I'm all for variety, or whatever floats your boat. But raping a duck seems like a poor finish for Johnny Dangerously. Couldn't he find a gorgeous girl (or three) to rape?
I think, if you wanted to re-write your responses, it would make a great review of the Diesel network, or one of their main sites.
I honestly believe, because of your greater writing skills and other factors, that your reviews are outstanding. Far beyond anything I have written. Toadsith hasn't written any reviews in almost 4 years, but his reviews, like yours, are some of the best at PU.
I'm glad that you are finding some sites that you like. I thought, after re-reading your reviews, that your tastes were too specialized to finding sites you might think worthwhile:
"As I am not interested in bg, gg or video, it is hard for me to evaluate the quality of that content."
You say you like Metart, and would score it in the mid to high 90s. But you also say: "I tend to find their images beautiful but not very exciting..."
So when you give Metart a 90s score, do you mean that represents your personal satisfaction with the site? Or do you mean, instead, that is your "professional reviewer's" opinion of the site, apart from your own enjoyment?
When we write reviews for PU, we are supposed to score a site based on some objective criteria, apart from our own personal satisfaction. Which I find hard to do.
My tastes are different from yours, but you've talked me into a ATK Galleria membership in the near future.
You write that MyPreciousVirgins "has some good photos but so few that you can find all of them within a week of joining."
I don't think MyPreciousVirgins is a mega site, but it has a large number of models and photosets. So if you could only find a week's worth of content worth keeping, then it seems that it would take years before 18 Only Girls or Young Legal Porn would build up enough photosets that would appeal to you. Because most of the photos they post (and all of the videos) would seem to be outside your interest, even if they improve their photography.
I am looking forward to reading your future reviews.
If that is true, most of the content at 18 Only Girls and Young Legal Porn would have little value for you.
I just re-read the three reviews you have posted. All I can say is, wow, your reviews are great, you put a lot of thought and intelligence and details into them.
Diesel is not a photo site that features a variety of professional photographers. The early photosets were amateurish, poor colors, not high definition, a wasted opportunity of attractive teens.
Recent photos are more professionally photographed.
One content provider for the Diesel network and Teen Mega World network is:
Browse the samples from that site. If the photosets appeal to you, then you might join Diesel after giving them time to build up content that you might like.
The quality at Diesel is far superior to what you get at Teen Mega World. Teen Mega Word is a video site. They have tons of photosets, but I assume the photos (and the videos) would not appeal to you.
In one review you wrote:
"What I want is for the model to look like she wants to rip my clothes off. Alas, with these photographers, few models look like they are thinking about sex at all, even though there are plenty of open leg poses and some mild finger spreading too. 'You can look but don't touch'. "
At the moment, I can't think of any sites that cater to your preference.
"I don't know why the the photosets at 18 Only Girls are so unsatisfying.
The quality of the photosets is far below what you find at a glamor-style site like Met-art or MPL Studios, in terms of definition, appeal, etc. The style of the photosets is like what is shown at sites like Teen Stars Magazine (an archive site) or My Precious Virgins. Except that what
is shown at Teen Stars Magazine and My Precious Virgins is done much better. The photosets at 18 Only Girls are like a pale imitation of themuch better photosets at the other two sites. And compared to glamor photo sites like Met-art or MPL Studios, the photosets at 18 Only Girls are almost worthless. The photosets are like snapshots from the 1960s or 1970s. Even though they are nude photosets, the 18 Only Girls photosets lack sexiness. My guess is that the lack of sexual appeal is due to the washed-out appearance of the colors in the photos."
There are a lot of things I like about Diesel. I like their videos, with the option of downloading in several definitions. And the newer photosets have multiple choices for definition, as well.
As far as theme: this is a teen site. But there is a wide range of sexual activity shown. Single girl, lesbian with two or more girls, boy-girl, boy with two or more girls. Some use of toys, but not a heavy emphasis of toys. The toys could be in a single girl masturbating, two or more girls, boy-girl, one boy with two or more girls.
The sets don't emphasize any themes, except for being teens.
"Are they doing multiple photo sets per girl or is it more of a one or two sets per girl kind of a site (like Pretty4Ever)?"
The number of sets a girl might have is completely random. A lot of girls have only 1 or 2 appearances. The model Maria has 7 videos and 10 photo sets. Katie has 13 videos and 13 photo sets. The model Mia has 56 videos and 27 photo sets.
Those figures are for 18 Only Girls. If a model appears at this site, she might be found at the sister site, Young Legal Porn, with additional sets.
As far as style, I would say the recent photosets are like Met-art, in that they are glossy photos, with high definition, professionally photographed. The difference is that Met-art, until recently, was nude softcore, but no overt sex. The models did not touch themselves sexually. If there were two female models in a scene, the most overt thing was the two models might kiss on the lips. No boys in the sets ever.
At Diesel, the girls are shown having sex, whether by themselves, with one or more girls, or with a boy and one or more girls.
