New Ofcom Rules

(01-01-2011 17:52 )Light Entertainment Wrote:  Gazfc, the pic you posted raises thought in the kind of direction I feel this discussion could do with heading...

[i][SNIP]/i]

I agree with the not showing full nudity because it's showing all for nothing, which is why they should figure out how to charge for this. Encryption doesn't seem to be happening, so this probably won't happen.

As for context (Hate this word ), well if the shows were encrypted, then there would be no need for context, as it would be only available to those who know the pin code, but that won't happen because not as many people have SKY, and Ofcom will lose their power over the channels.

But back to context again. Why does this have to come into play on adult channels that are their to stimulate? When they are allowed to show and do almost everything, covering their private parts gives off the impression that it's something so dirty and horrible that nobody is allowed to see. It makes no sense on Ofcom's behalf, and the only reason why not showing everything makes any sense at all, is because they aren't making enough money to do so. Also, not all of the women would be happy to show everything, but many ARE, and would if allowed.

I still think that many members of Ofcom find vaginas to be frightening Even on the other shows I've mentioned, it's rare to see an uncensored open leg vagina shot, yet penises are always uncensored. Why is that? Maybe they've seen Alien too many times, and vaginas remind them of facehuggers?

In the recent posts by Eccles, Ofcom says that genitals can be shown, as long as they aren't aroused. Um, OK.

This topic is getting a bit tiring to be honest.

(01-01-2011 18:43 )mrmann Wrote:  But back to context again. Why does this have to come into play on adult channels that are their to stimulate?

It's a good question, and I don't think there's any problem with free-to-air as things stand. But then neither do Ofcom now, which is quite a revolution really. As regards taking things further with free-to-air, Ofcom now appear to have recognised that sexual stimulation is a valid justification for sexual content, but official acceptance of this is new. We're somewhere we've never been before, and I just think it takes time to establish what the wider public will tolerate. If Ofcom have accepted that sex-for-the-sake-of-titillation on TV is okay, then I think the major hurdle is crossed. It's now just a matter of the boundary moving in keeping with the general public mood. But that said, as I think we're agreed, unencrypted, there may not be much headroom anyway, commercial forces being what they are.

I also agree mrmann that safely encrypted channels are a different matter. As regards BS Xtreme, I'm thinking the recent attenuation of content may have more to do with the cock-up of 27th Nov than a revision of the rules generally. In other words, Ofcom not being satisfied that the content is safely enough encrypted. Maybe after a 'probationary period' things could move back to where they were. I could be completely wrong, but this explanation would make a lot more sense than just some sudden brainwave by Ofcom that BS Xtreme was too explicit. Incidentally, has anyone noticed the editing out of the word "hardcore" from Lolly's recorded BS Xtreme promos, and Geri's newfound reluctance to refer to the channel as porn?

Aaanyway, I came on here simply to post that I'd recently been witness to some full-frontal female nudity in the show "Above Suspicion" on ITV3 this evening.

I know. Shocker.
Said nude female was a slender young actress in a speaking role, standing behind a banister rail at the top of a flight of stairs and next to the fully-clothed actress with whom she was speaking and also in full view of a character played by the lead actress (also fully-clothed).
The context was that the main character had entered a house owned by a disabled ex-cop (played by ex-Corrie favourite John "Ah Sayyy" Savident) to interview him, but was instead confronted by the reality that the house was routinely used for the shooting of adult movies. The nude actress had wandered, bitching but untroubled by the detective's presence, onto the scene to whine about some minor detail or other, before being fobbed off by the second female.

The exposure was full body, full-length, full-frontal with both nipple and modest labial exposure. Exposure lasted for approximately 5 seconds plus.
The scene was screened before 10pm.

