bigvman, I think you misunderstood my post. My main point was that you could have posted a comment with the word "warning" in the title and explained the slow speed situation and at least a close description as to where you are located. This way, potential members would see the warning clearly labeled in the comments in case they were in the area you are in or close to it. See what I mean? Since we don't title our reviews, yours just blends right in with the other reviews, but warning as the title of a comment would have been clear to everyone.
Though one of their webmasters is now posting on this entry, I would like to say that I've not known many sites that offer refunds. Similar to your comparison, unless the store you hypothetically mentioned has a return policy, then I wouldn't see why the customer would be upset that they didn't get a refund. You also mentioned that the hypothetical product was defective, but in this case, if the rest of us are using the DDF sites and you're saying you know when in America that you wouldn't have these problems, I think you can see that the defective part isn't their site.
I'm on your side though, I hope they do something to fix it for you.
My first thought when reading this review is that it probably should have been a comment/warning instead of a review. The reason I say that, you have 6 pros/4 cons, and two of the cons only are cons in the area you are in.
On the flipside, I'm also in on the special right now at 1byday/DDF and have received 95% of my max download speed for two straight weeks. The only problem I've had is that a few thumbs don't open, but that has always been a problem with the DDF sites. Believe Spencer's new TBP 1byday review even mentions the problem.
There also have been a few other comments here about the sites running a little slow during this promotion, but each says their DL speed is fine. If you will look back at your bottom-line, it isn't so much a review of the site or content as it is an explanation of the problems you are having with the site. Not trying to bust your balls or anything like that, I'm just not for sure how a site with 6 pros and only 2 global cons rates a 69 and think it would have been much better served as a comment/warning for those that will be in the area you are in.
My guess is that it wouldn't change anything. B/G sets now are just as stimulating for women who like to look at naked guys as it is for men who like to look at the naked girls. I honestly believe more women are into g/g sites than guys are. Girls being with girls is more acceptable for some reason, in our society, than guys being with guys and I've never known a woman under 40 that doesn't find women attractive. The one change would probably be more solo male sites. There was a mention of this one time before that the niche we call "gay" niche is actually as much for women as gay men.
From my own experiences, once the woman is ready to have sex, they are as aggressive, as impatient as men are. Even if that is them masturbating. Also as dcracken said women do hide their sexual desires, but I'm not for sure that most men don't as well.
I've been waiting to join this site, they have many videos of some of my favorites including Eve Angel, Simony Diamond and Black Angelica, but one of the newer reviews says the DRM is still there, the other newer review says no DRM. Is there anyway, since the webmistress is active, that you can say the DRM is not on the movies, no tricks or explain why two reviews made within a week of each other have completely different points about the DRM?
I ask because I know of another site that was using DRM, and I wasn't seeing it when I was a member. Posted a review of no DRM, then another member said there was DRM. It was the difference in file types we downloaded, the site still had DRM on their WMV files (what the other member was downloading), but none on the AVI files (what I was downloading).
Also, on the join page, this is a little confusing "Tag Undefined offer01r$" and has a tick button beside of it. I do see that it says "$19.95 special offer" but have no idea what that quoted part means. Thanks.
I had read your profile right after reading this comment. If I could throw a tip, check out the Viv Thomas bonus content that Teen Dreams has. His movies are some of the most believable on the internet. The other thing, I've often wondered how much arousal or excitement a younger woman can show in front of a camera crew and someone giving her directions. I've been a member on TD many times over the years, but I prefer solo videos and pictures. Of all of my experiences with porn sites, I came away believing the most aroused females in porn are in solo or girl/girl sets. Maybe try out some of the DVD sites like Videobox and go for the "Classic" videos, though not exactly classic, these are still usually from the 80s and 90s.
In a way, I'm more suspicious of those that down known good sites. They'll say things like, "That site is terrible, no customer service, download speeds at 1.9 kb/s on a 10M connection, tried to rip me off" The overly excited new members are no different than me when I first joined and reviewed Eve Angel's site a 96. Keeping in mind, no forum back then. I was in a way gushing about my favorite site.
