Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Some nicely done videos
Some great looking models
This is actually a referral site.
All or most of the content is from third party libraries or sites getting referrals.
Site layout and navigation is inconsistent and generally awful.
Preview page is not representative of content
Preview page makes many models look under 18 (scary)
Update 3 times a week, maybe.
Cross selling on every page. (From the sites with the content)
I've reviewed a pretty significant number of websites, So I hope the PU webmasters understand that as the consumer reports of porn, they need to watch out for misrepresentation.
At first, this seems like one of those sites that is trying to model itself in the image of WOW or W4B. The recent videos, though not exclusive, are very nicely done and follow that genre.
There is a section called DVD movies. Click on it and you are taken to an area with commercial streaming DVDs. It is a really poorly implemented area, though, because each video includes an option for HD, but generates an error when you click on HD. These are mostly old DVD from before 2008 or so, probably from a commercial re-licenser/aggregator.
Then, as you navigate through the site, there is also a large collection of videos that generally remind me of the stuff you can find on RedTube or other free sites. It is not bad, but I've seen much of it elsewhere. Funny thing...once there, you can't get back to the main page. This is because you are no longer on 18X. You are actually on a different site called Webmaster central. Another content aggregator. Another funny thing. Many of the videos have the lower corner blurred out or have been cropped to eliminate a watermark. This is probably because the aggregator bought the rights to these videos from sites that no longer exist.
But here is where the really sleazy website garbage comes in...stuff this site deserves to get slammed for. The Thai girl on the preview page named Eaw is not on the site. She can only be found by clicking on the "tour videos" link at the top. "tour videos" interesting description. I'm thinking it really means "Browse videos".... Ah, there she is, 2nd one down. Click on it, and up comes a video of the girl and some screen shots along with "click here for more" So I click on it and....What the fuck?...I'm redirected to a site called "Thai Girls Wild" and invited to join! Are you f-ing kidding me!!?? There below Eaw is a nearly famous picture of the beautiful Melena from Met-Art, also on the preview page. I follow the link and, BAM, it actually takes me to a Met-Art sign-up page! The girl on the top of the page, named Alyssa Hart here, is actually a referral to a site called Petite18.com.
Wow, so I've paid to see models from the preview page who are actually not on this site at all except for a few images and one video that are REALLY on sites that are paying this site for referrals. NOPE! NOPE! NOPE! DON'T DO THAT! IT IS AMONG THE MOST DECEPTIVE THINGS A PORN SITE CAN DO!
So...bottom line? Well, as far as I can tell, there is either no or very little original content on this site. It is an aggregation of libraries and referral agreements that provide content from other sites. And in addition to that, the site is deceptively advertising models on its preview page that are actually bait images for referrals to other sites.
As unlikely as I think this is,it is entirely possible that the webmasters of this site do have some unique content, are trying to create something and are only a referral site while they build up their collection. If that is the case, I apologize. However, you are deceiving people and my score reflects my disgust for this kind of deception.
I have never had to say this in a review before, but STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS SITE!
A little rash or a slap mark is OK. Lots of pimples, razor burn or "other" can be kind of distracting. Many models go to great lengths to make sure their lower extremities look pristine, front and back. It does not take a lot of abuse to change a close-up view from Yum! to Yuck!
Oh, and I've seen a few great close-ups ruined by a FLY! A BIG FLY! WTF! Edit that out! :-)
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Many reasonably attractive girls
Network includes multiple sites, depending on what you signed up for.
Many models have different types of sets listed (masturbation, foot fetish, lingerie, etc.)
There are early sets of a few popular models here.
Site is multi-lingual
File download speed seems pretty good.
What you see in the previews is representative of what you get.
Every set is exclusive to ATK
Site is often slow
Site often crashes (lots of 504 server-database errors)
Pages time-out so you can't go back or refresh
Lots of cross selling
Can't tell how many images there are.
Can't tell how many videos there are.
Navigation is a bit more challenging than it needs to be.
Many sets are nearly identical.
Some sets appear to have been recycled (Sets in only small resolution from 2011?)
Since every set is exclusive to ATK, chances are good you will see it elsewhere on an ATK site.
