I don't really mind lollipops and the things models do with them as long as they do not do it too much, or with every single model. She has a lollipop, alright, now move on.
I also forgot to mention the "meal" scenes, where a model "eats" a meal -- usually breakfast -- and spills something on herself or inserts some utensil handles; it is just too dumb and repetitive for me, and every one of these scenes ends up looking the same.
This is one of my favorite sites too, navigation aside. Their videos, including older standard definition, still look great, as well as the newer photos.
I do wish they would redesign some things though. Personally, I am not a big fan of everything being included in a single photoset (outtakes, goofs, etc.). I understand that this makes it much easier to download content, but it also just adds a lot of junk to downloads.
For example, their newest photoshoot releases are quite large, but it ends of being a lot of sloooow stripping and unnecessary shots with the male assistants in the frame. I like seeing just the model, not the dudes sweatin' between her legs with the camera and lights.
On the other hand, going through their older material (say pre-2000), and there is not enough content. Most of their earlier models are just as attractive as their current talent, but they have not released many of their photos or videos to prove it.
No, I think it's about the girl not the guys, even if there are a lot of them (or there is claimed to be). It's about what she wants or is willing to do, which in this case is multiple men.
Do we really care about the sex toys as much as the model who is using them, the cars they pose in, or the furniture they use? It's always about the girl(s) for me. If you really prefer, even "regular" guy-girl content usually shows more than enough of the male talent to suffice.
I am huge fan of Alsscan too but I am afraid you are probably right on some of these points.
1. It does seem slightly less extreme lately, but it's hard to tell if it really turns out to be softer content in the long run. Franziska is a good example; yes, she is really hot, and Alex says she is really popular but I have just not been interested, regardless of the braces or tan lines or whatever people thought was interesting. No fisting, not even a speculum scene (at least that I am aware of) -- pointless indeed.
I think it may be an excess of the fluff content rather than a lack of hardcore content that’s the problem. By this I mean all the cars, candy, and glamour shots they have started adding. If I wanted to see cars I would look on a car site, and the lollipops seem to be what everyone else is doing as well so it gets boring fast. The softer or glamour shots can be a little much sometimes and I think this was mentioned in relation to ALS Angels and in response they were adding some more establishing shots before a model goes straight for the toy or insertion. This is fine but it quickly adds a lot of boring repetitive stuff, especially now that they release a whole scene at once, including all bloopers and outtakes.
2. I disagree here, to me they release new models (or rerelease archived material) frequently enough, especially considering how big a release usually is, but...
3. ...I do wish they would release the majority of a model's shoot within 6 to 9 months. I hate it when there are random releases from a model they shot more than a year ago, then only to say "well, she wasn't very popular so we didn't release any of her stuff." I understand it can be hard to agree on whom, or what scene, is really the most popular -- even with a voting system -- but it is frustrating to see something on a promo page but nowhere else simply because a model is "unpopular."
This is still a great site and I think it can remain that way with a few tweaks to the formula.
Yes, but it's really been more frustration and boredom with the unenthusiastic, cookie cutter crap being mass produced every hour of every day...
There will always be the good (rare), bad (most stuff), and ugly (the “sick,” but at least it’s different), and especially with the increasing availability of technology to allow any horn dog with a camera and some skills on this interweb thing, there will be more than enough to choose from.
Good review. I am thinking of rejoining soon to "catch up" on their previous material. You'd think they were founded by a bunch of horny doctors in the way they capture female anatomy, but it's still interesting and entertaining for closeup porn.
Yes, absolutely. I don't have a gigantic screen and hate having images (or any other type of file) resized. Usually they have already been watermarked, airbrushed, and/or cropped so they don't need any more manipulation.
...it can be interesting and not too weird of a fetish, though it can be combined with some crazy ones -- lactation for example.
I agree with BostonPJR here; it's strange and sexy and I don't know why either. Like anything else it doesn't work equally well with all models, so just being pregnant doesn't work for me. Cute, petite teen models would be a good example: the knocked up high schooler look really isn't my thing (probably why I haven’t bothered seeing Juno).
I did like it when Belladonna was pregnant; she was still very sexy -- a lot better than her shaved head -- and it wasn't permanent, so no harm no foul.
I agree here: I don't consider oral + another orifice to be a true DP, a sort of false advertising. Even double anal and double vaginal don't strictly qualify as DP to me, even if "dual" is the same thing as "double."
I agree with this view here. If a shop wants to make a big deal about it then I figure they don't want your business. I wouldn't go to a shop to get lectured on "naughty stuff," so why do they do it anyway?
I would be more worried about personal information (non-porn) being found on my computer than what porn I had been surfing. Except for history and bookmarks I store the goods on an external HD, but real personal stuff, say online banking for example, would prevent me from taking my PC in for repair.
