Teen Mega World is a great site for hardcore teen videos.
The network has a boatload of good quality hardcore videos, a huge number of very attractive models.
But it might be simpler if they consolidated the number of sites. I was searching for material on a particular model, named Sasha D at X-Art, and found that she is at Beauty-Angels under the name of Melika. So I was thinking, "Is it worthwhile joining Beauty-Angels to see her content--because Beauty-Angels is a good video site.
But then I realized that since I am a current member of ExGFBox, I already have access to Beauty-Angels through my network access.
There are so many attractive models at these sites, it's hard to keep track of them, especially when they have multiple names.
I don't enter my username and password on a page that tells me the page link may not be secure.
I log out, and re-log in to the site, and try to download again. If I get the page popping up asking for my username and password and saying the link may not be secure, I try again.
The page that asks for my username and password also states the page link may not be secure.
It's not a separate page or popup that says the link may not be secure. It's the same page that is asking for the username and password--that also states the page link may not be secure.
Like I wrote, this is the first time I've ever encountered this. So I think it would be a mistake to enter my username and password on a page that tells me the link may not be secure.
But this is a paysite. So it's not like a bank. If it were a bank, I'd be calling them on the phone, and asking what the problem was.
I use Firefox, because I believe it's less likely to give problems (viruses, malware) than IE.
But the message about the non-secure connection that is also asking for my username and password is not a message from Firefox, but from the X-Art site.
Sometimes that page comes up, sometimes it doesn't, when I try to download content (photoset or video) from the member area of X-Art.
Fantastic review. Loads of facts about the site, great opinions. Like I said before, your reviews leave almost all of us in the dust.
I will be joining this site in the future.
But I just signed up for X-Art today, because there is a special offer of $9.95 for the first month.
I don't think you would like X-Art, because their photosets are small (60 -70 photos or less per set). And they are the glossy, glamor-style photos, of attractive young teens.
I also like their videos, which are erotic or sensual, but you don't care for vids.
Years ago, Metart had some really great live webcam sessions. You could do public or private. I never did any private shows, but the public ones were free, had lots of different models, some were really attractive, they put on interesting shows, the models were friendly, a lot of audience participation, a lot of hours each day for the shows.
Never found anything close to what Metart had in the "old days".
Most of the free chat shows I've seen the last few years are a waste of time.
And the private chat shows can be very expensive. I never paid for any of those.
Site asks for username and password, and says the link may not be secure.
Sometimes, you're already in the members area, but you click a link to download a photoset or video, and you have to give your user name and password again. But what's worse, you see on the form where you enter the information, the notice: "The server uses Basic authentication, which means that the method used to send your user name and password to the server may not be secure."
So I log out, log in again, go to the model page, hit the link to download the video again, and I still get the popup asking for my user name and password, which the message that the method may not be secure.
As far as I know, I've never been a member of a paysite that asks me for my user name and password, at the same time telling me that I am using a link that may not be secure.
I've been blocked in the past, because a paysite said either my username or password had been hacked.
So I don't want to get blocked again, by using a non-secure link to send this information, that is supposed to be confidential.
But I still want to download content, and this is frustrating.
I'm all for variety, or whatever floats your boat. But raping a duck seems like a poor finish for Johnny Dangerously. Couldn't he find a gorgeous girl (or three) to rape?
I think, if you wanted to re-write your responses, it would make a great review of the Diesel network, or one of their main sites.
I honestly believe, because of your greater writing skills and other factors, that your reviews are outstanding. Far beyond anything I have written. Toadsith hasn't written any reviews in almost 4 years, but his reviews, like yours, are some of the best at PU.
I'm glad that you are finding some sites that you like. I thought, after re-reading your reviews, that your tastes were too specialized to finding sites you might think worthwhile:
"As I am not interested in bg, gg or video, it is hard for me to evaluate the quality of that content."
You say you like Metart, and would score it in the mid to high 90s. But you also say: "I tend to find their images beautiful but not very exciting..."
So when you give Metart a 90s score, do you mean that represents your personal satisfaction with the site? Or do you mean, instead, that is your "professional reviewer's" opinion of the site, apart from your own enjoyment?
When we write reviews for PU, we are supposed to score a site based on some objective criteria, apart from our own personal satisfaction. Which I find hard to do.
My tastes are different from yours, but you've talked me into a ATK Galleria membership in the near future.
You write that MyPreciousVirgins "has some good photos but so few that you can find all of them within a week of joining."
I don't think MyPreciousVirgins is a mega site, but it has a large number of models and photosets. So if you could only find a week's worth of content worth keeping, then it seems that it would take years before 18 Only Girls or Young Legal Porn would build up enough photosets that would appeal to you. Because most of the photos they post (and all of the videos) would seem to be outside your interest, even if they improve their photography.
I am looking forward to reading your future reviews.
