Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Met Art

Met Art (1)

hondaman (7) 11-13-08  01:37pm
Rookie Badge TRUST USER?   YES (14), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
Pros: -outstanding model selection
-large amount of photographers
-models from many diffrent countries
-very good updates(normaly 4 or 5 sets each day)
-site has been doing very good with viedos lately
-no download limits
-photo sets average around 140 pics often more
-models often dont start off nude which makes sets more interesting
-some sets have very artistic look
-most sets have many good shots of the model from various angles
-there is now model info got added sometime in 2008
-huge ammount of pictures something around 600,000 total!
-good amount of models of diffrent bulids, skinny,large breasted,many diffrent skin tones, many models have very nice butts
-for me the site has very fast servers and I have used it on dial-up as well as DSL connections
Cons: -not all models have a bio yet
-due to there being so many models one that you like may not appear very often
-site layout can be confusing at first
-some viedos are filmed photosets
-cost of site much higher if you pay the monthly cost of $29.95 or $359.40 after a year compared to $99.00 for a year or $8.25 a month.
Bottom Line: I feel that MET-ART is the best errotic art site on the net. It has the most to offer over any other simular site namely in sheer number of models and cost(if you pay the $99.00 yearly fee).I have been a member of FEMJOY,DOMAI,HeargeArt,and MC Nudes. All of these sites are very good as well but MET-ART is the one that keeps me most happy.AS I said in the cons the site can be a little confusing layout wise but to me its not really a big deal because MET-ART provides what I really like(errotic art) in spades.Another con would be that some viedos are just filmed photosets though I think this is more the artists choice than the sites saying. One artist GONCHAROV has outstanding films that are purely films and there is no camera(photographic)work going on the model is simply moving around as GONCHAROV films. Another con is that sometimes a model may only pose one time and never appear in another set however this quite rare and there are so many models that you are likely to have many favorites and most likely there will be a model that you enjoy pretty much everyday.I see that some people con the site for lacking masturbation ect. I dont agree with this it is not the aim of the site.Masturbation is more like true pornagraphy while MET-ART is errotic art to me those are two diffrent things.This site is for the person with a "sensual" eye one that is most pleased by the female form but not by a direct sexual act. The number one con to me is the pricing. The basic monthly fee adds up to $359.40 if you kept the account open for a year. It is best to try the site for a month and if you like it buy the $99.00 full year fee which ends up being $8.25 a month or the 90 day fee which is cheaper than paying the monthly fee at a higher price for the same timespan. My best advice is to try several errotic sites and find the one that most satisfiies your personal taste. That way you have tried some that you think you like and pick the best one much like when you buy a new car test drive.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (24)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


Wittyguy (105) Hey Hondaman. Just wanted to say welcome to PU. Good first review. Hope to see more soon.
11-13-08  03:59pm

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #1 - Wittyguy :

yeah thanks. I have been a member of MET-ART since Jan. 2007 and always get annoyed when people ding them for stuff that isnt really relavent like the "lack of hardcore" of course MET-ART is not a hardcore site.
11-13-08  04:46pm

Reply To Message


PinkPanther (46) Nice review of a great pic site - I still can't recommend this site to anybody that is more into vids than pics. The vids on this site are just miserably boring. They're HQ, very pretty, and very, very boring.
11-13-08  10:14pm

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #3 - PinkPanther :

True they are boring if you are wanting something hardcore in that case I agree with you. I think that is the main thing if you want a bottle of beer then dont order a class of wine.Most people think that all sites have hardcore or someting and that is not always the case like with any true erotic art site I guess there is a fine line when it comes to erotic vids that no site really satisfies as it does seem like MET-ART,FEMJOY, ect do try to improve their vids maybe they should look into explaining to any cx's what excatly it is they want to see ie is more hardcore or is it a more convincing errotic style that they are wanting. I think it is possiable though that MET-ART wont show anything like masturbation or the like as I know that some of there models do hardcore stuff on other sites,I guess if you are wanting hardcore action but like MET-ART the best bet I can think of is Nubiles.net. That is what I like about review sites like this it gives people a chance to see what several people think of a web site that way someone can say well I think more like this person so maybe I will/wont like this site. Better than just going in blind that is for sure.
11-13-08  11:24pm

Reply To Message


PinkPanther (46) REPLY TO #4 - hondaman :

Saying that Met Art's vids are boring is not saying that they are not hard-core. They are boring soft-core vids. I'm not saying that you could not have interesting soft-core vids. Hegre does them. I like Hegre's vids probably more than I do his pics. His vids are unique, they've got character, they've got personality, they've got humor, as well as looking and sounding great - they're interesting!

