Should tease shows only feature girls who are willing to go topless?

(18-04-2019 08:51 )straw man Wrote:  Does anyone think we're heading towards an entirely tease channel?

The problem with this idea is that the tease shows are almost always on Studio 66's main channel. It's only occasionally that they get relegated to one of their lesser channels. So if there was an entirely tease channel, either it would be the main channel, with the consequence that night shows would never appear on the main channel, or it would be one of the lesser channels, with the consequence that all the tease shows would have to be relegated from the main channel. I can't see either proposition as being very likely.

If a presenter appears on FTA between 22:00 and 05:00, they should at least be comfortable with flashing a nipple.

If they're not willing to do that, then they should do their tease shows behind a paywall or on a web-only channel.

shows like Cali or Reed where there is no tease, no sense of expectation, are just awful to watch and they should be banned
[/quote]

Fully agree with the above.

There is no need for the girl to be topless. Merely an actual tease that grabs the attention where you don't want to switch over.

Made my feelings about Calis teases many a time so much so i will never watch them again. They are tired, boring, and as above should be no more.

(18-04-2019 19:57 )ai1234 Wrote:  Wrong question...

What is the right question then?

(20-04-2019 11:07 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(18-04-2019 19:57 )ai1234 Wrote:  Wrong question...

What is the right question then?

This ^

(17-04-2019 20:54 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  I'm not bothered if a girl is topless or not in a tease, so long as she is sexy.

That's a great comment and I agree entirely. Sometimes a tease show is the highlight of a night, even when not topless.

(19-04-2019 12:49 )ryuken Wrote:  If a presenter appears on FTA between 22:00 and 05:00, they should at least be comfortable with flashing a nipple.

If they're not willing to do that, then they should do their tease shows behind a paywall or on a web-only channel.

I don't see the logic, myself, in suggesting that those of us who prefer the tease hours (and would do even more If the girls took us to a special place with such tease skills) should be happy with a paywall. Surely the more you get, the more you should expect to contribute to get it?? If the content is more 'revealing' or 'explicit', then that has to be the output that is hidden from free viewing??

(21-04-2019 10:22 )hornball Wrote:  

(19-04-2019 12:49 )ryuken Wrote:  If a presenter appears on FTA between 22:00 and 05:00, they should at least be comfortable with flashing a nipple.

If they're not willing to do that, then they should do their tease shows behind a paywall or on a web-only channel.

I don't see the logic, myself, in suggesting that those of us who prefer the tease hours (and would do even more If the girls took us to a special place with such tease skills) should be happy with a paywall. Surely the more you get, the more you should expect to contribute to get it?? If the content is more 'revealing' or 'explicit', then that has to be the output that is hidden from free viewing??

The word revealing is exactly what the night shows and tease shows should be about... 10 pm to 5pm on tv
The word explicit is what the paywall should be about...
Web only should be a more revealing show from what you would expect from said individual.....

Before the rule change back in 2010/11 anything went whether explicit or revealing

(21-04-2019 10:22 )hornball Wrote:  Q: I don't see the logic, myself, in suggesting that those of us who prefer the tease hours should be happy with a paywall.

A: If you prefer tease hours, that's fine. I did mention the option of web-only teases, as well as paywall teases. I just think that if a presenter is on FTA between 22:00 and 05:00, then they should at least be comfortable with flashing a nipple. At the end of the day it all comes down to what a presenter feels comfortable doing and what OFCOM allows on TV.

Q: Surely the more you get, the more you should expect to contribute to get it?? If the content is more 'revealing' or 'explicit', then that has to be the output that is hidden from free viewing??

A: There are some daytime presenters that I enjoy paying to interact with during tease shows when they wear more revealing outfits, flash their nipples and perform more sexually. And there are some that I don't want to pay for because they don't wear more revealing outfits, flash a nipple or peform more sexually. We all should just pay for whatever we like.

(21-04-2019 13:16 )geoffh Wrote:  

(21-04-2019 10:22 )hornball Wrote:  

(19-04-2019 12:49 )ryuken Wrote:  If a presenter appears on FTA between 22:00 and 05:00, they should at least be comfortable with flashing a nipple.

If they're not willing to do that, then they should do their tease shows behind a paywall or on a web-only channel.

I don't see the logic, myself, in suggesting that those of us who prefer the tease hours (and would do even more If the girls took us to a special place with such tease skills) should be happy with a paywall. Surely the more you get, the more you should expect to contribute to get it?? If the content is more 'revealing' or 'explicit', then that has to be the output that is hidden from free viewing??

The word revealing is exactly what the night shows and tease shows should be about... 10 pm to 5pm on tv
The word explicit is what the paywall should be about...
Web only should be a more revealing show from what you would expect from said individual.....

Before the rule change back in 2010/11 anything went whether explicit or revealing

And that is exactly where the issue started! The rules changed - primarily thanks to Babestar - and led to the rubbish we have today! But I still do not see why some would suggest that the less you see (better in many ways imho) the greater the justification for placing that content behind a paywall