different channels, different rules..why?

(31-08-2009 01:00 )85stevewest Wrote:  i miss the good old days when toys i e dildo,s were commonplace on the shows and the girls wernt afraid to use them.

I remember watching Jemstone years ago, pre-boob job and she was penetrating herself with a massive double-ender on the free channels, She was moving around alot and you could see EXACTLY what she was up to.... I nearly went blind
Ah, the good old days (oops, I just made myself feel old)

Well you know guys, its our taxes that pay for Ofcom. They, like HMG, are supposed to work for us and ensure we're not getting ripped-off.

Now sure, you can't expect the girls to do what they don't want to do and your choice is to hang up and try a different girl/channel to get what you're paying for. However, if the girls want to do what you ask but say they cannot because of some unpublished 'rule' then its the rule makers that need sorting out.

Let's try the old 'harm' game. Hands up how many of you saw pics of girls showing gaping twot long before you were 18 in a top shelf mag yer mates at school nicked from their dad's mag stash?

I'm mean hell, by the time we're 12 we've all done the 'birds and bees' at school haven't we? We've all drawn detailed diagrams of all the reproductive parts and learnt what all the bits are called and what they're for haven't we?

And you've got to laugh when all these programmes about 'the dangers of internet porn' start out by saying something like "this is what we found when we typed porn into Google". Didn't they just give every pubescent lad the key to it all? Not that any net savvy kid hasn't figured it all out anyway and most budding adolescents haven't already tried bonking too!

With regard to ANY of Ofcom's 'protection of the under 18s' from the unproven 'dangers' of porn, the stable door was opened round about 1969 and the horse has long since run amok through every corner of every school yard ever since. Ofcom are a pathetic waste of space and taxpayer's money!

The BBFC guidelines state that "natural nudity" is allowed from U(niversal) upward. The great British public do not have an issue with kids seeing naked people moving about on our screens. Only when sexual activity is portrayed or performed do age restrictions apply - and for simulated sex that age limit is 15 not 18! I'm sure no parent wants their 10-year-old watching some starlet gagging on a monster cock - we can forgive Ofcom and the BBFC for respecting that view. However, to claim human sexuality is a danger to young people is taking the piss. We're born to bonk and have sprogs and perpetuate the human race - that is our sole purpose for being - it is life itself so how can that be dangerous?

If it wasn't for 'British attitudes' expressed in 'the law' (which is heavily influenced by centuries of religious nonsense) coupled with our chilly climate all forcing us to cover up, then we'd likely go about starkers like other natural natives. You couldn't have a porn industry in such a climate - in fact, pictures of people wearing 'disgusting clothes' would likely be banned for 'hiding our natural beauty'. If you've been to a naturist resort some actually have rules that forbid the wearing of 'textiles' because they're not natural. In fact it is human nature to want to know whats hidden. Our curiosity goes into overdrive when confronted with a taboo. The unknown scares us too - this probably goes back to the days when tigers and bears lurked in caves - we need to know what's hiding in dark recesses in order to defend ourselves and dispell our fears.

The bottom line is, if Ofcom were really protecting children then we'd get the whole sex and nudity issue out in the open. It's only 'harmful' because it challenges the orthodox religious view that sex and nudity is 'evil and corrupting'. Human sexuality is not harmful, its perfectly natural and normal. It is in fact the supposed grown-ups that believe in ghosts and demons, corruption and depravity that are utterly crackers.

(31-08-2009 01:05 )dragonking Wrote:  annoys me. simulating masterbation should b allowed on all channels after 10pm. fuck ofcom!!!

I'd prefer some good old fashion pussy rubbing myself, but that's an even bigger no-no* than simulated oral.

* Although Hazel was having a good try on Elite last night

Apparantly the reason that Bangbabes can get away with more than other channels is that before the 9pm show starts it shows a instruction video of how to use parental controls on Sky to block under 18's from being able to view their channels.

Oddly enough, after reading this thread, had a quick flick through the channels at 21:58 and, although 99% of the babes had their tits still covered up, there was Tammy on Hotel Voyeur and Donna Duke on BangBabes both sucking and licking on 2 fingers! Not only that but, half an hour earlier, Anna on Elite was frantically feigning masturbation in a tiny pair of knickers. Mind you, Michelle Thorne is only ever an inch or two away from that during the day show!!

I'm still confused about exactly when tits out time begins, as that seems to vary from channel to channel!

bbrodriguez, makes you think it might not be Ofcom at all - that it is indeed, different rules made by the different channels.

I'm pretty sure, because of my involvement with Ofwatch in 2003 when we tried (in vain) to get real R18 allowed on the adult channels, that there's a convenient deal been made between the babe/'adult' channels and Ofcom.

You may or may not be surprised to learn that the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA) made a business case to Ofcom for keeping R18 and other explicit material off 'adult' TV channels - they said it would hurt the sex shop video trade (probably would too). And surprise, surprise Ofcom delay publication of the Code (after making all the right noises to Ofwatch that R18 was on the cards) and come up with an unbelievable excuse to ban adult material because apparently little children know the PIN number and can order up 18 rated movies/ppv adult services whenever they like without ma and pa blinking an eye. (And I use the present term because that's exactly what the situation is right now according to Ofcom's 'research' from 2003...)

Anyhow, if you've seen how LiveJasmin etc. work then you know that when these girls get a 'caller' they go 'private' so no one gets to see the show for free. Now imagine switching on your TV and seeing your fave TV babe getting naked for her first 'after 10pm' caller - unless you were absolutely desparate to speak to her, you'd likely crack one off and go to bed satisfied. I think the TV channels believe they'd make far less money if the girls actually got naked and performed sexually provocative acts too early (if ever).

So, my guess is, each station has figured out when and what attracts the most callers (listeners-in included) and sets its rules and schedule (i.e. the 'supply') to meet its expected audience demands. They all maximise their profits by showing just enough to keep their punter$ coming back and never giving anything away for free.

For instance. The sport channel used to FTG every night well after Ofcom put its Code in place. Once people knew the knickers came off after encryption, there were probably more takers for the PPV show once FTG was 'banned by Ofcom' (iirc it hadn't been banned by Ofcom for many months and there were always loads of flashes throughout the night until that Japanese mosaic appeared - slowly but surely any gash was completely removed from free view and placed securely behind the blue $creen). People were lead by the nose (or the little head) to where the money was.

The Comms Act 2003 is an interesting beast. On the one hand Ofcom are supposed to respect Freedom of Expression but, they're also charged with protecting the under 18s and helping TV and telephone businesses thrive. Our rights as over 18 consumers aren't really given any protection at all. There's some guff about balance in reporting and right to reply (that's complain about stuff you don't like on TV and get apologies for libel/defamation) but, there's not really anything that protects your rights to see anything beyond "generally accepted standards" (whatever they hell they are) if it makes businesses loads of money. Pretty odd legislation for a socialist Labour Gov. don't you think?

The real bottom line is Ofcom are doing what the Gov. created them to do - and like I said before, if you don't like the rules then its the rule makers that need sorting out. I don't pretend to know what Mr Bliar, Brown, Straw, Blunkett et al. thought they were doing but, I think most of us aren't really happy with the result. (And if you add Harm-men, Smith, Goggins and Coaker to that list of names you'll get a better idea why!)

And let me apologise for bringing politics into this but, at the end of the day the buck stops with the Government and their "Vision for Britain".

great input to my thread. thanks IanG