live shows

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 10 Vote(s) - 2.7 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
Author Message
Digital Dave Away
Retired
*****

Posts: 1,666
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 56
Post: #41
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
(29-01-2011 02:03 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  Thank you Eccles, that was... horrible. That offended me much more than a full-frontal babe show could ever hope to. But I will not complain to Ofcom about it; it's other people's right to enjoy naked freakishness.laugh

I'm starting to think this whole 'context' issue is largely irrelevant when we find ourselves coming down to issues of licensing details and how the babeshows represent a very generous exception to the rules by Ofcom. All this says to me is that there exists a gross inconsistency in the application of the 'rules' (nb: rules, not laws, where the regulators are concerned) as regards licensing, therefore one could very easily argue that a precedent has been set by Ofcom to show the present level of nudity on an advertising license and thus the entire structure is undermined and we all sit down like adults and discuss how we start to behave as such and accept & respect each other's rights as such.
Then we might get somewhere.

Indeed, and it should be pointed out that this re-classification of babe channels into long form advertising was not an act of God, it was a deliberately engineered scheme by Ofcom last year to try and put a lid on the channels. It still can (and should) be challenged.
29-01-2011 02:23
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eccles Offline
custodes qui custodiet
*****

Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
Post: #42
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
(29-01-2011 02:03 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  Thank you Eccles, that was... horrible. That offended me much more than a full-frontal babe show could ever hope to. But I will not complain to Ofcom about it; it's other people's right to enjoy naked freakishness.laugh

Modern art, therefore largely incomprehensible crap.

And bits repelled me.

But as I said, some of the birds were actually quite tasty (perhaps not in the clip), particularly when wearing nothing more than a jockstrap. There used to be a lot of experimental art on TV, some of it involving nudity, until the censorship crowd made the broadcasters much more cautious. TV used to instantly masively increase audience - no way would I pay £50 and spend 4 hours travelling to Sadlers Wells or Covent Garden, but TV is accessible. TV helps funding. Much of anything experimental is rubbish, but out of it a few gems emerge and lead to new norms. Turner was considered rubbish in his day, but look at him now. Sadly nowadays anything riske is avoided unless it has cast iron justification, it is not possible to just go and do it. Thats self censorship.

Regarding Advertising rules: I suspect that advertising rules not only mention Generally Accepted Standards, but also Context. Sure there was this debate when the new rules were under discussion. That means adverts in The Beano are subject to tighter regulation than ads in Penthouse, The Sport or the Daily Express.

Gone fishing
29-01-2011 04:30
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scottishbloke Away
Banned

Posts: 8,307
Joined: Jan 2010
Post: #43
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
Well as far as I'm concerned when you now look at the whole spectrum of channels across SKY there is now absolutely nothing of erotic value or entertainment now. No more Bravo Tv or Men and Motors or even the Fight Network which used to air late night Japanese oil wrestling. Instead what we are now left with is mainly American and British dramas and comedy with a change towards non explicit entertainment. Even SKY Arts are hell bent on denying us with any programmes to note with any kind of or erotic material in it. The only channels outside the Adult Sector now that even get close to late night entertainment is Movies for Men and Movies 24 but it's only a matter of time before they too vanish of our screens. Hundreds of channel's but hardly any now of erotic value, their all dropping like flies. Is this the work of Ofcom I wonder or are we the British as a society becoming ever more prudish than before.
03-02-2011 04:26
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
terence Offline
Moderator
******

Posts: 9,279
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 177
Post: #44
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
has anyone else noticed that movies 4 men show softcore adult movies but cut out the sex scenes! seriously! what the fuck is the point in showing these films without sex? it's like ordering pizza without the cheese! what's happening in the world? anybody?Rolleyes

Chuck Norris doesn't worry about high diesel prices. His vehicles run on fear!
03-02-2011 15:28
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
StanTheMan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,791
Joined: May 2009
Post: #45
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
(03-02-2011 04:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  No more Bravo Tv or Men and Motors...

Speaking of the latter channel, does anyone remember their show UK Uncovered? Or even better, the short-lived UK Uncovered Full On - with all the 'no-knicker' upskirts left in Big Grin


UK UNCOVERED Season 3 clip - Watch more Funny Videos
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2011 17:15 by StanTheMan.)
03-02-2011 17:15
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kenilo Offline
Master Poster
****

Posts: 667
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 37
Post: #46
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
UK uncovered was great. You where nearly always guaranteed a flash the gash. The camera man did'nt give a damn where he stuck the camera. Perv cam from the sport.xxx days didnt have a patch on those guys.
03-02-2011 19:57
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IanG Offline
Senior Poster
***

Posts: 343
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 30
Post: #47
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
(23-01-2011 17:36 )HEX!T Wrote:  seriously guys you cant compaire the 2. c4 runs off a different license so can show stronger content.
the babeshows are run off a advertising license, they are given that 1 because they sell premium rate phone calls.
its nothing to do with whether the girls get naked or not. its all about the advertisement. because the number is on screen for more than 12 min's in an hour the channel has to apply for an advertising license, and the rules for them are much much stricter.
they basically have to go by the rules that we see on ordinary channels that use adverts for revenue, like itv.
meaning no nudity in the adverts other than implied and certainly not b4 9pm. the babeshows get some leeway in this regard, and is why ofcom feel they already have been lenient with the shows as they could under the terms of the license ban all nudity altogether. so really its pointless saying well c4 showed this or that, because its the babeshows themselves that caused this problem by advertising phone numbers there primery source of income.
they could get reclassified as adult entertainment, if they removed the numbers from the screen to comply with adult channel advert legislation.

