| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
851
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Yep - all true. If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome.
If you're looking for boy/girl stuff or harder solo stuff, this site will frustrate the hell out of you.
I would highly recommend Nubiles.net for people that are frustrated by Met Art but like the type of girls that they post. Nubiles.net also has multiple updates a day, lots of great HQ masturbations vids, some boy/girl vids - and you can be delighted to find girls that went on to be notable porn babes who did great stuff here early in their careers.
|
05-10-09 06:04pm
|
Reply
852
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
What's interesting about the "his first movies were great, then he went south" comments is that I've read more comments about him being abusive by performers that were in his earliest stuff - like Stephanie Swift - than by performers that were in his later stuff. Performers who did other rough stuff and complained bitterly about how their well-being had been dis-regarded by those other porn producers and performers, said that Max treated them well and made sure that they were OK.
What's on-screen definitely doesn't tell the full story.
|
05-10-09 05:56pm
|
Reply
853
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
The "community standards" argument is a farce. There were people on the jury that were very upset that they felt they had no choice but to vote the way they did, either because they felt rail-roaded by the judge, or rail-roaded by the other members of the jury. The case was all based on the material having been sent to a place where Max and his company did not send the material to. That was confirmed by the distributor that DID send the material to - and the distributor wouldn't have sent the material if the postal inspector didn't order the material and request that the material be sent there. In my opinion, if anyone violated "community standards", it was the postal inspector, who had more of a basis to understand the "community standards" than anyone else involved here - so if anybody should have been jailed, I would vote for the postal inspector.
|
05-10-09 08:35am
|
Reply
854
|
Finest Models
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
My biggest complaint about this site - most of the Tila galleries are gone - I found the site pretty lacking when I did a one-month join a while ago as well as having lots of glitches like vids that didn't download - so many that it wasn't even worth sending them a note, in my opinion. I just knew that I was only going to be there a month. Frankly, as soon as I saw how much Tila material was gone, I felt ripped off. They do have some hot photo sets, though, including new ones.
|
05-09-09 08:02am
|
Reply
855
|
X Core Club
(0)
|
Reply of
Dmander6's Review
As with your review of Teen Core, your review here is lacking in information that would be helpful to other members. It's all based on your humiliation fetish thing. If the girls are being anally and orally abused and in obvious discomfort, then you think the site is great, if the girls are not being anally and orally abused, then the site sucks, in your opinion.
But that does not make for a good or useful review, frankly.
You say this site has "Great teen girls" but you give it a review of 50 because there's not enough humiliation and pain for you? That doesn't seem fair to me.
Once again, you don't give any info about frequency of updates or amount of material updated or quality of pics or vids or anything else that would be very useful to other members here.
|
05-09-09 07:57am
|
Reply
856
|
Teen Core Club
(0)
|
Reply of
Dmander6's Review
100 on a site with no daily updates? According to PU guidelines, 100 is reserved for sites that could do little to improve. I understand that the impulse for newbies is to first do reviews that they like the most - that's what I did when I first joined and I also gave my favorite sites unreasonably high ratings.
But it's helpful, when you're going to review a site to look at the guidelines that are given about ratings, take a breath and think what rating the site REALLY deserves.
Besides that, to be honest, there's not much to your review. It doesn't give me any reasons why this site is so much better than Nubiles.net, which you're clearly acquainted with.
You say "no daily updates", but you don't give any indication of how often they do update - or if they do - or how many photo or vid sets are posted when they update - or how large the pics or vids are - or how long the vids are - or how many pics are in a photo set.
I understand that you really like the site, but you didn't give anybody else much info with your review, I'm afraid, and your rating doesn't seem to meet PU guidelines.
|
05-09-09 07:51am
|
Reply
857
|
Finest Models
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Comment
It's a pain-in-the-ass bait and switch site anyway - doesn't have a lot of the material that they most prominently advertise
|
05-07-09 07:45pm
|
Reply
858
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Comment
I did a month join a few days ago. I'm unimpressed. I thought that the vids downloaded at Videobox looked better - that ought to be the only reason needed for being unimpressed.
But I'll go on:
Download speeds aren't all that for me - I'm getting slower d/l speeds than I did at VideoBox, which I had tried for a month.
They don't have the "make your own clip" feature, which was rather fun to play with at VideoBox - especially if you had a great scene of Jenavieve Jolie walking away from the camera and you could find other ass clips of her - mmmmm!!
They don't have the reviews as VideoBox does, which are entertaining - sometimes annoying - sometimes helpful.
They don't have as large a selection as VideoBox, though with over 5,000 DVD's, there's no doubt that there is more than you can gather in a single month.
|
05-05-09 06:07pm
|
Reply
859
|
Karla Spice
(0)
|
Reply of
TheRizzo's Reply
Yeah, Karla's looking better all the time, in my opinion - and while they've gone further in the photo-shopping "let's smooth out her skin tone to where she looks like a sand woman" in some sets, they seem to have backed down on that lately - the newest set is sensational.
Pamela Spice is Colombian, I believe, and a real jewel - though the updates aren't dated, so I believe that it's now a dead site.
Cierra is damned cute and Serena has a great bubble butt and is generally very sexy.
|
05-03-09 04:47pm
|
Reply
860
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
I enjoy fully clothed tease if it's the right girl in the right clothes, filmed the right way, etc.
There are certain celebs I can think of that can get me off just walking around in short skirts.
I'm a fan of pro wrestling and was watching a match the other day from 1999 or so and Pamela Anderson accompanied one of the wrestlers to the ring - OMG!! Just watching her walk around in a very low cut slinky white dress that had slits for her legs and caressed her ass was incredibly arousing.
