| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1326
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Mr Fountain's Review
I agree with everyone. Great review! This site has been high in my Favorites list but the price has always stopped me from giving it a go. If I can see a period where I can drain out everything I would want in 30 days (no distractions like work and such ;o)) I probably would spring for one month at the current price.
But if the site decides that they would grab a large number of new subscribers by dropping the price by just $5, I'll be right there in line.
One more thing. This site has some of my favorite babes such as Andrea (Andie) Valentino, she with the perfect body and attitude, and a pair of labia lips to die for...and in HD as well. YIKES. Dammit! There goes my libido again working overtime trying to convince me to drop $35 on a porn site.
|
11-25-08 03:51pm
|
Reply
1327
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
I was composing my post as you were composing yours. The pressure on Obama will be to control the internet to make sure that sites like MoveOn, Daily Kos and Democratic Underground are permitted to continue but that broadcast mefia is strictly controlled.
Government controls will abound in most areas by 2012 and, because the porn industry will never have any generally popular support, you can count on the panderers in Congress to show how "moral" they are.
|
11-24-08 08:38am
|
Reply
1328
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
It's interesting that you make that comparison.
The two major changes in the porn business took place during Republican eras. 1- full frontal nudity in Playboy and the emergence of the Hustler style magazines during Nixon, 2- full insertions displayed in men's magazines during Bush 2.
And the emergence and growth of the internet porn biz also took place during Bush 2.
A month or so ago, UpChuck Schumer (Democrat Senator from NY) made indirect but pointed suggestions that internet regulation and limitations on porn were on the Democrat agenda.
Remember, the Republicans are generally laissez faire free market types (no governmental interference in trade) and the Democrats are generally interested in establishing maximum control over free enterprise.
I submit that those of us porn afficionadoes who enjoy being customers need to stay vigilant in the next few years to make sure we continue to have access, or we'll find out, too late, that it's gone.
Listen to Cybertoad. He's nailed it.
|
11-24-08 08:31am
|
Reply
1329
|
N/A
|
Reply of
surferman's Poll
The business model for porn sites is heavily weighted to fixed costs (content, hardware, etc.) so the marginal profit on all additional sign-ups is always good.
A sharp webmaster will figure out that 1000 customers at $24.95 is a better revenue target than 500 customers at $29.95 regardless of any revenue sharing deals in place.
Therefore, I expect that we'll see some reductions for the better managed sites.
BTW, Danni.com just reduced their "man-on-the-street" price to $24.95 from $29.95. (They run a good "profit shop" although their customer service element needs a lot of work.)
|
11-23-08 02:43pm
|
Comment
1330
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
|
11-23-08 02:35pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
1331
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
After further review, the original call stands. Libido wins. Looking forward to checking out much, much more this babe.
She's one of those rare little sweeties with a fabulous face, nice body and ohhhhh those puffy nipples that just drive me totally wild. And she's one of the very few who I would not like to see doing hardcore with some hairy balled retard with tattoos and stringy hair.
I suspect I could handle a b/g scene with a Tom Byron type (early on when he looked like a clean cut teen aged kid; not after he did drugs and got gnarly looking.
But so long as she sticks with solo and g/g, I'll remain a devoted fan.
Thanks, Pink Panther. Your comments really helped.
|
11-22-08 11:34am
|
Reply
1332
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Sorry. I worded it badly. The update schedule listed only past dates and did not state if they were photos or videos...or how many. Having been burned many times where an "update" consisted of a single photo I was hoping you, or someone else, may have direct knowledge of how the site operates.
I guess I'll have to take one for the team and sink $25 into the site and check it out.
As you suggest, there's a Hellofalot more potential for this site than that POS JennaRocks.com site.
My wallet says, "hang on, big fella, you already dropped $15 on a piece of crap."
But my libido says, "Go for it. You know you really want so see much more Jana Jordan. And what's $25? That's just one lap dance with that skank at the titty bar, including tip"
Sigh. The libido always seems to win these arguments.
|
11-22-08 08:54am
|
Reply
1333
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
I checked out the Club Jana Jordan site but I see mo evidence at all that it's an active site with reasonably frequent updates apart from a sole announcement that she was appearing on November 20 at the Hustler in DC., and an "update" calendar that says nothing at all about what they updates are...photos, videos or whatever.
There's also a list of Cam shows that looks good, if it's accurate and if it's complied with.
Are you a current member? If so, can you provide an estimate of the number of video updates per month?
Thanks.
|
11-21-08 11:45pm
|
Reply
1334
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Thanks.
I have to admit something. I am fascinated by Jana Jordan's chicks cute body and even cuter face, especially with her blonde bangs in the early days. So I actually spent more time last night checking out some of the individual photos on the site which are, despite her body parts being fully covered, rather sexy anyway. And they are, indeed, early in her career because she has some rather distinctive tattoos today that were not in the photos I checked out.
So, although not worth the $15 by any means, it wasn't a total loss. (When it comes to porn, I'm a "glass is half full" kinda guy.)
[Just occurred to me. Perhaps I should do an academic study on Ms. Jordan tracing her body art and public displays of her body parts as they have occurred over her career and submit it to some elite University for publication! ;o)]
|
11-19-08 09:18am
|
Reply
1335
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Review
In the interest of full and fair disclosure I must note that I misstated a few details.
- The total combined run time of the site's 9 videos is closer to 10 minutes, not the 25 minutes I said in the review.
- In one video (the Valentine's Day 30 second one) if one watches very carefully one can detect an accidental flash (about 1/2 second) of a small portion of Jana's right nipple. But ya gotta be very quick.
