New Ofcom Rules

(29-12-2010 18:03 )Intense1 Wrote:  I have been desperately trying to keep a low profile but was almost tempted to comment when StanTheMan asked the question: “what is it that OFCOM really have against explicit nudity.”

Now, this comment from you, eccles: “Ofcom totally blanked these suggestions. Only explanation I can think of is that they do not want workable solutions that destroy their grounds for opposing stronger adult content.”

So what exactly can we deduce from all of this?

They want us to believe that their real concern is righteousness and the quelling of that which has a bad influence upon children and the general public… I have no doubt that many of the employees at OFCOM genuinely believe that this is the crusade to which they have subscribed. But what about those at the head of the organization who set the agendas and direct proceedings?

This is my theory about them: I believe that those wielding the most power and influence behind censorship of women’s rights to display explicit sexual images of themselves publicly, are in fact sexual deviants from the ‘norm’. Whether it is just homosexuality or other forms of sexual deviations is irrelevant. The key, is that women’s power to arouse the male threatens their sexuality and emotional stability. They fear that women will draw those of their own sexual persuasion back into the fold of the ‘norm’. This insecurity makes them go to any lengths, no matter how absurd and irrational it clearly is to common sense and logic, to stifle the most powerful body part of women that arouses men.

So, far from those at the top having any real concerns about righteousness, they are willing to stifle the pleasure of millions, who are the 'norms', just because it threatens their own subjective sexual inclinations.

If my theory is correct, this should tell us all that we need to know about the kinds of human beings wielding power and are in charge of the masses.

As I have said previously, those with righteous indignation against the display of public nudity being broadcast, simply have no case when it is being granted by the government. And the only justification for safeguarding the young and general public, is to give them all the best current available information as to how to avoid these broadcasts; not to stifle a commodity that has been given permit by the government.

Anyone who does not think that this theory fits all the facts, will be left with a lot of loose ends that simply do not equate.

Excellent post there.
I wonder what the background of the Ofcon Grandees is?

(29-12-2010 18:03 )Intense1 Wrote:  I have been desperately trying to keep a low profile but was almost tempted to comment when StanTheMan asked the question: “what is it that OFCOM really have against explicit nudity.”

Now, this comment from you, eccles: “Ofcom totally blanked these suggestions. Only explanation I can think of is that they do not want workable solutions that destroy their grounds for opposing stronger adult content.”

So what exactly can we deduce from all of this?

They want us to believe that their real concern is righteousness and the quelling of that which has a bad influence upon children and the general public… I have no doubt that many of the employees at OFCOM genuinely believe that this is the crusade to which they have subscribed. But what about those at the head of the organization who set the agendas and direct proceedings?

This is my theory about them: I believe that those wielding the most power and influence behind censorship of women’s rights to display explicit sexual images of themselves publicly, are in fact sexual deviants from the ‘norm’. Whether it is just homosexuality or other forms of sexual deviations is irrelevant. The key, is that women’s power to arouse the male threatens their sexuality and emotional stability. They fear that women will draw those of their own sexual persuasion back into the fold of the ‘norm’. This insecurity makes them go to any lengths, no matter how absurd and irrational it clearly is to common sense and logic, to stifle the most powerful body part of women that arouses men.

So, far from those at the top having any real concerns about righteousness, they are willing to stifle the pleasure of millions, who are the 'norms', just because it threatens their own subjective sexual inclinations.

If my theory is correct, this should tell us all that we need to know about the kinds of human beings wielding power and are in charge of the masses.

As I have said previously, those with righteous indignation against the display of public nudity being broadcast, simply have no case when it is being granted by the government. And the only justification for safeguarding the young and general public, is to give them all the best current available information as to how to avoid these broadcasts; not to stifle a commodity that has been given permit by the government.

Anyone who does not think that this theory fits all the facts, will be left with a lot of loose ends that simply do not equate.

As goofy as this post is, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some truth in this.

(29-12-2010 22:46 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(29-12-2010 10:44 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  I see you mention eurotic and sexysat,but not that many people can get those channels,now if everyone in Britain could get them[but they cant because SKY has made the boxes that we MUST use to get SKY]

Not alltogether true, NPoM. If you plug a 60cm dish that's pointed at Hotbird into a Sky box, you can use the 'other channels' feature to tune in any of the fta adult stuff out there - including sexysat and etv.

Quite right about the 60cm dish mate,but tell me how many people get one as standard setup with Sky? That is what I meant,sorry for the confusion

(29-12-2010 18:03 )Intense1 Wrote:  [...] This is my theory about [Ofcom]: I believe that those wielding the most power and influence behind censorship of women’s rights to display explicit sexual images of themselves publicly, are in fact sexual deviants from the ‘norm’. Whether it is just homosexuality or other forms of sexual deviations is irrelevant. The key, is that women’s power to arouse the male threatens their sexuality and emotional stability. They fear that women will draw those of their own sexual persuasion back into the fold of the ‘norm’. This insecurity makes them go to any lengths, no matter how absurd and irrational it clearly is to common sense and logic, to stifle the most powerful body part of women that arouses men.

So, far from those at the top having any real concerns about righteousness, they are willing to stifle the pleasure of millions, who are the 'norms', just because it threatens their own subjective sexual inclinations. [...]

