| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Randyman's Poll
Khan--fair enough but there was a comment that you sent me a year or so back while approving my message of 6/28/2014 stating:
"Staff Note: odd ... your profile says you spend about $500/month on porn sites."
That is what I was responding to.
|
04-19-15 05:47pm
|
Reply
2
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Randyman's Poll
Not sure if anyone is still reading this old thread but I just noticed that the moderators commenting, noting my preference for free sites, that in my profile I say I spend $500 / mo on pay sites. There is no contradiction here. On the camgirl sites--which is where by far the biggest chunk of my money for pay sites goes--one can rack up a $500 bill in very short order. But that is about the limit of my budget and these days I do like to stick to a particular budget. I can rack up a $500 bill on a camgirl site in far less than a month. So the rest of the time I need free sites to keep me occupied and financially solvent.
|
04-19-15 10:44am
|
Review
3
|
I Love The Beach
(0)
96.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
One of the best sites available in the voyeur/non-consensual market.
About 2,000 videos and 30,000 still photos of topless and nude women on beaches, primarily in Europe.
High quality material.
All sizes of tits featured.
Softcore with a great deal of public nudity but no sexual activity shown.
Frequent updates with previews of upcoming updates.
Videos are long with good close ups of the tits of the women being videoed.
Some videos showing women fondling their own tits while applying suntan lotion. |
| Cons: |
The nude material is of somewhat lower quality than the topless material.
Not enough material showing couples.
Would be better if there were an opportunity for members to comment--although a change in the last year or so does allow for rating material.
The fact that the women shown are modelling non-consensually will be a turnoff for some.
No hardcore material. |
| Bottom Line: |
I originally found out about this site from someone who had two female friends appear on the site. The were photographed while topless on a European beach and appeared on this site non-consensually. One of them, a professional woman, required a year's therapy to deal with the fear that she would be "found out" professionally for having shown her tits, albeit without her permission, on this site.
She appealed to the site in an attempt to get her photos removed, but because she had gone topless in a public place, the photography was legal. Photos of her exposed tits remain available for purchase on this site for anyone who wants to pay for a membership.
The site employs a number of photographers whose job it is to photograph attractive topless women on beaches without their knowledge or permission.
While I am sure that it has been a shock to some women to find their photos on here, I think that most members--as well as the site itself--will agree that the photographing of nude or topless adult women in a public place is and should be legal. If the women objected, they should have thought of this before taking their clothes off.
As previously noted--within this genre this is definitely one of the best sites around! |
|
04-18-15 07:40pm
Replies (2)
|
Review
4
|
I Love The Beach
(0)
95.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
This site does a pretty good job providing photos and videos of women's breasts from various topless and nude beaches around the world. The photography is apparently candid although I have heard differing views of whether some of the women may actually be professional models. Whatever the situation, the photos and videos tend to be of much higher quality than I've seen on similar sites. They do a good job of doing close-ups of the women's breasts, and also have some really good videos of women walking on the beach. All breast sizes are featured, although there is perhaps a slight bias towards larger breasts. They've also added some new features recently, including an ability to rate galleries and videos and a ranking of the most popular photos and videos. |
| Cons: |
There is not any hardcore material on the site--it is strictly softcore. Although there is some totally nude material, I find the topless materical to be of higher quality. Also it would be nice if there was more material showing couples canoodling on the beach. Even if they are not actually having sex, showing a nearly nude couple enjoying themselves together allows one to imagine what it might be like watching them having sex--and I'd like to see more of that. There are too many women alone or with girlfriends and not enough with men. |
| Bottom Line: |
Overall the basic premise of the site is to use women who happen to be topless or nude on beaches as candid models for a softcore porn site. The women have definitely consented to be topless in a public place, but not necessarily to be photographed--but given the public setting the photography is legal. Generally speaking I consider this to one of the best sites in its genre out there. Many beach voyeur sites seem to be of very low quality, but this one does a great job of portraying the women shown on it in a sexually provocative manner. |
