| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
76
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I didn't think that counted as archives, though it does have all the threads, minus of course the spammy ones you've banished to a black hole of the Internet. :-)
I always go straight to there anyway since I'm too lazy to even bother scrolling down to the "Latest Threads" part of the homepage. With all the main links at the top right of the homepage it's a quicker way to browse in general. I'm this way with most sites I regularly visit; skip the homepage's headlines/latest/breaking news/whatever Flash scroll bullshit and prefer a more organized approach.
|
01-08-14 03:12pm
|
Reply
77
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Nah, why would they want to have a variety of names, short of trying to separate themselves from seriously extreme content they may have done earlier in their careers? And with the anything goes attitude of an increasing number of performers this is probably pretty rare as it is.
Plus, I think in a lot of cases mistaken idea would be quite difficult. Is anyone other than the real Bonnie Rotten (not her Christian name?) going to be identified as her?
|
01-06-14 10:38pm
|
Reply
78
|
Puffy Network
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
LOL Maybe you enjoyed this site so much it's turned down your rage somewhat?
Though to be honest I certainly hope it hasn't--I don't want to the sole rageaholic here!
|
01-06-14 10:27pm
|
Reply
79
|
Puffy Network
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Review
Great review, RB! I've been thinking about joining this site for a while now--well, really just Wet and Pissy, as those two words encompass nearly everything I seek out in porn--but if this is the same price for two additional sites, it's obviously the better deal. I guess I'll wait a little while on a review once I join (and don't want to risk carpal tunnel syndrome either!). Your comments on camera work are also a lot more than what I usually manage, the typically redundant "Me see naughty parts in video. Me get horny."
Also, your reply to graymane about use of the term "puffy," that "Big TACOs are the Labia Masters" is hilarious (though I would think the title "Labia Mistress" is more correct). If that were a real award or title it would be one I wouldn't think twice about accepting! :-)
|
01-06-14 05:40pm
|
Reply
80
|
VIPissy
(0)
|
Reply of
Cum Play John's Review
Oh, and to add to the con questioning "is material this hardcore too transgressive?", I would say no, at least with regards to this specific subscription and its sister sites.
The genre of this reviewed site (boy-girl pissing) had already pretty clearly been taken to the extreme years ago. People like Max Hardcore and sites like 666 Bukkake are not for the squeamish, or at times even the comfortably consensual viewer. Then Kink's now out-of-date Pissing.com (still open, but a few years since last update) is as rough and hardcore with the fetish as any of their other sites but also just as consensual, something missing with way too many other sites.
Now we digital deviants have sties like Wet and Pissy and VIPissy--frankly, far less transgressive for me than the countless anal and cum/swallow fetish sites. Hell, compared to the latest R-rated "sex" comedy we could see advertised on TV and on giant billboards this porn is practically art that people not only want to genuinely see, but might actually find pleasure in seeing(!).
|
01-03-14 12:32am
|
Reply
81
|
VIPissy
(0)
|
Reply of
Cum Play John's Review
Good review, John, hope there's more to come from similar sites!
I'm trying to figure if there's really that much of a difference between this and Wet and Pissy, since both's samples look so similar, share many of of the same models and scenes, and both are parented by the porn octopus Epoch. The only noticeable change from W & P I can tell is the focus towards more boy-girl golden showers instead of the former's solo and occasional (way too occasional for a guy like me!) girl-girl scenes.
Obviously, the Puffy Network subscription is the best deal at the moment--We Like To Suck, Wet and Puffy, and of course Wet and Pissy for $20/month--but that still seems to miss some of what VIPissy has if hardcore, in the boy-girl sense, is what really floats your porn boat.
|
01-03-14 12:16am
|
Reply
82
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Yes; I'm a creature of habit when it comes to the majority of my porn.
|
01-02-14 11:04pm
|
Reply
83
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I second oldfizzywig's "hidden and forbidden" comments: when there is a shyness and or somewhat embarrassed factor to something like that it definitely has some unexplainable appeal. Like it's a privilege to watch over other types of porn because not every women will do it, much less actually enjoy it (and, of course, such women should be worshiped as goddesses).
I guess maybe the attraction to it has something to do with the association to genitals, or the perverting of a natural act, or just plain ol' bad brain chemistry. Hell, it still seems a lot more natural, not to mention less demanding, than bukkake or anal fisting scenes! How many women agree to those perverted acts?
And as personal addendum to pee content in general, I usually don't like scenes that take place in bathrooms, as if in those settings it can't be properly fetishized or sexualized. Outside of the bathroom it seems naughtier and more forbidden, but definitely not hidden.
|
12-16-13 11:01pm
|
Reply
84
|
N/A
|
Reply of
oldfizzywig's Reply
Isn't that what most "reverse bukkake" scenes really are, just with "squirting" in the title to keep from getting in trouble? Sometimes it's a little too obvious, like when they're pushing to ejaculate (and it's not really female ejaculate), or, fuck it, it comes out a looking ginger ale-tinted hue.
Either way, the guy probably loves it. Of course it's hard enough to get more than one girl to participate in a threesome or orgy in real life (and who actually takes the time to schedule such things?), much less one where they all agree to pee/"squirt" on you.
|
12-16-13 10:50pm
|
Reply
85
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
You can easily get bad lighting outside on a sunny day because natural lighting is a single, super strong source--the sun, which no artificial light can truly replicate, and certainly not on a shoestring porn budget. The problem is that this can create really harsh shadows depending on the season and time of day. So performers are squinting, unevenly lit, and the setting becomes less than picturesque.
