I agree that it's pure cheating if they say that members can get it on with pornstars. I know that Be The Mask was one of those that lied. All the males were professionals or semi-pros. In any case I for one would never want to sleep with a pornstar. My curiosity does not outweight my fear of catching a serious STD.
I suspect that most of these so called real people are mostly boyfriends of the stars. Since they aren't actual professional then I guess you could claim that they are real people. It's kind os stretching the truth but since porn is fantasy then what's another lie.
I'm far more curious about guys that pay very high prices to sleep with pornstars that escort. How many truly do that and how are the old bait and switch.
The simplest, most basic difference between prostitution and having sex in a porn flick is that all the participants in a porn flick are getting paid.
While I never underestimate a human's ability to fall to new levels of stupidity, I can't imagine someone fronting a brothel with a website. It'd be too easy for an undercover cop to accept the invitation to see if everything's legit.
If the porn itself isn't illegal, why wouldn't it be legal? There might be local laws in some places that would keep them from advertising in mainstream media like newspapers and public postings, but I don't think anyone's legislated against webmasters recruiting from their own sites. At least not yet, anyway.
I'm sure it's probably illegal in many southern states and most non-European countries, but so is females wearing pants in Malasia and many Muslim countries.
Yeah, I know the staff replies don't "stand out" for approved post ... that's ok. Generally they're standard system msg's or friendly asides. If something were real important, or kept up after the friendly aside, I'd send an email.
Now, my allegation against you, is not an allegation. I'm not posting it on the forum. I'm not chasing your every review with "I think this guy has something to do with kink". It is just something that had went through my mind over the last couple of years. And anyone with the ability to comprehend those 4 points I made, can see why I would wonder. I wonder if Jennifer Lopez' ass is flabby. I wonder if Burger King has the Angry Whopper back. I wonder a lot of things. But, this is not my site, I'm sure Khan and Rick have more means than I do to know if you are affiliated with the kink sites. If they're okay with you, than so am I. Doesn't mean I can't still wonder though. You are welcome to find one time where I have said, "I know you work for kink". Go ahead. That's an allegation. My opinion is that there are some things that makes your membership here a little fishy. That's my opinion.
Tell me, how many times have I replied to you without you replying to me first? Zero. I know your type all too well. You like to argue meaningless shit while soothing your ego by trying to talk over others.
Why do you keep mentioning the other members reading this? What are they going to do? Say, "Oh hell asmith is right about everything, I no longer trust exotics because he won't apologize to him." You don't think they will look at those 4 points and understand why I would wonder? And see that I never allegedly said you worked for the site? And then wonder why in the hell you keep asking me to apologize to you? And then see how petty you are?
The members here, whether they like me or hate me, know that I am mainly here to post reviews filled with factual information, and offer any help to any of them with any site they are interested in and I've been a member of. You think this little petty shit is going to change that? You've got serious problems if you believe any of this was "serious allegations" or if you think I "attacked" you. Why don't you dip into the old sensationalistic writing bucket a little? Create a little drama there.
Most of all though, when you start to wave your moralistic values flag again, remember that you are claiming not to have a problem with different opinions. Then, ask yourself, who replied to who in this poll? Then ask yourself if you agreed with my opinion. If not, did dispute it? Yes? So that is you showing how you have no problems with differing opinions? And to think, you really think you have everyone on your side. Catch the next train, the one that says "Reality" on the front. At least my harshness at times, is known and isn't directed at other long-time members. I won't argue this with you anymore. Go change my trust vote. I'll leave yours at yes. Like before, unlike you, I take members for their reviews and contributions to the site. Doesn't mean I necessarily like them though. So, get over it or don't.
You're just being foolish now. If you remember, I plainly said that I had wondered about your affiliation with the kink.com sites long before this incident. The word mistake, was one that I admitted and apologized to the site for. That doesn't change me wondering about your affiliation with the sites. Because you're not going to shut the hell up until I explain that, I will do that now. You can see that my wondering had much weight to it before this incident.
#1 Your original problem with me was a 70 review for Ultimate Surrender. A review that clearly said the site would have been a 90 if they dropped their DL Limit or raised it to a more respectable number than 10 GB per month. I even said if they do one of those things, I will edit the score and add the 20 points back, which I have done. Why would a customer of a site get as pissed off as you did over my deduction? The regular PU or general public could read where I even said, if that download limit doesn't bother you, go ahead and add the 20 points back in your head. The only possible reason I can see for someone being upset over the deduction is because of the fact that the site went into PU's average score per site rankings with a 70. It would hurt the cumulative score.
