| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
2326
|
Evil Angel
(0)
|
Reply of
Victorycreed's Comment
There might be one other possibility for you to find what you're looking for. Evil Angel has two websites. You're at the Evil Angel one, but if you go to Mike Adriano here that will link you to a separate EA site. The second site has a little, but not much overlap with the first one, so you might find what you're looking for there. Like the main EA site, the second one has a $9.95 TBP join price so it is an amazing value. And like the main EA site you're able to see all they have to offer without joining so you can tell if the title you want is there.
Good luck!
|
03-15-12 04:09am
|
Reply
2327
|
AEBN
(0)
|
Reply of
Ergo Proxy's Reply
Thanks for the comment. I have a love/hate relationship with VOD sites. I prefer downloading but that can be very expensive, but VOD sites have allowed me to watch some titles from my early days as a porn user. Depending on how much you watch one of the channels may be a good value for you.
|
03-13-12 05:15pm
|
Reply
2328
|
AEBN
(0)
|
Reply of
rome476's Reply
I think in a lot of cases using that option would make sense. Obviously a lot of that is subjective in the sense of how many times will you stream it again. If the option is the $2 48-hour streaming or $5 48-hour streaming that would have some impact. This is also a bit subjective, but I think there's a lot of objectivity too - that's considering the bitrate options available to you. A lot of the $2 rentals are older and offer a maximum of a 512k bitrate. That's pretty low quality. I accepted that so I could see a few older titles that I wanted to see, but the quality is so poor I'm not sure I'd go back to watch it again. But... if it's a movie you'd watch again and again and there are higher bitrates available then I think that could be a good option.
As I said in my review though, make sure to check the other main VOD sites for the same title. You might be able to get a better quality video for less cost at one of the others. In case you're not familiar with the other VOD sites, some of the bigger ones that you should check are Adult DVD Empire, Adultempire.com, HotMovies, DownloadtoOwn, Gamelink and Sugar VOD. (Two things about Adult DVD Empire and Adultempire.com: 1) they're affiliated but make sure to check them both because they have different pricing structures, and 2) there is a disreputable site called Adult Empire. Make sure you're on the VOD site. Entering Adultempire.com in your browser should get you to the right site.)
|
03-13-12 04:15am
|
Reply
2329
|
AEBN
(0)
|
Reply of
Tree Rodent's Reply
As much as I regret what I have to spend on these sites, it does give me access to some older titles that I want to see. The "channel" idea really cuts down on the cost, and with 8000 titles on the channel I subscribed to it will probably be a good value.
Thanks for your kind comments.
|
03-12-12 06:06pm
|
Reply
2330
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
I find the TBP information all useful and I rely on it, but I don't use the join page screen captures. My assumption is that they are more useful for our European members who can compare to ensure they're not getting regional pricing.
|
03-11-12 06:45am
|
Reply
2331
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
My worry is that there is some hidden or variable glitch that I haven't read about. Like a download limit that hasn't been reported. In m ost cases though all a site's warts are noted in TBP and PU reviews so I rarely have unpleasant surprises.
|
03-10-12 12:15pm
|
Reply
2332
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Review
Excellent review. One of these days I'm going to have to rely on all of the PU members here who reviewed this site favourably and join it. I was complaining on a recent forum thread that not enough photographers give any attention to a woman's ass, and particularly here anus. This site looks like it doesn't suffer from that issue.
