+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: 'Tamestation' (/showthread.php?tid=12351)
RE: 'Tamestation' - Matsui - 09-10-2009 21:26
As I and countless others say all the time you see MUCH stronger content on Virgin 1 with Sexcetera, you get girls snogging each other, nipple sucking, set reports with girls getting screwed (obviously careful not to show penetration), even full frontal nudity (minus gratuitous shots of course). Yet BS are afraid to even show two girls kissing, hell I’ve seen stronger girl/girl kisses on soaps.
I thought with them being in 90s we would finally end this tame crap, obviously I was wrong.
Oh and here is a piece of trivia for you, in 2005 Channel 4 showed a Danish film called "The Idiots" unedited, which contained an orgy scene, with one shot showing un-simulated penetrative sex on UK terrestriall TV. After complaints and an Ofcom investigation they ruled that it was ok as it was "artistic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiots
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 10-10-2009 00:23
Ofcom make a lot of noise about things being 'artistic' and also another favourite expression: 'in context'. I've seen girls doing all the things mentioned on Sexcetera, including while full frontal, totally nude and running around firing machine guns and RPGs.
Now, I ask you, which is more 'in context' for girls kissing and totally nude - the scenario just described or a late-night adult channel 18-rated sex chat show?
No, I don't really need an answer to that.
RE: 'Tamestation' - oxygenIT - 10-10-2009 01:03
I doubt Ofcom would make a big deal at all about the girls snogging on BS, obviously there are lines that can't be crossed but two girls kissing with or without tongues is way below the line.
As has been pointed out you can see far stronger content on 'mainstream' Freeview channels from around 10pm let alone 12-5am.
Freeview and Ofcom don't seem to be the issue, it seems to be more a policy of BS/Cellcast who want to keep it softer than softcore.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 10-10-2009 02:07
FFS!!! Now they won't even let Stevie aim the shower at her crotch.
Jeez, what a pathetic bunch.
That moron of a cameraman is totally wrecking Stevie's efforts to give us a good show.
RE: 'Tamestation' - Big Boobies - 10-10-2009 09:28
Hi there. yes I agree with whats been said already.When the programmes moved into thir own (90s) section I think we all assumed that the content would become more "adult" but of course this hasnt happened! True the girls have more freedom of movement and they are allowed to "play with" their boobs which is great but very rarely are they seen tit to tit for any length of time. Also kissing mouth to mouth is still a no-go.Very tame compared to mainstream television which can (and often is) more "adventurous" even before 10.00 and sometimes well before! Sexcetera always is dirtier and thats freely available on Freeview! CAMILLA and recently LORI have really been trying to "push the boundaries" but only "lose" their pants for example on Sky and very rarely on Freeview;yet the "rules" are the same for all terrestrial tv channels.This is very unfair;(its not Freeview or OFCON rules as often quoted by the girls themselves or Cellcast) but Cellcast making up their own rules which must stop especially if BangBabes do come onto Freeview next month. As I havent got Sky I rely on recording the Freeview show(s) which have improved slightly recently; but when I watch the webstream before I go to bed the Sky content is STILL very different to that of Freeview even BEFORE 10.00.This is still very unfair given that the "adult" shows are now well away from the "more normal" shows and that broadcasting rules are THE SAME for Sky Freeview or "normal" programmesl Come on Cellcast behave and please treat all of your "adult" viewers equally.
RE: 'Tamestation' - TheWatcher - 10-10-2009 09:55
While the Babestation TV shows may be tame, they have certainly become a lot more raunchier on their online sexstation web show in the last week or so. Just check out some of the recent posts in the threads Cherry, Tilly Hardy, Teri, French Chloe and Dildos in that section of the forum. Both dildos and fingers could clearly be seen, being inserted by Teri last night around 10.45pm
The 2 pics below are of French Chloe just after 11pm last night.
Click on any picture to enlarge
![[Image: 2009-10-09-231236_thumb.jpg]](http://www.imagechunk.com/viewer.php?file=2009-10-09-231236.jpg)
![[Image: 2009-10-09-231314_thumb.jpg]](http://www.imagechunk.com/viewer.php?file=2009-10-09-231314.jpg)
Free Adult Image Host - ImageChunk.com
RE: 'Tamestation' - Censorship :-( - 10-10-2009 09:59
What are the chances that Bang Babes will follow Cellcast’s example, and provide a special, cut down, extra tame version of their channel on Freeview? The fact that they are a new channel (to Freeview), with new babes, guarantees them an audience, so all they would have to do is match Cellcast’s feeble output. Even if they decided not to tone down, what’s the betting that Cellcast would be first in line at Ofcon’s door to complain (not that they would likely breach Ofcon’s censorship code, merely that they go beyond Cellcast's content, which, let’s face it, wouldn’t be difficult)?
