Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
226
|
N/A
|
Reply of
LPee23's Poll
I'm on the fence about this one for two reasons.
Many of you remember Savannah. Those who don't should look her up. She was an amazing porn star that committed suicide in 1994. Would it not make sense to remove her images? I had a lot of pictures of her but the thought that she blew her brains out made them considerably less appealing.
In other cases, some models request to have their images removed after they retire and move on. Marketa Belonoha is probably the best example of a spectacular model who has moved out of nude modeling and has asked the sites that showcased her to take down her images. Many sites honored that request but many did not. (She had a micro-site called Marketa4U.com in the Watch4Beauty network but took that down.) These day's you can't hide your past, but I think it is respectable to try to hide it from your kids until they are old enough to understand. Cases like these are reasonable when it comes to taking models off sites. (Marketa was one of my all-time favorite models, so I already have nearly every image ever shot of her.)
Other good reasons for pulling models include that they were minors when the shoot occurred or that the model release or image sale to that particular web site was disputed/pirated. Occasionally, when a site is sold, there are disputes about who actually owns the rights to the images (i.e. the site or a past partner in the site). That happens remarkably often and the safest thing is for the sites to remove the disputed images.
All that said, I do not think that old shoots should be arbitrarily pulled unless the quality is so bad the images or models degrade the impression of a web site. I just went back and looked at some Penthouse stuff shot in the mid-90's. Great stuff, but the images are 600x400 MAX so they have been remanded to the deep archives. What do you do with that stuff? If the originals can't be re-scanned, then I have a hard time blaming the sites for removing them.
The good news is that there is a shitload of great, new, high-resolution stuff out there and in terms of disk space it is pretty much doubling every year. We all like our old favorites, but there is a new girl somewhere getting naked for us every day!
Shit. Another novel. Sorry!
|
05-31-15 06:48pm
|
Reply
227
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Funny thing. I think we all trust CCBill and Epoch because we have used them so much and know what to do when it comes to cross-listings and cancellations, everyone's biggest gripes. CCBill and Epoch have their own sites where you can find your subscriptions and cancel them without having to go through the web site you signed up with. Most of the other billers exist because a) they undercut the above two with lower fees to the web site, b) the web sites don't want to make it too easy for you to cancel, or c) it is the web site's own billing system, so both. Using that logic, I always have to think twice before signing up with a different biller.
I have been screwed out of a couple of hundred bucks by websites/billers that have no clear cancel process, that require you to PHONE them several days in advance to cancel, or that cross list and don't send you any kind of email that you have subscribed to something other than what you intended. CCBIll and Epoch don't do that. (And no matter how careful you are, some sites manipulate their pages in an effort to trick you into a cross-listing. The most common is the "oh, you got that wrong" trick where they show you an entry error, but FAIL to highlight that the cross-listings have quietly been rechecked.) With CCBill and Epoch, you can point this out to them immediately when you sign up and they will reverse it or you can at least see the extra subscription on the biller's site and cancel it before you are charged the big monthly fee. Good luck with other billers.
A simple analogy is that when I buy something on eBay, I expect to be able to pay for it with Paypal. If an eBay seller doesn't use Paypal, I really have to wonder why. As an eBay seller, I use Paypal to ensure that people know they can pay for it easily and that they get all the buyer guarantees that come with it. CCBill and Epoch are the Paypal of porn. Most webmasters who don't use CCBill or Epoch are at the very least, being cheap and at worst, trying to get an extra month's subscription or perhaps a cross-listing fee out of you by making it harder to cancel.
All that said, if a new biller sends me an email with my sign-up information when I sign up and has a separate site that allows me to cancel easily, I will gladly use it. I just can't think of a good one other than the CCBill or Epoch.
Wow, what a novel! Sorry!
|
05-31-15 05:41pm
|
Reply
228
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
OK, everybody here needs to look up "Illusory Superiority" right now. (I'm joking, but look it up anyway.)
|
05-21-15 09:59pm
|
Reply
229
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I have a large house with 6 wireless access points and 3 SSIDs including a guest network for my kids friends to use. It is all tied to gigabit Ethernet run into most rooms (I still prefer wired connections when possible). I have a dedicated Windows server for audio, video and Tivo file storage (about 16 Terabytes now)in an A/V closet that includes whole-house audio and a managed Cisco gigabit switch with POE. I just checked and there are 28 DHCP lease connections including A/V components (stereos, Blu-ray players, TVs and 3 Tivos), 4 game consoles, 4 iPhones, 3 iPads, a Nook and 7 computers....all connected through a Docsis 3 router to one really shitty Comcast cable connection. I guess that would make me a computer nerd. When I load Net-stumbler onto one of my laptops, I can see 18 different wireless networks from my bedroom and I live on a pretty big piece of land. Apparently, I am surrounded by nerds, too. If you live in an apartment, grab a copy of net-stumbler so you can identify the least used wireless channels and reduce interference from your neighbors.
