The Naked Question

[quote='mrmann' pid='340225' dateline='1265070197']
I'm currently a U.S. citizen living in London, and not all of it is Draconian IMO. To me, the UK seems more lenient on public nudity than in most parts of America. I've seen quite a few times in London, nude men or women dancing in the Trafalgar Square fountain, and they haven't been arrested, only asked to put their clothes back on with the threat of arrest. Also, I've seen some public nudity such as a model with her top off doing a photo shoot in front of a window inside a shop or club, where everyone can walk by and see her. In most places in the states, I'd imagine an arrest would be made, in most places at least.

I'm not entirely harsh on public nudity, as long as it's brief, and as long as nobody is assaulting someone or having sex with them. People should be asked by the police to put their clothes back on, and only arrested if they are too drunk or disorderly. I think the reason some places are strict on public nudity is because it can be dangerous for some people around them. What if some drunk or crazy person saw them naked in public and went up and assaulted them? That's something that might have been avoided had the person been clothed. It's also indecent to many people, and makes them uncomfortable, especially in public where they might be turned on and embarrassed. While it might seem extreme to punish these people, it ultimately is for the safety of others.

Another thing slightly unrelated, is that there is nudity in some of the commercials on TV for kleenex in the UK, though that might be aired after a certain time. There's never any nudity in any commercial in the states, yet we have a huge porn industry. America is also very harsh as well, but not any less than England.

Eastern Europe isn't as harsh because they are more depraved

It's hard to find the right balance, and honestly both England and the states are hypocritical places. Sometimes they seem reasonable and lenient, and other times Draconian and overly strict.

On the topic of the babe shows, I do think a bit more nudity would be good. Nothing overly vulgar or obscene, but a little full on nudity here and there wouldn't hurt.

Hey everyone,

Just gonna put this out there, maybe its just me, but does anyone else find the nude thing just a little bit boring?

I would just prefer to see a girl in nice underwear throwing some nice shapes,

And now nearly all my favourite Bum's...........i mean er.....girls are doing the nude thing the whole night. Yawn!

No offence intended to any of the Bum's....i mean.....girls

No, nude babes are good for me... as part of their night show...
I still haven't got over the night when Tiffanys cloth slipped

(13-06-2010 11:01 )mf135 Wrote:  Hey everyone,

Just gonna put this out there, maybe its just me, but does anyone else find the nude thing just a little bit boring?

I agree with you completely, the whole thing is very tedious and repetitive it's the same old routine every time.

When a girl goes naked she is more restricted on how she can move and perform on the beds, naturally good performers are reduced to laying on their front with a sheet covering their body. For me performance is key, and performance is totally lost when a girl goes naked.

Sure you might catch the odd slip now and then, but i'm not going to bore myself to death by sitting through such a performance for slightest chance that might happen.

The girls need to find a balance when they do a nude show. There are girls who whip everything off straight away and lie naked but covered in a cushion/blanket/whatever else and as such cant move about as much and sometimes (depending on the performer) this can be boring.

I think there should be more of a striptease type thing where the gils start fully clothed and throughout the hour or so stint between breaks gradually take more off...I think that way you would keep most people happy, that way you get the opportunity for more movement, more tease and eventually the climax with the girl being naked. Its simply about striking the right balance imo.

(13-06-2010 14:28 )astonv1 Wrote:  There are girls who whip everything off straight away and lie naked

Camilla and Jada come to mind, is that why they are on so often?

If so then the majority must prefer naked performances.

(13-06-2010 14:53 )Josh187 Wrote:  

(13-06-2010 14:28 )astonv1 Wrote:  There are girls who whip everything off straight away and lie naked

Camilla and Jada come to mind, is that why they are on so often?

If so then the majority must prefer naked performances.

Camilla and Jada are good examples from my point of view as two of my favourite girls who i dont watch that often. I watch Jada more so as she does the nude show but still incorporates some interesting movements and positions etc where Camilla doesnt have that range. Its not anything against Camilla but i cant really get into her shows like i used to. i find myself easily distracted by other channels/girls even to the point of tuning into girls i find less attractive than Camilla.

Also i do think some girls do the naked shows very well...Caty Cole, Hazel Bond and Charlie O neale all seem to be able to strike a great balance (hazel) or like Caty can move around alot and not just lie there with a sheet between there legs!

But i guess your right obviously people do prefer the naked shows.

Its either done well caty,charlie etc or done badly jada,camilla,stevie and so on.

Caty and the other elite girls at least move about a bit when they are naked, where as the cellcast bunch just lie in the same position all night. which is one of the reasons i can't bare babestation these days.

Personally they need to mix it up a bit more, but i imagine they get a surge in calls when naked so as long as that is the case expect the nakedness to continue.

The problem with a lot of women nowadays is they are waxed and so it would be too explicit if they did drop towel.But some of the girls like Karina,who as a landing strip or the milf and rainbow from sporxxx who are both natural and can show what they got and get away with it.I did once see michelle thorne say that her bosses at the adult channel didn't want her to get a boob job so may be the bosses at the various channels can tell the girls to grow some hair down there!and then they might get away with full nudity for awhile.I say awhile because full nudity would never last because of the rivalries between the channels and of course the dreaded OFCOM.

See Thru Panties or No Panties!!! What is the future?

Just wanted peoples opinion on the above.

It is great to see a naked girl on the screen but you don't get to see their pussy. But when they are wearing see through panties (eg Amanda Rendall) some of the girls are quite happy to let the cameras zoom in close and expose their glorious wares. Does it for me everytime. Thursday night seems a night a few of the girls go with see thru's.

Wondered what peoples thoughts are.

Also, because so many girls are going knickerless and the regulations have obviously relaxed, do folk think that there may come a time in the not too distant future that there will be full explicit nudity (more than the old days) or use of sex toys but with no insertion on these free to air channels?

Again, thoughts would be appreciated.

thanks guys

I thought I better get the ball rolling. As you can tell from my post, at the moment with the way things stand, I much prefer the see thru panties.