Should the girls on Xpanded be allowed to go nude?

Please vote now!

yes

Yes, why not!

Hi

Yes particularly Alison Wild, Roxy Lloyd and when she returns Mia

Yes. Don't understand why they don't allow it

(04-05-2018 16:09 )bazzae123 Wrote:  Yes, why not!

Does anyone actually want a proper answer to this?! I suspect this thread was created to gain a one-sided avalanche. So fwiw...

On the face of it, this is the biggest no-brainer question going. Of course we want babes naked. But, truth be told, it depends whether you mean theoritically or in practice.

So, yes, because this is what nightshow visuals should be about: The seductive elongated (that doesn't necessarily mean slow) and repeated striptease with naked tease as the end goal. The art of getting naked should offer the potential for the excitement and eroticism like no other. (There's also, of course, the added benefit of slips and flashes too.)

But there's also a 'no' because, as has been said many times before, full babeshow nudity can actually offer less opportunities for the babe and her callers in creating a decent show. This has become ever more the case in the modern format era.

The reasons for this are practical and dull - basically welcome to babeland as forged by the puritanical Ofcom. Under their conditions, TV nudity has become a regular excuse for the babe to remain stationary (and nowadays sell the proper shot to pervcammers) offering up less variety of pose and action; killing momentum in the babe's actions that are vital to retaining the viewer's attention. Given this question pertained to Xpanded in particular, I see it as very likely that it'd be this massively cautionary type nudity we'd get.

And besides anything else, this is the babeshows we're talking about. For them the prime motivation should never be to present the absolute best show possible but essentially to frustrate the customer into (further) action. (If the shows strayed to the former in the golden eras it was actually because they were doing it wrong unfortunately.) The ideal is at best to instill in every potential customer the warm irritant of wanting a little more. More often than not though, particularly on Xpanded, the shows fall massively short in creating this pull. 

Show nudity on TV or the lack of it is actually by the by for me. A skillful babe can create that unique babeshow pull with or without it. It's just one technic and it happens to be one that's handled badly more often that not under the modern format.

And with even BS covering up their nightbabes more of late, despite what some of us might hate in its implication, maybe Xpanded have method in their madness after all.

It's the same problem nowadays with the channels keeping their babes covered up in the hope of more perv cam callers. Xpanded used to allow it not so long ago. Amanda has done it in the past. To me a babe is more attractive with very brief knickers on and the chance of the occasional pussy slip.

(05-05-2018 08:57 )ShandyHand Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 16:09 )bazzae123 Wrote:  Yes, why not!

Does anyone actually want a proper answer to this?! I suspect this thread was created to gain a one-sided avalanche. So fwiw...

On the face of it, this is the biggest no-brainer question going. Of course we want babes naked. But, truth be told, it depends whether you mean theoritically or in practice.

So, yes, because this is what nightshow visuals should be about: The seductive elongated (that doesn't necessarily mean slow) and repeated striptease with naked tease as the end goal. The art of getting naked should offer the potential for the excitement and eroticism like no other. (There's also, of course, the added benefit of slips and flashes too.)

But there's also a 'no' because, as has been said many times before, full babeshow nudity can actually offer less opportunities for the babe and her callers in creating a decent show. This has become ever more the case in the modern format era.

The reasons for this are practical and dull - basically welcome to babeland as forged by the puritanical Ofcom. Under their conditions, TV nudity has become a regular excuse for the babe to remain stationary (and nowadays sell the proper shot to pervcammers) offering up less variety of pose and action; killing momentum in the babe's actions that are vital to retaining the viewer's attention. Given this question pertained to Xpanded in particular, I see it as very likely that it'd be this massively cautionary type nudity we'd get.

And besides anything else, this is the babeshows we're talking about. For them the prime motivation should never be to present the absolute best show possible but essentially to frustrate the customer into (further) action. (If the shows strayed to the former in the golden eras it was actually because they were doing it wrong unfortunately.) The ideal is at best to instill in every potential customer the warm irritant of wanting a little more. More often than not though, particularly on Xpanded, the shows fall massively short in creating this pull. 

Show nudity on TV or the lack of it is actually by the by for me. A skillful babe can create that unique babeshow pull with or without it. It's just one technic and it happens to be one that's handled badly more often that not under the modern format.

And with even BS covering up their nightbabes more of late, despite what some of us might hate in its implication, maybe Xpanded have method in their madness after all.

Stripping is an art in Norway, y'know.

Jennifer Kelly is killing it on nights right now.

(05-05-2018 08:57 )ShandyHand Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 16:09 )bazzae123 Wrote:  Yes, why not!

Does anyone actually want a proper answer to this?! I suspect this thread was created to gain a one-sided avalanche. So fwiw...

On the face of it, this is the biggest no-brainer question going. Of course we want babes naked. But, truth be told, it depends whether you mean theoritically or in practice.

So, yes, because this is what nightshow visuals should be about: The seductive elongated (that doesn't necessarily mean slow) and repeated striptease with naked tease as the end goal. The art of getting naked should offer the potential for the excitement and eroticism like no other. (There's also, of course, the added benefit of slips and flashes too.)

But there's also a 'no' because, as has been said many times before, full babeshow nudity can actually offer less opportunities for the babe and her callers in creating a decent show. This has become ever more the case in the modern format era.

The reasons for this are practical and dull - basically welcome to babeland as forged by the puritanical Ofcom. Under their conditions, TV nudity has become a regular excuse for the babe to remain stationary (and nowadays sell the proper shot to pervcammers) offering up less variety of pose and action; killing momentum in the babe's actions that are vital to retaining the viewer's attention. Given this question pertained to Xpanded in particular, I see it as very likely that it'd be this massively cautionary type nudity we'd get.

And besides anything else, this is the babeshows we're talking about. For them the prime motivation should never be to present the absolute best show possible but essentially to frustrate the customer into (further) action. (If the shows strayed to the former in the golden eras it was actually because they were doing it wrong unfortunately.) The ideal is at best to instill in every potential customer the warm irritant of wanting a little more. More often than not though, particularly on Xpanded, the shows fall massively short in creating this pull. 

Show nudity on TV or the lack of it is actually by the by for me. A skillful babe can create that unique babeshow pull with or without it. It's just one technic and it happens to be one that's handled badly more often that not under the modern format.

And with even BS covering up their nightbabes more of late, despite what some of us might hate in its implication, maybe Xpanded have method in their madness after all.

What ShandyHand said!!:biglaugh