| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1476
|
Ripping 4 Fun
(0)
|
Reply of
GCode's Comment
Thanks for flagging this one up, GC.
An interesting variation, but it doesn't really hit the spot for me.
Why not just a straightforward striptease to full nudity?
That would work for me.
Cap'n. :0/
|
02-18-10 02:34pm
|
Reply
1477
|
Ron Harris
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Comment
It is a regional pricing scam again.
I thought that had been consigned to the bin.
Looks like there are still some unscrupulous folk around in the industry.
Unless it is an oversight,which I think unlikely.
:0/
|
08-07-15 05:53pm
|
Reply
1478
|
Ron Harris
(0)
|
Reply of
slutty's Reply
I feel it is just another of those plethora of sites from photographers with a somewhat over inflated ego.
Cap'n. :0/
|
03-02-12 12:11pm
|
Reply
1479
|
Rookie Babe
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
Just took a look.
Placeholder pics all over the tour pages.
Not a good sign. :0/
|
09-12-09 08:46am
|
Reply
1480
|
Ryanne Redd
(0)
|
Reply of
xexbot's Reply
Is that just screencaps then?
Cap'n. :0/
|
06-22-12 06:36am
|
Reply
1481
|
Ryanne Redd
(0)
|
Reply of
xexbot's Review
This lady is one of my few favourites.
Is there any decent photoset material there, please?
Cap'n. :0/
|
06-21-12 12:58pm
|
Reply
1482
|
Rylsky Art
(0)
|
Reply of
RLane's Comment
I really don't mean to sound negative, but there are so many, glam artsy photo sites that they tend to get pretty anonymous.
( Actually, Met art is a prime example of that.
It is so formulaic that each set blends into another ).
If he is going to be successful in this venture, he needs to find a good angle on the content.
Cap'n. :0/
|
11-22-12 04:19pm
|
Reply
1483
|
Saint Paul Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
yadayada321's Comment
The link from PU is dead, so it doesn't look good, I'm afraid.
Cap'n. :0/
|
01-22-11 03:39am
|
Reply
1484
|
Schoool Mistress Fantasy
(0)
|
Reply of
Jason123's Reply
Yes, that was more what I would have expected.
Although full frontal nudity, even coy, would have been nice! ;0)
Welcome to PU, BTW. :0)
Cap'n.
|
11-17-11 12:56pm
|
Reply
1485
|
Schoool Mistress Fantasy
(0)
|
Reply of
Jason123's Review
I'm just a little confused here.
You say 2 sections. Nude & Non nude. OK with you so far.
Later though you say maximum levels are topless?
Is that the non nude section?
My definition of nude is naked!
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-17-11 12:51pm
|
Reply
1486
|
Secret Virgin
(0)
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
It doesn't sound like there will be much to review considering the 'no access' situation.
Cap'n. :0(
|
03-21-12 11:48am
|
Reply
1487
|
Secretease
(0)
|
Reply of
otoh's Reply
I thought it might appeal, that is why I bumped it up.
The comparison to the 'Only' sites was based more on the uniform / costume angle, which in all honesty I think they do much better, as that is their main strength. That and the fact neither feature nudity, by my stricter definition.
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-21-11 09:23am
|
Reply
1488
|
Secretease
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Comment
It just struck me, & it was too late to edit....
If you want to be PC about the webmaster / mistress angle, just use Webmanager.
It is an androgynous title! ;0)
Cap'n. :0)
|
02-01-11 08:42am
|
Reply
1489
|
Secretease
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Comment
Just guessing.....
Billing company issues?
Cap'n. :0/
|
02-01-11 03:11am
|
Reply
1490
|
Secretease
(0)
|
Reply of
Secretease com's Reply
Mitch said:
" If explicit nudity is classed as 'open leg' upward, then over half
of the sets are explicit and the site will be continue this. "
For me softcore full frontal nudity means:
No clothing, No hands groping spoiling the view, no toys, no gynacology.
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-07-10 01:13pm
|
Reply
1491
|
Secretease
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Review
You are pretty much confirming my thoughts & expectations of this site.
Useful to have that extra info about the download limit though, thanks.
I like the format of the site but do not get along with the overtly glam models & outfits.
For me there has to be progression from fully clothed to softcore full frontal nudity.
I'll pass for now, but watch for any changes in content.
Thanks again for the useful review.
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-07-10 11:10am
|
Reply
1492
|
Seduced By A Cougar
(0)
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
I think for a lot of us ink is an issue too. ;0)
Cap'n. :0)
|
12-31-12 03:33am
|
Reply
1493
|
See Me Tease
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
I love a good rant.
For me, it doesn't matter if I am Ranter or Rantee!
I always appreciate a good one!
Cap'n. :0)
|
02-08-12 04:33pm
|
Reply
1494
|
Sex Art
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
So I suppose you might lump them both into a description of 'Mutually Enjoyable Hardcore'? Cap'n. :0)
|
02-16-13 04:05pm
|
Reply
1495
|
Sex Art
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Comment
wtf is glamcore?
Cap'n. :0/
|
02-15-13 04:52pm
|
Reply
1496
|
Sex Sim
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Review
I'm pleased you liked it.
I rather thought you would. ;0)
I am trying to get more activity on the forum there.
Feel free to join in if you would, please?
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-12-11 11:59am
|
Reply
1497
|
Sex Sim
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Comment
Yeah, Jak is very communicative! :0)
What OS are you using?
It installed just where I wanted it for me.
I'm using XP Pro 64.
I have it on a subsidiary drive & all settings wound up to 11. ;0)
Those artifacts you refer to...I'm guessing they are 'poke through'?
Cap'n. :0)
|
11-10-11 04:36pm
|
Reply
1498
|
Sex Sim
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
Could it be some sort of anti virus blocking on your computer?
Cap'n. :0/
|
11-09-11 01:19pm
|
Reply
1499
|
Sex Sim
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Comment
Hmm.
It installed for me no problem.
Perhaps a corrupted download?
Cap'n. :0/
|
11-09-11 01:03pm
|
Reply
1500
|
Sex Video Casting
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Review
I like the way they have relaunched this site.
Belatedly buoyed up by this review, I may well give it a whirl again.
Cap'n. :0)
|
06-13-11 11:11am
|