Thanks for the great review.
|
03-10-12 12:12pm
|
Reply
2333
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
gaypornolover's Reply
Thanks for the comments! I'd like to think that maybe at some point enough people will complain about automatic streaming that websites will drop it. I can't imagine what it actually contributes to the site.
|
03-10-12 12:09pm
|
Reply
2334
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I'm okay with just two or three days. I admit that sometimes I can't get on the site and therefore lose any meaningful way to comment on a poll (yes, I know I can still post but the chances of engaging the regulars in a debate is much less) but I can live with that.
|
03-07-12 01:48pm
|
Reply
2335
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
I can't really say because all I did was skim through a couple of scenes. The scenes I saw looked just like two images side by side and had no colour differentiation that you'd normally see with 3D. There may be better ones there, but since I selected two randomly and recently posted I suspect that they're a true representation of 3D. I confess that I didn't look at them through 3D glasses, which is obviously required. The problem is that I have no idea if we have 3D glasses in the house and if I ask my wife she'll want to know why. I doubt 'so I can look at 3D porn" will be an acceptable answer. If I am able to source some 3D glasses I'll make sure to update the information here. PH does also say that the scenes work on 3D monitors for those who have them. For now though, I'm treating 3D as a gimmick with little real value to a porn collector.
|
03-07-12 01:46pm
|
Reply
2336
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
The definition on the older photos isn't great at 432x648 but given the age of them they are pretty good. I can see why you'd avoid the site if all you want are some of the older photos. Getting just those would skew the value of the site to not being a particularly good use of your porn dollars.
|
03-07-12 01:37pm
|
Reply
2337
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Some bad news... Karen Sather and Sandi Greco only have 10 photos each on the site. Cindy Mcdee has none. I didn't spend a lot of time in the really old material but now that I've checked on these for you I can also say that in 73, 74 and 75 there are only three or four models there. In 76 it starts to get better, but it isn't until the mid to late 1980s where you start to get every monthly Pet available.
I'll be a member for at least another 10 days so if you have more specific names you want stats on I'd be happy to provide that information.
|
03-07-12 04:04am
|
Reply
2338
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
I wish I could be more specific but the number varies widely. There are some sets where there are only five photos and some where there are 50. I'd say the average is 25-ish. What the site appears to do is include all the photos that a Pet does if she appeared in other pictorials apart from the time when she was Pet of the Month. That happens more frequently as you get into the 80s meaning that the 70s sets tend to be smaller.
I hope this helps. Please follow up if you'd like more information.
|
03-06-12 03:47pm
|
Reply
2339
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Thanks for the compliment, Denner.
I had some mixed feelings about joining because there were some older reviews and comments that were somewhat negative. But I balanced those against the review that TBP did less than two weeks agao where they gave it an 87 and said some good things about it. So I took the plunge and I'm glad I did.
One thing I can't confirm yet but plan to after I cancel my membership is whether you get access until you cancel or access for 30 days like you paid for. Like most people I cancel any membership a few days early to avoid a recurring charge and several older comments here have said that terminates your membership immediately. I'm not planning to stick around for more than the one month and I'll add a comment here to either confirm those older findings or to report that the membership is no longer terminated on cancellation.
|
03-06-12 03:44pm
|
Reply
2340
|
Penthouse
(0)
|
Reply of
Tree Rodent's Reply
I was pleasantly surprised. TBP reviewed it and liked it so that gave me some confidence even though past PU reviews weren't all that favourable. It's certainly among one of the best studio sites I've seen and it clearly shows that Penthouse understands the internet. The biggest weakness (and this may be subjective) is that the quality of the videos looks lower than the numbers would suggest. One of their strengths (again this is subjective) was access to exclusive stuff from models I like that.
|
03-05-12 05:38pm
|
Reply
2341
|
N/A
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Thanks for the comment messmer. I was concerned that good BDSM porn was being lumped in with abusive porn.
|
03-05-12 04:17pm
|
Reply
2342
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I've seen a lot of porn and not much can really disgust me, but there are some things I prefer not to see.
First though, just a comment on the thoughts expressed about degradation and humiliation. Degradation and humiliation can be an intergral part of BDSM sex, and while most of us wouldn't think of BDSM as mainstream, those who practice it seem to enjoy it. The difference, in my opinion, it evdient in sites on the Kink.com network where degradation, humiliation, bondage and pain are applied to women who enjoy that. It's done for the sole purpose of giving THEM the pleasure they seek. This is completely different from a male performer degrading, humilating or causing pain to a female for HIS twisted pleasure. I've been a member to many Kink sites many times over and, trust me, the difference between a male giving a female pleasure through degradation and humiliation is completely different from watching some A-hole degrade a woman for his own pleasure.