I observed this in the presence of my grandmother (which was interesting). Personally I was not particularly troubled by the nudity, and the aforementioned grandmother remained silent throughout (as she had previously) and visibly unperturbed.
I did however, at the time of watching, consider the following two points:
1) The nudity seemed to be rather direct and obvious... I would even say gratuitous. by this I mean to say that there was no attempt to do anything other than show a fully naked young woman to the audience rather than try and be'artistic' or 'tastefully discrete' about it. Nope. Bam! tits 'n fanny. There y'go.
2) The need for such a level of nudity seemed unjustified by the context. I shall explain myself! A girl clad in a g-string would have achieved the same end of suggesting an ongoing porn shoot in the building, as would a subtle three-quarter rear shot (bare butt and possible curve of side-boob; maybe even neither but just the suggestion of it instead?). The dialogue between nude and clothed women, and the ensuing dialogue between detective and Savident character (to the strains of a woman very obviously fucking in the next room) would have confirmed everything that one needed to know.

One assumes that this meets with the approval of the regulators as neither exceeding the expectations of a post-watershed viewing audience, nor breaching the regulations in terms either of content or context. (I assume such, because the show is on ITV3, implying a repeat; thus it must previously have passed the test of viewer complaints/Ofcom investigation or lack thereof).

So, should I have been offended?
Or does this mean that the viewing public accepts such levels of female nudity? The fact that the woman in question was portrayed as a porn actress preparing for sex and was of a rather titillating nature on many levels suggests that night-shows on the 900s may have a lot more leeway than we've previously thought.
Sorry to hammer away like this, but this case study warranted in-depth consideration, especially when Michelle Thorne (a real porn actress) was giving a very much less nude show at the same time!

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

Food for thought, Krill, and yet another example of Ofcom's inconsistency. Maybe there's a thread in this; a thread for noting examples of sexual content on non-adult fta channels that exceeds those Ofcom have imposed on the ADULT babeshows.

(01-01-2011 23:29 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Food for thought, Krill, and yet another example of Ofcom's inconsistency. Maybe there's a thread in this; a thread for noting examples of sexual content on non-adult fta channels that exceeds those Ofcom have imposed on the ADULT babeshows.

Cheers, Stan - I had a bit of a time figuring out which thread was the most appropriate to post this in. I'm not really one for starting new threads myself.

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

(01-01-2011 23:22 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  Aaanyway, I came on here simply to post that I'd recently been witness to some full-frontal female nudity in the show "Above Suspicion" on ITV3 this evening.

I know. Shocker.
Said nude female was a slender young actress in a speaking role, standing behind a banister rail at the top of a flight of stairs and next to the fully-clothed actress with whom she was speaking and also in full view of a character played by the lead actress (also fully-clothed).
The context was that the main character had entered a house owned by a disabled ex-cop (played by ex-Corrie favourite John "Ah Sayyy" Savident) to interview him, but was instead confronted by the reality that the house was routinely used for the shooting of adult movies. The nude actress had wandered, bitching but untroubled by the detective's presence, onto the scene to whine about some minor detail or other, before being fobbed off by the second female.

The exposure was full body, full-length, full-frontal with both nipple and modest labial exposure. Exposure lasted for approximately 5 seconds plus.
The scene was screened before 10pm.

I observed this in the presence of my grandmother (which was interesting). Personally I was not particularly troubled by the nudity, and the aforementioned grandmother remained silent throughout (as she had previously) and visibly unperturbed.
I did however, at the time of watching, consider the following two points:
1) The nudity seemed to be rather direct and obvious... I would even say gratuitous. by this I mean to say that there was no attempt to do anything other than show a fully naked young woman to the audience rather than try and be'artistic' or 'tastefully discrete' about it. Nope. Bam! tits 'n fanny. There y'go.
2) The need for such a level of nudity seemed unjustified by the context. I shall explain myself! A girl clad in a g-string would have achieved the same end of suggesting an ongoing porn shoot in the building, as would a subtle three-quarter rear shot (bare butt and possible curve of side-boob; maybe even neither but just the suggestion of it instead?). The dialogue between nude and clothed women, and the ensuing dialogue between detective and Savident character (to the strains of a woman very obviously fucking in the next room) would have confirmed everything that one needed to know.

