Review date: 8-Jun-2016 14:41. This is an artsy soft core site with lots of naked young women showing their vaginas. The emphasis here is on high quality photography of incredibly beautiful young women chosen for their look of innocence.
- Content quality 20.5 of 25
- Content quantity 19.0 of 25
- Design and usability 15.5 of 20
- Originality 8.8 of 10
- Reviewer's rating 15.6 of 20
Met-art is a site I have seen around the web for a few years but have never particularly been attracted to it. I like my porn well photographed but I don't like it pretentious. I figure it is about time that I take a closer look at it. It still strikes me as pretentious. The tour announces that it is "the most imitated nude art site in the world". Understated, this in not. The small print at the bottom of the tour page informs us of the glowing reviews given by other review sites like this one. I am glad to see that. At first glance I am not sure this is a porn site. As I page through the very impressive tour I can see that the art emphasizes good-looking young women showing us their vaginas. That works for me although I find some of the women look unsettlingly young. The site claims it is 40% faster than 98% of other sites. That will be nice. This is a picture site with over 250,000 photos, but only 300 movies. I really like the tour. It tells you and shows you exactly what you will see inside. In the small print it says this is a soft-core web site.
This is not a video site. It is a picture site. The pictures start in 1999 so that is where I start. The earliest one is from September of that year. It is in the 800x600 pixel range and is watermarked, mosteroticteens.com. She is a very pretty girl like all the girls on the tour. In 2000 I see a Met-art cover with a mosterotic teens.com watermark. It is interesting to page through the years and watch the evolution to Met-art. Some of the earlier picture links are dead and surprisingly bring me to a Met-art join page. I didn't find an explanation for the origin of the name. Me-tart would not be right. These girls don't look like tarts. There is web-cam associated with the site. It features some of the girls from the site. It has rules for communication with the girls and makes clear that Met-art does not feature pornography.. You can't chat with girls sexually or ask them to masturbate for example. These girls aren't like that, at least not here. Clicking the button for special I find a bunch of guest photographers. First guy I click on is compared to David Hamilton in his write-up. The same thought has been going through my mind. This site reminds me of David Hamilton's work , which as I recall was famously controversial for the erotic depiction of under-age girls. I am not saying that is what this site is about but I am greatly re-assured that, though they maintain the site is exempt from 2257, they attest to all the girls being over the age of 18 at the time of their photography. This is Playboy, early Penthouse style porn. The girls are absolutely beautiful; there is no denying that. If you are looking for hard-core, this site is not for you. If you get off on close up shots of young women's bodies you will enjoy the photos. It is like going over a human body with a loop in your eye.
I reviewed another site for hunterporn that would be considered an imitator of this site perhaps, FTV girls. I preferred it to this site. The girls were more sexual and the action more erotic. This is a soft-core website with artistic pretentions. I gave up jerking off to art and national geographic nudes many years ago. For you nostalgic wankers out there, or those newly exposed to the female body this site will be attractive. Those searching for artistically photographed nudes will know from the tour whether they think the images are art or not. Hunters of porn will not find it here.