Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : turboshaft (24)  

Feedback:   All (660)  |   Reviews (11)  |   Comments (13)  |   Replies (636)

Other:   Replies Received (231)  |   Trust Ratings (42)

Replies Given

Your replies to other users's reviews and comments.
Shown : 51-75 of 636 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site Feedback / Review Date
Reply
51
N/A Reply of jberryl69's Poll

Not sure what you meant by "he/she," jberryl69, but if they became one that might make me stop collecting their work! ;-)

But seriously, my choice of "other reason" being she moved from hard to soft because, well, it makes me move from hard to soft. I know this regression is rare, since many performers usually start somewhere relatively tame and then, depending on how long they stay in, eventually reach a place of sexual one-upmanship and circus stunts. Either way, I'll keep on collecting the old dirty material--i.e., the good stuff--and leave the soft for someone else.

I also find a lot of plastic surgery scary and unhealthy but I give a lot of leeway for other forms of body modification so I'm not that big on one permanent look, nor do I think it makes that much of a difference.


02-11-14  02:34am

Reply
52
N/A Reply of slutty's Reply

I guess that depends on who is going to be upside down in that partnership--gravity's usually somebody's enemy in most of the crazier positions. :-)

02-04-14  08:09am

Reply
53
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

As much as I seek out material in which I am generally interested, at least I think I'm interested, porn still is largely fantasy entertainment to me.

I do go for stuff that I enjoy in real life in terms of category and genre but not specific acts or positions. So boy-girl is certainly realistic in real life, but I have yet to have a threesome with two other women, especially not because I just met them and they're both naturally into all the circus acts and contortionist positions typically seen in hardcore porn.

Plus a lot of positions are for the benefit of the camera--i.e. the viewer--not the performers. Same reason I don't take driving lessons from action movies, or even relationship advice from rom coms, for that matter.


02-03-14  08:40pm

Reply
54
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I should also add that I'm pretty conservative in subscribing to a site and generally stay within my preferred genre--pretty women doing nasty things :-) --without ever really straying too far from that.

01-30-14  02:33am

Reply
55
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

I usually consider it for way more than a few days, sometimes weeks thinking of just how pissed I could be if I don't end up liking the site. It's a great way to feel relieved (in more ways than one...) when I end up actually enjoying a site.

But a good site can be like dating a pretty girl; looked amazing before you got involved, was pretty fun at first, then became boring and routine quickly thereafter, but hopefully not too weird or scary (or maybe it hopefully did, if some people are into that).

It's always at least partially impulse in the sense that I'm not thinking with just my brain. ;-)


01-30-14  02:33am

Reply
56
N/A Reply of Cybertoad's Poll

Now that you explained it, CT... ;-)

Believe it or not, of all my various fucked-up curiosities and desires, electric play/electrostimulation has not been one of them (so put down the Tazer!). I don't even like static electricity, so I don't imagine zapping myself for some higher erotic purpose is going to do much for me. Nor do I look upon some hot young woman and wish to shoot some volts into her vagina--or wherever they go, I'm just guessing at this point.

Maybe I can take a more practical objection to this and just say I don't want to add to my electric bill. Or I'm going green and until I go "off the grid" and have a farm of windmills or solar panels to power my more creative, uh, pastimes, I won't be investigating further.

So, I guess I really don't know much. :-)


01-29-14  05:20am

Reply
57
N/A Reply of graymane's Reply

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.


01-27-14  06:17pm

Reply
58
N/A Reply of graymane's Poll

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.


01-26-14  10:51pm

Reply
59
N/A Reply of skippy's Poll

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!


01-14-14  05:04pm

Reply
60
N/A Reply of Khan's Reply

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.


01-08-14  03:12pm

Reply
61
N/A Reply of Drooler's Poll

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?


01-06-14  10:38pm

Reply
62
Visit Puffy Network

Puffy Network
(1)
Reply of RagingBuddhist's Reply

LOL Maybe you enjoyed this site so much it's turned down your rage somewhat?

Though to be honest I certainly hope it hasn't--I don't want to the sole rageaholic here!


01-06-14  10:27pm

Reply
63
Visit Puffy Network

Puffy Network
(1)
Reply of RagingBuddhist's Review

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! :-)


01-06-14  05:40pm

Reply
64
Visit VIPissy

VIPissy
(0)
Reply of Cum Play John's Review

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(!).


01-03-14  12:32am

Reply
65
Visit VIPissy

VIPissy
(0)
Reply of Cum Play John's Review

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.


01-03-14  12:16am

Reply
66
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

Yes; I'm a creature of habit when it comes to the majority of my porn.

01-02-14  11:04pm

Reply
67
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

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.


12-16-13  11:01pm

Reply
68
N/A Reply of oldfizzywig's Reply

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.


12-16-13  10:50pm

Reply
69
N/A Reply of pat362's Reply

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.


12-03-13  09:11am

Reply
70
N/A Reply of graymane's Poll

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.


11-29-13  12:35pm

Reply
71
N/A Reply of Belthazar's Reply

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.

11-28-13  12:52pm

Reply
72
N/A Reply of happyending's Reply

LOL With The Hobbit-style 48FPS and 3D to boot!

11-28-13  12:45pm

Reply
73
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

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.

11-14-13  03:37pm

Reply
74
N/A Reply of graymane's Poll

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.

11-07-13  06:52am

Reply
75
N/A Reply of Khan's Poll

As long as they're not bruised and bleeding I'm happy! :-0

11-03-13  11:10pm


Shown : 51-75 of 636 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 1.27 seconds.