| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
N/A
|
Reply of
TheSquirrel's Reply
"...followed by four minutes of sex. Too much like reality."
What? You mean there are people who can keep going for as long as four minutes? Surely not. ;-)
|
11-14-12 10:51am
|
Reply
2
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
Usually fully dressed with plenty of tease. Sometimes it is appropriate to start in lingerie, for example when on a bed as this is somewhat more realistic than starting fully dressed on a bed.
|
11-14-12 10:48am
|
Reply
3
|
Exploited College Girls
(2)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Reply
I agree about exaggerated site names. But I took a browse around the tour of Exploited College Girls. There are previews of many of the models there. Every preview that I read mentioned licking a man's ass, e.g. Kelli (Zoey Kush), April (Avril Hall). So it should not be a surprise.
Also, I recognise very many of the girls on the site although they have different names here from their more usual aliases. Some of them might have appeared here first but I doubt that is true of many of them. If it is any consolation to you, most of them appear in other hardcore too and they are rather good actresses. Models do not usually do things that they do not want to, especially the good-looking ones who can work easily.
So, although I would not like the content of the site and I do not like exploitation of models, even when it is simulated and consensual, I think that it is unfair to criticise the site for what it shows. To me, its tour is comprehensive enough to make its content clear.
It is difficult to give a site a rating which differs greatly from one's personal like or dislike of it but I feel that a rating should be based on how well a site achieves what its tour describes.
|
11-11-12 02:00am
|
Reply
4
|
Exploited College Girls
(2)
|
Reply of
bestimmt's Review
What you describe is certainly not something I would ever want to see. I would be equally disgusted. However, surely the clue is in the title of the website. What else would you expect from a site with such a name?
|
11-10-12 02:34pm
|
Reply
5
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Exactly as Toadsith. So far, I never had a problem with un-reviewed sites. Reviews are just one factor in deciding whether or not to join.
|
11-10-12 06:58am
|
Reply
6
|
Young Legal Porn
(7)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Yes, I have even seen some that are caSe sensitiVe and it is almost impossible to guess those right. The very distorted ones are so irritating that I wonder if sites do it to limit the demand on their bandwidth, knowing that many users will give up.
|
11-08-12 04:32pm
|
Reply
7
|
Young Legal Porn
(7)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
The reason for this is that captchas timeout. Refreshing the captcha resets the clock but there must be a site error in initially presenting a captcha without a clock reset.
I hate captchas too. It is usually impossible to distinguish between letter O and numeric 0 and between numeric 1 and letter l. And they are often completely impossible to read.
|
11-08-12 10:06am
|
Reply
8
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Toadsith's answer is closest to my view. I believe not only that marijuana should be legalised but also all the hard drugs - heroin, cocaine etc should be treated as Toadsith describes from the legal and taxation standpoints. The greatest damage to society is caused not by the physical and chemical effects of the pure drugs but by the crime and violence associated with their currently illegal market. Legalising worldwide would eliminate the need and potential for crime. Certainly some more people might die from the drugs, as they do from cigarette related illness, but fewer would be murdered or otherwise forced into addiction by pushers and I believe the balance would be hugely beneficial.
Unfortunately, as with porn, the public and the elected legislators always confuse morality with law and attempt to legislate against what they disapprove of morally. Turning morality into law merely creates criminals.
Now, in the western world, we find it strange that homosexuality was ever criminal. In 100 years, people will find it strange that hard drugs were ever illegal. It takes generations of time to separate morality from law.
I strongly morally disapprove of recreational drug use, whether soft or hard. But I strongly believe they should all be legal, worldwide.
|
11-08-12 09:55am
|
Reply
9
|
Met Art
(8)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
I think that sites would put the administrative HQ wherever gives them the best advantages for legal and financial matters. For example, if they put the HQ in Europe, they would be legally obliged to add VAT to the subscriptions of European residents and pay the tax over to the EU. I know this fuels the regional pricing debate but there really is a legal obligation on Euro-based sites to do that. Locating in USA gets around that issue.
Also, being based in the US allows them to keep records in accordance with 2257 regulations. This enables them not only to prove the legal age of the models, which saves them from all sorts of problems worldwide, but also allows them to insist on photographers giving them the proof required by 2257.