|
09-01-14 02:30am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
5
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Poll
Sites I'm currently subscribed to:
cams.com
ilovethebeach.com
nakednews.com
Sites I've previously subscribed to:
hidden-zone.com
beachhunters.com
ifriends.net
abbywinters.net
moishaworld.com (now defunct)
funwomen.com (now defunct)
|
07-19-14 02:02pm
|
Reply
6
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jberryl69's Reply
I think you are perhaps missing the point. There is a great deal of material available on the Web that was never intended in the first place for use on for-pay porn sites. There is no thievery involved because the material wasn't intended for commercial purposes in the first place. This include photos of women taken in public settings where they happen to be topless for whatever reason, free Porn 2.0 sites where people upload topless photos of themselves or their SO's, photos posted publicly from the free areas of websites, etc. Yes, stealing photos that were intended to be published for commercial reasons isn't right. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about photos that were published freely to the Web with no intention of a profit. Evilangel.com would do nothing for me because it looks like a hardcore porn site. Hardcore does nothing for me--it is actually a bit of a turnoff for me. A photo of a woman standing topless--she doesn't have to be totally nude--is just as much, if not more, of a turnon for me as a hardcore porn site. When it comes to what I am looking for--which is very softcore porn--there is as much available for free on the Web without having been stolen from anyone without having to spend time looking at pay sites.
|
06-28-14 07:16pm
|
Reply
7
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Randyman's Poll
Probably 1-3 hours on average but 95% of that is time spent masturbating to photos of topless women freely available on the Web--and only 5% on paid porn sites. There is so much free material available that there is usually not a lot of reason to pay. Also, since I am mainly into tits, a photo of a topless woman will do just as much for me as explicit hardcore porn videos. And of course many topless photos of women are not "officially" porn but it does not matter much for me why a woman's tits are bare as long as they are. A woman, for example, going topless for a protest such as the 2012 student protests in Quebec still is being photographed with bare tits and makes just as good masturbation material as "official" porn.
I do occasionally look at paid porn sites but, like I say, the amount of time that I spent actually paying for porn is much lower.
|
06-28-14 06:41am
|
Reply
8
|
Hidden Zone
(0)
|
Reply of
cjd2004's Reply
Interesting. As I noted in my review, it is always possible that this material is staged, but if so, they've definitely done a great job in making it appear real--much better than most similar sites.
Most sites do contain a generic 2257 disclaimer to try to keep the US authorities satisfied. You'll notice that usually--and this site is no exception--they are not exactly encouraging of efforts to actually obtain the 2257 records. Usually to actually get the records they claim to have, you need to write--snail mail only--to some address in a foreign country where it is presumably difficult and slow to enforce US law.
I'm not saying for sure that the material is real as opposed to staged. It is just it is often difficult to know what these 2257 disclaimers really mean. 2257 disclaimers are there for the sole purpose of legal protection, not to disseminate any real info about what the site is all about.
|
04-15-14 08:58am
|
Review
9
|
Hidden Zone
(0)
91.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
--This site certainly appears to be the real deal. It is a hidden camera site focusing on videos of nude women in places such as locker rooms and showers.
--The women, at least some of them, are reasonably attractive.
--It is very realistic. Most of the women give no indication that they know they are being filmed in the nude.
--Videos are fairly long and show everything and the technical quality is quite high.
--There is a certain amount of breast action as women fondle their own breasts while washing.
--Updates are fairly frequent and the varying appearances of the women--with some being quite attractive and others not so much--give the site a very realistic feel. |
| Cons: |
--One of the site's big "pros"--the fact that it realistically shows ordinary women--is of course also its biggest "con". The women are ordinary in appearance, meaning that a very few might be really hot, most are quite average, and there are certainly many overweight aging women in granny panties. But, of course, that is what you would expect to find in a real locker room spying on real women.
--The locker room and shower sections are the best--the other sections, which include dressing room, beach house, and "upskirt" shots, just didn't work as well for me.
