+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: What is now the point of these channels (/showthread.php?tid=28527)
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - Jack Vikare - 16-01-2011 13:00
(16-01-2011 01:35 )iloveMegan Wrote: The original post implied that the girls could get away with flashing before the new rules, which is incorrect and now the channels are just being even more cautious not to have any.
Yes the original post was incorrect in it's reference to the rules. It was also probably incorrect to imply that channels will be going out of business now, as I can't foresee that happening, just because Ofcom have clarified what their rules are. I think the only question is whether there is going to be any impact on daytime call rates, with daytime clothing being more limited now.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - Krill Liberator - 16-01-2011 13:21
(16-01-2011 13:00 )Jack Vakire Wrote:More likely there'll be a sharp rise in the relative incidence of genuine fan-boy callers, who want to discuss whether or not she's received the gift he sent her yet, and talk about his caravn holiday and her sunday roast with mum and big sis and how nice it was. Probably a sharp drop-off in the number of SDTWs...(16-01-2011 01:35 )iloveMegan Wrote: The original post implied that the girls could get away with flashing before the new rules, which is incorrect and now the channels are just being even more cautious not to have any.
Yes the original post was incorrect in it's reference to the rules. It was also probably incorrect to imply that channels will be going out of business now, as I can't foresee that happening, just because Ofcom have clarified what their rules are. I think the only question is whether there is going to be any impact on daytime call rates, with daytime clothing being more limited now.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - Addison - 16-01-2011 13:53
(16-01-2011 01:35 )iloveMegan Wrote:(16-01-2011 01:21 )oooxooo Wrote:(15-01-2011 23:05 )iloveMegan Wrote: Not all viewers need constant flashes to enjoy the shows (I know I don't) and the clue's in the question; they can still advertise a phone sex line as people pay to talk to the girls, they don't operate on a pay-per-flash system.
bollocks you from ofcunt
I can assure you I'm not from Ofcom (I assume that's the organisation you're so eloquently referring to)The original post implied that the girls could get away with flashing before the new rules, which is incorrect and now the channels are just being even more cautious not to have any.
I'm not really sure how to reply to your retort, what part of my post in particular is "bollocks"? Presumably you watch in the hope of seeing a flash, but I said "not all viewers" need flashes.
I'm with you, ILM. Funny how the hardcorers just cannot get their heads around the fact that many guys fantasise about/beat off to other parts of the female body than those located between the legs! And they persist in viewing this relative indifference to the sight of pussy as a sign of low sex drive/celibacy/puritanism/being in cahoots with Ofcom! I'll say again lads: anything but, in a lot of cases.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 16-01-2011 14:20
My original post never said that rules had been broken. I implied that the programme makers were willing to push what they could get away with to the limits, and in the case of BangBabes, in Ofcoms opinion pushed those limits to far. Thus suffering the consequences. There is only one reason why these channels risk breaking rules, and that is to attract more customers. And is that not bourne out by the fact that on it's demise the BangBabes channel was maybe number one "no doubt you will correct me on that if I am wrong".
Some of you say that you don't watch to see If any wardrobe malfunctions ever occur, that I find difficult to comprehend. But if you say you don't, then so be it. But may I remind you that the biggest thread by a country mile happens to be "slip of the day" so I think I would be safe in saying that anyone who watches not hoping for a slip would be in a minority. That is why I am saying without pushing the bounderies I do not see the point. And in my opinion neither will the company's who make these shows.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - eagle_si - 16-01-2011 14:41
(16-01-2011 13:53 )Addison Wrote: I'm with you, ILM. Funny how the hardcorers just cannot get their heads around the fact that many guys fantasise about/beat off to other parts of the female body than those located between the legs! And they persist in viewing this relative indifference to the sight of pussy as a sign of low sex drive/celibacy/puritanism/being in cahoots with Ofcom! I'll say again lads: anything but, in a lot of cases.