I'm having a hard time finding a lot to like about this website. Perhaps the best way to describe it is middle of the road. The models are your basic cross section of college-age Kmart or maybe Target shoppers. Some are attractive, many are not. None are truly stunning and almost none are truly hideous. This is a side effect of the amateur-type site status, I guess. There is a wide variety of body types from super skinny to...um...super plump, so if you like bigger girls, this might be a good site for you. These girls are all natural, ranging from nothing up top, to some giant melons, but breast size is proportionate to overall body type (i.e. fat is distributed evenly). There are no really fit or smoking hot bodies here, but a lot of nice 18-24 year-olds. The grace/awkward ratio is about even. Overall, there is a huge collection.
Navigation Is difficult. It is single threaded, and if you try to open multiple windows, the servers either throttle access or time-out...in other words getting through the images quickly is simply not possible. You can set how many thumbnails you want to see but, again, everything is single threaded so you have to wait to open a picture and then wait to return to the gallery.
The photography on this site is about average. The images are clear and consistent, but the lighting in the mostly indoor sets is not well developed or particularly flattering. You can tell that many of the sets with a model were shot on the same day in a different corner of a room or a different room in an apartment or hotel room.
The sets are a very standard formula. Girl starts out standing, clothes on, peekaboo, strip (often bottom first for some reason), show ass, spread, gaping spread, then depending on the type of set, on to other things like toys, masturbation, foot fetish, watersports, etc. "Artistic" is really just a normal set that they converted to black and white. Really dumb. This image shooting sequence makes many of the sets monotonous, even boring. In general, the girls do not look like they are having a very good time. It is all pretty much just straight show-me-the-money stuff, not very glamorous. Lots of gaping close-ups if you are into that. A handful of sets are girl/girl or guy/girl scenes but the vast majority are just solo.
Images come in three sizes, 682x1024 (who uses this?), 1080x1600 and 2000x3000.
Make-up is generally very good. No goofy eastern European eye shadow that I can find. I also noticed that the girls are generally very clean and well groomed. Mostly no pimples (anywhere), slap marks, bruises, razor burn, bad tattoos, etc. I don't think there is any or much photo-shopping...
The ranking of the models is a little odd. On a 1-5 scale (5 highest), there are a lot of unknown young models at the top of this list with only a few votes. Shyla Jennings is a 28th, Tiffany Thomspon is 15th. Early Zoey Kush is 94th. Early Jessie Rogers, complete with original Brazilian tan lines, is 62nd. Riley Marks is 85th. These model scores are not the sum of the scores of the sets, but a separate score for the models themselves. The reason I mention this is because it is not really possible to find the "best" girls or sets using the ranking system. You might find a model you like down in the 100-200 range. Oh, there are 657 ranked models. Surprisingly, most at the bottom are not bad looking, just victims of a bad photographer. Just reinforces my point about how useless the ranking system is. Might be more about the images than the girls.
There are quite a few videos of the models. Some masturbation videos are quite good, but many are just videos of the photo sets. Even a few guy/girl videos are just the photo sets, which is immensely disappointing. There are also a handful of behind the scenes videos...a big NOPE on those. Some of these girls you simply do NOT want to see before they put on make-up. Finding a video with the right combination of attractive girl and decent videography is very, very rare, but there are a few. Forget about anything hardcore, though. There are a couple, but it is extremely rare.
Perhaps the thing that taints my opinion of this site the most is the navigation speed and server response. When you try to open multiple windows, even to view images, the site times out. Oddly, download speed seems OK, though.
Bottom line? Well...if you are into amateur-ish solo photography, there is a huge collection here. Take a look at the previews and determine if this is the type of thing you like.
I rejoined EB as part of a special with Watch4Beauty. The EB site has had a slight freshening, but I'm not terribly impressed with the most recent content. First, it is all "B" roll! It seems as though these are sets of slightly less attractive models or, if mainstream models, slightly lesser quality sets. So they may not have been good enough for the main site, Met Art, when they were taken. Second, it is an odd collection of old and new sets. I recognize several models that retired back around 2008 or earlier and here they are in "new releases" this month with different names and the exact same look. A few models have sets from 2007 and new sets in 2014 and they look exactly the same...because they are old sets just being released now. (To their credit, EB lists the age of the model when the sets were taken, but I don't think those ages are accurate.) That usually only happens because the set was not rated very highly back when the model was popular but now, what the heck, who cares, release it! Fourth, some sets of once popular models might be a bit off because when these sets were taken, these models were very near retirement. There are a few sets where I looked at the model, recognized her and although she was still very attractive, she was several years older than she was at her peak. My typical male reaction was "Wow, what happened? She used to be really hot!" There is nothing that reminds you that YOU are getting old more than images of a favorite model showing that SHE is getting old. Depressing. There are also a few sets from the time before a popular model perfected her look. A lot of eastern European girls took a little time to perfect their looks and some of these sets are the "before" pictures. And lastly, releasing a set in 3 parts is positively annoying. There is no reason for this other than to string us along and get more money. Many Met Art sets have 120-160 images in them. These EB sets usually have 40-60 images spread over 2-3 or more pages of 20 images a page. They either do that to minimize load on their servers, or to make it look like there are more images. Either way, its a really cheap trick!
