Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(25-04-2012 09:26 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Arronn, are you offended by vowels? Why the self-imposed letter censorship?

You know I read that post and it never even occurred to me. But you're dead right, what the hell's that all about. Is he just mocking our Draconian censorship laws, I wonder

The missing letters spell out a code to the final location of the Knights Templar and the Holy Grail.

Shit! Wrong forum. Everyone can see it. How do I delete before Google caches the page???

Slightly off topic, censorship in an art gallery

Evening Standard 27 April Wrote:Feathers fly at the police station over gallery’s ‘bestial’ Leda and the Swan
There were no complaints from the public when a Mayfair gallery exhibited a dramatic modern rendering of the ancient Greek myth of Leda and the swan in its window.

But the sensitive souls of the Metropolitan Police took a different view when they spotted Derrick Santini’s photograph of a naked woman being ravished by the bird.

An officer took exception as he passed the Scream gallery in Bruton Street on a bus. He alerted colleagues and two uniformed officers from Harrow arrived to demand the work be removed.

Jag Mehta, sales director at the gallery owned by Rolling Stone Ronnie Wood’s sons Tyrone and Jamie, said: “We asked them what the problem was and they said it suggested we condoned bestiality, which they said was an arrestable offence. The show, Metamorphosis, had been running for a month and was really well received.”

The final day of the exhibition was on Saturday and the gallery was taking down the artworks when police arrived. Ms Mehta pointed out that for prim Victorians, the myth of how Zeus, in the form of a swan, raped young Leda and produced Helen of Troy, was an acceptable form of erotica. But the explanation that the picture was based on a legend that had inspired countless generations of artists failed to cut the mustard with the police, she said.

“They didn’t know anything about the myth. They stood there and didn’t leave until we took the piece down. They asked us whether we had had complaints and we said quite the contrary. Lots of people were intrigued by it.”

She admitted she did not know what they would have done, had the officers arrived before the exhibition was over. “I guess it would have been a discussion with the artist and the owners to see whether we changed the work in the show. I don’t know the law. I would like to think we wouldn’t have shied away from it but it’s difficult to say.”

Jamie Wood said Santini’s work, called A Fool for Love, was on display for a month and received only positive comments from the public. “It was not meant to deliberately shock or offend. However, the purpose of art is to provoke debate and Derrick’s piece has certainly done this.”

He said they honoured the police request as they were due to install work by a new artist. “We would of course have fought to keep the piece up otherwise. If anyone wants to view it, we still have it at the gallery.”

It is understood that the incident was not recorded by police as a crime.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londo...84646.html

Picture from the Evening Standard, handed out free to commuters in London and elsewhere on their way home and to bed

Interesting.

They were likely worried that some children would see it, if with a parent in the gallery. I wonder what they would have done if actual people were nude there?

When there are live nudes in a public gallery, do you have to be 18 or older to attend, or is that just not allowed at all in the U.K, other than Erotica convention of course?

I remember a live nude art show in New York recently, yet no fuss was made of it, but a nude person in the street will be an arrestable offense. I don't condone public nudity btw

Condoning beastiality? Ha! It's like they don't think people are capable of thinking for themselves about what is right or wrong, and that a picture will brainwash them into screwing animals! What if it was a picture of someone smoking weed, and shooting heroin, would the police throw a fit then?

(30-04-2012 00:22 )mrmann Wrote:  Condoning beastiality? Ha! It's like they don't think people are capable of thinking for themselves about what is right or wrong, and that a picture will brainwash them into screwing animals! What if it was a picture of someone smoking weed, and shooting heroin, would the police throw a fit then?

Precisely!

I fucking despair at this country's attitude to sexuality. Why can't these fucking idiots see that by looking at this work of art and immediately thinking of bestiality, that THEY'RE the ones who are fucking sick?? Normal people look at it and think, "Oh, what an interesting work of art..."

Plenty of sex and nudity on the horror channel tonight with Lolita 2000, yet the babe channels in the EPG can't come close to showing that kind of content, completely fucked up

Sex Lessons is on now on 176 SKY. I wonder what they will be allowed to show, that the adult channels can't.

Sexcetera is also on 122 as well.

Aye well mrmann the title looked interesting, unfortunately it's only about people talking about sex. As for sexcetera I've seen them all before, they are repeats, (original airing was uncensored BTW) there seems to be in this current age absolutely very little in terms of new sexy programmes or documentries. Does anybody remember the naked news, oh how they were the days

"More Sex Please, We're British" is on channel 104 Sky now, and coming up is a guy with his cock in a vibrating device, suitable for non adult channels of course, because it's OK to see a guy get off on regular TV, but not OK to see a vagina on the adult channels