Babestation - General Chat & Discussion

(25-12-2021 01:52 )ryuken Wrote:  Poppy May is now the 3rd babe I've seen on BS tonight that is visibly clear to see isn't using a vibetoy. Alice Goodwin and Valentina are the other two.
But punters keep buzzing them, and all three babes keep reacting like they're having an orgasm.
If a babe isn't using a vibetoy, just turn off the button and they can ask for tips to reach their goal instead.
Punters need to stop being so gullible, but then again even if we can see they've got a vibetoy, there is no guarantee that it's switched on.

(27-12-2021 10:27 )scooby_doo Wrote:  

(27-12-2021 01:52 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(26-12-2021 19:45 )scooby_doo Wrote:  (You can't hide the tail of the toy and in fact its against the rules to use it on tv),

As I understood it, that was just a Bs rule after one or two of the babes got careless. So it's likely at the producers discretion to allow it again.

Yep BS rule so you can hide the tail etc but if you look at the thong you know its there i.e it wouldn't be skin tight anymore. With the lovense its near enough impossible to hide the tail because its not designed to be invisible. Like you say the big thing it becomes visible on TV big problems and thats why they were told not to use them on TV (But still allowed you to buzz something thats not in use so ripping off the punters, just use the tips button)

I'm calling out Tara May on this deception of benefitting from financial reward of supposedly getting a vibratoy buzz that didn't actually function. The situation in question was yesterday late afternoon. As others have said, impossible to challenge this, but I was conned.

I won't be risking making that mistake again. I"ll reserve any buzzes I ever make in future to the only ladies I know genuinely have the love sense inserted such as Beth, Sophie Hart ..etc.

Here's an interesting difference of opinion for readers to consider...

I came to wondering, after reading the above post, how many babes would like it if they paid to see a sword swallower and they later found he'd faked it all by using a cardboard broadsword?!

I put this idea to a fellow aficionado recently. He stated he prefered to parallel the vibra situation with that of seeing a magician: "We all know it’s not magic," he wrote. "We know there’s a trick. But we are paying to be fooled."

Just as soundly, he went on: "The biggest issue of the vibratoy is not the inherent dishonesty of it. I mean, the whole edifice of pornography is built on the lie that the girl you are watching is actually getting off. We’ve never had a problem with suspending disbelief." You see in his scenario it all comes down to which babes make the vibra believable in the moment ('in' or not doesn't really matter here, it's all 'sell'). Which are the best actresses - the ones that make you believe in the trick - is the only matter of real import.

For me though, I feel this is too forgiving. I find there can be actual deceit. And it lies in that misuse of the prop that guys know only too well.

Hence I prefer the analogy that topped this post... Yes, it's a act. But - as with the sword swallower - the prop is supposed to be in use in genuine fashion. After all, it claims to offer a live link to, and enhanced interactivity with, the babe in question. Therefore, it should be active and in (or against) the puss whenever the vibra option is live IMO.

I can accept bad acting to sell what the babe is feeling. That's just the quality of the babe-ing. The equivalent of a card boardsword otoh is deception. Fraud. Mainly because we know, instinctively, it should be, and indeed IS, done genuinely by plenty of practitioners. As customers I feel most of us don't expect the artifice of a magic act. The prop's action should be for real. The selling of what the buzz does, yeah that can be embellished; because, after all, so can the reaction to any sexual act be embellished!

Either way, it seems the attitude of too many babes is 'you paid for the entertainment, not for me to have to feel what you're doing.' It's up to guys to judge if they wish to accept this modern day Barnum & Bailey stance; or whether they demand a tad more reality when using this option.

(19-01-2022 20:33 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Here's an interesting difference of opinion for readers to consider...

I came to wondering, after reading the above post, how many babes would like it if they paid to see a sword swallower and they later found he'd faked it all by using a cardboard broadsword?!

I put this idea to a fellow aficionado recently. He stated he prefered to parallel the vibra situation with that of seeing a magician: "We all know it’s not magic," he wrote. "We know there’s a trick. But we are paying to be fooled."

Just as soundly, he went on: "The biggest issue of the vibratoy is not the inherent dishonesty of it. I mean, the whole edifice of pornography is built on the lie that the girl you are watching is actually getting off. We’ve never had a problem with suspending disbelief." You see in his scenario it all comes down to which babes make the vibra believable in the moment ('in' or not doesn't really matter here, it's all 'sell'). Which are the best actresses - the ones that make you believe in the trick - is the only matter of real import.

For me though, I feel this is too forgiving. I find there can be actual deceit. And it lies in that misuse of the prop that guys know only too well.

Hence I prefer the analogy that topped this post... Yes, it's a act. But - as with the sword swallower - the prop is supposed to be in use in genuine fashion. After all, it claims to offer a live link to, and enhanced interactivity with, the babe in question. Therefore, it should be active and in (or against) the puss whenever the vibra option is live IMO.

