DS Forums

 
 

Best Boobs on TV? (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-08-2015, 09:22
davelovesleeds
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 10,953
No, it's definitely Alicia something, Mike.

I did post some pics of her in part 2 of this thread, but I struggled to find any today.
Do you mean Alyssa Divine?
davelovesleeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-08-2015, 09:56
Trappedin80's
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,482
Do you mean Alyssa Divine?
No, her name is Alicia something.
Trappedin80's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 10:07
Trappedin80's
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,482
This is her.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIsSt3SWsAATmhJ.jpg

Her boobs are stunning & natural. She makes Kelly Brook look like a stick.
Trappedin80's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 14:08
MichPlat
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
Why all the discussions about the crappy 'adult channel' girls, a bit off topic is it not?
Mmmmm . The flaw in your argument is that some of the Best Boobs on TV appear on these channels - apparently
MichPlat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 14:28
Maccadanny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,088
Mmmmm . The flaw in your argument is that some of the Best Boobs on TV appear on these channels - apparently
Best fake boobs maybe.
Maccadanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 14:41
davelovesleeds
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 10,953
Best fake boobs maybe.
The most tattooed boobs certainly.
davelovesleeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 15:03
MichPlat
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
Best fake boobs maybe.
I've already said previously that the channels are indeed crammed with fake boobs but there are also a "handful" of stunning women with the most perfect looking boobs and bodies to be seen.
MichPlat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 15:12
Rosebuddy
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,546
It would be nice if we could keep the thread in the realm of established Broadcast TV rather than including rub & tug phone-in channels designed for the hairy palmed unemployed.
Rosebuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 15:15
JT2060
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,304
It would be nice if we could keep the thread in the realm of established Broadcast TV rather than including rub & tug phone-in channels designed for the hairy palmed unemployed.
A lot of people seem to have a good knowledge of the ladies involved though. I honestly would not have known where to find the stations being discussed - Google is a wonderful thing.
JT2060 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 15:18
mike65
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Waterford Ireland
Posts: 8,844
It would be nice if we could keep the thread in the realm of established Broadcast TV rather than including rub & tug phone-in channels designed for the hairy palmed unemployed.
Harsh!
mike65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 15:51
pete137
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,903
Rachel Riley. Wow !

http://s02.imageupper.com/1/8/U14395883491714942_6.jpg

And a bonus rear side pic taking up a good position.

http://s02.imageupper.com/1/8/U14395883491714942_50.jpg
pete137 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 16:48
MichPlat
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
It would be nice if we could keep the thread in the realm of established Broadcast TV rather than including rub & tug phone-in channels designed for the hairy palmed unemployed.
Has it happens , my hairy palms are much admired at the local unemployment office .
PS the channels you refer to only "kick in" late evening at 9 or 10pm or something so even the employed can check them out
MichPlat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 17:12
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,014
sometimes I think she's just too gorgeous , plus she's funny and smart too .

.
Virgil Tracy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 17:19
Futurespect
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 631
Why all the discussions about the crappy 'adult channel' girls, a bit off topic is it not?
The assertion that 'channel' girls share nothing in common with Sky Sports' female presenters, for one example, is quite interesting to me. With very few exceptions, both careers have short lives, but if you work for Sky you can tell yourself that it's for your journalistic skills. The men who hired you don't think that. Channel work's at the other end of trad onscreen mangawp; less nepotism, and fewer middle-class backgrounds.

I think there are surely brains and bimbos on both sides, but as someone who's never been helped by nepotism or class, I wouldn't be surprised if I had more in common with some of the channel women. Their channels present a near-asexual take on sexuality through their reason for existence. It's often said that men are visual and women emotional, and I'm sure that's a decent generalisation if 50% is your qualifying goal. But as a generalisation entire, it's silly.

If the simple act of perving is king, does it really matter the channel or its nature of provision? And if it's easier to get turned-on by the ostensible brain superiority of a mid-tier presenter, how does that not require the fantasy of knowing that person - sharing their company, etc.? Because we don't, and we haven't.

I can appreciate beauty on a visual level from any source, but I can't fancy anyone without an emotional connection with them. I might have a great old time with some supposed airhead from a tits-and-talk outfit, and a miserable time with a noted, gorgeous intellect from a BBC Four doco series.
Futurespect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 17:35
JBO
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,055
The assertion that 'channel' girls share nothing in common with Sky Sports' female presenters, for one example, is quite interesting to me. With very few exceptions, both careers have short lives, but if you work for Sky you can tell yourself that it's for your journalistic skills. The men who hired you don't think that. Channel work's at the other end of trad onscreen mangawp; less nepotism, and fewer middle-class backgrounds.

I think there are surely brains and bimbos on both sides, but as someone who's never been helped by nepotism or class, I wouldn't be surprised if I had more in common with some of the channel women. Their channels present a near-asexual take on sexuality through their reason for existence. It's often said that men are visual and women emotional, and I'm sure that's a decent generalisation if 50% is your qualifying goal. But as a generalisation entire, it's silly.

