Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Site Feedback Feedback and ratings from other users just like yourself.
Visit Sugar Paradise

Visit Site

Sugar Paradise

Type: Pay Site

NICHES COMPANY COST

1. Young Adults
2. Amateur Girls
3. Soft Content

FuckingCash
14 Sites Listed
Partner: Fucking Cash

Monthly: $29.95 (recurring)
Multi-Mo: $39.95 (2 months, non-recurring)
Multi-Mo: $49.95 (3 months, non-recurring)

View all Sugar Paradise Site Facts at TBP.

70.0
Feedback History  (2)

Active Reviews 1
Newbie Reviews 0
Active Ratings 0
Newbie Ratings 0
Comments 1
Review by TheBestPorn:

74.5
TBP Review

Date: 09-12-09

Type: 2.0

Spencer
+  Exclusive teen content.
+  Network access included.
-  No longer updating.
-  Downloads come quite slow.

User Reviews (1)

 User reviews consist of pros, cons, and other thoughts.

Active
70
lk2fireone (194) 10-15-12  11:54pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (74), NO (1)
Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: -The photosets and videos are dated by when they were posted to the site.
-The zip file for each photoset has the name of the model in the filename.
-There is a small bio for each model. Gives her name, age and hair color.
Also gives some background on the model, which is probably fiction.
-No DRM.
-No download limits.
-Good download speed. I got 1.0 to 1.4 MB/sec at this site (which is my maximum download speed).
-DownThemAll download manager works at this site.
-Because the videos are so short (3 to 4 minutes runtime), the file size is very small: 50 MB or less.
Cons: -On login, have to enter a captcha, which is a moving string of 5 numbers. You have to watch the captcha for a minute or two, to try to read all the numbers, since the string is moving on and off the screen. Just a minor annoyance, but it indicates poor site design, along with a bunch of other site design problems. Logging into Met-art or Erotic Beauties, major porn sites, is so easy and effortless. Why can't other sites make it easy to log in?
-Archive site. Stopped updating in 2009.
-Although photosets download with the name of the model and a unique number, videos download with the default filename of "full.wmv" or "full.avi" (depending on whether you chose the wmv or avi file format).
So you have to rename each video you download, to know what model is in the video. And there's no description on the site of what the video is about.
-Navigation is very basic.
-No search function.
-Site only has 3 models. Very limited selection of models.
Bottom Line: This is a very softcore teen site.

Their model listing consists of 3 models:
Diana, brown hair
Liza, black hair
Nika, blonde hair

I thought at first I was mistaken. Where are all the different models? But those three models are used for all the photosets and videos. So if you
like those three models, you will find plenty of photos and videos with them.

There is very little eroticism. Very little touching themselves. No masturbation. Little or no spreading of the legs. This is really very
softcore. Met-art is the biggest teen softcore site there is, for photographs. But the Met-art photos, if you can imagine, are harder edged than what this site offers.

In a way, that's good. It almost makes you feel like a "clean" pervert looking at these innocent photos of naked teens.

No boys at this site interacting with the girls. This is a girl-only site.
In some of the photosets and videos, there are two girls. But the only touching between the two girls is girly innocence. I mean, these girls
hardly ever kiss the other girl softly on the lips. They are playing around, maybe touching one another's arm or leg. But really innocent. This
is the very softest of softcore.

Site statistics:

Photosets
Number of photosets: 167
Number of photos per set: around 70+
Each photo has 3 sizes: Low Res., Medium Res., Original size. The original size is between the low res and the medium res.
Original res dimensions: 800 x 1200 pixels, or 1500 x 1000 pixels
Each photoset has a zip file option. You can download a zip file in your choice of low res, medium res, or original size.

Number of videos: 88
Video runtime: 3 to 4 minutes.
Frame width x height: 720 x 480
Total bitrate: 6096 kbps

You can download the videos as WMV or AVI files.
There is no choice of definition for the videos. Videos download in one definition only.

The videos are really short. A lot of the videos have a runtime of 3 or 4

minutes. The video file size is small, 50 MB or less.

The videos have more tease to them than the photosets. There is stripping in the videos. But it's done in a girlish way, very innocent, not even midcore, just young teens taking off their clothes and playing in an innocent manner to an unseen audience. No sex, no masturbation, very
little touching of their own body, no spread legs, no close-ups of the groin or ass.

The videos are poor to just OK. The girls go in and out of focus, which is annoying. This is not an artistic effect, but the camera operator just
can't keep the model in focus, even though she is barely moving from one spot to another. The camera operator is definitely not a professional.

There is no story line to the videos, it's just a girl or 2 girls getting naked, moving around, flashing parts of their bodies. They are interacting with the camera, being teasing, but innocent.

The lighting is OK, the colors are OK. These are scenes shot indoors, so the lighting is easily controlled, and there is little or no annoying
random noises in the soundtrack. The soundtrack is canned music, which I wouldn't mind hearing eliminated. But I've heard worse canned music.

The site design and navigation is basic but acceptable. There is no search function. But you have pages listing the photosets, and other pages
listing the videos. The listing shows what model (or sometimes 2 models) is in the photoset or video. But there is no description of what the
photoset or video is about. But then again, it's basically a girl getting undressed, and flashing her body at the camera. That's it. No script, or
story.

I am giving this site a score of 70. But I think, unless you know that this is a very softcore site, with just 3 teen models, and that it hasn't updated in over 3 years, and that the photos and videos are poor or just OK in technical quality, you will be disappointed you spent your money on this site.
Respond: 11 Replies - Add Reply

*Newbie reviews and ratings don't count toward a site's overall score/rank until the user reaches the Rookie status level (5 points). This rule is needed to help prevent fake (or heavily biased) profiles and reviews.
User Comments (1)

 Ask a question, give quick feedback, warnings, etc.

lk2fireone (194) 05-15-09  01:03pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (74), NO (1)

Opinions on Sugar Paradise?

Have any PU members joined Sugar Paradise and have any opinions on value of site? The preview/tour is only 1 page, it does not list number of photos, photosets, or videos, or give any numerical data on site contents. The preview page shows a bunch of teens, 1 is really cute, Diana, but need much better idea of content quality and quantity before joining this site. It's part of a small network of teen sites.

Respond: 2 Replies - Add Reply

Visit Sugar Paradise

Company Sites Top sites from this company.

      Site Name (Reviews) Score TBP
1. Exclusive Teen Porn (1) 71.0 79.0
2. Sugar Paradise (1) 70.0 74.5
3. Best Fucked Teens (1) 63.0 N/A
4. Pearl Teens (1) 63.0 N/A
5. Magic Porn (1) 61.0 N/A
6. Tasty Teen Video (0) N/A 81.0
7. Just Teens Porn (0) N/A 79.5
8. My Lovely Girls (0) N/A 75.5
9. Candies Club (0) N/A N/A
10. Fucking Video (0) N/A N/A

View All: Company Sites (14)

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.

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.47 seconds.