Back when I was webmaster of a forum based around Philosophy/Psychology, the rest of the staff and I would notice patterns. We had three new members in three nights at nearly the same time. None of them posted at first. We had to verify and allow members. Well, one posted one night and was talking about a book he had read about Philosophy and Debate. The next night, one of the other new ones posted and agreed with him, calling it "The best book I've read on the subject". The third night, the other new one posted and agreed with them. If not for the timing of the posts and fact that none of them had anything else to post, we wouldn't have been suspicious.
Turned out to be the author of the book. He was using an IP changing software, so all 3 accounts had different locations. The staff left it up to me to piss him off. I posted on his thread and said I had read the book, giving it a review of, "Amateurish, redundant, Roget is your friend, reads like a middle-school report". He signed in with name A, but it had name B's IP address. After arguing for awhile, he signed in with name B, but with name C's IP address.
Then to end, he bit when I offered him a banner ad for his book to come clean. He came clean and I replied, "It would be unethical of me to promote your book, now that we know you're a liar."
Oh and I don't know how many of you see the many threads by new members after midnight Pacific time, but there are many that Khan must remove early in the morning hours.
No problem Khan, one thing, you mentioned talking to us privately? I mention this because I am using a free Yahoo account with PU and I didn't know if I'm missing emails. It sends everything I want to read to spam and everything that is spam to my inbox.
I happened to be checking out Videobox's updates and noticed one DVD called My Evil Sluts. I joined Clara's site months ago mainly to get a scene of Eve Angel, Adrianna Russo and Clara G in a 3 way strap on fest. Well, it is now on this DVD on Videobox. It looks like they have at least 2 of these DVDs, and all scenes have Clara in them, except for 3 over both DVDs.
Now, my allegation against you, is not an allegation. I'm not posting it on the forum. I'm not chasing your every review with "I think this guy has something to do with kink". It is just something that had went through my mind over the last couple of years. And anyone with the ability to comprehend those 4 points I made, can see why I would wonder. I wonder if Jennifer Lopez' ass is flabby. I wonder if Burger King has the Angry Whopper back. I wonder a lot of things. But, this is not my site, I'm sure Khan and Rick have more means than I do to know if you are affiliated with the kink sites. If they're okay with you, than so am I. Doesn't mean I can't still wonder though. You are welcome to find one time where I have said, "I know you work for kink". Go ahead. That's an allegation. My opinion is that there are some things that makes your membership here a little fishy. That's my opinion.
Tell me, how many times have I replied to you without you replying to me first? Zero. I know your type all too well. You like to argue meaningless shit while soothing your ego by trying to talk over others.
Why do you keep mentioning the other members reading this? What are they going to do? Say, "Oh hell asmith is right about everything, I no longer trust exotics because he won't apologize to him." You don't think they will look at those 4 points and understand why I would wonder? And see that I never allegedly said you worked for the site? And then wonder why in the hell you keep asking me to apologize to you? And then see how petty you are?
The members here, whether they like me or hate me, know that I am mainly here to post reviews filled with factual information, and offer any help to any of them with any site they are interested in and I've been a member of. You think this little petty shit is going to change that? You've got serious problems if you believe any of this was "serious allegations" or if you think I "attacked" you. Why don't you dip into the old sensationalistic writing bucket a little? Create a little drama there.
Most of all though, when you start to wave your moralistic values flag again, remember that you are claiming not to have a problem with different opinions. Then, ask yourself, who replied to who in this poll? Then ask yourself if you agreed with my opinion. If not, did dispute it? Yes? So that is you showing how you have no problems with differing opinions? And to think, you really think you have everyone on your side. Catch the next train, the one that says "Reality" on the front. At least my harshness at times, is known and isn't directed at other long-time members. I won't argue this with you anymore. Go change my trust vote. I'll leave yours at yes. Like before, unlike you, I take members for their reviews and contributions to the site. Doesn't mean I necessarily like them though. So, get over it or don't.
