Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
376
|
POVD
(0)
|
Reply of
host2626's Reply
Absolutely true about the fish eye. What is interesting about this site is that many (not all) of the videos are a mix of go-pro on the head and tripod-over-the-bed-behind-the-guy video. This method avoids the shake-as-you-bang effect. There are also a few seconds here and there where one of the cameras is visible. One of them is a small, decent quality HD video camera with internal stabilization. And there almost always seems to be a 2nd person involved in the shoot in one way or another. So these guys are not out to make cheap videos, they are out to make a lot of money by spreading their collection over as many sites as possible. That strategy will work once their collection is a little larger, but right now it is just frustrating.
|
05-23-14 02:00pm
|
Reply
377
|
Sex Art
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Reply
OLd Viv Thomsa is what I think of as glam porn.
|
01-21-19 02:36pm
|
Reply
378
|
Sex Art
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
Hey. Thanks for the review. I have been a member of this and pretty much all the MA sites off and on (and some continuously) since they were new and never really thought of this as "glam porn", but I guess perhaps it might be. I've always thought of glam porn as that photography stuff in the early 2000s and earlier with heavily made-up models. (Playboy-soft and Penthouse-medium maybe) This is....something different...something that needs it's own defintion...which they tried to do with the name Sexart. But the idea that it is not hard, rough or in any way crude is dead-on correct. So let's come up with a new name! :-)
Oh, and depending on the device or browser you are using, you can make the text pretty big. :-))
|
01-21-19 02:21pm
|
Reply
379
|
Showy Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
I agree with you about softcore videos, but it often depends on the model. Girl-in-the-woods or girl-in-her-room videos tend to be pretty boring and contrived and waaaay too many models that look amazing in images lose all kinds of points when you see them move. I've seen some very good softcore where the model is clearly trying to turn the viewer on, but I didn't see any of that here. (Twisty's or the first videos in a set from In The Crack come to mind.) When you say France I think Anna AJ from Met Art who had several drool-worthy videos. There are a couple of other models on MA that are just nice to watch because they are graceful (Annett A, Lorena B., etc.) but that is about beauty, not arousal (well, ok watching a beautiful , reclining girl put her legs straight out to the side and over her head can be pretty arousing...). These days, I'm not into "regular" porn video much as observing two other people have sex isn't that exciting anymore unless the girl is an 11 AND a great actress who doesn't pull faces and moan unnaturally. Instead I like POV and, when I can, VR scenes that are all about a virtual partner and, you know, ME!! :-) We are so jaded.....
|
12-14-18 07:34am
|
Reply
380
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
standard's Review
Thanks for the review! I checked my archive and see I last joined this site in 2009 and have images back to 2006, so the site has been around a while. Back then the models were European and American, the shoots were done in more of a "glam" style and the images and video were comparable to Twisty's or One-girl-a-day. It is interesting how that recent "russian" factor is so unpopular with western Europeans and Americans. When I joined a similar site with a lot of unknown Czech models, they all had neon eye shadow. Some girls can pull-off the fun clown-clothing clothing look just like some can-pull-off (I guess that was a pun...) the school-girl uniform look, but most can't. I'll put this on my list and look for discounted rates. 9 years of material should keep me entertained for a while....
|
12-26-18 10:30am
|
Reply
381
|
Teen Mega World
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Comment
I just joined again to pull down their VR content and, yes, you are absolutely right. Lots and lots of body graffiti. Some of it is OK but most is over the top. I've said it before and I'll say it again, girls in porn that get tattoos absolutely don't understand why guys are watching them have sex. "Wow, I really love trying to read that poem on your shoulder while watching you give head" said no guy ever!
|
01-20-17 07:39pm
|
Reply
382
|
The Life Erotic
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
lk2fireone,
Yes, I use the master pull down to access everything, too. That is where the problems occur as I can get into some sites and not others. Whenever I add a site or change my Password, the problems begin.
The support staff is usually very helpful when I contact them but occasionally, they will automatically reset my password even when I ask them not to.
