Wet And Puffy (0)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-They are running a current special of $9.95 for the first month, recurring at $29.95/month.
But the special one year price is $60, which is very low.
-Vendo is the default biller. Not as well known as CCBill or Epoch, but I've had many subs through Vendo, and never had a problem.
-Login and member pages are secure (https). So ISP does not keep a record of each member page you visit
-No streaming or download limits that I can find.
-You get confirming emails on signup, with your login details, subscription id, order details (price and duration of membership), credit card used, etc.
-Most videos are available in 320p through 4K definition.
-Videos have a runtime of 20 to 30 minutes.
-Photosets are available in zip files in 2 definitions: low and high. |
| Cons: |
-Pre-checked cross-sale on join page.
-User name and password are computer generated, so have to write them down. But they are in the confirming emails, so can copy and paste into login page.
-The site has nice-sized thumbnails of the models, but the thumbnails are usually poor photos of the models: a home photographer could easily take photos that would make the models more attractive.
You look at the thumbnails of the models, and realize that the girls in any mall would look much better than what these models look like. How you photograph a model can make a huge difference in how attractive she appears.
I look through the thumbnails of the models, and I find some models I'm familiar with, such as Delphine, who is a very attractive blonde model, and at this site (at least, in the thumbnail), she is not attractive. Nika O, another attractive model, looks poor.
If a site does not have attractive female models, I usually have little interest in the site. |
| Bottom Line: |
CONS(CONTINUED):
Even the models I know can be very attractive, at this site thumbnails, are not attractive.
-The online photoplayer is slow.
-The quality of the photos varies. From poor to OK.
-I've seen many screen caps at competing sites that were far better quality than the photos at this site: two problems with the photos at this site: the models are not made up to be attractive. The second problem is the quality of the photos: they are just poor photos. Even models that I've seen can be very attractive at other sites, at this site, they are not attractive. The colors of the photo are poor. The model looks poor. The photosets are a waste of time.
I look at the photos of Nika O, an attractive teen. I know it's her, because I've seen her at other sites. And I've seen her at other sites with the same name. But at this site, in the photos, she looks like poor. At MetArt, Nubiles, ShowyBeauty, she is an attractive young teen. Sexy. Erotic. An object of desire.
At Wet and Puffy, she is a piece of meat I would not look at twice.
Am I over-reacting? I don't think so.
Porn is fantasy.
But if the image of the model is so unappealing, the value of the porn is damaged.
There was a recent poll at PU that asked: "Do you feel high-quality photos are an important part of a site's content?"
Well, the photos at Wet and Puffy are not high-quality photos. They are low-quality photos, that degrade the value of the models, that degrade the value of the site.
Sites like X-Art, the Wow sites have good to excellent photosets, that display the attractiveness of their models.
The Teen Mega World network has improved the quality of their photos over the years, to the point where the photos can present attractive young teens and contribute to the quality of the network.
The photos at Wet and Puffy are poor photos, that degrade the value of the site.
Even when they do have models that are naturally attractive, those models are presented as un-attractive females.
Holly, another attractive model, has 1 video at Wet And Puffy. An attractive model, pretty face, voluptious body, but the video is hurt by the skin tones of the model. She's just not attractive.
At Wow Girls, where she's listed as Barbie, she looks great. At Wet And Puffy, because of the poor skin tones, she looks blah. Not pretty or attractive.
The lighting and other factors can add or detract from the value of a video, and at Wet And Puffy, the photos and videos are poor. Even when they take a pretty model, she will look poor or unattractive in her photos and videos at Wet And Puffy.
BOTTOM LINE(Start of):
Site theme: The site classifies a woman's pussy into one of three types:
puffy peach, juicy cherry or big taco.
So the site focuses on pussies and toys.
Whatever it takes to get a woman off.
(Except no men are allowed.)
So you get all kinds of masturbation with toys.
-You get access to 6 sites with a membership.
wetandpuffy
weliketosuck
wetandpissy
puffynetwork
simplyanal
eurobabefacials
There is also a live cam show at the network.
Porn is fantasy.
One of the main factors I look at is how attractive the models are.
The models at Wet and Puffy are not presented attractively.
That is a major negative factor, for me, at least.
So, in spite of the current special price of $60 for one year, I would not join this site.
That is a personal judgment.
Other PU members have found the site to have value.
Homegirl gave the site a score of 90.
mbaya gave the site a score of 95.
tangub gave the site a score of 84.
It's a large site.
Over 900 videos.
Over 900 photo sets.
REVIEW CONTINUES IN FIRST REPLY: |
Reply To Review Review in Favorites!
|
