they are doing, or how to do it well and make it look good. Some are no doubt professionals, but there are few implants or models who sport the typical American porn look. There are a few tattoos, but mostly on the guys (maybe three or four very lucky Frenchman who get to really enjoy all these models), and there are more piercings than other modifications. Quite a few are hairy, even by our demanding standards, but it really didn't bother me because of the sheer enthusiasm they show towards their work.
My major complaint is the whole video versus photography approach. Both are captured quite well, but the overlap can be annoying. For example, a photoshoot with a bunch of pics of the cameraman/woman, or a video with the camera flash going off every few seconds. Somewhere in the mix of things the thrill is gone and I am too distracted by the other camera to fully enjoy the videos or pics. This hurt the videos more than the pics, since you can just delete the pics with the camera in them, but I think it keeps quite a few videos from being really good.
Others have cited the camera work, but I like it since it means videos that are actually edited (sometimes with music, instead of just plain porn "dialogue") and not just a single 20 minute take. They also use two or three cameras in some scenes, and it makes for some interesting and enjoyable videos.
There really is a loving and consensual passion to the content here, particularly the hardcore scenes (straight or lesbo). It is something that seems to be missing from most American porn of late, and I forgot how much more I could enjoy things when the sex is an act of physical love and not one of physical degradation. It makes the models more relaxed and comfortable in what they are doing, and to me that is truly erotic.
I don't think it is a very big part of American culture, what with our Puritan background and the demands of the colder climates in many parts of our country. We are so hung up on the "evils" of nudity, I am sure you can find people who would even call it un-American.
I think a lot of us (myself included) have been so conditioned to simply think that nudity=sex, and therefore a nudist resort could be some free-for-all nonstop orgy -- but everyone is unattractive -- instead a way to just relax without clothes.
Personally I would like to try it at least once with friends and some extremely strong sunblock, as my skin is not up the task of being exposed to the sun for very long. And if they are all "overweight middle aged people" then I would at least have less to be self conscious about.
If he absolutely has to be jacked off, then 2 and/or 3. I prefer it to be more "natural" though -- the guy aims and fires freely, not stand there and risk pulling a muscle in his arm or dislocate his shoulder.
Monahan has a good point here, but I think if most guys came too easily then they would not be able to last that long with the knockout babes, or even the "average" ones, so sometimes they really have to sprint their way to the finish.
One question: if the guy climaxes really quickly is it possible, subconsciously, he just doesn't like her and that his body is just trying to speed up so he can leave?
Yeah, seriously, who is Uncle Jessie (I am trying hard not to think of "Full House")?
Plus, what exactly, besides gender, makes someone a "dirty old man"? If an eighteen year old girl does a scene with a thirty-six year old -- twice her age -- does that make him a dirty old man? I don't think so. In fact, I think it just makes him lucky, nothing else. Men are pretty much "dirty" regardless of their age, or the age difference between partners, so I really don't care. But if a woman fucks a younger man, does that then make her a dirty old woman?
I think it's easier for us younger users to complain about older men, but read Drooler's reply, and you might understand, or maybe he is just a dirty old dog instead...
I agree with Ik2fireone here; I start reading PU more than daily newspaper. At least PU doesn't tell me what hot new pill I should take, or what new "crisis" or "epidemic" to worry about.
I don't think I have been a 100% disappointed because I have usually been looking for something or someone specific, only to join and find little to none of what I am looking for. I have been lucky in that I at least find a little to enjoy.
Sometimes it is just a site's overall approach to making porn that I don't like; too soft, Photoshopped, amateur, fake, the list goes on... So even if they have good, maybe even mind-blowingly great content, it has been captured in a way that just is not my fancy.
I think this is a fear of mine Wittyguy, though I guess it's better than her leaving me for another dude...
What people do on camera and what they do in real life are probably not one and the same; just because these girls are "total sluts" onscreen doesn't mean they just screw guy after guy in their personal lives (though it might help their acting), and just because they are lovin' it with girls doesn't make them lesbians either.
Guys on the other hand do not seem so flexible, or at least as secure, to just play gay. I think the nature of porn makes girls -- especially newer ones -- more comfortable trying things with another girl than with a guy, whereas guys seem far more comfortable with just a girl than even a boy-girl-boy scene.
It's all a part of the overall fantasy aspect; a primarily male audience simply enjoys girl-girl action even if the girls are not really lesbos or even bi.
I can't say I care too much, but shots to the eyes were talked about in ramscrota's recent cumshots thread.
There is a "Pink Eye" video series where the objective is to specifically target a (usually) reluctantly held open eye. The whole point there is to not have anything protecting the girls eyes.
I occasionally see girls with glasses -- which can make for a hot studious look -- but I hate it when they splatter the glasses. It looks awkward and mean for the girl, like some sort of dumb Jackass-style porn prank. Plus, it always makes me wonder if they're the girl's glasses because she would then have to go and sanitize them afterward (boiling, a strong acid, etc.).
It's dirty work, and everyone has eyelids anyways.
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.
