'Tamestation'

(13-10-2009 19:23 )vila Wrote:  

(13-10-2009 17:54 )elgar1uk Wrote:  Do people on 'Have I Got News For You' really say things like 'spunk on my tits you f****** c***'? If so, that programme must have been spiced up a lot since I last watched it.

Read my post again. I said 'words' not 'phrases'.

What sexually explicit words do they use on 'Have I Got News For You' then?

Just a few thought here...

As much as I like to babes to show as much as possible, I can't help but think that if they did become encrypted or anything along those lines that meant they could show more, couldn't this lead to losing some of the girls as they might not be too happy with showing more?

You could argue that they don't have to show more, but then I can only imagine the amount of moaning about how little they show and how they aren't performing. I think maybe there should be a mixture of encrypted and unencrypted channels so that we have the best of both worlds with all the girls and if they feel they would like to show us more, then they do have the option to.

Like I said, i'm all for seeing more, but I am not exactly unhappy with the way things are at the minute and just cautious as to what could happen moving forward. FIngers crossed we get what we want.

(14-10-2009 13:04 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(13-10-2009 19:23 )vila Wrote:  

(13-10-2009 17:54 )elgar1uk Wrote:  Do people on 'Have I Got News For You' really say things like 'spunk on my tits you f****** c***'? If so, that programme must have been spiced up a lot since I last watched it.

Read my post again. I said 'words' not 'phrases'.

What sexually explicit words do they use on 'Have I Got News For You' then?

I'm reasonably sure I've heard all of the following: 'tits', 'cock', 'fuck/fucking', 'wank/wanker'. I think I can also remember 'spunk' and 'fanny'.

(14-10-2009 13:34 )sboss Wrote:  Just a few thought here...

As much as I like to babes to show as much as possible, I can't help but think that if they did become encrypted or anything along those lines that meant they could show more, couldn't this lead to losing some of the girls as they might not be too happy with showing more?

You could argue that they don't have to show more, but then I can only imagine the amount of moaning about how little they show and how they aren't performing. I think maybe there should be a mixture of encrypted and unencrypted channels so that we have the best of both worlds with all the girls and if they feel they would like to show us more, then they do have the option to.

Like I said, i'm all for seeing more, but I am not exactly unhappy with the way things are at the minute and just cautious as to what could happen moving forward. FIngers crossed we get what we want.

Two points.

Yes, I think there would definitely be a move towards showing (and doing) much more. The shows would get more like the online stuff. Some channels would be sure to go that route and others would have to follow to keep pace.

Have we not had this encrypted/unencrypted mix previously, and didn’t the encrypted ones fold? I think it was before my discovery of anything beyond the old Party Girls but I’m sure I’ve seen mention of it in a thread somewhere on here.

(14-10-2009 13:56 )vila Wrote:  Read my post again. I said 'words' not 'phrases'.

Quote:What sexually explicit words do they use on 'Have I Got News For You' then?

Quote:I'm reasonably sure I've heard all of the following: 'tits', 'cock', 'fuck/fucking', 'wank/wanker'. I think I can also remember 'spunk' and 'fanny'.

We need to know the context in which these words were used, otherwise how can we judge whether they were intended to be sexually arousing?

We have had a mix of unencrypted and encrypted but the encrypted show was a pay to see show. I would imagine that this would have been a significant factor in the show not carrying on?

I don't know if all encrypted channels have to charge? If they don't, i'd imagine this would attract a lot of viewers.

vila, the encrypted shows folded BECAUSE Ofcom said they could not show "R18-type material" even on subscription-only encrypted channels.

As vostok1 and myself have tried to point out, this is totally arbitrary censorship - it is in fact ILLEGAL censroship and goes against the very essence of TVWF Directive AND what the High Court ruled in 2000 re hardcore sex at R18 - i.e. there's no evidence to support a 'precautionary approach' to censorship and thus such censorship represents an infringement of freedom of expression. It matters NOT whether children might have PIN access to these channels because there's no evidence to show the material will harm them even if they see it. Indeed, there's solid evidence from all around the world that such material and sexual knowledge causes no harm whatsoever - it is in fact known to be of benefit to children in preventing "unhealthy fantasies" and the development of abnormal sexualities (which can lead to serial rape and child abuse).

