The UK Babe Channels Forum

I don’t really want to get into an argument with others over this, and i won’t. But people are posting their thoughts (as they have every right to do), but other peoples’ posts/replies are of not of the same mindset, they’re of the “i’m right and you’re wrong” attitude and this is causing a lot of the unrest/upset on this forum, specifically, in respect of this subject.

Many posters on here have a distinct lack of reason, rationale, thought and impartiality. Yet an abundance of bias and self-serving.

However, i’m posting my thoughts on both sides of this “argument”.

The channels are available on our TV screens for our entertainment, whether this be visual, aural or both is ultimately to be our decision. Whatever it be, the channels are there to be watched first of all, with the enticement for the watchers to then call. This is the process of marketing.

Viewers therefore have every right to comment in the same manner a caller does – it’s these viewers that the channels were/are primarily targeting in the hope they will become/remain callers etc.

The visual aspect of channels is lacking (maybe not for newer viewers, but certainly for older ones), there is absolutely no doubt about this and many peoples’ beef about “poorer” shows is therefore a legitimate one.

One of these legitimate reasons is that the watcher cannot view a girl on the screen in the same manner he is speaking with her – that’s what a lot of people want. It’s what i want, albeit not to the “hard(er)core” degrees that others want, but the principle is the same nonetheless.

Ardent non callers (StanThe Man for example (sorry Stan!)) has often said he has every right to comment on the channels’ output, and i agree with him. One day, he may see something on these channels that will just be exactly what does it for him and he’ll so want to speak to whomever on the channel about it (i doubt it, but never say never!)

Scottishbloke for example, for all his long winded moans about the poor state of these channels, is actually correct and has every right to say so. If you don’t like his posts, don’t read them and/or just ignore him and don’t reply (it’s the self-serving i referred to above when you reply moaning about his posts, but just fuel his fire about it).

And before you all jump on me and say Ofcom this, Ofcom that, don’t watch etc and all that crap... the Ofcom retort only goes so far (see one of my previous posts in this thread) and as for stop watching... why should i/we? The channels are still airing and whilst they do, i will watch in the hope of seeing something i like one day/night and also in the hope that things improve.

Just remember... it’s the same channels (bar a few changes here and there) that still want your business (at the same expensive rate(s)) and will gladly take it, when they clearly don’t care a jot that the “product” they’re “delivering” is seriously diminishing month by month.

The viewers/callers were there in droves for the channels during the good times, but will they be when the bad times, that will inevitably come, arrive? A certain phrase now comes to mind...

Ultimately, this is why i say they will only have themselves to blame if/when things go tits up for them.

(27-11-2012 16:26 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Another thing you need to remember is that what the majority of today's generation of viewers are getting, is all they know. Never mind the so-called 'golden age' of 2010, what about the near-hardcore stuff we used to get 2005 - 2008 ?

There's an old adage that's very apt here; What you've never had you never miss.

Yes Stan you make a very valid point here. Sexstation TV in 2006 when you could see FTA full frontal nudity aswell as the use of sex toys springs to mind here as does Babestar TV who at the time were doing exactly the same. One quote I remember Chantel saying over the mic at the time goes as follows "Come on boys give us a call, our pussys are wet and we need fucked" This is far far stronger from what we seen in 2010.

But the reason we always make reference to 2010 is because that's the year most recent to us that genuinely got close to repeating the antics of what went previous. It was also the era when you really got to see proper 2 for 1's as opposed to 2006 when although they were arguably more explicit I don't recall much in the way of 2 for 1's or oil show's for that matter. In 2010 more channels were consistent aswell as a massive difference as opposed to previous years with higher picture resolution really making the shows something of spectacle.

But yes Stan you do bring about a very valid point indeed but like you say a lot of forum members are just too young to remember as far back as the 2005 and 2006 era's. Not me, I remember them well

(27-11-2012 21:01 )schmoo Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t really want to get into an argument with others over this, and i won’t. But people are posting their thoughts (as they have every right to do), but other peoples’ posts/replies are of not of the same mindset, they’re of the “i’m right and you’re wrong” attitude and this is causing a lot of the unrest/upset on this forum, specifically, in respect of this subject.

