Do the Babeshows go far enough?

All the girls should be able to express themselves as individuals, so if some of them want to go a bit further than others then they should be allowed to. There has to be a line though otherwise it defeats the purpose of the shows, which essentially is to "tease". A girl "flashing" is still a tease and that should be allowed for an unencrypted show... If people want anything stronger, then the "encrypted shows", "webshows" & "porn" can provide everything else (although encrypted pay-per-view TV still needs sorting out).

This is the real issue for the UK adult industry... There are also certain aspects of hardcore porn that "should be allowed on encrypted pay-per-view TV", but again there has to be a line somewhere... The problem is to OFCOM this would be like opening "Pandora's Box", that's just the way they think... Yes, there are bad elements of the adult industry, but OFCOM need to get a grip and realise there are good and bad sides to most industries. A bit like all those "corporate scumbags" who caused the credit crunch for example

(16-11-2009 19:00 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  All the girls should be able to express themselves as individuals, so if some of them want to go a bit further than others then they should be allowed to. There has to be a line though otherwise it defeats the purpose of the shows, which essentially is to "tease". A girl "flashing" is still a tease and that should be allowed for an unencrypted show... If people want anything stronger, then the "encrypted shows", "webshows" & "porn" can provide everything else (although encrypted pay-per-view TV still needs sorting out).

This is the real issue for the UK adult industry... There are also certain aspects of hardcore porn that "should be allowed on encrypted pay-per-view TV", but again there has to be a line somewhere... The problem is to OFCOM this would be like opening "Pandora's Box", that's just the way they think... Yes, there are bad elements of the adult industry, but OFCOM need to get a grip and realise there are good and bad sides to most industries. A bit like all those "corporate scumbags" who caused the credit crunch for example

I can't think of any reason whatsoever why the channels can't show full frontal nudity if they wish. I think most would agree that any kind of open leg stuff would probably be a bit too much for fta shows but taking Tiffany on Elite as an example on Saturday night, in her last section you were watching a girl having a shower. In that scenario, I really can't see what huge offence would have been caused if she had been shown full frontal.

As far as I'm concerned, the kind of stuff Babestar did for around 80% of the time (when toys weren't involved ) should be fully acceptable on these sort of channels.

Many of the existing girls would not work on the babe channels if attempts were made to force them to go further, so that is a factor which needs to be considered in this.

(16-11-2009 20:38 )MARCCE Wrote:  I can't think of any reason whatsoever why the channels can't show full frontal nudity if they wish. I think most would agree that any kind of open leg stuff would probably be a bit too much for fta shows but taking Tiffany on Elite as an example on Saturday night, in her last section you were watching a girl having a shower. In that scenario, I really can't see what huge offence would have been caused if she had been shown full frontal.

That would be up to Tiff... As I said if some of the girls want to go a bit further then they should be allowed to, but as marlowe stated most of the girls would not want to on this type of show. The rules need to be relaxed a bit though for the girls who do...

There's a full range of strength on BangBabes 1-2-3, often at the same time, with Amanda showing the lot, rubbing and giving it some finger, while some of the other babes are a lot tamer, so on that channel at least, no-one seems to be forcing them to do anything. And the more independent operators there are, the easier it is for a babe to walk if she doesn't like it.

It used to be that Britain was known as a nation of shopkeepers, who generally try to supply what people want. Now we seem to have become a nation of social workers instead, who generally try to 'protect' people from what they want.

I think this is because we have mostly lost the concept of community, where like-minded people get together to establish rules - and freedoms - to help everyone get along (much like this forum; hurrah for us!). Instead of which, we have bureaucrats who sit in remote judgement, isolated from and ignorant of any such communities who in this case are the viewers & callers - which was precisely TDK's point.

Any censorship is probably based on a combination of the greed of broadcasters bowing to Ofcom's and/or management dictate to ensure the revenue keeps coming and on arrogant prestbyterian moralising. This is the sickening hypocrisy which nowadays pervades many areas of our lives, not just FTV.

This is why I've voted to go further; not so that they do, although I certainly won't object , but so that they can.

Ok, I'll get off me soapbox now. Thanks for listening - and for The UK Babe Channels Forum !