| Incoming Feedback |
All feedback to this webmaster's managed sites. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Comment
26
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
10-07-17 02:53am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
27
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
09-10-17 05:24pm
Replies (4)
|
Comment
28
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
08-23-17 05:56am
Replies (1)
|
Comment
29
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
07-06-17 07:13am
Replies (4)
|
Review
30
|
MetArt
(0)
94.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-PU discount of $19.99/month (recurring).
Occasionally a cheaper discount will pop up if you search the internet.
-Tremendous backlog of softcore galleries.
-Many of the most beautiful models in softcore porn appear at this site.
-Zips for all galleries. Choice of definition of low, medium, high for zips.
-Huge number of professional contributing photographers.
-Although this is a huge site, the search engine is helpful: can search by model's name, title of the photoset,
photographer, model's attributes (Hair color, Eye color, Ethnicity, Breast size, Age, Weight, Height, Country, etc.).
-Get 4 updates per day (except for the first of each month, when you get 6 updates). |
| Cons: |
-The cons are basically minor. This is the largest, finest softcore photo collection of models on the internet.
-In spite of shooting attractive models for the video, the videos are mainly boring. The last couple of years, some effort has been put into making the videos more erotic: the models are now allowed to touch themselves in a softcore manner. However, not only are the older videos boring, but most of the newer videos are boring as well. It's hard as hell to make an interesting or erotic softcore video.
-Member's can comment on each gallery or video. However, the members seem to form a fan club, where each model is described as wonderful or amazing in looks.
-If you post a comment that a model appears at a competing paysite, that comment will be deleted. MetArt should have enough confidence in their appeal and worth that useful comments about the model's appearances at competing paysites should be allowed.
-Lack of diversity in the models. |
| Bottom Line: |
On 2017-01-25, the stats are as follows:
Models: 3,285
Contributing photographers: 272
Galleries: 16,678
Videos: 1,362
MetArt came online in 1998. It's original title was Most Erotic Teens. It featured softcore of young teens.
(So "Met" came from M for Most, e from Erotic, t from Teens.)
(And "Art, because this is supposed to be erotic art.)
MetArt started off as softcore erotic photography, and has not changed drastically since its beginnings.
Currently the models are now allowed to touch themselves, to add a larger element of eroticism. But MetArt is still one of the softer softcore sites on the internet.
MetArt in recent years has added a network of other porn sites: It currently has about 15 porn sites.
MetArt is the largest of the sites, in terms of content.
The basic appeal of the site is the backlog of attractive young women (mainly teens, at least when they were first photographed). The models are featured in galleries and videos. The videos are mainly boring, a waste of MetArt's time and money. But many of the photosets are outstanding. The models are not only attractive to beautiful, but they are photographed by a wide range of professional photographers. The settings are indoor, outdoor, with money spent on the photoshoots and videos.
Many of the photoshoots could be hung in an art gallery or museum.
A minor problem: The site could be too softcore for some PU members tastes. This is softcore only. No sex (except possibly two girls in a photoshoot who are touching each other, but not in a hardcore way). No man in a photoshoot with the girl, or in a video with the girl.
Another minor problem: Many of the photos in a gallery are similar to each other. I remember back in the days of Playboy and Penthouse (in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s), when the magazines featured a model with 12 photographs or less. But the individual photos were separate from each other, often in a different location, different costume, something to differentiate each photo from the others.
The MetArt galleries show a model in one photo, she moves her arm slightly, and that's a different photo, she moves her leg slightly, and that's a different photo...so you get a gallery of 90 - 120 photos where the girl is snapped moving into different positions on a bed or room, and most of the photos are almost duplicates of each other.
If the girl has truly outstanding beauty, you can focus on the girl. Otherwise, the gallery gets boring fast.
Unless mere onscreen nudity is enough to turn you on. Which I believe most PU members have gone beyond.
One problem with MetArt is the sheer size of the backlog: You have so many beautiful models, with a large number of outstanding photosets by professional photographers, that you become bored or less appreciative of physical beauty.
If MetArt had fewer galleries, with fewer models, I believe the members would appreciate it more.
That's my take, anyway. However, the MetArt members do seem to form a fanbase, where almost every model and gallery is described as outstanding, wonderful, fantastic, amazing. Personally, I don't believe every model is fantastic. There are models that could be described as plain. Or ordinary. And there are galleries that have serious defects. Except that you will find member comments describing those galleries as outstanding or wonderful.