Many posters on here have a distinct lack of reason, rationale, thought and impartiality. Yet an abundance of bias and self-serving.

However, i’m posting my thoughts on both sides of this “argument”.

The channels are available on our TV screens for our entertainment, whether this be visual, aural or both is ultimately to be our decision. Whatever it be, the channels are there to be watched first of all, with the enticement for the watchers to then call. This is the process of marketing.

Viewers therefore have every right to comment in the same manner a caller does – it’s these viewers that the channels were/are primarily targeting in the hope they will become/remain callers etc.

The visual aspect of channels is lacking (maybe not for newer viewers, but certainly for older ones), there is absolutely no doubt about this and many peoples’ beef about “poorer” shows is therefore a legitimate one.

One of these legitimate reasons is that the watcher cannot view a girl on the screen in the same manner he is speaking with her – that’s what a lot of people want. It’s what i want, albeit not to the “hard(er)core” degrees that others want, but the principle is the same nonetheless.

Ardent non callers (StanThe Man for example (sorry Stan!)) has often said he has every right to comment on the channels’ output, and i agree with him. One day, he may see something on these channels that will just be exactly what does it for him and he’ll so want to speak to whomever on the channel about it (i doubt it, but never say never!)

Scottishbloke for example, for all his long winded moans about the poor state of these channels, is actually correct and has every right to say so. If you don’t like his posts, don’t read them and/or just ignore him and don’t reply (it’s the self-serving i referred to above when you reply moaning about his posts, but just fuel his fire about it).

And before you all jump on me and say Ofcom this, Ofcom that, don’t watch etc and all that crap... the Ofcom retort only goes so far (see one of my previous posts in this thread) and as for stop watching... why should i/we? The channels are still airing and whilst they do, i will watch in the hope of seeing something i like one day/night and also in the hope that things improve.

Just remember... it’s the same channels (bar a few changes here and there) that still want your business (at the same expensive rate(s)) and will gladly take it, when they clearly don’t care a jot that the “product” they’re “delivering” is seriously diminishing month by month.

The viewers/callers were there in droves for the channels during the good times, but will they be when the bad times, that will inevitably come, arrive? A certain phrase now comes to mind...

Ultimately, this is why i say they will only have themselves to blame if/when things go tits up for them.

I do agree with some of your points Schmoo...certainly in regards to people being entitled to comment on the channels as a "Watcher"..The vast majority of my posts are done as a viewer as opposed to a caller , however i have called the shows in the past so can also see that side of the debate...

However, in the same way that Scottishbloke is entitled to his often long winded rants about the state of the channels (in his opinion) why is someone like Rammy (As annoying as he can often be) not entitled to say that he is happy with the shows given the restrictions that currently plague the channels?

You say

Quote:"Scottishbloke for example, for all his long winded moans about the poor state of these channels, is actually correct and has every right to say so. If you don’t like his posts, don’t read them and/or just ignore him and don’t reply (it’s the self-serving i referred to above when you reply moaning about his posts, but just fuel his fire about it)."

Now maybe it wasn't your intention, but arent you just saying that because you agree with ScottishBlokes posts about the state of the channels that no-one should bother replying/putting their opinion across as it might add fuel to the fire??

Its a viewpoint that many a so called "fanboy" has held that "if you don't like the channels don't watch them..." and often been shouted down by the more critical posters for having that viewpoint... So why should the more critical posters on the board be allowed to use the same philosophy when it applies to their posts? ..."If you dont like my posts, dont read them..." I'm sorry it can't work that way!

As i said you may not have meant it that way but that certainly how i'm reading it!

Quote:Just remember... it’s the same channels (bar a few changes here and there) that still want your business (at the same expensive rate(s)) and will gladly take it, when they clearly don’t care a jot that the “product” they’re “delivering” is seriously diminishing month by month.

