Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

Can I remind everyone that the law says OFCOM are to consider AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS when reviewing their crappy Code.

As we discovered on this forum last year, the majority of AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS of 'adult' channels are hardly ever met let alone 'exceeded' as OFCOM dare to incorrectly pronounce.

Where is OFCOM's research into 'adult' channel AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS? How can OFCOM dare to claim to know when you or I or, indeed, "the expectations of the vast majority of the audience" have or are likely to have been 'exceeded'?

The main point however is this: the law doesn't say OFCOM can assume to know anything about AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS. Indeed, the law states OFCOM's Code is to REFLECT the likely expectations of the AUDIENCE (i.e. regular 'adult' channel viewers).

Of course, what the law allows and demands isn't how or what OFCOM have chosen to implement. The spirit and letter of the law is clear - the AUDIENCE are supposed to direct the bounds/limits based on THEIR OWN EXPECTATIONS. In OFCOM's last survey of general viewer attitudes toward sex and nudity, the majority of viewers expressed the opinion that sex and nudity in a sexy or sexual programme was MORE EXPECTED than in a general entertainment programme. Yet, as we see above, OFCOM's fucked-up view of what the viewers 'expect' allows full frontal nudity and close-up pussy, penis and penetration shots in general entertainment programmes whilst banning exactly the same content from sexual programmes aimed at audiences that EXPECT to see exactly that sort of content.

OFCOM are clearly discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation - i.e. those of us who have no problem watching and enjoying explicit sexual material (the sexually open minded) are having our needs and expectations needlessly refused, censured and banned simply because OFCOM don't seem to understand such material is legally available because it is safe for all and anyone that may view it.

There is NOTHING 'offensive and harmful' in material designed to cause sexual arousal. Indeed, all material produced within the bounds of what is considered legally obscene is in fact, and by law, HARMLESS and SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE THAT WANT TO WATCH IT - so says the High Court of England and Wales.

(11-03-2011 14:41 )IanG Wrote:  Indeed, all material produced within the bounds of what is considered legally obscene is in fact, and by law, HARMLESS and SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE THAT WANT TO WATCH IT - so says the High Court of England and Wales.

Don't worry, our day will come - just like it did in the 70s.

(11-03-2011 14:41 )IanG Wrote:  As we discovered on this forum last year, the majority of AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS of 'adult' channels are hardly ever met let alone 'exceeded' as OFCOM dare to incorrectly pronounce.

That 'Viewer Expectation' poll would suggest otherwise - 98 votes (expectations never or rarely reached) versus 102 (expectations often or always reached/often or always exceeded). The poll seemed to be structured in order to spread the 'positive' votes across more categories than the 'negative' ones, but when you bunch them together and tot them up, the 'ayes' outweigh the 'nays,' if only slightly.

Whatever the outcome of this poll (or any other, in fact), we have an organisation which seeks to impose its own morality on the British people under the spurious guise of "protection of children".

They also have the backing of this, and the previous, administration.

Full R18 on TV is a vote loser; naked girls on fta channels contribute to this situation, without a doubt.

Ofcon do not want sex on tv; they will make things up to fit this scenario.

(12-03-2011 22:40 )blackjaques Wrote:  Ofcon do not want sex on tv...

This is a sentiment that is easy to agree with - I did. As soon as I read it I automatically hit the 'thank you' button in agreement, but is it really as simple as that?

This thread was submitted for one purpose - to flag up examples of Ofcom's inconsistencies when it comes to sex and nudity on television - and this is does very well. But one thing I don't think anyone has fully analysed as of yet, is why it is only the babeshows they have such a downer on? If Ofcom are so againsts sex and nudity on television - as many on here agree is the case - the question as to why they allow such films as Antichrist and any of the other examples posted in this thread has to be asked.

It's blantantly obvious - whatever your views - that Ofcom don't like the babeshows, but surely the fact that films such as AntiChrist frequently air on fta, suggests they don't have a downer on sex and nudity per se. If they did, then they'd be throwing bogus regulations at Sky Arts and the like. So why aren't they?

One theory, of course, is that they know a high-profile and respected channel such as Sky Arts wouldn't stand for such nonsense and that they'd be told where to stick their made-up regulations. Is it simply that the babeshows are such an easy target?


[edit] Slightly off topic, but just seen an advert for Red Hot TV on Dave, of all places. Could this be an indication that the adult channels are getting a little more acceptance?

(14-03-2011 00:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  [edit] Slightly off topic, but just seen an advert for Red Hot TV on Dave, of all places. Could this be an indication that the adult channels are getting a little more acceptance?

red hot tv have had ads on other channels for a few years now.

First of all taking into consideration the amount of adult orientated material on the other channels outwith the babe channels and the fact that ofcom seem to be not all that bothered could maybe be seen as a positive leap forward, with time I think the general feeling on the babe channels from ofcom will probably be you know fuck it we're just going to have to accept them and move on, I once thought under a new government that ofcom would be disbanded but clearly that's just not now the case and unfortunately like it or not ofcom are here to stay but that doesn't necessary mean a continuation of the current climate of hounding that currently exists. The babe channels are getting stronger these days and to be honest are now widely accepted as just a bit of late night naughtiness by the general public. One day ofcom will listen to public opinion and if they can accept what the rest of the channels outwith the adult epg show then hopefully they might just begin to back off more on the babe channels and let things be. A disaster such as the recent tsunami in Japan really does put whats important into perspective. The 2012 prophecy could also come true so why worry about some lighthearted late night erotic material, I mean fuck we could all be dead tommorow anyway so we may aswell get as much fun out of life while we still can.

(14-03-2011 00:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  One theory, of course, is that they know a high-profile and respected channel such as Sky Arts wouldn't stand for such nonsense and that they'd be told where to stick their made-up regulations. Is it simply that the babeshows are such an easy target?

I think that hits the nail on the head. Ofcom can show their paymasters that they are doing something about something, and people aren't going to leap to the defence of the Babeshows, so they are a sitting duck. Seemples.

(14-03-2011 19:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  The 2012 prophecy could also come true...

Like the other 17 'end of world' prophecies that have gone before you mean?

(14-03-2011 19:09 )johnm Wrote:  

(14-03-2011 00:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  [edit] Slightly off topic, but just seen an advert for Red Hot TV on Dave, of all places. Could this be an indication that the adult channels are getting a little more acceptance?

red hot tv have had ads on other channels for a few years now.

What on mainstream channels like Dave? I've certainly never seen them on there before.