| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
501
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Too many.
The result is that the competition for recognition is messing things up with absolutely gorgeous ladies screwing with their God-given beauty by ill-advised breast enhancements, ridiculous tattoos and excessive piercings.
Another problem. I'm running out of space on my hard drives with all of the talent out there.
On second thought there can never be too many hot babes willing to show their PTA* to us horndogs.
*PTA = Pussy Tits and Ass
|
09-08-10 08:43am
|
Reply
502
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
Having had an attractive neighbor approach me in a very suggestive manner I reacted with a lot of caution. Her husband was a coworker of mine (and the Mayor of our little town) who was away on a business trip and she was clearly in need of a little action.
On the one hand, I would have enjoyed parking my pork in her pussy, on the other the consequences could have been severe. On the other hand I didn't want to piss her off or have her think that I found her unattractive, so I simply played the "bumpkin" who didn't seem to catch what she was throwing.
In response to this poll, NFW. (No Fucking Way.) Option 5 for sure.
|
09-05-10 12:03pm
|
Reply
503
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
I wish. Nope. I was born in 1941 in the northeast and went to college in the south from 1960-64. Took the train from Penn Station and took advantage of the stopover opportunities at Baltimore both ways.
|
08-28-10 05:44pm
|
Reply
504
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I absolutely love it. Seriously.
It started back in the early sixties (yup I was around back then) when "The Block" in Baltimore was in its glory.
The "home of traveling burlesque" was the good old Gaiety Theatre where they had 5 hours of stripping every afternoon.
The one rule (law?) that seemed to be in play was that the girls were prohibited from being totally naked and had to always wear their panties.
Usually the girls got around that rule by tying their panties around their ankles; but one creative and gorgeous babe stuffed her panties up her snatch instead and, with a little bit hanging out next to her gorgeously long labia lips, it was a total turn on for me.
It's probably that experience that, continuing today, I get a real "rise" out of panty stuffing.
|
08-28-10 11:07am
|
Reply
505
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Reply
That is my answer, too, but with a slight variation.
I still d/l pictures in a few cases where the babe is especially gorgeous and the pix are high quality. I used to grab some screenshots of especially memorable scenes using VLC but now with most sites providing high quality pictures along with their videos, I stopped with the screenshots.
|
08-23-10 08:24am
|
Reply
506
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Reply
Ditto. 2 'puters; one for serious and one for fun plus several external hard drives.
|
08-15-10 10:38pm
|
Reply
507
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
The trial site is supposed to encourage signups. If the site won't let a prospective member see what he/she is going to get then what's the point?
|
08-05-10 09:47am
|
Reply
508
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Frankly it's difficult for me to enjoy watching a babe going at it mechanically with no emotion even if she's endowed with the perfect body and face.
I want the babe to be fully engaged in the sex. A good example is Gianna Michaels. She's always totally engaged and turns me on both with that fantastic body and with her enthusiasm. I just can't imagine spending more than 15 seconds watching her if she was just going through the motions.
|
08-03-10 01:24pm
|
Reply
509
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I answered "sometimes." Not because I have a problem watching porn, but because the money I spend might have been better used on something else.
I tend to compare the cost aspect to something else, like if the cost of joining a site is $29.99, that's about 10 gallons of gas, a dinner for one at a decent restaurant, a good bottle of wine or a lap dance at the local gentlemens' club.
That method of rationalization works well on individual choices, but I feel guilty when the credit card bill comes with the full range of charges for a month that now must be paid.
On the other hand, I enjoy the porn and have a superb collection, so unlike the alternatives I listed above, I have some future value remaining in what I spend on pornography.
|
07-31-10 10:57am
|
Reply
510
|
N/A
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
I have a few grainy episodes of Suzanne Brecht from the late 1980's. She didn't make too many videos and the WMV stuff is quite rare.
But it takes so little room I have all her stuff on an old 640 Mb flash drive.
Bottom line is my hard drives are jammed with these close to 1.0Gb HD videos with only about 20% worth keeping and 80% crapola. Problem is that I have found no video editing software offerings that can be used to trim off the garbage without degrading the picture quality.
