| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
251
|
Teens in Wet Panties
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Reply
OK, littlejoe, I reviewed a bunch of vids.
Most of the girl/girl vids I saw feature what sound like American girls. A few of the solo models have accents. My favorite, Vanessa, sounds German, and she has nine or ten vids where she feasts on her own dirty undies as well as those from her "panty girlfriends", as well as masturbating feverishly with them. Unfortunately, while I think she's very hot - she reminds me of a woman I worked with once and on whom I had a terrible crush - her vids are just too whacky and hectic for me to enjoy. I prefer much more subtle stuff. BUT, if a woman "tasting herself" is your biggest fetish, you would probably like them, although her vids aren't of the best quality. The best quality vids are mostly solo/strip/tease/masturbation scenes.
I didn't mention it in my review, but there are some b/g vids as well.
From what I can see, the content at this site seems to come from several different sources.
|
12-01-08 11:18pm
|
Reply
252
|
Teens in Wet Panties
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Reply
Well, if that's your biggest fetish you are bound to find something to like at this site.
I can't look through what few videos I've kept from here since my kids are over at the moment, but may give a better answer later on...
I can't tell you if most of the girls are European. Many of them have accents, but the dialog is so silly, for the most part I usually turned the sound off. Not only that, most of what I downloaded were solo vids.
Will try to give a better answer later.
|
12-01-08 05:59pm
|
Review
253
|
Teens in Wet Panties
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Fair amount of content up, including some 400 videos.
- Very attractive models for the most part.
- Wide variety of undies: from thongs to grannies.
- Navigation OK.
- Vids are mostly of good quality, with choice of mpeg or wmv.
- Pics are of fair to excellent quality.
- True to the panty-fetish niche.
- Plenty of extras like live shows, streaming video, contests, stories, polls, etc. |
| Cons: |
- Zip files do not work. Every one I tried to download returned a "file invalid or corrupted" message.
- "Forum" link leads to an error page.
- Pics in sets are put up out of order. Example: pic #3 might be on the last page.
- Lots of non-exclusive pic sets seen all over Netville, including Nubiles, Paul Markham, etc.
- Too many categories, and too much cross-over among categories.
- No search utility, no model index.
- No response from webmaster, after several days.
- Last pic update: 11/5. Vids update more frequently. |
| Bottom Line: |
This site is more for people with a panty-fetish than the person who enjoys seeing women in their drawers, which means the panties are an object of interest in and of themselves, which means we see them sniffed, sucked, licked, worn on the head, and inserted into various openings (guess which ones). The main theme seems to be the idea of a woman being turned on by her own panties, and her own excreta, which seems a bit silly to me. I never met a girl who was excited by her own panties, but then I've led a sheltered life.
That being said, there are many good pic sets here, although by and large I found them to be too long, cliched, and boring. Pic sizes are mostly OK, ranging from 863x1300 to 1450x963. Many old pics are very small. Inconsistency is a problem here.
I was very impressed by a few of the vids, but mostly bored silly, as the majority of them are uninspired and typical masturbation fodder with panties as the central theme. The lesbian vids are more interesting. Bitrates ranged from 1500 to 2140 on the high-end. Older vids are of considerably lower quality. As with the pics, inconsistency was a problem for me.
Both pics and vids are sorted into several categories, but there are too many of them, and sometimes only a negligible degree of distinction between one and the other.
None of the zipfiles work. I emailed the webmaster and am awaiting a reply, as well as left a message at the site. This greatly reduced my enjoyment of the site. For some reason, many pic sets are put up out of order, causing a sense of randomness and discontinuity, we well as tedium.
This site is near the top of official TBP reviews for panty sites, but there are many sites which are superior and yet are way down on the list, such as LV Panty and Panty Freek. I'll put this down to the fact that my tastes are probably much different than most. My two favorite panty sites are not even listed here.
This site could be improved by better organization of content (more categories doesn't necessarily mean better organization) and conistency of quality. A non-responsive webmaster is also a major problem. The zipfiles have not worked since I joined several weeks ago.
I would recommend this site to people with a fetish for panties, but not necessarily to people who like to see women in their skivvies. There is a major distinction between the two, or at least there is for me. |
|
12-01-08 11:23am
Replies (4)
|
Reply
254
|
The Hand Job Site
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Review
Thanks for the great review.
The HJ niche seems to be growing, which is odd given that most guys seem to regard a hand-job as something less than sex. To my mind, a good HJ is one of the damn nicest things a girl can do for a guy, and when you get a girl who knows how to do it, it can really be something.