The problem with your theory is that sooner or later everyone deviates from 'the norm' to some degree when you examine the specificities of their sexuality. People only really share common leanings in the most general of ways; the more you probe, the more you find that people have their own specific preferences within that 'general area.' The membership of this forum can illustrate this fact. Taking the broadest view the vast majority of forum members, with some obvious exceptions, can be labelled in the same way: Male heterosexual. But look closer, and this conglomeration of 'the norm' splits along all sorts of different lines into a number of sub-factions. For example, hardcore fans and soft-core fans (the latter aren't prudes or puritans, remember: they mightily enjoy looking at the female form, it's just that they're more turned on by the peripheral components of the body than the splayed pussy; by suggestion rather than explicitness; it's this precisely that gets them hard and gets them off), or 'breast lovers and 'leg lovers.' These sub groups can then be further split: breast guys who overridingly like pert natural tits; blokes who mainly want to see voluminous saggy mature norks being flopped around with; guys who get turned on by the idea of surgically enhanced baps; guys who above all like to see breasts covered in cream or chocolate sauce or some other kind of sticky gunk surrogate; guys who loathe seeing breasts covered in such a way, because it obscures their view of what they want to see (the bare, 'un-gunked' breast!), and so on. In my area of 'special interest' (legs/feet) I can certainly vouch for the fact that there's a* whole plethora of tastes, all quite specific and quite tightly defined within the general preference for looking at the bottom rather than the top half of the female body. There's more variety in sexual taste apparent out there than ever before, and it would all like to be catered for, thank you very much!

What needs to be put to bed is this lazy, generalising idea that in the final analysis what we're all eager to see and hear on free-to-view Adult satellite telly is babes talking dirty (as someone who owns Pete and Dud's 'Derek And Clive Get The Horn,' I enjoy swearing within the context of creative comedy hugely, but hearing babes effing and blinding doesn't get me off sexually in the slightest), repeated camera zoom-ins on exposed vaginas, and dildo penetration. Ultimately we're all hankering after different things, and the sort of bespoke shows that can only successfully exist within our own heads! However, awful OSGs aside, many people are more or less getting enough of what they want from these shows, a fair amount of the time (sharing and compromise are democratic cornerstones).

Btw, I think the idea that Ofcom is manned by a platoon of puritan, paranoid or 'sadistic' homosexuals or 'deviants,' who "fear that women will draw those of their own sexual persuasion back into the fold of the 'norm,'" or who derive pleasure from frustrating the babe shows huge straight fan-base can be dismissed pretty quicky, don't you? Ofcom will no doubt comprise a set of individuals who have different tastes and leanings, just as this forum does!

(Edit: *missed letter inserted.)

So Addison thinks that Ofcom are people of different tastes and learnings does he.
Well if this is a fact then tell me this Addison,why are the people that are involved in this very inportant quango not publicly named and how many builders,labourers,busdrivers,housewives [for christs sake I could go on and on] would you Addison think would be on this panel?

(30-12-2010 20:08 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  So Addison thinks that Ofcom are people of different tastes and learnings does he.
Well if this is a fact then tell me this Addison,why are the people that are involved in this very inportant quango not publicly named and how many builders,labourers,busdrivers,housewives [for christs sake I could go on and on] would you Addison think would be on this panel?

Without the info to back an argument up one way or the other, I don't want to speculate too much about who makes up what. However, I don't just think it's likely that Ofcom is made up of 'people with different [sexual] tastes and leanings,' I think it's likely that the adult population of the world is made up of such people. What I'm saying is: when you start to look at it, sexual taste seems to be divisible right down to the point where you arrive at a sub-set of one.

Ofcon may, or may not, comprise of a wide variety of people from our broad UK spectrum. The impression I get, however, is that it is ruled by such a puritanical hand which would make Mathew Hopkins proud of their efforts.
It's who is at the top who decides the "flavour" of an organisation.

(30-12-2010 20:59 )blackjaques Wrote:  Ofcon may, or may not, comprise of a wide variety of people from our broad UK spectrum. The impression I get, however, is that it is ruled by such a puritanical hand which would make Mathew Hopkins proud of their efforts.
It's who is at the top who decides the "flavour" of an organisation.

Well said

(30-12-2010 20:59 )blackjaques Wrote:  Ofcon may, or may not, comprise of a wide variety of people from our broad UK spectrum. The impression I get, however, is that it is ruled by such a puritanical hand which would make Mathew Hopkins proud of their efforts.
It's who is at the top who decides the "flavour" of an organisation.

That's sorted then! Ofcom doesn't need to be dismantled after all, it just needs someone new in the top chair. What a relief!

(30-12-2010 20:02 )Addison Wrote:  Btw, I think the idea that Ofcom is manned by a platoon of puritan, paranoid or 'sadistic' homosexuals or 'deviants,' who "fear that women will draw those of their own sexual persuasion back into the fold of the 'norm,'" or who derive pleasure from frustrating the babe shows huge straight fan-base can be dismissed pretty quicky, don't you? Ofcom will no doubt comprise a set of individuals who have different tastes and leanings, just as this forum does!

(Edit: *missed letter inserted.)

No, I do not think that my theory can be so easily dismissed: My theory concerns the motivation of those wielding the most power and influence; not the team in general.