I had the same reaction. Just logged onto Brazzers and saw the announcement. Looks to me that they're simply attempting to bring in a few more bucks.
I've been considering bitting Brazzers an adieu because I'm tired of seeing so many of their updates featuring babes with aftermarket bumpers added to their chassis. I like 'em all natural all the time.
This move may be the final impetus to drop them off my list.
NOPE. Same reason as I won't knowingly join a site that still uses DRM. Yes, a streaming site usually has more new stuff so there will be undiscovered treasures that I'll miss, but if I find something I really like, I'll be damned if I'll pay (and pay, and pay, and pay) to have future access to it.
My number 1 turnoff is a lousy boob job. The worst example (and probably what really set me off) was Sandra Scream, a porn star in the late 1980's early 1990's, who had a rather nicely done boob job. I saw her at a nude joint in San Francisco and fell in love. Yes, they were clearly enhanced tits, but she smoked.
Then after she dumped the drug dealer Woody Long she decided to join the previous knockouts who blew up their chests to ludicrous extremes (Wendy Whoppers, Busty Dusty and Candy Canteloupes, for example) and made herself look like a total freak with literally no sex appeal.
Since then when I see "bolt ons" that barely move during a heavy sex scene, I move on.
A babe like Carmella Bing, whose natural rack was awesome, had no legitimate reason to fuck with nature...but she did anyway. She looked far better before adding the aftermarket bumpers, but at least they didn't destroy her sexuality.
The good news is that the excessive surgical enhancements have caused me to look at tits more qualitatively so that even a gorgeous babe with a nice set of natural B's with nice round puffy nipples gets ol' willy to jump to rigid attention. My current favorite small titter is Jana Jordan who has a great body, a better attitude and a great pair of nipples.
And my distaste for tattoos dissipated a bit with Jana Jordan, who has a cute one on her foot and a whale tail on her back that is tasteful Anastasia Christ's little butterfly on her gorgeously natural and full sized left tit is also an enhancement. But Friday's big fucking "F" where her pubic hair should be, and Belladonna's ridiculous body art both spoiled a very good thing.
The unnatural hair color doesn't bother me very much and a pierced tongue is no big deal. But pierced nipples and clitoris makes no sense at all to me. I can just imagine the pain involved if something bad were to happen during a particularly frisky scene.
Correct. Long threads that become longer are difficult to read and, because the tangents are hard to change, usually don't attract a lot of interest.
If a thread is truly redundant it's no big deal for someone to post a link to the old one...or post a comment in the old one that pushes the old one back up to the top,
I'm not that young and I agree with your 2 minutes as an absolute maximum for any activity. Given the impatience of the younger folks these days, I doubt they would differ from a 2 minute benchmark except perhaps to say it should be closer to a minute or so.
It kinda reminds me of the good old days a quarter century ago sitting in the local Pussycat Theater, bored to tears, while Serena, Seka, Aunt Peg or John Leslie would act out a set up scene to create a "plot." Then finally, Leslie yanks out his sausage and a babe would wrap her lips around it and go to work. By and large the porn directors back in those days were smart enough to limit the action but the new guys, I guess, figure that, if a girl takes 15 minutes to get off with a toy, if he has to wait, so do we. ;)
Background chatter sucks. The video is about the baabe so if she needs instructions, fine. Edit out the chatter for Pete's sake.
Shutter sounds also suck, especially when it's so damned easy to shoot silently with modern equipment.
Poor lighting is crazy. The babe(s) is/are paid good money to show off their assets so why not light those assets properly?
But the one thing that annoys the shit out of me is when the camera man lingers far too long on, say, a solo masturbation scene. Two minutes is plenty, but seven or eight minutes where the last 30 seconds are the same as the first 30 seconds? What's the point?
The question asks about "New" site memberships so my answer is one every two or three months. Why? Because I have my favorite sites that I allow to auto renew until I'm ready to move on.
The various "teaser" sites that offer clips of specific babes are, more and more, posting clips from Naughty America. More to the point, many of the newer babes in the biz seem to have stuff on this site.
So, Rattrap, thanks for your review. Yours, and the ones posted earlier, all say that this is a great site. At $25 it's also reasonably priced but as said elsewhere, it's too bad they don't offer a 3 month or 6 month deal at a lower price per month.
One question. Have you had any problems with their billing service? It's not CCBill or Paycom, who are, in my opinion, fully trustworthy. They show their billing service as DHDmedia.com (which is likely Danni's Hard Drive [DHD] getting into the billing business)
I'm always leery of non mainstream billing services.
After reading this review I checked out the preview site and agree totally with Jutti24 about the navigation. I wish all sites would follow the example set by this site, but not just the navigation, also the short descriptions that appear for each model.
Strangely, the comments in this thread actually serve to strengthen my general trust level in the reviews I read on PU.