#1a You have posted a comment on one of kink's sites questioning the calculation of the cumulative score. How many regular members go around calculating the scores of sites? And when added with #1, I think it is safe to say that anyone would have right to be skeptical of your involvement here.
#3 and #4 Three of your four top sites are kink.com sites. I don't have a problem with that. But when added to #1 and #1a, the skepticism rises. Especially seeing that you have those 3 sites about 20 points higher than you do your average site. Add to this, you, like other webmasters and site staff members that post here, do not participate in the weekly member raffle or collect tickets. Now, mind you, that is your business and I want no explanation for it. All I am saying is that there is 4 things to make me skeptical of you.
You're not helping matters by saying you have no problem with differing opinions. So, why exactly were you mad over my 20 point deduction? That was, in my opinion, the right deduction since the limit severely limited how much content I could download. But you don't have a problem with differing opinions?
How about in this very poll. You countered my opinion to it, by telling me what was correct. Maybe you missed the memo, but opinions cannot be wrong or right. It could be wrong to you, but unless you can list facts to show how someone is wrong, you're just saying your opinion is right, theirs is wrong.
Well, counsel, just as you suspected, huh? Like I've said before, you're always right. Of course, the link doesn't work and if you missed it in the previous post, my whole purpose of pointing out the false claims was to show you what a hypocrite you are. Now, I can show you what a know-it-all you are. I'll be happy to apologize to the site. Most likely, I saw the words "brutal head-scissors" on another page in the tour, as I said earlier, I had to clear my cookies to get back to that page which shows I had been beyond that page.
An apology to you? For what? The "allegation" wasn't against you. It was against the site. Unless you do work for the site. I see no reason that the allegation pertained to you. You've dodged everything else in this. You've talked in wannabe lawyer jargon, up until now. I never said you worked for the site. I simply said I've never seen a customer defend a group of sites like you do. You like to argue the meanings of things and you can figure out how to twist that into me saying you worked for these sites.
You're not touching the rest of it though? The parts about how you are a hypocrite. And how you have tried this twice with me now. As I told you before when you changed your trust rating to yes, I didn't care if you did it or not. I don't care if you change it back now to no. I just don't like someone singling me out to try and prove themselves right against me when we're just talking about opinions here. And that was the second time. It makes probably the 4th time by other members. I told them the same thing I will tell you. If you don't like my opinion and you're going to dodge any debate that comes from it, then don't reply to me. Your request of an apology on a site that you are anonymous on is hysterical.
But it is as simple as I said. Don't reply to me if you're planning to try and change my opinion, tell me how my opinion is wrong because you know everything and understand everything better than everyone else does or else, you're going to have another situation just like this one. If you want to reply and say, "I disagree because..." and it doesn't include anything about you being right, we'll be fine and can forget this, if not that's fine too. Just don't expect apologies from me when you replied to me to tell me that my opinion was wrong.
I'll get to the other one in a minute. There are some things you don't seem to understand. I first brought Ultimate Surrender up with this line "If you really are holding sites to truth in advertising, then you might want to reconsider that one." Because you were lecturing on truth in advertising, yet your #1 site had multiple false statements on it. You were being a hypocrite.
As for me questioning you about your relationship with kink.com, I said, "It sounds like you are part of the kink.com family because you defend them". Now you tell me, a member has 3 of their top 4 sites from one company. And your last contact with me before this incident was when you went off about me dropping 20 points from a kink.com website because they had a 10 GB per MONTH DL Limit. You were so adamant in their defense that you gave me my only no trust vote. You've since changed it to yes, but that was how much that deduction bothered you. And you've since posted a comment asking about why a kink.com site's score is not listed as high as you thought it should be. That sounds more like an employee than a customer to me.
Moving on, to have any kind of real violence against another human, without facing charges, you have to have sanctioning. Like the UFC has, they worked for years on getting sanctioning, they had to ban headbutts, groin strikes and a dozen other moves. Or they could have taken the WWE route and said it is staged or scripted. Or else, their fighters would be jailed for assault charges. Same thing against the Jerry Springer show and its fights. Which he admitted were staged and scripted. I know good and damn well if the UFC can't allow groin strikes that Ultimate Submission cannot allow sexual penetration during what they call a "unscripted match" without sanctioning.
