Fuck sex chat quick no memberships required

This was going to be a review of fling.com, but they decided they were going to have some big problem with our credit card, so we’ve postponed it until we can figure that crap out. So I kicked it off by landing here, signing up and logging in. Well, first impressions: it’s a clean, white, uncluttered, and attractive site with a lot of Ajax-y Web 2.0 bells and whistles.The upsell advertising (cams and penis pills while I was on the site) isn’t so in-your face and ubiquitous as it is with AFF.

Now what you should probably know about mainstream adult dating sites is that a sizable percentage of them create fake profiles, usually of women, to attract and retain the interest of paying male members.

The first thing I noticed was that there were a lot of suspicious profiles, even by industry standards. Some, like this one, is just too “Penthouse Pet” to be real, while others, like this one, were real-but-c’mon-guys-it’s-a- freaking-hooker. ” It wasn’t too long before the whole site started to give me a serious “porn” vibe.

Genuine profiles like this one, this one, and this one were in the decided minority plus, uh, you know. It seemed to be far more about the fake profiles and shilling for camwhores than it was about anything else. Or “getting laid.” There was also an annoying bug in the picture viewing code, which kept distorting the picture dimensions in the thumbnail view when I was reviewing profiles.

all girls) all seemed to be professional websluts doing “teaser” shows.

They weren’t overly responsive to what was being typed, and one of the rooms was empty when I looked at it.

Two others closed while I was viewing them, leading me to suspect the girls had received requests for private shows .

Joining this complementary site requires validation of your credit card, then presumably (I didn’t investigate much further) the payment of some per-minute charge to naked cam-to-cam with the googly-eyed slut of your choice. The user videos are little better, though they suffer from the same issues as the profiles.

Namely that a lot of them consist of generic porn content. “they’re fakes.”u Lust’s chatrooms were all dead when I looked in on them, except for one (the “Lounge”) which had a fake-profile “babe” chatting in it. They have a reasonable number of posts, but they’re all moderated (there’s a general theme of heavy-handed moderation, presumably because the owners of the property don’t want people squawking publicly about how much the site, you know, As you can probably tell by now, I was less than impressed by my u experience.

This prosti-shill regaled the room with a banal chronicle of “her” daily routine (“Yeah, sorry I was just on the phone. Yeah, wonder what I’ll have for dinner tonight.”) The (old, unattractive, desperate, horny) men floating around the room were hanging on her every utterance, entranced. They had kind of a leering, wolfish demeanor and snippily informed me that if any REAL women turned up (keep dreaming, losers! There’s very little evidence of genuine community here and I’m skeptical about both the userbase size and participation level claims that they’re making.

On the bright side, the site good, and there’s a ton of porn (movies and galleries) there, if that’s really what you’re after.

But don’t expect to get laid, and don’t expect not to feel like you’ve been cheated, if you join expecting anything other than a boatload of porn.

Tags: , ,