For a couple of days I've tried to join Blue Fantasies and the fine bonus for $2.95 full access acording to TBP, but all the times, I've tried, I get this:
Ugh - what a waste of time. The trial is SEVERELY LIMITED. Only a few galleries per model are available and for many models no galleries at all are available!!
I intentionally looked around the site - even read the fine print in the user agreement - to see if it was a limited trial. I found nothing. There is a word for this: Fraud.
What a waste of time and money. Stay far, far away from this site.
This site was a complete disappointment. THERE ARE NO ZIP FILES - they have all been removed. You cannot save a single picture to your hard drive to view later. Instead, you must use an Adobe Flash Player interface to view the pictures while signed on to the site. I found this interface both cumbersome and annoying. Worst of all, even if you select the full-screen option, the pictures do not fill the screen. The horizontal shots were very small - only half the height of my screen! I viewed only two sets of pictures before giving up in disgust.
There is no advance warning about the lack of downloads. After you have paid the $14.95 subscription fee to CCBILL, you are asked to agree to a TERMS OF USE policy that is over 1,500 words long. Virtually no one subscribing to a site such as this is likely to read such lengthy "fine print." I sure didn't - I just wanted to get to the content!
However, buried deep wthin the TERMS OF USE policy is a "no download" disclosure. Why buried? Simple - because far fewer people would subscribe if they were aware of this restriction. (It is not on the Home page or the Photos page and I never even saw it.) None of the other major glamour sites impose such an absurd and unreasonable limitation. Not one!
Please don't waste your money here - virtually every other major glamour site on the Internet offers downloads that make picture viewing easier and more flexible. In my opinion, the lack of downloads is an absolute deal-killer. Others agree! (See replies).
UPDATE - The site owner did issue a full refund to me.
When I attempt to visit the site I get my local ISP's search engine telling me that www.moreystudio.com could not be found. That's true for the link in TBP as well.
I paid a month's subscription for Simonscans about a year ago but gave up checking it out after less than a fortnight, because although the quality and quantity was outstanding and the girls were all very pretty, I found the sheer overwhelming obsession with what they have between their legs unutterably boring. And yes I AM normally aspirated - I love girls every bit as much as the next fellow.
But in most of the sets here the girls were far too quick to get their kit off, so the tease element was frustratingly thin. Very little subtlety, very little tantalising, very little reality - just pink, pink, pink all the way.
This site is no doubt fantastic for those who are fascintated by gynaecology, but that's not what does it for me.
Having read the several reviews here about Matt's, I'm a bit surprised at the differences of opinion. Guess it's really differences of preference, and maybe experience with Matt's vs. other sites. (Yes, that means better sites.)
Matt has made major improvements fairly recently in pic size (now 1600 px are pretty much the norm) and even in navigation, now "enhanced" so that it bothers people in new ways. (It took me awhile to figure out some of the features. Simpler, more transparent navigation would be better, doncha think?)
He's also had many of the finest looking women in Netland (as well as plenty of so-so's), and some of his comments on the models are fun to read.
Lack of good lighting is my #1 gripe with Matts. #2 is lack of image clarity too often. But hey, he's the self-proclaimed King of Anti-Glam, so I guess I should just get a life, huh?
One thing I wish he'd do is republish some of his earlier stuff in 1600 px size. Sweet dreams!
Matt is one of the true pioneers of net porn, someone with real entrepreneurial spirit. For that he deserves much praise.
Its hard to tell whether this Site include Full Nude
the answer is NO. It is a BOOB Nude, but does stick to the fetish School Uniforms line.
I agreed with wowo BECAUSE I clicked to preview and the Girls are gorgeous, Samantha Buxton, YES, Rachael-B, YES, Gemma, YES, Brooke Lee, YES, Lilly S, YES, Jewel, YES...but you run out of previews quite quickly...which I see as a bad signal.
based on my surfing Porn for over 12 years, that normally means limited content...but that is only an assumption based on other sites and real experiences.