But the problem goes a little deeper than that. I know I'm bringing some of this on myself, but I'm guessing you have experienced the same thing. I have had a Met Art membership for over 10 years now. Occasionally, I will get a discount offer for one of the MA sites from some other source. But when I try to take advantage of the discount, the MA network recognizes my email and presents me with an undiscounted rate. The only way around this is to use a different browser and a different email. So I have 6 subscriptions under 2 different email addresses. Even worse, the subscriptions are supported by 3 different billers (ccbill, epoch and rocketpay). A few years ago, I pointed all of this out to the support folks and they consolidated all of my accounts under one email address and user name....until I add a subscription or change my password. When that happens, some kind of reset occurs and a bunch of my sites are still linked in the master menu, but when I access them, I'm told the subscription has expired. The bottom line is that Met Art policy, created by some executive who never has to deal with customers, treats customers the same way a cell phone company or Comcast treats customers. They create all kinds of incentives for new customers, but don't want existing customers to take advantage of those incentives. This is obvious even within the Met Art Network, where if you click on a link directly, say...of a model that has other sets on other sites listed at the bottom of the page, the sign up is $29 a month for that site, but if you go through the pull down menu, the same sign up is $19 a month. And when you find a promotion for, say, $9 a month or $79 a year, the system does everything possible to ensure that you can't get it because you are an existing customer. To be fair, you can't really blame them for doing this, but you can't really blame me for wanting to take advantage of the best discounts either. I know the support people spend a LOT of time fixing things when people work the system to get better rates. I am a shining example of that.
|
11-03-18 12:20pm
|
Reply
383
|
Tiny 4K
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Thanks! I try to be thorough. Never enough time (or space) to go through everything.
|
10-05-16 08:55pm
|
Reply
384
|
Tiny 4K
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
Great review and you cover all the bases perfectly. I just saw your review because T4K was just scored and I had joined a few months ago.
I'll drop a little update into comments.
|
12-27-15 10:29am
|
Reply
385
|
Twistys
(0)
|
Reply of
brotherlove's Reply
Yes, I had a chance to look through things in more detail and agree that it doesn't seem to be as good as it used to be. The advertising alone seems like it has doubled and I complained about that in 2012. It is funny that you mention score rigging as there are a lot of new , pretty average videos of pretty average girls rated 9.6 or higher, something I've never seen in any site. Now I know why. It is remarkable how many good sites have been destroyed by new owners that are just out to recoup their investment. This is probably one of them. Probably still worth it for $10 once every couple of years or so.
|
09-12-14 04:13am
|
Reply
386
|
Twistys
(0)
|
Reply of
Claypaws's Reply
Yes, I signed up through segpay. There was no ccbill option from the discount page.
|
07-12-12 05:12am
|
Reply
387
|
Twistys Network
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Hi,
Interesting. I joined Diesel network in December, was only given a $29 option and was not given a streaming only option. Then I was offered access to the other sites for an additional $20 a month, so I took it. I let that one lapse as I only drop in for one month a year. I don't mind being told a full subscription is $29, but getting a $19 offer only to find that it isn't a full subscription is criminal.
One thing I noticed is that Twistys prices vary a LOT for no reason at all. For Twisty's, I got 3 different rates from the same computer by going to the join page with different browsers. PU price was $19. Regular price via Chrome was $29 and regular price via IE was $25. And of course I could not tell if any of them included downloads. I would be really pissed if I spent $29 and found that downloads were extra.
I recall that In The Crack has a view-only rate and they have different rates all the way up to 4K downloads, but the information is absolutely clear when you go to sign up...clear enough that I remember it without looking. View-only starts at $10. The rate including 2k HD downloads is $39. I even asked them if they have an annual rate and they said it didn't fit into their pricing structure...so I go back once a year.
If a view-only rate works for web sites, I think that's great for all involved. But changing a regular price to a view-only price in an effort to quietly raise prices, or worse, using a bait-and-switch without telling customers up front, like Twisty's is doing, should not be tolerated.
I take comfort in knowing that historically, every site I've ever seen where the webmasters get too greedy has either failed or dropped in ratings to a C level site. Judging from recent comments and ratings, clearly Twisty's is well on it's way.
|
02-04-17 09:12am
|
Reply
388
|
Virtual Real Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
Awesome! I'm downloading it now and will try it soon! Premier is overkill most of the time anyway.
Thanks!
|
12-12-17 04:53pm
|
Reply
389
|
Virtual Real Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Archiving! The only VCR I still have is a VCR to DVD converter. Pretty soon, though, DVDs will probably be obsolete.