If anyone knows of a good software WMV editing software product that holds original quality, please post a reply.
|
07-11-10 12:23pm
|
Reply
511
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Sevrin's Poll
I always read the comments on the VideoBox scenes. Frequently guys post corrections to babe names and identify duplicated postings. Very useful stuff.
|
07-05-10 10:09am
|
Reply
512
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
On the rare occasion that this occurs, I call the billers immediately. The issue has always been resolved very quickly/accurately.
|
06-30-10 11:41am
|
Reply
513
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
If a site is great in terms of quality, content, navigation, etc., then it should be rated high even if it's expensive.
If a site is lousy in the same sense, then it should be rated low even if it is cheap.
Human nature being what it is, it'd difficult to leave price out of the evaluative process, but it shouldn't be the primary determinant in a score.
|
06-26-10 01:05pm
|
Reply
514
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
A few are OK.
Sometimes a site is offered at a better price than even PU offers. Sometimes a site I'd never heard of shows up.
But what really irrigates me (pisses me off) is when an ad is disguised as part of the content and sends me to a signup page.
|
06-24-10 07:43am
|
Reply
515
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
Sorry. I agree that paying for a limited access trial is nuts. I have done it where the charge is $1 or so just to see what's there, because the webmaster wouldn't make much money if the teaser is crap. But with prices like $9.95b for a limited access trial, they can keep their site.
|
06-14-10 08:24am
|
Reply
516
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
It's a full trial, not a limited trial.
It's 4.95 Euro for the mandatory 3 day full access trial, and 19.95 Euro for each subsequent 30 days.
|
06-13-10 08:59pm
|
Reply
517
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
The sign on and d/l speed sucks big time so far but the babes are totally outstanding. So far I've struggled through downloading three models and 12 videos, and the quality of the video content is consistently excellent.
But the frustration of multiple logons and 70-90 Kbs download speeds is really pissing me off.
My libido will win the war because there's so much good stuff and new talent...at least what I've seen so far so I'll be letting it auto-renew.
Way too early for a review, but I'm sensing a mid 90's for the content and low 60's for the mechanical stuff. I'll post one once it's had the full stress test.
|
06-13-10 08:56pm
|
Reply
518
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I just enrolled in YoungBusty.com which requires that you buy a 3 day trial before being permitted to buy the full month.
Interesting method.
|
06-13-10 11:15am
|
Reply
519
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I'm different. When I find a site that looks good I buy a trial membership where PU says it's full access to see how I like the site, and if there's enough GOOD content to sign up for a full month.
In some cases I've actually been able to drain all the good stuff in the time permitted in the trial membership that I didn't need a full month.
|
06-12-10 02:15pm
|
Reply
520
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
Ditto what Jay G said. I don't get the appeal of pissing in someone's mouth or of extreme bondage/humiliation, but it must work for some because there's so much of it out there.
|
06-10-10 07:48am
|
Reply
521
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Creampie. No interest in either a spitter or swallower.
|
06-04-10 11:52pm
|
Reply
522
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
That would be me as well.
I let my fellow PUers' comments guide me whenever my libido is exercised by a site that is new to me but looks appealing.
The old reviews, when followed by new reviews that tell a different (better?) story tell me whether or not the webmaster really gives a shit about improving the site or is just interested in the revenue stream from porndogs who sign up without doing any research.
|
05-31-10 10:17am
|
Reply
523
|
N/A
|
Reply of
BadMrFrosty's Reply
Downloading HD video is no problem, finding space to store it is the issue; I'm constantly adding hard drives to my servers.
Welcome to my world.
Just bought a Hitachi 2.0 Tb ($129.99) to add to my two Seagate 1.5 Tb's and a maze of smaller ones. I remember only 3 years ago being "sure" that my HUGE 500Gb would be enough. Wrong.
|
05-30-10 01:34pm
|
Reply
524
|
N/A
|
Reply of
james4096's Reply
My ISP says 1.5Mb but I've actually exceeded 1.0Mb only a few times and only by a small amount. The speed is usually limited by the site's servers and not by my ISP's offered speed.
|
05-29-10 09:32am
|
Reply
525
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
The economics of online porn are huge. And as we see every day big money rules and influences all government policy setting.
That said, and given the fact that the Obama administration is following the European model of secular policies, I don't really see them putting religious morality ahead of their interest in continuing to attract big campaign contributions from the porn biz.
Porn producers always win when we have Democrats in charge and when the Republicans are on top, the best they will ever do is to maintain the status quo. They'll never be able to reverse policies that are already in place.
|
05-27-10 08:54am
|
