Ambivalent
BSB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Posts
- 1,811
- Reaction score
- 2
Hi, guys ~
The last couple of weeks I have been rather disconsolate, because I was supposed to be going to see Mr. K (ticket was bought and everything) - and then his bosses moved him to another city, rendering the ticket useless; and since then Mr. K. has been struggling to find a new apartment, caught a bad chest cold (maybe pneumonia) - - - so we've been doing lots of crying over the phone. (We'll reschedule later, of course.)
Anyway, cranky and mean and bored - I needed a diversion. A couple of people on here have mentioned the site www.men.com, and I've been missing Tom Faulk from College Dudes something fierce (Tom ALWAYS gets me off): and I did my homework and found out that Tom is an exclusive for that site, and that Christian Wilde (one of my favourites from elsewhere) has done a lot of work for them, too. So I decided to check it out.
Here's my review, which of course reflects my tastes, and my tastes, only:
The Good Things:
1.) They've got Tom Faulk and Christian Wilde, and lots of them. Plus, while Tom went through a super-beefy lifter phase a while back, he is looking a lot more like his old self, recently. He is also performing well, in his usual role as the cute "stoner-dude." (Which is silly, but kind of fun.)
2.) Photographic resolution is excellent. Streaming is excellent, too.
3.) They have a couple of great models I love, like Dan Broughton from the U.K. (who is just a total babe), and Philip Aubrey, who is a little quirky-looking, but I've always loved his performances, when I've caught them around the 'Net.
4.) They have a super "classic videos" section, with hundreds of my old favourites to choose from - especially favourite models from the '80's and '90's like Chad Knight, Brett Winters, and Jason Cruise. (No classics from big marques like William Higgins - Lance! - or Bel Ami - Ion Davidov! - though. I suspect these videos have mostly been bought up from now-defunct production companies.)
All good fun.
The Bad Things:
1.) They seem to specialize in bigger, beefier, older models - which is not really my thing. It made me laugh (though I wasn't surprised): most of the models I marked as "favourites" were ones they poached from www.collegedudes.com
2.) Though they have many branches, ALL of these branches share the same in-house directorial style, and I'm not a fan of it. First, the scenes are all "narrative-based", and, while some of the guys are good actors, most aren't, and the narrative pretexts are usually a distraction and a waste of time, at best.
3.) Though photographic resolution and technological quality are great, the photographic composition isn't, for my tastes, anyway. The bulk of most scenes is spent in very tight closeups of dick-to-mouth or dick-to-butt, just like in the worst old videos of the '80's and '90's. And the preferred "position" is almost always doggie-style, on a sofa, or bent over in the shower. (Doggie-style is maybe the easiest for models who are truly straight, but - I find it the LEAST emotionally or erotically interesting position.) I prefer full-body panoramic views, and the capture of ecstatic facial reactions. There isn't a lot of that, on Men.com - both Broke Straight Boys and College Dudes do a LOT better, in this regard.
4.) The in-house directorial staff seem to have a thing for blowjobs in clothes, and sex in boots. I hate BOTH. (My mantra, in gay video, has always been. . . "TOSS" - "Take off that stupid shirt/shorts/socks". I love the male nude, and, to me - though I realize some people love the slow striptease. . . to me, NON-NAKED time, is WASTED time. I also have a marked foot-fetish (Yes! I am one of THOSE!) and. . . sex in work boots (or combat boots, or cowboy boots, or even SOCKS) NEVER EVER gets me off. Again, I think both Broke Straight Boys and College Dudes do a lot better, in this regard.
5.) With the exception of Philip Aubrey (who is always perpetually worked-up!) and a couple of Tom's and Christian's videos. . . there is about as much passion in most of these videos, as there is at a meeting of your local municipal water commission. (The kissing is sparse, and unconvincing.) While the pictures ARE pretty, they have just about nothing to compare to the hot sexiness that models like Jason, or Mr. Paul Canon, or Bryan Cavallo, or Troy Taylor, bring to Broke Straight Boys or College Dudes.
6.) There are lots of annoying ads, and distractions. After you've paid your full fare (for example) after you've watched four or five videos, they BLOCK any more, unless you agree to pay $5.00 more for a "premium membership." (I think that's just dishonest - if they want to do that, they should include the extra $5.00 in the original membership.) Every time you log on, you have to click through a couple of ads, before you get to the main page. AND, they have a really annoying time-out feature, that forces you to log in again, every couple of hours.
**********************************************************
So, in fine - I AM a model-guy; much less a site guy. This was a fun experiment, and I LOVE Tom Faulk, and was just craving a little more of him. BUT, I think this was definitely a one-off, for me.
I hope Mark isn't upset with me for posting a review of another site on here, but, I'm just trying to be honest, since it had been mentioned to me as one of the biggest around, and I was craving a little Tom. But, honestly, while it is a vast and voluminous site, I think everything good that appears on Men.com has been done better on either Broke Straight Boys, or College Dudes, or both, historically. Most revealing, I think College Dudes has historically made far better (and sexier) use of some of the VERY SAME MODELS.
I would rate Men.com (for the money, and its claims) about a 3 out of 5, and not one I would likely subscribe to again. I would look at it mostly as a "cash-and-carry" site - good for some hot video grabs, but there are not enough of these, in my opinion, to warrant a long-term relationship. Such as I have enjoyed with Broke Straight Boys, and College Dudes.
Cinematically yours,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
P.S. Sorry - I know lots of you have been fans of Jimmy Johnson in the past, but I didn't view his videos. I appreciate that he has sexy qualities, but he is not really in my aesthetic universe, so I didn't make that a priority on my initial tour of this other site.