You also need to remember that there are still plenty of people out there more than happy with the current output and whilst the channels will "Gladly take" the punters money at "Expensive rates" there are plenty of punters (myself included given the right girl) who are more than willing to pay it and are generally happy at the end of that call!


In regards to the visual aspect of the channels "Lacking" ...Well yes, maybe they are in mine and your eyes and i'm sure many others but this isn't 2005 anymore, times have changed, unfortunately due to lots of reasons (not least the threat of Ofcom fines- im sorry but it is THE main reason the channels are the way they are) the channels are a lot tamer...Whether you think a certain girl or channel has had a good night or a bad night you should be free to express it on here but dont bitch and whine (This isnt aimed at you or your post schmoo) when someone happens to disagree with you one way or the other...Someone has already used the term but "Double Standards" seems to be rather Apt in a number of posts on this thread of late!

Also, if the unlikely happened and the channels were given freedom to get much stronger, then it'd be wrong to assume that the girls would actually go further. Some of the current girls don't even seem comfortable taking their bras fully off on nights never mind anything else.

If the channels could go further and wanted to, then the standard of girls would probably lower. I'm not sure if I would be OK with that. The Sophia Knight style girls seem quite rare, as in, pretty much perfect looks as well as the willingness to do harder stuff.

I'm quite content with what is on offer to watch for free on T.V. I know where free porn is if I want it.

For me, I'd be more than happy if the censorship was just lowered slightly. Brief full frontal, close angles (We do have some of this at times, which is nice to see!), some handthong etc, is perfect for me. I don't need to see any more than that (Not that it would offend me in any way), and it's silly that Ofcom won't even allow the women to show that little, without MI6 getting involved

Okay Gaz AV1 Aston, as you’ve raised some points, i guess i should answer/comment:

(27-11-2012 22:17 )Gaz "AV1" Aston Wrote: [ -> ]~~~
However, in the same way that Scottishbloke is entitled to his often long winded rants about the state of the channels (in his opinion) why is someone like Rammy (As annoying as he can often be) not entitled to say that he is happy with the shows given the restrictions that currently plague the channels?

I’ve not said he isn’t.

(27-11-2012 22:17 )Gaz "AV1" Aston Wrote: [ -> ]You say

(27-11-2012 21:01 )schmoo Wrote: [ -> ]"Scottishbloke for example, for all his long winded moans about the poor state of these channels, is actually correct and has every right to say so. If you don’t like his posts, don’t read them and/or just ignore him and don’t reply (it’s the self-serving i referred to above when you reply moaning about his posts, but just fuel his fire about it)."

Now maybe it wasn't your intention, but arent you just saying that because you agree with ScottishBlokes posts about the state of the channels that no-one should bother replying/putting their opinion across as it might add fuel to the fire??

Its a viewpoint that many a so called "fanboy" has held that "if you don't like the channels don't watch them..." and often been shouted down by the more critical posters for having that viewpoint... So why should the more critical posters on the board be allowed to use the same philosophy when it applies to their posts? ..."If you dont like my posts, dont read them..." I'm sorry it can't work that way!

As i said you may not have meant it that way but that certainly how i'm reading it!

Like you suggest, your inference is incorrect – i refer you to my opening paragraph of my post as to what i meant. Scottishbloke’s posts, more the replies he gets to them, were used as an example to highlight what i am saying in that paragraph.

(27-11-2012 22:17 )Gaz "AV1" Aston Wrote: [ -> ]

(27-11-2012 21:01 )schmoo Wrote: [ -> ]Just remember... it’s the same channels (bar a few changes here and there) that still want your business (at the same expensive rate(s)) and will gladly take it, when they clearly don’t care a jot that the “product” they’re “delivering” is seriously diminishing month by month.

You also need to remember that there are still plenty of people out there more than happy with the current output and whilst the channels will "Gladly take" the punters money at "Expensive rates" there are plenty of punters (myself included given the right girl) who are more than willing to pay it and are generally happy at the end of that call!

Of this i have no doubt. I sometimes am one of these people myself (but such occasions are rare now).