BTW, can anyone confirm that, since the Freeview Re-tune, Tamestation 1-4 on $ky haven’t been brought down to Freeview’s abysmal level, thus meeting the ‘no difference in content’ that was rumoured to occur at this time (we were expecting an end to Freeview censorship, which didn’t happen, so just wondered about the alternative explanation, other than the rumour being complete bollocks, that is)?
As for mainstream channels; Sexcetera et al are still heavily censored (blurring/pixellation), even though it is not required by Ofcon's code; it is an entertainment magazine/documentary programme, not a 'sex work'. Of course, Ofcon are incapable of implementing their own code correctly, and they have suggested that the need to censor a programme in this way means that it might not be suitable for broadcast in the first place! So much for Freedom of Expression of broadcaster & viewer!
As others have pointed out, though, ‘Tamestation 1-4 Freeview’ is the fault of the broadcaster, not the broadcast censor.
RE: 'Tamestation' - MARCCE - 10-10-2009 10:35
Not sure I go along with this "it must be Cellcast" theory.
After all, you've got a load of girls who would definitely go further, you have an audience that most certainly wants them to go further and a set of "rules" that, on the face of it, don't seem to permit that.
These channels are there to make money. Any channel with an audience wanting certain things, with girls willing to do those things and yet not doing them for no apparent reason would be quite insane.
You have to think there is some pressure being applied by the powers that be somewhere along the line. It's noticeable that both Elite and Bangbabes have largely moved away from the girl on girl stuff in recent weeks, though in the latter's case that may be as much due to the fact that they hardly have enough girls to fill the 3 channels these days as them having received any slap on the wrist.
Goes back to what I was saying in another thread. If there are restrictions being applied then people within the set ups at these channels ahould be telling people that.
RE: 'Tamestation' - homerdrive - 10-10-2009 10:37
Sorry if this has already been asked, but if the channels were encrypted and PIN protected (but still free to view) could they go fully nude, to the same level as TVX etc? There would presumably also be fewer worries about Ofcom if they did as they'd be hidden from people who don't want to see them.
RE: 'Tamestation' - Censorship :-( - 10-10-2009 11:15
(10-10-2009 10:35 )MARCCE Wrote: Not sure I go along with this "it must be Cellcast" theory.
After all, you've got a load of girls who would definitely go further, you have an audience that most certainly wants them to go further and a set of "rules" that, on the face of it, don't seem to permit that.
These channels are there to make money. Any channel with an audience wanting certain things, with girls willing to do those things and yet not doing them for no apparent reason would be quite insane.
You have to think there is some pressure being applied by the powers that be somewhere along the line. It's noticeable that both Elite and Bangbabes have largely moved away from the girl on girl stuff in recent weeks, though in the latter's case that may be as much due to the fact that they hardly have enough girls to fill the 3 channels these days as them having received any slap on the wrist.
Goes back to what I was saying in another thread. If there are restrictions being applied then people within the set ups at these channels ahould be telling people that.
Tamestation 1-4 have been much tamer than the very same channels on $ky since day one, which, in the case of PL, is circa. 7 months ago; this is not a recent taming down. So why, if it is not down to Cellcast, is there a consistent, over a long period of time, discrepancy? Some people claimed it was because of an 'easing in' on the new platform (conveniently ignoring the former existence of the real PG channel), but, 7months in, just how much 'easing in' is required? Not to mention that the switch to a grouped, high channel number, Freeview ‘adult section’ has had little or no positive effect.
As for the channels wanting to make money, etc. so why wouldn’t they go a far as they can? Cellcast have a 100% monopoly on Freeview, so viewers who only have Freeview, and are not members of forums like this one (which I’m guessing might be the majority, though it’s just a guess) have nothing to compare it to; it’s Cellcast or nothing! Consequently, they are unlikely to know that better is possible/available, so Cellcast can provide as little as they think they can get away with; once the calls etc. start to fall away, as viewers get bored of the same babes & same, tame content, now that the (Freeview) novelty has worn off, they always have the option of improving content upto what the broadcast censor allows, thus extending the useful life of the channel on the Freeview platform. Why provide 100%, if you can provide, say, 50%, yet get the same income (remember, to add insult to injury, they charge the same for the cut-down Freeview service as they do for the 'real thing' on $ky).
Having said all that, I did pose the question about whether TS $ky has been brought down to the same, dismal level as TS Freeview – I await a response, with interest.
Even if Bang Babes & Elite are not as good as they were, that, AFAIK, is a more recent development, and therefore, nothing to do with the long-term tameness of TSF. Once again, I’m guessing that, however poor BB & E might now be, there are still not as bad as TSF, unless someone can confirm otherwise?
As for Cellcast being insane…