Wifey from Wifey's World is the reigning queen of the HJ, in my opinion, and everyone else pales by comparison. I've been to several HJ sites and most of them are useless. Brandi Belle is pretty good, but she seems too detatched.
And, dang it, if there's a mouth or even a tongue involved, it ain't a handjob!
Anyway, just my .02$
|
10-17-08 04:42pm
|
Reply
255
|
Tiny Fetish Fun
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Comment
A lot of guys are into this. There are a lot of photoshopped pics of women squatting over stadiums and walking through cities, etc.
I don't have that fetish but I can understand it a little. I do like the idea of a strong, dominant woman in complete control, and I love the view from below of a beautiful woman towering over me. Methinks it might be some residue from infancy lurking in the psyche: The mama figure looming over the crib? That tied in with authority, appeasement, satisfaction, and obvious sexual attributes.
|
12-24-10 07:36pm
|
Reply
256
|
TNV Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
Hi Jay,
Thanks for the reply, but I think maybe my review is giving the wrong impression.
While the site is no doubt softcore, it's most definitely not non-nude. There is plenty of nudity; in fact, there's even a section for nude galleries and videos, though that isn't the only place nudity happens. The action between the girls is often very erotic and it seems very genuine most of the time.
About the DRM protected vids: I believe there is only one small section containing these. I would estimate at least 85-90 percent of the video here is not DRM protected. I do agree with you, though, and I avoid DRM sites as well.
|
01-07-08 09:03pm
|
Review
257
|
TNV Girls
(0)
86.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- True to the niche
- Very pretty girls.
- Lots of content, updated regularly.
- Good quality video, and quality seems to be improving steadily.
- These girls seem to really love smooching with one another. Can't blame them for that now can we? |
| Cons: |
- Too much outdoors material. Kinis are for sunning and swimming, panties are for indoors. Or maybe I'm just crazy?
- Too many tats. Tattoos are nasty, dang it.
- Pic quality needs to be taken up a notch or two.
- *Some* of the best quality vids are DRM protected. |
| Bottom Line: |
TNV rates a higher score than its sister site, Virginal Visions, because there is so much more material here and because the vids are more varied and of higher quality, generally speaking. I think the pics are better (content-wise) at VV, but that's because I'm an old schooler when it comes to ladies' skivvies.
I ended up keeping almost 6 gigs of video and 261 zipped pic sets. The pic sets are numbered up into the 800's, so I obviously didn't get anywhere near all of them. Newer vids come in at 1000 to 1600kbps, 640x480, and run from 15 to 20 mins, and you can usually get them in one file. I don't know if 20 minutes is the 'whole' video in any particular case, but these files are big enough. Most of the pics are small, but the bigger ones are 1024x768. Despite their size they are very nice, for the most part.
I don't care for the fainting vids. There's something creepy about a guy feeling up a girl while she's out cold. I know it's fantasy, but it still bothers me.
The site is very softcore and heavy on soft-lesbianism, and only recommended to those who appreciate pretty girls getting it on in their underwear.
One more note: when I joined the site it was having technical problems: pics not opening, links not working, etc. I emailed the webmaster and by the next day everything was fixed. There was even a message posted at the site about maintenance problems which were being attended to. Good work, and good customer service. Few points extra for that. |
|
01-06-08 09:11pm
Replies (3)
|
Reply
258
|
True Amateur Models
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Sorry you were disappointed, Mes. I feel guilty because I gushed over the site in reply to a comment of yours here.
I agree with most of what you say, although I find myself enjoying some of the pictures here more than those at any other site I've joined thus far. Why that is I can't exactly say. There are things going on at a subconscious level that we aren't quite aware of and maybe don't understand. It could just be that I love the all-fours shots, and this site gives you every conceivable angle of that view, as if you are actually there behind the model.
That being said, yes, a site like this, which is 99 percent photo-driven, absolutely needs zipfiles. Especially when the photo sets contain numerous pictures from the exact same perspective. The man behind the site needs to do a LOT more editing of sets, and he needs to get more creative. The sets are repetitive, as you said, and could be cropped by seventy percent in a lot of cases. Furthermore, the pics are not named uniquely, and saving them becomes even more of a chore.
As far as navigation goes, yes, it needs a lot of work.
I am, by turns, very pleased and very displeased with my experiences here thus far. I was wowed at first, but that feeling has waned, except for the moments when something really resonates with me.