The last couple of weeks I have been rather disconsolate, because I was supposed to be going to see Mr. K (ticket was bought and everything) - and then his bosses moved him to another city, rendering the ticket useless; and since then Mr. K. has been struggling to find a new apartment, caught a bad chest cold (maybe pneumonia) - - - so we've been doing lots of crying over the phone. (We'll reschedule later, of course.)
Anyway, cranky and mean and bored - I needed a diversion. A couple of people on here have mentioned the site www.men.com, and I've been missing Tom Faulk from College Dudes something fierce (Tom ALWAYS gets me off): and I did my homework and found out that Tom is an exclusive for that site, and that Christian Wilde (one of my favourites from elsewhere) has done a lot of work for them, too. So I decided to check it out.
Here's my review, which of course reflects my tastes, and my tastes, only:
The Good Things:
1.) They've got Tom Faulk and Christian Wilde, and lots of them. Plus, while Tom went through a super-beefy lifter phase a while back, he is looking a lot more like his old self, recently. He is also performing well, in his usual role as the cute "stoner-dude." (Which is silly, but kind of fun.)
2.) Photographic resolution is excellent. Streaming is excellent, too.
3.) They have a couple of great models I love, like Dan Broughton from the U.K. (who is just a total babe), and Philip Aubrey, who is a little quirky-looking, but I've always loved his performances, when I've caught them around the 'Net.
4.) They have a super "classic videos" section, with hundreds of my old favourites to choose from - especially favourite models from the '80's and '90's like Chad Knight, Brett Winters, and Jason Cruise. (No classics from big marques like William Higgins - Lance! - or Bel Ami - Ion Davidov! - though. I suspect these videos have mostly been bought up from now-defunct production companies.)
All good fun.
The Bad Things:
1.) They seem to specialize in bigger, beefier, older models - which is not really my thing. It made me laugh (though I wasn't surprised): most of the models I marked as "favourites" were ones they poached from www.collegedudes.com
2.) Though they have many branches, ALL of these branches share the same in-house directorial style, and I'm not a fan of it. First, the scenes are all "narrative-based", and, while some of the guys are good actors, most aren't, and the narrative pretexts are usually a distraction and a waste of time, at best.
3.) Though photographic resolution and technological quality are great, the photographic composition isn't, for my tastes, anyway. The bulk of most scenes is spent in very tight closeups of dick-to-mouth or dick-to-butt, just like in the worst old videos of the '80's and '90's. And the preferred "position" is almost always doggie-style, on a sofa, or bent over in the shower. (Doggie-style is maybe the easiest for models who are truly straight, but - I find it the LEAST emotionally or erotically interesting position.) I prefer full-body panoramic views, and the capture of ecstatic facial reactions. There isn't a lot of that, on Men.com - both Broke Straight Boys and College Dudes do a LOT better, in this regard.
4.) The in-house directorial staff seem to have a thing for blowjobs in clothes, and sex in boots. I hate BOTH. (My mantra, in gay video, has always been. . . "TOSS" - "Take off that stupid shirt/shorts/socks". I love the male nude, and, to me - though I realize some people love the slow striptease. . . to me, NON-NAKED time, is WASTED time. I also have a marked foot-fetish (Yes! I am one of THOSE!) and. . . sex in work boots (or combat boots, or cowboy boots, or even SOCKS) NEVER EVER gets me off. Again, I think both Broke Straight Boys and College Dudes do a lot better, in this regard.
5.) With the exception of Philip Aubrey (who is always perpetually worked-up!) and a couple of Tom's and Christian's videos. . . there is about as much passion in most of these videos, as there is at a meeting of your local municipal water commission. (The kissing is sparse, and unconvincing.) While the pictures ARE pretty, they have just about nothing to compare to the hot sexiness that models like Jason, or Mr. Paul Canon, or Bryan Cavallo, or Troy Taylor, bring to Broke Straight Boys or College Dudes.
6.) There are lots of annoying ads, and distractions. After you've paid your full fare (for example) after you've watched four or five videos, they BLOCK any more, unless you agree to pay $5.00 more for a "premium membership." (I think that's just dishonest - if they want to do that, they should include the extra $5.00 in the original membership.) Every time you log on, you have to click through a couple of ads, before you get to the main page. AND, they have a really annoying time-out feature, that forces you to log in again, every couple of hours.
**********************************************************
So, in fine - I AM a model-guy; much less a site guy. This was a fun experiment, and I LOVE Tom Faulk, and was just craving a little more of him. BUT, I think this was definitely a one-off, for me.
I hope Mark isn't upset with me for posting a review of another site on here, but, I'm just trying to be honest, since it had been mentioned to me as one of the biggest around, and I was craving a little Tom. But, honestly, while it is a vast and voluminous site, I think everything good that appears on Men.com has been done better on either Broke Straight Boys, or College Dudes, or both, historically. Most revealing, I think College Dudes has historically made far better (and sexier) use of some of the VERY SAME MODELS.
I would rate Men.com (for the money, and its claims) about a 3 out of 5, and not one I would likely subscribe to again. I would look at it mostly as a "cash-and-carry" site - good for some hot video grabs, but there are not enough of these, in my opinion, to warrant a long-term relationship. Such as I have enjoyed with Broke Straight Boys, and College Dudes.
Cinematically yours,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
P.S. Sorry - I know lots of you have been fans of Jimmy Johnson in the past, but I didn't view his videos. I appreciate that he has sexy qualities, but he is not really in my aesthetic universe, so I didn't make that a priority on my initial tour of this other site.
Your time and effort was not wasted in your post above. I found it troubling also that they (M.C.) lure you in with an already very expensive membership rate, still have the nerve to post annoying ads, and then try to squeeze yet another $5 out of you. What do they call that in Yiddish, Mikey? Chutzpah? haha