This site is still better than a lot of others out there, but it is really unfortunate when a good site goes mediocre.
I'm with you on the anal thing. I can't think of her name, but there was a beautiful tall, athletic dark haired eastern European model that appeared on the scene a few years ago. First saw her on Met Art, I think. Then she popped up everywhere and soon had her then perfect boobs enlarged. Next time I saw her (not on Met Art, of course), she's doing anal. All I could think of is "awww". You can't unsee stuff like that.
So...the reason I wrote the survey is to see what people think about seeing certain models EVERYWHERE and their thoughts on models that just don't seem to have the same, um, bounce that they once did. The girl named Malena/Maria seems to be everywhere these days. Caprice and Melissa Mendini are very, very popular models that, although beautiful and versatile, just seem, uh, a little over exposed. Malena Morgan is another very popular bombshell that I have seen in some sets lately where it just doesn't look like she's having any fun. I don't know if they are just crappy sets or what.
I just joined Twisty's for like the 10th time on a bargain sign up. There are a lot of great models there (including 35 sets of Malena, 31 sets of Caprice and 41 sets of Melissa Mendini), but also some older (30+) models and porn stars that I would prefer to think of from...kinder years.
Some models look great forever, some are one-shot wonders (pun intended) and a lot kind of evolve or devolve from the pressures of the business.
In the end, though, there are models we like no matter what, models we don't like very much and a whole lot of models that we will gladly look at until somebody more interesting comes a long.
Eufrat is a great example of somebody who has been modeling for a awhile but still has a great attitude and appearance. Lorena is another really lively one. There will always be great models that will look good well into their thirties or until they retire (Like Marketa Belonoha).
Yes, I had a chance to look through things in more detail and agree that it doesn't seem to be as good as it used to be. The advertising alone seems like it has doubled and I complained about that in 2012. It is funny that you mention score rigging as there are a lot of new , pretty average videos of pretty average girls rated 9.6 or higher, something I've never seen in any site. Now I know why. It is remarkable how many good sites have been destroyed by new owners that are just out to recoup their investment. This is probably one of them. Probably still worth it for $10 once every couple of years or so.
They are running a promo for $10! (watch out for the cross-check) I just re-joined so I haven't seen much, but so far it looks about the same as it did in 2012 with more content. They still don't display sets on one page. Videos are 720p max and images are 3000 across max. Many very (too) familiar models here. Very easy to download zips. A lot of advertising...
For $10 I don't know how you can go wrong! (Read my old review.)
I wrote a review back in January of last year and am very happy to say the old login/password issue is gone! The photography is even better than it was last year and the collection is simply excellent, among the best soft core on the Internet. Now if only they would update once or more daily....... If you have never been to this site, I highly recommend it!
My level of remorse depends on how much I spend on a site and how it misses the mark. For $10, I'll try anything that looks interesting and won't be too upset if it is not all that was promised. For $20, I'll be a little more critical if it misses the mark. For $30, the site had better perform as good as or better than promised. I generally will not join a site that is more than $30 although there seem to be a growing number of fetish sites out there that exceed that.
Also, I will generally not join a site that doesn't have good reviews here and will brace myself for disappointment if I want to join a site that has no reviews here. Still, once in a while I get taken..or at least feel like I did.
I just remembered...I have experienced remorse a couple of times for reading bad reviews here and joining anyway! Read the reviews!
Oops. Starting writing and the edit timer ran out...
I'm thinking I used to spend about $20-30 a month on magazines and videos back in the...80s, plus an Atlanta, Dallas, Houston or Fort Lauderdale strip club once every couple of months or so. That was maybe 40 images per $5 magazine and one crappy video rental a week. When you consider Moore's rule of technology (doubles every 6 months-2 years), and you throw in inflation, I'd say on-line porn is about the same or slightly better value than porn of prior years.