That's what I have been doing too, though the way their links change is annoying as well.
I've been a member of In the Crack before, when the videos were still pay-per-view. Since they have a better deal now I will probably rejoin soon since their content pretty much speaks for itself -- and I like what it says!
I prefer all-girl sites, and In the Crack definitely fills that requirement, but it goes so much beyond what others do that it's pretty unique and rarely (if ever) boring or predictable.
I recently joined and am pretty happy with the content; nice big photos, beautiful HD videos...almost look like movies compared to others out there. The models are definitely hot, though I don't like how they use different names from other (non-Sapphic) sites. I am also kind of burned out on all these eastern European models, next site I go for will have a lot more American models, or least ones whose native language is English.
You were right about the navigation; annoyingly link-less video and photo pages. Their search tool works well, but then I find a cute model and I have to go through the "Search by Model" pages to see more! I am glad the layout is pretty simple and clean, though would it really have been that hard to link models' names?
Celebrity sex videos are really more amusing than erotic. Any interest I have in them is purely voyeuristic, but non-sexual. It's really the upset celebrities’ reactions and their excuses of “I didn’t know a camera was there,” or “the tape was stolen” that can be quite funny.
The tapes themselves usually turn out to be quite boring, poorly shot wastes of time. As I remember the Pam Anderson/Tommy Lee tape was a dumb honeymoon video with some sex in it, and Paris Hilton's was a night vision-lit work of crap that could have barely passed for a mid '80s undercover prostitution sting video. People had already thought of Anderson as a sex symbol and Hilton as an idiotic slut anyway, so the videos were never that surprising.
Considering all the public nudity crap these companies like to shoot this has probably already happened...the "extras" are just not aware of it.
Personally I am surprised at the number of videos or scenes I have seen where an actor (rarely an actress) shows up, reads a line, and then leaves! You'd think if there was actual male talent he would be utilized, otherwise there's no point in having him in the scene.
Almost forgot about Zoe -- hot, nasty, and willing to try almost anything and actually enjoy it! I think she was actually on an episode of The Wonder Years 10 years before she showed her dirty side for ALS. They shot her again in their New Orleans shot doing girl-girl, and then again for one of their Jamaica trips, though by that time she had shorter hair and "enhanced" breasts.
Thanks. Yeah, 30G is pretty generous, nearly 1T for a 30 day subscription, so it's not too bad. I get greedy sometimes, especially when I first join a site, so it kind of worried me. I am sure if I focus in (uh sorry, bad pun) on what I like -- and this site looks like it has plenty of it -- I will be fine.
I couldn't agree more; no direction can equal a good video. Usually it's just the model looking at camera, then talks to herself, "finds" toy under pillow/seat cushion, proceeds to orgasm, goodbye wave. Sometimes this can be pretty cool, like the Amy Lee/ Kacey Jordan fistin' and pumpin' scene, but it was a big relief to see videos without the director's constant influence (minus the goofy male assistants, a growing problem).
Their older stuff looks, well, older, but it's not too bad really. It's interesting seeing videos that have never been released, even if they are all photoshoot/BTS. Definitely collector's material, especially compared to the HD quality of current releases.
I am personally looking forward to Joanne's upcoming rerelease since I still own a video and CD of hers from the late '90s (yes, I've been an ALS fan for 10 yrs...time flies).
Their newest photos are supposedly even better and more HD than stuff from a few months ago since they got a new camera. I have only noticed this on hi-res versions of photos, and only ones that are close-ups; wide shots look the same.
The '08 Caribbean shoot is looking pretty good so far, and most of last year's tropics shoot has been released, which by itself is almost worth a month’s subscription. The HD videos are more focused on masturbation than BTS and photoshoot than older ones but tons of selection
Yeah, ALS is a good example. On one of their recent blogs they mentioned the rough cost of their latest Caribbean trip and I was shocked. It's usually a good thing when porn shocks me, but not this time -- the cost was around six figures for a weeklong trip! I admit I like those shoots –some of my favorite material so far – but I am not sure I would like paying for it.
I think if I had a lot of money, actually knew how business worked, and could easily afford to lose all of my investment in a new porn site, I would do it, but I am not sure about starting from scratch. I think just the fact that the bad sites far outnumber the good sites is a sign it probably would not be worth the effort.
It would probably be like owning a super expensive sports car: looks cool, lots of people like seeing it, I just wouldn't want to work on it or pay for it.
1.) Guy-girl hardcore, no; some girl-girl, but mostly solo girl stuff
2.) No, their site currently says "your inthecrack membership now includes ALL videos in ALL sizes." (I was just pissed off it took them so long to implement this.)
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.