--Another small drawback is that the videos need to be downloaded, which takes time--there is no way to stream the videos. |
| Bottom Line: |
With a hidden camera site such as this one, there is obviously no way to be absolutely sure whether the videos are real spy videos of nude women, or simply posed by models. However the very realistic appearance of the women certainly leads me to believe that this site is what it purports to be--real videos of women showering or dressing in the nude while being filmed by hidden cameras.
As such sites go, this one is of quite high quality. Moreover, the videos are ordered by date, and it is clear that the quality of the videos has been increasing, so we may continue to expect excellent work from this site. |
|
04-14-14 11:50pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
10
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jberryl69's Reply
Wow...this is an old poll but I just logged on and was quite sorry to see that my innocent question was somehow seen as a personal attack on Graymane--when it was certainly not intended as such.
For one thing, the main page--where one first sees these polls--doesn't, so far as I can see, list the person who originated the poll. So my initial reaction to and opinion of a poll is formed before I find out who originated the poll--and therefore shouldn't be seen as a personal attack on the pollster.
Yes, of course the stereotype is that most users of porn are male. But I never like to work from stereotypes--they are often, but not always, correct. I'm actually a very, very regular lurker on here--although I usually come here as a guest and don't feel the need to log on. Most discussions, it seems to me, discuss porn in an objective, general, sense--but without information that would really reveal the gender of the poster. And--again--that is an opinion that I've formed on here as a very regular reader of these forums. So I wanted to understand why someone was assuming that most posters were male--when I really didn't see any solid evidence of it.
I hadn't know that people's gender was listed in their profiles.
|
01-19-14 08:57pm
|
Reply
11
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
I responded with "Other please". The question makes an assumption--that, indeed, few women participate in this site. Since most participants have gender-neutral handles here, I want to see the evidence supporting the assumption you are making--one that I am not convinced of in the least--before I will respond with anything other than an "Other please". Please present the evidence underlying this question. Thank you.
|
05-09-13 12:56am
|
Review
12
|
I Love The Beach
(0)
95.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
This site is mostly focused on women's tits. Pros include the fact that there is a large amount of content--probably tens of thousands of still photos and thousands of videos. The models are generally very attractive and the site is updated frequently. The site does a good job of focusing in on the models' tits and also includes a fair number of videos with the models applying suntan oil to their tits. The quality of both the videos and the still photos is very high. The videos tend to be reasonably long--averaging about two minutes and up to about four minutes. A fair number of videos of models walking on the beach are also shown. There are some fully nude photos and videos as well, although those are not the predominant part of the site. The videos also generally have different resolutions, with different file sizes, for downloads. All sizes of tits are shown on this site although it does tend towards models with bigger tits. |
| Cons: |
The site does not include any hardcore sex--indeed it is very softcore. This is a bit surprising because there are other beach sites, perhaps with photography done in more private areas, that do include hardcore. The site is divided into several areas--such as eurobeach and 'south of france topless beauties--some of which are updated more frequently than others. The quality does vary a bit between areas. |
| Bottom Line: |
The basic premise of the site is to use ordinary women who happen to have their tops off on beaches as topless softcore porn models. The women have consented to be topless on the beach but not to serve as topless models on a for-pay porn site. The site will not remove the photos of women who appear as models on this site, even if they complain, because they did bare their tits in public. The site does a much better job than most voyeur sites--and even other voyeur beach sites--at portraying its models in a sexually provocative manner. It is clear from the content that all the women, although they may not know they are being filmed or photographed, clearly enjoy showing off their tits in public. Overall this is one of the best sites in its genre. |
|
03-17-13 01:57am
Replies (2)
|
Reply
13
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
It really depends a lot on how such words are being used. If the intent is simply to degrade the women, then that is very offensive and it is not going to be something I find erotic.
But it is also important to understand that it is a porn site. Presumably if one is subscribing to a porn site, one doesn't believe in feminist views that all porn is degrading to women. By its nature, porn involves women, as part of their job, posing nude and often having sex for the physical pleasure of their customers.
