Ofcom Discussion

(27-10-2013 20:38 )HoneyRocks Wrote:  Think the outfit (or lack of it) that Lady GaGa wore on X Factor tonight managed to show the best pre TV watershed Camel Toe ever as she ran over to Sharon Osbourne lol!

It probably put the Babechannels to shame Roll on the complaints to Ofcom!

yeah there will probably be more complaints about that than theres ever been about the babe channels and nothing will happen

I just can't understand why shows like the brilliant game of thrones can show people having full on sex with nudity and simulating other things like oral, and on tv right where anyone can watch including kids and it's not considered soft core but art and an essential part of storytelling, I mean at one point they had British porn star Sahara knight walk into a room with cum dripping out of her mouth. While the babe channels are so restricted with what they wear and how they interact with each other. It drives me insane because I can still remember those amazing shows that caty cole and paige tyler used to put on, and it's not like the channel are in the main section but in the adult section where parents can easily put parental controls on.

I think the rules regarding Sex on mainstream TV must be to do with context! In English if its relevant to the story/ Issue then its permitted. Whereas the babe channels are for all intents and purposes classified as shopping channels so the restrictions are harder. I have not read the law governing this as I am sure Eccles will put me right.

Your probably right mate, it's just a shame they get regulated so harshly.

(30-10-2013 11:35 )tylercoop Wrote:  I mean at one point they had British porn star Sahara knight walk into a room with cum dripping out of her mouth.

Can you tell me what season and episode number this is please so I can download that to the Sky Box thru ondemand. (And the great thing is mother wont know it is a dirty when it is on the Sky planner, will think it is just drama show )

All Ofcom proves is the fact that this country has now become a nanny state

It should be up to the parents to control and decide what their children watch, not a bunch of dogooders from London

(30-10-2013 11:35 )tylercoop Wrote:  I just can't understand why shows like the brilliant game of thrones can show people having full on sex with nudity and simulating other things like oral, and on tv right where anyone can watch including kids and it's not considered soft core but art and an essential part of storytelling, I mean at one point they had British porn star Sahara knight walk into a room with cum dripping out of her mouth. While the babe channels are so restricted with what they wear and how they interact with each other. It drives me insane because I can still remember those amazing shows that caty cole and paige tyler used to put on, and it's not like the channel are in the main section but in the adult section where parents can easily put parental controls on.

It's because our liberal-arts "know betters" only allow fun if it comes packaged in a liberal arts form. In TV Land sex is only acceptable if it is a pretext for something else; in the real world (generalizing here) everything is a pretext for sex.

There are two separate arguments.

One is that sex needs to be kept out of adverts because it can skew purchasing decisions. A beer should be sold on its merits, not because the advertiser hired a model who gets her tits out. A casino or gambling site will not make men more attractive to women. Drinking coke will not make women more attractive to gardeners. Nudity, so the theory goes, has such a strong effect that it can lead to a suspension of normal rational decision making.

Thats fine in general, but is garbage when the product being sold is sex. Thats the one time it IS in context. Sexual arousal is exactly what is being sold.

The other argument is that Art (capital A) is somehow pure, whereas commercial nudity, page 3, porn etc, is somehow sleazy and unwholesome. There is some sexual content that is filmed in an unappealing way, unflattering lighting, rough camera angles, contorted faces, or the scenes are too short for a man or woman to get their bits out and play for long enough to get some pleasure.

There are several problems with that argument. Some classical sculptures and paintings are definitely horny. To complicate matters further, some of the classical greats were secretly gay and creating male nudes for the pleasure of presumably gay patrons and were less interested in celebrating female nudity in a way that might have aroused a public backlash. Michelangelo created what were publicised as ideal or heroic male nudes, but his female figures were less full on and a bit odd. Have a look at Night. The massive thighs. Male? The muscular arms. Male? The glued on breasts. The owl between the legs (where the sun does not shine). It just doesnt compare to the male nudes.

100swallows blog

Where was I? Oh yes, some female nudes were produced by gay artists with no sexual interest in the subject. But some classical female nudes, statues and paintings ARE horny, the argument that they are "pure" does not stand up to scrutiny, and they are just a way of legitimising middle class access to soft porn while locking out the rest of us. So much more respectable to say one is going to an art gallery or reading a expensive coffee table book, than reading page 3 or flicking through Mayfair*. You can only do one with the vicar.

Paradoxically Ofcom surveys found that middle aged women found soft, gentle extended sex scenes with nice furnishings and mood lighting more acceptable harsh lighting and functional surroundings, because it is more romantic and makes it look less as if the woman is being presented for male gratification.

But that doesnt mean they really approved of long or explicit sex scenes, people who were uncomfortable with them prefer ones that make the dramatic point (the couple are in a relationship) and move swiftly on. They dont really want a long scene that could cause trouser warming.

But the Artsy crowd do. They "have to emphasise the depth of the relationship" or "intensity" or some other bollocks.

Being clever with words they get away with it.

Its hypocrisy pure and simple.

* Note for younger readers. Mayfair is/was a thing called a magazine, sort of like a website printed out in hard copy, with pictures.

Round and round and round, this Ofcom argument as been going on for way to long. For the foreseeable future we are stuck with this over-zealous control of our wanking channels. So in the meantime would it not be a good idea for the channels themselves to improve what they offer.For way to long now the channels have used the Ofcom ticket to feed us lame, limp, monotonous shite because they know that there are enough people with cocks in their fist and the phone to their ears to make it still a profitable game to play without them putting in a great deal of effort.

It was good in the halcyon days of of just a few years back when the programmes had more or less free rein. Now they are gone, but girls can still be sexy and hot without the need to flash their pussies on reaching the watershed. And it is that that worries me more than any of Ofcoms rules. Because now it seems this new breed of girl doesn't know how to be sexy anymore. The programme makers tell them to lay on a bed and that is exactly what they do for 8 hours. Some of the time with phone to ear telling a timid tosser what she would like to do with him, Because he is her "baby". The rest of the time in conversation with the crew. I can honestly say that in my opinion if i had to count on one hand the amount of naturally sexy girls on all of the babestations I would have fingers left.

And if i went into detail about the actual programme makers I would be here for an eternity. As i said earlier, if the calls are coming in then they see that as their job done, and in a way it is. But what about a bit of professional pride. They must know that the product they put out is truly abysmal but they persist in doing so. Just one tiny example is the mic in open broadcast, more often than not it doesn't work. But what do they do about it 'fuck all'. Another thing that I have mentioned before in another rant. and got ridiculed for it, is the girls inability to know each others names. What sort of a programme are they going to make if they don't even know each other. Is it not the directors job to introduce any new girl that starts and get her familiar with the other models. But no, what they all say is FUCK IT! The next tosser will be here shortly. "Oh what can I do for you baby"?

I agree with Responsible. The business of business is profit, but professional pride has to come in somewhere. I would NEVER put out a product for sale in which I had no pride. Maybe when you're selling some semblance of sex, there is no need for pride. Sooooooo just leaves profit motive.