You're just being foolish now. If you remember, I plainly said that I had wondered about your affiliation with the kink.com sites long before this incident. The word mistake, was one that I admitted and apologized to the site for. That doesn't change me wondering about your affiliation with the sites. Because you're not going to shut the hell up until I explain that, I will do that now. You can see that my wondering had much weight to it before this incident.
#1 Your original problem with me was a 70 review for Ultimate Surrender. A review that clearly said the site would have been a 90 if they dropped their DL Limit or raised it to a more respectable number than 10 GB per month. I even said if they do one of those things, I will edit the score and add the 20 points back, which I have done. Why would a customer of a site get as pissed off as you did over my deduction? The regular PU or general public could read where I even said, if that download limit doesn't bother you, go ahead and add the 20 points back in your head. The only possible reason I can see for someone being upset over the deduction is because of the fact that the site went into PU's average score per site rankings with a 70. It would hurt the cumulative score.
#1a You have posted a comment on one of kink's sites questioning the calculation of the cumulative score. How many regular members go around calculating the scores of sites? And when added with #1, I think it is safe to say that anyone would have right to be skeptical of your involvement here.
#3 and #4 Three of your four top sites are kink.com sites. I don't have a problem with that. But when added to #1 and #1a, the skepticism rises. Especially seeing that you have those 3 sites about 20 points higher than you do your average site. Add to this, you, like other webmasters and site staff members that post here, do not participate in the weekly member raffle or collect tickets. Now, mind you, that is your business and I want no explanation for it. All I am saying is that there is 4 things to make me skeptical of you.
You're not helping matters by saying you have no problem with differing opinions. So, why exactly were you mad over my 20 point deduction? That was, in my opinion, the right deduction since the limit severely limited how much content I could download. But you don't have a problem with differing opinions?
How about in this very poll. You countered my opinion to it, by telling me what was correct. Maybe you missed the memo, but opinions cannot be wrong or right. It could be wrong to you, but unless you can list facts to show how someone is wrong, you're just saying your opinion is right, theirs is wrong.
Hey GCode, sorry about the delay on this one. Good news, they've now got Epoch handling their billing again. As far as the site goes, it is a bittersweet site for me. I loved the photos, beautiful colors in the background, but most of all, the outfits the models started out in were some of the best I've seen. I would have never known that meant anything to me if not for an Eve Angel photo set I have from Super Glam. She has on a blue tank top, black workout shorts that barely cover her butt and there was mesh involved too. I had never seen Eve like that. It was very casual looking, but she still looked glamorous. The site focuses on the very top tier of Euro models. The video quality is a stretch to say average. But, I did just open one to see how it looks, they use a bit of a letterbox on the sides, which really, when stretched to full screen actually helps it look less grainy since it isn't trying to fit the whole screen.
The quality of the content on the videos is mostly graphic masturbation. The Eve one I just opened even has rubbing her butthole some, which is kind of rare for Eve. The best way to put it now, with Epoch handling the billing, if I had never joined it, I would in a second. The content is exclusive as far as I know. All videos that I'm looking at start out dressed, little stripping, dancing, then into masturbation. I say bittersweet because I always thought they could be one of the top Euro sites with even 4 weekly updates.
Well, counsel, just as you suspected, huh? Like I've said before, you're always right. Of course, the link doesn't work and if you missed it in the previous post, my whole purpose of pointing out the false claims was to show you what a hypocrite you are. Now, I can show you what a know-it-all you are. I'll be happy to apologize to the site. Most likely, I saw the words "brutal head-scissors" on another page in the tour, as I said earlier, I had to clear my cookies to get back to that page which shows I had been beyond that page.
An apology to you? For what? The "allegation" wasn't against you. It was against the site. Unless you do work for the site. I see no reason that the allegation pertained to you. You've dodged everything else in this. You've talked in wannabe lawyer jargon, up until now. I never said you worked for the site. I simply said I've never seen a customer defend a group of sites like you do. You like to argue the meanings of things and you can figure out how to twist that into me saying you worked for these sites.
