Porn Reviews by the People. http://www.pornusers.com/review/lollihotties/ Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved. pornusers_20212 http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=20212 <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr valign="top"> <td align="center" width="190"><a href="http://www.pornusers.com/review/lollihotties/"><img src="http://www.thebestporn.com/logos/lollihotties.jpg" alt="Enter Lolli Hotties" width="158" height="135" border="0"><br> </a><a href="http://www.pornusers.com/review/lollihotties/"><b>Lolli Hotties</b></a> (0)<br> <br> 05-15-08&nbsp;&nbsp;06:04am</td> <td><b>COMMENT</b> by <b><a href="http://www.pornusers.com/profile.html?id=2706">asmith12</a></b> (<a href="http://www.pornusers.com/profile_activity.html?id=2706">124</a>)<br> <br> <b>Random Site comment</b><br> <br> This comment has been inspired by poll of May 15, 2008 on<br /> <a href="http://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.pornusers.com/browse_polls.html</a> . For this purpose, I've took 10 completely random sites to see if there are chances they're "unethical". <br /> <br /> Results of review of non-member area: girls are ugly, but suck lollipops as advertised. Comment is advertised as exclusive, and looks so (confirmed by TGP review). Updates are advertised as one per week, and it was confirmed by TGP back then, but without dated updates it doesn't look that they're still updating the site.<br /> <br /> Bottom line: if you're REALLY into this fetish, you might want to risk it despite girls being outright ugly and probable lack of updates. Chances of site being "unethical": IMHO, quite high because of updates. <br> <br> <a href="http://www.pornusers.com/out.php?id=12325"><b>Visit Lolli Hotties</b></a> - <a href="http://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=20212">View Replies</a> - <a href="http://www.pornusers.com/replies_add.html?id=20212">Add Reply</a></td> </tr> </table> <br> Thu, 15 May 2008 06:04:53 PDT