A reality of real fighting/wrestling is that you are trying to injure the other person or else, they injure you. I wouldn't say WWE is anymore scripted, they've had performers end up paralyzed. But you see, my problem wasn't with Ultimate Submission. My problem was with you being a hypocrite. WWE is not "real" wrestling. WEC, K-1, UFC, those are the real wrestling events I was referring to. And you remember, it is just me showing you that you were supporting a site that did exactly opposite of what you believe in. That is what you should expect anytime you try to persuade another adult to believe like you.
I could give a damn about the 2 to 1 ratio. Do you follow polls and base your beliefs on the majority vote? I make up my own mind. Even then, I'm also not going to try and tell you to make up your own mind. I could care less if you follow the majority. I'm not here to persuade anyone. On that note, I'm not going to respond kindly to people who try to persuade me either.
I don't think you understand that I consider "teen" a genre and not a number. When used in context with adult sites. You can look at most sites with Teen in their name and see something like this, "The #1 Teen Site". Just like you can look at an interracial site that says, "The #1 Interracial Site."
I don't know why you are saying "exactly" on the monitor part. Those numbers 17 and 15 were specific, when you find a site that says, "18 and 19 year old models only" then I will say that they are wrong for saying those specifics and not sticking within in them. Until then "teen" is not defined in the porn world.
I didn't say German could effect English ads. I said people from those countries could live under different laws about what age defines a legal age, meaning 18 and 19 could be illegal in some countries.
What gets me is this, "I don't know and don't care." About mature porn. Yet, you hope others are reading this and can see that I'm impossible to persuade?
That might be the worst thing anyone has said to me on here. Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I bring my own opinion, from my own mind. I don't say anything to make anyone else happy. I've been this way since I joined and I'm not changing. That is part of life that I enjoy called having my own opinion. I don't need you to persuade me. How highly must one think of themselves to think their opinion is so much better than others that they should persuade others to think like them? Just don't hold your breath on that one. It would be like a brutal head-scissors effect.
As for where it was changed, you probably need to clear your cookies to get the Click yes if over 18 to enter. The changed part is in the last paragraph, "Female wrestling holds on UltimateSurrender.com include severe leg scissors, head scissors, boston crab, back breaker, full nelson, grapevine and more. Enjoy women in bondage photos, movies, streaming video, and shoots you can buy at UltimateSurrender.com!"
I've had one other long drawn-out mostly pointless debate with you on here before and in it, I mentioned that you sounded like you were part of the kink.com family. The way you defend them and so on.
So, tell me, why is it that their main page for Ultimate Submission changed the wording over the last 24 hours? It changed from "Brutal leg-scissors" to "Severe leg-scissors". Not that severe is any better, since you like in context discussions. A severe leg-scissors would mean lots of pressure being applied. Like if you went outside and it was hot. You would say the heat is severe today.
You then say this about the 3 tags, "Nope. Per their rules, 3 tags per round are only ALLOWED for each of competing teams to be exercised (and they USUALLY happen, as they're very beneficial for the team), but are not required." Their site clearly says, "The rules are set. There are three tags per team per round and three 12 minute non-scripted wrestling rounds."
There is nothing there about three tags not being required. So, either way, they are being dishonest. I could have my hope up that each team would tag 3 times and the front page says that, but you say it isn't true.
As far as it not being scripted, you really should think about that before saying it. IF ultimate submission is not scripted, they would be in jail. In the world of REAL wrestling, if one wrestler popped a finger in the other wrestler's ass, that would be molestation/sexual assault. That is where they stretch the truth a bit, by saying, "REAL" wrestling. There is no such thing as sex in a real sport. You don't see players blowing each other during timeouts. Also, backbreaker, Boston Crab, moves they list, are not REAL wrestling moves. You cannot do a move intended to break a person's back. Now, if this is true, that these moves are not done with the intention of hurting each other or winning the match, then it is scripted. Which makes "unscripted" a lie. If those moves are intended to hurt each other, then the authorities should have already looked into it. Especially seeing that a man stands there as the "referee" while another videotapes, and the ref assists at times in the assault.
My whole point in all this, including Ultimate Submission, is that porn is a perceived fantasy. If you don't believe that, I recommend watching WWE and betting on the matches. Or watching Jerry Springer. And remember, Ultimate Submission claims "unscripted". Gay models aren't always gay. Mature models are only mature based on the viewer's age.