If that is true, most of the content at 18 Only Girls and Young Legal Porn would have little value for you.
I just re-read the three reviews you have posted. All I can say is, wow, your reviews are great, you put a lot of thought and intelligence and details into them.
Diesel is not a photo site that features a variety of professional photographers. The early photosets were amateurish, poor colors, not high definition, a wasted opportunity of attractive teens.
Recent photos are more professionally photographed.
One content provider for the Diesel network and Teen Mega World network is:
Browse the samples from that site. If the photosets appeal to you, then you might join Diesel after giving them time to build up content that you might like.
The quality at Diesel is far superior to what you get at Teen Mega World. Teen Mega Word is a video site. They have tons of photosets, but I assume the photos (and the videos) would not appeal to you.
In one review you wrote:
"What I want is for the model to look like she wants to rip my clothes off. Alas, with these photographers, few models look like they are thinking about sex at all, even though there are plenty of open leg poses and some mild finger spreading too. 'You can look but don't touch'. "
At the moment, I can't think of any sites that cater to your preference.
"I don't know why the the photosets at 18 Only Girls are so unsatisfying.
The quality of the photosets is far below what you find at a glamor-style site like Met-art or MPL Studios, in terms of definition, appeal, etc. The style of the photosets is like what is shown at sites like Teen Stars Magazine (an archive site) or My Precious Virgins. Except that what
is shown at Teen Stars Magazine and My Precious Virgins is done much better. The photosets at 18 Only Girls are like a pale imitation of themuch better photosets at the other two sites. And compared to glamor photo sites like Met-art or MPL Studios, the photosets at 18 Only Girls are almost worthless. The photosets are like snapshots from the 1960s or 1970s. Even though they are nude photosets, the 18 Only Girls photosets lack sexiness. My guess is that the lack of sexual appeal is due to the washed-out appearance of the colors in the photos."
There are a lot of things I like about Diesel. I like their videos, with the option of downloading in several definitions. And the newer photosets have multiple choices for definition, as well.
As far as theme: this is a teen site. But there is a wide range of sexual activity shown. Single girl, lesbian with two or more girls, boy-girl, boy with two or more girls. Some use of toys, but not a heavy emphasis of toys. The toys could be in a single girl masturbating, two or more girls, boy-girl, one boy with two or more girls.
The sets don't emphasize any themes, except for being teens.
"Are they doing multiple photo sets per girl or is it more of a one or two sets per girl kind of a site (like Pretty4Ever)?"
The number of sets a girl might have is completely random. A lot of girls have only 1 or 2 appearances. The model Maria has 7 videos and 10 photo sets. Katie has 13 videos and 13 photo sets. The model Mia has 56 videos and 27 photo sets.
Those figures are for 18 Only Girls. If a model appears at this site, she might be found at the sister site, Young Legal Porn, with additional sets.
As far as style, I would say the recent photosets are like Met-art, in that they are glossy photos, with high definition, professionally photographed. The difference is that Met-art, until recently, was nude softcore, but no overt sex. The models did not touch themselves sexually. If there were two female models in a scene, the most overt thing was the two models might kiss on the lips. No boys in the sets ever.
At Diesel, the girls are shown having sex, whether by themselves, with one or more girls, or with a boy and one or more girls.
I am far less technically inclined than you, and I don't apply the same expertise to judging a photo or video.
In your review of ATK Premium, dated 2012-06-04, you write:
"As I am not interested in bg, gg or video, it is hard for me to evaluate the quality of that content."
You're absolutely right, I was always more into pics than vids. There are several reasons for that, which I've mentioned before.
-Pics take less space than vids.
-It's far easier to make an excellent pic than an excellent vid, because there are far fewer factors to control in a pic than a vid.
-Therefor, excellent pics are far more common and easier to find than an excellent vid.
-Also, the time you spend looking at a pic and deciding if good or bad is a fraction of the time needed to do the same for a vid.
-I'm sure there are other considerations, as well, such as the time and money spent looking for sites that you think are worthwhile.
Anyway, I'm simply repeating things you already know.
But it's still worthwhile saying them, I believe.
Personal taste varies widely. What I like can be bland or boring or a waste of time to someone else.
I think Metart is the best site out there, for softcore teen photos. In terms of lovely teen models, quality of the photos, amount of content, and the low price you pay for that content.
Their videos, in contrast, are a waste of time. Boring, in spite of the lovely models.
I can't emphasize enough how much personal taste controls or affects what you like.
I looks at photosets from Femjoy, and I don't like them anywhere near as much Metart photosets. Other PU members have said they prefer the Femjoy approach over Metart, in the photosets. I think Metart uses more photoshopping, and cosmetics, to present the models more attractively. For the same model, who has photosets at Metart and at Femjoy, I will normally enjoy the Metart photosts more. But some PU members have said the Femjoy approach emphasizes the natural beauty of the model.
