One problem is quantity. The site appears to have quality softcore pix, but a limited amount of content.
I realize it's a dream for each photographer who wants to start his own site, but it would sure be more economical if some of these photographers agreed to form a ring where membership to one site would entitle you to access to other softcore photographers' sites.
Quantity at Sweet and Nude:
models: 20
sets: 46
photos: 11,183
Maybe I'm getting old, and trying to be careful with my porn dollars, but I wouldn't join this site unless someone I really trusted (and likes the same kind of pix I do) wrote a glowing review of this site and gave it a high score.
The free tour of the site (with it's lack of nice-sized sample pix) is a turn-off for me.
I want to see if the models inside are really attractive, and the free tour gives very little basis for knowing what the photosets will look like.
I voted for "one of my siblings".
That is based on my guess that Playboy magazine is/was considered porn. The Playboy magazines belonged to my older brother.
Actually, I was wondering whether Playboy is considered porn by this thread. That was before I read Drooler's reply, where he questioned whether Playboy is porn (proof that great minds do think alike).
If Playboy is not considered porn, then my vote should have been "No-one, I'm stealthy ".
shows "(You have 4 of 44 live tickets, 3 chances to win)"
It's no big deal, but there is no way the 3 chances to win could be accurate for 0 live tickets. And I doubt that it is accurate with 4 live tickets, because 4 tickets would represent 4 chances to win, not 3 chances.
Like I say, no big deal. You might want someone to fix/update the software that controls the printout on the page, or not. This is a very minor detail.
This is a great chance for PU staff members to soak up their free time.
They can review each thread and pick the best submissions on each one, then start a new uber thread with the best possible, most informative and witty ideas und answers.
I kind of admire almost all the posts by lk2fireone. He's someone I really respect.
I am not a Fritz Ryan member. But reading the past Fritz Ryan reviews and comments, and going through the model directory:
There are a lot of good-to-great looking girls on this site.
The photosets appear to be natural, not photo-shopped or airbrushed. There seem to be problems using the site: poor navigation, download speeds sometimes poor, other problems.
Why am I writing if the site is not worth joining?
Because there appear to be a lot of yummy-looking girls.
Are there any PU members who have been a recent member of Fritz Ryan that will comment on the quality of the photosets? Hopefully, members who are more into photos than videos.
I never realized how many varieties of porn there were. I sincerely doubt I will be able to sample all the kinds that look attractive to me while I'm still alive. Lol.
I'm sure there are perverts out there planning even better versions of porn. With real touchy-feely-smelly qualities for the computer age.
Just as an aside, the reason given for lack of zipped photosets at Glamdeluxe is basically the same reason messmer said was given by this webmaster: fear of piracy.
Fear of piracy does not make a lot of sense to me, as a reason to not include zip files. Is a pirate going to refuse to download pictures from a web site from some sense of honor or horror because there are no zipped files?
But different people believe different things. That's life. It's certainly easier to have zip files on a site, and most sites I've joined have them.
Maybe if enough members complain, or--to put it more politely--suggest that zip files would be an important feature, that might make a difference to some web sites.
But we don't control the world. Not even the porn sites that we have joined.
If there are no zip files on the site, you could probably use a software program like BlackWidow (nonfree), or a freeware version of the same type of program, to download your picture sets.
Glamdeluxe had no zipped files of its photosets when I was a member. So I paid for BlackWidow to download the photosets. Downloading individual pictures took a large amount of time. After I paid for BlackWidow, I found there are free programs that are supposed to do the same thing, and a couple of those programs are highly rated.
I used to read most of the Playboy articles, as well as look at the pictures. So I know at least 1 person was reading those articles. Haven't seen an issue of Playboy in many years, but back in the 1970s, when I was subscribing, I really did enjoy the articles, as well as the reviews on music, films, books, etc.
I do admit, however, the main interest was in the pictures. Especially the centerfold section.