At the same time, I like all kinds of levels of sex stuff if it's done right.
|
05-01-09 07:00am
|
Reply
861
|
Porn Pros Network
(0)
|
Reply of
atrapat's Reply
Biggest con from my 1-month membership experience - even more than the plethora of fake-cock sites - they need new or additional servers - download speed was mainly atrocious.
|
04-21-09 06:13pm
|
Reply
862
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I'd follow the great American tradition - I'd go buy an assault rifle and go on a murderous rampage!
And before anybody gets all upset, let me assure you - I'm kidding - totally kidding!
How do I know how I'd react? It hasn't happened yet. The thought of it hasn't caused me to black out in terror, but that doesn't mean much until it really happens.
|
04-20-09 06:54pm
|
Reply
863
|
Eve Angel
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
I do believe that you are correct. Looking at comments on her site, it was noted that the site opened January 2007, but the site currently shows the first update dated July 2007, so it looks like they chopped off the first 6 months to use as "new" updates.
|
04-19-09 08:36am
|
Reply
864
|
Eve Angel
(0)
|
Reply of
Balibalo's Reply
It's not your fault - The company that run these sites are a pack of thieves presenting old material as new - any shame is on them, not you.
|
04-18-09 06:44pm
|
Reply
865
|
Eve Angel
(0)
|
Reply of
Balibalo's Review
This site and Mya Diamond.com are both dead sites - they just recycle the old material over and over again to produce "new" updates. If you go to Freeones.com and look under Eve Angel and Mya Diamond, you can see samples from the sets that they continuously recycle with their original copyright dates.
|
04-18-09 06:21pm
|
Reply
866
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
Given that their vids have natural sound and don't have the sound of clicking cameras or directors, I think that "yes, they do the vid and photo shoot separately - same location & outfits - I'm sure they have dupes when there's messiness involved." If there's anyone here that knows more the methodology of doing these kind of photo/vid shoots, they ought to chime in.
|
04-17-09 09:06pm
|
Reply
867
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
williamj's Reply
This decrease in updates wouldn't be as bad if a) they stopped advertising 2 updates per day, b) they added an extra update when one of their "Jokes" sets was the set posted, or c) they added an extra update when they posted an ALS Scan set posted - I've got to give props once again to ALS Scan - when they post a set from 1 By Day, it's an extra - it's not a replacement to the ALS Scan material that would be posted that day. In my view if a site is going to a flag-ship site - as ALS Scan is - as One By Day is - and if they're going to charge premium prices - you have to join One-By-Day for a full year to bring the monthly price below $20/month - then they ought to be held to quite a high standard of performance.
If they've got one main guy as they photographer, and he's stretched doing work on their other sites, they ought to do what Suze Randall did and cultivate a group of contributing photographers - have those others fill out the updates on the site to give more value to the members.
|
04-17-09 07:30pm
|
Reply
868
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
GCode's Review
Screen stills? You think so? I don't. I think that they are photo sets that go along with, but are separate from the vids. They don't give the appearance of screen stills to me.
I would compare them to the photosets that you see at Pix & Video or One By Day - both of those sites have vids that go along with the photo sets, but the photo sets are not screen stills. For comparison, there are bonus sites to Pix & Video where they do have screen still sets - which look quite different - and much lower quality.
|
04-17-09 05:52pm
|
Reply
869
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
Man, that's the weakest excuse I've ever heard - "some reviewers at Porn Users are saying bad things about our site so we're going to cut our updates by half!" I can't imagine that they would be so petty or dumb. It's a premium-priced site and the flagship of their brand, so it doesn't seem like a wise move - but perhaps they looked at how going to 2 updates a day had affected their membership and just didn't see a difference between joins at 1 update a day and joins at 2 updates a day - so why not save the money and cut back to one a day?
|
04-17-09 06:58am
|
Reply
870
|
Porn Pros Network
(0)
|
Reply of
insomniacxxx's Review
The other negative about this site is the download speed. I tried it for a month and my first download was at quite a decent speed - after that -blecccchh!! This sites average download speeds are horribly slow
|
04-14-09 11:09pm
|
Reply
871
|
Butt Man
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Comment
It looks like they changed their pricing completely from the TBP-listed pricing. The pricing stated now is:
29.95 first month - recurring at $14.95
95.50 year-long join (7.95/month)
|
04-12-09 10:47pm
|
Reply
872
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
atrapat's Reply
Damn - stupid thing to do with a network that needs more sites and scenes rather than less - at this rate, Mofos is going to take a year or more to be worthwhile
|
04-12-09 05:54pm
|
Reply
873
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
It's hot generally, though when they have Eastern Europeans speaking English phonetically, as in some Private productions, that just sounds silly & a bit distracting.
|
04-11-09 07:25pm
|
Reply
874
|
Evil Angel Network
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Comment
That was probably the most amazing web cast I've never seen - 2 1/2 hours of a shoot that was invaded early on by Aiden Starr and then by various EA folks who couldn't keep their hands off Dana Dearmond - can't blame them. John Stagliano is a genius - get the right girls - get them going crazy and ask nicely for what you want, but mainly let them use their imaginations and filthiest initiative - and then just enjoy it. Lots of face-slapping, hair-pulling, spitting, boob-grabbing, face-sitting, clothespin-pussy-displays and the most body-rocking orgasms I've ever seen. The two women who came in with complete intensity ended looking totally stoned, smiling and utterly relaxed and lovely - loved it!
|
04-10-09 07:33pm
|
Reply
875
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
mediafan's Comment
Yeah, a was a member for a month when they first opened and had a $10/month deal - when they opened, they started with a bunch of good stuff, but then they really didn't add much great stuff - it's the kind of site that would be worth joining once a year for a month.
|
04-09-09 06:06pm
|