I completely agree with this. I watched a couple of smc's Early Bird recorded call clips about an hour ago, and it made me somewhat nostalgic for the old days, but some girls' shows have actually improved IMO with the new outfits. For example, I find Cara Brett much more enjoyable to watch in denim shorts or tight leggings than I did when she was just wearing a bikini. I also do not believe that having a normal conversation with a pretty girl instead of wanking off over her means that someone is an "oddball". Before I finish, I'd like to make clear (even though I shouldn't really need to) that I'm no fan of ofcom and the self-righteous crap they spout.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - iloveMegan - 16-01-2011 14:54
(16-01-2011 14:20 )smell the roses Wrote: My original post never said that rules had been broken.
In your original post you referred to "a pussy flash here or a nip slip there"; a slip is accidental and a flash deliberate, so it did say rules had been broken.
(16-01-2011 14:20 )smell the roses Wrote: There is only one reason why these channels risk breaking rules, and that is to attract more customers.
You do have a point there, judging by some people's responses in this, and other threads
(16-01-2011 14:20 )smell the roses Wrote: Some of you say that you don't watch to see If any wardrobe malfunctions ever occur, that I find difficult to comprehend.
What's difficult to understand? Some people can appreciate a girl's outfit, look and performance without any "accidents". I never said I don't like seeing slips, just that they aren't the be all and end all when it comes to my enjoyment of these channels
(16-01-2011 14:20 )smell the roses Wrote: without pushing the bounderies I do not see the point. And in my opinion neither will the company's who make these shows.
But by your own admission, when they push the boundaries, they reap the consequences. So I would suggest the channels most definitely see the point in making these shows in the current cautious way.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 16-01-2011 15:58
(16-01-2011 14:54 )iloveMegan Wrote: [Snip]
But my point is, without pushing the boundaries will they continue to get enough punters.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - sweetsugar007 - 16-01-2011 16:09
(16-01-2011 14:41 )eagle_si Wrote:(16-01-2011 13:53 )Addison Wrote: I'm with you, ILM. Funny how the hardcorers just cannot get their heads around the fact that many guys fantasise about/beat off to other parts of the female body than those located between the legs! And they persist in viewing this relative indifference to the sight of pussy as a sign of low sex drive/celibacy/puritanism/being in cahoots with Ofcom! I'll say again lads: anything but, in a lot of cases.
I completely agree with this. I watched a couple of smc's Early Bird recorded call clips about an hour ago, and it made me somewhat nostalgic for the old days, but some girls' shows have actually improved IMO with the new outfits. For example, I find Cara Brett much more enjoyable to watch in denim shorts or tight leggings than I did when she was just wearing a bikini. I also do not believe that having a normal conversation with a pretty girl instead of wanking off over her means that someone is an "oddball". Before I finish, I'd like to make clear (even though I shouldn't really need to) that I'm no fan of ofcom and the self-righteous crap they spout.
I think this is a really decen post. I remember my first ever call with Danica. did not want to talk about sex,did not have my cock in my hand just wamted to know what she was all about. I think she was also relieved to have a decent discussion for a change.This being a rare occurence for me. I also agree there are some girls you would not mind looking at in leggings or tight jeans as the bikini thing is always there if you want.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - iloveMegan - 16-01-2011 16:11
(16-01-2011 15:58 )smell the roses Wrote: But my point is, without pushing the boundaries will they continue to get enough punters.
I would say so, I haven't called the channels any less since the new rules (my calls to Bang Babes/The Pad took a hit, obviously
). As others have said, there have always been plenty of callers who just want to talk about the weather or what have you so I imagine they'll do okay.A lot of people may watch these channels in the hope of seeing a flash/slip but people call in to talk to the girls. I've been calling these channels for a long time and I can only remember listening in to maybe two callers who asked for a flash.
Just out of interest, have you ever called the shows yourself? I only ask as I imagine those who are only viewers would be be more preoccupied with flashes/slips.
RE: What is now the point of these channels. - bombshell - 16-01-2011 17:31
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=28527&page=2
I think Aceman has given the definitive answer/callers=money
Viewers=Zilch.
So the point has and will always be the same.