I can accept bad acting to sell what the babe is feeling. That's just the quality of the babe-ing. The equivalent of a card boardsword otoh is deception. Fraud. Mainly because we know, instinctively, it should be, and indeed IS, done genuinely by plenty of practitioners. As customers I feel most of us don't expect the artifice of a magic act. The prop's action should be for real. The selling of what the buzz does, yeah that can be embellished; because, after all, so can the reaction to any sexual act be embellished!

Either way, it seems the attitude of too many babes is 'you paid for the entertainment, not for me to have to feel what you're doing.' It's up to guys to judge if they wish to accept this modern day Barnum & Bailey stance; or whether they demand a tad more reality when using this option.

Put simply if you choose to pay and buzz a babe there is a very high probability you will be buzzing fresh air.

^ And yet some guys seem to accept this probability (they can't all be deluded). I thought the two options above might offer some insight into why punters look to fall into two camps on this.

(19-01-2022 21:37 )ShandyHand Wrote:  ^ And yet some guys seem to accept this probability (they can't all be deluded). I thought the two options above might offer some insight into why punters look to fall into two camps on this.

Most gullible are the hardened fanboys closely followed by the ones who like to see there names highlighted in the chatbox it makes them happy but £s lighter in the wallet.

(19-01-2022 20:33 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Here's an interesting difference of opinion for readers to consider...

I came to wondering, after reading the above post, how many babes would like it if they paid to see a sword swallower and they later found he'd faked it all by using a cardboard broadsword?!

I put this idea to a fellow aficionado recently. He stated he prefered to parallel the vibra situation with that of seeing a magician: "We all know it’s not magic," he wrote. "We know there’s a trick. But we are paying to be fooled."

Maybe they should saw the vibratoy in half?

...I may have skipped some parts of the essay

^ Yours is possibly the better take mate.

(19-01-2022 20:56 )Freeloaderthatsme Wrote:  Put simply if you choose to pay and buzz a babe there is a very high probability you will be buzzing fresh air.

The technology does work via bluetooth. The "acting" reference I will concede to in terms of the possibility of a performers' embellishment of reaction (exaggeration) as to the impact of the toy. In my experience, I have never found this to be the case. I have used it more on Camsoda than the R___ website, and have come to iobserve the relative impact of the different levels of intensity from the toy, so see first hand it truly works.

In my post yesterday, I reposted some earlier comments on this thread regarding a discussion about BS stipulating a policy babes must not have any part of the vibratoy showing on live tv. I wasn't clear if this is a general ruling, that it is not allowed to be even used on tv. If this is the case, then you wonder why it is being used still! If, as I have interpreted the situation, it is the case the the toy merely cannot be seen, then it's understood that it may be used and be heard and not seen.

No justification to sell a product which is not actually in use. I may still complain to BS, though accept this may be futile. I have a case however, in that Ms May told me in a prior phonecall that there was "something" in it, even if she admitted she had to be careful saying it was a vibratoy. In the end there wasn't 'something'. There was nothing.

(19-01-2022 22:11 )crankshaft Wrote:  

(19-01-2022 20:56 )Freeloaderthatsme Wrote:  Put simply if you choose to pay and buzz a babe there is a very high probability you will be buzzing fresh air.

The technology does work via bluetooth. The "acting" reference I will concede to in terms of the possibility of a performers' embellishment of reaction (exaggeration) as to the impact of the toy. In my experience, I have never found this to be the case. I have used it more on Camsoda than the R___ website, and have come to iobserve the relative impact of the different levels of intensity from the toy, so see first hand it truly works.

In my post yesterday, I reposted some earlier comments on this thread regarding a discussion about BS stipulating a policy babes must not have any part of the vibratoy showing on live tv. I wasn't clear if this is a general ruling, that it is not allowed to be even used on tv. If this is the case, then you wonder why it is being used still! If, as I have interpreted the situation, it is the case the the toy merely cannot be seen, then it's understood that it may be used and be heard and not seen.

No justification to sell a product which is not actually in use. I may still complain to BS, though accept this may be futile. I have a case however, in that Ms May told me in a prior phonecall that there was "something" in it, even if she admitted she had to be careful saying it was a vibratoy. In the end there wasn't 'something'. There was nothing.

As you say the technology works but if the pink tadpole is not inserted nothing happens simple.

We can’t have total honesty in babeshow world or all those guys ( you know who you are) who claim to have 9inch dicks would be banned

On a serious note the whole edifice of babeshow world is built on fantasy and willing acceptance of deception by both punters and performers. If either party doesn’t like that they can move onto something else. Whilst they are happy with the fantasy they will continue participating. I don’t pretend or try to understand every punters personal situation but it does strike me that shouting over and over again about the same thing is not a useful or particularly healthy way to carry on. Complain to BS if you feel you have been misled and move on.