If the simple act of perving is king, does it really matter the channel or its nature of provision? And if it's easier to get turned-on by the ostensible brain superiority of a mid-tier presenter, how does that not require the fantasy of knowing that person - sharing their company, etc.? Because we don't, and we haven't.

I can appreciate beauty on a visual level from any source, but I can't fancy anyone without an emotional connection with them. I might have a great old time with some supposed airhead from a tits-and-talk outfit, and a miserable time with a noted, gorgeous intellect from a BBC Four doco series.

It's a thread for talking about tits mate.
JBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 18:03
MichPlat
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
The assertion that 'channel' girls share nothing in common with Sky Sports' female presenters, for one example, is quite interesting to me. With very few exceptions, both careers have short lives, but if you work for Sky you can tell yourself that it's for your journalistic skills. The men who hired you don't think that. Channel work's at the other end of trad onscreen mangawp; less nepotism, and fewer middle-class backgrounds.

I think there are surely brains and bimbos on both sides, but as someone who's never been helped by nepotism or class, I wouldn't be surprised if I had more in common with some of the channel women. Their channels present a near-asexual take on sexuality through their reason for existence. It's often said that men are visual and women emotional, and I'm sure that's a decent generalisation if 50% is your qualifying goal. But as a generalisation entire, it's silly.

If the simple act of perving is king, does it really matter the channel or its nature of provision? And if it's easier to get turned-on by the ostensible brain superiority of a mid-tier presenter, how does that not require the fantasy of knowing that person - sharing their company, etc.? Because we don't, and we haven't.

I can appreciate beauty on a visual level from any source, but I can't fancy anyone without an emotional connection with them. I might have a great old time with some supposed airhead from a tits-and-talk outfit, and a miserable time with a noted, gorgeous intellect from a BBC Four doco series.
A very interesting take on the subject , you make some very good points .
Maybe kinda wordy for some though
MichPlat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 18:05
MichPlat
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
sometimes I think she's just too gorgeous , plus she's funny and smart too .

.
Have you seen Rachel on Scott Mills's Innuendo water challenges ??

Hilarious !

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rac...&client=safari
MichPlat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 18:07
Maccadanny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,088
The assertion that 'channel' girls share nothing in common with Sky Sports' female presenters, for one example, is quite interesting to me. With very few exceptions, both careers have short lives, but if you work for Sky you can tell yourself that it's for your journalistic skills. The men who hired you don't think that. Channel work's at the other end of trad onscreen mangawp; less nepotism, and fewer middle-class backgrounds.

I think there are surely brains and bimbos on both sides, but as someone who's never been helped by nepotism or class, I wouldn't be surprised if I had more in common with some of the channel women. Their channels present a near-asexual take on sexuality through their reason for existence. It's often said that men are visual and women emotional, and I'm sure that's a decent generalisation if 50% is your qualifying goal. But as a generalisation entire, it's silly.

If the simple act of perving is king, does it really matter the channel or its nature of provision? And if it's easier to get turned-on by the ostensible brain superiority of a mid-tier presenter, how does that not require the fantasy of knowing that person - sharing their company, etc.? Because we don't, and we haven't.

I can appreciate beauty on a visual level from any source, but I can't fancy anyone without an emotional connection with them. I might have a great old time with some supposed airhead from a tits-and-talk outfit, and a miserable time with a noted, gorgeous intellect from a BBC Four doco series.
Jeez, ever thought about writing a novel?
Maccadanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 18:14
Trappedin80's
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,482
Renee Olstead at Ted Baker event in London yesterday. Very cleavy.

http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/vxli...ewnverqvzhmloh
Trappedin80's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 18:34
Sherlock_Holmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
Melissa Rauch { Bernadette in TBBT ] in a baby doll nightie tonite.
So much boobage in such a tiny body is almost an indecent pleasure.
This one?

http://i.imgur.com/Qm3TdBH.png

This is also a good one:

http://img14.deviantart.net/6bc9/i/2...er-d8i971z.jpg

A shame that she almost always covers herself up when going to chatshows and the like.
Sherlock_Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 19:53
Ed R.Marley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,925
It would be nice if we could keep the thread in the realm of established Broadcast TV rather than including rub & tug phone-in channels designed for the hairy palmed unemployed.
At the prices these channels charge I doubt the unemployed could afford it
Ed R.Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2015, 21:41
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
I can't tell what Sky Sports News presenter that is but who cares

https://www.facebook.com/bewarmers/p...7&notif_t=like
Possibly Jo Wilson
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2015, 00:33
Supratad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,004
A very interesting take on the subject , you make some very good points .
Maybe kinda wordy for some though
It's terrible that, that 4 modest paragraphs was a stretch for some and garnered a curt reply. I see no reason not to have interesting discourse in between the tits.
Supratad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2015, 09:13
willrelf92
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pontypool, Wales
Posts: 4,334
willrelf92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2015, 09:30
best boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 478
That's an old pic. She's got an engagement ring on. (or is that next week?)
best boy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:36.