Ofcom Discussion

(20-05-2014 11:10 )RatedR Wrote:  It can be touted as 'fake lesbianism for male arousal' if it's marketed as a limited time deal. If the girls were just allowed to be more relaxed and natural, then it would not be an obvious marketing scheme. Even if it was, they are advertising as Ofcom make quite clear anyway, so why should they not be allowed to market Bi-sexual girls

Ofcom's main problem will always be that people are making money from premium phone lines and they want to regulate them to 'save' people from the babeshows. An agenda which they should not be allowed to work to, as their is no law against making money from televised phone ins. It's how Ant and Dec survive after all! It's definitely no surprise that ofcom targets babeshows, reality voting shows and talent shows, is it? Protecting the youth... £££

Ofcom treats same sex contact as unusual, aberrant. That might be true among Marks and Spencer wearing Church of England attending employees of a censorship body, but is it true of the general population?

16% of women aged 16-44 have had a same sex experience. 8% with genital contact.

29% of women had sexual intercourse before the age of 16 (based on women aged 16-24 when interviewed. Even among 55-64 year olds the figure was 10%, despite social norms being different and contraception being unreliable, expensive and difficult to obtain back then).

The average lifetime number of sexual partners was 7.7 for women aged 16-44. (Not clear how a lifetime figure was determined).

17% of 16-24 year old women had anal sex in the past year - about 1 in 6. Even among 55-64 year olds the figure was 4%, 1 in 25.

71% gave or received oral sex (16-24 year olds), dropping to 35% aged 55-64. Even among 65-74 year olds the rate was 19%, about 1 in 5.

Lets repeat that. 1 in 5 old ladies have oral sex at least once a year.

Which nutjob pressure group came up with these stats? NatCen is a social research charity whose remit is "Social research that works for society". Natsal is one of the largest scientific studies of sexual behaviour in the world, based on a survey of 15,000 men and women aged 16-74. Surveys have been conducted in 1990-91, 1999-2001 and 2010-12. The most recent survey was funded by grants from the Medical Research Council and The Wellcome Trust with additional funding from the Economic & Social Research Council and the Department of Health.

Former Disney executive, James Thickett, Ofcom Board Member and Content Board Member is a NatCen Trustee. That does not make him responsible for every line of every report published, but it does make the NatCen/NatSal research difficult to dismiss.

It also makes Ofcoms qualitative survey of 50-60 people look silly.

It would be interesting to see how widespread threesomes, open relationships and dogging are among the general population, but that does not seem to be on the survey. These are probably low, but perhaps not as low as the moralists would have you believe.

The $64,000 question is where do our regulators sit on these distribution curves? I would put money on them being at the conservative end of each curve, with fewer sexual partners and less adventurous sex lives.

If they are unrepresentative of the general population then they are unfit to impose their moral world view on everyone else.

NatSal Highlights
NatSal Intro
NatCen

sorry, but I can't get past 8% with genital contact, witout laughing Any form of rationalising, examining or watering down sexual behaviour is weird. The one universal truth is that humans want as much sex as possible. And as long as they don't satisfy their need with force, then there is no issue with any sexual activity at all. Even if it offends people. And i'm not even on the extreme scale of 'put full porn or as close to it on TV' I just dislike the uncomfortable restrictions on the babes, from the completely bias Ofcom and their save us agenda.

(05-05-2014 01:46 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom have launched a consultation on whether they should extend coregulation of TV advertising for another 5 years. Under the proposals the ASA would handle most advertising complaints, apart from Participation TV and associated areas of gambling and message board teleshopping formats, political adverts, product placement, sponsorship credits and scheduling.

The consultation period runs from 1 to 30 May.

Just a reminder that this consultation runs out in about a week. If you have a view be sure to send your submission before the closing date. If it after Ofcom can ignore it, though they have been flexible in the past for large complex consultations when the closing date has been a Friday.

10a "Should ASA(B) consider complaints concerning Participation TV and associated areas of gambling and message board teleshopping formats?"
Ofcom say NO, they should retain control.
They advance no argument in support of this, reasoned or otherwise.
Why should these areas be singled out for special treatment? Does Ofcom consider the ASA incompetent lacking in skill, or lacking research data? Are there no equivalents in print? On internet ads?
Or does Ofcom think the ASA will be more lenient?

