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 XL Girls

XL Girls (0)

BubbaGump (18) 01-15-12  03:12pm
Rookie Badge  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (28), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: -- Large number of models.
-- Easier to naviagte and find content than Scoreland master site.
-- Photography and xxx videos are not over-the-top and the style is classic (think Playboy or Penthouse.) This is either a pro or con, depending on perspective. Will appeal to more classic consumers of erotica.
-- Galleries and vidoes do not jump right into the action. Plenty of tease photos and slow undressing.
-- Images are of high-quality, although sometimes can apper a bit plastic.
Cons: -- Photoshoots sometimes seem to be heavily air-brushed. Can sometimes appear 'plastic'.
-- Might not be as explicit in terms of xxx content as some would prefer. Either a pro or con, see above.
-- For some reason, the DL speed and streaming was slower than at Scoreland.
-- Probably not enough updates to keep long-term subscribers used to large volume. Best for one-month subscriptions.
-- Should be part of Scoreland main subscription.
Bottom Line: Background:

My erotic interests: I am a breast guy. Curvy Women, Slim-and-Stacked or Voluptuous, Natural Women, MILF, Shapely Behinds.

I am primarily a photo guy, as well. I enjoy streaming videos but my primary taste in erotica is photography. I also travel quite frequently, so much of my viewing takes place on an Ipad, after transfer of data. Keep this in mind here.
-- The photography and video presentations are sexy and alluring without being too in-your-face. If you are into things like ass-to-mouth, pile drivers, and things like that, you are not going to find it here. This is either good or bad, depending on your own preferences. About 80% of the photo and video content is softcore posing, either solo or girl-girl. hardcore content is typical fare-classic oral, missionary, doggy, etc., although the scenes usually end with popshots on the breasts rather than face--it's a breast site.

--Navigatiuon and menus are a bit simplified from the information-overload present at Scoreland.

-- Photography could use a little diversification in poses and sets. The photosets often to seem to follow the same script. The photographers could also tone down the airbrushing a bit. Sometimes this pervades the images.

-- Streaming and DL speeds are not as quick as at the master site Scoreland.
-- The site will likely not keep long-term interest. Site should probably be included with a Scoreland subscription and not exist as a seperate pay-site.
I added this site when signing up for a one-month subscription to Scoreland. The cost was $19.99 for one month, non-recurring.

BBW stands for Big Beautful Women.

The first two two terms here are relative. I have had an erotic interest in this genre over the years.. I have discovered that 'Big' can mean anything from slightly plump to to morbidly obese. The women shown at XL girls generally falls somewhere in the middle. One characteristic all the models have is that that they all sport large, natural-looking breasts. Most appear to be young, twenty-somethings, althought there are a few MILF models. Pretty faces are the norm.

Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder and this genre won't be for everyone. It is refreshing, however, to see more natural-looking women in this industry--the kind you are likely to encounter on the street. Also, in the photosets, the models will actually smile and don't look irritated or annoyed.

The photos at the site are much more profresinal-looking than most BBW images I have come accross in the past, The photographers could tone down the airburhsing a bit, however.

I guess this genre is defined by anything that does not fit the cookie cutter mold of what the average man would find appealing in terms of physcique. The women at XLGirls look like natural women on the plump side, all with motherly figures.Silicone appears to be used sparingly.

This is definately a niche site that will appeal to fans of plump, rubenesque women one would find in classic paintings, albeit with large chests.

The site is a mix of photos and videos. There is not a large amount of XX action here and most videos are solo or girl-girl.

IMO, who would like this site:

Photo lovers and those with a fetish for plump, rubenesque, motherly women or those who have a breast fetish. Also, this site will appeal to those who enjoy a more classic, conservative style in their photos and explicit videos.

IMO, who won't like this site:

Those who are looking for the cookie-cutter, well-toned models who spend most of their days in the gym and count their calories. Also, those who rarely view photosets or solo video action or those who enjoy more extreme hardcore action.
Grades(obviously subjective):

Site Navgigation: B
Video Presentation Style: A
Video Quality: A
Photo Presentations: B
Photo Content and Quality: A
The Models Themselves: A
Streaming and DL Speeds: C
Quantity: B
XXX Action: D
Suggestions for improvement:

Addf this site to the standard Scoreland subscription.

