Thanks, and yeah it's long, pretty soon I'm going to have to sit on exotics4me's couch and discuss my addiction to writing long reviews. I swore to myself that I would try and keep this one short...
(Bottom Line continued. Sorry my reviews are getting so long.)
Also Simon (assuming he does all the shooting) frequently shoots short depths-of-field, meaning not a lot of the photo is in focus, so focused face but not ass, or focused ass but not face, but not a lot of both if the model is on her back or stomach. Other sites do this but it seemed to be very apparent here for some reason and it can get annoying. Clean sets and proper lighting seemed to used in almost all photos though older shoots seem to have shots thrown in that should have been deleted, like everything is out of focus, a flash didn’t fire, or something else, but for some reason they are there. I also found one little problem that irritated me in some sets; dust on the sensor. This happens in digital photography in between lens changes when dust gets on the camera’s image sensor and shows up in every photo (usually in the same exact place) until cleaned off. It sounds insignificant but to me it just seems unprofessional when everything else is done professionally (lighting, sets, verifying the model’s age).
If your looking for videos you should keep looking as a lot of models have none and those that do may only have two or three, but not one for every photoset. Older videos are smaller, around 480 x 360 .mpgs @700kb/s, but again not in great quantity so don’t get your hopes up. Not once did I ever hear or see Simon or any other male help for that matter, so it makes for a lesson in restraint to all the hands-on two cents-adding douches out there who want to ruin my video, uh, ‘experience.’ The girls are often shy and quiet too, and since they claim the orgasms are never forced none of the models really get that vocal or overly physical when masturbating but they seemed happy and I wasn’t complaining.
If SS really get their act together and release bigger photos with the links improved and videos for every model then they can get a score in the 80s, but until then members will have to put up with the relative narrow reach of their current and fully archived content; almost entirely solo girls (girl-girl is rare), many of them amateur, armed with lots of toys.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
+ Claimed 653 models, in 4200+ sets, 464,000+ images--all archived
+ If you like the solo girl niche they stick with it; no guys (except maybe in the BG in public nudity)
+ Healthy variety of British, Ibizan, and Eastern Euro models in many shapes and sizes
+ Newest vids are 1280 x 720 HD .mov @ 4.9MB/s
+ Navigation is easy enough, despite missing content
+/- Near constant use of toys; a pro for me, but I know some hate this
Cons:
- Pictures overall are good but small; newest ones are 1850 x 1230 max, older ones can be quite small
- Basically no model info beyond what you can learn from the photos or videos
- A lot of sets are missing content
- Not very many videos; treat this as a photo site
- Photographic style may annoy some; Simon frequently uses short DOF (more in BL)
- Very little girl-girl content
- Lots of models are less than hot
-/+ Lots of models are less than fully shaved; a con for me, a pro for others
-/+ I don't think Photoshop is used beyond cropping and adding a watermark; beware this is not as good as it sounds
Bottom Line:
I wanted to like this site a lot, I really did. It has all the right basic ingredients to make me happy: lots of young girls with lots of toys, while the guys stay behind camera with their mouths shut. Plus these are mostly British girls I have never seen with a few Euro ones I have seen thrown in. So what's the problem?
Well, sometimes even when you have all the right ingredients and follow the directions the recipe didn't turn out quite as well as you had expected. A lot of the girls didn't shave : ( and many more that didn't exactly just step off the runway in a Paris fashion show. I don't want to sound like a heartless asshole (that's what the forum is for) but there are quite a few models who could benefit from skipping the fast food. I am not saying any of the girls are really obese but don't expect to find one skinny little model after another here--as I said above, many shapes and sizes. It's really a matter of personal taste and I prefer the skinnier girls myself but that's just me. As far as the looks, well, that's personal taste too and I guess there's nothing anybody can do about that but there are plenty of hot girls--both skinny and not so skinny.