From the previews, the girls are dressed and act just like six formers which is hot. My preference would be for the girls to make themselves available to other sites like 1byday so we can see Full Nude 1byday type layouts.
I think the site should be clear about being SEMI-NUDE (topless) to avoid disappointing people like me.
The webmaster is upset because I have commented on his site...but I haven't. I'm not a member...I was looking at the
preview pages and reading the reviews and commented on the preview pages.
Khan (PU) remove my comment if you want I don't mind. the point I was trying to make was that YES, I have not become a member because I read wowo review and it clarified for me that this is a Fetish Site TRUE to this and that the bulk of what they offer is the Girls (and I will say it again, the Girls ARE gorgeous) wearing the Uniforms, so they do cater for the members that they have...so on that count... Sam Jordan, webmaster of College-Uniform.com is quite correct..
I just finished a six month subscription to this site. Nostalgia made me do it because I remembered its earliest days when the novelty of naked women reading actual news made you gasp and when the anchor (Victoria Sinclair for the most part) would strip slowly and sensuously from business suit to very sexy lingerie, including nylons and garter belt, down to buff.
I found out very quickly that times had changed (along with subscribers' tastes?) because many times once that jacket came off the newsreader (model) would already be nude underneath, or, if you were lucky there might be a pair of panties or bra to get rid off. Commentators, too, were often fully nude right from the start.
The question is how often can one look at a limited pool of (admittedly) beautiful newspersons displaying their shaved pubes without getting bored. After only a few weeks I actually found myself watching the news more than the models and during my entire six month subscription I doubt I watched the show more than three weeks' worth altogether.
There should be more lingerie, more stripping, more variety in both rather than this confounded modern trend of getting to nude as quickly as possible. I realize it's a bit of a challenge for a model to strip and read the news at the same time but in its early days the site did manage to do just that.
This is a very nice site, one of the best sites for glamour model content, especially with the $18 price tag (see my review). At that price, this is really hard to pass up. A must join if you've never joined, or haven't for a while.
Just rejoined the site after a few months to update my pics collection from this site. I downloaded around 550mb (did it in around 10 minutes with my 24mbps connection and Flashget download manager) and I have been blocked access for the next 12-24 hours stating excessive usage!
This is goddamn cheating! Nowhere does it say in the site that you have only limited downloads in a day and how much the limit is. This has never been a problem with this site before.
You pay $30 and this is the crap you get. Not worth ever joining again or keeping membership even if the site is good.
Maggie, Maggie...my old favorite at TBP.
Please reconsider - 91 for MC Nudes - how can that be?
Oh, I love/dig those new fine "smileys' - happy and not so happy. And those well founded words..
But MC Nudes does NOT deserve a 91 - and the reasons are obvious:
The videos are all just simply boring or very close to.
The photosets are - like the videos - all in fine tech-quality - but still no where near (for instance) Met Art or 1ByDay - when it comes down to fine softcore porn.
I tend to the average of our PUs at about 80 (still a BIT high) - and please see both Droolers (a bit old) and jd1961's newer reviews...
The preview site has a panel that advertises a price for the trial of $5.95 renewing at $14.95, but the sign-up panel has the $9.95 trial and $19.95 renewal mentioned in an earlier comment.
The PU/TBP pricing panel differs from the CCBill panel pricing as well.
I joined this site to take advantage of this month's reduced pricing - I'll review when I get a chance, but meantime, if anyone else is tempted, I'll point out:
* The content is soft, but perhaps a little less so than when anyonebutme reviewed it, and there are a number of videos with masturbation;
* Cap'n, full strips seem to be one of the main ideas here - a rough look shows 4/10 sets in April, and 7/13 sets in March, show models starting fully clothed and ending fully naked (although some still with shoes). FYI! :)
At feedback you get a promise of free access if you join their program of "extensive comments" and so on....
jd1961 feared 100 points reviews comming up. But, don't wory jd1961 - it seems like the whole setup is a hoax.
