I'm one of those porn browsers who thinks a site title should indicate site content. In the case of OrgyStuds I had pretty clear expectations from both the orgy part of the title and the word stud, But this is an 'anything goes' type of site. Certainly, it's not wall-to-wall orgies. There are plenty of three-ways and foursomes too. As well as one-on-one gloryhole action.

The guys range from ebony to leather dudes and daddies. I figure when a site name fails me like this it's simply being used to capture your attention. It hopes something will stick out for the viewer to maintain their interest. Sounds more like potluck than quality marketing or product features.

My next disappointment comes when I realize only a tiny amount of content is exclusive to the site not to its parent company's collection of sites. Moreover, tons of stuff is simply nonexclusive any way you slice it.

There are 126 galleries, Mnay are high-res. Many have over 150 images. Some even top 300 shots. These galleries can be downloaded in handy Zip files.

In the video section you get that deja-vu experience again. Here you have 142 movies that can be streamed in Flash files. You can also download them in Zip files. Inside you'll find that they contain either Windows Media files or MPEGs. They have good-quality playback. However, in a few cases, despite having good bitrates, they look less impressive on screen.

Considering the content is nonexclusive and the quality isn't always great, the volume begins to lose its pull too. The question of membership then comes down to the browser's preference. Do you like the studs on site, and are you happy with a bit of grainy or blurred viewing?