Besides the shape of its models the site could do some improving in terms of actually providing content that isn’t there. As other reviewers have mentioned there are models that have missing photo sets and videos; you see a link to a set on the model’s page (usually three medium sized thumbnails) but when you click it there is just an empty SS page with the banners and links at the top but no content below, and the same with some videos. Annoying because nobody wants to pay for empty pages and those thumbnails would frequently get my engine revving only to have it stall out when there was an empty set.
When I actually saw the content I noticed a couple of things. First, the photos, despite making up the vast majority of content, were on the small side; 1850 x 1230 is the newest and biggest resolution available. I looked for links to bigger zips or maybe a hi-res option all to no avail—these biggest photos don’t even fill my screen. Second, the photos themselves have some attributes that really divide us here at PU. I don’t think any Photoshop is used beyond cropping and watermarking but before you jump for joy be aware that not all girls are created equal, especially when you jam the camera in between their legs to check out what’s under the hood. Ass zits, razor burn, and stray pubic hair may be a turn on for some but not me and I really wished somebody had cleaned these shots up at least a little. There are plenty of models that really don’t need any digital work done on their lovelies but there are still many that do.
Just to second Drooler's opinion here, yes the majority of the models start off clothed, though getting naked with a toy at the ready can be done pretty quickly. The videos don't waste a lot a time and many of them (of what videos there are) start naked.
Overall you see plenty of lingerie and clothing before the 'real' action starts.
I recently joined and will soon do a review, but in the mean time I was wondering if there were any current subscribers? The latest review was from last summer (and it was a short one) and the last comment was from over a year ago. I haven't found any of the problems mentioned in the last few comments (which are pretty much outdated) so I was wondering how other members are doing.
Looks cool, hope someone joins and does a review soon.
The only thing I didn't like was the way Nella (from ALS Scan, Met Art, Sapphic Erotica, etc.) looked with her jet black hair with bangs. I can't stand bangs! They make models look more like fake, plastic porn actresses than horny girls next door.
Yeah, I should have specified girl-girl or girls-only hardcore, not boy-girl hardcore--which I am not very interested in--and this site sounds like it fits that bill really well (or fit on a future credit card really well...). Can't wait to be a member, and thanks again for responding.
Exotics, I know it's been more than six months since your review but you're the latest actual reviewer, so how soft or hard is this site exactly? I was wondering because Cap'n made some comments about it being listed under softcore when it looks to be more explicit than that.
I'm just curious because I don't like stripping and posing--it's just too boring for me--so anything you can remember would help, thanks!
By exclusive, I just meant that a lot of the models in the previews I have already seen on other sites, especially since so many love to shoot the same group of Eastern European ones. It probably wasn't the best word to use, since you guys do shoot and capture your own content, just probably not the first ones to do so for the majority of your models.
Looks like a great site for girls only content, though it appears that all the models are eastern European, which is not what I like to think of as "exclusive." Still, high resolution photography and videography are always nice to see. Can't wait to hear from members in the near future.
I was checking out the price of those premium channels -- $18! Considering a regular membership, with its access to so many DVDs, starts at $10, I cannot believe that people would really want an extra channel for that much cash. Does Evil Angel = evil price?
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
+ Great value, even with "DVD-quality" membership price
+ Huge number of videos
+ Lots of categories; plenty of hardcore, numerous studios, even a few classic titles to choose from
+ Easy to use site; simple and straightforward interface
+ Multiple DL choices for each video
+ No DRM: DL and keep vids forever (or until your HD dies...)
Cons:
- Could be a lot faster, especially for high- and DVD-quality videos
- Quite a few good studios missing (Hustler, Seymore Butts just to name a couple)
- Almost no Euro content
- Some categories have few videos
Bottom Line:
If you want lots (thousands) of American porn videos to choose and keep forever, and all for as little as $10/mo, this could be arguably the best choice.
I went for the full priced "DVD-quality" ($18) and still thought this was an incredible bargain. Assuming that this is the price that just 1 of this site's movies would be on DVD, and they have 4000+ videos to pick from, it's hard to go back to buying DVDs ever again...But there are some studios absent from here, probably because they want to offer their goods on their own pay sites. For example, if you just like Hustler vids, then keep looking. There are still tons of US studios on here, including quite a few you probably haven't heard of (and probably don't want to either).
