Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
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
|
Reply
3
|
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
4
|
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
5
|
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
6
|
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
|
Reply
7
|
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
8
|
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
|
Reply
9
|
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
10
|
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
11
|
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
12
|
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
|
Reply
13
|
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
14
|
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
|
|