Personally, I think if the PU members are going to take the results of this poll so seriously, and the PU staff members as well, the poll should never have been posted.
Even tho only 3 people out of 36 voted they had written 1 or more PU reviews without actually joining the reviewed site, I think the reaction of the PU members was to view those unknown voters with suspicion and distrust.
We really have no way of knowing whether the voters who voted they wrote a review without being a site member were stating the true facts, or whether they were being cute or provocative.
At least 1 PU member, Pinche Kankun, appears to have disabled his account because he feels the PU members no longer trust him.
Attitude, nice body, pretty face, nice voice all add to appeal.
How much does nice voice count? In most vids I've seen, girls are either moaning or quiet. When the girls do talk, for most, it takes away from the illusion of what you're looking for. Most girls are not chosen for speaking ability, but for willingness to perform and then body and then maybe looks.
I don't care if content is non-exclusive. There'a a ton of porn I have't seen before, and probably never will. I'm more concerned with quality and content of the porn. Do they have gorgeous girls? Are the pictures worth viewing?
Fake acting is a bummer. But's it's what you get in many porn videos.
Fake moaning, groaning, by the girl (mainly) and the guy. Can anyone believe the girl is so aroused when the guy just barely touches her, that she is already on the verge of orgasm?
As far as not accepting Visa for payment, probably a financial reason. Each credit card company can charge differently to business they are dealing with, and Bosque apparently feels Visa would charge his company too much for the transactions.
It's not simply a financial transaction from member to Bosque's site, but there might be currency translations as well, and that could get expensive.
(Just guessing.)
What really burns Bosque is they not only stole his membership money, they also demanded 2000 euros to install the billing service on his web site.
The gall of some of these thieves is amazing.
I read where some of these Internet scammers in Africa justify their thefts by saying they are only taking a small amount of money from people who can afford to lose it.
I'm surprised there is not a lot more fraud in porn, because there is fraud in commerical businesses, and you would think that porn, with a lot of very small businesses, would have an even bigger problem. Can a small businessman in South America afford to sue someone in Germany or Spain? What would be his chances of collecting anything?
Thanks for positive feedback. I read your review before I did mine, did not want to just echo what you said, so I hope I added a little to what you already reported.
When two people are reporting on the same site, I expect at least some common agreement. Unless the reviewers are totally opposite in type.
Specific site score, for me, is subjective. I don't calculate scores by the grading methods of TBP, because I have no idea how to do that kind of cold calculation. My score is a gut feel or how much I like a site based on what I see (content quality + content quantity + site ease of use versus price).
I actually joined Justteenmovie for the Justteensite, which I belonged to back in early 2006. I wanted to get updates on the huge amount of updated pix and vids at Justteensite. When I belonged back then, the site was small, and I only downloaded a small number of photosets. Now they are a mega-site.
Another annoying feature of the videos that I left out (because of space limitations on the review) was the poor sound track on many of the videos.
They need a new music editor for the videos. The music track on most videos detracts from the video; and the music track volume needs to be set much lower.
Unless you mute the sound completely, it is difficult to turn the stupid music soundtrack down enough on the playback software to a soft level that is not disturbing. Have to go into your PC
"control panel/sounds and audio devices" software to adjust the sound volume. Then, if you play a DVD movie afterwards, you then have to readjust the sound level for the DVD movie.
There is very little value in writing a fake review of a porn site. There are also plenty of idiots out there, who can get their kicks from doing just about anything, no matter how senseless. When I read PU reviews, whether I think the reviews are informative or detailed or not, I give the benefit of the doubt to the writers, and I believe the reviews are honest. That's my opinion and attitude.
"My Christmas wish list: no toys, no silicone, no tattoos, no piercing, no talking camera men."
I wish to add really gorgeous models, high quality pix and vids, good, unobtrusive sound track, good lighting, natural skin tones, good acting or believable emotions.
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.
