| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#1
from hodayathink:
(bestimmt's Reply)
Then your issue is with the director, not the act. It is possible to film a DP without making it a constant close-up of the penetration.
|
11-06-12 01:12am
|
Reply
2
|
Backroom Casting Couch
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from pat362:
(bestimmt's Reply)
Probably very few and only because I believe he shoots girls from the mideast or midwest. These girls probably never planned to go to the East Cost or West Coast anyway. The site is designed to make it look like he's a kind of dick but the shoots themselves aren't very hard for the girls. I mean it's a one-on-one sex scene with no one else in the room and the guy isn't carrying a deadly weapon in his pants.
If you want to see a site that has managed to destroy possible porn careers then check out facial abuse. Many a girls made the mistake of thinking that these guys are on the up and up and the claim of abuse is just for show. They are in many ways what Max Hardcore was in the last few years before he went to jail.
|
10-30-12 03:59pm
|
Reply
3
|
Backroom Casting Couch
(0)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
from Cybertoad:
Could you give more details on the site itself? You gave a very low score a few details may help me see the site review a tad better.
I really was not sure what your experience was.
Thanks
|
10-29-12 10:58am
|
Reply
4
|
Backroom Casting Couch
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from pat362:
(bestimmt's Reply)
This site has two things going for it. It features girls that would normally never get seen if it wasn't for this site and a tiny amount of them will shoot a few more scenes for other sites/companies.
|
10-28-12 08:30am
|
Reply
5
|
Exploited College Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
from slutty:
Interesting review,
I agree with your opinion of the ass licking, and I also made the same mistake you did, but more importantly the camerwork here was shit and the mosaic over the guy's face is just stupid.
|
11-26-12 11:36pm
|
Reply
6
|
Exploited College Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
from littlejoe:
you probably should have done the site tour 1st because every complaint you have is very obvious from the tour. its like buying a 23" tv and then giving it a bad review saying its not 40"
|
11-11-12 07:02am
|
Reply
7
|
Exploited College Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Claypaws:
(bestimmt's Reply)
I agree about exaggerated site names. But I took a browse around the tour of Exploited College Girls. There are previews of many of the models there. Every preview that I read mentioned licking a man's ass, e.g. Kelli (Zoey Kush), April (Avril Hall). So it should not be a surprise.
Also, I recognise very many of the girls on the site although they have different names here from their more usual aliases. Some of them might have appeared here first but I doubt that is true of many of them. If it is any consolation to you, most of them appear in other hardcore too and they are rather good actresses. Models do not usually do things that they do not want to, especially the good-looking ones who can work easily.
So, although I would not like the content of the site and I do not like exploitation of models, even when it is simulated and consensual, I think that it is unfair to criticise the site for what it shows. To me, its tour is comprehensive enough to make its content clear.
It is difficult to give a site a rating which differs greatly from one's personal like or dislike of it but I feel that a rating should be based on how well a site achieves what its tour describes.
|
11-11-12 02:00am
|
Reply
8
|
Exploited College Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
from Claypaws:
What you describe is certainly not something I would ever want to see. I would be equally disgusted. However, surely the clue is in the title of the website. What else would you expect from a site with such a name?
|
11-10-12 02:34pm
|
Reply
9
|
Girls Do Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
from Tree Rodent:
Welcome to PU. Good effort for your second review.
The one thing you don't mention in the cons, is the use of condoms in 90% of their clips. That isn't necessarily a con for some, but means it's a definite no goer for me. Even if it isn't a con I think it needs mentioning.
|
10-30-12 07:22am
|
Reply
10
|
Girls Do Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
from tangub:
An interesting review. So this site expects you to pay a minimum of $60 for 2 months continuous membership and you have to wait around for the first month before you can download HD content which most other decent sites offer as the norm these days, it doesn't sound like a very competetive business model to me.
I liked your con about "the sex is always the same"....kind of reminds me why I became bored with hardcore porn a long time ago and now just enjoy solo female content. Welcome to PU.
|
10-30-12 06:43am
|