This is real evidence gathered over many decades of psychology studies which Ofcom have ignored in favour of supposed 'British values' - the sort of 'values' that were used to persecute gays, the sort of 'values' that let paedophiles run riot in churches, the sort of 'values' that kept/keep Britain 30 years behind the rest of sexually liberated Europe.

It shoud be clear to people that the prevailing anti-porn, anti-sexual awareness environment in the UK is the source and cause of all abnormal sexualities like paedophilia, it is the cause and source of underage pregnancies and the spread of STIs amoungst the young. In Holland, Denmark and other sexually open and liberated countries, such problems are but a fraction of those experienced in the UK. Sexual repression, porn suppression and religious indoctrination are at the root of most of our problems - and that is now a statistically proven FACT.

Ofcom, indeed, this bloody Government, are doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons because they refuse to trust the scientific evidence in favour of their cultural brainwashing in unproven and psychologically damaging 'British values' and insane beliefs.

Basically, we need to open Ofcom's eyes?

(14-10-2009 15:03 )sboss Wrote:  Basically, we need to open Ofcom's eyes?

The only way for this to be achieved is for the Broadcasters to request a judicial review of Ofcom's illegal policies.

Have a read of IanG's and my posts to see what happened when a small time porn video distributor took his claim to the high court in 2000 (At very little cost). He was up against the home secretary Jack Straw. HM Government could offer no evidence. We now have R18 as it exists today.

(14-10-2009 14:21 )bigglesworth Wrote:  We need to know the context in which these words were used, otherwise how can we judge whether they were intended to be sexually arousing?

There is no Ofcom policy, guideline or code which states that language may not be used if its intention is one of arousal, or such language is used in sexual depictions or scenarios. As Admin pointed out yesterday, Ofcom have fined channels for what they consider to be a breach of Section 1.24 of the Broadcast code, yet Ofcom ignores appendix 22 section 3 of the same code which allows such language and content.

Once again, villa was highlighting that Ofcom display bias and inconsistency against the Babe Shows compared to mainstream broadcasters.

Nine 1/2 Weeks, Basic Instinct, Henry and June, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Betty Blue, Wild Orchid plus 1000's of other movies and TV Shows all use sexual swearwords within an erotic context. All have been shown many times on terrestrial television.

In 2005 Channel 4 aired the film "The Idiots" which featured close ups of erections and full unsimulated penetrative sex.
Complaints prompted an Ofcom investigation, which came out in favour of Channel 4. In its ruling, Ofcom found the film "not in breach" of the relevant Code.

(14-10-2009 14:21 )bigglesworth Wrote:  We need to know the context in which these words were used, otherwise how can we judge whether they were intended to be sexually arousing?

Why?

(13-10-2009 07:42 )admin Wrote:  Quote from Ofcom:

'Rule 1.24 of the Code restricts the broadcast of ‘adult-sex’ material to premium subscription services and pay-per view/night services between 22:00 and 05:30 – provided there is a mandatory PIN protection system, or equivalent protections, to restrict access to those authorised to view. A letter sent by Ofcom in September 2006 to broadcasters in the sector made clear that “Under the Code it is prohibited to broadcast content where the visuals or the audio or the overall tone is tantamount to adult sex material and we will intervene if we see such programming. This includes explicit sexual language”.

This makes no mention of intent to be sexually arousing, it just says that sexually explicit language is considered to be adult sex material.

(14-10-2009 14:52 )IanG Wrote:  vila, the encrypted shows folded BECAUSE Ofcom said they could not show "R18-type material" even on subscription-only encrypted channels.

I accept and agree with everything else in your post but why should this be true? Television X is encrypted and is subject to the same 'no R18' rule but it hasn't folded.


Edit: If this 'intent to be sexually arousing' concept that Ofcom are so keen on is so important, why do they allow the shows to go out unenrypted at all? Surely this is the sole purpose of all the babe channels?