And although I know where there are some really, really...um...satisfying strip clubs, it is hard to compare that to having a private video chat with any one of about a million girls, some of whom are popular models on your favorite porn sites, with the ability to ask her to do just about anything you can imagine right there in living color...probably for less than you would spend at a strip club.
And if you think that is cool, just wait until you see POV and real-time role-play porn on an Oculus Rift! This technology will blow your everything!
So I guess the value (and budget) is about the same but the technology makes it all much better.
A good value compared to what? Magazines? Old VHS? DVDs? Strip clubs? A date? A girlfriend? A hooker? A wife? (I'm mostly kidding...) :-)
I agree with Pat and RearAdmiral about the volume and variety available on-line being unlike anything else, ever, but I've also experienced what Greymane mentions with rip-off sites. It amazes me that some of these sites can be in business at all.
In the end, you often make a decision based on the sales pitch you are given. Sometimes the result is all that is promised, but often it is not. Thankfully, there is a community here at PU, "The community-based Consumer Reports of porn", that helps us by providing timely and accurate reviews so we know what we are getting into.
OK, I know what you mean, but I really think they have improved a LOT at Femjoy in the last 4 or 5 years. I keep all my images by year (10 years worth for Femjoy) and I just went back and opened some zip files from 2007. They are good, but sometimes these images are a little darker and sometimes the emphasis is on the overall locale with the model included in the image periphery someplace. This was pretty common in softcore several years back and was a technique made popular by Holly Randall and others from the days of Penthouse magazine (the "artsy" dark hazy look, the halo look and the High Dynamic Resolution look sometimes still used by Michael Ninn and others can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.) Honestly, a panoramic shot with the model in the image can sometimes be very beautiful, but it does not appeal to everyone, it should be used very sparingly and it distracts from the reason for the set, which is the model. Dark sets do crop up occasionally and I too get very frustrated with them. Fortunately, those sets are very rare. Digital cameras are much better these days, too, so the softness we used to see sometimes is also rare.
One thought....sometimes they mess with the thumbnail image to brighten it up for the text they are adding, not simply to improve the image. This may be why you sometimes see brighter thumbnails.
These days I download and unzip the zip files of entire sets instead of just individual images. I also have a single folder where I keep the very best high-resolution images because of the model, the pose and the image quality, not because of the locale. If an image I want to keep happens to have a little too much space at the bottom or top (often they are formatted portrait but could easily be cropped to be landscape), then I just load up Adobe Photoshop and crop it myself. I just looked at my jumbo best-of collection, about 1000 images, and I've probably cropped 75% of them, but I've only messed with color balance and brightness on about 10% of them. These are the cream of the crop models and images across about 30 sites, but they still required a little cropping to suit my tastes and emphasize the model over the locale. I imagine that may be the case for others as well.
Photographers these days need to be all things to all people. That means they need to do panoramas, full body shots, close ups, hands and feet, face shots, coy shots and open shots, all with both direct eye contact and averted eyes. A little of everything. Amazingly, probably 80% of the Femjoy sets and 60%-80% of the images in those sets for last few years are keepers for me. That may not sound like much, but that is an incredibly high percentage compared to the average soft core site I visit. Of course, your mileage will vary, but I think the photographers at Femjoy do a very, very good overall job these days of keeping their audience happy.
Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Some of the best European models
Wonderful sets and lighting
Top notch photography
2 sets a day
Models generally are not shy
Good site layout
3 image file/zip file sizes for each set.
Images up to 5500 x 3700 pixels(a 6 foot poster)
Excellent value for the money
Navigation not up to par with the best sites
Videos are a bit snoozy
Image/zip file sizes are odd/archaic
Site is not quite as reliable as some others.
I've been a member of this site 5 or 6 times over the years and keep forgetting to write a review. It keeps drawing me back.
Here's the good and bad (absolutely no ugly).
This is a site with photography that ranks up there with the best in this genre...perhaps THE best. The photo sets and models themselves are generally spectacular. In fact, there are a few exclusive models here that are the absolute pinnacle of beautiful female form. Translation: They have perfect, perfect bodies, pretty faces and bright eyes. The models are 18 to mid-20s, fit, clean, totally natural, mostly clean shaven and just drop-dead gorgeous. Very few piercings and next to no tattoos. The more recent models are very open. I've never used this word in a review before. Delicious.
