Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(22-11-2011 10:27 )Grawth Wrote:  I take it as final proof (if we needed it) that the babe channels just don't WANT to take on Ofcom.

This is correct, but as much as it pisses off we, the viewers, they don't feel they have any need to.

I remind you all again of my theory/thread from long ago, Are the fanboys to blame for the current state of the babeshows?

People keep saying in these Ofcom threads that the babeshows are heading for death, but I just don't see it. The phones are still ringing almost constantly, people are obviously still paying £3, £5 for pics of the babes (despite being able to get them off the net for free) and I don't see any solution. We have no right to expect these fanboys to boycott the shows if they're happy with what they're getting (and many obvioulsy are). It's their money.

We also have to remember that those of us who are unhappy with Ofcom's treatment of the babeshows are very much in the minority - a quick look at the number of signatures on the petition is proof of this.

I honestly don't see what else we can do but wait for the tide to change.

It could be argued that it's a good thing the babe channels have to watch their use of language. It forces them, or should force them, to be more inventive. Restrictions encourage creativity, which is probably why explicit porn can be so dull and repetitive, scenario and dialogue-wise: producers of hard material have the freedom to come up with whatever they like, and what do you end up with? Same old same old. They return again and again to the same scenarios and slang words.

(23-11-2011 12:08 )Addison Wrote:  It could be argued that it's a good thing the babe channels have to watch their use of language. It forces them, or should force them, to be more inventive. Restrictions encourage creativity...

So when are we going to see some of this inventiveness and creativity that Ofcom's restrictions force?

(23-11-2011 18:22 )StanTheMan Wrote:  So when are we going to see some of this inventiveness and creativity that Ofcom's restrictions force?

If you don't take inventiveness and creativity to mean greater explicitness, then you see bits of it here and there. The re-emergence of Elite's bath-tub set (albeit with the wrong babes in it from my point of view!) is a small example. I think the shows have become duller, but not solely because of Ofcom pressure. Probably the fact that there are far more shows competing for business than there used to be has made them all more cautious and sheep-like (one channel does a bit of a roaring trade with the secretary desk set, and before you know it, half the day shows have adopted the same type of set and outfit combination). There isn't the breathing space so much any more to give new concepts time to catch on and become popular.

(23-11-2011 18:22 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(23-11-2011 12:08 )Addison Wrote:  It could be argued that it's a good thing the babe channels have to watch their use of language. It forces them, or should force them, to be more inventive. Restrictions encourage creativity...

So when are we going to see some of this inventiveness and creativity that Ofcom's restrictions force?

Storm/CP have already pioneered this. Their brave experiments in existential angst are boldly enacted through the vignette of a semi nude female lying on her side motionless for hours, in an unchanging and claustrophobic setting.

She has suncream on her chest to resemble wasted male ejaculate, symbolising the essential impotence of individuality. The same monotonous piece of music plays endlessly for hours, underlining the inescapable nature of death, no matter what we do.

(23-11-2011 18:48 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Storm/CP have already pioneered this. Their brave experiments in existential angst are boldly enacted through the vignette of a semi nude female lying on her side motionless for hours, in an unchanging and claustrophobic setting.

This got covered a good while back. The babes that hardly move are trying to tap into and drum up business from the freeze-fetish viewership.

Lying motionless on a bed represents a babes state after having been shagged through multiple orgasms by a fanboy for an hour. Or it could be a metaphor for the British economy.

The half bottle of sun tan lotion is an obvious reference to the fanboys activities, and is banned by Ofcom, so the inventiveness referred to has resulted in something thats banned.

Sadly most channels demonstrate sod all interest in departing from a mediocre format and attract very little enduring brand loyalty. If a few foreign licence holders step in their businesses will turn to dust as quickly as a vampire in the sahara.

BANNED LYNX ADVERTS

Rather depressingly 6 Lynx adverts have been banned as degrading to women. Personally I cant see anything offensive in Lucy Pinder sucking a lolly, getting dressed is normal content for a deodorant advert, as is feeling like snogging, but theres no accounting for taste.

A compilation of the ads, with advertising slogans that might make sense removed, can be found at http://youtu.be/TINKZocTd-4 (embedding has been blocked for some reason, cant think why).

Heres how the Daily Mirror reported it:

Six raunchy Lynx adverts, one featuring lads' mag pin-up Lucy Pinder, have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) after attracting more than 100 complaints.

A poster for Lynx shower gel and five internet adverts for Lynx Dry Full Control deodorant must not be displayed in their current form after they were found to be degrading to women and likely to cause widespread offence.

The shower gel advert, which was circulated in July, attracted 113 complaints. The poster depicted a bikini-clad woman under a shower at a beach, with the headline: "The cleaner you are the dirtier you get."

The ASA said the poster "was likely to cause serious or widespread offence", particularly to members of the public accompanied by children, because it objectified women.

A summer internet advert campaign for Lynx Dry Full Control deodorant which featured Lucy Pinder in a series of provocative poses also attracted 15 complaints.

The five adverts, which were shown on sites including Yahoo, Hotmail and Spotify, showed the glamour model eating an ice lolly, stripping wallpaper or bending over an oven door.

The ASA concluded that the adverts were degrading to women and irresponsible because they had been placed on two websites, Rotten Tomatoes and Anorak, which "were not protected through age verification or other similar targeting".

A spokesman for Lynx said: "As an advertiser we strive to be responsible and observe strict guidelines for all brand communications. Lynx adverts often provoke diverse reactions and opinions but it is never our intention to cause offence."
Yeah, right.

What Id like to know is did the women who complained have their boyfriends permission to use their computers, and did they need any help?


http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/nov201...890315.jpg
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories...-23582467/

These armpit shagging do gooders need a nasty slap...Lynx ads are tongue in cheek, nothing more. I will now complain about the Moneysupermarket ad with the middle aged bloke in a pair of Speedos....and get nowhere as it is a bloe, not Lucy Pinder (serious scones Gromit)....

Now this is what SKY ARTS are showing at the moment on Channel 245, well before the 9PM watershed, double standards if you ask me