Ofcom Discussion

(23-10-2010 04:11 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  I doff my cap, bow, and step aside for Addison in response to, frankly, an extraordinarily well-informed and insightful puncturing of my pitiful pissed dribbling. Fabulous stuff, sir! (I have now deleted all those full-frontal snaps of Vito from my hard-drive.) I thank you.
And yes, I am still very drunk.
PS - I much prefer 'Olympia' to 'Dejeuner...' that Victorine is pretty hot for a dead chick.
pps - even after the money shot, it's still a great painting and, bizarrely, I still watch the babeshows. Such a loser...

Cheers! Got my titles ass-backwards though, didn't I. 'A Modern Olympia' is the title of a painting by Cezanne; the Manet one is just called 'Olympia' (and yes, she is hot for a dead babe!). Thinking about it some more, a few artists down the years have notably produced drawings 'on the side' that qualify almost totally as 'outright erotica' (nudes striking blatantly suggestive poses),while their beautiful economy of line also makes them lovely works of art. You can imagine the artists who produced them doing a roaring behind-the-counter trade selling these things to the randy, monocle wearing, cigar puffing, malacca cane wielding set during the early years of the 20th century (would sure knock collecting Panini stickers into a cocked hat ):

Auguste Rodin:


Gustav Klimt:


Egon Schiele:



People have been deliberately trying to blur that line for longer than you might think!

(23-10-2010 23:33 )Addison Wrote:  Thinking about it some more, a few artists down the years have notably produced drawings 'on the side' that qualify almost totally as 'outright erotica' (nudes striking blatantly suggestive poses),while their beautiful economy of line also makes them lovely works of art. You can imagine the artists who produced them doing a roaring behind-the-counter trade selling these things to the randy, monocle wearing, cigar puffing, malacca cane wielding set during the early years of the 20th century (would sure knock collecting Panini stickers into a cocked hat )
People have been deliberately trying to blur that line for longer than you might think!

Yes indeed - great choice of images btw. As I understand it, Klimt used to titillate himself by painting many of his female figures nude, including detailed pubic zones, before then overpainting the taboo areas with his highly decorative stylings...seems he probably got a thrill from it, only x-rays revealed his little secret! Although it cannot really have come as a shock to anyone already familiar with his work...
Yes, erotic nudes in ancient art are two a penny, although still of sufficient artistic merit and cultural significance to warrant their inclusion in museum collections for public display. And some of them are downright filthy; great big erect phalluses and gaping genitalia ready for action, complete with implied or graphic intercourse! I'm not 100% convinced that all of those types of art were soley intended for religious worship or artistic and intellectual stimulation. Ofcom obviously can't touch those as they lie outside of its remit (just a tad)...
I do think that categorisation is a dreadfully artificial thing and oftentimes serves merely to confuse rather than clarify; thus when a useless mob like Ofcom attempt to pigeon-hole the babe shows, there is always a degree to which those interested parties may be able to put up a pretty decent argument as to why the unelected fascist absolutists have got it wrong. Of course, as with any similar debate of 'artistic issues' on such forums as Newsnight Review (to name one), there's no definite answer and a satisfactory conclusion may never be reached.
I might suggest that it's easier to find such blatantly sexual material as you posted within the world of authentic art than it ever was to track down the last few stickers one needed to complete one's album as well?

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

(23-10-2010 23:33 )Addison Wrote:  Thinking about it some more, a few artists down the years have notably produced drawings 'on the side' that qualify almost totally as 'outright erotica' (nudes striking blatantly suggestive poses),while their beautiful economy of line also makes them lovely works of art. You can imagine the artists who produced them doing a roaring behind-the-counter trade selling these things to the randy, monocle wearing, cigar puffing, malacca cane wielding set during the early years of the 20th century (would sure knock collecting Panini stickers into a cocked hat

I do agree that there is no real distinction between nudes as portrayed in paintings, or nudity that is depicted on screen in erotica. So, yes, the public has every right to demand that OFCOM justify their acceptance of one and rejection of the other. But what I am trying to convey is that the general public will always badger the censors whenever nudity is broadcast before their eyes, until they break free from the shackles of ignorant convention, which sees women as having an evil influence over men (misogyny which stems from their religious culture.)...... Instead of seeing women for what they actually are: Real delights to behold!!

The moral issue surrounding the dignity of personal behaviour has nothing whatsoever to do with how desirable a woman is to a man. So, a man should never ever deny that desirability; regardless of associated behaviours which may be deemed offensive.

(24-10-2010 16:48 )Intense1 Wrote:  

(23-10-2010 23:33 )Addison Wrote:  Thinking about it some more, a few artists down the years have notably produced drawings 'on the side' that qualify almost totally as 'outright erotica' (nudes striking blatantly suggestive poses),while their beautiful economy of line also makes them lovely works of art. You can imagine the artists who produced them doing a roaring behind-the-counter trade selling these things to the randy, monocle wearing, cigar puffing, malacca cane wielding set during the early years of the 20th century (would sure knock collecting Panini stickers into a cocked hat

I do agree that there is no real distinction between nudes as portrayed in paintings, or nudity that is depicted on screen in erotica. So, yes, the public has every right to demand that OFCOM justify their acceptance of one and rejection of the other. But what I am trying to convey is that the general public will always badger the censors whenever nudity is broadcast before their eyes, until they break free from the shackles of ignorant convention, which sees women as having an evil influence over men (misogyny which stems from their religious culture.)...... Instead of seeing women for what they actually are: Real delights to behold!!

