Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

I think we should have the option of seeing more explicit material, but that it's all up to the show and to the women, with what they want to show. I really don't care about very explicit material, but I do think we should be able to see the women fully nude, without them covering up. Not to sound perverted, but it almost feels a bit childish when the women are showing us their breasts and bums, but have to cover up their vaginas like it's a disgusting thing to look at! These are the 900 channels!!!!! Any child who happens to be watching these shows is not raised well, and it's probably a rarity for a child to be watching since they're most likely in bed. Plus, the parents can always put a lock on it. There should be a way for us who aren't calling, to see them full frontal, either by switching to a different channel, or by paying a certain fee for the fully nude show. They will be making even more money this way, as well as the money that the callers are giving to them. Not showing full frontal seems a bit immature and hypocritical in a way. You know what I mean?

mrmann, I know exactly what you mean. The purpose of this poll was to show whether Ofcom's claim that the 'vast majority' of viewers' expectations were exceeded by explicit nudity in a sexual context. The results show that around 50% of viewers don't expect anything less and around 20% are quite happy with such displays - that's assuming people read the intro and know what Bangbabes output prompted Ofcom's bogus claim. As Amanda's Bangbabe thread has had over 190,000 hits in the few months she's been there, I'm fairly sure most of the voters know the type of content we're talking about.

I'm also sure there are many viewers like myself that have been watching these channels from their inception. Up until Ofcom published their wonderous new Code, full nude, exposed gentials and XXX encrypted shows were fairly routine. In fact the ITC stopped the first displays of masturbation on FTA channels and forced them to go encrypted - this then was the de facto 'status quo' Ofcom inherited and claimed to be maintaining but, there's little evidence to show that was ever their intention and indeed, plenty to show Ofcom misled the public as to their true intentions to rid UK TV of any real 'adult' entertainment. What we are left with is, by Ofcom's own 'standards' and precautionary proclaimations, perfectly suitable viewing for kids under 18.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Ofcom's own research should have concluded that after midnight there are virtually no under 18s watching TV thus after midnight real 'adult' material can be safely provided for the over 18s. It should also be noted that IF more explicit material were available at earlier times then there's nothing to suggest parents wouldn't take more care and notice as to what their children might be viewing - and that can only be a good thing in the cause of child protection. Too much censorship and nannying lulls people into a false sense of security, which can then lead to neglect or indifference when we know only too well the price of true freedom is eternal vigilence. Insipid subconscious propaganda, social conditioning and misplaced trust in Governments to 'do everything right', is a recipe for disaster. The degree of censorship by any country/Government is to my mind the litmus of how well that country/Government respects human rights and the liberty of its own people. Britain's record on such matters is, to say the least, atrocious.

(20-02-2010 03:12 )IanG Wrote:  If you paid for a subscription channel, do any of them measure up to your logically higher expectations?

I haven't paid for a subscription channel very often, but they provide more than non-subscription channels.

(03-03-2010 14:18 )aaron Wrote:  

(20-02-2010 03:12 )IanG Wrote:  If you paid for a subscription channel, do any of them measure up to your logically higher expectations?

I haven't paid for a subscription channel very often, but they provide more than non-subscription channels.

They may provide 'more', but do they actually meet your expectations? You hear the freeview ads claim "the hardest/strongest material on UK TV", think "that sounds good", pay your money and then get 'what'? Is it the least bit 'strong' or 'hard'? You see no more than you can in a top shelf mag available from any newsagent. You see less than you can in an 18-rated movie on a general entertainment channel like $ky movies or Film Four. As far as I'm concerned its a con...instigated, controlled and engineered by Ofcom themselves. And oddly enough, I don't expect to get conned - what the fuck is the point of Ofcom if they can't protect people paying for TV services? The ads should bear a large warning saying "These programmes do not conform to any known BBFC rating. Purchase at your own risk and be prepared for a total let down...".

what i find strange is 2 numpty put it exceeds there expectations. there probably the dickheads that take the vids from the forums bray the shit outa there 2 inch cocks and then send a complaint to ofcom...

(03-03-2010 14:18 )aaron Wrote:  

(20-02-2010 03:12 )IanG Wrote:  If you paid for a subscription channel, do any of them measure up to your logically higher expectations?

I haven't paid for a subscription channel very often, but they provide more than non-subscription channels.

the material they supply is barley stonger than there adverts. all penetration shots are either disguised by sum1s hand or removed all together. its a blatant con job saying we provide the hardest adult?entertainment, when they blatantly cant. you can see equally strong or stronger sexual scenes on any of the none adult epg channels any day of the week. yet people get coned into it with seductive wording.
Xrated? its a fucking joke and in no way meets or surpasses expectations.

