Review Replies (9)
|
Replies to the user review above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
As always, I appreciate Drooler's comprehensive reviews.
A site that makes us pay extra for downloads? How stupid is that?
|
08-26-07 06:48am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Jay G :
I think it hurts the site in terms of competitiveness, but the rejoinder to that is possibly that the site provides a unique product of exceptional quality, or something along those lines. And it's "fair" as you're paying by the "unit," as it were. How many sites take such care to do that?
That could be the schpiel (sp?), but considering that the site has never been reviewed at PornUsers until now, meaning it gets nowhere near the attention that many other sites have gotten would show the weakness of such counterpoints.
People go for porn because it's fun, and they don't want the experience to get complicated. Tokens are for riding subways.
|
08-26-07 07:20am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
Great reply, I like your line "tokens are for subway rides."
|
08-27-07 02:08am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Denner (0)
|
I've seen a few of the videos somewhere.
And after Droolers review I'm sure, I'll not be tempted as a video-junkie. Thanks for the warning!!!!
|
08-27-07 03:07pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Davit (0)
|
Great review, Drooler. The token system is now gone. I literally joined this site for the first time in the last 48 hours, and am just blown away by the awesome camera work, both motion and still. I've been downloading like its going out of fashion, I just can't get enough of this style of content (i.e. ass worship). The newer stuff is also superior to the older stuff.
Good point about the 'objectifying' of the women. But in a sense, I think this is less objectifying than, say, catwalk models who are just there to look good and hang clothes on, and are void of personality. I think feminists overstate the whole 'sex object' thing and place way too much relevance on it. Personally, I like my porn performers to have some character and personality, and all the best porn stars are not necessarily the best looking, but are the ones that have warmth and personality. That comes across a lot on this site.
The 'anal twitching' comment - absolutely agree. It's interesting for about 0.3 seconds, we don't need to see it filling our screens for 10 minutes straight!
You mentioned 200-350 pics per gallery. What you have overlooked (if I may say so) is that a great many of these shots are very repetitive. I'm not really into playing 'Spot The Difference' (7 shots of an open pussy in a row at ever so slightly different angles) so I tend to prune my pic sets right down to something more concise.
I'm still gonna give this site a very decent score, as it is just so unique, from what I have seen. I read you were disappointed in the site (although your 83 score suggests it wasn't all bad for you - and that's despite the tokens!).
I feel it's too soon now, but look out for my review in the coming days or weeks.
|
03-01-08 03:03pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Davit :
Thanks for all of the comments, Davit. I wrote that review back when the token system was in place, and at that time I gave it a 70. I've only been able to change the "addendum" part in the "post review" area.
I raised the score to 83 since having rejoined now that the token system is gone. I think it's a pretty fair score considering the update frequency, the pic sizes (really wish they'd go beyond 1800 - 2200px), and the price.
I agree with you that there's a lot of repetitive stuff in the galleries but it is a matter of taste and preference. Sometimes I don't mind it at all, and sometimes I get tired of it. It is one way for people to “soak their brains,” in ass, I guess.
The videos get pretty repetitive, too, for that matter. But sometimes my horny reptilian brain don’t care ‘bout ‘dat. Susana Spears can walk, crawl, and play with her civilization-threatening booty to the end of time. Yes, I’ve been downloading loads of vids myself.
I did describe in detail in the review how the photos are so often "either full-body length with the woman’s face buried in a mass of hair, or just the ass all by itself, nearly every single time!" This is my biggest gripe: very few head to upper thigh shots lying face down. I wish they'd get out of their "rut" (a-hem) and have such shots in every new gallery at least. Every ass worshipping site should have them, IMHO. And they can get VERY repetitive with those!! Ha-ha!
Anyway, I can tell you're quite in love with the site. I've had an on/off relationship with it since Nov. ’04. We’ll probably disagree about some things, but I think we can agree that InTheCrack’s on the up now and is probably the best ass site out there. Here’s to it getting even better – from one ass-crazy man to another.
|
03-01-08 08:22pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Davit :
The thing I said about the site objectifying women was meant to be kind of tongue-in-cheek, if you'll pardon the expression. An ardent feminist (in the "received wisdom" sense) might point to the site as the perfect example, but I think the site just reflects an honest, natural love for beautiful women and their lovely behinds. Nobody's ever going to make me feel guilty about that.
There was a survey that came out of England fairly recently that showed that men choose women based on their looks more than any other reason, and that women choose men based on their wealth more than any other reason. It's no surprise. But in the received wisdom, do we see men complaining about being treated as financial objects?
Robin Williams once said that "divorce" is from an old Latin term meaning "rip a man's wallet out through his genitals." It gets laughs because it resonates with the truth! We ARE treated as financial objects, sometimes quite ruthlessly. We just don't organize and have conventions about it, and the reason, I think, is that we know there are more enjoyable ways to spend our time. Besides, it's simply unmanly to whimper and complain.
And if porn objectifies women, it perhaps does even more so to men. The survey "Do you care about the 'looks' of the male talent in porn scenes?" has users saying that in hardcore scenes the men are just props! If that isn't the language of objectification, I don't know what is.
|
03-01-08 09:01pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Davit (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :
Haha! Good points well made... EXCEPT: (!)
The point about guys in porn being considered 'props' and therefore we guys are more 'objects' than the women are. That's not a good parallel, as the 'prop' thing is coming generally from other straight guys, not women.
Bet Paul McCartney would relate to the Robin Williams quote right now!
|
03-02-08 03:53am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Davit (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Drooler :
Amen.
|
03-02-08 03:55am
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
