(25-06-2010 10:12 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ]Fair enough that your preference is solo girl stuff.
But I would consider yesterdays show as no different to a 2-4-1. The caller can direct the two people on screen into various scenarios.
I'm actually a fan of 2-4-1's as well especially the kind that Elite TV provide us, but like most people here I prefer my 2-4-1's with two girls.
(25-06-2010 10:17 )Carl43a Wrote: [ -> ]This one however gets a big fat raspberry. It just doesn't LOOK right having a guy on the screen of what is after all supposed to be a BABE channel.
But it still
all about the Babe, in this instance getting it on with a Guy. (As far as censorship regulations will allow.)
It is not as though the caller would be speaking to guy.
Thought all the simulated stuff went out years ago. At least its a change from the same old routine. Would much prefer the girls moving about.
(25-06-2010 10:44 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ] (25-06-2010 10:17 )Carl43a Wrote: [ -> ]This one however gets a big fat raspberry. It just doesn't LOOK right having a guy on the screen of what is after all supposed to be a BABE channel.
But it still all about the Babe, in this instance getting it on with a Guy. (As far as censorship regulations will allow.)
It is not as though the caller would be speaking to guy.
Just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Seeing a guy onscreen just strikes me as plain wrong, not to mention a massive turn off. I hate this new idea and would seriously doubt I am the only one who does.
Wow, a channel dared to do something different.
No wonder everyone's complaining.
I cant understand how some people seem to be missing the point here. It is not the doing something different that is the cause for complaint. It is having a guy on screen on what is supposed to be a babe channel. The argument put forward about the fact that callers wont be talking to the guy is not relevant...the fact that he is there in the first place is.
If I am going to watch a babe channel with the idea in mind to call a babe, the last thing I want to see is some geezer in his underpants sharing the screen with the girl who I might want to get my rocks off with.
(25-06-2010 12:33 )Carl43a Wrote: [ -> ]I cant understand how some people seem to be missing the point here. It is not the doing something different that is the cause for complaint. It is having a guy on screen on what is supposed to be a babe channel. The argument put forward about the fact that callers wont be talking to the guy is not relevant...the fact that he is there in the first place is.
If I am going to watch a babe channel with the idea in mind to call a babe, the last thing I want to see is some geezer in his underpants sharing the screen with the girl who I might want to get my rocks off with.
Then view it as a live, interactive porn show, that the caller can direct and that the non-calling viewer can watch. (Within obvious FTA censorship regulations, we didn't get to see Amber do this):
The Guy on-screen is simply a tool (no pun intended) for the Girls performance.
Paradiso made a bold move to offer something different. And change doesn't always please everyone. However, there was plenty of the usual shows on offer elsewhere for those who were disgusted by the sight of a Girl getting (fake) shagged by a Guy.
I found it rather pointless but it wouldn't be such a bad idea if they could interact a bit more. Similar to what sportxxx did a few years ago with the pixelation on screen or the POV camera thing might be an interesting concept.
Not sure why people are getting so worked up about seeing a guy on screen in his underpants, they are not asking you to beat the meat over him
Don't see anything wrong with this! Quality i think lol Sensi is a legend! How much hot pussy has that guy had!
i think it would be better with a diff girl, not that there is anything wrong with amber. but if it had of been one of the more innocent type of girls, like charlie o neal or paige. think that would be a lot more sexy, girl next door type with bad guy type lol