Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(25-04-2015 01:09 )eccles Wrote:  Filthy Cops on ComedyXtra this evening

im not sure what your point is eccles. there's nothing in this clip that we don't see on the babeshows.

or are you saying this clip was shown before the watershed?

Paul the whole point of this Thread is to illustrate the hypocrisy of the ofcom rules when you compare mainstream TV to the Babeshows.

This new advert for Irn Bru which I seen on the telly this afternoon also perfectly illustrates the point.

^ Yeah WTF!? Bad taste humor with bare ass showing during the day. Such hypocrites Ofcunt are, but I assume many of them enjoy male ass crack, hence why they allow these adverts during the day. The guy with the bike helmet obviously wanted a piece of that guy's ass, as was evident in his reaction when the guy said "Crack on". P.C gay pushing from whoever is in charge, not that I'm anti gay, but I'm a bit anti P.C shite.

Now, let's see this advert during the day again, but this time with a woman in the man's place, with her bare ass exposed, and her telling a man/woman to crack on. It would never see the light of day.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the members of Ofcom are public school graduates because they seem to possess the perverse mentality which that sort of education generates.

Yes and they probably found the advert hilarious too, they probably e-mailed it to all their colleagues at ofcunt HQ

(26-04-2015 13:55 )Paul1982 Wrote:  

(25-04-2015 01:09 )eccles Wrote:  Filthy Cops on ComedyXtra this evening

im not sure what your point is eccles. there's nothing in this clip that we don't see on the babeshows.

or are you saying this clip was shown before the watershed?

I sometimes point out erotic content regardless of inconsistency. As this was broadcast after midnight it might be acceptable - it would be interesting to see if it ever gets repeated earlier. And to me ComedyCentral is a kids channel. If there are any still up that time of night they will be far more likely to be watching that channel, whixh raises issues about context.

Finally the scene is really really long. No way could CC claim with any hope of success that it was artistically justified in its entirety. Not as a fantasy. A few seconds at most would be justified.

Not that Im complaining.

(26-04-2015 20:05 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Paul the whole point of this Thread is to illustrate the hypocrisy of the ofcom rules when you compare mainstream TV to the Babeshows.

This new advert for Irn Bru which I seen on the telly this afternoon also perfectly illustrates the point.

I find this ad really uncomfortable. And not just because it prominently features a British Rail toilet, which in my experience is from Dantes circles of Hell, and usually far worse than anything the French ever came up with.

No, its just too long. The lad just stays prone on the floor while being studied by all the occupants of the carriage. No attempt to cover himself up, close the door or shuffle away. The sort of reaction a young lad might fantasise about if caught full frontal in the shower by a bunch of hot milfs, but decided odd when on all fours bum up in the company of a woman old enough to be his mum in an unflattering uniform. And the cyclist raises his eyebrows and twists his mouth creepily. Just how old is the lad supposed to be?

In the interests of balance do we get to see a fit 20 year old woman flashing her bum to multiple 30 and 40 year old men in the next ad? Oh no, that would be exploitation.

(Last thought - petition them to sign up Amanda Rendell).

For me, the worst thing about the ad is just how bad it is. Bad production quality, bad acting, and thoroughly juvenile content.
Irn Bru may not be up there with the likes of Coca-Cola or Pepsi, but it is still a pretty big brand (and perhaps the best hangover cure known to man ), and to think that their executives sat in a meeting to be presented with this by an ad agency, and they actually thought "Yeah, that's pretty good, and speaks to our target demographic, it's bound to increase sales, let's run with it". The product deserves something better than this tripe. It really makes me think twice about buying their product ever again!

As for the homosexual overtones, personally I just don't really see it. Can't help thinking that's more people's own prejudice's coming through, if you have to preface what you are saying with 'I'm not being anti-gay', then guess what .... and if there were homosexual overtones, so what? By all means point out the hypocrisy of a male arse being OK on mainstream tv, while a female arse on an adult channel is apparently not (both in 'advertisements' as well), but let's not turn it into a homophobic crusade. In a section dedicated to overcoming the censorship of Ofcom and it's various affiliated organisations, let's not become censors ourselves!

I'm not sure posters were complaining about the possible homosexual reference per se but more that it is another level of hypocrisy. If by a million to one shot this ad had got past with a female on all fours being stared at. There is no way on earth even the hint of a sexual innuendo (mainly it's in the biker's expression I think, it's like something out of a seventies sitcom) could have got past as well.

I hope that I've have interpreted people right. That's my take on it anyway. I'm sure posters can speak for themselves on theirs.

The last two posters make valid points regarding people seeing something that isn't there. Don't make us have to moderate this section to remove silly comments that could be seen as homophobic etc, as that is making a mockery of the sections purpose...I mean really