|
05-21-15 09:51pm
|
Reply
230
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Zaphodd42's Poll
Free sites provide an opportunity to see new things that you would not ordinarily see in your proverbial back yard. The new higher end sites like Watch 4 Beauty post on the free sites and draw a lot of customers that way. Now days the POV sites are the big deal. I will also sometimes scan free sites for interesting models, then go to one of the porn wiki sites to find out where the model is. Found some interesting sites that way.
|
05-21-15 09:25pm
|
Reply
231
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Sorry, but Keds, Sketchers, hi-tops, anyting sneaker-ish is just absurd. Nice heels or barefoot is fine.
|
05-21-15 09:18pm
|
Reply
232
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Does a 4G cell connection count? I'll go to Reddit or Tumblr on a public wifi or 4G but very discreetly.
|
05-21-15 09:17pm
|
Reply
233
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
A few of my favorite models are total stunners but have tiny scars in one place or another (i.e. leg or knee). By looking for and finding the scars, I can tell whether the images are PhotoShopped. Same with moles. No moles at all? Probably shopped.
|
05-21-15 09:13pm
|
Reply
234
|
N/A
|
Reply of
careylowell's Poll
It is very annoying to me that the price of the European sites have not gone down much. The only occasional deal is in annual subscriptions.
|
05-21-15 09:07pm
|
Reply
235
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Frequent to me means at least daily. Once a day would be daily. Multiple times a day? What would you call that?
|
05-21-15 09:04pm
|
Reply
236
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
Wow. Porn destroys a lot of beautiful women but some are just amazing for a decade or more. This may also depend on the intensity of the activity. Some exceptional European photo models are still going strong after 10+ years, but they just do photos and solo videos. Personality has so much to do with it. Smart, interesting ones that control their careers can go the distance.
|
05-21-15 09:00pm
|
Reply
237
|
N/A
|
Reply of
LPee23's Poll
Watching American porn where the girls talk (as in, talk at YOU) in English is great, but many American models are...um...too enhanced. The volume of young, fresh, natural interesting European models is just amazing. One category you missed is Brazilian. Holy shit some of those women are unbelievable...even with the enhancements.
|
05-21-15 08:21pm
|
Reply
238
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Poll
I have three that I now buy annual subscriptions to...no brainer when they go on sale for, like, $89.00 a year (that's three months if buying monthly). Then I buy monthly subscriptions when I see something interesting, so I probably have 4-5 at a time.
|
05-21-15 08:14pm
|
Reply
239
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I have several home-built computers and keep them for 5+ years but do incremental upgrades between major overhauls. I bought the fastest AMD CPU made about 2 years ago and it is still up there, so I recently upgraded the motherboard (new chipset), memory and installed 2 SSD drives...one for the OS and one for cache. The thing boots up in 7 seconds and pegs the top of the Microsoft Experience index (for what that is worth) at 7.9 in every category. The biggest bang for the buck speed-wise these days is in Solid State drives. Just upgrade your drive. Seriously. Do it.
|
05-21-15 08:07pm
|
Reply
240
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
The problem with the 3D technology sites use today is that it is old tech, as in red-blue tech. I have not seen any decent polarized (modern TV) 3D porn yet. Making polarized 3D look real takes a LOT of processing power when rendering (creating) and a decent amount when displaying. I'm not sure the industry can afford it.
|
05-21-15 07:56pm
|
Reply
241
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
A lot of sites don't really separate video from photo updates, so it is really by the image or thumbnail. It also depends a lot on what I'm in the mood for. Some sites are predominantly video so I will browse until I find a model I like and then browse for more of her. Bottom line though, it is the thumbnail that decides if I click to watch the video. There has to be something really appealing in that thumbnail for me to click on it.
|
05-21-15 07:42pm
|
Reply
242
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
It's all about the package. There needs to be beauty, some softness and some firmness. ...and absolutely no hard steroid face. Huge muscles on a girl? Pass. Ballet dancer body? Yes, please. Flexibility turns me on, too. There are a couple of girls on Met Art that are athletic and flexible but not too muscular.
|
05-16-15 01:08pm
|
Reply
243
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
A little rash or a slap mark is OK. Lots of pimples, razor burn or "other" can be kind of distracting. Many models go to great lengths to make sure their lower extremities look pristine, front and back. It does not take a lot of abuse to change a close-up view from Yum! to Yuck!