Having said that, there appears to be a new niche starting in porn. It's a development of extreme anal. While I'm a big fan of anal-themed scenes, this freaks me out a bit, and maybe there's even some disgust in there too. The niche appears to go by either "rosebud porn" or the more accurate and medical term of "prolapse porn." That's exactly what it is: some of these new models that dominate the extreme-anal market can prolapse their colons at will. It's very weird and not very sexy. And maybe even a little disgusting.
|
03-05-12 02:11pm
|
Reply
2343
|
My Public Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
Thanks for the comments. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that a lot of Nude-in-Public sites seem to drop the ball when it comes to making the material hot. There are sites that do manage it, so at least some people can figure it out.
|
03-05-12 01:51pm
|
Reply
2344
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
While price is a factor, I prefer to consider it more in terms of value rather than just as a raw number. I've given high scores to expensive sites and low scores to inexpensive ones. I like to think that I explain and justify that in the body of the review.
|
03-01-12 02:48pm
|
Reply
2345
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
There seems to be a greater likelihood of a European model having multiple names than an American one. That, or the model's name stops changing when there is broad name recognition. For example, Nollie became Lexi Belle, and no one is going to change her name now and risk the gravy train associated with her.
|
02-28-12 04:46pm
|
Reply
2346
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Poll
It depends, but I think the overall trend is downward.
Recently I signed up for a couple of Kink memberships (Everything Butt and Public Disgrace). Kink is a company that I trust and I've never been disappointed. As they add niches it's easy to say that they're getting better.
But... yesterday I had a hankering for some new porn so I browsed through TBP and bought a couple of trial memberships. In both cases I was disappointed.
So the problem I've got is this: I have a list of sites that I go back to regularly and I know I'll be happy, but when I try to go beyond that list I often face disappointment.
|
02-26-12 06:01am
|
Reply
2347
|
Brazzers
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Normally I wouldn't use a trial for a site like this, but Brazzers isn't a site that really interests me. I find they tend to use models with breasts and bums larger than I prefer. I stumbled on their public exhibitionism site, Asses is Public, and figured I'd download a scene or two with a more petite model but that didn't work out. Honestly, it just wouldn't be worth it for me to pay more than a trial price for this network.
|
02-25-12 12:57pm
|
Reply
2348
|
Brazzers
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Crap. I wish I had read the comments and learned this too! At least I'm only out a dollar!
I'm usually a lot more careful about this, but since the TBP page confirmed the full trial recently I didn't think I was taking a risk.
And cancelling is NOT easy!
|
02-25-12 09:20am
|
Reply
2349
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
After a court challenge many years ago the law the barred women from going topless (which wasn't applied to men) was overturned in Canada. Since then, women have had the right. But, I can also report that we aren't exactly overwhelmed with hot, young coeds strolling down the street or beach with no tops on. Once a year some women's groups hold a parade to mark the anniversary of the court ruling, but I've never seen one of those either.
|
02-24-12 01:18pm
|
Reply
2350
|
Rubber Passion
(0)
|
Reply of
LatexRyan's Review
I have to agree with Rusty. This is an excellent review, and welcome to PU.
While I don't have a specific rubber or latex thing, I am into BDSM and rubber and latex get used a lot so I have a lot of it in my collection by default. I'll look forward to more reviews on sites that promote that fetish. I'm certainly not disinterested in the niche and might just follow your recommendataions. I won't sign up to this site though, since not being able to keep the files is an instant deal-breaker for me. Thanks for pointing that out prominently in your review.
|
02-19-12 06:11am
|
