I think you gave some convincing arguments for the legal and financial reasons for being headquartered in the U.S.
I dimly remember that years ago, credit card companies and other corporations would be incorporated in Delaware (in the US), for financial and legal reasons, because Delaware had laws more favorable to business than most other states. Even though those corporations did little business in Delaware.
I completely agree with you. You want to know the age of the model at the time of the shoot.
The truth is, at a lot of sites, there is no attempt to be accurate about the model's age. They give the model's age as 18 or 19, even when many of the models are at least in their early 20s. Because they know the customers want the models to be teenagers, which means 18 or 19.
But Metart seems to be an exception to that rule. They do try to give the model's real age. But I believe it's just a software problem that they are giving the current age of the model on the bio sheet that is downloaded with each photoshoot.
On the Metart site itself, it clearly states that the age shown is the current age of the model (not the downloaded bio sheet, but the online bio sheet).
So it's just a software programming error.
Years ago, the age shown in the downloaded bio sheet was the approximate age of the model at the time of the shoot. But I don't know specifically, if they were giving the model's age at the time of the photo shoot, or the model's age at the time the photo shoot was posted to the Metart site.
I only sent one email to Metart tech support about the current versus shooting photo age of the model.
I sent the email on Monday, early morning.
This is Saturday, evening.
No reply to the email. I figure it got lost in their spam filter.
The problem still appears in the bio text file that downloads with a photoset. It still gives the current age of the model. Not the age of the model at the time of the photoshoot, or when the photoshoot was posted to this site.
Just a bit of sloppiness. Annoying, but minor. Because they did list, and keep a record at Metart, of the age of the model with almost all photoshoots. But I don't know specifically if that age referred to the age of the model at the time the photoshoot was shot, or if it referred to the model's age at the time the photoshoot was posted to the Metart site.
If they send me a reply to my email to technical support, I will let you know.
Also, if I notice within a week or two that the downloaded bio now shows the age of the model at the time the photoset was posted (or it was shot?), I will let you know, by posting a reply to your post.
Sorry, my mistake. I meant David Hamilton, not Peter Hamilton.
But David Hamilton has been accused of using under-age models, as well. But he used a soft-focus effect, which is a better term than a fuzzy effect. And Galitsin used the same kind of soft-focus effect in some of his photo shoots.
Some of Ronin's photo shoots are still at MetArt. But it's probably been 6 years or more since he's had any new work posted at MetArt.
I'm not aware of any shoots that are in his artsy style that were posted at MetArt in the last few years.
I think that in the early days of MetArt, they were more accepting of different styles of eroticism. At least in some of their offerings.
But since then, they have mainly focused on more mainstream, less artistic photography.
Let me rephrase that. The far-out artistic style were always, at most, a very minor part of the MetArt offerings. And now they are even less on view.
Even the fuzzy (not a very appropriate term) of Grigori Galitsin photo shoots, which I thought were somewhat artsy, are not in evidence at MetArt today. But Galitsin was a different case, where he was accused of using under-age models. So all of his photo shoots were removed from MetArt, I believe.
But I thought Galitsin's shoots had a certain artistic quality, sort of in the Peter Hamilton style, with a fuzzy (I'm not using the proper term to describe it) effect to the photos.
A lot of models have tried to cross over into acting. But very few models make it big as actors.
Marky Mark made the transition, and he has had an extremely successful career as an actor. His acting name is Mark Wahlberg.
I think of him as a model before he became an actor, because of the commercials he did for men's underwear.
But he was more famous as a singer than a model, before he became an actor: Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch.
Jessica Lange was a model before becoming an actress. Today, she is considered one of the best professional actors of her generation, having won Academy awards, Golden Globes, Emmys, and just about everything else an actor can win.
But for her first acting job, in King Kong, I remember reading that a lot of critics said she had no talent as an actress.
Rene Russo (she was in the Lethal Weapon franchise with Mel Gibson) has had a very successful acting career after starting out as a model.
But like you said, most models that try to get into acting find that it's a matter of luck as well as skill and looks that help to determine your success.
Anyway, there are a lot of factors in making a good video. More so than making a good photograph.
I agree with your points about models and the difference between a photoset and a video.
But you would think, unless the people that run Metart are completely blind, that they would realize how boring their videos are.
And that they would stop wasting so much of their time and money and site-space on hosting these boring videos on their site.
Either that, or get people who know how to shoot an interesting video.
But at the same time, I think that Femjoy videos are also boring. Femjoy videos are slightly better than Metart videos, but not by much.
On the other hand, maybe it's partly a softcore thing.
I look at a photo (or video) and see whether I enjoy it or not. I pay very little attention to the technical specifications, although I do realize they can have an impact on my enjoyment.
I usually like photos that are clear and in focus. The same with videos.
I was merely trying to make a comment (and joke) that a few models barely seem to age over a period of 5 years or more. Most models do age quite noticeably once they are no longer teenagers.