You're not touching the rest of it though? The parts about how you are a hypocrite. And how you have tried this twice with me now. As I told you before when you changed your trust rating to yes, I didn't care if you did it or not. I don't care if you change it back now to no. I just don't like someone singling me out to try and prove themselves right against me when we're just talking about opinions here. And that was the second time. It makes probably the 4th time by other members. I told them the same thing I will tell you. If you don't like my opinion and you're going to dodge any debate that comes from it, then don't reply to me. Your request of an apology on a site that you are anonymous on is hysterical.
But it is as simple as I said. Don't reply to me if you're planning to try and change my opinion, tell me how my opinion is wrong because you know everything and understand everything better than everyone else does or else, you're going to have another situation just like this one. If you want to reply and say, "I disagree because..." and it doesn't include anything about you being right, we'll be fine and can forget this, if not that's fine too. Just don't expect apologies from me when you replied to me to tell me that my opinion was wrong.
I'll get to the other one in a minute. There are some things you don't seem to understand. I first brought Ultimate Surrender up with this line "If you really are holding sites to truth in advertising, then you might want to reconsider that one." Because you were lecturing on truth in advertising, yet your #1 site had multiple false statements on it. You were being a hypocrite.
As for me questioning you about your relationship with kink.com, I said, "It sounds like you are part of the kink.com family because you defend them". Now you tell me, a member has 3 of their top 4 sites from one company. And your last contact with me before this incident was when you went off about me dropping 20 points from a kink.com website because they had a 10 GB per MONTH DL Limit. You were so adamant in their defense that you gave me my only no trust vote. You've since changed it to yes, but that was how much that deduction bothered you. And you've since posted a comment asking about why a kink.com site's score is not listed as high as you thought it should be. That sounds more like an employee than a customer to me.
Moving on, to have any kind of real violence against another human, without facing charges, you have to have sanctioning. Like the UFC has, they worked for years on getting sanctioning, they had to ban headbutts, groin strikes and a dozen other moves. Or they could have taken the WWE route and said it is staged or scripted. Or else, their fighters would be jailed for assault charges. Same thing against the Jerry Springer show and its fights. Which he admitted were staged and scripted. I know good and damn well if the UFC can't allow groin strikes that Ultimate Submission cannot allow sexual penetration during what they call a "unscripted match" without sanctioning.
A reality of real fighting/wrestling is that you are trying to injure the other person or else, they injure you. I wouldn't say WWE is anymore scripted, they've had performers end up paralyzed. But you see, my problem wasn't with Ultimate Submission. My problem was with you being a hypocrite. WWE is not "real" wrestling. WEC, K-1, UFC, those are the real wrestling events I was referring to. And you remember, it is just me showing you that you were supporting a site that did exactly opposite of what you believe in. That is what you should expect anytime you try to persuade another adult to believe like you.
I could give a damn about the 2 to 1 ratio. Do you follow polls and base your beliefs on the majority vote? I make up my own mind. Even then, I'm also not going to try and tell you to make up your own mind. I could care less if you follow the majority. I'm not here to persuade anyone. On that note, I'm not going to respond kindly to people who try to persuade me either.
I don't think you understand that I consider "teen" a genre and not a number. When used in context with adult sites. You can look at most sites with Teen in their name and see something like this, "The #1 Teen Site". Just like you can look at an interracial site that says, "The #1 Interracial Site."
I don't know why you are saying "exactly" on the monitor part. Those numbers 17 and 15 were specific, when you find a site that says, "18 and 19 year old models only" then I will say that they are wrong for saying those specifics and not sticking within in them. Until then "teen" is not defined in the porn world.
I didn't say German could effect English ads. I said people from those countries could live under different laws about what age defines a legal age, meaning 18 and 19 could be illegal in some countries.