In such a context, dirty words do sometimes have their place, without any intent to degrade the women being involved. In most (non-porn) contexts, calling a woman a "slut" or a "whore" would be a profound insult. On a porn site, it may simply be a legitimate way to described what the woman is portraying. She is being paid to act like a "slut" on camera, and in such a context, the word may be used without any negative connotation. It does not mean that the woman acts like a "slut" in her life outside her porn work--but since we as customers generally know nothing about the models' outside lives, that isn't particularly relevant.
So in sum: intentionally degrading a woman is abhorrent to me. Talking "dirty" on a site whose whole purpose is sex is fine.
|
09-04-11 04:09am
|
Reply
14
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
Getting a bit off topic but I think a strong argument can be made for the drinking age being higher than the driving age. Since drinking and driving clearly don't mix, giving young people both privileges at the same time could be a recipe for disaster.
|
01-13-10 08:17pm
|
Reply
15
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
And yet 18 year olds are asked to make long term career decisions regarding other careers when they go away to college and must choose a major--careers where the decision could actually be more easily postponed.
|
01-13-10 08:13pm
|
Reply
16
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
First off, a 17 year old is generally going to have the developed body of an adult woman. This is--in my view--mainly a question of legality (where one draws the line). True child porn is one of the worst horrors imaginable but a nude photo of a fully developed 17 year old woman does not, IMHO, even remotely fall into that category.
My understanding is that a nude photo of a 17 year old is actually not illegal unless the content is sexually explicit. So if the photo was definitely explicit I would certainly delete it. If it were merely a photo of a topless or nude 17 year old woman it would be a judgment call. Certainly there have been mainstream--even Oscar winning--movies which have included topless or nude scenes by 16 or 17 year old women--so this is not all that clear cut an issue where things aren't sexually explicit.
As to whether she is emotionally mature enough or not, we should remember that sex work is, generally, a young woman's job. Often--whether society wants to acknowledge it or not--a young woman will need the income from a sex work job to pay her way through school. So if we expect 17 year olds to be responsible enough to go away to college, they should be mature enough to pose nude. But I do understand limiting the more sexually explicit stuff to 18 year olds.
|
01-13-10 05:30pm
|
Review
17
|
abbywinters
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
abbywinters has always been one of my favorite porn sites. Some of things I like about it include: The girls are young--18 or 19 or early 20's for the most part. I am young myself and I like girls who look like they are university students or a similar age. There is also a huge number of girls on the site and there are a lot of lists to help you navigate around the site and find the 'right' kind of girl. The girls also seem very happy and the site has a positive vibe to it. They also have a lot of girls with a large amount of pubic hair, and that is always a turn on for me. The girls are very natural in appearance--you won't see many fake boobs here--which again is a big turnon for me. |
| Cons: |
No real negatives to speak of. A bit more info about the girls might help, but I imagine abbywinters is trying to protect their privacy. |
| Bottom Line: |
I think the bottom line for this site is the fact that abbywinters unabashedly likes the young women who pose nude to have a lot of pubic hair. On its site, abbywinters advises prospective models to be as hairy as possible when they come to the interview in order to have the best prospects of being offered a modeling job. Personally, I like women who pose nude on adult websites to look like adults--they may be young but they should look like adults. No physical attribute signifies adulthood more than pubic hair--and conversely nothing can be more of a turnoff on an adult site than seeing women who look like little girls.
As noted above there are many other great things about this site but I think the bottom line is the pubic hair. |
|
07-04-09 07:24am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
18
|
N/A
|
Reply of
badandy400's Poll
The only site I've used where I give my credit card number directly to the site is ifriends.net where my mother is a chathost--so I definitely trust them. For an established site, it may actually be a good sign that they handle credit cards directly because it indicates they've developed a relationship with their clients that involves mutual trust--there is trust on both sides because they also have to trust that most of their clients won't charge back or use fraudulent credit cards. For newer sites one would want to see them using an established billing provider for while before trusting them.
|
01-30-09 08:29pm
|
Reply
19
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Yes I have.