I just went to update the navigation maps on one of my cars, a 2012 BMW, and the update instructions call for 4 8GB thumb drives(32GB total, to hold all the business and point of interest stuff, I guess). All I had was 3 year old 4GB thumb drives, so I ran out to Office Depot. The guy there says "We don't sell them that small anymore. Smallest we have is 16GB." They were stupid cheap, too. That's advancing technology at its finest.
|
12-12-17 03:57pm
|
Reply
390
|
Virtual Real Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
Hi Onyx,
Well....OK, VP9 might not be proprietary, but it certainly is not common. I had to go through quite a bit to get my non-VR video players (VLC and Windows Media Player) to be able to play it and I still can't get my Simple VR player to play it in VR, which is why I'm reverting to the 265 format. For the Vive, Simple VR is a pretty awesome universal player and it is more stable and, I think anyway, a better player than Whirligig or virtual desktop. It is also the only decent JPG image viewer for Vive VR that I know of.
Now if Only I could figure out how to edit these damn VR videos using my Adobe Premier video editing software. (I have 6 TB of VR videos now...) I can pull them in and edit them, but I can't figure out what output settings to use so the edited files will play in VR. Any ideas? :-)
|
12-12-17 03:44pm
|
Reply
391
|
Virtual Real Porn
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
RA, You are not alone. I was in Information Technology for 20 years and am still an early adopter for many kinds of technology. It can be a real pain in the ass. VR is no exception. I had to build a dedicated computer that is essentially an expensive high-end gaming machine. And the HTC Vive platform is still embryonic. The problem is that there aren't any standards and no clear technology consortium has emerged yet. We are in the betamax vs. VHS mode for this stuff and Augmented Reality (projecting things through glasses so they appear in actual physical space) is the DVD coming down the pipe.
Here's a chuckle. I'm watching porn in VR, and Ultra-HD, but Comcast still gets to charge me extra for HD channels. SD over-the-air broadcasting ended 10 years ago, but somehow 75% of the channels I get at home on cable are still SD. If you watch ANY porn in Ultra HD, you are far ahead of the cable companies. (I just read that DirectTV will cease broadcasting in SD in 2019, so maybe Cable will wake up and do the same in order to compete.)
As usual, the porn is driving technology just like it drove VHS. :-)
|
12-12-17 03:34pm
|
Reply
392
|
Vixen.com
(0)
|
Reply of
careylowell's Reply
Well that really sucks. Not sure what happened but I've been a member of this site a couple of times and have never been scammed. I am also not at all sure how you got to Rocketgate/VXNBill because Epoch was their servicer for me. In fact, I just cancelled my account and got exactly the expected service from Epoch. Entered in account and email and the subscription popped right up. 30 seconds later, it was cancelled. BTW, Rocketgate is still servicing a lot of sites like the Met Art sites. I do see that vxnbill is associated with this group of sites but I've never used them. Again, sorry you had an issue.
|
12-08-18 03:19pm
|
Reply
393
|
Vixen.com
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Hey. Well, there is a first time for everything, I guess. Thanks for responding.
|
11-23-18 06:59pm
|
Reply
394
|
Vixen.com
(0)
|
Reply of
wintersking's Reply
Dude, why are you here on Porn Users? To find out about sites? To maybe find a good site and get a better than street price for a subscription? Whenever anyone in this community sees a discount on a site, they should let anyone who might be interested know about it. That's all I was doing. When this site first came out, it was $10 a month. Once it was established, it went to $20. Now it is $29 a month but there are specials to be found. I reviewed the site a while ago and just signed up again and thought I would share that it is $9.95 recurring at $9.95, which hasn't happened lately. If you don't like the site, then don't sign up. It is a good site but not a great one. For $9.95, anyone who is curious has got very little to lose. Now, if you think that is spam, you should look up the definition of spam because clearly it isn't what you think it is. If you don't want to try the site, that's fine. But don't knock me for wanting to let people know there is a good promotion running. It is thoughtless comments like yours that make people like me want to stop writing reviews and comments. If you DID have a bad experience with the site, don't just bitch at me about it. SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE!
|
11-23-18 06:55pm
|
Reply
395
|
VR Hush
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
That is a really good point, especially since POV used to commonly be used to describe a look-down blow-job video (a lot of sites still call BJ videos POV).
