I am surprised the video quality is sub-par, because that should be one of the great strengths of Playboy, along with expert softcore photos. But my biggest knock against Playboy is the plastic women: over the last 15 years, there were very few Playmates I found attractive. I think the Playmates from the 1960s and 1970s were much less plastic.
You have a fantastic memory. I have a problem trying to remember which sites I have been a member of, and that's one reason I check PU before signing on to new sites. But if you are able to remember a log-on page that you had to use months ago, I think that's incredible. I only wish my memory worked one-tenth as well as yours does.
I have a current membership in Diesel network, and do not see this site listed as part of the network offerings.
Also, when you click on the hot link at PU for the Virgin Off site, it opens a Young Legal Porn page, which is a different site in the Diesel network.
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Pros:
-Easy site log-in.
-No DRM.
-No download limits.
-Zip file for each photoset. (The site has 2 photosets total. That is not a joke.)
-Small amount of site contents. With a fast Internet connection, you can download the entire site contents in 1 day. And then review the contents at your leisure.
-Some attractive models.
Cons:
-Archive site. No updates since 2006.
-Small site.
-The site has only 2 photosets, which are a low-quality photographic record of a video shoot. Even though you can download a zip file for each
photoset, I don't know who would want to keep a zip file of these photosets.
-Site contents are not dated, except for the two photosets, which are from 2006. Apparently the last update for the site was in April, 2006.
-Most videos have only one download option, a low-quality WMV file. A few videos have a choice of download as low-quality WMV or low-quality MPEG file.
-The default option for filename of each video downloads as 001.wmv, which means you have to manually rename each file, to avoid overwriting with the next download. And also to separate the files from one another, because a bunch of files with the filename of 001.wmv are hard to distinguish from one another.
-No bio for the models. They don't even bother to name the models.
Bottom Line:
CONS (continued):
-Navigation is basic. You get a list of the videos, in apparent chronological order (but no date is listed). That's it.
-No search feature.
BOTTOM LINE:
Site contents:
This is a small archive site that has not been updated since 2006. It has 25 videos, and 2 photosets.
The 2 photosets are a photographic record of 2 video shoots. The photosets are poor quality photographs, more like screen captures (or maybe they are screen captures).
videos: 25
Sample video file size: about 250 MB, for a runtime of 34 minutes.
Total bitrate: 1017kbps (very low bitrate, indicating poor quality of video).
Frame width x height: 400x300.
photosets: 2
photoset 1 has 115 photos.
photoset 2 has 100 photos.
Individual photos have a file size of about 60-80 KB, 1024x576 pixels.
This site is supposed to be a reality porn series. The site theme is 2 cops who play practical jokes on women who are applying for a driver's license. The two cops, one who is dressed as a doctor, make the women applicants undress and then have sex as part of the medical exam. This is a very stupid idea, and the two "cops" are sort of acting like an updated
version of the three stooges. But the women go along with the idea, and have sex with the two cops: bj, vaginal, maybe anal, whatever. At the end, because the women had sex with the two guys, the women are told they passed their medical exam needed for a driver's license.
One model asks: What does a gynecological exam have to do with a driver's license?
The cop dressed as a doctor answers: We have to make sure you don't wiggle around on the seat when driving.
(There are subtitles, because the models are speaking whatever European language they use.)
Some of the models are attractive. I wish the quality of the videos was better. The camera-work is ok to good, the lighting is ok to good (these
are indoor scenes shot in a small room), but the definition/clarity of the videos could be greatly improved.
This is part of the Diesel network. If you joined this site by itself, you would feel that not only the models were getting screwed, but that you had been screwed as well.
But if you get this site as part of the Diesel network, then the site is worth glancing over. Many of the models are cute. I only wish the videos were better quality (higher definition, mainly).
Firefox sometimes gives me a message that it has prevented a popup. But there are other times when I see different browser pages pop up and I did not click on any hot link to open those pages. So maybe I need to adjust my firefox settings to better prevent more popups.
Edit01:
I just read the firefox help page on blocking popups, and my firefox browser is set up already for blocking popups. That is the default setting.
Great review. But no matter how good the site contents, I could not put up with the password issues. You must have a ton of patience to deal with that.
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Pros:
-A number of attractive female teen models.
-Update rate: 1 video and photoset every 5 days, until recently. Last few weeks the update rate has slowed. The photosets are a photo capture of the video shoot.
-No DRM.
-Long period before site timeout.
-Videos have subtitles for the Russian language. But once you see a few videos, you realize the words spoken are mainly very low-grade conversation that is better ignored. The idea of subtitles is nice, but the models say very little that is worth hearing.
-Most models have very little tattoos or piercings.
-Streaming option to view the videos.
-Can easily view single photos in a photoset, or download the photoset in a zip file.
-Content is dated.
-No download limit.
Cons:
-The main stunt cock can be really annoying. He is arrogant. He is supposed to be playing the part of a masseur, but the massages he performs are so poor most amateurs could do a better massage. And the stupid bullshit he speaks to the girls is really annoying.
-In contrast, the stunt cocks at Fucked Hard 18 and Massage Room Seduction are giving what appear to be sensual, real massages to the girls, making
the videos more believable and enjoyable.