In conclusion: I believe MetArt is the best softcore collection of nude teen photos on the internet.
Based on
-the amazing amount of galleries posted, since 1998.
-the quality of the models: most of the models are attractive to lovely.
-the quality of the photosets: the photosets are filmed by many of the world-class erotic photographers.
-the outstanding update rate: 4 updates per day, except for the first of each month, which has 6 updates.
-the outstanding level of customer service. The finest customer service of any site I've ever belonged to: fast, responsive, helpful in most cases.
-Excellent download speeds. I normally get 4-5 MB/s, which is close to my max download speed limit of 6.25 MB/s.
-Download zip file of a gallery is automatically named with Site name-Date posted-Gallery title-Model name-Photographer name-definition (high, medium, or low).
Giving the site a score of 94. The boring videos, the sameness of many photos in a gallery, and other quibbles take away from a perfect score of 100.
But if you are in a generous mood, you could say the site deserves a score of 99 or even 100. |
|
01-25-17 05:58pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
31
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
01-20-17 08:13pm
Replies (4)
|
Comment
32
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
01-18-17 07:33am
Replies (1)
|
Review
33
|
MetArt
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
--extensive collection
--easy to navigate; helpful user interface
--attractive models (and lots of them)
--artistic approach to the shoots |
| Cons: |
--lacks diversity (both in terms of models and shoots)
--videos tend to be unambitious and predictable
--the sheer volume of material can be a bit overwhelming |
| Bottom Line: |
I can only subscribe to a few sites a year, and Met Art is always on the list. Unlike ALS, these are artistic shoots with an erotic bent -- nothing extreme here. But like ALS, many models are on the younger (legal) side, so if you're seeking out a new model, you can't go wrong here. Honestly, sometimes the youth concerns me -- some of the younger models look out of their element, as if they're not yet entirely comfortable with their sexuality. But most models look entirely comfortable, and the fact that so many of them have returned to do follow-up shoots speaks to their comfort level with the site and its producers.
The photo shoots have a quality about them that can transport you to an Eden-like place where beauty roams the countryside in all its natural splendor. (Outdoor shoots aren't uncommon.) And the models seem to be enjoying the experience. And OH, what beauties they attract: Lorena B (singled out by Standard in his review, and rightly so), Katie A, Lily C, Mia D, Nikia A, and Niemira (who apparently needs no last initial) are merely a few of the models who consistently grace this site with their beauty, and the shoots are always respectful and revealing.
When I do sign up for a one-month membership, I also like to search for models (like Nastya E) who are no longer posing for shoots but whose archives are available. All models are easy to locate, and each shoot is rated by members to help guide you (if interested). There are treasures to be mined on Met Art if you devote yourself.
On the downside, I'll echo what my fellow reviewers have offered: you don't find much diversity on the site. Most of the models have similar features, and depending on the model, shoots can become rather predictable (even though the site uses an impressive aray of photogs). The beauty and artistry, for me, is enough to overcome such a flaw, but it's there, which means that after you've spent some time on the site, you might find yourself needing a break.
Finally, the shoots are, as I mentioned, revealing but never too revealing. Parted labia may represent the most extreme content on Met Art. :-) Those expecting more may be disappointed; or they may come away from the site appreciating the female form as art. Whether that gets them off is another question entirely. |
|
01-08-17 01:14pm
Replies (7)
|
Review
34
|
MetArt
(0)
88.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- It's probably the greatest picture porn site on the internet. I consider it slightly intimidating to review.
- Very pretty models.
- To my knowledge, the technical quality (picture resolution) is unmatched.
- The photo sets can be downloaded in zips.
- Advertises 4-6 updates per day. It's been 4 per day during my current membership.
- Good download speeds that seem to choke up and slow down on some sets.
- Considering the size of the site and the overwhelming amount of content, their navigation is very good and often surprises me with how good it is.
- The scenes themselves have become more "adult" or I should say "nude". You rarely see a set now without full nudity.
- Strong network of sites also can be purchased with Met Art.
- The locations of the shoots are often as pretty as the model. |
| Cons: |
- The videos are a complete waste for me. They're usually in the 10 minute range and are usually just of the model rolling around on a bed naked, walking around naked or posing.