Just got a reply - that particular "FREE ACCESS" is limited to 4 - FOUR - sets of photos - nothing more.
AND I only got the answer AFTER extending my membership another month.
It sucks!
And like so much else - it's was too good to be true!
Just went on CCBill and cancelled.
Joined the above 4 days ago, super slow download speeds, wrote to webmaster and have heard nothing. I refuse to download at 165kb/sec, vids can take up to 1,5 hours to download (depending upon file size). What a waste of money. Word to the wise=NO!
I just joined this site after seeing the special price. I am wondering if any of you guys have any pointers for downloading in any seemingly efficient manor. After a few minutes of browsing around the site I can usually determine a reasonably efficient method. I am at a loss at this point.
Please let me know of any creative methods you might have come up with for this one.
pics, not exclusive - but with exclusive watermarks!
I've just noticed a photoset of Eva Angel published on 31st Aug 07, watermarked as exclusive to teendreams.com. The same photoset is on KarupsPC.com watermarked as licensed.
Another one :- Veronica Sanchez (Anett) published on 31st Aug 07. The same photoset was published 7th Sep 07 on Xisty.com.
Barbara, published on 31st Aug 07. Also available on Babelicious.com
I understand theres are lots of licensed content floating around , but why watermark the images as EXCLUSIVE when they are not. Maybe I have interpreted the word EXCLUSIVE incorrectly, or maybe 31st August 2007 was a bad day at the teendreams office.
I think I need to go sit down in a dark room. Sorry for being such a drama queen, it just makes me a bit angry.
Pretty strange - when I now click on this site at TBP - it comes up as a PDF-file - with all the time it takes to get finished via the Adobe.
Is it my system? or does anyone know what's the deal with this?
Just noticed this one as a new artsy softcore listing at TBP and I glanced at the site. The place looks small with only about 25 scenes by my count but it claims to have 1080p HD video downloads and lifesize (4300 pixels) photos. The price looks reasonable at $20 a month and they promise multiple weekly updates but from the tour I couldn't tell how frequently they occur. Also the pic galleries seem to contain fewer than 40 shots per set which is a bit small by my standards. Now I'm just waiting to see who will take the plunge first and post a review on this one.
For $5 (rounded) this site has got about 5 months worth of updates so far (5x per week). Unlike the "big sister" site, Domai, the pics here are bigger and range from about 2700 to over 5000px, and you can also get 1400 px of the same galleries. Zips of both sizes are available for all galleries.
Some of the material is a bit short in volume or quality, but still, I got it for $5 for a MONTH (not 3 days) and it can recur at $9.95 per month if I allow it. I'll probably stick around.
Somehow I have completely missed the model, Zulfija. Happened to see her on Met-Art and decided to see if I could find any other content of her. I found some on Domai and Domai's sister site Goddess Nudes, then found a thread on a forum that said she was on Teen Dreams. I go to Teen Dreams and see her in the featured models section, click it and it says, "We have 4 exclusive series of Zulfija inside our members area!"
Since I knew they had a preview members area I clicked it just to make sure it's not sets I already have. When I go to her model page, she has ONE set. This becomes further confusing when she happens to be the feature model on the main page. It says they have five sets, 500 photos, 2250px of her. Right now, in my porn rut, she's a deal breaker. What I'm wondering, since Teen Dreams is known for the use of quite a few aliases for models, is she maybe listed under a different name? I've never known Teen Dreams to be a dishonest site, so I want to believe it's explainable, but as said above, it's a deal breaker. Does anyone know how much content there is of Zulfija on Teen Dreams?
Just if anyone is interested: Danni.com got a new design
You won't see it in the preview - at this moment, anyway.
And they're probably still working on it, cause their server is slow like....
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.