Sorry again.
|
01-23-09 12:31am
|
Reply
259
|
True Amateur Models
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
Just had a look at LV Panty's preview. Looks like he is branching out a bit and featuring more modern, skimpy-type undies. My memory of the models was a bit fuzzy as well. They are indeed beautiful, but there are plenty of girl-next-door types we well.
|
01-16-09 09:54am
|
Reply
260
|
True Amateur Models
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Hi Mes,
A few things:
First, there are quite a few more models over the age of thirty at True Amateur Models than I originally thought. The guy behind the site doesn't seem to care about age. One model is in her fiftees. He doesn't care much about looks, either. I did notice some portrait style pics in older sets, but far and away his preference is landscape. As I said, the four full sets I took so far are landscape in their entirety: no portrait shots at all.
About LVPanty: I'm glad you're thinking of joining. It's been a while since I was there, but picture-wise it is second to none in the panty-genre, if you take in all factors such as fidelity to niche, pic size, and quality. **I don't recall if the sets at LVPanty are zipped**. You might want to contact the webmaster about that. I don't remember zips there, and I have none on file. My memory is shot, however. The video section is nothing to rave about either.
Also, bear in mind LVPanty is old-school. Full-sized, and predominantly full-backed, undies are the order of the day. There is not a fixation on cotton, which I know you don't like, but there is quite a bit; but even so there is nothing teeny-bopperish whatsoever. The variety of fabrics and styles is wide. The models are beautiful. It's not an amateur site. I believe you can see a few sample pics on the preview. I know you're cautious about which sites to join and I'd hate for you to think you blew your money.
A blend of LVPanty and True Amateur Models, with a vid section on par with Panty Amateur, would be a perfect site for me and I'd stay with it permanently!
|
01-16-09 09:36am
|
Reply
261
|
True Amateur Models
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Comment
No, mes, there are no zips.
Interesting, me finding your comment here, since I gave you a passing thought almost as soon as I joined. Why? Because every single picture is in landscape format! All of 'em, at least the ones I've seen thus far, and that's four full sets with over a hundred pics each. I joined last night after seeing some dazzling pics at a TGP.
Latest pics are big, at 1500x1126, and they look great on my 22 inch monitor, even though they don't completely fill it.
BUT: **no zips**. My arm is still hurting from all the clicking I did last night. The models here run the gamut from dead plain to cute as hell. Most of them are average to nice looking young ladies you'd see anywhere: true amateurs. This site gives you a real sense of intimacy with the models, even though there are hardly any videos. I'm not a photography buff at all and I can't judge these pictures in a technical or artistic context, but they certainly are stimulating. I found myself being truly, physically turned-on, which hardly ever happens to me at an adult site anymore. I had all but given up hope! My pic collecting has for a long time been mostly a spirit-lifting hobby, without much lift anywhere else, if you get my drift.
Each to his own, they say, and this site won't be for everyone. I'm a panty-lingerie nut but there is hardly any of that here; and yet these pics still work for me, in the way that naughty pictures are supposed to work. ;)
Not many mature models, but there are a few. I will do a full review after a bit of time here. I am very happy I joined, though it is a lot of work without zips.
|
01-15-09 10:10pm
|
Reply
262
|
Twistys
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Review
Thanks for the review, messmer.
|
04-14-08 03:55pm
|
Reply
263
|
UK Flashers
(0)
|
Reply of
bacardiancoke's Reply
Same as RB here. Thanks for the review. I won't be bothering with this one.
|
10-28-09 10:59pm
|
Comment
264
|
Upskirt Collection
(0)
|
|
12-03-09 12:53pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
265
|
VF Academy
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Reply
otoh, well-met fellow, hail! If you like sheer panties, then you are absolutely gonna love VF Academy! I cannot urge you strongly enough. If you like full-cut, full-size sheer (and I do mean, SHEER) panties, there is probably no other site on the net better than this one.
I have zero affiliations with this site, and I am only a fan, not a salesman.
You gotta go for it. Just bear in mind, there is a lot of content, but it's not a mega-motherlode of content like at some sites. I'm gonna give you the exact numbers right here:
Image sets: 94
Total images: 11,625
Videos: 116.
And remember, these are all zipped sets of big pictures, and the Hi-def vids average at nearly a half a gig each.
And don't forget, you get access to the other sites too. I haven't even scratched the surface of Pantyhosed4U yet! Of course I go about my enjoyment of this content slowly, relishing it like a fine wine.
:)
|
06-05-11 12:01am
|
Review
266
|
VF Academy
(0)
95.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Navigation simple, haven't had problems.
- Part of a network now giving you access to four sites.
- Very faithful to the panty/flash/upskirt/uniform niche.
- Nice looking British models, mostly blondes, maturer looking, nothing teeny-boppery.