I may have to use two replies for this. First of all, tell me what the word in front of "model" is. Teen Models, Gay Models, Lesbian Models, Mature Models and lets say Transsexual Models? The word in front is the adjective that separates the models based on actions/age and look perception. None of those other adjectives are specific though. Mature is an age/look perception one. But no one has defined what is and what isn't a mature model. Why would teen be any different? When anyone who has surfed porn for even a relatively short time goes to a site, say like, Teen Dreams, they know there are models that are not 18 and 19. If the don't, all they have to do is preview the site and can see Sophie Moone (28), Eve Angel (26) just to name two. How is that site misleading or even wrong? Does a site stop putting new content of member favorites like Sophie and Eve up, just because they are no longer 18 or 19? And anyway, what adjective comes after "mature"?
Your monitor example did nothing but strengthen what I said. They said their monitors were 17 inches, but the viewable area was only 15.8 inches. That is specific. Just like if a site was named 18and19yearoldmodels would be. If the monitor company had said, "Big monitor". There wouldn't be a problem. In porn, no genre, is age defined, unless the site defines the word teen or mature or as in the case of Allover30. Teen is no different than MILF, Mature, Lesbian, Gay. Sure, they could go re-program their site and put youngermodels dreams as the name, but it would then be subjective since you would say, "28 is not really a younger model...to me". What would be the point then of doing all of that reprogramming to only give those few complaining, something new to bitch about?
The definitions I used were relevant in the discussion, as it showed that the word Teen does have definitions in different languages that mean a time of life. As in adolescent and juvenile. The actual numbers 18 and 19 are irrelevant since neither 18 nor 19 are the legal age in some countries/cities/states.
I'm going to end this one with the lead-in of the next one. You really believe "brutal" means hot and innovative? There is no definition in this world that lists brutal as those things. You can give me that bullshit about it is up to the ad writer's understanding of the word, but that is hypocritical since you are making "teen" be defined "correctly". Look up bullshit and you'll see a picture of that belief. Scroll down.
Honestly, I have no idea what the first half of your post is saying. I felt like I used the correct contextual definitions, and have no idea how archaic "One which preserves meaning" would have to do with an age/perception question. I never said 18-19 means teen models. I said if the sites got together and defined teen as 18-19 year old models, there would be a possibility of fraud. As it stands now, there is no clear definition of "teen" model. Let me show you a few examples. Lesbian porn. No one is complaining that those women aren't lesbians. Gay porn, from what I've read, a good portion of those men are straight in real-life. Heterosexual porn, we know that many of those men are at least bi-sexual as are the women. Nobody has a problem with those. Teen to me has always meant the younger models, usually solo masturbation to show their perceived innocence. It is an age/look perception.
Think about something, your favorite site is Ultimate Submission. If you really are holding sites to truth in advertising, then you might want to reconsider that one. They advertise brutal leg scissors. Brutal leg scissors on the body or neck would cause serious damage. Broken larynx, broken ribs, the girls would be puking. And in my 20+ years of Lua/grappling, I was never taught the dreaded nipple twister or the pussy grind aided face sit or the 3 finger jammer-slammer. They also advertise "unscripted" then say "3 tags per round" in the tag team matches. That's scripted! If they were really wrestling, one could lock a brutal leg scissor on and hold the opponent in one spot until she was unconscious. Perception/fantasy is the rule in porn, always has been.
You might be right about Pam's sex tape, but we know that Paris Hilton's sex tape was all her doing. I guess that may be where the term fame whore comes from. To release a sex tape so that you can be famous is rather pathetic.
You have a point with Pamela and I'd even add Miss Hilton. Paris was a nobody before that tape. She was everywhere after that. I still think that it's a bad idea because it can backfire on you. Pamela was already a Playmate so everyone had seen her naked. I may be wrong but I suspect that Pamela would have a hard time getting jobs on netwrok TV after the incident. Publicity is good but if you happen to be a younger clean cut actress than a sex tape may kill off your chanes at getting more jobs.
I guess the bottom line is that you should make sure that you keep all copies of the sex tape and then you can make a deal on it. This way you can't blame an ex boyfriend for releasing it at a time when you are trying to get a specific role.
Well I was using that site and the others as an example of some of the better looking and more professionally looking videos I've seen on a site in my recent stays. However, I think that the demo might have been the wrong choice for which video to promote for their site. Besides, the whole preview page for that site is actually horrendous. However, I did not join this site on a whim and it was several other of the more upstanding PU'ers that guided me towards this site and they were the ones who told me about how well these videos were produced. Plus, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about the site and it's videos, they blew me away after watching more than 75% of the content on a large screen LCD TV when I compare to the other sites that used 640 X 480 or 720 X 480 in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 kbps which I thought was the debate to begin with. It was just one site as an example, I'm not saying they have the best videos I've ever seen, it was just a site I remembered off hand and had access to recently using a higher format than what was discussed and had way better looking videos than the majority of the sites I've been to that used lower resolutions and bitrates.
