I don't know if most guys shooting porn have discovered the tripod yet. But the videos at this site are less herky-jerky than at some sites which can almost give you motion sickness.
I gave you a positive trust rating on 02-19-09 with the following comment: "Good reviews, more recent ones with lots of details."
So I don't think there's anything wrong with your reviews. I think they provide a good flavor of the sites you write about (details and opinions beyond the basic site statistics).
But thanks for the thumbs up on my review.
And I also agree with your idea that most East European models are getting paid peanuts compared to what American models make. That's a good part of the reason why there was such an explosion of porn coming out of East Europe: the cheap production costs.
But what I am really thankful for is the number of physically attractive young models. Some of them are truly lovely. More on the softcore side, but a number in hardcore as well.
THAT...I've seen it in some older movies - and it was just, well, what can I say: cute, sweet, innocent ect...............and: those were the days....before the world was a mess and went ugly.
Thanks for this info, careylowell!
In compar5ison to most other sites I find DDF Prod to be superior in many (most?) respects, such as video quality, variety (DDF has several specialty genres like Hands on Hardcore, House of Taboo, etc.) and the mainstream 1 by Day, all of which have extremely well produced exclusive content.
Yes, a few of the older material remains in multiple segments but the vast majority is done in one complete video.
The only issue of significance that I have is that some current updates are not available in WMV format and can only be downloaded in MOV (Apple)format.
The scoring is always a subjective matter but, having been a member of well over 30 sites over the last 6 or 7 years, this site (network) remains a leader in my opinion.
I would say that this rating is a bit harsh, specially if you keep it at 75, considering the ammount and quality of the content you get. I too don't like the "Sapphic Erotica" bonus sets, and I am glad they are discontinuing them, but even without those, you get a handful of sets every week, with high quality, good- to great-looking models and in different niches (solo, mf, ff, feet...).
DDF has its flaws, as every network or site out there, but it's still up there on top for me. Hotlegsandfeet, in particular, will always have a special place in my heart :)
I have installed AVG Internet Security 2011, and checked the HandsOnHardcore pages. It didn't give me any warnings. One of our developers took a quick look, he hasn't found anything out of ordinary either.
Please send me the exact address or page AVG warned you about, and we will look more into it. It might be a false alarm, but such issues are important.
SexVideoCasting - basically all scenes have vids, and about half of them has photos, I think you have missed them somehow. You can browse them on both ddfprod.com and sexvideocasting.com.
EuroGirlsOnGirls. You are right, these were bonus photo sets from Sapphic Erotica, an addition to our normal weekly updates. New Sapphic bonus sets are not added anymore.
Sometimes the forums do offer more details. If you ask woodman usually answers within a few days (I think you can join the forums independently and free) But also the site has some hardcore scenes that can be linked to the initiations and castings. Overall a pretty good site if you like to see castings/ the same girls doing hardcore.
That would seem right because IAFD says that Tracy's birthday is May 7 1968. That would mean she was 16 at the time. No matter how we look at it. She was underage. She didn't act or look like a 16yrs old. There have been quite a few rumors over the years that she planned her downfall. The main reason for the rumors is that she created her own production company and filmed the only legal Tracy Lord porn movie: Tracy I love you. She went to the authorites right after it's release. She made a killing with that single movie since she was still a very popular actress and the only movie anyone could own or sell was Tracy I love you. A couple of persons were sent to jail because of this and in their defense. She presented a valid drivers license. I'm glad she was able to find a career out of porn.
Usually you can figure it would from looking at replies to your reviews. The person that seems hostile towards your comments is usually the person it ends up being.
Without doing some creative digging, and a lot of it, I do not think even the staff can tell you who it was. If I recall correctly I believe they said some time ago that the anonymous ID is saved in a one way encryption to protect the privacy. I believe it was the trusts they were talking about.
In any event, it does not hurt to guess who it was and send a reply to them. Even if they have not been around for a while they could still get the notice email for receiving a reply. This might bring them back, you never know and it certainly does not hurt. Besides, who wants that one bad trust thing floating around.
Okay, I just really wanted to be sure about this. Thanks for the reply. Do you have any idea who the "NO' trust came from. One of the things a few of us have been trying to do lately is getting people who voted no a while back to reconsider in the even the user has improved reviews since the NO trust and is still around. Anyway, you may want to add an extra reply to that trust just to make it clear.
This may or may not pertain to this review, but I need to ask you something.
