| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
propaGhandi's Review
from Horndog:
I am a current Femjoy member. A couple of items in this review need to be addressed. First, a thumbs up because although the 4000 px standard is still the norm, I've recently started seeing some sets as high as 5000 px. Second, the "99% nude girls from the first image" statement is no longer true. The site changed about 3 years ago and went through a major watering down (A BIG thumbs down in that respect). The site is now more like 75% nude from the first image. They have gone so far to the other extreme that I have seen pics where the model is completely clothed. I've been a member for a while simply because I haven't been able to find any other sites with more extreme nudity.
|
04-28-09 08:07am
|
Reply
2
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
propaGhandi's Review
from nutcrackr:
I've been looking at recent Femjoy sets and I find the models and photo quality generally very good. Also 2 updates a day is good for the price.
The thing that definitely bothers me, that you touched on in your review is the fact that so many models are nude from the first image which I find greatly lowers the tease factor. The problem is many members are expecting Femjoy to be 100% nude, but it's preventing me from subscribing.
|
03-27-09 04:50am
|
Reply
3
|
Femjoy
(0)
|
Reply of
propaGhandi's Review
from mbaya:
I am curious how you feel about comparing femjoy and metart. Which do you prefer and why?
|
01-28-09 10:12am
|
Reply
4
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from Denner:
(propaGhandi's Reply)
Oh, BTW - remember those who gives you trust - and if you feel visa/versa - I'M NOT a great need - but take a look at the Thread by RagingBuddhist....'Trust ratings reminder'
|
12-12-09 06:32am
|
Reply
5
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
propaGhandi's Review
from Denner:
Nice and short review of In Focus Girls - and I agree with the score - much closer to reality than the 91 - that's still at TBP.
Can also agree on:
- can turn into a daily routine
Pretty accurate - not much is going on here and certainly not much in new ways - the same old, the same old.....
|
12-11-09 06:34am
|
Reply
6
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Capn:
(propaGhandi's Reply)
Never fully clothed? ....
OK Thanks.
I'll take that one off the list of possibles then.
|
05-28-10 03:56pm
|
Reply
7
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from adrenalinrush:
(propaGhandi's Reply)
Cool, thanks for the confirmation.
|
02-15-10 11:49am
|
Reply
8
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
propaGhandi's Review
from Drooler:
Agreed that the models could smile more. There's no need to be sullen.
I like it when that sweetness and charm comes through. Not very good at cooking it up in my own mind and then projecting it onto the face of a stoical brick shithouse.
|
01-29-09 03:45am
|
Reply
9
|
MC Nudes
(0)
|
Reply of
propaGhandi's Review
from Denner:
Now, this seems to be an honest and well founded review by a new PU - short, but "modest".
I almost agree with the score - and certainly with the arguments.
Welcome to a new user - read his reviews for MetArt and Femjoy.
Not too many words, but well chosen.
Maybe we all could do things a bit shorter in our reviews - it's not always necesarry to make a novel out of a review - sometimes I get lost along the way. (And by all means: some of my own reviews have been far too long, too).
Instead:
Short news you can use...
PUs interested in the particular sites can always go back and ask fellow PUs for futher details..
Gotta give this new user a thumb-up.
|
01-28-09 10:04am
|
Reply
10
|
Only Tease
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Denner:
(propaGhandi's Reply)
well, easy to say - that deal seems quite complicated - and not without risk - as far as former PUs have stated - but I'm a complete novice here...so any fast way around it????
|
02-14-10 09:42am
|