Met Art's vids are booooooooooooooooooooooring! Most are painfully boring. I've never seen one of their vids that I wanted to watch a second time, and it's not because they're soft-core and I was thinking "man, if only she were getting fucked!" It's because they were hideously, painfully boring and I was thinking "man, this vid absolutely sucks!"

If I were only into hard-core, I wouldn't be as complimentary about this site as I am. I really like the pics, really dis-like the vids.

11-14-08  06:45am

Reply To Message


Denner (235) Fine review - and also from this user: welcome to a new - what seems to be a serious PU.
A bit high score, but ok - if the score only goes for photosets, it's ok - because the videos are - alas - still too boring....Would it not be great if this particular site could do better in the way of sexier (solo) videos?

I gave it almost the same score long time ago, I know - but if I should make a new review it'll go a bit lower (90-92) - the downgrade is only because of the videos.

11-14-08  10:25am

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #6 - Denner :

Sorry, I cannot agree that the very first review with the words "the best errotic art site on the net" and rating of 97 can possibly be a "fine" one.
11-14-08  11:52am

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #6 - Denner :

Yeah thanks. I gave MET-ART that score because I feel that it does its target niche errotic art very well and to a large extent errotic art is manily a photographic medium. I guess I dont ding the viedos as much as some do because I feel at least when some say "they are not hard enough there is no sex toys or anything" I think well did you see anything like that in any of their previews?No. And MET-ART does not advertise that your going to see anything "hardcore". Also I feel that MET-ART is mainly a photographic site seeing that they have over 600,000 photos and something like 500 videos. But alas nothing can be truly perfect really but I feel that MET does the best at the errotic art niche as a whole. I think more review sites like the staff for this site should more clearly state that on most any errotic art site that you are going to see little or no "hardcore" style stuff. Or even better they should make a site that reviews only errotic art sites since it is not really porn like a site such as BANG BROS is. Well enough of my rambeling.
11-14-08  12:00pm

Reply To Message


Denner (235) REPLY TO #7 - asmith12 :

Well, bro - you cannot take it from him (the new user, hondaman) that he THINKS it's "the best erotic art site on the net" - just because hondaman is new HERE - he - like so many others - could have been browsing for years - and then just joined PU.
And this user once also rated Met Art to 96 - because of the great models/quality in photosets - that I've since downgraded it had to do with the less exiting videos.
Anyway, I still think our new fellow PU has done a pretty good review here....

11-14-08  12:03pm

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #9 - Denner :

Well, bro, to put it bluntly - doesn't it look suspicious when somebody just STARTS his PU life with ridiculously high ratings? You're here longer than me, but even I myself have seen LOTS of different shills around here (coming, making 98 or so review for the site, seeing that rating doesn't count, then sometimes trying to make a few MUCH less detailed reviews to get points, and then usually giving up and disappearing). Granted, it doesn't look TOO suspicious for hondaman, but I'm still not 100% sure about him.
11-14-08  12:12pm

Reply To Message


Denner (235) REPLY TO #5 - PinkPanther :

The Panther kind of speak my meaning here: As a fan a fine solo-videos Met Art does NOT do it for me - they are simply too, yes well spoken PP:
Been a member many times, but never saved any videos - only photosets.
Solo-videos: Go for Nubiles, Teendreams, 1byday and quite a few others.

11-14-08  12:13pm

Reply To Message


Denner (235) REPLY TO #10 - asmith12 :

Yup, agree - but, man, we've seen so many other new PUs doing 99 or 100 without any serious arguments - just la,la,la...
I think hondaman done some fine things here after all - you remember how difficuelt it was in the start - I do anyway and got scorned a few times.
If a new PU shows some serious signs, he/she should get every chance.
In this case I do not "feel" any kind of faul play.
But, bro - we'll see in the future - guess there's never any 100%..


11-14-08  12:20pm

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #12 - Denner :

> I think hondaman done some fine things here after all
For the first review - yes, but IMHO it's still too one-handed. Ok, it can easily be "honestly one-handed", but it's still way too one-handed IMHO.

> But, bro - we'll see in the future - guess there's never any 100%..
For me there are a few 100%s here on PU, starting (surprise) from myself :-), and ending with about 50 or so people (yourself included :-) ); come on, suspecting roseman or exotics4me of shilling would be WAY too far fetching.

11-14-08  12:34pm

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #10 - asmith12 :

Yes you got me I am really a computer at NORAD and soon I will take over the world Skynet.In all seriousness you cant really tell if any person on this site is honest or not I have the right to put out my opnion about a site just cause you dont agree with my score dosent mean that I am lying it not like this is some double blind study varifed one down side of the web as a whole is that any person can really say anything anywhere and have no real proof that they are right or even know what they are talking about. I could care less about if someone doesnt like a site as much as I do.
11-14-08  05:00pm

Reply To Message


PinkPanther (46) REPLY TO #10 - asmith12 :

I don't think it's suspicious when someone starts their posting career at PU giving the highest ratings ever - probably because that's what I did. I started posting in order to let people here know about the sites that I thought were the best around - and I think all of my first reviews were in the 90's as a result.