The Metart videos are boring. Femjoy videos are slighly better, but not by much.
Young Legal Porn and 18 Only Girls are two Diesel network sites with the same site structure, and the content has the same style. The photosets and vids and models could appear at either site. They have two sites, instead of one, for marketing purposes, to make more money.
The two sites have always had models that I thought were attractive. The videos have improved over time, and for years now, have been excellent in terms of definition and other factors.
The photosets had far less value. But over time (years), the photos were improving. And the photosets they are posting now are really nice. So as I said in my review, if they can keep up the quality in the future, these sites will be excellent photo sites in addition to their excellent videos.
Here's what I wrote in an earlier review of 18 Only Girls, dated 2011-01-23:
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
-Long interval before site timeout. Useful if you want to browse site, or download files, and you pause between downloads.
-Tiny, unobtrusive watermark occasionally appears in videos at bottom right corner.
-Tiny, unobtrusive watermark at bottom right corner of some photos. The watermark is so small, you have to examine each photo, to see if it's there or not.
-Soundtrack on most videos, especially the recent ones, is clean, without a lot of extraneous sounds.
-The video quality is some of the best I've seen: great focus, crystal-sharp video, good tracking of the sex action, professional lighting, excellent colors: skin tones, etc.
-There is an alphabetical listing of the models, with a nice-sized thumbnail to show what each model looks like. A really helpful feature that makes searching through the model list so nuch easier.
-Easy site navigation. Helpful, useful hot links to get a model's appearances (videos and photosets).
-The member pages are clean, with no ads.
-No DRM.
Cons:
-The cons are basically minor.
-No model biography.
-Occasionally they change the name of a model, but forget to change the title of the video or photoset she appears in. For example, the photoset named "Beata and the mirror", features the model currently named Belka, who was, evidently, named Beata earlier.
-When the models speak in a foreign language, there are no subtitles to translate. But the words spoken don't have a lot of value, anyway. The sex is what counts.
-If you post a comment, I don't see any way to edit it, for typos or whatever.
-The high-quality file size can be large. A video with a runtime of 23 minutes 12 seconds has a high-quality (1080p) size of 1.6 GB in MP4, and
1.9 GB in WMV. So you need a lot of hard drive space if you want to keep the high-quality files.
-The model page is clean, with no ads. But it would be even better if they simplified the layout. Don't post 2 different thumbnails of the model's last appearance. That's just confusing.
Bottom Line:
CONS (CONTINUED):
A single listing of each appearance would be more intuitive and easier to understand. Also, don't put two hot links for posting a comment on tha model page. Keep the comment link at the bottom of the page, but don't put a second comment link near the top of the page: it's not needed, and just gets in the way. Keep the model page simple.
-Some of the photosets and videos may be at other networks. 2 photosets and 1 video from Nubiles were posted at 18OnlyGirls in some sort of cross-
advertising deal.
Also, some photos and videos at 18OnlyGirls were posted earlier at the Teen Mega World network. This is not cross-advertising, but 2 different networks buying the same content from the same supplier.
The video titled "Waiting To Be Ravaged", featuring Anisiya, was posted 2012-06-10 at 18OnlyGirls. The same video was posted on 2011-02-17 at teensexmovs, a Teen Mega World site. At teensexmovs the video is titled "Anisiya". The video at 18OnlyGirls has more definition choices for download, and the runtime was chopped from 24:46 to 23:12 minutes:seconds.
But the video is basically the same.
However, the model is so cute, and the scene is so hot, that I didn't mind getting a higher-definition version of the same video. And they also made the 18OnlyGirls video have better lighting, better colors, in addition to the higher definition.
So I don't think the duplicated content is bad, especially when the content at 18OnlyGirls is better quality.
BOTTOM LINE:
Site statistics:
Number of videos: 1032
Number of photosets: 1278
Number of models: hundreds
The site preview gives the following statistics:
Number of films: 8,545
Number of images: 384,314
Number of models: 507
I don't know where the site preview is getting it's figures, because I counted the number of videos (movies), and it's far smaller. Also, based on the number of photosets, and the average number of photos in the ones I counted, the number of photos at the site in photosets is far smaller.
Having said that, you still get 1,032 videos, and 1,278 phosets.
-There are two types of live shows: "Diesel Girls Live", and "24/7 Live Channel".
"Diesel Girls Live" features Diesel models who put on a live show. The show is free, and worth watching. Only a few of the Diesel models participate, each show lasts 2 hours, and you get 1, 2 or 3 shows per day.
The "24/7 Live Channel" is a link to models who chat in both public (free) and private mode (paid). The public or free mode is basically worthless. The private (paid) mode is expensive. It's probably cheaper to go to a strip club than to pay for the private shows.