A minor complaint about this site is that it is almost completely American. I lived in Germany for a few years and saw plenty of stuff that makes a lot of our porn quite tame and boring. This may not sound important, but considering how many US sites involve numerous Euro models, and create orig content as hardcore as the filth found overseas, it's worth noting.
Videobox's major weakness, and I why I ultimately left, was its speed (or lack thereof). If you like HQ and DVD vids, then get comfortable because it could take a while to DL them. This is likely due to its large customer base, but it's very frustrating. This site doesn't make you pay in $ just time. Still you should browse their entire collection before buying on disc again.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
+ Large quantity of DVDs (claimed 4700+)
+ Nice variety as well, lots of categories
+ Downloads were reasonably fast (around 500 kb/s)
+ Ability to stream videos quickly and easily
+ Scene breakdown with lots of thumbnails
+ Does not allow user comments/"reviews"
+ Free to preview their whole collection
+ Full access trial available for 2 days at $4
Cons:
+ Price is way too high compared to competitors ($30 monthly)
+ Inconsistent download standards: older vids are WMVs, newer ones are DivXs
+ Search feature needs improvement, many vids are tagged with content that they don't have, and many don't have actresses listed
+ Annoying watermark on all videos
+ Older WMVs are DRM protected, though free license is provided
+ Like all DVD sites, content is non-exclusive, and is not hi-def (max definition around 480x360)
Bottom Line:
I have been a satisfied member of VideoBox before, the favored DVD site of PU, but I still wanted to check this site out. It offered a few videos that they didn't and I figured it was worth checking out. I was not disappointed, but nothing here really stood out or hints that they have the power to pass their top competitor. Why?
Well, price is simply not that nice -- $30, monthly -- twice what a PU discount gets you at VideoBox for 1 month of "DVD quality." If you use their slightly lower quality $10 membership, then VideosZ is 3x the price!
Dollars aside, the site is nicely laid out and organized enough to find much of you want. Unfortunately, many scenes do not have any actresses tagged, or labeled with content that isn't in them. Plus, the same problem I had with VideoBox, they don't consolidate and cross reference models' different stage names, so clicking on a girl's scene list will bring up other videos with different girls who used the same names -- irritating. For bigger actresses this isn't a problem, since they generally stick with the same name, but I like quite a few lesser known girls and trying to find their work got frustrating.
Downloads were generally fast for me; no bullet train speeds, but never slow. Streaming options on videos, both high and low, also started quickly for me. I usually ended up using the thumbnails to determine if I really wanted to DL a vid or not, and this worked out reliably. I use Free Download Manager and had no problems, but could never do multiple downloads, though there are no DL limits.
Since all these DVD sites use, well, DVDs for their sources, resolution is never great, at least compared to the massive 1920x1080 HD video many sites now offer. Their videos max out around 480x360 DivX, not quite the 720x480 DVD resolution, but satisfactory for my tastes. Format wise, they really need some sort of standardization here; they use WMVs, DivXs, and MPEGs. Many of the older WMVs are DRM protected, though a free license that you keep forever is provided. I hate DRM, so instead I just avoided these videos completely. I wish they would wise up and re-upload these videos once they had them DRM free, but it doesn't sound like it will happen anytime soon.
I liked what I found here, though it was never value priced, and I got bored pretty quickly, just as I did with VideoBox. Honestly, I would probably pay half the $30 monthly membership for half the time just because I lose interest in these DVD sites so soon. I wouldn't be spending any more money than I would at VideoBox, but I wouldn't spend a whole month there either.
For now, I recommend their 2 day trial, and sign up for a month only if you really have the money, and you end up finding a lot of stuff you cannot get elsewhere.
They now offer a 2-day trial, full access, for $4.