What gets me is this, "I don't know and don't care." About mature porn. Yet, you hope others are reading this and can see that I'm impossible to persuade?
That might be the worst thing anyone has said to me on here. Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I bring my own opinion, from my own mind. I don't say anything to make anyone else happy. I've been this way since I joined and I'm not changing. That is part of life that I enjoy called having my own opinion. I don't need you to persuade me. How highly must one think of themselves to think their opinion is so much better than others that they should persuade others to think like them? Just don't hold your breath on that one. It would be like a brutal head-scissors effect.
As for where it was changed, you probably need to clear your cookies to get the Click yes if over 18 to enter. The changed part is in the last paragraph, "Female wrestling holds on UltimateSurrender.com include severe leg scissors, head scissors, boston crab, back breaker, full nelson, grapevine and more. Enjoy women in bondage photos, movies, streaming video, and shoots you can buy at UltimateSurrender.com!"
I had other ones, but liked those 3 the best! Bond could possibly survive, depending on how many were scripted or not. I would give him a 0.07 chance if not scripted!
I've had one other long drawn-out mostly pointless debate with you on here before and in it, I mentioned that you sounded like you were part of the kink.com family. The way you defend them and so on.
So, tell me, why is it that their main page for Ultimate Submission changed the wording over the last 24 hours? It changed from "Brutal leg-scissors" to "Severe leg-scissors". Not that severe is any better, since you like in context discussions. A severe leg-scissors would mean lots of pressure being applied. Like if you went outside and it was hot. You would say the heat is severe today.
You then say this about the 3 tags, "Nope. Per their rules, 3 tags per round are only ALLOWED for each of competing teams to be exercised (and they USUALLY happen, as they're very beneficial for the team), but are not required." Their site clearly says, "The rules are set. There are three tags per team per round and three 12 minute non-scripted wrestling rounds."
There is nothing there about three tags not being required. So, either way, they are being dishonest. I could have my hope up that each team would tag 3 times and the front page says that, but you say it isn't true.
As far as it not being scripted, you really should think about that before saying it. IF ultimate submission is not scripted, they would be in jail. In the world of REAL wrestling, if one wrestler popped a finger in the other wrestler's ass, that would be molestation/sexual assault. That is where they stretch the truth a bit, by saying, "REAL" wrestling. There is no such thing as sex in a real sport. You don't see players blowing each other during timeouts. Also, backbreaker, Boston Crab, moves they list, are not REAL wrestling moves. You cannot do a move intended to break a person's back. Now, if this is true, that these moves are not done with the intention of hurting each other or winning the match, then it is scripted. Which makes "unscripted" a lie. If those moves are intended to hurt each other, then the authorities should have already looked into it. Especially seeing that a man stands there as the "referee" while another videotapes, and the ref assists at times in the assault.
My whole point in all this, including Ultimate Submission, is that porn is a perceived fantasy. If you don't believe that, I recommend watching WWE and betting on the matches. Or watching Jerry Springer. And remember, Ultimate Submission claims "unscripted". Gay models aren't always gay. Mature models are only mature based on the viewer's age.
I may have to use two replies for this. First of all, tell me what the word in front of "model" is. Teen Models, Gay Models, Lesbian Models, Mature Models and lets say Transsexual Models? The word in front is the adjective that separates the models based on actions/age and look perception. None of those other adjectives are specific though. Mature is an age/look perception one. But no one has defined what is and what isn't a mature model. Why would teen be any different? When anyone who has surfed porn for even a relatively short time goes to a site, say like, Teen Dreams, they know there are models that are not 18 and 19. If the don't, all they have to do is preview the site and can see Sophie Moone (28), Eve Angel (26) just to name two. How is that site misleading or even wrong? Does a site stop putting new content of member favorites like Sophie and Eve up, just because they are no longer 18 or 19? And anyway, what adjective comes after "mature"?
