Babestation - General Chat & Discussion

It's nice to see that the gorgeous sexy Olivia has taken her stockings off for once when going nude. I do wish she would take them off more often as she has the most sexy legs and feet. I don't know why she doesn't take them off more often. If she did she would please her fans more who prefer her with no stockings on and also please her fans who like her with stockings on; the best of both worlds, so to speak.

morningstar wrote:Ill put my hands up Lutonbloke. Of course performance matters, but only in the context of the fact that the person performing is actually a "Babe" in what seems to be a wide ranging umbrella term nowadays.

You are also correct in the fact that some of the most popular, as you put it, are the laziest and most gormless looking bints. They are probably popular because they are good looking and have universal appeal. Whereas overly tattooed birds, fat birds, old birds and plain ugly fuckers have a narrow window to work in so they have to put on a show to drum up support.

All I'm saying really is if you dress a pig in stockings and suspenders its still a pig in stocking and suspenders.

By the way, you seem to be a member of the clique here as much as anybody.

Believe me im not a member of the clique, i can't stand that miserable bastard Anniseed balls he is like the complete opposite to that Rammyrascal, but i do tend to get on well with the others on here, i haven't always agreed with you and AB but i kept quiet

We can debate about what girls are the best looking till the cows come home but its a pointless debate because its a case of each to their own, but if people are gonna keep slating my faves on BS then i'll happily trash the girls they like

What isn't subjective is the shows are far tamer and too over censored compared to 5-6 years ago, infact even just 2-3 years ago they were a lot raunchier than they are now with the odd good 2-4-1 taking place

Personally i find a few of the babestation girls attractive such as Ashley, Dannii, Nicole, Olivia and Tommie Jo, although i would like to see a few of my faves come back to the shows to give a bit more variety but that probably won't happen

Ill put my hands up Lutonbloke. Of course performance matters, but only in the context of the fact that the person performing is actually a "Babe" in what seems to be a wide ranging umbrella term nowadays.

You are also correct in the fact that some of the most popular, as you put it, are the laziest and most gormless looking bints. They are probably popular because they are good looking and have universal appeal. Whereas overly tattooed birds, fat birds, old birds and plain ugly fuckers have a narrow window to work in so they have to put on a show to drum up support.

All I'm saying really is if you dress a pig in stockings and suspenders its still a pig in stocking and suspenders.

By the way, you seem to be a member of the clique here as much as anybody.

That Scarlett Jones thinks a lot of herself doesn't she, i see she posts on the other forum and in one of her posts she said she deserves more screen time as her shows are as good as anyone else's, no they are fucking not, plus she thanks all the posts from people who slag off her colleges for having fake tits, that isn't very professional form her is it

Clearly she is only posting on that forum to promote herself, but once she has made more money and got a big enough fanbase she will soon fuck off and start ripping people off like the majority of the others do, then she can afford a holiday to get some sun on her pasty skin

morningstar wrote:AniseedBalls strikes again. What constitutes a babe? Clare certainly does.

I use the same rule of thumb as a Saturday night on the town. If I was lucky enough to see Clare out and about my internal Babe-o- Meter would register "Smash back doors in".

The same would be for three or four others , although they are mainly Studio66 day babes. Except Hannah claydon or Charlie c who would probably register "Cum on face and tits".

When it comes to "performance"? Who Cares?

Scarlet whatever or Ella Jolie or any number of others could appear on the show with a dildo up their arse and apart from the vague curiosity that would follow I would swiftly change channel.

If I was looking for "Girl next door " types I would look next door. My next door neighbour is better looking and more fuckable anyway.

It doesn't matter if the girl is too glamourous or too good looking (if that's possible). Its a fantasy. No one reading this will ever be lucky enough to bang the arse off Anastasia Harris but its nice to think its possible. Shiny faced, big titted slappers are ten a penny in any town centre on a Friday night, as are pasty faced gingernuts. But I don't think they would constitute a "Babe" for the purpose of these shows. They shouldn't anyway.

Of course performance matters, i don't care how good someone looks i still want to see a good show and not see her lay around doing fuck all with a bored gormless look on her face,

But it comes as no surprise that the most popular girls tend to be the laziest fuckers and i don't find most of them attractive anyway, there are way too many easily pleased people out there, a few of my faves are the lesser names who put more of a shift in, another problem is a lot of the old school generation of viewers/callers and babeshow girls have fucked off which is partly why the channels these days are so boring and predictable

AniseedBalls wrote:I'm not a fan of Clare Richards, heaven forbid if I was a fan of any. But as I said earlier I do think Clare is quite babe-ish, in a would you like to fuck her sort of way. And believe me when I say I wouldn't touch some of the today models with the proverbial barge pole. But with Clare I would like to put my cock into her.
It would be interesting to see who the ten models on Babestation that Luton would put ahead of, in his words "the much overrated Clare" would be......