One assumes that this meets with the approval of the regulators as neither exceeding the expectations of a post-watershed viewing audience, nor breaching the regulations in terms either of content or context. (I assume such, because the show is on ITV3, implying a repeat; thus it must previously have passed the test of viewer complaints/Ofcom investigation or lack thereof).

So, should I have been offended?
Or does this mean that the viewing public accepts such levels of female nudity? The fact that the woman in question was portrayed as a porn actress preparing for sex and was of a rather titillating nature on many levels suggests that night-shows on the 900s may have a lot more leeway than we've previously thought.
Sorry to hammer away like this, but this case study warranted in-depth consideration, especially when Michelle Thorne (a real porn actress) was giving a very much less nude show at the same time!

I agree. The babe channels can actually show more than Ofcom is telling them, and your post is further proof of that.

I can just see it now. A babe channel is fined for showing full frontal well after the watershed, and that channel presents Ofcom with evidence that full frontal nudity was shown before 10pm on a NON adult channel. Ofcom rolls their eyes and says "CONTEXT", followed by a loud roaring laughter.

I doubt gazfc will believe your post though

(01-01-2011 23:59 )mrmann Wrote:  The babe channels can actually show more than Ofcom is telling them.

I can just see it now. A babe channel is fined for showing full frontal well after the watershed, and that channel presents Ofcom with evidence that full frontal nudity was shown before 10pm on a NON adult channel. Ofcom rolls their eyes and says "CONTEXT", followed by a loud roaring laughter.

Yep - I just love the idea that it's fine to depict an adult actress in mainstream drama through the medium of a nude actress who doesn't work in 'the industry', whilst meanwhile actual adult industry workers are being crippled by the enforcement of clothing regulations.

But yes, these new rules should surely allow for some real freedom of expression by the night-show girls, if the producers (other than xplicit) have the guts to let them.
I say that; in fact I watched a lovely nude show on Babestation the other night featuring Tiffany. But it wasn't full-frontal of course.


Moderator Notice: A number of posts that were made in this thread, but not related to the topic title, have been moved here


.

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

(01-01-2011 23:59 )mrmann Wrote:  I doubt gazfc will believe your post though

When have I ever said otherwise?? To my knowledge I've never denied that mainstream tv shows full frontal nudity and once again I'll say this even though you wont read it, I have no problem with it!!!

The only thing I've pulled you up on is your exaggeration on whats been shown on sexcetra etc, if we was to go on what you see everyone would think that full on penetration and anal penetration was been shown when its not. As I said in a post yesterday, these shows have been getting repeated for several years now (as some of the episodes are upto 10 years old) and nobody else has witnessed what you claim to have seen

This forum makes me laugh at times, no matter how much banter and discussion goes on on here, as long as the channels continue to bow down to ofcom things will not change. They had an opportunity when the channels had a so called meeting with Ofcom to discuss, well be dictated to, about acceptable standards. If the channels went in and then walked out with their tails between their legs then Ofcom will have the upper hand, regardless of survey's etc or even the wishes of 44,600 members on here. As long as the channels are making revenue they will not give a toss about what we think. In respect of the day shows well I agree they needed to be railed in a little, but as for the night shows the new rules are pathetic to say the least, no consitency from Ofcom who see the babe channels as an easy target. Bring back the days of the ITC when they cost very little to the tax payer compared to the 125 million that the new Mary Whitehouse brigade cost, plus we got a lot better viewing.

OMG! I got that so wrong - I read 'ITC' and thought "when was Lew Grade in charge of tv regulation?"
Yeah, that would be ATV. Dumbass. Whadda mistaka to maka...

It must be agreed that all our hard work on here (!) won't add up to a hill of beans if the babeshow producers don't even try to show what we want to see.
Fortunately, I think, given the opportunity, they would! (yay!)

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