- I'm assuming a new porn fan is reading this and needs to know, there's no intercourse, no blowjobs, no double anal penetration to be found anywhere on the site. It's a site about pretty girls being pretty and naked. And yes, I think for many, that's a major con.
- I really wish they would get rid of those cam ads. It takes up roughly 1/3 the page.
- Site itself can be a bit wonky. I've had it close for no reason, refuse to remember my login, store my old login so I login to an account from 2011 and I still think they try too hard to get you to buy an upsell. |
| Bottom Line: |
There's few sites that I consider intimidating to review, Met-Art, might be at the top of the list. First, there's so much content there's no way you're going to see all of it in a month or even a year. Second, even though it doesn't show as much with me as it does with other PU members, I really like pictures. Third, if I was to complain about something that bothers me it's the way the site presents its content and shoots/produces its content.
The reason the photo one bothers me is if I just reviewed it from just what I think about the site, it's going to get a very high score. But ... I don't think their pictures are the best. I prefer FTVs pictures and some of ALS Scan's too. Complaining about how the site produces or presents its content is just a subjective opinion. In a few words, it's a little more artsy than I like.
Then there's the big one. The videos still aren't worth downloading. I think that should be the biggest question you ask yourself before joining Met-Art. If you're strictly a video person, you're going to be disappointed and wondering why everyone scores this site so high. I think for me, it's that I always loved the old porn magazines, but not the tame ones like Playboy. Penthouse was a borderline one for me. I liked Hustler, Gallery, and a few other more obscure ones that showed full-nudity and penetration of fingers. Met-Art does a very good job of recreating those classic magazines in their photo sets. If you think you would enjoy that, then this is a definite join site.
Technically, the newest photo sets are nearing 6000 long end, there might even be some that go over 6000, but I've not seen them. Still, 6000 long end, is big enough to count the fuzz hairs on a model's butt. This is where one of my only complaints about the pictures comes into play. Some of the photos are blurry when viewed in the largest size. I don't get that near as much with FTV or ALS Scan.
Their presentation and style of content can be described this way and it's not about every single set, it's more of an "in general" than blanket statement. It's like when you're younger and see this beautiful girl who smiles at you. You are so excited to go out with her then you go out with her and there's no chemistry, her personality is flat, dull. I normally wouldn't make a comparison like that, but Met-Art is the one site I've always had a slight problem with because of its presentation. For all of their uniqueness, being a photo-heavy site, trying not to be vulgar, it's like the sets become interchangeable. I'm not even for sure this word really fits here, but I would call their content "linear". And I think you have to accept that before you can really enjoy their content. Their photographers, in my opinion, take their work, direction, flow of their photo sets, very seriously. For a long time, I avoided Met-Art because I found the content too similar from set to set.
Now though, I join it once per year and download any of the new sets/girls I like. It took a long time to sort my collection from Met-Art and get it to the point, where I only needed the content from one year. It makes the membership more enjoyable and less frustrating.
The models are generally very pretty, slim, a few have bigger builds, but most are slim. Most of the models are white, which is a bit of a problem for me, not so much from a PC view, but just because I like the different physical features each race has.
They have improved one thing I have complained about before. A lot of the artsy photo sites like to start each set with the model fully nude. Met-Art was very bad about doing this. Now, you'll see quite a few of the newer sets starting with models fully clothed. I've always believed my problem with models starting fully nude was based around my own fantasies of seeing what she looks like with her clothes on then comparing how she looks nude. But I now think it was more to do with their older sets starting fully nude, but not showing pink or buttholes. It would be 120 photos of trying to hide those things. They've improved that, I think it's brought more personality out from the models than the old style allowed.
I really can't convince myself to raise the score any even with the change to more sets starting clothed. I've now been a member on Sex-Art, which Met-Art owns and I prefer it. I also prefer ALS Scan, which Met-Art is partnered with. Other than that, I would think for someone who prefers pictures and hasn't been on many other photo sites, this Met-Art site could easily represent your "100" site. I feel like I'm defending my stance of only giving it an 88, but it shouldn't stop anyone from trying it out, unless you prefer videos by a large margin. I consider myself about 50/50 on photos and videos. If you prefer pictures, add 8-10 points to my score. If you prefer videos, subtract 8-10 points from my score. As an ending compliment, Met-Art is one of the few sites I wouldn't be surprised to see rated a 100. |
|
12-26-16 11:30pm
Replies (1)
|
Review
35
|
MetArt
(0)
97.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- The obvious: Beautiful models.