- HD vids offered, corresponding to each photo set.
- Zipfiles for all photo sets, max size (see bottom line). Also three choices for pic size in browser.
- Regular updates, though not terribly frequent.
- Members may leave comments and ratings.
- My download speeds varied quite a bit, from as low as 400kbs to as fast as 1mps. |
| Cons: |
These will be subjective cons here for the most part, except for the first:
- Search function useless. I searched for white cotton panties and got all sorts of mismatches in return.
- Panties tend to be mostly those big, sheer things that you can see right through. That doesn't seem collegiate to me. I want rugged, impenetrable, industrial strength cotton or nylon that makes the "prize" all but unobtainable to my greedy little mitts. These blond beauties should be wrapped up tight and their virtues guarded against such little pervy weasles as myself.
-My major complaint is as it is at most sites: Why the hell must every single solo model video be about the girl masturbating? Watching a girl frig herself has no affect on me, I must confess, and I can never sit through an entire video. The focus of an upskirt/panty/schoolgirl/uniform video should be on how those awesome cuties turn ME on, and they should not devote all of their time in showing us how much they turn themselves on. |
| Bottom Line: |
Anyway, a join at this site gets you full access to VintageFlash, Pantyhosed4U, and VintageFlash Archive. All in all there is an abundance of high quality content to go through.
The vids at VF Academy come in four choices:
- mp4 320x180 for ipod and cellphone
- SD Wmv 540x304 1300kbs
- HD Wmv 1280x720 3000kbs
- streaming at 1500kbs. You can also get a short preview.
The HD vids look very impressive, take a good long while to unfold, and contain no cheesy music; the models talk to you and tease while they strip, and finally straddle a desk and get themselves off. There are also several lesbian vids which are highly erotic. And this is by no means softcore. These ladies really get into it with one another.
The photos are downloadable in zipfiles, and all the pics I've extracted thus far from VF Academy are big, at around 2090x1400.
The photo sets are well edited and the resolution is tight as a drum.
Very highly recommended four-site package with plenty of content for the money!
You guys sure are stingy with your points! I can't see giving this package anything less than a 95. |
|
06-03-11 11:11pm
Replies (4)
|
Reply
267
|
Village Ladies
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Thanks for the reply, messmer.
I know you're a fan of mature women, as I am. As I said in my review, the premise of the site is good, and it's devoid of anything trashy, both of which are a plus. But if you're going to be a pictures-only site and steer clear of video, even in 2008, why not offer the best quality pictures you can? Why not offer zip-files? And why haul off a large percentage of the content to another site and charge extra for accessing it, when the content is not of premium quality to begin with? I'll admit, some of the newer pics are decent, but a lot of the older ones are smaller than 600x800. This move seems a bit stingy to me. Especially considering the 33.00 USD I paid for my month.
For a site like this, with small thumbs and no zips, not to mention generally slow-loading pages, it requires a good deal of patience and work to download each pic individually and hope to get some kind of genuine enjoyment out of the experience. Despite my low score, there are some very nice pictures here, as I said in my pros, but for 33 smackers I would rather not have to squint and hunt and click so much.
And like I said, seeing all those links to sets I can't access is sort of insulting, even though there's still a good deal of content I *can* get to. It's a bad idea, and without that the score might have been at least a 70. The spirited ladies themselves can be appreciated on their own merits, even though most of them are quite frankly not my cup of tea, and more or less transcend the whole scoring thing. The 63 is for Albert.
|
11-13-08 12:16am
|
Review
268
|
Village Ladies
(0)
63.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- A fair amount of nice pictures.
- Site is mature and contains nothing sleezy or trashy.
- The basic premise of the site is good. |
| Cons: |
- A large percentage of the pics have been moved into a separate archive, which requires a separate membership.
- No videos.
- No zip-files.
- Small pictures (avg. 600x800 up to 749x1123), of fair to middling quality.
- Very small thumbnails.
- Pages load slowly.
- Sliding sidebar which moves as the scroll-button is moved. Very annoying.
- Some models in dire need of a dentist. |
| Bottom Line: |
Woody Allen opens one of his films with an old joke: Two women are at a restaurant and one says, "the food here is lousy.", and the other replies, "Yeah, and such small portions."
That joke applies pretty well to Village Ladies. For instance: I could complain that a considerably large percentage of the pictures have been moved to a separate archive which I can't access; but at the same time it would be silly to complain since ninety percent of those pics would do nothing for me anyway. But complain I will, hence the reference to Woody's joke.
