No worries, though these days I'm more inclined to think we have more to fear what corporations do than the government. Just look at the rise of "net neutrality" (here's Wittyguy's thread about the subject) and how this could effect a pay-to-play method of Internet access--essentially limiting access to a whole plethora of cyber media, not just porn.
Even with things like the draconian Obscenity Prosecution Task Force during the Bush II administration--continuing to uphold the stereotype that conservatives are in love with Puritanism--I don't see a serious government threat to Internet freedom, at least at the federal level. Like many other "vice" laws, the more local you go the stricter the rules seem to be (part of my objection to "states' rights," as this usually means restrictions on civil liberties).
But fortunately the Internet is quite difficult to control on such a level, at least for now. It's why you can have Utah be a state full of Ned Flanders denizens but still have fairly healthy cyber porn habits.
Before the axe falls!? C'mon, graymane, this almost sounds like you're trolling! ;-)
Short of an Internet kill switch ever becoming a reality--in which case I'd probably have to come up with something besides "Porno, porno, porno!" for why we all need the Internet--I don't see cyber porn going anywhere. And outlaw/regulate it all you want, you're not stopping demand since healthy sexual urges aren't going anywhere either.
Sort of the same way MP3s killed music, MP4s killed movies, and, what, Darwin killed religion, right? The world will continue to change and progress technologically and socially (at least I hope it will be progress) but an insatiable appetite for smut isn't going away. Even in the most regressive, sexually and socially oppressed theocracies Internet porn still exists, if only underground.
I'd say all of the above except popup window, which I prefer to loading a whole separate page.
But not autofilling, remembering my username or password, captcha (especially on a separate page!), and other such nonsense are all annoying in their own unique ways. I don't think I've encountered any sites with auto-logoff (like with online banking), but if I have I've forgotten them, though that would probably top my shitlist. Having to log in again without ever having manually logged off or quit the browser myself...fuck you!
I didn't think that counted as archives, though it does have all the threads, minus of course the spammy ones you've banished to a black hole of the Internet. :-)
I always go straight to there anyway since I'm too lazy to even bother scrolling down to the "Latest Threads" part of the homepage. With all the main links at the top right of the homepage it's a quicker way to browse in general. I'm this way with most sites I regularly visit; skip the homepage's headlines/latest/breaking news/whatever Flash scroll bullshit and prefer a more organized approach.
Nah, why would they want to have a variety of names, short of trying to separate themselves from seriously extreme content they may have done earlier in their careers? And with the anything goes attitude of an increasing number of performers this is probably pretty rare as it is.
Plus, I think in a lot of cases mistaken idea would be quite difficult. Is anyone other than the real Bonnie Rotten (not her Christian name?) going to be identified as her?
Great review, RB! I've been thinking about joining this site for a while now--well, really just Wet and Pissy, as those two words encompass nearly everything I seek out in porn--but if this is the same price for two additional sites, it's obviously the better deal. I guess I'll wait a little while on a review once I join (and don't want to risk carpal tunnel syndrome either!). Your comments on camera work are also a lot more than what I usually manage, the typically redundant "Me see naughty parts in video. Me get horny."
Also, your reply to graymane about use of the term "puffy," that "Big TACOs are the Labia Masters" is hilarious (though I would think the title "Labia Mistress" is more correct). If that were a real award or title it would be one I wouldn't think twice about accepting! :-)
Oh, and to add to the con questioning "is material this hardcore too transgressive?", I would say no, at least with regards to this specific subscription and its sister sites.
The genre of this reviewed site (boy-girl pissing) had already pretty clearly been taken to the extreme years ago. People like Max Hardcore and sites like 666 Bukkake are not for the squeamish, or at times even the comfortably consensual viewer. Then Kink's now out-of-date Pissing.com (still open, but a few years since last update) is as rough and hardcore with the fetish as any of their other sites but also just as consensual, something missing with way too many other sites.
Now we digital deviants have sties like Wet and Pissy and VIPissy--frankly, far less transgressive for me than the countless anal and cum/swallow fetish sites. Hell, compared to the latest R-rated "sex" comedy we could see advertised on TV and on giant billboards this porn is practically art that people not only want to genuinely see, but might actually find pleasure in seeing(!).
Good review, John, hope there's more to come from similar sites!
I'm trying to figure if there's really that much of a difference between this and Wet and Pissy, since both's samples look so similar, share many of of the same models and scenes, and both are parented by the porn octopus Epoch. The only noticeable change from W & P I can tell is the focus towards more boy-girl golden showers instead of the former's solo and occasional (way too occasional for a guy like me!) girl-girl scenes.
Obviously, the Puffy Network subscription is the best deal at the moment--We Like To Suck, Wet and Puffy, and of course Wet and Pissy for $20/month--but that still seems to miss some of what VIPissy has if hardcore, in the boy-girl sense, is what really floats your porn boat.