And it’s this rarety that is my point here – not so long ago, people’s cries for better (harder?) content didn’t bother me as i only watched/called the daytime shows/girls, but ... these daytime shows have deteriorated (visually) to such a degree you see more on music video channels and maybe more mainstream channels than that. So, as things are going at the moment, this will get worse rather than better – so where previously i thought things were ok (not wanting naked/harder content) i thought my babe channel viewing would never be affected, so there must be people previously satisfied with less than that what i was, who will be soon dissatisfied too...

(27-11-2012 22:17 )Gaz "AV1" Aston Wrote: [ -> ]In regards to the visual aspect of the channels "Lacking" ...Well yes, maybe they are in mine and your eyes and i'm sure many others but this isn't 2005 anymore, times have changed, unfortunately due to lots of reasons (not least the threat of Ofcom fines- im sorry but it is THE main reason the channels are the way they are) the channels are a lot tamer...Whether you think a certain girl or channel has had a good night or a bad night you should be free to express it on here but dont bitch and whine (This isnt aimed at you or your post schmoo) when someone happens to disagree with you one way or the other...Someone has already used the term but "Double Standards" seems to be rather Apt in a number of posts on this thread of late!

I do not disagree with you about Ofcom – BUT, Ofcom are not the monopoly as to why the channels have tamed down their shows, it’s the channels saying it is, together with forum members’ using it as an easy cop out to agree with them and their models (in some absurd way of currying favour!?)

The channels’ over cautious approach, unnecessarily so, is something they CAN reverse a little, if they want to. This is why i quoted a certain Ofcom paragraph, and my questioning of it, somewhere previously.

Visually lacking? Absolutely definitely is. Not maybe is. Definitely is – like you say, it’s just to what degrees for each and every person as to how much “we” deem so. Furthermore, the visual deterioration i'm talking of does not start and stop with the models - we have poor camerwork, (more) obstrusive OSG's etc.

I’m fully aware it’s not 2005, or even 2010 anymore and that (babe channel) times have changed – one of my earlier posts said as such, so we all have to deal with it. I stand by that point. My post here is not really about that.

Like your queries, and my answers to them, at the top of this post, i have not said anybody cannot express opinions as to a girl/channel having a good/bad night. Strangely, you are agreeing with my point in this respect – it’s the manner (bitching/whining as you put it) in which that a lot of the replies are posted on this forum. Disagreement, yes - all part and parcel of a forum discussion/debate, but that does mean bitching/whining (whatever else you may call it) goes hand in hand with it. That’s the big problem on this forum with certain members.


Hope that clarifies things for you.


Incidentally, i hate the night shows - the general lack of clothing/nakedness and the extreme robotic talk that goes with them. I much prefer clothed girl’s, hence why i love(d) the teasing dayshows.

(And yes, i know some night shows now have clothed girls before you say...!)

Now this is exactly what piss's me off about the channels and Studio66 is one of the worst offenders for it. Was watching Clare take her panties off whilst covering her modesty with an item of clothing. The screen cuts away for a minute and hey presto they are back on. It's bad enough when we have ofcom without having to play witness to such shaby self censorship into the bargain. I rest my case

The nudity contrast is so large with this channel. Last night was brilliant from one woman, but tonight? Tame as hell.

Clare finally wants to go nude (Or finally believes she can go nude ), and even had a towel covering her area, which is more than some women have had recently. The producer then tells her she can't go nude, after cutting to the logo, and we're left with an annoyed Clare who gives the producer an angry face.

So lame, and it's obvious now that some women are actually being told they can't go nude

The whole thing is daft - honestly I despair at the inconsistency of it all sometimes . One rule for one and another rule for another and with no obvious logical reasoning. Just bonkers really. I have to laugh otherwise I would have steam coming out my eyeballs instead. Doh.

And all I can say is thank fuck we have Lori Buckby giving us a show, otherwise I think it would be grounds for consideration to post in the crap night on the babe channels thread. Once again Lori has come to the rescue and saved their blushes. Top performer for me by an absolute fucking mile