-The videos at tricky masseur appear to be shot by a amateur camera-man who often can't hold the camera still and has trouble framing the scenes. He is poor framing the pre-sex scenes, and even worse framing the sex scenes.
-A small site that just started December 2010, currently has 34 videos.
-Watermark bottom right corner. Larger than necessary, but not overly intrusive.
-No model bios.
Bottom Line:
Tricky Masseur is part of the Teen Mega World/Royal Cash network.
The site is a collection of videos of a guy who's supposed to be a masseur who seduces teen girls during the massage. The same idea is done 100 times better at Fucked Hard 18 and Massage Room Seduction. The main tricky masseur stunt cock is an arrogant jerk who does a shitty job of giving a massage, and his line of bullshit to the girls is stupid and unbelievable.
The videos at Fucked Hard 18 and Massage Room Seduction are much better because the stunt cocks are more believable as masseurs, they come across
as less arrogant and less bullshit-talking, and the videos are shot with greater care and skill.
To improve the videos at tricky masseur, replace the stunt cock and replace the camera-man with people who know what they are doing.
Number of videos: 34
Video runtime: 30-40 minutes
Multiple formats for download: high and medium quality WMV, medium quality FLV, portable device format (iPod mp4).
File size for high quality WMV file:
runtime 30 minutes: about 1.1 GB
runtime 40 minutes: about 1.5 GB
Number of photosets: 34
Number of photos per photoset: around 200
The photoset is a visual record of a video shoot.
The photos are better than a screen cap, but do not have the quality of a professionally shot photo: the photos can be blurry, out-of-focus, or just lacking in erotic or sensual appeal.
The site has spent a lot of time and effort posting these large photosets.
It would be smarter to just post 20-30 photos, or less, instead of 200+ photos, of a video shoot, because the quality of the photos is not good.
The network/site offers a free live cam/chat show, that is the same offering at the Diesel network. This live cam/chat is basically a waste of time. To see any nudity in a private show or as part of the "public" show can get expensive fast. The real free show is no show, just different models waiting to be paid for a private show, who do almost nothing while waiting.
Bottom line: As a bonus site that's part of your network membership, the site is worth looking over. But the site itself is a poor version of the much better massage sites like Fucked Hard 18 and Massage Room Seduction.
My thought is that Drooler is basically right. Porn is more accepted today versus 50 years ago. But many people still think porn is evil, or at the very least, bad.
King James Bible
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
And if you're not willing to pluck out your eye, there are plenty of good Christians and Muslims that will do if for you.
Collectors in some fields may trade or buy and sell, like comics or coins. But I think porn is much more private, and there is not a lot of sharing of porn collections. For example, I collect porn, but strictly for myself. And I don't advertise my porn collection, except here on PU.
Maybe that would make a good poll question: How often do you discuss, or trade, or share your porn collection with others?
You may not consider yourself a collector, because you don't share. But I would consider you a collector, based on my guess that you have porn photos and/or videos on your hard drives, or other medium.
Nice, basic review. I like the specific reasons you give for building the score. My only quibble would be the total score: since you think the site is probably worth a one-time membership, my guess would be a score of 70 would be more appropriate. Even though PU guidelines state that 60-69 is "low recommendation", and 70-79 is "might recommend", I believe that since 50 is the lowest score a site can be rated, most people would think that a score less than 70 means a site to be avoided.
That's my feeling/belief.
So many people, seeing your site score of 65, would think/conclude the site was a waste of money, and might not even bother to read your review.
Whereas you personally felt that the site was worth a one-time membership, and did not feel cheated.
And I definitely feel your review is worth reading, because it gives a very clear explanation/feeling of the site.
I read it back in the 1970s (and 1980s, maybe), before there was the Internet. But I stopped reading it in the 1980s, and then the Internet came along, with photos, and then later still, videos.
Considering that I've got more porn on my hard drives than anything else, I would say I'm a collector. What else would you call it? Now, be polite, people. :)
The preview page for the public shows thumbnails of selected videos. Placing the mouse button over a thumbnail brings up a caption, "Play video", which I assume means you can play a short (probably 30-60 second) sample clip of the video. But when you click on the thumbnail, instead of being able to play a sample clip, you see the message, "Registration required, click here to register".
This is the first site I know of that requires registration to view a sample clip of their videos.
Why make it difficult to see a sample video? And I am tired of giving out my email address to porn sites that I don't belong to, because I am already getting more spam (including porn spam) than I want.
I prefer b/g or g/g, with vaginal. And i wonder how sanitary it is with all this ass-to-mouth action. State law usually requires employees at restaurants to wash their hands after visiting the rest room. Is state law outmoded, where you no longer have to worry about hygiene with this ass-to-mouth action? Or is that supposed to be part of the thrill, wondering how sick the girl will be later when she might be vomiting her guts out, with diarrhea as well.
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Pros:
-DRM: none.
-Site timeout: Very long period before timeout.
-Download limits: None.
-Model listing is name of model with a nice-sized thumbnail and a listing of her photosets and videos.