What has an advertising licence got to do with what the programmes can be permitted to show? If indeed OFCOM have made some exception for the babe channels, why are these same 'standards' not applicable to all advertising? Indeed, aren't the freeview ads for so-called 'adult' channels in the same regulatory boat - and aren't such ads far more explicit in content and language than anything we're condescendingly 'allowed' to watch on a babe channel?

The fact is, the on-screen content of a babe channel bears little or no relation to the actual service being provided on the phone line. The babe channels do not therefore advertise the actual service they provide on the phone lines. We can only conclude that the babe channels are NOT advertising the actual service provided but are merely a moving background to a rather boring ad for a static phone number.

As Scottishbloke points out above, there's virtually no adult erotic entertainment left on TV. I doubt very much this is through a lack of interest in such channels on the part of the viewers and is undoubtedly due to OFCOM's irrational and unjustifiable war on erotic TV.

I know I keep banging on about the law but, the Comms Act does NOT allow OFCOM to dictate what 'is' offensive and harmful material. The law does not say OFCOM can or should protect the public from marerial which 'might be' harmful or offensive or, which 'might be considered' harmful or offensive. The law states OFCOM are "to provide adequate protection to the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material" - no ifs, no maybes, no potentiallys. The material OFCOM are REQUIRED and thus legally ALLOWED to ban and censure MUST BE offensive and harmful according to the law and legal definitions.

Clearly, OFCOM's Code need only state that material banned by the BBFC, proscribed by law or otherwise deemed legally obscene "must not be broadcast at any time". Only be overstepping what the law actually permits, have OFCOM created a censorial regime which has no place whatsoever in a modern liberal democratic society...and indeed, did not exist prior to OFCOM's creation (as anyone who had $ky or cable TV 6 years ago can easily verify).

OFCOM were not created to completely decimate adult entertainment - but that's exactly what they've done.

OFCOM were supposed to create a wider chioce of channels and programming to cater to a wide variety of audience tastes - they have done exactly the opposite.

OFCOM have created a Code that is so vague and open to interpretation that there is no actual Standards Code and all that exists to guide programme makers are OFCOM's supposed 'findings' during their biased complaints proceedure - a complaints proceedure that relies totally on 'feelings' of supposed 'offence' rather than ACTUAL offensive and harmful content as described by law.

Offensive material is by definition attacking, malign, hurtful.
Harmful material is by definition that which causes damage.

A new dittie: The Buggers 2010 (Ofwatch slight return) http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid556229
03-02-2011 21:30
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eccles Offline
custodes qui custodiet
*****

Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
Post: #48
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
Just seen Channel 4's 10 O'Clock Live knowingly repeat a clip of Paxman saying C-U-*-T instead of CUTS, then describe Jeremy Clarkson as a C-*-N-T.

Ofcom research has identified *-U-N-* as THE most offensive word. Probably more offensive than a quick flash of fanny on a niche channel late at night. But its OK, there was a bog standard warning before the show.

Gone fishing
03-02-2011 23:24
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
StanTheMan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,791
Joined: May 2009
Post: #49
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
(03-02-2011 23:24 )eccles Wrote:  Just seen Channel 4's 10 O'Clock Live knowingly repeat a clip of Paxman saying C-U-*-T instead of CUTS, then describe Jeremy Clarkson as a C-*-N-T.

Ofcom research has identified *-U-N-* as THE most offensive word. Probably more offensive than a quick flash of fanny on a niche channel late at night. But its OK, there was a bog standard warning before the show.

The word was used twice in quick succession in last week's episode of Episodes - and that had no such warning.
04-02-2011 01:14
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
StanTheMan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,791
Joined: May 2009
Post: #50
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity
I know this isn't related to the babeshows, but GOLD's policy on sex and nudity appears to be about as (il)logical as Ofcom's. When they air the episode of Porridge titled 'No Rest for the Wicked' during daytime hours, there's a scene where Fletcher is laid on his bunk reading a girlie magazine and talking to Barrowclough about conjugal rights for prisoners. Barrowclough then complains that he doesn't even get conjugal rights at home and walks out. Now in the uncut version Fletcher calls him back and says "Your need is greater than mine." before unfolding the magazine to reveal a double page poster of a topless girl. GOLD always cut this 'punchline' out, but bizarrely leave in a later scene in which Mackay is showing a group of people from the Home Office around his cell and opens Fletcher's cupboard to demonstarte that prisoners are allowed to keep photographs of loved ones, only to find the inside of the door plastered with pictures of half naked women instead. Ridiculous.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2011 16:21 by StanTheMan.)
04-02-2011 16:19
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 



Animated banner 79