Based on the comments of so many members, with whom I agree, that reviews by rogues are not just bad but also are really a betrayal to the 95% of us members who try to keep this site as useful and honest as possible
The newbie reviews that look like they took about 1 minute of thought and say very little are easily ignored.
Conversely those written by members with a high number of positive trust ratings and/or people whose reviews attracted me to a site and my own opinion of the site matches theirs, always get my attention.
So I'm encouraged by the reaction. It says most of PU's members are motivated toward honesty in posting reviews, comments and replies. That's a good thing.
BTW, Pinche Kankun has been posting off beat posts for a long time, many of which are hard to understand, so his comments in this thread are consistent with his personal writing style.
OK, I'll say it. I like "toys" but let's define the term.
Dildos do nothing much for me but other objects, for some reason, can really turn me on...but it's how the "toy" is used.
Example. There was a scene in a VHS tape I got 15 years ago where this knockout babe with a great body and a superb labia showed off her body in a great striptease, then started fingering herself and really had me going.
Then she started insertions. First was a screwdriver, handle end first. Then a hammer, first the handle, then the driver end (but not the claw). Then she stuffed a string of beads and danced with the last two or three dangling down from her pussy.
Obviously that scene sticks in my memory and was the beginning of my interest in insertions.
So my answer to the poll is, first a striptease, then a bit of titty/pussy finger play, followed by insertions. The usual "toy," of course, is a guy's schlong; but I'm cool with fruits, veggies, beads, panties, golf balls, pool balls, fists and bottles. (I even saw a babe squat down on a kitchen faucet knob and, in a different case, on a bed post.)
I must be weird because there are other objects that do nothing at all for me such as dildos, pool cues, baseball bats, candles, pencils, etc.
Also, just sticking in an object doesn't do it for me unless the babe has already worked herself up and is using the object to keep her ecstasy level high.
The raw numbers (at this time) are 31 replies, 27 said never and 4 said they did or might. While that's 4 too many, it may also be 4 who are honest, so read reviews carefully. It may have been written by a rogue member.
The reviews on PU are better than any reviews on any other review site because they're written by real people, not PR hacks for websites. To post phony reviews would be a betrayal of everyone who makes such a positive effort to add to the quality of the site.
WWW, you reminded me of the real big time turn ons for me:
1. Nina Hartley wiggling and writhing her pussy on the guy's knee. Strange concept but her ecstasy and the closeups of her lips wrapping around the knee just did it for me. (1980's porn vid)
2. Some Brit babe on a Fiona Cooper video in the 1990's where she straddled and fucked herself on a knobbed bedpost. Again a great scene because the babe was getting off on it big time. I just couldn't imagine any woman taking a chance like that if she lost her balance.
3. A glass table top corner like you described with Jana Cova getting off. When she finished the mess she left behind on the tabletop demonstrated that she enjoyed the experience. (wonder if we recall the same scene.)
"I intend to be writing more reviews and joining the discussions on here over the coming months..."
Now that's great news. You write like a pro and I, for one, will be looking forward to more.
And I have this site, Sapphic Erotica, on my PU Favorites list but I wasn't aware of the PU price deal until I saw your review. These guys may get the equivalent of a quarter tank of gas (Oct. prices) now that their price is reasonable.
Whether a toy is shaped like a schlong, is a lubricated cucumber or is the babe's panties is irrelevant. If the babe is gorgeous with beautiful PTA combo, I'm good to go.
If she isn't or if the cameraman gets lousy angles or uses lousy (or no) lighting, I don't give a ratzass whether she uses a realistic looking schlong or a broom handle, I won't bother watching.
Thanks for an interesting review. Based on your stats, if you sign up for one month and drain the site, you're paying about $0.60 per video. That's rather steep when you compare to other sites.
Is there an update schedule and, if so, is it accurate?
I live for posts on PU...but only while a new video is downloading or I'm cataloguing all my stash.
My plan is to have a double dry Beefeater martini, up, twist, shaken not stirred. Then yank out Little Richard, work him up to a Big Dick, watch a little vintage Christy Canyon (whose flappers, by the way, are as awesome as her hangers and should have been mentioned when we were discussing ISO standards for body parts.)
Agree 100%. Andie Valentino's flappers are just about the right size; great for nibbling but not grossly stretched.
Maybe we need to take Drooler's lead and create a set of ISO standards for various body parts. Holly Hollywood for erect nipples, Jenna Doll for Double D Naturals, Jana Jordan for puffy nipples, Avy Scott for areolae, etc.
I've been with Sexy-Babes.tv for over 3 years because they had a one timne offer at $9.95 per month. Then they added Babelicious to the package at no additional cost.
I handle other sites as many of you do; sign up for one month, drain off what I want, then cancel. Occasionally there's a "stick around" offer that will make me want to stay on for one more month, especially with the content rich sites, but that's about it.
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.