I agree that for those who haven't seen it, the term POV or non-POV might be confusing, but with the advent of POV sites (like POVD.COM), the term is a little more universal than it used to be. In video games, they use the terms FPS and RTS all the time, but unless you are referring to a dick, "shooter" isn't really appropriate here. First person/third person might work, but it isn't used anywhere in VR that I know of. I originally used "participatory" and "observational" to describe the videos, which might make more sense. Iv'e also seen "Voyuer POV" and "Male POV" or "female POV", but again, without a frame of reference, these can still be confusing. In the end, the industry itself needs to decide what terms to use, but I'll try to be as descriptive as possible going forward.
|
01-01-18 07:39am
|
Reply
396
|
VR Hush
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
Onyx, I am still evaluating the site, but right now I would put it in the middle of the pack as far as VR sites go. The site layout is nice, with tags listing the types of things going on in each video, but there is no scoring or ranking, just a thumbs up count. The videos are competent but some of the B/G scenes are not POV at all, which is pretty weird. None of the Images in the image libraries are POV. Instead, they are pretty much promo shots including some with the male actually holding a VR headset to his face. There are several top females on the site, but there are also some...I'll call them unusual...videos as well. For example there is a Nina Hartley VR video. Nina was a boss porn star and still looks pretty good, but she is, what, 59 now? Maybe there's a niche for that, I don't know. The preview is pretty representative of the girls on the site. In general, the girls are much younger and much better looking than, say, Naughty America, but VRHush only releases one new VR video a week, in general. The site shows promise but still needs some tweaking and some polish. I'll get to a review within the next week or two.
|
12-03-17 07:35pm
|
Reply
397
|
Watch 4 Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
kutloch's Reply
Hi,
Thanks for the update. It is always nice to see the webmasters checking sites like this for reviews and comments. It shows that they care and are attentive to their subscriber's comments. I have seen the mobile option on the site lately, but I am old-school with a PC and giant monitor. Overall a terrific site!
|
02-26-18 12:07pm
|
Reply
398
|
Watch 4 Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
sonofzog's Reply
I recall reading that he passed away but thought somebody else had taken over at the site. His stuff was amazing, though.
|
02-26-18 11:46am
|
Reply
399
|
Watch 4 Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
sonofzog's Reply
I'll add that I've never seen a site that only provides images in landscape-only or portrait-only format. And if you want some GREAT wallpapers, go check out Digital Desire. J. Stephen Hicks is an awesome photographer and, in addition to regular photo shoots, he provides one nude and one beautiful landscape scene a day (often it is a great landscape with an ungodly beautiful girl someplace in the image, often clothing optional.)
I was last a member of Digital Desire in 2017 and and can say it is medium-core old-school glamour. Good stuff if you haven't been there before.
|
02-25-18 07:43pm
|
Reply
400
|
Watch 4 Beauty
(0)
|
Reply of
sonofzog's Reply
Sonofzog,
OK, first off, About half of the images are landscape. I prefer landscape images and I can tell you that there are some mind-blowing ones here.
Second, Amour Angels is not affiliated with W4B or any other popular site that I know of. I was a last a member of that site in 2014 or 2015, although for some reason it looks like I did not write a review for it. The site uses several of the same models that Met Art, Fem Joy and W4B uses, (Like Emily Bloom and Serena Wood) but they also have several models that I have not seen elsewhere. I would define Amour Angels as a professional site, but with more of a buble-gum kind of flavor. (Big flowers, hats, lots of props, etc.) Almost all solo and girl-girl posing, strictly softcore. Videos are just posing, laying around, female form stuff with some close-ups. The models are mostly cute, young, slender, petite...really young. (All ofthe girls are 18+.) The sets I have of popular models are from when thyey were just starting out. I just looked and I saved 229 sets and 29 videos, mostly because of the exclusive models not seen elsewhere. To answer your orientation question, there is also a good balance of landscape and portrait images here. The site may have changed a little since 2014-15, but this is what I have from then.
Hope that helps.
...Now I have to go back and join Amour Angels again. This time, I'll write a review!
|
02-25-18 07:34pm
|
|