- In one video (the black dress one) she actually lifts up the back of her dress and pulls down her panties so that we get a long shot of her ass crack (nothing else, but she does have a nice ass) for about 2 or 3 seconds.
So I suspect that, if this site were to be shown on Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, they might need to block out about 3 seconds of material.
|
11-18-08 07:01pm
|
Reply
1336
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
Reply of
Tree Rodent's Reply
Thanks Squirrel.
I knew, going in, that I was probably pissing my money away because there are no reviews on PU, TBP or any of the other porn site review sites on the web. That's a good indicator that the site is probably pure garbage.
But because my libido seems to be more powerful than my common sense, I went ahead and signed up. My consolation, as I suggested in my review, is that I may have steered others away from this waste of time site.
|
11-18-08 06:23pm
|
Comment
1337
|
Jana Rocks
(0)
|
|
11-18-08 05:06pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
1338
|
Mano Job
(0)
|
Reply of
2 Free K's Reply
Thanks a million. Great info, and your comments have convinced me to drop $30 and give it a go.
|
11-17-08 08:21am
|
Reply
1339
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I have several photos but my primary interest is video. The photos are from an earlier time when online downloadable videos were, well, crap.
|
11-15-08 10:02pm
|
Comment
1340
|
Club Charlie
(0)
|
|
11-14-08 04:22pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
1341
|
Old Spunkers
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Great review, as always, Messmer. It's efforts like this that make Porn Users so far superior to any other porn review sites.
|
11-14-08 01:22pm
|
Reply
1342
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
If I recall correctly Playboy started with full frontal nudity in the late 1960's followed quickly by Penthouse and Hustler. Perhaps the labia displays began in the early 1970, not the late 60's, but my point is that Met Art's stuff is really of that era except that the Met Art models are quite a bit younger than those appearing in the mags of the 70's.
|
11-13-08 09:44pm
|
Reply
1343
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
I've regretted letting my libido pre-empt my common sense and going for long term memberships, then regretting wasting the money because the site wasn't updating or was less than optimal quality.
|
11-11-08 11:24am
|
Reply
1344
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Schumer's reaction to limitations of free speech, whether they are applied to porn or to radio, are echoed by many, many others in Congress including Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Henry Waxman, all from my state of California. There has been no, repeat, NO disavowals by anyone on the Left of the intentions to establish limitations on free speech and the comment by UpChuck Schumer was not a careless or casual remark. It was totally consistent with all other public statements made by US Liberals.
With the Liberals in power, the UK has already made major moves that are preludes to what we'll be seeing now that we have a Liberal administration and a very Liberal Congress.
Refer to the discussions in the PU Forum Free Speech and Porn and Big Brother Comes Knocking in the UK for more on where we are heading.
I'd sure like to be wrong but I've seen absolutely no indication anywhere that I am.
|
11-09-08 09:41pm
|
Reply
1345
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pinkerton's Reply
That would also be me. I'm obsessive about stashing anything that looks like it might be worth watching to the point that I have a ton of stuff I've never looked at. But periodically I'll find something at random and I'll really enjoy it. It's rare that I'll load a video that's true crap so I have areal treasure trove of boner exercise material that just keeps on growing.
Now with the new administration in place and UpChuck Schumer's (d, NY) anti-pornography tirade on Thursday, we may be in for some real challenges gathering up the good stuff if thye Dem's have their way in the next year or two, so I'm betting that external hard drive sales may be booming soon.
|
11-09-08 11:50am
|
Reply
1346
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pinkerton's Poll
Just finished checking out some of my stash and have another few adds:
1. Dwelling on one aspect wayyyyy toooo lonnnnng. OK, doggy style is good, but for 10 straight minutes?
2. Spending several minutes watching the "stud" jerk off while the babe just sits there waiting. What's the appeal?
3. Editing in earlier action again later in a scene. We've seen it already so what good is repetition?
4. Phony cum shots where the jiz is not real. And while [real] facials are OK, I agree with Pinche that there are far too many.
|
11-08-08 09:07am
|
Reply
1347
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
My wording wasn't very good.
Yes, I disagree with anonymous trust ratings and accept the fact that they will be continued to be permitted. And the requirement that all negative ratings must have an explanation and that the explanation provided is reviewed addresses 90% of my concerns. I'm cool with the decision to retain anonymous ratings.
What I'm curious about is the reasoning of those responding YES to the poll who, by answering yes are saying that they have posted anonymously.
|
11-08-08 08:47am
|
Reply
1348
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
As I write this, 8 out of the 23 responses are yes, yet no one posted a reply explaining why they feel anonymous trust ratings are appropriate.
I still fail to understand why anonymous negative ratings are permitted. After all everyone is relatively anonymous on the web anyway.
|
11-07-08 11:03pm
|
Reply
1349
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pinkerton's Poll
All of the poll chices plus everything said so far in these replies.
My adds are:
1.the slapping of faces and tits by the stunt cock, either with his dick or with his hand(s).
2. Artsy fartsy videography where the idiot behind the camera (or the director) are more interested in impressing themselves than in photographing the babe that should always be the center of attention.
3. Excessive attention to the guy's dick and scrotum instead of the babe's PTA*. If we wanted a focus on male body parts, we'd sign up for the gay sites.
*PTA = Pussy, Tits and Ass.
|
11-05-08 11:27am
|
Reply
1350
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Love the models, the quantity of content and the superior quality of the photos and the photography.
My one and onlt beef with Met-Art is that they view videos as a toss in, not a feature. Watchiong a model's photo session on video, the ptimary theme of most of their videos,is boring.
The few videos that are actual productions are quite well done but there are so few of them that a video fan like me tends to want to move on.
|
11-03-08 08:41am
|