The moral issue surrounding the dignity of personal behaviour has nothing whatsoever to do with how desirable a woman is to a man. So, a man should never ever deny that desirability; regardless of associated behaviours which may be deemed offensive.

That is an excellent post. It is the power of the femininity which causes so much problems. (I'm sure that all the anti-censorship guys on here and on Melonfamers have absolutely no problems wirh femine power).

I acknowledge implicitly female beauty.

Am I correct in thinking that the present day rules involving nudity on the Babechannels was brought about by a member of the public, worried by the easy access to anything go's daytime tv by her children, and I for one would be right behind her in that situation. But surely it cannot be right that at twelve o clock midnight I or anyone else who happens to be watching the adult channels are deprived of seeing the naked body in all it's glory.

What really grates on me is the double standards that ofcom and some goody goody members of the public display. A good example would be the XFactor, where contestants are put to the sword by cruel barbs from the judges. Another example would be that frightful woman Anne Robinson who for some reason Is allowed to treat contestants on the Weakest Link with the upmost disrespect. All for the sake of ratings.

Tits and pussies at teatime may not be the ideal viewing for kids to see when they come home from school . But neither is the acerbic put downs of Robinson or Simon Cowell either. Is it any wonder some kids of today show little or no respect for anything,

To conclude my rant, I would love it if someone would be so kind to explain to me why if I was to watch full nudity on the Babechannels i'd be on my way to hell in a handcart. But if I was to hand over cash and watch on an encrypted channel my soul would remain pure.

Slightly off topic, as it refers to the BBFC, but interesting comment about certificates from Stephen Woolley, Producer of Made In Dagenham:

Made In Dagenham producer slams 15 certificate
The producer of the film Made In Dagenham has criticised film censors for giving out 15 certificates for bad language.

Stephen Woolley said it was "ridiculous" that the film, which told the story of women striking for equal pay at an Essex car plant, was given a 15 certificate because of a small amount of swearing.

In a letter to the Evening Standard, he wrote: "I think it's a sorry state of affairs that movies like Made In Dagenham and The King's Speech are given 15 certificates because of their repeated use of the F-word, when a movie like The Social Network is given a 12A certificate while featuring underage sex, fellatio, snorting drugs off a half-naked woman's body, and generally portraying women as bimbos or schemers."

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) lowered its rating for The King's Speech, starring Colin Firth, from a 15 to a 12A.

The move came after the cast and director complained about being given the wrong certificate and distributors launched an appeal after the film was given a 15 rating because of bad language.

(This quote from the Press Association, based on a letter to the Daily Standard 22/10/2010, my emphasis.)

Heres a link for you referring to job cuts at ofcom, lets hope more follows for the bastards.

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1034

(27-10-2010 01:03 )eccles Wrote:  The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) lowered its rating for The King's Speech, starring Colin Firth, from a 15 to a 12A...after the cast and director complained...and distributors launched an appeal...

I would say there is hope, but perhaps the BBFC have been doing this long enough now that they understand that they might be wrong sometimes and are not too proud to review their decisions in line with public opinion. Hmmm. Still slightly encouraging - not all censors are inflexible and unhelpful.

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

(28-10-2010 00:58 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Heres a link for you referring to job cuts at ofcom, lets hope more follows for the bastards.

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1034

Scottishbloke
If there is ever any good news associated with redundancy then it's that the area deemed to be in scope is the Contents and Standards department, yes those buggers who keep harassing the babe channels following single complaints. Just because as the BECTU official stated 'these staff help to generate income for the Exchequer' through their fines and licence fee's does not justify employment.

From the article

BECTU has insisted that it will help its members to resist compulsory redundancies after Ofcom announced (21 October) that it wants to close 170 posts.

The industry regulator is tasked with making budget cuts of 30 per cent by 2015 in response to government decisions taken in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

After briefing staff today, management opened a 90-day consultation period with an invitation to staff in the affected pools to declare an interest in voluntary redundancy. Most BECTU members work in Content and Standards, one of the areas deemed to be in scope.

Commenting on the developments, supervisory official, David Beevers, said:

"We believe that the call for these substantial post closures from Content and Standards is ill-judged. These staff help to generate income for the Exchequer through their work on broadcast licences. Other roles, such as HR and legal, are deemed to be out of scope so we'll be questionning this rationale."



Believe you me the department will now fast track complaints, issue more fines or even revoke a licence if it felt it would protect their jobs, OR, they could just say B#llocks were working to rule, our enforcement protocol is light touch arms length and leave the babe channels alone.

In any case my sympathies are with them and offer this advice

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/R.../index.htm

I've just seen a woman's vagina and a man's penis on The Naked Office, which is a show on SKY 114. The show is asking the audience whether or not we'd be willing to go to work nude. Wow, so this is allowed to be shown on TV at 9pm, but we can't even see the same exact content on the adult night shows AFTER the watershed????????????????????????????

Very hypocritical!

Also, I don't think anyone would be comfortable going to work in the nude, because it would be ILLEGAL, and people don't want to be aroused while doing their job. At least I wouldn't