| Review:
Just
because
you're
an
ugly
old
guy
doesn't
mean
you
have
to
give
up
all
hope
of
being
a
pornstar
fucking
little
teen
skanks.
This
is
thanks
to
two
recent
technological
developments:
erection
drugs
and
the
Internet.
The
pills
help
you
keep
it
up.
The
Internet
provides
even
the
most
hopeless
cases
with
the
opportunity
to
be a
poster
geezer
for
the
older
guy/younger
girl
fetish
niche. That
niche
is
what
this
site
is
all
about.
Though
it
advertises
"dirty
old
men"
(that's
men
as
in
the
plural
of
man),
there's
usually
only
the
one
guy
involved.
His
name
is
Jake
and
he's
balding
and
makes
these
bug-eyed
funny
faces
when
he
grabs
teenie
ass.
He
also
has
some
ugly
tattoos
on
his
arms.
Maybe
it's
just
us,
but
old
guys
covered
in
tattoos
just
strikes
us
as
being
weird.
There
are
some
other
sets
featuring
Dave
Cummings
and
a
couple
of
other
guys,
but
it
looks
like
Jake
is
doing
most
of
the
heavy
lifting
here. And
it
is
heavy
lifting.
The
pills
may
help
you
get
it
up,
but
they
don't
seem
to
be
of
any
assistance
in
pulling
the
trigger.
It
can
take
Jake
forever
to
bust
a
nut.
One
blowjob
scene
in
particular
is
almost
funny
in
this
regard.
We
thought
Jake
was
going
to
have
a
heart
attack.
As
it
is
they
still
had
to
edit
the
film,
and
the
money
shot
was
unrecognizable. The
movies
here
aren't
that
good.
First
off
they
are
all
320x240,
500
kb/s,
and
don't
even
look
good
at
that
playback.
You
can't
take
them
up
to
fullscreen.
The
sound
sucks.
Sometimes
they
have
music
cranked
up
so
you
can't
here
what
the
performers
are
saying.
Not
that
they're
saying
much.
There's
no
attempt
to
give
any
of
it
the
kind
of
edge
that
you
get
from,
for
example,
Jim
Power's
material,
with
lots
of
dominance
and
taboo.
There
are
no
real
dramatizations.
In
one
movie
a
girl
in a
plaid
skirt
(which
means
she
must
be . .
. a schoolgirl!)
knocks
on
the
door.
She
comes
in
and
Jake
gives
her
an
awkward
kiss.
They
go
lie
down
on
the
bed
together
where
there
are
some
open
schoolbooks
laid
out.
They
lie
down
on
the
bed
and
start
making
out
right
away.
Real
subtle. Is
it
exclusive?
Some
of
it
may
be.
Not
the
Dave
Cummings
stuff.
Some
of
Jake's
stuff
looked
awfully
familiar,
though
that
might
just
be
its
generic
nature. But
nothing
has
a
watermark
or
any
sign
of
copyright
or
ownership. The
way
the
site
is
organized
is
crude
and
sometimes
difficult
to
figure
out.
The
pics
can
be
downloaded
as
files
in a
bunch
of
different
sizes:
640x480,
800x600,
1024x768,
and
something
called
half-size
and
quarter-size.
But
they
can
only
be
actually
viewed
in
one
size,
which
is
apparently
the
original
size.
But
this
size
varies
with
almost
every
set,
and
the
pics
are
all
different
shapes
as
well.
They
are
also
pretty
blurry
even
in
the
original. Here
are
the
different
sections.
Note
that
the
sections
are
not
exclusive,
so
that
the
same
content
may
appear
in
several
different
sections.
This
makes
navigation
a
bit
of a
trial.
A
model
index
would
have
made
more
sense.
But
since
this
is
the
way
they've
done
it .
. . Hardcore
sets:
102
of
these.
They
may
be
video
or
picture
galleries.
We
noted
a
lot
of
the
picture
galleries
had
pics
that
were
wildly
out
of
order
(for
example
beginning
with
the
cumshot,
then
proceeding
to
an
interview
with
both
performers
wearing
clothes,
etc.).
This
is
real
sloppy.
Also
annoying
is
the
set
of
links
at
the
bottom
of
each
set
to
"other
popular
sets."
These
are
not
related
sets
featuring
the
same
performer,
they
are
just
other
sets.
We
have
no
idea
how
or
why
they
picked
them,
since
there
is
no
ranking
system. Softcore
sets:
26
of
these.
Basically
this
area
is
the
same
as
the
Spanking
section,
with
all
the
same
sets,
and
the
same
video. Picture
sets:
92
photo
galleries,
both
hardcore
and
softcore. Video
sets:
35
videos.
These
are
all
divided
into
shorter
clips,
with
most
full
movies
running
in
the
15-20
minute
range. Spanking
sets:
23
sets,
all
of
one
of
which
is a
photo
gallery.
This
section
is
almost
identical
to
the
Softcore
sets
area. Support:
this
is
just
an
e-mail
link
to
the
webmaster Given
the
average
to
below-average
technical
quality
here
(the
small,
simply
produced
videos,
the
blurry
pics),
the
less
than
impressive
amount
of
content,
and
the
fact
that
they're
not
really
doing
anything
interesting
with
this
niche,
it
was
hard
for
us
to
get
excited
by
this
site.
We
also
didn't
know
what
to
make
of
the
update
schedule.
They
say
they're
updating
every
three
days,
which
would
be
good.
But
reading
the
dates
they
seem
to
have
only
been
keeping
to
that
schedule
for
the
last
week
or
so
before
our
visit.
95%
of
the
content
here
was
uploaded
December
8-9 2005,
which
(we
suppose)
is
when
the
site
launched.
That's
when
all
of
the
spanking
sets,
for
example,
were
added.
So
this
made
us
wonder. If
it
really
did
just
launch
a
couple
of
months
before
our
review,
there's
a
chance
this
could
develop
into
a
decent
site.
But
as
it
stands
we
think
you
should
expect
more
than
this
for
$30
a
month. |