Lets talk about content:
The site has been around since 2004. I can't get a good read on sets, but it is at least 3000 or so, plus about a video or two a week for at least the last few years. Of course the older sets tend to be a little more "observing a naked girl in the woods" but for the past few years, the shooting formula has been damn near perfect. Great mix of full body and close-ups in various poses. Sets and outdoor locations are great. Interaction is great. Lighting is consistently terrific. Posing is great. Nothing awkward or uncomfortable anywhere.
The videos are sometimes of the photo shoots and sometimes shot separately on the same set. The girls start naked or disrobe and are usually undressed by the halfway point. Any close-ups, etc are reserved for the last few minutes of the video and there is rarely any masturbation. These are not bad videos, but they are not terribly exciting unless you really want to see how a particular model moves. They come in multiple sizes and formats from standard definition (272p) to 1080p. Older ones are in 720p.
Just a reminder that this is soft core. There is no guy/girl sex, no toys, no insertions, etc., with maybe a little bit of masturbation and few girl/girl sets just touching and leaning. (If you want that in this format, go over to Joymii.) At Femjoy, you just get beautiful unobstructed view.
So..what's not to like? Well...I know the webmasters are working on improvements, but there are a few things that keep me from rating this site right up there with the best. I know they will be reading this so forgive me if I direct some of my points to them.
First, the navigation is a little off. there are a few too many clicks to get where you want to be and not enough new-window options. When you click on a set from the home or updates page, a new window opens for that set and then all actions happen in that window. Click to see images, and a limited number of images appear in a gallery. Click on "show all" (nice pun, I guess) and all of the images appear. What, are we still in dial-up times? Just show me ALL the images when I ask to see ALL images, please. This doesn't sound like much, I know, but it is a little odd to navigate through. ..Then there is selecting a picture. When you click on an image from a gallery, it opens up in the same window that the gallery of images was in. Click back and you are taken back to the top of the gallery page regardless of where the image was that you clicked on. This may also seem like a little thing but when looking through many images, it is unnerving. What SHOULD happen is that each set should open a window/tab and each image within that set should open a window/tab. Or better yet, the whole thing should be user selectable like several of the other top-tier websites are. To their credit, the navigation options once looking at an image are pretty good (larger image, next, previous and back to gallery).
And my last little nitpick is with the file sizes. There are three image size choices: "Quickview Edition" images are 800k wide. "Collectors Edition" images are 1200k wide and "Poster-Size Edition" images are 4500-5500k wide. Wait, what? (Insert captain Piccard meme here) Who the fuck looks at 800k images anymore? Even iPhones are 960 pixels wide/tall! My smallest computer screen is 1900 pixels wide. So the two smallest images sizes are waaaay too small to fill my computer screen and the only other option involves 5500 pixel, 2 meg images and a zip file that is a third of a gig! There is just something seriously outdated with this thinking. I appreciate the larger images, but they are a little too large to be loaded and kept exclusively. What is needed is a 1200, a 2000 and a max resolution (4500+) image size. I have been told they are working on fixing this and will happily report when it is fixed.
Bottom line? If you are into soft core and like young, OMG beautiful girls, don't hesitate. Just join this site. This is one of the few sites that I would recommend for an annual membership because of the terrific soft core content. There is enough here to keep you entertained for months.
I've been to japan and the things girls do for money in clubs and parlors there are unbelievable. When it comes to fetishes, they might even top the US. I knew a top-tier American stripper who went over there for a year because the money was almost double what she made in the US. Paid for 4 years of college in less than a year! (Somebody paid her $10,000 cash to be a blindfolded, glass topped table for 2 hours including breaks.) I'm guessing this is why a lot of the great oriental porn actresses won't leave Japan to shoot a video without blurring...they probably make more and expose less by staying in the country.
So, yes, the double standard is very frustrating. But there probably isn't much we are going to be able to do about it.
I think part of the problem is the demand on photographers and models to satisfy different tastes. I happen to like full-body shots where the model is looking at the camera. Not everyone does. I don't like shots of just hands or feet. Many others do. Front, back, top, bottom, close-up, full-body, stand, sit, closed, spread, etc. Just rattling off the different types of shots takes me to about 40 images. So if there is a "formula" checklist of shot types and positions that photographers must follow in order to get top dollar for their sets, it probably automatically includes about 50-60 shots.