As for the argument of comparing any site's video quality when talking about 'HD' to a blu-ray, I find that a bit overwhelming to even think that these can be compared. A standard blu-ray disc is 25 GB's and a movie is 1 hour and 30 mins to 2 hours long. Let's say there are 30 mins of special features. A site's videos range from 15 to 30 mins. So, lets say an average blu-ray is 1 hour and 45 mins with 30 mins of special features. This uses up a standard blu ray at 25 GB and if you average in a site's average scene which is 20 mins, that's about 8.75 scenes for one blu-ray. However, that means that each scene would roughly be at 2.7 to 3.0 GB's if it was in true blu ray quality. Therefore, these scenes from sites are obviously not that high and therefore could never be the same quality or even in the same class as a true blu ray scene because a 20 min scene at the usual 1280 X 720 format is only 300-800 MB. Yes, a standard blu ray is at 1920 X 1080 and if these videos used that res, they would probably jump up in size but no where near 2.7 to 3.0 GB's. So, what I'm trying to say, is that at the encoding that most sites do at 1280 X 720 and 4002 kbps with the quality I've seen, they are extremely nice and the comparison to blu ray just seems outrageous.
Maybe I'm just crazy and my standards are a bit lower or something, I just think that at that format (1280 X 720, 4002 kbps) and with certain sites, they are remarkable for the size I'm downloading at.
Hope this all makes sense and I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, hope we can talk about some other things soon!
I have almost every video from InFocusGirls and I watch them on a 42 inch LCD TV. I can account for them being just as good or even better than the hundreds of DVD's I've rented. That's strange that you find the lighting for that site to be bad because I've found the locations to be extremely well lit and the outside scenes are always on a sunny day. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say these videos are some of the most professional scenes I've seen on a site so far. In these videos, I've even seen the little light blonde hairs that women can get which I've only seen in well lit areas and real life. While I'll agree the earlier videos are not as good but I'd say less than 1/4 are from the site's beginning and used those formats. While this is my opinion, I don't know what else to say besides the fact that if you found videos better than this, I'd like to know which sites so I can check them out.
Yep, I am a current/previous member at shemale.asia, infocus girls, only cuties, ladyboy player, long mint, areeyas world, only tgirls, shemale club, and I can name abut 5-6 more of my favorites that use that format and they are the best I've ever seen. So yes, I have seen plenty that use that and are crystal clear.
I understand 4000 px is huge today...but in the future it could simply be standard, even if the displays really don't get any bigger. I am talking more from a collector's point of view, so I want my smut to age like a fine wine, except you get to drink it over and over again for as long as you have it!
As I said in my original reply, I remember a time when 800 x 600 was big, screen-filling beauty, but now it simply is not. I still have the majority of my '90s photos, they just have not withstood the test of time in terms of size as much as I would like them have to.
I sometimes get greedy about photo and monitor sizes -- especially when someone uses the term beast to describe either one -- so I can't wait for the day that a standard display will practically support 4000 px photos, I just may have to put some of my oldest photos out to pasture.
You could be right but I have recently joined about 5-6 sites whose videos were at 640 or 720 and at ~1000 kbps. What can I say for these videos? They were unbearable to watch and borderline disgusting that I even paid my hard earned money to look at. Honestly, the best endcoding I've seen on sites is at 1280 res and 4002 kbps. These are all crystal clear, not extremely huge, and I feel like I'm getting what I paid for. I have come across some sites that encode at about what you said and been average, but to be honest, they are far in between most sites. So, I'm not saying your wrong or that videos at that rate can't be good, but for some of the prices I spend for sites and it being mid 2009, these videos are absolutely horrid for the most part on a lot of sites still.
I agree that 4000 pixel images are a bit over the top today but generally the stuff we collect we intend to keep for a long time so you have to look beyond today. It's already possible to hook up monitor feeds to tvs and as technology moves along our tv will also become a major feed for porn. Who the heck would want a 900x600 image on a 48" HD tv screen? So, while huge pics maybe overboard today, you may thank yourself for having big ass pics (or movies) in the future.
I would like to hear it so go ahead and enlighten us. I have noticed this same thing and never put much thought to it. So please give us your thoughts and knowledge.
04-17-0911:44pm
*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.
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.
