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 We Are Hairy

We Are Hairy (1)

monty4321 (3) 02-06-12  07:17pm
Pollster TRUST USER?   YES (11), NO (0)
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: Clean layout of site.

Has a good proportion of higher resolution pics.
Cons: Hit and miss on the video quality.

No standard in terms of poses. You will not get similar poses from set to set. The thing about that is you will not get the poses that you want.

Focusing issues throughout.

There is rarely any ethnicity on the site.

Not enough models.

Not enough attractive models.
Bottom Line: Overall I was very disappointed with the site mainly due to the quality of the photos.

In my opinion most of the woman on the site are not too attractive. 50 - 75% of the woman is a 5 out of 10. 5 being average. If you like stunning women from time to time - look else where.

If you like a standard among poses from set to set , you will be very frustrated here. You'll be lucky to get a nice boob shot or butt shot on every set let alone the common poses. The poses are very random, because of this, you will never know what you're going to get on the daily updates - I know that some people likes this however. I was disappointed more times than not.

This is a hairy site, therefore, I thought they would be superb when it comes to seeing a clear detailed shot of the vagina. They were just good enough on the closeups. On most of the shots when zoomed out to more of a full body shot - the quality went down the toilet - and the vagina were of pretty bad detail. This was frustrating because the photos were very large, yet they were lacking in detail.

There were terrible lighting issues throughout. Some of the photo shoots were so bright that the details were burned out and blinding. Some of this may be due to photo editing. On many occasions the photo editing ruined detail, such as not being able to see detail of the woman's hair.

There were too many occasions of the hairy extreme, which included hairy legs, hairy asses, and arm pits.

If you like female masturbation videos - stay away from this site. Theses are among the most boring women masturbating that I have ever seen; the females will not utter a word; they rarely make moaning sounds; you could hear a pen drop they're so quiet; the females rarely looks into the camera nor interact; seams like they pull on or play with their pubic hair more than masturbating; the masturbation seems very fake on most videos;

The worse part of the videos is the extreme closeup shots. They stay zoomed for half to 3/4 of the videos in many cases.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (5)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


monty4321 (3) I do apologize if this isn't a detailed review including specs and so on. I just wanted to do a quick one.

I will also add that if you do like very good quality in the photos - ATK Hairy is much better so far. I just got a membership there only days ago. With some of the sets, I have never seen this good of quality on any site hands down. However, so far it's looking as though the volume of those super good quality ones may be a bit limited.

02-06-12  07:21pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) I just signed up recently, as well. I didn't pay much attention to the video content as that is not my area of interest.

As far as photo quality, I definately have seen examples where focus issues are present. I don't recall seeing any glaring exposure problems, however, and I am pretty anal about things like that. Then again, I ddin't go through every set.

For me, I don't really find the girls unattractive, I think it's just that they are not over-glamorized and elements such as makeup are kept in check so as not to detract from the natural theme of the site.I certainly wouldn't meet any of these girls on the street in person and think they were ugly. Most men would find them pretty if they walked by them on the street and passed them, IMO. I think we are just so used to seeing the heavily airbrushed and post-processed porn with heavy makeup and lipstick, lingerie, and heavy facial cake powder, that when we do come across models in porn that are not made up in this way, we tend to rate them as less attractive when compared to the pro studio standard of perfection. As an example, have you ever seen a news-babe off the set, without being under the soft, flattering lighting and without the professional broadcast studio makeup? The results are quite dramatic. They can look like totally different people and much more 'average.'

Sites like this are the anti-thesis of high fashioin nude glamour and are more about bare natural beauty, IMO. Seeing a glamorized model with fancy lingerie and makeup, sporting a full bush and underarm hair would be totally out of place, IMO.

Anyways, I am not arguing and don't mean to negate any opinions. Just offering a different perspective. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. However, if you come from a site like DDF or other glam sites to a site like this, I can see how one might be inclined to equate the lack of polish to a lack of beauty.

02-06-12  08:07pm

Reply To Message


otoh (54) REPLY TO #2 - BubbaGump :

'Seeing a glamorized model with fancy lingerie and makeup, sporting a full bush and underarm hair would be totally out of place, IMO. '

Or, at least, put us back in the 1980s :)

Actually, I don't mind a full bush even when glamorous - but I guess it does depend quite how full...

02-07-12  12:43am

Reply To Message


messmer (137) As opposed to you I found most models beautiful, and to contradict my other friends would love nothing better than to see them in fancy lingerie. Nothing wrong with the girl next door looking sexy!

As others mentioned, you probably appreciate sites like Twisty's and DDF which I dislike heartily because one can't see the models' faces for all the heavy powder. But, that's fine. We all have different tastes and it is good to see your viewpoint. Gives me more tolerance for views other than mine. :-)

02-07-12  12:38pm

Reply To Message


monty4321 (3) REPLY TO #3 - otoh :

First thanks all for replying to the my opinions of the website.

Now I have to gripe at all of you. At no point in my review did I say that I want the girls to be glamorized and full of makeup.

This is what I said: "In my opinion most of the woman on the site are not too attractive. 50 - 75% of the woman is a 5 out of 10. 5 being average. If you like stunning women from time to time - look else where."

Maybe my use of "stunning" made it appear as such. What I was saying that those who do like stunning females - they would be disappointed IMHO. Stunning or a 10 does not have to mean full of makeup.

I actually hate twistys and probably DDF because when I visit their sites, all of the models appear to be bathed in makeup. I hate airbrushing and all of the photo editing after-shoots. I like the natural looks by far, but I don't mind a little makeup.

Now, the women aren't ugly. But IMO most of them are only average. But they are more attractive than the women on ATK Hairy.

I love natural and prefer it over makeup. But on this site, I think they would do good to have a certain portion of them put on a little makeup - because some of them need it. That's just my opinion.

02-08-12  09:08pm

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.