|
||||||||
Best Boobs on TV? (Part 3) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1276 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 10,953
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1277 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,482
|
Quote:
Do you mean Alyssa Divine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1278 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1279 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
Why all the discussions about the crappy 'adult channel' girls, a bit off topic is it not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1280 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,087
|
Quote:
Mmmmm . The flaw in your argument is that some of the Best Boobs on TV appear on these channels - apparently
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#1281 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leeds
Posts: 10,953
|
Quote:
Best fake boobs maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1282 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
Best fake boobs maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1283 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1284 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,304
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1285 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Waterford Ireland
Posts: 8,843
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1286 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,902
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1287 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1288 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,011
|
Quote:
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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
#1289 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 631
|
Quote:
Why all the discussions about the crappy 'adult channel' girls, a bit off topic is it not?
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1290 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,055
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1291 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
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. Maybe kinda wordy for some though
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1292 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
sometimes I think she's just too gorgeous , plus she's funny and smart too .
. Hilarious ! http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rac...&client=safari |
|
|
|
|
|
#1293 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,087
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1294 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1295 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
|
Quote:
Melissa Rauch { Bernadette in TBBT ] in a baby doll nightie tonite.
So much boobage in such a tiny body is almost an indecent pleasure. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1296 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,925
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1297 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
Quote:
I can't tell what Sky Sports News presenter that is but who cares
https://www.facebook.com/bewarmers/p...7¬if_t=like |
|
|
|
|
|
#1298 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,002
|
Quote:
A very interesting take on the subject , you make some very good points .
Maybe kinda wordy for some though ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#1299 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pontypool, Wales
Posts: 4,331
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1300 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 478
|
Quote:
That's an old pic. She's got an engagement ring on. (or is that next week?)
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:17.



