| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Review
1
|
Randy Blue
(1)
97.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Frequent updates
Quality production values
Attractive models |
| Cons: |
Gay for Pay performers |
| Bottom Line: |
The sites is well orgainized with a wealthy of videos and pictures for the price. The site features handsome men of all sexual orientations but is unique in that nearly all of its "gay for pay" performers end up exploring all avenues of gay sex. Sites often feature "gay for pay" performers in top only and limited sexual contact scenes but Randy Blue seems to have an unwritten rule that says if you want to do more than solos then you need to be open to all aspects of gay sex. That is a plus because if a performer is featured often then members are sure to see them in a variety of pairings and sexual activites.
The site features solos, threesomes, and groups as well as the standard pairings. It is also one of the few sites that still has regular live shows where the members can direct the performers.
For the price Randy Blue is easily the best new content gay porn site and I highly recommend subscribing. |
|
02-07-10 11:27am
Replies (0)
|
Review
2
|
Cocksure Men
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Frequent updates
Variety of model types
Professional camera work/direction |
| Cons: |
Some bareback scenes
"Gay for pay" performers |
| Bottom Line: |
First, the cons listed above are dependent on personal taste. I list them as cons because some people consider them as negatives. The scenes are always well shot with energetic performances from the models, regardless of orientation. The bareback scenes are clearly advertised and not the focus of the site. The scenerios allow the viewer to watch a "mini-movie" rather than have 2 performers simple jump into the sex without dragging on the exposition. The variety of models assures that in a given month the viewer is likely to see a video with a bear, a jock, a cowboy, a biker, a twink, etc. all matched in interesting an appealing scenes. With performers that also work for major studios featured monthly and exclusive models the talent is top notch for the price of the latest DVD. I recommend the site to anyone interested in quality gay porn with top notch performers. |
|
02-06-10 11:30am
Replies (0)
|
Review
3
|
Cody Cummings
(0)
69.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
-Video quality
-Regular updates
-Part of a suite
-Reasonable price |
| Cons: |
-Repetitive content
-Focus on one performer with limited sexual range
-Niche appeal
-Self grandizing blog from the perfomer |
| Bottom Line: |
The site is well put together and frequently updated. The site is heavily promoted as part of the Next Door Suite. There is where the positives end. The site focuses on Cody Cummings, who after 3 years in the business, refuses even minimal male to male contact. Don't get me wrong the men are free to blow him but all they are likely to recieve in return is a head pat or shoulder grab not to exceed 15 seconds. There are better sites that fullfil the "straight" guy seduced fantasy without leaving you feeling one partner was generally unsatisified with the experience. Check this site for find them. The site could be excused if not for the attention that females recieve. Do not advertise equality of sexes and then elevate the status of one over the another. This isn't a bisexual site. It is essentially an vanity project devoted to one persona. The "gay" content is ONLY present to allow it to be promoted on gay blogs. Many women will love the site no doubt because it caters to the fantasy of having a man choose them above other pleasures. I would not suggest subscribing. If you like what you see in the previews then I suggest watching the preview again. Save your money. I subscribed for months and the previews were often more interesting than full video. The preview will feature a few moments that will be the extent of Cody's enthusiasitic input into the scene. |
|
02-06-10 11:07am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
4
|
Mason Wyler
(0)
|
Reply of
Rick's Reply
Rick,
Please, don't get me wrong. I'm new to this site and from what I can tell the ratings are very fair. I went to some of the other review sites and more often then not it is obvious they are PAID reviews. How can you claim to be an unbiased review site if you allow banners and advertising? I think you guys are great. I plan on adding more reviews.
|
02-08-10 03:20pm
|
Reply
5
|
Mason Wyler
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
It wasn't specifically directed toward Spencer. Perhaps I should let him know. I just noticed that most of the primary reviews on here for gay sites are done by females or straight men. Don't get me wrong I'm a writer. I believe any good writer can be objective but there is a difference in writing an article and reviewing. It isn't that I think sexual orientation should limit a person's ability to review the site but as a primary review I would think the reviewer should have an interest in the material. You might ask someone who knows nothing of baseball to cover the game but the coverage will be missing the essential element of interest. I notice that your favorite sites are straight sites. I would ask you are you more likely to trust a review posted by a gay man or by a straight man with similiar taste? Again it isn't a slight to Spencer's review but he does essentially say that he guesses the content is what is expected. I think he did a fine job. I just think the primary review should be done by someone with interest toward which the site is based. I wouldn't trust a food critic with no sense of taste to tell me if the food was good in a resturant. They might give an accurate review of the ambience and service but the important element is going to be lacking through no fault of their own.
|
02-07-10 11:59pm
|
Comment
6
|
Mason Wyler
(0)
|
|
02-07-10 11:38am
Replies (6)
|