- Easy to navigate, easy to use.
- No download limits that I encountered.
- A surprising number of models with very natural tan lines. I'm going to type it again just because they're so attractive and I'm surprised no one has started a niche site based on them. Tan lines.
- Not the same setting for every model. FWIW, I didn't recognize any repeats.
- Very few, if any at all, fake breasts.
- Did I mention tan lines? |
| Cons: |
- Aliases for some well-known stars.
- User tags not as complete as they could be.
- Pretty limited in age, color, and body type.
- Naming is a bit odd. Lots of single letters after first names to differentiate from models. Made up example: Lori B., Lori G., Lori H., and Lori L. Not a big deal, but noticeably unusual. |
| Bottom Line: |
For perspective, my average site rating is 77 and the best score I've ever given is a 91.
I decided to finally see what all the fuss is about, and I'll be damned if the site didn't live up to its reputation.
Know what you're getting into. It's not hardcore. It is gorgeous women photographed well by people who know what they are doing.
This is the first time I think I've really experienced a hydra. A very, very pleasant hydra, but a hydra still. You can click to look at a model's set, and either the "previous set" or "next set" thumbnail will show a different model's scene that you're going to click on to look at, too. And then it will happen again with that set and another model. And again. And again. And again.
Most websites find you browsing through multiple scenes to see the ones you DO to view. This one is the opposite. You'll realize that you are having trouble finding sets you DON'T want to see. Word of warning: If you join, you won't just be a member one single time. It might not be month-to-month, but you'll probably be joining this site again.
Beautiful models. Not "hey, those are beautiful models for an adult site," but beautiful in the women-in-general sense. I prefer older women, but there's no denying that almost every single model would turn heads in any room she entered, and more than likely be the prettiest one there. Even the models you decide to skip over are attractive, and if the skipped-over one were to approach you at the beach or grocery store (much less a bar) and began chatting with you and showing even the slightest bit of interest, then you'd do your best to see her again. And she's one you'll skip over on the site.
Every shoot I saw had small (10-ish mb), medium (50mb or so), and large (80-500mb) zip files, and the images can also be viewed on-screen with a choice between small, medium, and large as well.
Did I mention tan lines yet? It's indicative of why the site is so good. It's not simply tan lines, but all-over tans, pale skin, hairy pubic areas, completely shaved, etc. It's so great to see different women look like different women.
Everything isn't perfect, though. Letting users add the tags is a pretty inefficient system. While "sexy", "gorgeous", "pretty face", and "perfect 10" are nice, they're very subjective and not extremely useful. Very basic tags from the photographer/webmaster like curly hair, brunette, lingerie, etc. would be appreciated since the tags can be clicked on to pull up any other set that has the same tag.
There is very little ethnic variety, and is 95%+ beautiful white women. That's not a big deal for me, but if you prefer women that are more towards the darker side of the spectrum be aware that you're not going to find too much variation here.
You'll recognize a few stars here and there (the lovely Lorena Garcia comes to mind, and I was very glad to see her), but for the most part it's unknown amateurs.
I didn't download or otherwise investigate the videos at all so someone else will need to give input on that, but I have no reason to suspect they're anything other than superb.
Bottom line:
A great site. If you have any appreciation for the female form, join. Will I join again? Definitely.
Webmaster: Do you run (or does anyone else know of) a MILF website with similar photography? Anilos is great and I've been a repeat member off and on for years, but there's a definite difference in styles and I'd really like to see some older women handled with Met Art's artistic approach. |
|
08-13-16 09:17am
Replies (0)
|
Comment
36
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
05-11-16 08:29am
Replies (6)
|
Review
37
|
MetArt
(0)
99.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-Bill through CCBill
-PU discounted price of $19.99. This site is worth at least double that, considering the quantity and quality.
-First class customer service.
-Very complete tour of the site. You know exactly what you will get.
-Huge quantity of material gong back to 1998. You cannot download everything you might like in one 30 day subscription.
-Daily updates of about four to six photosets.
-Stunningly beautiful models. Hardly a disappointing one on the entire site. I did not see a single tattoo.
