(09-10-2011 17:59 )mr mystery Wrote: I'm not sure if i know what i'm getting at myself here so please bear that in mind lol , but isn't the present state of the babe channels (tame) due to the fact that Ofcom re-categorized them last year as premium rate Teleshopping services and drew up new guidelines for a adult phone content Teleshopping licence that the channels had to apply for ...
True. EU rules quite sensibly mean advertising should be separated from editorial content so Ofcom drew up Teleshopping rules for Adult Chat. Ofcom argue that as there isnt a plot sexual content cant be justified as justified by context (plot). Thats debatable, a lot of people would say having a show called Busty Babes Put Out on The XXX Shag Channel in the Adult section is context in itself, but Ofcom disagree. This means babe channels are not allowed to go beyond the "normal" standards for the time of day (and channel).
It does not mean that rules for babe channels are tighter than "normal" standards, just that exceptions where the plot requires it do not apply.
Unfortunately in deciding what the "normal" standards are Ofcom have ignored their own surveys including "Attitudes towards sexual material on
television" by Opinion Leader in June 2009. Apologies, what follows is rather long, but it is very relevant in determining where boundaries lie.
One clip tested, number 7, was from a Playboy "reality" show broadcast FTA at 11pm. Many people surveyed were clear that the "
material was gratuitous and had insufficient context". So this gives a measure of what the public considers acceptable or otherwise when the verneer of "dramatic justification" is stripped away and its just there for fun.
What was the content in question?
Clip 7 Wrote:The full programme featured strong and repeated sex scenes, one of which was viewed in the clip shown to the participants. This clip featured a male and female actor engaged in what appeared to be real sex acts including oral sex and full intercourse (although no sexual organs i.e. neither a penis nor vagina, were visible).
And how acceptable or unacceptable did this representative cross section of the British public find "
strong and repeated sex scenes ... [apparent] real sex ... oral sex ... full intercourse"?
Survey Wrote:Some (40%) thought it was acceptable for reasons which included that it was on a channel associated with sexual content, so clearly signposted. Others (29%) thought it unacceptable, considering that the material was gratuitous and had insufficient context. Some considered that because it was “pornographic” material it should have been broadcast only with mandatory access restrictions. 21% were neutral.
Visually thats
**************************************** Acceptable
********************* Neutral
***************************** Unacceptable
What seems to have slipped Ofcoms collective mind is to put together a coherent and consistent definition of when something ceases to be acceptable and visa versa. Is it majority voting, the same as in a civil court case? Or 2:1 as required to change the constitution (and pass laws to protect/persecute minorities) in some countries? or 75%? Or how about 90% calling for something to be banned?
If you look at religious content there is an extremely high threshold before something gets banned, provided they stay away from inciting violence or committing blasphemy in another religion. I have just watched a rerun of Mock The Week where it was jokingly stated that children attending an open air mass by the Pope in Hyde Park were at higher risk from priests than from portable barbeques. That might seem mild to sophisticates like us, but I have no doubt that The Daily Mail could whip up a storm of outrage among typical Daily Mail readers at the implied suggestion of a high risk of being raped in public by most members of a religious order. Similarly the degree of outrage among a typical cross section of the general public would be markedly higher than among typical viewers of satire.
In a different vein Sikhs and Muslims have their different branches, each believing theirs is the true path and the other is down right wrong. The level of disagreement can be similar to that between Ian Paisley and Jerry Adams. The language can be intemeperate to put it mildly.
Yet Ofcom are loath to say such content is not allowed.
Likewise the scatalogical humour and four letter language of Frankie Boyle, Lee Evans, South Park and anything in The Roast Of series.
Ofcom would defend these under Freedom of Speech claiming that the case against something must be
overwhelming before it is banned, not just borderline.
40% say real non explicit sex is acceptable at 11pm, 29% say it is not. Is that an overwhelming case in favour of a ban?
The other argument is Harm to Under 18s. The trouble with this is that the degree of harm to a teenager is pretty much the same whether nudity occurs in a Shakespear play, a Ken Russell film or a sex show. Researchers are beginning to understand that teenage brains are undergoing reorganisation (euphemism for fucked up) and teenagers have severe communication and comprehension difficulties. That explains why "Hello" can be taken as a gross insult resulting in slammed doors.