-Many of the newer videos are nice quality: clear video, good focus, good lighting, good sex action, very attractive models,
great skin tone, good color of background and foreground, good sound control.
-Most videos have a choice of 3 download qualities to choose from: low, medium or high quality.
Cons:
-Navigation is basic. For a relatively small site, the navigation could be
easily improved to make moving around and finding the photosets/videos of each model faster and simpler.
-Search is limited. You can search by model's name, but for little else.
-They should junk the software system they use to view individual photos.
-No model bios or other information on the models.
-Many of the older videos are very poor quality in terms of clarity, lighting, colors, annoying background music.
-The content is posting dated, but the significance of the date can be low.
Some material was made years before it was posted at this site.
-The free live webcam chats with models are a waste of time. The models basically do nothing
on-screen except wait for someone to pay for a private chat.
Bottom Line:
Site stats:
-Number of models: 303+
-Number of videos: 1,000+ (No easy way to estimate number)
-Number of photosets: 1,000+ (No easy way to estimate number)
The newer videos are mainly good quality: good lighting, good colors (skin tone, background, foreground), ok to good camera work.
video stats (newer videos):
frame width x height: 1280 x 720
total bitrate: 8572 kbps - 15459 kbps
frame rate: 29 frames/second
photo stats:
photosets: 30-100 photos.
file size: 200-400 Kb (newer photo size).
width x height: 2250 x 1500 pixels.
resolution: horizontal x vertical: 96 dpi x 96 dpi.
Photosets can have from 30 to 100 photos. The file size of an individual photo can be large, up to 400+ Kb, but the photos are not high quality in terms of appeal or photographic technique.
The photosets are more in the style of an amateur-shot photo series done at home, except that I have seen many amateur photos that have much better photo technique than the photosets at this site.
The two primary sites in the dieselaccess network that have the most value are YoungLegalPorn and 18OnlyGirls. There are some other sites in the
network that are also worthwhile, but the most value is in those two sites.
YoungLegalPorn and 18OnlyGirls are very similar sites: same type of content, same layout, same models, etc. And it appears that some content is shared between the two sites.
YoungLegalPorn takes a softcore approach to porn. By this, I mean that the sex is gentle, not rough or abusive. The sex is caring, affectionate, or friendly, with no slapping, spitting, hitting, name-calling, etc. The sex can be hardcore in the sense there is female masturbation, lesbian activity, boy-girl sex.
I appreciate the overall quality of many videos at this site. But some PU members might think the site is too tame, and would rather watch a harder, edgier type of sex that is featured at many hardcore sites.
The free Diesel cam shows are not shows, but a waste of time where the model does almost nothing except sit or lie on a bed, waiting for someone
to pay for a private show. There is also a mode where the "public free show" turns into a show which is still "public", but you have to pay 1 euro per minute to watch. Supposedly there is some stripping or other action in the non-free public show. The private chats are 3 euros per
minute. So it could get very expensive to watch.
It would probably be cheaper to go to a topless bar to see some stripping, instead of watching it over the internet.
Note: hugow wrote a review of this site on 2011-01-02 and gave it a 50 score because he said the servers were very slow. Most of the files I downloaded from this site (and the other sites in this network) had speeds of 620-630 KB/s, which is my maximum download speed. So I did not experience the poor download speeds hugow reported.
(I recently upgraded my DSL connection, which used to have a maximum download speed of 150-160 KB/s.)
I don't know how many bonus sites Spunky Bee is currently offering, if any.
If you are interested in joining this site, you could send an email to tech support at Spunky Bee asking how many bonus sites are included with a membership to Spunky Bee.
I do know that at least some of the other sites in the network are offering additional bonus sites with a regular membership. You can get an idea of what bonus sites each one offers by going to the signup/join page for each individual site.
But the best way to check would be to send an email. Hopefully they would respond quickly with the information you want.
A few of the videos at this network have subtitles. But once you read what the boys and girls are saying, you begin to think that the subtitles aren't really needed, because almost everything they say is really lame. Lol.
I've been a member at this network before, and you have already improved the navigation/design a lot in recent months. It's now much easier to go from one network site to a different network site, and to search for content of a single model.
Need to be careful with filenames at Teen Mega World.
This is a network that gives you access to different sites.
The default filenames at most of the sites are simple and generic.
For example, the default filename might be 31.sethigh.wmv for a video at Teen Stars Only, and there is a file with the same name at Beauty Angels. These are two sites in the network, but these are two different videos, with different models and different action.
So when downloading files from the network sites, you need to keep the files in specific folders for the original site, or rename the file with a unique name.
Depends on the interview. On how well the model speaks. It can give added flavor, allowing you to see how well or how poorly the model handles the interview, maybe give you a little insight into how the girl thinks. Or it can be a complete waste of time. Whatever.
My guess would be that most webmasters would not pay much attention to these polls unless the number of responding members was at least 1,000 or more. You would need a really large number to command the attention of most webmasters.
To be more effective regarding a positive response from webmasters, you would need some program that targets specific webmasters with polls that address issues relating to their websites (general or specific, e.g., streaming only content, download limits, etc.).
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.