-Outstanding specs. Hi res photos recently come in at 5616x3744, videos at 1920x1080. |
| Cons: |
-Mostly Eastern European models, which results in close to zero ethnic variety.
-Mostly teens to twenties models and most are extremely thin. In some cases their rib cages and pelvic bones are quite visible. Despite their beautiful faces, many are not sexy.
-Little variety of body shapes.
-Too much emphasis on the art aspects of the female body. If I wanted art I would take a class or perhaps glance through Vogue. I like more explicit.
-Most sets seem to have no natural progression, such as stripping. The sets often have the model clothed in the last few photos. You could randomly mix up the order of the photos and they would be just as logical. |
| Bottom Line: |
It has been more than three years since I last joined Metart. In spite of some flaws, it is a great site for many objective reasons. The low price, as well as the quality of the content and the models makes this a site that should be ranked at the top of the nude photos category. Lk2fireone’s review says a lot that I totally agree with and he describes it very well.
I want to describe the subjective experience of being on the site. The layout and navigation are both logical and easy to use. The search engine is great. It is inviting, warm and friendly and it practically begs for you to get into checking out the content.I am referring to the old format here, as they just launched a Beta. I did not use it much yet, so I can't say much about it.
Once you are inside the site it is a lot like being in the jungle hunting for the good stuff which is camouflaged. I am not so much into art as I am into more explicit photos. There are some here, but it is hard to find them due to so much art. What you mostly see are side shots, legs crossed, jumping, use of props etc. Sometimes the photos are black and white, sometimes sepia, some with a soft focus, some with a low depth of field, where one part is in focus where other parts are not. Some sets are shot in the dark without much light. This is soft core, but that term does not tell all. I can find soft core erotic, but don’t find art erotic. Some sets have no explicit shots, most have only a few. The videos mostly do not tease as they have the model moving too fast. I would prefer a scene to linger as appropriate. Finding what I like is tedious as there is just so much to see. When you finish checking out a photoset and want to move on, you can look for more of the same model and many have multiple photosets, more of the same photographer, especially if you like his style of photography and model presentation, more sets with the same tags, or the one updated before or after-you can see a thumbnail of the model.
Tags are comments that subscribers add to the sets. You may see for example, “killer body” or “pretty face“. Obviously these are a matter of opinion. Some tags are not so easy to use though. If you use “unshaven“, you get sets with full bush or even as little as barely a landing strip. You never know what may turn up in the search. The same is true for “open labia” . There is a large gray area here. In some sets you cannot even see the labia, but the tag is still there.
I find that about an hour of downloading is about all that I can reasonably do. This requires a lot of patience and attention to detail. The temptation to go all over the place following the searches can be a bit overwhelming. Should I check out more of the same model or should I switch to searching for open labia?
I cannot leave without mentioning the customer service. I accidentally signed up twice using two different billing processors. Each came with a prechecked cross sell for another site and I did not catch that. The member name and password were randomly generated and I did not know which went with each subscription. It was a complete mess so I contacted customer service. Despite that fact that it was a Sunday, everything was corrected in about five minutes. No hassles, no runaround that I should contact the processors. My highest compliments to their staff!! |
|
12-13-15 08:43am
Replies (4)
|
Comment
38
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
12-13-15 07:42am
Replies (5)
|
Review
39
|
MetArt
(0)
99.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
-In my opinion, the best softcore photo site on the internet.
-Over 3,000 models. Many of the models are lovely to stunningly beautiful.
-A wide range of professional photographers contribute to this site.
-A huge backlog of photo sets. Site started in 1998, as MostEroticTeens.com (hence the name change to Met-Art.com).
-The site updates daily with 4 to 6 photo sets + videos per day. So not only a huge backlog of content, but a truly generous update rate as well. Most updates are photo sets.
-You get a small bio sheet on the models, that includes their age when shot, body measurements, and a brief note on what they like. Not much a bio sheet, but it makes the girls more real.
-No DRM. You download a photo set, it's yours to keep.
-Excellent download speeds. I get 5.5 or 5.6 MB/sec, which is extremely fast for me.
-Fast response from technical support. You get an an email within a few hours that shows a human actually read your problem email and is helping. |
| Cons: |
PROS (CONTINUED):
-Site is basically easy to use. However, because of the huge number of models and photo sets, it can take months to search through the site to find everything you will like.
-There is an index of the models, with a large thumbnail of the model to show what she looks like.