-This is a hardcore teen site. Many of the models are as cute, attractive, even lovely, as you will find anywhere. In the last few years, they have
offered excellent quality videos. The older photosets were not excellent, even when the models were attractive or cute. But the photos I've seen recently are really outstanding, and compare to what you get at Metart or MPL Studios, two sites that specialize in high-quality photos. This is mainly a video site. But if they can post outstanding photosets in the future, as they seem to be doing now, this will be a photo site as well.
I'm giving the site a score of 95. You have some of the most attractive teen models you can find. You have outstanding quality videos. The recent
photosets have improved greatly. The site is easy to navigate. You have fast download speeds. And you don't have to wade through a bunch of junk
to find the worthwhile content: you have great videos and photosets of lovely girls all over the site.
I'm having a problem figuring out when you sleep. Does your wife/significant-other know you're up this late (or early, if you're located on the East Coast), working at PU?
I'm sure that a lot of the videos at this site are old.
But that's not what I meant when I said the content is dated.
When a photoset or video is posted at a site, and they also give the date of posting, some reviewers say the content is dated. That gives the viewer an additional bit of knowledge.
Other sites do not date their content, so the viewer has no idea when the content was posted.
Obviously, posting date is not the same as the date the photoset or video was created. But it's still better than no date at all.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
-Content is dated.
-Nice PU discount for first month of $9.95. But recurs at $29.95/mo.
-No DRM.
-Videos are good quality for a DVD site. You don't get the high definition found at some sites, but the definition is good, the camera-work is good, good focus, no jitters in the video, good lighting, good colors, good sound control. I wish there were less fake moans and groans of excitement, but it's not as bad as some sites.
-Recent update rate is one video per week. But starting in January 2012, there were no updates for almost 4 months.
-There is a dropdown listing of the site models. But it would be easier to search a stationary list, where the models were presented alphabetically, with a nice-sized thumbnail to show what the model looks like, with hot links to her appearances at that site, and to other sites in the network.
Cons:
-There is a listing of sites the model appears at. But to play or download her videos at another site in the network, you have to manually log in to each different site, and then do a search for her videos at that site. So searching for model appearances is difficult, and time-consuming.
-No model biography.
-Videos have a small/medium-sized watermark bottom right corner.
-Photos have a small/medium-sized watermark bottom right corner.
-No zip file for the photosets. But I doubt many members would want to keep these photos anyway, except for one photo to show what the model looks like.
-Uncheck the pre-checked cross sale at signup, or you will be charged a trial membership in another site.
Bottom Line:
Site statistics:
Number of videos: 557
Number of high definition videos: 56
Streaming options:
240p
480p
540p (if the 540p is available).
56 videos have the higher definition options of 540p, 720p, and 1080p.
Video length: 3 to 31 minutes.
By watching these videos, you can learn a lot about how to deal with models. For example, in a video titled "Cleaning Cock!", Ashlyn Rae, a pretty model, wants to buy a new dress. So a guy hires her to clean his house. Once she finishes cleaning, he offers to pay her in cum. And she
says she loves cum. And he says "Well, that's good because he has lots of cum". So then she gives him a blow job and they fuck.
PU members can use this line on their girlfriends, and save lots of money.
Not only does he pay her in cum, but when she asks for a tip, he says it was included in the cum he already gave her.
I was a member of this site before. My impression is that the videos were upgraded. They look better than what I remembered. This is an impression, because I don't have the videos I downloaded from my previous membership.
They have photosets illustrating the videos. But the photosets are screencaps of the video. And the number of photos in each photoset varies.
One photoset has 3 photos. Another has 43 pics. Another has 97. The photosets are useful for showing what the model looks like. But they have
little artistic or erotic value.
You can click on a thumbnail of a photo and get a larger thumbnail. There is an option to enlarge the thumbnail to full-sized screen. Sometimes it
takes several clicks on the "expand the image" icon to enlarge to full-sized screen picture.
The site theme is teen-to-early-twenty girls having hardcore sex. They usually have a brief story introduction setting up the sex, but the
story is brief and has little value.
You can search the site by 3 main categories:
1. By series. For example: Couples Seduce Teens; Fresh Euro Flesh; Latin Eye Candy; Masters of Reality Porn; etc.
2. By type of sex. For example: Anal; Ass to mouth; Blowjob; Cream pie; Cum swallow; Cumshot; Cumswapping; Cunilingus; Deep throat; Double
Blowjob; Double Penetration; Lesbian; etc.
3. By name of model.
This is a large DVD site. It's part of the netFameSolutions network. You
get access to this site and about 20 other sites by joining through the Devils Film site for $9.95 for the first month (using the PU discount).
Those main sites include tens of 1,000s of hardcore videos of all types.
And the smaller sites include 1,000s of hardcore videos covering many different niches.
So for $9.95 for the first month (with the PU discount), you get access to a huge amount of hardcore videos.
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.
