Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

I can see your point, RCTV, but I would suggest that not all nudity shown on mainstream tv is necessarily what one might consider to be truly artistic, whereas I contend that a performance by a professional model on a babeshow might more rightly be considered as an example of performing art. That may be a tenuous claim on my part, but the main point here is to document the many individual examples of non-babeshow TV nudity, examine time, content and the all-important context. Thus, we may compare and contrast on a case-by-case basis. Which is really the only sensible way to address the issue IMHO.

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

Well what is classed as art these days? I mean people think that a messy room is art lol. I think that all the gorgeous girls topless on the channels is art, it's the art of how god made them so beautiful lmao

Don't forget that a pile of sick is classed as art anarl

And dead cows and sheep lol

No offence to anyone as I see what your trying to do but these threads are a waste of time

(03-01-2011 13:57 )RCTV Wrote:  Mainstream tv nudity can only be done if it's art and they have to get permission to broadcast it, the babe channels is totally different as they don't see it as art.

RCTV
Who actually gives this permission. Ofcom do not and will not, it has been sought from them before and they have refused. If they did give permission for something controversial to be screened, and art can be very subjective, then who would investigate any complaints. You can see the headlines now in the Daily Mail.
The regulator let's producers produce and justify controversial matters/content if complaints are received. This is the same as performers smoking in a stage show, the Health Act does not require the director to seek prior consent from the local authority but if complaints are received then the LA will investigate and seek justification from the director.
I remember Selfridges, a high profile family owned department store in London, some 5 years ago wanted to include nude women covered in body paint to form part of an exhibition on body art through the ages. The exhibition also included an onsite tattoo/body piercing studio and the area was restricted to the over 18's. The Local Authority did not agree to the art argument and deemed it a sex encounter establishment therefore requiring a licence. Selfridges even with their legal team eventually agreed and the models wore flesh coloured bikini's.
As i said art can be very subjective and i could go along with the argument that the babes shows are performing art.

It's usually the channel that broadcasts it, but quite a few of them actually speak to ofcom about it.

Krill, I know, but that is how they get away it.

I personally think for 'art' ofcom should be the people that they have to get permission from, as they may actually make things more in line with the babe channel rules.

(02-01-2011 21:53 )Addison Wrote:  I don't see how the briefest burst of full frontal nudity in a TV drama show is evidence of double standards or what have you. Didn't see 'Above Suspicion' myself, but as Light Entertainment suggests here, it sounds as though the nude scene was justifiable from the point of view of plot advancement/psychological development/rounding out of characters. The main crux is how long the nude woman was on screen for (about five seconds?); just enough to add an extra layer of intrigue to the mix and help to illuminate a character from a fresh angle. Duration and – however much you dislike the idea - context are the keys, as they are in relation to most glimpses of nudity you'll see featured in that grey area on terrestrial TV, when a feature length adult-orientated drama finishing at eleven has its start at nine.

Seems a bit like straw clutching to ask why hours of live, unfolding, unvettable-in-advance television can't feature repeated views of exposed genitalia for the obvious and sole purpose of sexual gratifying its as-near-as-damn-it totally male audience, when a pre-recorded, pre-viewable TV drama watched by a much broader demographic shows a blink-and-you'll-miss-it flash of full frontal...

Addison, have you read OFCOM's version of 'context'?

Here it is from section 2, "harm and offence"

Quote:Meaning of “context”:
Context includes (but is not limited to):
• the editorial content of the programme, programmes or series;
• the service on which the material is broadcast;
• the time of broadcast;
• what other programmes are scheduled before and after the programme or programmes concerned;
• the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally or programmes of a particular description;
• the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience;
• the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience for example by giving information; and
• the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares.

As I read the above, it strikes me as very odd indeed that hours of live sexually-oriented TV aimed at a satisfying the sexual desires of a horny audience doesn't fall under such contextual justifications above. The "likely size and composition of the audience" and their "likely expectations" for instance. The "surrounding progamming" too. The "extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential (i.e. 'TARGET') audence".

Indeed, the above 'context' most certainly SHOULD permit exactly the type of content THE SUBSCRIBERS of adult TV and the AUDIENCE/CALLERS of 'babechannels' WANT and PAY to see.

As I've said many times before, OFCOM have misquoted, misinterpreted and generally CORRUPTED the letter and meaning of The Comms Act 2003 in order to create and impose their anti-sex entertainment agenda.

The Comms Act clearly states OFCOM are to provide adequate protection against "offensive and harmful material". OFCOM seem to believe this reads and means "harmful and/or offensive material" (rule 2.1). OFCOM are NOT the Government. OFCOM DO NOT make Law. OFCOM are not empowered to interpret Law as they see fit nor can they set legal precedents. OFCOM are not free to ignore every principle of Human Rights legislation nor the Case Law of the ECHR - indeed, as a public body they are BOUND BY LAW to read and apply the Comms Act in such a way as to make it 100% compatible WITH the HRA and Case Law of the ECHR.

Moreover, the supposed 'context' OFCOM publish to 'guide' broadcasters in their Code is in fact a rehashing of the Comms Act criteria by which OFCOM ARE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THEIR CODE. Indeed, the 'context' according to OFCOM above is the actual Code Review Criteria from section 319(4) of The Comms Act 2003. The published 'context' is actually SUPPOSED TO GUIDE OFCOM IN AMENDING THEIR CODE...to "provide a broad range of services to diverse audiences", NOT to 'guide' broadcasters in censoring TV output - and that's THE LAW.

Is there any evidence to suggest nudity is "offensive and harmful material" if presented in a sexualised context? There would HAVE TO BE such evidence for OFCOM to defend their Code in a court of law...because that's exactly what the law says they're to do. Is nudity even "harmful and/or offensive material" in sexual context...assuming OFCOM can reinterpret the law to suit their puritanical attitudes expressed in their Code? Again, there SHOULD BE SOME EVIDENCE to support this view IF OFCOM are to justify their position in a court of law. At the end of the day, if OFCOM cannot convince a court they're acting within reason AND the bounds of the law then, OFCOM are in breach of the law and have overstepped their remit by a huge margin.

mainstream nudity would be argued to be a small part of a programme used to help tell a story and would represent a very small proportion of the programmes running time. Babeshows nudity would be seen as being the whole story and the fact that the performers are nude for a vast majority of the time would bear that out.

I don't have the capability to post Caps, but i'm sure most of you are aware of the following examples:
1) Sexcetera on Livingit and ChannelOne has full frontal nudity and has shown male genitalia up close but most of the time labia detail is censored.
2) Movie channels(Non SkyMovie channels) have shown full frontal nudity in movies starting at 9pm (Sometimes quite strong sexual content films)but also had the use of offensive language aired during the day plus "Carry On Camping" was shown uncensored at approxmatley 1:30pm NYE.
3) E! entertainment channel shows "Girls of the Playboy Mansion" uncensored, which sometimes has full frontal nudity.
That was just a few examples from the last month. In my eyes, it clearly indicates that the Babechannels are being victimised by Ofcom because if full frontal nudity is allowed on mainstream, then it should be allowed on the Babechannels.