In terms of strength of material, the research group found:
Kissing was the
mildest sexual content. Yes Ofcom bans babes from kissing in case this offends moral sensibilities.
Ofcom Guidance Wrote:Licensees should take particular care if two or more presenters appear together on screen. If there is any contact between the presenters of an erotic or sexual nature (for example kissing, stroking, or contact between thighs, breasts or genital areas) or any miming or simulation of a sexual act performed by one presenter on another, in Ofcom‟s view there is a high risk of causing serious or widespread offence against generally accepted standards.
Oh, they mean 2 girls kissing? Check the anti gay discrimination legislation.
Survey Page 31 Wrote:Implying but not showing intercourse was considered to be stronger than kissing, but still within the boundaries of mild/moderate unless shown when not expected (e.g. when children are likely to be watching and/or was more graphic)
Yup, one babe with her hand apparently between anothers legs but facing away from the camera, or with her head buried between another babes legs side on is mild/moderate according to Ofcoms own research as the sex is implied.
A range of things were considered to be
strong sexual material in drama. Visability of genitals. Vaginal sex for longer than necessary (30 seconds?:blush
Minority sexual activities such as group sex, anal sex, fetish. "lingering on breasts or genitals" (presumably "lingering" means close up.)
One factor that made the Playboy clip much more acceptable was the channel it was shown on. Had it featured on Dave or BBC1 it would have been deemed much less acceptable. Being on an adult channel made it acceptable to most of the survey group.
Time was another factor.
Quote:Participants said they found stronger sexual content increasingly acceptable the more time that has elapsed since the watershed, with all expecting to see more and stronger content later in the evening (i.e. 22:30 or 23:00 onwards). This was generally seen as acceptable and appropriate scheduling. Some participants felt that there were several gradations of the time at which different material was acceptable after 21:00: with post 22:00 for stronger dramas (e.g. Shameless and Sex and the City) and post 23:00 for stronger, more explicit [drama] material.
In other words:
After 9pm: Some
After 10pm: Stronger
After 11pm: Stronger still (within limits)
However Ofcom comes up with a different and later set of times. Current guidance allows bare breasts at 10pm and restrained sexual langauge after midnight, not 11pm.
Coming back to kissing, the survey found
Survey page 38 Wrote:Many thought that sexual innuendo and kissing should be unrestricted. The majority of respondents believed that mild sexual content which they described as kissing could be shown unrestricted, in any programme at any time of day.
Given the above it is difficult to see how Ofcom justifies current guidance stating that babes cannot snog even after midnight.
The survey even found that:
Survey page 39 Wrote:Mild portrayals of sexual acts (this would typically be a short and inexplicit scene of two adults having sex, although without showing any images of genitals), and the noise of people having sex, were seen as acceptable on television without access restrictions (either mandatory or voluntary) in place. However, the majority of participants said they believed this material should only be shown after 21:00.
Wow! Even accepting that this might refer to drama, "without access restrictions" is pretty clear. They are saying a humourous TV show like 10 O'Clock Live could feature a naked couple in the background shagging while the presenter tries to tell a news story, or the couple could be a feature on a Distraction type show competing for a quiz contestants attention.
Even accepting that this refers to drama/comedy/film/ballet, its difficult to see how Ofcom could justify a ban on girl-girl after 11pm provided it were brief and inexplicit. How brief? Same as for drama, and Id guess thats 1-2 min max and no more than two sex scenes an hour (or 2-3 in a typical movie).
When the channels traded in their licences for Teleshopping ones and a handful of magic beans it should have been on the basis that the same general standards would apply as for other channels. Kissing has been assessed as mild content. Brief inexplicit sex has been assessed as acceptable later at night. Yes Ofcom ignore their own survey and impose tighter rules.
Real Ecstasy
Erotic Bliss
Hot & Wet
Live Sex Latinas
True Eros
Babestation
Search
Member List
Help
/
Should the channels lower their ratings from 18?