-There is also an index of the contributing photographers. With the photo sets from each photographer.
-So you can search by the name of the model, or by the name of the photographer.
-You can comment on each photo set (or photographer). And there is an active community that discusses their likes and dislikes of the photo sets. Most comments are positive, but negative comments are allowed. And the contributing photographer sometimes responds.
-No download limits.
-CCBill is the billing agent-one of the best credit card processing agents on the Net.
-Allows the use of download managers. I use DownThemAll, a free download manager.
-The photosets are offered in three sizes for download and viewing. |
| Bottom Line: |
PROS (CONTINUED):
-The photosets have separate zip files for low definition, medium definition, and high definition.
CONS
-The cons are basically minor. This is the best softcore erotic site on the Internet.
-Not strictly a con, but the site is softcore erotic. No hardcore porn. If you want hardcore, look elsewhere.
-The videos are boring. They have tried in recent years to make the videos more erotic. These are videos of attractive models that are naked, but the videos are disappointing, and mainly a waste of time and effort.
-Because of the huge amount of the photo sets, and the 3,000 plus number of models that are mainly attractive to stunningly lovely, it's a natural human reaction to become slightly bored with the site. Back in the day when Playboy and
Penthouse were in their glory days, you only got those magazines once a month, so the impact of each issue was more potent. Because Met-Art has thousands of photo sets and thousands of lovely models, instead of appreciating how wonderful the
site is, you start to feel bored by the loveliness and attractiveness of the models and photo sets. That is human psychology. You want what you don't have, but once you get it, the value of what you have diminishes.
-Some people object that the photos don't meet the professional standards that they are seeking. Again, that is human nature. There will always be people who object or complain about any beautiful model or photo or object. The site features attractive to stunningly beautiful models that are photographed by professional photographers.
Obviously, not every photo set is a masterpiece, but you get access to a boatload of softcore photos of lovely women.
-Most models are 18 to early 20s. White, slender to medium build. You don't get a lot of variety in the models as far as age or race or build.
BOTTOM LINE:
MetArt is best site for softcore erotic photography on the Internet.
Based on a variety of factors:
1. Huge number of attractive models (over 3,000 models).
2. Huge number of photo sets (around 15,000 sets, which will take you many months to look through.
3. Over 1,000 videos, which you can use to put yourself to sleep through boredom. Maybe a few videos are truly erotic, but the erotic videos are few and far between).
4. Hundreds of contributing photographers. So you get access to a range of styles. But the overall approach is softcore erotic.
5. Site is easy to use. Can search by name of model, name of photographer, or by other attributes: hair color, age of model, eye color, ethnicity, etc.
6. A low price (with PU discount). $20/month, or $100/year.
There are other sites that are similar, that offer high grade photography and lovely models: MPL Studios and Femjoy are 2 of the closest competitors. But even though they are both Mega-sites (huge content of photo sets and large number of lovely models), Met-Art is the biggest site as far as number of photo sets and number of models.
I enjoy the photo sets at Met-Art and MPL Studios more than the photo sets at Femjoy. The Met-Art and MPL Studios photos seem fresher, the models look more attractive, than the models at Femjoy. Many of the Met-Art and MPL Studios models also
appear at Femjoy, but I normally prefer the Met-Art and MPL studios sets over the Femjoy sets.
Other people can and do appreciate the Femjoy style over the Met-Art style, and have stated so. So it's a matter of personal preference.
This is my third review of Met-Art. I gave it a score of 97 in my first review (which was also my first review for PU), a 99 in my second review (because the number of models and photo sets just keep increasing).
In this review I am giving Met-Art a score of 99.
I know many members feel that a score of 99 for any site is wrong. They believe that any site can be improved, and that a score of 99 ignores whatever faults a site may have.
But I believe that Met-Art is the best softcore site on the Internet. And that because of many
factors that I listed, it does deserve a score of 99. In spite of the boring videos. |
|
12-12-15 02:34pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
40
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
07-02-15 07:02pm
Replies (6)
|
Comment
41
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
05-01-15 06:50am
Replies (7)
|
Review
42
|
MetArt
(0)
95.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Top rated softcore site
Some of the most beautiful models on the planet!
The site is HUGE!
Spectacular imagery and sets
Dozens of outstanding photographers across Europe
4-6 updates PER DAY!