Your monitor example did nothing but strengthen what I said. They said their monitors were 17 inches, but the viewable area was only 15.8 inches. That is specific. Just like if a site was named 18and19yearoldmodels would be. If the monitor company had said, "Big monitor". There wouldn't be a problem. In porn, no genre, is age defined, unless the site defines the word teen or mature or as in the case of Allover30. Teen is no different than MILF, Mature, Lesbian, Gay. Sure, they could go re-program their site and put youngermodels dreams as the name, but it would then be subjective since you would say, "28 is not really a younger model...to me". What would be the point then of doing all of that reprogramming to only give those few complaining, something new to bitch about?
The definitions I used were relevant in the discussion, as it showed that the word Teen does have definitions in different languages that mean a time of life. As in adolescent and juvenile. The actual numbers 18 and 19 are irrelevant since neither 18 nor 19 are the legal age in some countries/cities/states.
I'm going to end this one with the lead-in of the next one. You really believe "brutal" means hot and innovative? There is no definition in this world that lists brutal as those things. You can give me that bullshit about it is up to the ad writer's understanding of the word, but that is hypocritical since you are making "teen" be defined "correctly". Look up bullshit and you'll see a picture of that belief. Scroll down.
Honestly, I have no idea what the first half of your post is saying. I felt like I used the correct contextual definitions, and have no idea how archaic "One which preserves meaning" would have to do with an age/perception question. I never said 18-19 means teen models. I said if the sites got together and defined teen as 18-19 year old models, there would be a possibility of fraud. As it stands now, there is no clear definition of "teen" model. Let me show you a few examples. Lesbian porn. No one is complaining that those women aren't lesbians. Gay porn, from what I've read, a good portion of those men are straight in real-life. Heterosexual porn, we know that many of those men are at least bi-sexual as are the women. Nobody has a problem with those. Teen to me has always meant the younger models, usually solo masturbation to show their perceived innocence. It is an age/look perception.
Think about something, your favorite site is Ultimate Submission. If you really are holding sites to truth in advertising, then you might want to reconsider that one. They advertise brutal leg scissors. Brutal leg scissors on the body or neck would cause serious damage. Broken larynx, broken ribs, the girls would be puking. And in my 20+ years of Lua/grappling, I was never taught the dreaded nipple twister or the pussy grind aided face sit or the 3 finger jammer-slammer. They also advertise "unscripted" then say "3 tags per round" in the tag team matches. That's scripted! If they were really wrestling, one could lock a brutal leg scissor on and hold the opponent in one spot until she was unconscious. Perception/fantasy is the rule in porn, always has been.
Hey Jeffrey, they do use lube, because of the speed and roughness of some of the machines, but the gooey orgasms that I saw were milky white and running. The lube is usually more of a sticky look, especially the one ALS uses. I know that Jenaveve Jolie absolutely soaks herself in one, so bad that she looks sincerely embarrassed.
I picked no for a couple of reasons. The word teen can be taken different ways in different languages. For example, the German word for teen is "jugendlich", Spanish and Portuguese is "adolescente". Both of those words mean "juvenile" and adolescente as the English word adolescent means "minor". I think if the sites clearly defined teen to fit all languages by saying, "18 and 19 year old models" then there would be problems with fraud. Similar to a discussion we had on here before about "MILFs" and how this genre of porn is almost always 28-42 year old models, though a MILF by definition could be 18.
zbigvmanx, I've been interested in this site for awhile. I think the preview content looks excellent, especially since I'm an Eve Angel fan and see some exclusive content of her and also of Angelica (Black Angelica) too. You're probably going to get some frustration from members here though. A 99 review needs to explain a few more things so, take this as me helping you out a bit, more than anything else. Plus, I'm considering joining the site and would like to know these things too.
You mention the content can be downloaded in a week. The updates, the TBP review says 7 daily photo updates and 3 videos per week. Is that 7 new photo updates per day? Or 1 per day, each day of the week? You mention the bonus content, but tell nothing about it except that it is HD. Can you download it or just stream? Do the other sites have photos too? Zips? I mention that since the bonus content better be very good if you can download everything the main site has in 1 week.