As soon as I entered the member's section, disappointment and tedium ensued. First, no zips. Second, the thumbs loaded slowly and were so small I could hardly make out the image. Third, I clicked on one link in the model's index and was taken to a page which invites you to join a separate site where the older pics are now stored. On return to the model's index, that link was now yellow (visited) as were all the links to sets I would not be able to access. The sudden over-abundance of links to sets I could not access was somehow insulting, as if a joke had been pulled on me.
While beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, I found *very few* attractive models here. There's nothing wrong with being homely, but if you agree to being photographed, and to having those photos featured on a site where people are paying to obtain access to those photos, and if the intention of those photos is sexual titillation, then you should be prepared to hear some unflattering comments. Unflattering comment follows:
If you have broken teeth, missing teeth, gray teeth, or brown teeth, keep the smiling to a minimum, visit a dentist, or re-consider posing for adult pictures. This comment refers to some of the models, not all of them, of course.
***
This site has been online for a number of years and now costs more than a lot of premium sites. If you have a yen for less-than-glamorous mature amateurs, Aunt Judy's is a much safer bet than this.
Read Duke's review (TBP reviewer). He does a lot less pussy-footing than me, and his five year old review needs precious little updating. |
|
11-11-08 03:01am
Replies (7)
|
Review
269
|
Virginal Visions
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
Good-looking to beautiful models
Total fidelity to niche
Decent looking videos
Inexpensive
No penises |
| Cons: |
Small amount of content
Many pic-sets are vid-caps
Frames! Have to scroll to see complete pic.
Too many tats |
| Bottom Line: |
If you don't like girls in their underwear, and by that I mean white bras and panties, steer clear of this site. If you want to see girls treated like trash, forget it.
There is some lesbian material, but nothing even remotely hardcore. In fact, there's hardly any nudity. This is not porn, folks. It's a small selection of pretty girls walking around in their drawers. Sometimes they roll around in their drawers, and sometimes they take showers in their drawers, which seems sort of silly but has some nice side-effects. They even have pillow fights, for those of us who like to think that pretty girls always strip down to their skivvies and have pillow fights when they get together. It's easy to see why they laugh like crazy as they jump up and down.
All kidding aside, it's a site for panty connoisseurs, and white panties at that. You get a nice but limited variety of sets which have a pleasant "unposed", candid feel about them. The vids look nice but they are nothing extraordinary. There is not a great deal of content, but to tell the truth, I was pleasantly surprised at how long it took me to get through it.
I might re-join, but probably not for at least a year. |
|
07-26-07 12:20am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
270
|
Voyeur 4 You
(0)
|
|
12-06-07 08:48pm
Replies (2)
|
Reply
271
|
Voyeur Russian
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
Foolish me. I just noticed a disclaimer on the bottom of the page at this site, and I quote:
"All the models on the site are consenting, know they are being filmed, and it is all staged for entertainment purposes."
|
01-25-10 06:29pm
|
Reply
272
|
Voyeur Russian
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
I was a member here twice, I think, and enjoyed it both times. I ended up deleting the videos I took both times over worries whether the material was actually contrived or not. If it's real, it can't be legal, if it's legal, it can't be real, right? Or am I wrong? From my reading, I believe that candid public material is still legal, but material shot in a private setting - or a public place where privacy is expected - without the knowledge and consent of the subject, is not legal, nor should it be. The WC vids would most certainly be illegal if they were genuine, nor could I feel comfortable watching them even if it were legal to do so. If I could know for sure that it was all contrived and set-up I'd probably go back with a clearer conscience.
I've heard it many times that these kind of sites feature contrived videos, even though the site owners claim that they are real. However, I was a member at one of these voyeur sites and one vid which was set in an asian public bath-house had a small child in it, who was blurred. If this was contrived, why would there be a child present? There were also a few elderly people who I can't imagine would want to participate in such material. I emailed the webmaster at said site and he would only insist that the material was legal, but would not concede that it was contrived.
|
01-04-10 03:03pm
|
Reply
273
|
Wifey's World
(0)
|
Reply of
fiou's Comment
I think Wifey is the most truly erotic woman on the net. If I had a wife like her I'd be one happy Willy.
|
09-24-09 09:16pm
|
Reply
274
|
Wifey's World
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Thanks, Khan, I'll do that. roseman, you're welcome.
|
07-30-08 01:19am
|
Reply
275
|
Wifey's World
(0)
|
Reply of
roseman's Review
Nice review, roseman. That last trust vote was mine. I don't know why it says anonymous. I could swear the 'vote anonymously" box was unchecked.
|
07-29-08 04:22pm
|
|
