Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(21-06-2011 13:24 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(20-06-2011 23:21 )eccles Wrote:  Yup, two complaints about TV licencing adverts, and Ofcom chose to dismiss 78 complaints about a trailer for Diagnosis Live.

But they also chose to dismiss the two about TV licencing adverts, to be fair.

I'm not surprised the trailer got that many complaints. I thought it might when I saw it. Some guy, adjusting what what the viewer is led to understand is a webcam, before stripping down to his undies and positioning himself (provocatively) on his sofa. The two Doctors then appear as his 'viewer' and ask what the problem is. He stands up and drops his pants (camera now behind him showing his bare arse).

So Ofcom think that's okay as a peak time ad (I could be wrong, but I don't think it was restricted to post-watershed airing) but get all upset and wary about female nudity on an adult channel at 3 O'clock in the morning.

You know, the more you analyse Ofcom's stance on the babeshows, the more ridiculous their attitude seems (if that's at all possible by now)

To you or I it certainly is but to an organisation on a crusade to keep filth off British TV it is a perfectly reasonable position. Throw in a large portion of sycophancy and you have the perfect ingredients for a censorious regime which WILL NOT allow explicitness on the tele.

(23-06-2011 20:51 )blackjaques Wrote:  

(21-06-2011 13:24 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(20-06-2011 23:21 )eccles Wrote:  Yup, two complaints about TV licencing adverts, and Ofcom chose to dismiss 78 complaints about a trailer for Diagnosis Live.

But they also chose to dismiss the two about TV licencing adverts, to be fair.

I'm not surprised the trailer got that many complaints. I thought it might when I saw it. Some guy, adjusting what what the viewer is led to understand is a webcam, before stripping down to his undies and positioning himself (provocatively) on his sofa. The two Doctors then appear as his 'viewer' and ask what the problem is. He stands up and drops his pants (camera now behind him showing his bare arse).

So Ofcom think that's okay as a peak time ad (I could be wrong, but I don't think it was restricted to post-watershed airing) but get all upset and wary about female nudity on an adult channel at 3 O'clock in the morning.

You know, the more you analyse Ofcom's stance on the babeshows, the more ridiculous their attitude seems (if that's at all possible by now)

To you or I it certainly is but to an organisation on a crusade to keep filth off British TV it is a perfectly reasonable position. Throw in a large portion of sycophancy and you have the perfect ingredients for a censorious regime which WILL NOT allow explicitness on the tele.

But they don't appear to to be crusading to keep "filth" off the television or "explicitness" - they seem to be accepting it in inappropriate programmes because of some misplaced thought that it is "essential to the plot" whilst operating a policy of censoring it in places where it would not be inappropriate. It just doesn't make sense!!!!

Check out Sky 248 now. Amateur Porn.

(26-06-2011 21:09 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Check out Sky 248 now. Amateur Porn.

Cheers for that oh yes a documentary on a mainstream channel which easily could be accessed by minors, yet the babe channels aren't even allowed to show anything this graphic at this time of night on channels that can easily be blocked via the 4 digit pin code, yet more double standards, not that I'm complaining though Fuck me she is now performing a blow job

(26-06-2011 21:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  

(26-06-2011 21:09 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Check out Sky 248 now. Amateur Porn.

Cheers for that oh yes a documentary on a mainstream channel which easily could be accessed by minors, yet the babe channels aren't even allowed to show anything this graphic at this time of night on channels that can easily be blocked via the 4 digit pin code, yet more double standards, not that I'm complaining though Fuck me she is now performing a blow job

I'm not really into porn but it is just symptomatic of the duplicity of the current situation - it makes my blood boil!!!

(26-06-2011 21:09 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Check out Sky 248 now. Amateur Porn.

It's the programme which feature Natalie Heck.... and she gets ripped off.....

(23-06-2011 21:31 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  But they don't appear to to be crusading to keep "filth" off the television or "explicitness" - they seem to be accepting it in inappropriate programmes because of some misplaced thought that it is "essential to the plot" whilst operating a policy of censoring it in places where it would not be inappropriate. It just doesn't make sense!!!!

The difference is that "filth" & "explicitness" on the channels would be sustained for hours, probably from about 22:00 to 05:30.

In addition, if Ofcon allowed full R18, they would have to allow it on the gay channels too. Can you imagine the religious nutters dealing with that?

They also fear, I believe, an explosion of free porn around when subscribers record the programmes.

They are not going to allow it.

(27-06-2011 06:03 )blackjaques Wrote:  The difference is that "filth" & "explicitness" on the channels would be sustained for hours, probably from about 22:00 to 05:30.

In addition, if Ofcon allowed full R18, they would have to allow it on the gay channels too. Can you imagine the religious nutters dealing with that?

They also fear, I believe, an explosion of free porn around when subscribers record the programmes.

They are not going to allow it.

I'm not attempting to promote porn on the FTA channels - I am arguing for some consistency.

It would not undermine the foundations of society if a model on a babe channel occasionally showed her pussy.

At the same time we are often exposed to gratuitous and unneccesarily extreme content in programmes which purport to either educate or "push the boundaries of taste" whilst using the mantra that it is for artistic reasons.

It is absolute bollocks - the hypocritical agenda is nauseating - many of these guys who are driving this are fully paid up members of the dirty mac brigade - they just havent been caught - yet............

(27-06-2011 18:45 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  At the same time we are often exposed to gratuitous and unneccesarily extreme content in programmes which purport to either educate or "push the boundaries of taste" whilst using the mantra that it is for artistic reasons.

Exactly! How much longer are Ofcom gonna fall for this 'artistic/educational' shite? Has anyone ever watched the one with the two Aussie female presenters? How the fuck does that cheesy, patronising pile of festering crap get away with playing the 'educational' card??

The R18 gay argument is stopping normal people enjoying HC. Simple fact. Odd considering so many artists, critics and MPs are gay, you would think they would be campaigning for R18, not against. Bite the pillow Norman!!