Those are the two main reasons I can think of.
I always thought Amsterdam was a strange choice of move for AW but perhaps there are different legal advantages for them there.
BTW, this looks to me more like a forum topic than a comment on MET-ART. It would not surprise me if Khan moves it to the forum :-)
|
11-05-12 02:14pm
|
Reply
10
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I also use MS Word. I am highly anal about typos, punctuation and grammar. It is not possible to rely on Word alone. It will permit mistakes and object to things which are actually correct.
|
11-04-12 08:36am
|
Reply
11
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I only give feedback to sites I care about. I have probably done this with around ten sites and have had replies from all of them. Sometimes this led to extended correspondence and, on several sites, suggestions were implemented.
|
11-02-12 10:57am
|
Reply
12
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I have zero interest in all competitive sport, amateur or professional.
|
10-29-12 01:22pm
|
Reply
13
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
No. I have not yet passed my exam in paranoia.
|
10-15-12 08:22am
|
Reply
14
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
Not affected me. Let me see:
cost of one month subscription is the same as:
One day's parking at my local railway station;
Or
Driving 100 miles;
Or
One concert ticket;
Or
One single course meal in a simple restaurant.
I suppose that if I were really pushed, I would just not do one of those things instead.
|
10-10-12 01:54am
|
Reply
15
|
Young Legal Porn
(7)
|
Reply of
Vito's Comment
When I was there, I used both of the ones mentioned by my two colleagues. I have found that Getright (paid version) works on ever fewer sites.
|
10-08-12 02:51pm
|
Reply
16
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
"Now, what am I guilty of?"
Recklessness.
|
10-03-12 12:06pm
|
Reply
17
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
I put over 30%. But my PC is really a temporary buffer store for my externals. PC's data drive is only 120GB and only about 20GB gets used for porn but I have about 6TB of external storage, including backups, spread over many drives.
|
10-03-12 11:58am
|
Reply
18
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
I also put less than 50%. But that is in the context of not understanding the question :-)
By "stay over a year", I assumed was meant "contribute in any way at all to reviews, comments, forum or polls for over a year".
The question did not ask how many write reviews for over a year and I did not take it to mean that. If it did, then I would think less than 10%.
If it meant "not have their membership voluntarily or compulsorily deactivated", I would think the figure would be higher, say around 80%.
The most difficult part of any survey is asking the right question ;-) (Not wishing to be rude, Cybertoad, forgive me).
How about this for a question: "Do you?" You must answer yes or no.
|
09-30-12 12:38pm
|
Reply
19
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
LOL. I do not even own a TV.
|
09-21-12 12:24pm
|
Reply
20
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Other - as RustyJ.
I also include a cross reference to at least one set in the new name, referring me back to the old name so I can find all her stuff.
|
09-15-12 03:01am
|
Reply
21
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I put probably not. I'm with Cybertoad and Capn.
The discounts are so small compared to other things I spend money on that they make little difference. I feel the same about regional pricing. Put it this way; when I put a tank of diesel in my car, it costs £50, which is about $75. A few hours parking in a nearby city costs £10 about $15. A $5 discount or surcharge on a month membership makes no difference to me. Maybe a $15 discount gets me thinking but even that is irrational.
A discount has more influence on when I rejoin a site that I join frequently because it is multiplied by the number of months.
|
09-14-12 04:19pm
|
Reply
22
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
One theatre or concert ticket + fuel to drive to the nearest city + parking costs about £25 to £30, say about $40 to $45.
So yes, online porn is very good value.
|
09-07-12 03:54pm
|
Reply
23
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Drooler. You have brilliantly expressed how I feel too.
|
09-05-12 05:01pm
|
Reply
24
|
N/A
|
Reply of
gaypornolover's Reply
LOL. I've never really understood the appeal of videos when photos are available. :-)
|
09-05-12 04:55pm
|
Reply
25
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I always unzip them (even though I have programs that can view inside zips).
I always view the photosets I download. Like lk2, I do have plenty of videos that I have not viewed.
|
09-05-12 02:58am
|