(10-03-2010 16:56 )Hexit Wrote:  the material they supply is barley stonger than there adverts. all penetration shots are either disguised by sum1s hand or removed all together. its a blatant con job saying we provide the hardest adult?entertainment, when they blatantly cant. you can see equally strong or stronger sexual scenes on any of the none adult epg channels any day of the week. yet people get coned into it with seductive wording.
Xrated? its a fucking joke and in no way meets or surpasses expectations.

EXACTLY.

What Ofcom should be doing is protecting consumers from ambiguous advertising practices and 12 month contracts which you signed up to on the basis of misleading advertising promos.

Also, one pay per night channel that did show full, uncut R18 strength hardcore: XXXstasi, was shut down by Ofcom on the basis of a complaint from "a rival broadcaster". The record fine issued to TVX for showing R18 hardcore on a "free-view", to entice subscribers (Antonia Backstage Live) also came from a rival broadcaster.

Add this to the admission that Bob Paradiso made, that the recent complaint he received originated from someone in the industry and this goes to show that the "rules and codes" that Ofcom are enforcing are being used by certain broadcasters to maximize their hold on profits, not to protect viewers.

I've said before, any retailer confident in their product won't insist on a minimum contract term. The mobile phone companies and Sky do, but only to recover the cost of the kit they "give" away.

Not only does the material stop short of being hardcore, there are so many repeats that after the first month it becomes unusual to see something different, and after two months it becomes rare.

I'll know more satisfying content is available when the big players have no minimum contract period and don't charge over the odds for it.

Also it used to be a bad sign that so many shows were 25 or 30 minutes short, but that's no longer a good indicator as some channels seem good as cutting 120 min films to give 85 minute broadcast versions.

Look out for non-mimumum contract period and no set up fee.

But don't hold your breath.

Despite my better judgement, I got directed to this page and I have opted to comment. This will not be a regular occurance

(09-03-2010 19:06 )IanG Wrote:  About half the viewers feel this type of material only just meets their expectations. Indeed, pussy flashes, pussy licking and lollipop insertions are likely the kind of thing which, I for one, take as a rare occasion when the material meets my expectations

Really?

So you regularly 'expect' things of this nature to happen on these channels? What fuels these expectations? What is it about the channels that leads you to expect these actions as the norm?

You can only 'expect' things if it is part of the regular norm of a channels output. These occurances are not part of the norm, therefor how can they be part of your 'expectations'

I think part of the issue in all this debate is the confusion between 'expectation' and 'enjoyment'

These occurances would undoubtedly be occasions when the material meets your enjoyment, but to expect them is frankly ridiculous

The channels are what they are....does it really matter?

Moderator Note: The above quote from IanG originated from a different thread in this post here: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid369116

(11-03-2010 19:27 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  Despite my better judgement, I got directed to this page and I have opted to comment. This will not be a regular occurance

(09-03-2010 19:06 )IanG Wrote:  About half the viewers feel this type of material only just meets their expectations. Indeed, pussy flashes, pussy licking and lollipop insertions are likely the kind of thing which, I for one, take as a rare occasion when the material meets my expectations

Really?

So you regularly 'expect' things of this nature to happen on these channels? What fuels these expectations? What is it about the channels that leads you to expect these actions as the norm?

You can only 'expect' things if it is part of the regular norm of a channels output. These occurances are not part of the norm, therefor how can they be part of your 'expectations'

I think part of the issue in all this debate is the confusion between 'expectation' and 'enjoyment'

These occurances would undoubtedly be occasions when the material meets your enjoyment, but to expect them is frankly ridiculous

The channels are what they are....does it really matter?

Oh, nice one, SxciiSooky. The most unhelpful and potentially damaging post to our cause yet. Let me answer for IanG - not that he can't (and won't) do so himself, but I can't contain myself here.

We are adults. We have access to channels that are aimed at adults, situated in the Adult section of Sky's EPG and which can be blocked by any concerned parent. Why the hell, therefore, is it 'frankly ridiculous' to expect content of the nature Ian suggests? What we're seeing now hardly exceeds a cert 15, let alone 18. We can access net porn, watch 'non-adult' channels, buy top-shelf magazines and adult dvds from shops, all of which happily (and legally) display all those things Ofcom are so intent on protecting us from on the 900s.

Does that answer your question?