GayGeek

Does Laughing Asians deliver what it promises on the outside?

As a big fan of Asian twinks, I was rather looking forward to fully exploring the LaughingAsians.com website to pluck the best of the best tidbits from their long list of offerings. My enthusiasm waned a bit, however, as I perused the site and found that, in comparison to many other gay porn websites out there, this one had some catching-up to do.

The website's advertising splash page isn't as fancy or glitzy as many I've seen, and that was perhaps the first clue that the contents wouldn't be up to snuff. Inside the LaughingAsians site you'll find photo sets, video and some bonus material mainly of a fetish variety--tickling and foot sucking and licking in combination with oral and anal sex (all of it using condoms). The bonus DVD theater doesn't work for any of the items I tried, but access to it's brother website, GayAsianTwinkz.com, worked.

What's good about Laughing Asians? What needs improvement?

The video quality by and large is poor compared to high quality video available on other sites--the video on this site looks like it was from the late 1990's and early turn of the century cameras as opposed to the HD available in the last few years. The photo sets are mostly video captures (ugh! a pet peeve of mine!), dark, and only small to medium resolution.

Many of the models aren't good looking on the LaughingAsians site, although those on the brother GayAsianTwinkz.com site had a higher percentage of hotties, although the photo and video was no better there.

The site could be better with significant improvements: better, current video camera technology; real digital high-end SLR cameras and pro lighting to take their photo sets, instead of vid caps; and variations in their locations, instead of the same bedroom/couch scenes all the time (another pet peeve of mine).

How is Laughing Asians unique?

Aside from the fact that there are only Asian models and there's a bit of a fetish twist, the site lacks much in comparison to other sites of similar genre. It has a good amount of content, but it's all average or below-average quality in my opinion. Furthermore, while I don't advocate casual, unprotected sex, pros doing porn should be able to undertake some bareback action to "spice up" the realism of their performance, so now I expect to see at least 20% of a site's action content to be bareback for me to consider giving it a higher rating.