Oh, and I've seen a few great close-ups ruined by a FLY! A BIG FLY! WTF! Edit that out! :-)
|
12-06-14 04:44pm
|
Reply
244
|
N/A
|
Reply of
skippy's Poll
I submitted this poll a while ago and would have updated if I had known they were going to use it again. Funny how things change in a year. I'm also at around 4 TBs.
|
11-16-14 02:47pm
|
Reply
245
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
I'm with you on the anal thing. I can't think of her name, but there was a beautiful tall, athletic dark haired eastern European model that appeared on the scene a few years ago. First saw her on Met Art, I think. Then she popped up everywhere and soon had her then perfect boobs enlarged. Next time I saw her (not on Met Art, of course), she's doing anal. All I could think of is "awww". You can't unsee stuff like that.
|
09-13-14 10:43pm
|
Reply
246
|
N/A
|
Reply of
skippy's Poll
So...the reason I wrote the survey is to see what people think about seeing certain models EVERYWHERE and their thoughts on models that just don't seem to have the same, um, bounce that they once did. The girl named Malena/Maria seems to be everywhere these days. Caprice and Melissa Mendini are very, very popular models that, although beautiful and versatile, just seem, uh, a little over exposed. Malena Morgan is another very popular bombshell that I have seen in some sets lately where it just doesn't look like she's having any fun. I don't know if they are just crappy sets or what.
I just joined Twisty's for like the 10th time on a bargain sign up. There are a lot of great models there (including 35 sets of Malena, 31 sets of Caprice and 41 sets of Melissa Mendini), but also some older (30+) models and porn stars that I would prefer to think of from...kinder years.
Some models look great forever, some are one-shot wonders (pun intended) and a lot kind of evolve or devolve from the pressures of the business.
In the end, though, there are models we like no matter what, models we don't like very much and a whole lot of models that we will gladly look at until somebody more interesting comes a long.
|
09-13-14 10:24pm
|
Reply
247
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Eufrat is a great example of somebody who has been modeling for a awhile but still has a great attitude and appearance. Lorena is another really lively one. There will always be great models that will look good well into their thirties or until they retire (Like Marketa Belonoha).
|
09-13-14 09:43pm
|
Reply
248
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
My level of remorse depends on how much I spend on a site and how it misses the mark. For $10, I'll try anything that looks interesting and won't be too upset if it is not all that was promised. For $20, I'll be a little more critical if it misses the mark. For $30, the site had better perform as good as or better than promised. I generally will not join a site that is more than $30 although there seem to be a growing number of fetish sites out there that exceed that.
Also, I will generally not join a site that doesn't have good reviews here and will brace myself for disappointment if I want to join a site that has no reviews here. Still, once in a while I get taken..or at least feel like I did.
I just remembered...I have experienced remorse a couple of times for reading bad reviews here and joining anyway! Read the reviews!
|
09-10-14 06:47pm
|
Reply
249
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Oops. Starting writing and the edit timer ran out...
I'm thinking I used to spend about $20-30 a month on magazines and videos back in the...80s, plus an Atlanta, Dallas, Houston or Fort Lauderdale strip club once every couple of months or so. That was maybe 40 images per $5 magazine and one crappy video rental a week. When you consider Moore's rule of technology (doubles every 6 months-2 years), and you throw in inflation, I'd say on-line porn is about the same or slightly better value than porn of prior years.
And although I know where there are some really, really...um...satisfying strip clubs, it is hard to compare that to having a private video chat with any one of about a million girls, some of whom are popular models on your favorite porn sites, with the ability to ask her to do just about anything you can imagine right there in living color...probably for less than you would spend at a strip club.
And if you think that is cool, just wait until you see POV and real-time role-play porn on an Oculus Rift! This technology will blow your everything!
So I guess the value (and budget) is about the same but the technology makes it all much better.
|
09-01-14 07:36pm
|
Reply
250
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
A good value compared to what? Magazines? Old VHS? DVDs? Strip clubs? A date? A girlfriend? A hooker? A wife? (I'm mostly kidding...) :-)
I agree with Pat and RearAdmiral about the volume and variety available on-line being unlike anything else, ever, but I've also experienced what Greymane mentions with rip-off sites. It amazes me that some of these sites can be in business at all.
In the end, you often make a decision based on the sales pitch you are given. Sometimes the result is all that is promised, but often it is not. Thankfully, there is a community here at PU, "The community-based Consumer Reports of porn", that helps us by providing timely and accurate reviews so we know what we are getting into.
|
09-01-14 06:57pm
|
|