Apart from sin channels (sex and gambling), the only other area where Ofcom wants to remain hands on is political advertising. Draw your own conclusions.

10i "10i – Audience Research
(ASA(B)/BCAP must “establish a comprehensive programme of quantitative and qualitative research to, among (many) other things, monitor KPIs)"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Ofcoms own research into public acceptability of sexual content is over 5 years old, raising doubts about whether it is still current or relevant.

It was based on a qualitative study of a relatively small group of people, yet Ofcom require ASA to have "comprehensive" research that is both "quantitative and qualitative".

Ofcoms study into PIN protection of adult channels as well as their summary of other peoples research into the effects of adult content on children must be at least as old, if not older.

If Ofcom itself does not have " comprehensive ... quantitative and qualitative research" that is valid (ie up to date) does that disqualify them from regulating these areas? Or are double standards acceptable?

14-19 "Should Ofcom consider an alternative constitution for ASA(B)?"
Is the ASA subject to the same controls as other public sector organisations, or is it exempt from proper democratic controls? Freedom of Information? Publication of contracts? Members appointed by an impartial government body? However well meaning and impartial, the fact is the ASA is a private limited company (limited by guarantee) whose ownership appears opaque. If statutory powers are delegated to private companies, should those companies be subject to the same level of scrutiny as public ones? Who decides who sits on the board? Are minutes and policies published? Either its important for all regulators, or its important for none. Ownership should not enter into it.

Consultation

Through my job I can honestly state that alcohol and gambling do more to destroy people than all the other "sins" combined. I work in an office full of , and I know I am lucky, lovely women from tidy teens to my colleague who has to be the fittest 58 year old in England. Guess what they talk about? Clothes, holidays, houses and sex. Yes sex. It is not a taboo. Most people are liberated enough to understand sex is enjoyable and hey normal. If I had children I would be far more worried about them playing ultra violent shoot up games and watching SAW type drivel than a bit of nakedness. However the great and the good, especially the religious type seem totally opposed to what is a normal interest.

if ASA got their hands on Babestation I doubt they would last All other channels seem compliant with real law, however. But I do not know enough to have an opinion on who would be more fit for the task. But you would think that the only complaints ASA would look into would be about miss selling of a product, displaying costs properly and the like. Not how sexy a sex chat service is or isn't.

(22-05-2014 10:04 )RatedR Wrote:  But you would think that the only complaints ASA would look into would be about miss selling of a product, displaying costs properly and the like. Not how sexy a sex chat service is or isn't.

The ASA would have no jurisdiction over such matters anyway, because complaints about displaying the costs of premium rate phone calls and such like are handled by PhonePayPlus.

ESPN Fined £120,000

Ofcom has fined ESPN £120,000 for not having not having enough audio description in 2012.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...n-ESPN.pdf

I've said before and apologies in advance if you've already heard it. Ofcom only give a fuck if material broadcast is likely to give you a stiffy as to say. They don't like sex, nudity or anything remotely risque.

A new season of Big Brother will be broadcast very soon and yet again we'll have no E4 type live stream on the telly. Also once again don't expect to see anything risque being broadcast such as boobies or dare I say the vagina because if so then please expect Channel 5 to be hammered, taken to the cleaners or possibly pulled off the air.

Do expect to see and hear plenty of swearing, bullying and all kinds of conflicts taking place. I won't be watching - It's car crash telly at its finest, I only ever used to bother watching it when they showed the snatch as to say.

I remember a past episode of Embarrassing Bodies, where a young blonde woman had her vagina looked at, due to an odd sensation she kept feeling all of the time. This was uncensored like the other episodes are, and there was a great closeup of her sitting open legged, vagina staring us down, and it was an incredible turn on!

Much more tantalizing than anything on the babe channels, and I'm usually for "less is more" when it comes to content. Still, very hot moment!



The ESPN fine sounds ridiculous

Does bsx have audio description? The mind boggles