I was just looking around and for no reason clicked on your name. I noticed you had a single "NO" trust and I was curious as to what it was for. The person believed you did not join some of the sites you had reviewed. You replied saying "I joined seven of the nine sites mentioned for at least one month. No review based on a trial m'ship."
Is this statement implying that you had not joined them two of them, or simply that you joined and left before a second month. The distinction is very important. If you had not joined them how could you review them? Also, which of the nine sites DID you join? At this point I think it is just poor choice of wording, but it is unclear.
I am a little reluctant to throw out a "NO" trust on you because your more recent reviews seem much more in depth and honest. I would like some clarification on this just in case there is a misunderstanding. It was not that long ago a reviewer had all his review points removed and was semi-suspended for implying that he did not join sites he had reviewed. I do not want this to happen to you, but I (all of PU) need to know that you have actually joined all the sites you have reviewed.
Being 29.95 Euros, the cost of this site can vary in US$ terms (they charge your credit card in Euros, they say.) Right now it's about US$42.00. Also, their preview site claims on one place that there are 18 sites in the network, and, in another, 13 sites.
In any case I really liked the review. It told me everything I wanted to know and, because I like the same things, I'm seriously considering joining up.
See Carey, I had a feeling this was going to go this way.
First, you are not required to read my posts if you don't like them or if they are not rhetorical enough or too rhetorical for you and Demosthenes.
Second, you say to keep perspective. You submitted this poll question, and haven't even posted your stance on it. So, for you to say that you were not advocating babies in a furnace, really has no meaning whatsoever, you haven't advocated either side of this very topic! A few of the members even showed some curiosity towards the topic, but you still didn't expand on it, explain it, or give your opinion. The question also does not give your stance away.
Third, you submitted a poll question, meaning you wanted opinions on this topic. I gave my opinion and for whatever reason, you admit in this (#19) reply that you were being a bastard towards me because of my opinion, which must differ from yours, even though I had no clue what your opinion was, see your words, "You're the only one on PU permitted to be a bastard?"
Fourth, of my hundreds of replies, which you are of course free to skip over, I've never been called a bastard or thought I replied in other way except to be helpful or to joke around with the member I replied to.
Of course you aren't going to argue my 2nd post, you would prefer playing flame wars like we were in the 5th grade. If my stance on the point hasn't been clear, it is nothing more than a rule that nearly all businesses have. It asks soldiers to "Not tell your sexual preference and we won't ask". Now, somehow this became about gays, but the rule is saying no one tell, so it isn't just about gays, until the wonderful American media put their typical sensationalistic twist on it and made it into discrimination. Rosa Parks, Dr. King, Jackie Robinson and millions of others roll in their graves about what is considered discrimination these days in America.
Carey, you dummied down my entire post. The post is about sexuality, not gender and the situation was hypothetically asked, not something that was tried to be seriously passed.
In life, a male or female is based on their reproductive organs at birth. Over time, puberty strikes and sexuality is born.
Somewhere around this point, it is not okay for males and females to take showers together. It really isn't just because one has a dick and one doesn't. It is because of the possible bad situations that could come from it. Most likely, but not completely, based on the males possibly sexually assaulting the females.
Going by that, if a gay man, who is sexually aroused by naked men is allowed to stand in a room full of naked straight men and get his jollies, then it is no different, hypothetically, then a straight man standing in a shower room full of nude women, getting his jollies.
Oh and by pointing out gender, it does go against the very question that was asked since homosexuals blur the line that gender is defined by. A gay man is a man by gender because of his penis, but is attracted to the same things sexually that a female is attracted to.
It is a very broad and likely uneducated statement. I never have been to one and never will. I do not see the appeal in hanging around a bunch of naked people with no sexual innuendos at least.
I know for one of two things would happen. One I would have a hard on the whole time, thus embarrassment. Or I would be extremely limp and shriveled, thus embarrassment. I am sure people do not say much about it there, but I would still be very self conscious and not get a lot of enjoyment out of it. Perhaps this is all my ignorance showing through, but I do not intend on finding out personally.
So if you have been to a few and can testify that there are good looking people there than I will stand corrected at your word. I have seen many nudist videos and picture scattered over the internet and extremely rarely is there anyone that i would call attractive. That is the bases for my opinion, however weak of a base it may be. But you wont find me sitting naked by the lake with my buddies!
I think all the girls answer casting calls in newspapers or sex mags.
It is important to point out that all the girls are English (which you can deduce by their noticeable accent), so I'm going to say that unless you live in England and are familiar with English porn sites, more likely than not you will have never seen the girls the site features.
*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.
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.