I am far less technically inclined than you, and I don't apply the same expertise to judging a photo or video.
In your review of ATK Premium, dated 2012-06-04, you write:
"As I am not interested in bg, gg or video, it is hard for me to evaluate the quality of that content."
You're absolutely right, I was always more into pics than vids. There are several reasons for that, which I've mentioned before.
-Pics take less space than vids.
-It's far easier to make an excellent pic than an excellent vid, because there are far fewer factors to control in a pic than a vid.
-Therefor, excellent pics are far more common and easier to find than an excellent vid.
-Also, the time you spend looking at a pic and deciding if good or bad is a fraction of the time needed to do the same for a vid.
-I'm sure there are other considerations, as well, such as the time and money spent looking for sites that you think are worthwhile.
Anyway, I'm simply repeating things you already know.
But it's still worthwhile saying them, I believe.
Personal taste varies widely. What I like can be bland or boring or a waste of time to someone else.
I think Metart is the best site out there, for softcore teen photos. In terms of lovely teen models, quality of the photos, amount of content, and the low price you pay for that content.
Their videos, in contrast, are a waste of time. Boring, in spite of the lovely models.
I can't emphasize enough how much personal taste controls or affects what you like.
I looks at photosets from Femjoy, and I don't like them anywhere near as much Metart photosets. Other PU members have said they prefer the Femjoy approach over Metart, in the photosets. I think Metart uses more photoshopping, and cosmetics, to present the models more attractively. For the same model, who has photosets at Metart and at Femjoy, I will normally enjoy the Metart photosts more. But some PU members have said the Femjoy approach emphasizes the natural beauty of the model.
The Metart videos are boring. Femjoy videos are slighly better, but not by much.
Young Legal Porn and 18 Only Girls are two Diesel network sites with the same site structure, and the content has the same style. The photosets and vids and models could appear at either site. They have two sites, instead of one, for marketing purposes, to make more money.
The two sites have always had models that I thought were attractive. The videos have improved over time, and for years now, have been excellent in terms of definition and other factors.
The photosets had far less value. But over time (years), the photos were improving. And the photosets they are posting now are really nice. So as I said in my review, if they can keep up the quality in the future, these sites will be excellent photo sites in addition to their excellent videos.
Here's what I wrote in an earlier review of 18 Only Girls, dated 2011-01-23:
I'm having a problem figuring out when you sleep. Does your wife/significant-other know you're up this late (or early, if you're located on the East Coast), working at PU?
I'm sure that a lot of the videos at this site are old.
But that's not what I meant when I said the content is dated.
When a photoset or video is posted at a site, and they also give the date of posting, some reviewers say the content is dated. That gives the viewer an additional bit of knowledge.
Other sites do not date their content, so the viewer has no idea when the content was posted.
Obviously, posting date is not the same as the date the photoset or video was created. But it's still better than no date at all.
Here's another bit of irony. I signed up for Young Legal Porn today, because of the comment/question you posted yesterday.
I like the site/network, and was a member back in December of last year. Normally I would wait a while before re-joining. But I like the Diesel videos (and the lovely models), so instead of joining a new site I might like or dislike, I went with a site that I knew to be good.
I just signed up today for YoungLegalPorn. I was a member before a few times already. I wrote a review on 2011-03-08 where I said, "The photosets are more in the style of an amateur-shot photo series done at home, except that I have seen many amateur photos that have much better photo technique than the photosets at this site."
But the newest photos I am seeing today are really improved. I posted a site comment today, stating that their videos are sharp, their models are lovely, and that I've seen some of their newest photosets that are really worthwhile.
This is mainly a video site. But if they can post outstanding photosets in the future, as they seem to be doing now, this will be a photo site as well.
As you already know, the Teen Mega World network (Royal Cash) keep adding new sites to attract more members. While they don't update many of their older sites. This site was started in February of this year, and it's already stopped updating.
The preview pages of Nylons X show many airbrushed photos. But that is just to make the preview more attractive. The videos and photosets inside the site are not airbrushed. The photos are the standard screenshots of the video shoots, and have little erotic or artistic content, unlike what you will find at metart or mpl studios.
And the videos are of lesser quality than what you will see at many of the other Royal Cash sites.
The theme/gimmick for the site is girls wearing nylons or pantyhose. So they dress the models in nylons. But no real effort is made to emphasize the sexy aspect of lingerie. There is no striptease in the act, little effort to make undressing sexy or erotic. It's more like teen girls, who happen to be wearing nylons, getting fucked in the standard Royal Cash manner.
I doubt the site will appeal to people who want to see striptease, lingerie, or eroticism. The site is the standard bread and butter sex you see at most of the Royal Cash network. And the site is small, only 25 videos, and it's already stopped updating.
So if you are a member of the network, it's worth checking the site out to see if you can find anything interesting. But don't expect a lot. There are other sites in the network with better videos.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
