[split] Elite TV/Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

Oh really and why is that?

because of your complete misunderstanding of it.

(04-01-2015 17:38 )terence Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 17:35 )Broncobilly Wrote:  Too many studio 66. Fan boys here you should admire the girls for what they give and not just worship because they decided to show up

i feel this discussion might be going a tiny bit over your head mate.

(04-01-2015 17:39 )terence Wrote:  because of your complete misunderstanding of it.

Your entitled to your opinion I am entitled to mine.

(04-01-2015 17:09 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  lol I really hadn't put too much thought into my list of examples and I think that you and I are actually having a bit of a heated agreement anyway. I get that you get how the shows work.

I guess the point that I keep coming back to is that a lot of people's expectations are conditioned by the mistaken assumptions that these girls are (a) employees of the studio, and (b) somehow making a fortune. So when they don't see exactly what they want to see on screen (more of this, less of that, etc.) they feel particularly aggrieved and slighted, suggesting that the girls are somehow "not doing their job".

To my mind, just by turning up she has done her job. After that, whatever she does on screen or on the phones has a direct bearing on how much she earns. So if she chooses to eschew the swinging-from-the-chandelier, circus monkey sex antics, then she isn't "ripping anyone off" ... she is actually choosing to forego some of her own income (presumably in exchange for retaining a shred of her dignity).

(04-01-2015 17:21 )Sooky™ Wrote:  I like a nice cracking set of tits unleashed as much as the next person, but some of my fave moments over the years has been when a few of the girls have turned up on screen in jeans and t-shirt. I like the hint of what's to come in future instead of always just having it planted right out and left there with no mystique and monotonous regularity.

I like it when a girl gradually removes her outfit, finally getting her tits out. But I love it when she puts her outfit back on again during a break in calls to start the process all over again. Often, if a girl is lying there naked for the whole stint, my attention will drift. A hot girl can look just as hot dressed as she can naked, if she knows how to sell it.

Variety is the spice of life. Tits out does not always mean good show, nor does covered up have to mean bad show.

Oh, I definitely agree Goodfella, seeing how things are run at the channels can explain a lot of things and even excuse the occasional bad show. However, I don't read that many threads on this forum so I guess I may of missed many of the wrong assumptions you are talking about.

Personally, I don't want circus monkey antics from all the girls on nights (I'd like to think a majority of blokes don't need that to get off). The girls know this and can set their own rules of what they will do accordingly.

As Sooky says there is more to peaking the average guy's interest than just splaying the legs and begging for it all night! The right simple (and small!) underwear is important for me; how the girl expresses her sexuality with her body and facial expressions; how she moves around the set; clothing revealing the body in the right way; all are crucial too. The best have confidence in the power of their personality getting through the TV screen and create a mood. They should know they have you the viewer intent on them and them alone. That's when the channels work best.

This can be done clothed or unclothed but for me I often find nude sections of the babe shows are the least interesting. Indeed, I have the feeling that some girls actually resort to them when the are told to show less! It's mad that a nude section can feel so 'safe'! The restrictions are such that it often halts body movement and expressiveness. A killer for eroticism I think. It takes a lot to get round that.

One thing that does bug me slightly is the feeling that some girls use 'the Ofcom excuse' for their level of performance or a laziness in their shows (when, as I've said, a guy's excitement has less to do with naked flesh alone than some would have it). I hope you agree that some girls on the channels wouldn't go beyond what they do now if there were no Ofcom! Them saying otherwise strikes me as dishonest and a completely unnecessary excuse. (I could be kind and say they do it for the dimwits who wouldn't understand any other argument but hey ho...)

I have the feeling that some in the industry are only to happy with the Ofcom situation because it has given them an avenue of income that they might otherwise not have had. Can't really object to that but I hate state censorship of that kind and so I don't appreciate that result.

But I've rambled too long again! Feetlover will be back any moment...

(04-01-2015 18:43 )ShandyHand Wrote:  But I've rambled too long again! Feetlover will be back any moment...

I wouldn't worry about him, it's probably past his bedtime.

(04-01-2015 18:39 )Broncobilly Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 17:39 )terence Wrote:  because of your complete misunderstanding of it.

Your entitled to your opinion I am entitled to mine.

yeah but it's not an opinion is it? it's a misinterpretation. two different things.

(04-01-2015 17:38 )terence Wrote:  i feel this discussion might be going a tiny bit over your head mate.

(04-01-2015 17:39 )Broncobilly Wrote:  Oh really and why is that?

(04-01-2015 17:39 )terence Wrote:  because of your complete misunderstanding of it.

(04-01-2015 18:39 )Broncobilly Wrote:  Your entitled to your opinion I am entitled to mine.

(04-01-2015 18:50 )terence Wrote:  yeah but it's not an opinion is it? it's a misinterpretation. two different things.

^^^ Wasn't this a Monty Python sketch?

i don't know mate but when you present it like that it sounds like one!

^^^ 5 minute one... or the full half-hour?