Excellent search capabilities
Excellent navigation and "window" management
Excellent range of photo and video resolution
Download speeds are consistently fast.
Customer service that ANY on-line company would be proud of. |
| Cons: |
Only one thing in the CON category:
Too much cross-selling to the other sites in the network. |
| Bottom Line: |
I noticed there were no current reviews of this site so I thought I would write an update to a review I wrote two years ago.
I've been a member of this site off and on for over a decade now and am a loyal, permanent customer. It is without a doubt one of the best softcore sites on the internet. The models are spectacular, the sets are great, the clothing, hair and make-up are usually perfect, the variety is great and the girls generally look like they are having a good time. Nothing cheap or poorly done anywhere, period.
Navigation is also very good and the way the site opens tabs for sets and individual images is the best I've seen. I've actually used this site as a reference to other webmasters with sites that have mediocre navigation.
There are several exclusive or nearly exclusive models on this site that words cannot describe. Many are well known European models but many are women you've never seen before but will want to see again and again. The girls are almost entirely all natural. The images you see on the main page and tour are perfectly representative of the images in the site as are the scores of the models (over 150 legitimate 9+ models).
To be clear here, this is a SOFTCORE site. If you enjoy looking at incredibly beautiful naked women positioned in ways that tastefully show off their assets, this is a great site for you. The site is mostly solo sets with a few two-girl sets and an occasional masturbation set. Sexy, but no sex. If you are looking for hardcore, insertions or kink of any kind, you will need to look elsewhere. Pretty much the only gaping here will be your mouth just before you say "Oh my fucking god this girl is beautiful"....and you will say that a lot!
There is really only one negative that I'm going to mention here and it is more of a customer service thing than a fault with the site. Met Art is part of a pretty big network which includes Sex Art, the Life Erotic, Errotica Archives, Erotic Beauty and a few others. Unlike many other networks, you have to join each of these sites separately. OK, I can appreciate that the individual owners want to maximize revenue. What I find a little annoying is that in Met-Art, when you look at a set of a model, a section sometimes appears at the bottom of the set that says something like "more of this model:' with a bunch of images that are links. Well, although there may be more of this model on Met-Art, the links are NOT WITHIN THE MET ART SITE. They are links to offers to join one of the other sites in the network where more images of this model exist. Since I first mentioned this a few years ago, I have seen a few other networks that do it but some of those are all inclusive networks with free access to the other sites. There is always a link on the top of each page that will get you to the models "profile card" within Met-Art (just click on the model's name), so after a while you will learn to ignore these links at the bottom.
Now, in-spite of that cross-selling tactic, the guys at Met-Art are gracious enough to discount the other sites once you join Met-Art, sometimes providing significant discounts, as low as $5-10 for a month for each site. To be fair, these sites have their own flavor and plenty of unique sets. And pretty much every site on the network is the same or nearly the same quality as Met-Art, although some of these other sites are considerably smaller.
Oh, and here's an interesting one. They have a cam site called MetCams.com. I do not partake in cam sites very often but browsing this one brings up several of the top models that are showcased on the Met-Art site. A few years ago I, um, came across Mila I., one of my all time favorite Met-art models, on the cam site and I could not resist. She did not disappoint, I was completely satisfied and I have a memory that (oddly, I admit) rivals a few from high-school. Clearly, the cam site is not soft-core....
I also want to say that the customer service for Met-Art and their network is simply outstanding. They are very responsive and have cleared up billing and other questions/issues immediately whenever I have had to contact them.
So...if you have not yet been to this site and want some seriously great softcore imagery and video to add to your collection, Met-Art is a MUST. I have an annual membership and have joined nearly every one of the other sites in the network for at least a month. This site and every other site on the network is totally, completely worth subscribing to. |
|
03-22-15 08:02am
Replies (4)
|
Comment
43
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
03-22-15 05:47am
Replies (3)
|
Comment
44
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
11-27-14 12:54pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
45
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
11-24-13 02:22pm
Replies (1)
|
Comment
46
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
10-20-13 09:56pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
47
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
09-18-13 05:03pm
Replies (5)
|
Comment
48
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
08-10-13 08:44pm
Replies (2)
|
Rating
49
|
MetArt
(0)
85.0
|
No Review.
|
08-03-13 08:05am
|
Comment
50
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
07-19-13 07:34am
Replies (3)
|
|
