I wish webmasters would understand that many of their members download photos to keep. I remember back in the '90s when 800 x 600 was a big photo and it took up the entire screen, or most of it. Of course, with higher res monitors being offered with better quality at lower prices, this "Why would anyone want pictures that are bigger than the screen?" argument goes out the window (or out with the smaller monitor).
I love it when material is higher quality, not simply because of better details and it shows people care about what they create, but the material can have a much longer life, even with the inevitable introduction of newer equipment. I think the "Why would anyone want more?" question is always regretted given enough time, especially with technology.
Though I do wish quite a few sites would improve photos, as well as videos (and I am not talking purely about technical aspects or either category), I would like to see some more innovation. This partially crosses over with the exclusivity choice, but I am so tired of seeing the same models on multiple sites doing pretty much the same thing, in the same settings, and often captured with the same equipment. For me this leaves the first four choices properly satisfied to the point where I hope for some creativity and unique content on the part of the webmasters and producers -- and they don't even have to risk breaking the laws or hurting some poor model's feelings to do it.
Smell-o-vision or 3-D sound cool, but if you think about how they would apply to a lot of porn you might wish otherwise. There have been quite a few videos where I thought "it's probably good I can't smell the action, only see and hear it."
3D is making its way into some big Hollywood blockbusters but it is still a gimmick designed to generate a bigger profit with every ticket sold, not a genuine attempt to increase quality.
It would be nice if they tried to eventually increase quality beyond HD (higher definition? super high definition?) but people would probably have to own bigger displays and possess strong vision in order to even tell the difference.
I joined In The Crack at $35 -- but I felt it was well worth the price for one great month of downloading. : ) They are the kind of site I join no more than once a year, so one month at that price is not too bad.
Normally I max out around $25 or $30 for a month's membership, and usually do not have the urge to rejoin either, even with lower offers.
"Community standards" can be an extremely dangerous defense, and it can also be blamed for making a lot of American porn only come from one or two places in the entire country (southern Florida being one of them).
These sacred "standards" -- if that even means anything -- could vary greatly from community to community, and could apply to all sorts of material in porn. What if interracial is frowned upon? How about MILF porn, or anything that involves models that vary greatly in age? Hell, why not ban material if the producers don't use energy efficient lighting or recycle properly? If anything might possibly offend anyone at anytime for any reason whatsoever just make it illegal!
Lol. Yeah, I am not exactly sure why they are singled out, but there are probably a few offended members.
I would love to visit Australia; warm weather and lots to see, plus being a dumb monolingual American I would not have to learn another language, though I am sure I would stick out like a sore thumb regardless. Maybe I should join Abbywinters a few times and learn about their women?
After Australia I would visit the Scandinavian countries just to see the natural beauty of the land. They seem to be one of the last places on Earth where humans are not coexisting with the land simply by destroying it.
Normal movies because they keep re-releasing them in infinite editions, plus all the times they show them on TV, whereas porn seems to be too often limited; miss something and you might never see it again!
I spent 3 1/2 years in the military and saying that they have some antiquated and intolerant policies is a considerable understatement.
Because of my job, I was in a combat unit (all male), and, yes, you could say being straight was a requirement. In fact, being outright homophobic, misogynistic, racist, and just generally intolerant were all pretty standard. I understand people when they say "well, that's just the culture" or "it's to be expected," but there is simply no excuse for intolerant policies in what we so loudly like to tout as a "free" country.
I think part of the problem is people confuse sexual identity for sexual aggression; that is, someone who is gay is supposedly more sexual than someone who is straight. It is sort of like how some fear Islam is more violent than Christianity, but today many of the barriers to religious tolerance have come down, or are at least much lower than, say, during WWII or even Vietnam.
I am afraid I don't know what the best solution is, though getting rid of the stopgap non-solution of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a good start. The military has been ahead of civilian changes in social policy in the U.S. in the past -- like starting desegregation before civilian institutions did -- but sexuality, and our obsession with it, has a long way to go.
I have to say Europe after having lived there for a few years...the porn is not just the "hottest," but some of the most different as well. It is not just the depth, but the breadth of material that is amazing, and how relatively equally distributed it is compared to North America. We have loads of "mainstream" mass-produced porn available here in the U.S., much of which is professionally shot and captured, but not necessarily the hottest.
I would say Asia (or just Japan) is second only because it is a single country and it is censored.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, too high and too low, despite how predictable ratings become (big chests, blondes always getting high marks), I am still surprised how often looks alone will get the ratings. I have seen quite a few models who I thought had incredible looks, and then when I watch their videos I wish I had never see them in the first place. Sometimes a model won't even do that well in a photoshoot either, so I never even watch her videos.
Attitude counts too, so just being "super hot" doesn't cut it for me. When I do really like a girl's looks it usually one or two things that that never fair too well in polls (like non-blonde hair color, or normal size breasts).
Ratings are not really a big deal until they affect content release; that is, if a model is not rated too well and less of her content is uploaded to a site. ALS Scan does this, and I think it hurts them because you never get to see a lot of girls' work after they been judged "not popular enough."
I would say "None" because it's the girl that makes something "attractive," not the device.
I have seen quite a few videos with girls using the Hitachi Wand, that damn personal "massager" that looks like an over sized hair dryer with a long cord and makes lots of noise. It's such an eyesore by itself that I am always amazed how hot a girl can look using it.
Oh, and how are fingers and tongues considered toys? The FCC doesn't need any more suggestions on what to censor, plus moral crusaders worldwide have enough trouble keeping up with the parts of the body they already consider "filthy."
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.