Im sure none of them would touch you with the proverbial barge pole either, even the bland, ugly and old birds,

I can't be fucking arsed to name 10 or more girls i would put above the plain faced and pasty Clare, but i would take most of the BS roster over her any fucking day and half of them are nothing special ether,

I know there seems to be a little clique of posters on here but i can't agree with everything that is said, especially when a miserable moaner like you keeps slating all of the BS girls, then you give praise to the already overhyped Clare Richards and Danica

AniseedBalls strikes again. What constitutes a babe? Clare certainly does.

I use the same rule of thumb as a Saturday night on the town. If I was lucky enough to see Clare out and about my internal Babe-o- Meter would register "Smash back doors in".

The same would be for three or four others , although they are mainly Studio66 day babes. Except Hannah claydon or Charlie c who would probably register "Cum on face and tits".

When it comes to "performance"? Who Cares?

Scarlet whatever or Ella Jolie or any number of others could appear on the show with a dildo up their arse and apart from the vague curiosity that would follow I would swiftly change channel.

If I was looking for "Girl next door " types I would look next door. My next door neighbour is better looking and more fuckable anyway.

It doesn't matter if the girl is too glamourous or too good looking (if that's possible). Its a fantasy. No one reading this will ever be lucky enough to bang the arse off Anastasia Harris but its nice to think its possible. Shiny faced, big titted slappers are ten a penny in any town centre on a Friday night, as are pasty faced gingernuts. But I don't think they would constitute a "Babe" for the purpose of these shows. They shouldn't anyway.

Hi all,
I always felt that Clare Richards is one of the ten most beautiful and nice models that I adore.
Kind regards.
Johnbirracchio

I'm not a fan of Clare Richards, heaven forbid if I was a fan of any. But as I said earlier I do think Clare is quite babe-ish, in a would you like to fuck her sort of way. And believe me when I say I wouldn't touch some of the today models with the proverbial barge pole. But with Clare I would like to put my cock into her.
It would be interesting to see who the ten models on Babestation that Luton would put ahead of, in his words "the much overrated Clare" would be......

eddiemonsoon wrote:Lutonbloke it's funny you should mention ella i saw her this morning as i was awake even earlier than usual. Now i'm guessing it might not be that recent as i haven't seen her in maybe a couple of years (to be honest i thought she might still be in the same position as i last saw her) but when the fuck did she get the ridiculous tattoo on her chest?

Blimey Eddie, how have you not managed to see Ella for 2 years she is on S66 nearly every fucking night, its like me saying i haven't seen the bloody twins and Lori Buckby for two years, its almost impossible to avoid them unless you don't watch the shows at all

Anniseed Balls, you may think Clare is a "babe" but i think she is ridiculously overrated, i'll admit she is probably the best of a bad bunch on S66, but if she was at BS i wouldn't put her in the top 10 list of girls and some of them are well past it

Clare Richards, the only model on any night show that deserves to be called a babe......And how fucking ironic, she's the only girl to get a tattoo removed.

Just a little advice to all the stupid girls who think injecting a toxic substance under the skin is a thing that will make them beautiful, it doesn't.

Lutonbloke it's funny you should mention ella i saw her this morning as i was awake even earlier than usual. Now i'm guessing it might not be that recent as i haven't seen her in maybe a couple of years (to be honest i thought she might still be in the same position as i last saw her) but when the fuck did she get the ridiculous tattoo on her chest?

It seems to be common practice, not just on Babestation, but on S66 also..... Now and again they seem to be a lot more daring in what they allow us to see. Take Alice for example on Babestation, for three or four appearances every now and again, She just loves to get that designer pussie on show, and the camera operator loves to show us. But after flashing the gash a few times its put back out of shot for a few weeks until the next purpose made sighting.

Same goes for S66 and the blonde bird Hannah. In some shows, her cunt almost devours her panties. And she loves having the producer on the edge of his moralistic seat. But the same as B/S he lets her get on with things. But only for so long then its back to Mary Whitehouse mode.

It is obvious to me that these shows are the loss leaders to win back the ever decreasing fools and their money.

dogman wrote:

eddiemonsoon wrote:really babestation should just apologise for everything (except the few months of bsx that actually were good before they realised they could just promise stronger shows but didn't actually have to deliver them).

BSX the reason why this channel is now full of fuck ugly women,they slowly got rid of the star's and brought in,I'll say no more-.

Haha says the Ella Jolie fan, they don't come much duller and uglier than her, don't get me wrong i've seen some bad boob jobs on the shows, but in general natural girls are overrated, i don't get all the hype over this Scarlett Jones who is so pasty and bland, and then you have totally boring, egotistical, miserable and bland girls such as Stella Cox, Goldie Lox, Hannah Martin and Lilly Rose, the only one who i rate is Kandi Kay but she has long gone

BS are now predominantly signing up girl next door types and girls covered in tatts, when they used to sign actual glamour models, each to their own and all that bullshit but the quality of girls coming through is just not the same as it used to be, some of my faves are past their prime now but at least they used to be stunners

I found it funny how Sophie Hart mentioned that they had a technical issue that night, hence why the screens were black, and yet Preeti said "Sorry for earlier tonight, the producers kept us off screen for a while". Why not just say the same thing as the others regarding the technical failure?