I think it's the case that most people start posting here because they're passionate in one direction or another - they're either excited to let people know about the sites they think are fantastic or they've been burned by a site and they want to let people here know that was the case.

We need to give newbie posters a break - if they stick around a while, they'll probably settle down and be more moderate in their ratings.

Met Art deserves high praise - they're one of the most consistent, professional, generous sites around and if you like soft erotic photography, they are a truly great site.

11-14-08  07:23pm

Reply To Message


Cybertoad (Disabled) Good first review
Like the detail keep em coming

11-14-08  11:24pm

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #14 - hondaman :

> you cant really tell if any person on this site is honest or not
I think I can tell at least most of the time, otherwise what's the point of reading the site?

> I have the right to put out my opnion about a site

> just cause you dont agree with my score dosent mean that I am lying
Right, but I'm suspicious about you _not_ because of disagreeing with you (come on, I disagree with every second person here, starting from exotics4me, but there are no regulars I can suspect), but because your pattern of reviews is quite close to a typical "shill" who tries to promote the site (or sites) for money.

11-15-08  10:06am

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #15 - PinkPanther :

> I don't think it's suspicious when someone starts their posting career
> at PU giving the highest ratings ever - probably because that's what I
> did.
Interesting, maybe I'm suspicious because I didn't it? :-) But seriously, starting with 98 or so review is a "business card" of the typical "shill" (we've seen many of them here, and there is no doubt about it); while I agree it is not conclusive evidence, it is still suspicious.

> Met Art deserves high praise...
If only they would make their models look a bit more alive than current "dead fish" looks... But unfortunately there is no holy grail in porn, not even in softcore :-(.

11-15-08  10:16am

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #18 - asmith12 :

So why do you target me for my score when there a few people below me that have given a pretty high score then? Why do question my thoughts but you dont question theirs?
11-15-08  02:05pm

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #19 - hondaman :

I don't "target" anybody (come on, do you really expect me to care that much about your image here?), I'm just expressing my concern. About those people "below you" - could you elaborate a bit? ANYBODY who will post his/her FIRST review with 98 or so rating is suspicious to me until proven otherwise, period. In formal terms - such rating in the FIRST review by definition carries significant negative credibility attached to it.
11-15-08  02:54pm

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #20 - asmith12 :

Yeah that is your op but simply because I am new to this site doesnt me I dont have good analytical skills and by trade I am a homicide cop been doing that specific feild since 2005 been a cop by trade since I was 19 years old when I joined the Air Force and been a civilian cop since I got out so I have 9 years in a job that requires attention to detail and honesty to the law to the utmost and one that requires 0 mistakes in filing your work one error or case of dishonesty on my behalf and a gulity person can walk free.
11-15-08  03:58pm

Reply To Message


exotics4me (463) REPLY TO #2 - hondaman :

One thing to remember hondaman, the reviewers that "ding" Met-Art for no hardcore, are saving people money that are only interested in hardcore. You mention that it isn't relevant, but it is to someone who has never been on the site that would be reading reviews. Interesting discussion here in the other posts. If I could humbly offer you some advice hondaman, don't mention other sites in a review and say they aren't as good. It will make some of the members question if you are trying to promote the site you are reviewing over the competition.

Otherwise, very good and thorough review for the first time.

11-15-08  08:18pm

Reply To Message


hondaman (7) REPLY TO #22 - exotics4me :

I feel to large extent the end of my review pretty much emplies that I am not being one sided do to the fact that I advise anyone to try several sites in the same niche to find the one that you(the person considerinf a site) will like best as many people like diffrent things. And I mean not relavent in the way that seeing as that the sites focus is in no way hardcore to ding MET-ART or any other erotic art site for not having it is like dinging a site that is CFNM and then listing that all the women on the site never get nude as a con. And besides I think there must just be something other that some that are responding to my review as I ahve posted some other reviews and suprisingly no one has even posted a thing about them.
11-15-08  09:50pm

Reply To Message


asmith12 (124) REPLY TO #21 - hondaman :

Oh, this background of yours indeed explains "attention to details" which sometimes crosses the border of "not seeing forest for the trees". And it's not your fault, but the one of the whole huge legal system which is built to make formalities dominate over common sense and reason. BTW, if I would be in your place (which is not too likely), I would care much more about "not guilty person behind the bars" rather than about "guilty person walking free".

Anyway, I don't see how this background of yours is relevant to the concern I have raised.

04-03-09  01:17am

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

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.


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 0.02 seconds.