One of them is my mother, who is 42 and a chathost on ifriends, and the other is a friend of mine. It was and is definitely a bit unusual seeing my own mother nude on the Internet. She is extremely attractive still at age 42 and makes good money doing it. She indicated that it was my choice whether to subscribe to the site and see her nude or not--she said she was proud of her body and is not afraid of who sees her online, even her own son.
So I did subscribe to the site and saw her performing nude. In some ways obviously it has affected my relationship with my mother because I now have seen her in a sexual role--for example, I no longer live at home at she has said I cannot move back because I've seen her now as a woman rather than as a mother. But it has also forced me to become more mature in certain ways, because I now need to fend for myself and, of course, pay to see her online if that is what I want to do.
The other person I saw was a friend of mine who was doing an MBA program. She actually became rather cold to me after I subscribed to her site, but because I didn't know her all that well, it didn't matter too much.
I personally think it is going to become very, very common to see such photos and videos of people one knows, because there is no way to destroy such photos once they are out there--to the point where, actually, it will eventually be no big deal unless there is something compromising about the photos beyond just the fact that the person is nude.
|
01-23-09 07:57pm
|
Review
20
|
iFriends
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
ifriends.net is a wonderful website which allows you to see private live chathost performances by a very wide range of models. Models are categorized in various ways--age, height, breast size, and so on--making in fairly easy to find the kind of model you are looking for. Models perform their chathost shows in their own homes giving this a 'natural, girl next door' feel to it that other cam girl sites don't necessarily have. Models are usually willing to undress and masturbate and to share in intimate conversation--and to perform acts, within reason, at the customer's request. The site also offers private shows--sometimes for a slightly higher price--and text-only guest services, plus fan clubs with lots of information/pics of the models. Most of the models are friendly and go out of their way to show you a good time. |
| Cons: |
The biggest problem is the price--this site can be addictive and the prices--averaging several dollars a minute--can add up quickly. Unlike some cam sites which require you to pay in advance, this site charges your credit card as you go, making it harder to control spending. Also, although the large majority of the models are very friendly, a few are not--some seem to be downright hostile and are apparently just trying to make a few dollars until the customer gets tired and leaves. Also there are occasionally technical difficulties, although this is probably usually the responsibility of the individual chathosts, who use their own computers/webcams. The site has a strong fraud detection mechanism to prevent fraudulent use of credit cards, but sometimes it suspends accounts incoveniently even when the transaction is valid. |
| Bottom Line: |
I originally subscribed to this site because my mother, Lisa--an attractive 41 year old girl with beautiful big tits--is a chathost on this site. When I was leaving home, Lisa explained what she was doing on ifriends and said that if I wanted to join, I should do so anonymously so she wouldn't know. As soon as I got my first credit card, and with a wonderfully erect penis, I subscribed to this site to check out Lisa's room. Lisa was nude and beautiful, and the opportunity to see her nude--her bare tits, her erect nipples, her hairy pussy--anonymously was something that only ifriends could have provided.
There are many great chathosts on ifriends, though, and as such I would strongly recommend this site to others. Although a few of the chathosts are unfriendly, it is possible to quickly weed those folks out--also there are good internal review mechanisms for determining when you've got a chathost with a surly attitude. I'd recommend looking at the internal reviews before checking out a particular chathost's room. Also chat with them in the free area for awhile--they will have to keep their clothes on, but you can get a good sense what to expect and whether they are worth spending money on.
The biggest issue or caveat with this site has got to be the cost. I'd recommend using a low credit limit card for this site so as to avoid inadvertently making too many charges--keep the high credit limit cards for other, more necessary, expenses. Even so, they often won't charge the card initially, then they will max it out and submit more charges after you make a payment. But using a low limit card--one where the limit approximates your monthly budget for porn--will ensure that at least some control of your expenses will happen. This site can be addictive, and you don't know the exact charges until they are submitted to your credit card, so you need some control mechanism to keep a lid on expenses. |
|
08-17-08 02:17am
Replies (0)
|
|