Shooting inside near a window as you mentioned brings up other problems. The light sources are different color temperatures and the picture will be white balanced for the indoor source (or on auto balance, which will adjust to the inside), probably a warmer tungsten or incandescent light. The light coming from the window will look blue and kind of weird, but not exactly out of place for a porn video.
|
12-03-13 09:11am
|
Reply
86
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
Since "on drugs" could mean any number of things I'm going to say "Only if it impairs production." If someone has an audience and can still work producers will tolerate a lot--just like in mainstream Hollywood, and to a certain extent in politics as well.
Read a few interviews or tweets of current performers and it's clear that pot is the go-to drug of choice at the moment. While it certainly doesn't help them come off as women who are more than airheaded eye candy they're aren't flying planes or engineering vaccines either, so no harm no foul.
|
11-29-13 12:35pm
|
Reply
87
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Belthazar's Reply
You make a good point Belthazar; sites need to work harder (better editing, more appropriate compression, etc.) to justify such huge but relatively short files. A good scene will always be worth the disk space, but if I'm on the fence I quickly delete or keep a smaller version (like 1280x720). I have no trouble keeping older 640x480 scenes since they are so much smaller and were shot before simply increasing resolution was thought of as a standalone improvement.
|
11-28-13 12:52pm
|
Reply
88
|
N/A
|
Reply of
happyending's Reply
LOL With The Hobbit-style 48FPS and 3D to boot!
|
11-28-13 12:45pm
|
Reply
89
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Usually click a link, since I can be a fairly bad speller when I'm in a rush or simply not paying attention. But more typically I'm trying to avoid a very similar URL that's for a very dissimilar website, i.e. typosquatting.
|
11-14-13 03:37pm
|
Reply
90
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
I do like 'em young (who doesn't?), but then again the very appealing [ignore]Nina Hartley [/ignore]is in her 50s, married, and doing quite well while still enjoying it. Helps tremendously to have a good head on your shoulders though, something even a plastic surgeon can't install.
|
11-07-13 06:52am
|
Reply
91
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
As long as they're not bruised and bleeding I'm happy! :-0
|
11-03-13 11:10pm
|
Reply
92
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
I think "a turkey baster full of fake cum" describes more than a few sites--hell, a whole genre at this point.
|
10-23-13 07:18pm
|
Reply
93
|
WD Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
I certainly never thought it would be such an intentional and consensual one. There's Girls Gone Wild of course, which was all about taking advantage of girls through inebriation and peer pressure, and then all the shoots where a performer showed up partially stoned or hung over.
I guess this site would be a lot more worrying if it included sober male co-performers, but as it is now it doesn't seem to be crossing any lines.
|
10-22-13 03:21pm
|
Reply
94
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Thedebilman666's Poll
No, and not exactly sure how a guy would do such a thing--I can't edit myself like I'm in a porn video!
|
10-22-13 03:13pm
|
Reply
95
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Somewhat important, but man can they be abused!
Less-is-more can work for the number of cameras if the operator/director is creative enough and at least a minimum of editing is done. Instead we get 30-45 minute single takes that are POV, wide-angle, and feel like endurance tests for the viewer.
Other times there are multiple angles from multiple cameras, but they are shown onscreen at the same time or the same action is simply repeated for the second angle after it's already been shown for the first. And then there are slo-mos, which feel like the porn equivalent of using double spacing on a paper to increase page count without any additional content. >:- |
|
10-21-13 05:49pm
|
Reply
96
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Poll
Goodwill and the nearest Dumpster are definitely out--and some people treat them as if they are the same--because I still have most of mine.
Though, as addressed in the poll last week, I do fear what will happen to it when I die. Unlike hard drives and mysterious credit card charges the DVDs and magazines will start upsetting family and some friends as soon as they see the light of day. Yeah, I'll be dead but I don't exactly want to leave my loved ones with what I know will be an embarrassing task.
It's like you get to haunt people through the levels of shame that your porn collection will provide! :-)
|
10-17-13 03:39am
|
Reply
97
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
Some of this stuff can be hard to judge until you've actually downloaded it and taken a more thorough look. But I say "Other" because genre/category, or at least what the BS description will say about it may turn me away.
Generally "too skinny" or "too chunky" will be categories on their own and are part of the reason people seek them out, though too chunky can just be the model and not BBW stuff. Too skinny is just horrifying in my opinion--nothing sexy about someone who appears to be literally starving to death. You can't fake that and it's probably the riskiest "look" I can think of in porn today. (Seriously, STDs could would most likely longer to kill someone than malnutrition.)
|
10-14-13 11:18pm
|
Reply
98
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Don't like it personally, as I don't find most "dirty talk" particularly sexy or erotic, especially in the form of name-calling, but it all depends on the context. Kink.com throwing out insults is one thing, but it is not the same as some overly aggressive director who hasn't yet realized he's the asshole when he verbally abuses a performer.
|
10-12-13 05:51am
|
Reply
99
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
No, but if only because they do it slightly less than men.
Sometimes I meet a pretty girl, or just a seemingly sweet and innocent one, and I'd like to believe she does the deed as much as me but I always have my doubts. And for men it's almost a certain side effect of the physiology of their anatomy--I've never heard of any women waking up with morning wood (her own, at least). ;-)
|
10-10-13 01:48pm
|
Reply
100
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
I agree here; if she's not the mood, good luck. I was watching a Louis CK special recently where he was talking about how men are always in the mood for sex and are frequently bad at it when they do have it because they only think about themselves. Of course he adds in his own personal physical deficiencies but he made a decent point.
And I say if you have to do any of these above choices to have sex instead of, you know, to just be a nice and caring partner then you might not be getting much action anyway (particularly if you have to bed and plead, but that's always worth a shot too :-) ).
|
10-09-13 12:56am
|