But your explanation of a photographer shooting multiple sets of a particular model and then those sets being posted over a long period of time seems reasonable.
Occasionally I will find a new set of a model I like, and realize it was photographed years ago, because the model appears so much like she did when she was just starting out. The posting date of the set might be recent, but the set was photographed much earlier. That is different from when a site re-dates a set because they are trying to show they are posting new content, which is a lie.
When sites give a content date, that should normally mean the date the content was first posted at that site.
But even here, it's not always simple. Because some sites, when they give an updated version of some content, because it's in higher resolution or some other form of improved version, will re-date that content to the date it's currently posted.
I feel like a dog chasing its own tail.
I admire your way with words. Clear and to the point.
I'm not currently a member. But I have been a member many times in the past. I agree with almost everything you wrote. The only thing I differ is that you found videos that were erotic. Maybe I just got tired looking, but almost all the metart videos that I have seen are boring, in spite of how lovely or attractive the models are.
But then again, maybe eroticism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And that might explain why videos I find boring might be attractive to others.
Sorry about that. The Metart server must have a program which captures the location of your computer, and a program that then controls the prices you see.
The link I gave gives me a price of $24.99, but I am in the U.S.
What you say convinces me, once again, that beauty (or sex appeal) is in the eye of the beholder. I downloaded the farm girl photo set of Barbara at Errotica and then deleted it after viewing, because I just didn't like it.
I'm trying to be a little picky. Because even though Hard Drive storage is so cheap, I'm filling up these external hard drives with photo sets and videos I will probably never look at twice.
I really liked Barbara Ds first photoset, but I found her other photosets to be much less appealing. It continually amazes me how a single model can look extremely attractive in one photoset, and so much less so in other photosets. You might expect this variation due to different photographers shooting the same model. But even the same photographer can make a model have a large difference in how attractively she is presented.
Anyhow, I agree that the new naming convention at Metart is more descriptive. But like Drooler states, the older system was far easier to use, in the sense the identifying section, e.g. SRT_141, was easy to list and keep track of. I am still trying to figure out how to keep a record of these long file names for a photoset.
If you were able to download the entire contents of Met-art in one month, you must have an extremely fast Internet connection, as well as a huge amount of hard drive storage.
What program did you use to download all that content? I'm guessing you needed a program to automatically download the entire contents of a site, because to manually download the individual files (photosets and videos) would take a huge amount of time and patience.
Nubiles has a mix of softcore and hardcore, photosets and videos. If you're not into hardcore, then the value of Nubiles is sharply reduced, and a $200 yearly membership would be truly expensive, and not worth it.
Metart has a huge amount of softcore photosets. No hardcore at Metart. I think it's the best softcore site out there, and when you consider the low membership price ($20/month, or $99/year), it's truly a bargain. Metart also has the biggest daily update rate of any photosite I know of.
Metart has a large number of softcore videos (but still smaller than the huge number of softcore photosets). But the videos, in spite of the lovely models, are almost uniformly boring. A wasted opportunity of filming these gorgeous creatures. I don't know anyone who likes the videos.
I find many of the photosets to be lovely, erotic, fine photography. If you are into softcore photos, I definitely think Metart is worth a 1-month membership, if only to see what the site has to offer. No one can look through the entire site contents in one month, because the site contents are so huge: number of models, number of photosets.
Metart is my favorite site. It's not to everyone's taste, but it hits the spot for me. Many of my favorite models have one or more lovely photosets at Metart.
Regional pricing can be a real pain. There's a lot in life that makes you realize some people love to take advantage of others. It's how they get ahead. Or get their jollies. "Fuck you, buddy, 'cause I'm King of the Road" kind of thinking.
The price for a 1-year membership to nubiles is $199.00 (recurring). So from that standpoint, if you're willing to pay the $199 for nubiles, this offer will include the metart site as well.
But I agree that it's a disappointing offer. It would have been nice to get both sites for $99.00 for one year. That would have been much better.
I said the same thing, basically, that I liked the old home page better, because it was easier for me to use, and more useful, because I really liked the simplicity of a large number of the most recent updates with a thumbnail that, with simple click, brought up a full-page version of the cover sheet.
But the new home page design is a better advertisement for newbies and casual browsers, in that it shows more of what the site offers.
I've said it before, but Met-art is my favorite porn site. They have an incredible number of attractive models, an incredible amount of good-to-great looking photosets, and the site is, in spite of massive content, easy to use and easy to navigate. They also have an update rate of photosets and new models that is incredible.
If they wanted to improve the site, I think they should stop making/posting new videos, and spend the money on even more photosets. Because I can't remember if I ever saw more than a tiny number of videos I liked at this site. All the time and effort and money put into videos that I think are boring.
But the number of photosets they post, on a daily basis, blows away any other photo site I've ever joined.
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.