I second oldfizzywig's "hidden and forbidden" comments: when there is a shyness and or somewhat embarrassed factor to something like that it definitely has some unexplainable appeal. Like it's a privilege to watch over other types of porn because not every women will do it, much less actually enjoy it (and, of course, such women should be worshiped as goddesses).
I guess maybe the attraction to it has something to do with the association to genitals, or the perverting of a natural act, or just plain ol' bad brain chemistry. Hell, it still seems a lot more natural, not to mention less demanding, than bukkake or anal fisting scenes! How many women agree to those perverted acts?
And as personal addendum to pee content in general, I usually don't like scenes that take place in bathrooms, as if in those settings it can't be properly fetishized or sexualized. Outside of the bathroom it seems naughtier and more forbidden, but definitely not hidden.
Isn't that what most "reverse bukkake" scenes really are, just with "squirting" in the title to keep from getting in trouble? Sometimes it's a little too obvious, like when they're pushing to ejaculate (and it's not really female ejaculate), or, fuck it, it comes out a looking ginger ale-tinted hue.
Either way, the guy probably loves it. Of course it's hard enough to get more than one girl to participate in a threesome or orgy in real life (and who actually takes the time to schedule such things?), much less one where they all agree to pee/"squirt" on you.
You can easily get bad lighting outside on a sunny day because natural lighting is a single, super strong source--the sun, which no artificial light can truly replicate, and certainly not on a shoestring porn budget. The problem is that this can create really harsh shadows depending on the season and time of day. So performers are squinting, unevenly lit, and the setting becomes less than picturesque.
Shooting inside near a window as you mentioned brings up other problems. The light sources are different color temperatures and the picture will be white balanced for the indoor source (or on auto balance, which will adjust to the inside), probably a warmer tungsten or incandescent light. The light coming from the window will look blue and kind of weird, but not exactly out of place for a porn video.
Since "on drugs" could mean any number of things I'm going to say "Only if it impairs production." If someone has an audience and can still work producers will tolerate a lot--just like in mainstream Hollywood, and to a certain extent in politics as well.
Read a few interviews or tweets of current performers and it's clear that pot is the go-to drug of choice at the moment. While it certainly doesn't help them come off as women who are more than airheaded eye candy they're aren't flying planes or engineering vaccines either, so no harm no foul.
You make a good point Belthazar; sites need to work harder (better editing, more appropriate compression, etc.) to justify such huge but relatively short files. A good scene will always be worth the disk space, but if I'm on the fence I quickly delete or keep a smaller version (like 1280x720). I have no trouble keeping older 640x480 scenes since they are so much smaller and were shot before simply increasing resolution was thought of as a standalone improvement.
Usually click a link, since I can be a fairly bad speller when I'm in a rush or simply not paying attention. But more typically I'm trying to avoid a very similar URL that's for a very dissimilar website, i.e. typosquatting.
I do like 'em young (who doesn't?), but then again the very appealing Nina Hartley is in her 50s, married, and doing quite well while still enjoying it. Helps tremendously to have a good head on your shoulders though, something even a plastic surgeon can't install.
I certainly never thought it would be such an intentional and consensual one. There's Girls Gone Wild of course, which was all about taking advantage of girls through inebriation and peer pressure, and then all the shoots where a performer showed up partially stoned or hung over.
I guess this site would be a lot more worrying if it included sober male co-performers, but as it is now it doesn't seem to be crossing any lines.
Less-is-more can work for the number of cameras if the operator/director is creative enough and at least a minimum of editing is done. Instead we get 30-45 minute single takes that are POV, wide-angle, and feel like endurance tests for the viewer.
Other times there are multiple angles from multiple cameras, but they are shown onscreen at the same time or the same action is simply repeated for the second angle after it's already been shown for the first. And then there are slo-mos, which feel like the porn equivalent of using double spacing on a paper to increase page count without any additional content. >:- |
Goodwill and the nearest Dumpster are definitely out--and some people treat them as if they are the same--because I still have most of mine.
Though, as addressed in the poll last week, I do fear what will happen to it when I die. Unlike hard drives and mysterious credit card charges the DVDs and magazines will start upsetting family and some friends as soon as they see the light of day. Yeah, I'll be dead but I don't exactly want to leave my loved ones with what I know will be an embarrassing task.
It's like you get to haunt people through the levels of shame that your porn collection will provide! :-)
Some of this stuff can be hard to judge until you've actually downloaded it and taken a more thorough look. But I say "Other" because genre/category, or at least what the BS description will say about it may turn me away.
Generally "too skinny" or "too chunky" will be categories on their own and are part of the reason people seek them out, though too chunky can just be the model and not BBW stuff. Too skinny is just horrifying in my opinion--nothing sexy about someone who appears to be literally starving to death. You can't fake that and it's probably the riskiest "look" I can think of in porn today. (Seriously, STDs could would most likely longer to kill someone than malnutrition.)
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.