| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I haven't been to FTV since June '06 myself for the same basic reason you gave: lack of excitement. It's also a strange mixture of very lightcore stuff and then sudden frenzies of phallus maxiumus.
I also hate the way they break shoots into different galleries. Which pics should go where? I don't join sites for the pleasure of solving such puzzles.
And anyway, I've seen too many galleries of women just looking around, looking away, looking "dead" ... Why join for that a lack of eroticism? I think some sites have some pretty half-baked ideas about what their own content is supposed to communicate. It's not always true of FTV, but it's still too often the case. I don't understand why some people like it so much, but at least they're happy with it.
|
09-30-07 04:58am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Denner (0)
|
Well, jd1961 - I think you're absolutly right about this site. A lot of photos and videos of young girls, but it never get's really exiting.
Been a member twice (last time in December 2006), but have not had the urge to go back again.
I was tempted with new previews, but saw some of these videos in full elsewhere (usernet) - and I still hang on to that same feeling: It's generally boring stuff - and the video-scenes are all in the same style...
Thanks for that update-review.....
|
09-30-07 07:43am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Drooler :
Just looking around....I call it JC Penny posing!
|
09-30-07 02:06pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - jd1961 :
Now that is good. Our friends outside the USA might not be able to grasp it (lucky them!), but that's a phrase that will no doubt come in handy again. Probably soon, too.
Thanks. I had a great laugh. Still laughing!
|
09-30-07 04:42pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Robare (Suspended)
|
You know, I just don't get people dinging a site for being what the site advertises itself to be. A site that advertises itself as presenting certain content, then fails to present that type, quantity, or quality of content, should get dinged. But, on the first tour page of FTVGirls is a collection of 161 update cover pages. In none of them is a male featured. In fact, nowhere on the site is heterosexual activity advertised. In none of the reviews of that site on this site is there a statement affirming heterosexual activity being presented on that site. It seems to me any reviewer dinging a site, for not being what it never said it would be, is being just as stupid as a person who goes out and buys a carton of milk and then complains that the milk isn't orange juice. It seems that one claiming to be jaded might have accrued adequate experience to distinguish the nature of the content of a website prior to purchasing. That would seem to be particularly so when the website has done a very comprehensive job of representing it's content on it's tour pages. And, it seems that one, having availed themselves of such information, would be well positioned to avoid disappointing themselves. But, then again, perhaps all is not what it seems...
|
10-01-07 12:20pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
Hmm. I dont agree but everyone has an opinion, i cant really think of many better sites then ftv girls. Every site gets boring eventually which is why we join new ones. FTV girls is not hardcore, but i everything but. There are many erotic scenes i think, good quality, hot girls, natural environment, cant get to much better for me. Also it gives me the real orgasms many sites fail to deliver.
|
10-01-07 01:32pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Robare :
I gave this site a good mark. The mark was not reflective of the fact that it does not have hardcore, that was mentioned however. I mentioned the comprehensive preview twice, in the review, and in a comment. Obviously I knew what was in the site. I mentioned being "Jaded" to point out that the inexperienced porn surfers would find the material exciting. I did not "ding" the site. I gave credit where credit was due, IMO. Flaming people is "stupid", not honest reviews.
|
10-01-07 02:39pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - nygiants03 :
thanks for disagreeing without calling me names.
|
10-02-07 12:01am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - Robare :
BTW Robare, you also called the TBP reviewer "stupid" for having exactly the same con as I do.
|
10-02-07 02:03am
Reply To Message
|
