The modern viewer is to blame for the current standard of the Babeshows

The author of this thread seems to have forgotten that the channels are in competition with each other and therefore can't possibly afford to be lazy as he maintains. Just recently we've seen the demise of Babecast and Live XXX, and just before that LA Babes, and Chat Back didn't seem to think it was worth paying for the proper licence. The idea that the channels don't have to try very hard is seriously flawed and now according to Admin there are more channels coming, so more competition. It seems to me any channel taking it easy isn't going to last very long, so perhaps the author of this thread needs to have a re-think about his theory.

(08-08-2009 09:48 )admiral decker Wrote:  It seems to me any channel taking it easy isn't going to last very long, so perhaps the author of this thread needs to have a re-think about his theory.

Okay I've had a re-think and I still think the channels are lazy. My theory remains the same; that they're making enough revenue from callers and texters to mean that they don't have to improve on what they're currently doing, i.e not a lot.

Perhaps you'd like to offer your own theory as why the babeshows are currently so dull.

(07-08-2009 22:20 )seth Wrote:  

(07-08-2009 22:17 )firekind Wrote:  we are in a country where about 10 million at least of the population would rather pay alot of money to talk to a topless model rather than meeting a real woman. sounds fine to me if you have money to burn and they could actually do with adding more channels to keep up with demand.

I don't ring either but don't mock the guys who do. This forum wouldn't exist if it weren't for them, because no calls = no babe channels = no forum.

how was i mocking them? if i had too much money i would probably phone donna now and then.

(08-08-2009 13:29 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Perhaps you'd like to offer your own theory as why the babeshows are currently so dull.

I don't find them dull.

(08-08-2009 15:45 )firekind Wrote:  

(07-08-2009 22:20 )seth Wrote:  

(07-08-2009 22:17 )firekind Wrote:  we are in a country where about 10 million at least of the population would rather pay alot of money to talk to a topless model rather than meeting a real woman. sounds fine to me if you have money to burn and they could actually do with adding more channels to keep up with demand.

I don't ring either but don't mock the guys who do. This forum wouldn't exist if it weren't for them, because no calls = no babe channels = no forum.

how was i mocking them? if i had too much money i would probably phone donna now and then.

Maybe mocking them was the wrong word for me to use, but saying they'd rather talk to a topless model then meet a real women comes across as "these people are a bunch of saddos who can't get a real women". Maybe that's not what you meant and anyway you're entitled to your opinion.

I often wonder where people get the money from to ring in everyday, and if I'm honest I think it's a waste of money, but as a freeloader if people want to ring in I won't complain.

First of all the job the girls have to do is a days work 9pm to 5 am is not doing nothing. They are “models” and listening to guys hitting it must be an effort. But as one of my better bosses used to say that’s the job init.

I’m sorry girls but ofcom or no ofcom the girls are not whores but they are not ballerinas in Covent Garden. The job is to be erotic etc etc. So the girls have to bring it.

At 4.58am in the morning yawning is understandable. Yawning and showing you are bored at 9:30 pm come on why bother work is work but that’s just taking the piss.

The producers must see this and have to tell the girls it is all about the performance so at least perform and if you have no talent just pretend blimey is that so hard.

My particular beef and I have many, but why do the card carrying porn stars in particular have to be such “….why am I doing this..this is so beneath me..blah blah blah…”. Again this forum is too new to name names but we know what ladies spring to mind. I will name girls as we on the side of a good performance begin to win the argument convincingly.

The problem is not about supporting the girls or not supporting them to be honest that is not the viewer’s job. Our involvement is to be ENTERTAINED not to get into a relationship with the performers. Entertain me !!!. Stop bitching about ofcom.

In my opinion the channels are 70% dull. Some may say the figure is too high but I would answer you are wrong and side with those who are too willing to accept dull because the girls are “pretty”. Grow up. It is not about the boobs on display it is about PERFORMANCE and ENTERTAINMENT, those words again.

A solution to start with is with the producers. Don’t just throw the girls in front of the camera. Try asking how does this look is this entertainment or meaning less tits and ass after the watershed.

But also if we the viewers accept this then I guarantee we are not long from the sort of pathetic titillation we had to suffer during the end credits of the Benny Hill show. But at least he was an entertainer.

(08-08-2009 22:34 )stemmata Wrote:  In my opinion the channels are 70% dull. Some may say the figure is too high but I would answer you are wrong and side with those who are too willing to accept dull because the girls are “pretty”. Grow up. It is not about the boobs on display it is about PERFORMANCE and ENTERTAINMENT, those words again.

Beautifully put, stemmata! I can't abide this attitude that refuses to listen or accept any negative comments about the girls. A lot of people here seem to think we should worship them just because - as you say, stemmata - they're 'pretty' or 'hot'. It's exactly that attitude that's behind the girls getting dozens of 'thanks' whenever they come on here and make a post - regardless of what they've said. It's almost as though they're being thanked for simply existing.

I don't care how attractive a girl is, if she's sat there yawning, only moving when her arse starts to ache, then I'm going to look elsewhere. And just recently that 'elsewhere' has been the non-adult channels.

---

(08-08-2009 15:58 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(08-08-2009 13:29 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Perhaps you'd like to offer your own theory as why the babeshows are currently so dull.

I don't find them dull.

My point exactly. You and many others (enough, in fact, to keep them running along very nicely) are happy with the current state of the babe channels, so they don't feel the need to improve things. As long as they're making money, they're happy, and to hell with good content.

(08-08-2009 23:11 )StanTheMan Wrote:  My point exactly. You and many others (enough, in fact, to keep them running along very nicely) are happy with the current state of the babe channels, so they don't feel the need to improve things.

I don't find all the channels to my liking, but the channels I watch I am happy with, yes (otherwise I wouldn't watch them).

I certainly wouldn't want them to push the boundaries to the extent that they ended up having their licence to broadcast revoked, as Babestar did.

(09-08-2009 08:38 )admiral decker Wrote:  I certainly wouldn't want them to push the boundaries to the extent that they ended up having their licence to broadcast revoked, as Babestar did.

Well this thread could run and run, but I think we're already starting to go over old ground now. What I will say regarding Babestar, is that they didn't have their licence revoked because of the material they aired. There was a whole host of reasons, but none of them because of what they were showing.

(09-08-2009 09:38 )StanTheMan Wrote:  What I will say regarding Babestar, is that they didn't have their licence revoked because of the material they aired. There was a whole host of reasons, but none of them because of what they were showing.

This was the complaint which originally got them into trouble:

"Complaint: Two women wearing underwear were shown lounging on a mattress and using sex toys. The women used crude, explicit language, masturbated, simulated oral sex and showed full frontal nudity."