A lot cheaper than one month, and even cheaper than VideoBox (okay, a lot shorter too), but it is a cheap way to join and download some videos that you may not find elsewhere.
WARNING: Make sure to UNCHECK the box on the signup page for the Brazzer's Network trial (1 day for $1, then recurs at a healthy $40 monthly). You shouldn't have to scroll any, but it can be very easy to miss, as it is in the same size and style font as everything else.
Love how this site takes this fetish seriously, if that's the right word to use when discussing golden showers. Normally it's relegated to something only done at the end of scene so webmasters can just add another tag, and rather clumsily at that. Even better, it has long, hot, and enthusiastic girl-girl scenes which can be kind of rare within this genre. It's one thing to watch a pretty girl do a standard boy-girl or solo scene, but quite another to discover she's done work for this site.
As far as I'm aware this site is totally exclusive, if also appearing to be the hardcore side of Wet and Pissy, though the companies are different. A model seems to do W&P and/or Wet and Puffy, and then move on to this. Those sites' solo scenes are well done, but again, add a second girl and it becomes even better, IMHO.
Also, there has been at least one American performer on here, Tiffany Fox, who's also done solo scenes for both Wet & Pissy and Wet & Puffy. Still wish they did have more American performers though.
Oh, and to add to the con questioning "is material this hardcore too transgressive?", I would say no, at least with regards to this specific subscription and its sister sites.
The genre of this reviewed site (boy-girl pissing) had already pretty clearly been taken to the extreme years ago. People like Max Hardcore and sites like 666 Bukkake are not for the squeamish, or at times even the comfortably consensual viewer. Then Kink's now out-of-date Pissing.com (still open, but a few years since last update) is as rough and hardcore with the fetish as any of their other sites but also just as consensual, something missing with way too many other sites.
Now we digital deviants have sties like Wet and Pissy and VIPissy--frankly, far less transgressive for me than the countless anal and cum/swallow fetish sites. Hell, compared to the latest R-rated "sex" comedy we could see advertised on TV and on giant billboards this porn is practically art that people not only want to genuinely see, but might actually find pleasure in seeing(!).
Good review, John, hope there's more to come from similar sites!
I'm trying to figure if there's really that much of a difference between this and Wet and Pissy, since both's samples look so similar, share many of of the same models and scenes, and both are parented by the porn octopus Epoch. The only noticeable change from W & P I can tell is the focus towards more boy-girl golden showers instead of the former's solo and occasional (way too occasional for a guy like me!) girl-girl scenes.
Obviously, the Puffy Network subscription is the best deal at the moment--We Like To Suck, Wet and Puffy, and of course Wet and Pissy for $20/month--but that still seems to miss some of what VIPissy has if hardcore, in the boy-girl sense, is what really floats your porn boat.
I certainly never thought it would be such an intentional and consensual one. There's Girls Gone Wild of course, which was all about taking advantage of girls through inebriation and peer pressure, and then all the shoots where a performer showed up partially stoned or hung over.
I guess this site would be a lot more worrying if it included sober male co-performers, but as it is now it doesn't seem to be crossing any lines.
I joined PuffyNetwork myself a couple months ago and was quite happy with the sites...well, W&P was really my only interest. I would say that this site is pleasurably unique in shooting well--lighting, resolution, longer scenes--in a genre that too often doesn't get this treatment, instead relegating it to shitty, creepy, sites that have seemed to think that simply shooting "fetish" content makes up for a measurable amount of quality.
And to top it all off they have the crazy idea to depict the performers actually enjoying it, instead of the fetish=sadistic treatment angle that too many sites have gone for over the years. Who would have thought to make the content in porn appear to be pleasurable?
My main complaint would be, like RagingBuddhist raged in his review of PuffyNetowrk, that the download speeds were inconsistent and all too frequently slow, at least for the larger 1GB+ size files they have so many of. A growing problem, as the site builds up its lecherous library and you really want to get the most for your money. (But if you're into it, you damn sure will wait on every single file!)
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.