Keep in mind also that photographers often hire models by the day and will shoot multiples sets in one venue or in different room in the same rented house or hotel room...or that webmasters often break up photo shoots into multiple sets to save money. And if they happen to have a very popular or very exclusive model, the images get rationed out like diamonds by DeBeers, sometimes appearing years after the model has retired. So for me, it is somewhere between 30 and 100 images. I'll pull the whole set down and cull anything I don't want anyway.
I have a long term subscription to Met Art and although a few sites in their affiliation group are discounted or sometimes free for trial periods, many of the sites that were once $10 a month to Met-Art members are now full-price. So ED is $29.00 as of the date of this note. That's really too bad as I used to join an extra site in the network every month or so. At $10 or $15, I wouldn't think twice before joining. At $29.00, these sites are competing with literally every other site on the Internet and this network usually loses out on the opportunity to earn my subscription money as I'll chose some other site I have not been a member of before. If anyone finds a discount, publish it here!
This is kind of a funny question because it is probably based on what we WANT to see vs. what we ACTUALLY see. In the US, with our weird views toward nudity, there are very few topless and nude beaches, but no matter where you find them, they are not the eye-candy havens you would think. Most are filled with much older men and women that you don't particularly want to see naked. You just can't un-see some of it. Then there are the gawkers who don't get that nude/topless beaches are not exclusively for the 20-something crowd. The few good looking men and women that do show up at these beaches are often (not always) just exhibitionists looking for a venue. South Beach in Miami is probably the best topless beach in the US and it is a lot of fun to visit, but be prepared to see a few things that will....well...spoil the view.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
High quality videos
Top rated models
Decent photo sets
Good lighting and sets
Site is small
Must pay extra to access "network"
Far too much cross-selling
Site is oddly generic
1 New video released every other day or so.
No scoring system, just "likes" Really?!
Acting reminiscent of 16mm porn movies
Almost no model interaction with the photographer whatsoever.
Very little chemistry...either between models or between models and crew.
Nobody is having any fun!
Note: I think it is possible that they reworked this site since 2013 as I can't find some of the features mentioned in prior reviews. This is not the same babes.com website I was a member of 10+ years ago.
Well, here's another one of those sites that looks good from the outside, but it leaves you oddly unexcited when you finally buy in. It has all the right components, top models, great quality videos, nice settings, but there's something just a little...um...off about it. You would think that a video, for example, of Ariel and Caprice getting each other off in every way possible would be pretty heavenly, right? Well, it is nice, but the acting (and moaning) is a little artificial, the rhythm is a little too slow, the chemistry is lacking, the music is a little too 80's cheesy and the sex is just so-so. There are lots and lots of videos like this. Maybe the best image I can conjure up is this: These are like porn versions of Met-Art videos. Beautiful women but really, really boring videos. I have NEVER seen a boring Angelica video....until now (the fact that she is moaning while on her knees jerking the guy off doesn't add much). The more I think about it, the more I think it is just really bad direction. Really bad.
The photo sets are OK, but each follows the related video very closely and I can't tell if they are shot together or not. My guess is that they are. Some of these shots are at odd angles and a little off center like the photographer is standing beside the videographer.
This odd photography and video quality and the way the site is laid out makes me think these webmasters are much more about making money than they are about making quality product. They've put all the elements in place to make masterpieces, but every video I watch is a disappointment. I'm a jaded old guy who has seen a lot of porn, though, so feel free to think I'm crazy.
So, here's the kind of odd money-hungry thing I'm talking about. Across the top, you have options to join Fuck-now, Brazzers, Twistys, Digital Playground, Reality Kings or MOFOS. You can join ANY of them with what they call UNLIMITED ACCESS, for $69.00! Like any Ronco ad, they show that a lifetime Twisty's membership, for example, as a $349.00 value! I'm thinking, woa, that's a great deal! Ah, but of course, THERE'S A CATCH! It is unlimited access for AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN BABES.COM! Wait..what? No, I would not keep my membership to babes.com for more than a month (not enough content), so the unlimited membership would be pretty useless. They do have $10 off deals on the monthly rate for these other sites, but again you have to remain as a member of babes.com
Bottom line: Sorry, with so many other great sites to choose from, I can't recommend this one. This is the porn version of that movie with all the great actors that you ended up falling asleep in. My apologies to the webmasters.