More creativity in photos. Diversify the photosets to include more angles and perspectives. Photosets tend to stick to a classic script.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (11)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


Monahan (42) At $39.99 per month, this is one of the more expensive sites out there...and yet they have the audacity to offer Scoreland for "just" $19.99 more.

I like the content as described in this review but I would think the webmaster would make a whole lot more money by getting horndogs like me to sign up at $29.99 for the package.

01-15-12  04:25pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #1 - Monahan :

They do that at scoreland, too. I was offered XLGirls for $19.99 and the Scoreland sub was $39.99.

As I mentioned in my other review, the price is on the high side.

IMO, XL girls should be a subsite to Scoreland. The sites that are offered at Scoreland as subsites are really not that great--basically just older content of some of the classic scoreland models.

01-15-12  05:00pm

Reply To Message


gaypornolover (38) WOW now this is what I call a review! Well done - love the grades you give too!
01-15-12  08:25pm

Reply To Message


otoh (54) As per the esteemed gaypornolover - another hugely comprehensive review, good to have you on board and look forward to more!
01-16-12  01:53am

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #4 - otoh :

Hi. Thanks, guys.

I try to offer the kind of info I like to see. I try not to overdo a review, but considering we spend money on this stuff, it is certainly worth it to give the straight poop.

I always thought of porn review sites as simply fronts for studios, as a lot do seem to be heavily biased. This site seems pretty objective and fair so far and the members giving reviews are not just someone from the company in disguise.

01-16-12  09:12am

Reply To Message


messmer (137) Another great and detailed review. I have one question, some of my Score sites (50plus MILFS, 60plus MILFS) have gone to limited downloads of videos. Did they change this site as well?
01-16-12  12:09pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #6 - messmer :


I don't see anything at Scoreland indicating a limit on downloads. There is no info in the signup screen indicating a limit but it doesn't say 'Unlimited Downloads' either. I do not download much in the way of videos so I didn't even think about this when signing up. If there is a lmit, it's probably snuck in on the fine-print on those user aggreements we always click yes to.

On this subject, something wierd I discovered at XL girls was that some videos did not have a download option at all, while others did. It makes no sense as to why certain videos could not be downloaded. It doesn't appear to be based on when the video was added or any specific content. For instance, a recent XXX action video can be downloaded, whereas a solo video one-month old cannot and vice-versa at places.

01-16-12  12:36pm

Reply To Message


messmer (137) REPLY TO #7 - BubbaGump :

Thanks, BubbaGump. With the other sites I referred to it made the downloads of new material possible for 7 weeks (I think) .. see comments at 50plus MILFS ... and then it was no longer downloadable. So anything older than that suddenly was no longer there for the user. Funny way of doing business.
01-16-12  12:42pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #8 - messmer :

hmm..Interesting. I read the reply from the Customer Service rep in that thread.

Not sure what to make of that. Piracy certainly would be a top concern on my mind if I owned a site. However, the 7 week cutoff seems rather arbitrary. Why 7 and not 12, for instance?

My hunch on this is that the explanation is partially true--my opinion only and not to be taken as fact. There are concerns about piracy, but I also suspect this might just be a good business move in terms of bandwidth. I say this as they do not employ this date restriction with photo gallery downloads. I downloaded galleries from stuff dated way back to 2005. There are no restrictions. I assume pirates will go after the photos as well.

So, my guess is that this limit also serves as a practical bandwidth decision that keeps the server from slowing down with folks downloading older videos.

01-16-12  01:23pm

Reply To Message


RagingBuddhist (65) Bubba - I've said it more than a few times on here that a good bottom line really makes for a top-notch review. You may be new here, but I'm gonna call you the King of the Bottom Lines! Great job - and keep 'em coming!
01-16-12  01:44pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #10 - RagingBuddhist :

Hello Buddhist. Thanks for the feedback. I only have two other sites I belong to so only a couple more reviews to do.
01-17-12  03:28pm

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 0.01 seconds.