Again, one part curiousity on my part, one part trying to make your review look a little more worthy of a 99.
I've considered going back several times, but they are not using a billing processor that I'm familiar with so it has kind of put them on hold for now. They still aren't giving many new updates, only about 9 photo and videos combined per month. The first time join is pretty good though. Especially for those A-List Euro models and their content is exclusive. Video quality was slightly below average the last time I was on it though.
I was talking with mbaya about the DL Limit on Reality Kings. It used to be 1.0 GB per day from each site. They changed it to 10 GB per day across the network. The problem I was running to is in the wording of the limit, "As a member in good standing, you may download up to 10 gigabytes of data each day, and additionally up to 15 big movies."
My understanding of this limit is that you can download 10 GB per day. Once you reach 10 GB, it lets you download 15 parts of other scenes. Each of their movies that have full scene download, also have the option of downloading the scene in 3 parts, listed as "Big Clip 1", "Big Clip 2" and "Big Clip 3". Mbaya had a different experience though, only being allowed to download 15 full scenes before reaching the limit, less than 3 GB.
I believe Mbaya more than I do the Reality Kings. The problem I was running into was that I hadn't downloaded enough in a day to test it. On Saturday, I was able to try it out though.
Much to my shock and hopefully a good sign, here is what I downloaded in a 7 hour period. All of the full scene videos from the RK site CFNM Secret, and 4 of the accompanying photo sets.
The total GB for the folder is 11.3 GB, the total number of full scenes is 31.
Meaning the DL Limit didn't show up at all, not at 10 GB, not at 15 full scenes. And I still had full access to download another 3.5 GB from Round and Brown, and still didn't stop me.
Here is the important part though, I was using their new Beta site. This is two networks in a row, Reality Kings and Bang Bros, that I've used their Beta site and found no DL limits whatsoever. I'm also downloading at unheard of speeds. I always considered my max download speed to be 1,250 kb/s for my connection. It occasionally goes over that but not very consistently. On RK and Bang Bros, I am downloading at 1,400 kb/s consistently.
This could be even better news since it looks like they may be removing the limit. Don't hold me to that though. I did however go over their limits without any 24 hour removal of access to download. So, be sure if you join, to go ahead and convert to the Beta site. Looks similar, more modern looking design and doesn't seem to limit your DLs either. Doesn't cost any extra to use the Beta, it just asks if you would rather use the Beta site.
JD, the biggest reason I held off was because my review would have fell during the same month of Pink Panther's. Outside of personal preference review numbers, mine would have looked similar to his. The numbers of videos were almost identical and photo sets too. I would have rated it at that time 86-88. I plan to go back to it in probably September and will write a review then with the newer updated numbers.
I've been a member probably 10 times over the years. A lot of times in reviews you will see these words, "Passionless" and "Robotic" when talking about European models. The girls can't or won't speak during the videos since they either can't speak English or don't speak it very good and, believe it or not, many of the great Euro models, Eve Angel, Sandra Shine, Mia Stone have said on record that they are embarrassed to speak English.
I have always liked Sapphic Erotica's content and technical quality, last year plus, the updates are 1280 high end on the videos and even the oldest content is 640 high end. Admittedly, the newer scenes, a word I use in lesbian porn, are not as "believable" as the older content is. You won't see any girls reluctant to touch or be touched though. This site is one of the few that has a lot of "tribbing" content, some call that the scissors position, legs intertwined, rubbing clits together. Which is as about as sexual, I think, women can be with each other.
Also, often the word "robotic" will be used to describe the videos following a similar pattern and this makes it all look scripted. In the site and other site's defense, there is only so much that can be done!
The oldest content on the site always gave me the feeling that the site intended to have real lesbians on it. As most of them looked real. But how many real lesbian couples are willing to shoot porn? I would recommend the site though. The models did become a little less butch, a lot more pretty, but most of them pull the lesbian or bi niche off.
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.