Absolutely true about the fish eye. What is interesting about this site is that many (not all) of the videos are a mix of go-pro on the head and tripod-over-the-bed-behind-the-guy video. This method avoids the shake-as-you-bang effect. There are also a few seconds here and there where one of the cameras is visible. One of them is a small, decent quality HD video camera with internal stabilization. And there almost always seems to be a 2nd person involved in the shoot in one way or another. So these guys are not out to make cheap videos, they are out to make a lot of money by spreading their collection over as many sites as possible. That strategy will work once their collection is a little larger, but right now it is just frustrating.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Very nice high quality videos
Generally very nice looking models
Good lighting and sets
A few minutes of amazing POV footage in every scene
Navigation is simple
Mostly US models that sometimes talk a little
Considerable variety of girls
Very little content
Some video is very distorted (think go-pro)
Many links to other sites you have to pay for
A few videos FROM other sites.
Inconsistent access and download speeds
On the face of it, this is a pretty interesting site and I joined because of their amazing POV videos peppered around the Internet. I knew the content would be small, but not THIS small. There are only about 40 videos TOTAL that are native to this site as of 5/15/2014. Fortunately, the site owners take pity on you and give you limited, rather inconsistent access to a few other sites.
This site is actually part of a network, but you don't have full access to the rest of the network. Instead, you occasionally get to watch one of the other-site videos and maybe download that content, but you don't always have access to the other sites...maybe there is a view limit to external material or something...I'm not sure. I am thankful, though, that the site owners recognize that giving away some content from their other sites is a good idea, but there really isn't enough content within this whole network to compete with some of the bigger sites out there. If you DO want to join the whole network, it will set you back $69.00 a month or so for a monthly subscription. Thanks, but no thanks. I've been a member of some of the other sites, and they are also very small (Passion-HD, Casting Couch-X, Fantasy-HD, Pure Mature and ExGF) although the video quality is usually very good. I get that these guys have to make money, but Geeez.... explain the rules to me, please.
This site is a video site so the images are secondary and mostly just from the video shoot. Some are screen-caps but it seems that there is somebody taking pictures as well and many of these are not bad.
Download times seem a lot slower than average and downloads time out a LOT and once stopped cannot be restarted. I can't tell if this is due to a download limit or something else. Again, it would really help to know the rules.
The videos themselves are generally very good and all are 720 or 1080p. I have no idea why it has taken so long for POV videos to take off. There is nothing quite like a virtual scene where you are looking down at a totally naked girl who is on her back with her legs in the air as your virtual dick rams into her. And you get to see it from your POV for pretty much every sexual position. There is one scene where "you" are lying on a bed and a girl sits on your face, but then as the camera angle changes (you tilt your virtual head a little), you see another girl bouncing on your dick. That just seems like the pinnacle of virtual sex to me....at least until they start creating porn for an Oculus Rift!
There are a few nitpicks that I am not fond of, but other people may really like. For one, the male actor in many of the scenes is into licking assholes. A POV close-up of somebody licking a girls asshole is something you can't really un-see and I prefer not to see another tongue going into an asshole from that close....ever again. Also, there are a couple of girls that, although generally very attractive, just are not ready for their close-ups when you are talking about being a couple of inches away from their snatch in the glory of high-def. Fortunately, only a few girls fall into this category. But the most disturbing oddity is that occasionally the POV switches to that of the woman. It is sometimes interesting when the girl is in the shower or something, but this is really, really weird when the girl is getting fucked. There you are drawn into an amazing scene imagining you are screwing the lights out of this awesome girl and suddenly, the POV perspective changes, you are the girl and YOU are getting screwed! Sorry. HUGE NOPE! Same thing happens occasionally while the guy is getting head. I suppose when it comes to POV, there is "give and take", but I am not a taker in this regard. Some Day I'll fire up my Adobe Suite and edit all the junk out of these...some day...maybe. My suggestion to the camera crew and website owners is to take that stuff and create a separate girls POV site. One hetero and one lesbian, even. How about gay POV? You never know who might show up....well, except it won't be me. Sorry.
Bottom line? There are a few OMG videos here that make it worth it to visit, but try to do it at a discount and don't sign up for more than the minimum time-frame....at least until they get their video count up quite a bit. The quality is great, but the quantity is just too low for now.
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.