Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

C4 had a documentary on the other night about teen sex.
One scene had a teenage girl having her shaved pubic area decorated with rhinestones. Her labia was in full view.
Another scene had a teenage boy having his bell-end peireced - in full view - with a teenage female presenter watching.
Then there was a young lad visiting a female doctor and having his cock and balls examined in close-up.
Also, there were numerous scenes of teens talking about their experiences of oral and anal sex.

Of course this was all 'educational' so it's ok.

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 im getting at is your blaming the wrong 1s in this instance. this time its not ofcoms fault in respect to what you guys are talkin about. (yeah i know its there fault for having such stringent rules on adverts) but who wants american style tv where the programs are shorter than the adverts. if they didnt differentiate the licenses then all you would ever see is advert after advert with 5 mins of programs to brake up the monotony on mainstream tv.

(23-01-2011 11:37 )Splash Wrote:  C4 had a documentary on the other night about teen sex.
One scene had a teenage girl having her shaved pubic area decorated with rhinestones. Her labia was in full view.
Another scene had a teenage boy having his bell-end peireced - in full view - with a teenage female presenter watching.
Then there was a young lad visiting a female doctor and having his cock and balls examined in close-up.
Also, there were numerous scenes of teens talking about their experiences of oral and anal sex.

Of course this was all 'educational' so it's ok.

Far more explicit than a babeshow but teen sex education with a comical twist of the genital piercings and female pubic vajazzling.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-j...od#3158554

Next week they are looking at why teenage girls want to get into nude modelling/pole dancing so maybe they might include a babeshow clip.

Thank you, HEX!T - excellent post and the point is well made in respect of the type of license under which the babe shows operate. I certainly wasn't aware of this and I suspect that I may not have been alone in this regard.

It was originally my intention that the sightings in this thread could form the basis of a kind of 'case law' to be used by an enterprising channel boss (or lawyers thereof) as defence against the kind of business-crippling action taken by the regulators as put Bang out of business; that is, heavy-handed and arbitrary fining. Note that I'm not saying that Bang themselves didn't deserve to be hauled over the coals, but most of us see an imbalance between the nature of broadcasts post-watershed on the serious channels and the babe shows. Why is this?
If it's the license that's at the heart of it, then a few questions must be asked.

Firstly; Why are the babe channels' night output (ie; post-watershed) listed as"18" on the Sky EPG? If one expects an advert to be lower strength than a tv drama, then is it possible to classify both as being intended exclusively for adult viewing? Or should one be assigned a different rating to the other?

Secondly; As an Ofcom survey demonstrated, a very significant proportion of viewers accept that an adult programme is likely to show material of an adult nature and accept also that it is not reasonable to take offence at that fact. So, as the Babe shows, advert or otherwise, are listed in the Adult segment of the EPG, can we not reasonably assume the content will be such?

Thirdly; Is it reasonable, on the part of the viewer of a post-watershed mainstream tv show (having accepted the nature of such shows' content) to then become offended by an advert shown during the main feature's screening slot, if that advert is of an equivalent strength to the main programme, only to then suspend such delicate sensitivities at the end of the ad break and for the duration of the main programme?

It's matters of this nature that prevent the babeshows from being classified quite as succinctly as the license issue might otherwise suggest, and reason enough for this issue to warrant discussion . I myself see an inconsistency that could be used as a defence against what a channel boss might very well present as discrimination at a hearing.

(23-01-2011 16:36 )HEX!T Wrote:  they could get reclassified as adult entertainment ... but who wants american style tv where the programs are shorter than the adverts.

Ha ha! I see your point very clearly, but if the ads were of an adult nature and were presented in a similar format to the extant babeshows, who's to complain? And we get short adult shows in between, so it could be like a reversed, and better, Babestation.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

your missing the point m8. as i say it has nothing to do with the visual content, only the advertised content. and because the babeshows are classed as 1 long running advert for phone numbers they dont fall under the guise of entertainment programming or the laws which govern it. so like i said you cant compare say sexcetera with the babeshows, as 1 is programming and the other an advert.

if they change the licensing law for the advertising license it will affect all the channels who run adverts, not just the babeshows.
what the babeshows need is and adult advertising license but ofcom wont issue such a thing, because they consider the babeshows to be covered by current licensing.

if they do change the license the channels will have mandatory encrypted because they will then fall under adult only programming.
the babeshows themselves don't want to be classed as adult entertainment for this reason. as it would result in bigger costs due to having to pay for said encryption and a fall in profits due to less people unlocking there boxes.

(24-01-2011 03:31 )HEX!T Wrote:  ... if they do change the license the channels will have mandatory encrypted because they will then fall under adult only programming.

I see your point about the different licences, HEX!T, but why would they have to encrypt if they operated under a different licence. Are you saying there's a law that says any channel specifically aimed at adults has to be encrypted?

What if they went for a different licence but agreed to stay within the guidlines that govern the channels that show adult programming such as Sexetcera? Just because they're an adult channel doesn't mean they have to show R18 material.

All we're asking for is that these channels are allowed to show the same level of explicitness we see on other channels.

(22-01-2011 23:11 )mrmann Wrote:  Anyone else see Sexcetera just now? Just saw an uncensored vagina being tongued by another woman.

Still can't see anything like that on the adult channels

This sort of content on an adult industry documentary shown post watershed has been deemed compliant and acceptable by Ofc@m. A complaint has been made to Ofc@m concerning Sexcetera for a programme shown on the 12th December 2010 due to sexual material and found not to be in breach. As usual no reason given as to why it was not in breach, must be the dreaded context explanation.

Programme Transmission Date Broadcaster Categories Number of complaints

Sexcetera 12/12/2010 Channel One Sexual material 1

No explanation published perhaps, but Ofcom are required to follow due and impartial process and to be able to demontrate that they do not show favour, in other words they must keep sufficiently detailed records. Does anyone feel inclined to make a Freedom of Information request asking for full details of the complaint (exact wording please) and the decision making process, with only names and addresses redacted?

Not sure if this counts as Mainstream, but right now Sky Arts 2 are repeating Body Remix (10-11pm)
"Awe-inspiring and beautiful contempary dance, where the performers use props such as crutches, rope, bars, prosthese and harnesses to create movement of bizarre human hybrids. Also in HD"

The female performers are wearing little more than a few straps around their groins and, in some cases, thruppenies. And near invisible flesh coloured pants (anyone remember the Asian Babes ruling). And tiny nipple pasties. Some of the dancers are minging, but the near naked one waggling her bum and tits right now is tasty.
A work by Compagnie Marie Chouinard


Related performance (requires YouTube login):

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.

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.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~