Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

You're missing my point

To expect to be able to see those things you mention is not ridiculous - I agree

But to expect them on these channels is

EDIT You are mistaking 'wanting' with expect.

You want to see them, but you cannot 'expect' something that is not on offer

(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?

Well all i can say is when i first had sky installed and came across the adult section i had to enter my pin number to access these channels as the sky engineers had set up my sky box in this way , so come 10pm i entered my pin only to discover to my dismay that all i could see was a pair of boobs and a bum with knickers on, so the channels fell short of my expectations of what i could see on a adult section labeled 18+ when i could see full frontal nudity on channels not in the adult section, Also i always expect Amanda , Jemma J , Camilla , Caty Cole , Bailey , Sophia Knight and others to flash as the caps of all these girls flashing are always being posted on this forum, so my expectations is to see pussy flashing ..

(11-03-2010 19:38 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  You're missing my point

To expect to be able to see those things you mention is not ridiculous - I agree

But to expect them on these channels is

EDIT You are mistaking 'wanting' with expect.

You want to see them, but you cannot 'expect' something that is not on offer

Sooky makes a valid point. It also illustrates how Ofcom's use of weasel wording causes confusion.

Here is an extract from a marketing guide on "Exceeding expectations":

"So many companies boast they "exceed expectations" or "go beyond expectations." This is short-sighted for three reasons. First, customers are looking for companies to deliver exactly what they promise, not more, not less. Second, it sets up even greater grounds for dissatisfaction when companies fail to meet whatever promises they make. Finally, it is an unprofitable strategy. Customers vary in terms of profitability. Providing service above and beyond what a customer is worth in terms of profit does nothing but hurt the bottom line.


I'm happy with what Bangbabes has shown in the last few months.

I would say that some of the recent performances did exceed my expectations to what I had been accustomed to.
However, on the occasions that the shows did exceed my expectations, it wasn't to the point of causing offence.

I doubt many expect full on R18 to be broadcast free to view on the Babe channels, I also doubt that on the rare occasions that things do get hotter, the majority of people are offended.

No, it is our point that is being misunderstood. I don't only want to see the things Ian mentioned, I expect to see them - for all the reasons I gave in my last post and because I can see them anywhere else but in the 900s. There is NO 'adult material' anywhere - in whatever media you care to mention - that comes under these ridiculous regulations, so why do the 900s?

ScxiiSooky, I think we may be at crossed purposes. 'Expectations' are not Ofcom's to manage. Ofcom's duties are to protect the general public and specifically under 18s from harmful and offensive material. Ofcom openly admit there is no evidence of harm sufficient to ban R18 material under international law/agreements. As for offensive material, the TVWF/AVMS make it quite clear this pertains to sexist and racist attacks - i.e. 'hate speech'.

Ofcom themselves have launched a hateful attack on the liberal and broad-minded people of this nation simply because we actually ENJOY watching material designed to cause sexual arousal. This material is not offensive nor is it harmful, it is simply sexy sex.

I do not deny some brainwashed arseholes take offence at seeing other people indulging in sexual activity but, this is simply a matter of opinion and it cannot and does not cause traumatic harm, alter one's personaility or undermine one's standing in society. The same cannot be said for a racist attack by say, jihadist islamists hell bent on stirring up hatred to go on a spree beheading 'infidels'.

Now, Ofcom have produced no evidence whatsoever to support any of the under 18 protections they rely on to fine the babe channels and ban R18 from encrypted 'adult' services. These rules are completely unnecessary in a democractic society, they are indeed illegal under Human Rights law and case history. Indeed, the mythological protections against unknown harm Ofcom rely upon are identical to those applied by the BBFC prior to the High Court ruling in 2000. The High Court ruling states in no uncertain terms that hardcore material cannot be banned because there is no evidence of it causing significant harm to under 18s that DO get to see it - no ifs, buts or 'mights', porn is harmless to all and sundry. It's harmless because sex is an integral part of human existence and no creature that relies upon sex for its own survival can in anyway be harmed by a knowledge of its means and reason for existing - the laws of evolution simply do not allow for such an outcome.

Society (i.e. nonsense beliefs and culture) can certainly damage one's perspective on sex. Ofcom clearly are tainted by and part of this damaged, illiberal, fascist, dogmatic religious minority cult that haunts British society. About 1 in 5 people actually agree with Ofcom's rules. The other 75% - the vast majority of people - think adults should be free to choose to watch whatever they want - i.e. whatever they EXPECT to see in 'adult' entertainment.

Ofcom NEED to produce real evidence of the harm they are supposedly preventing. Until such time, they are unlawfully and needlessly infringing upon the rights of adults to watch proper 'adult' material and are fraudulently taking monies with menaces from the 'adult' channel operators.

Ofcom should be educating parents how to secure their equipment against unauthorised access by children (or indeed, protect themselves from inadvertent exposure to pornographic material). I have a fairly old Matsui DTR/STB that someone gave to my mom. In the channel configuration/EPG I have the ability to 'Delete', 'Rename' and 'Lock' ANY channel I choose. Unlike the $ky system, Freeview doesn't require parents to divulge the PIN number to children to view anything which hasn't been 'locked' (i.e. PIN protected by the parent). Indeed, children need never know what channels have been removed from the EPG via the Delete option. The point is only parents and guardians are in the right place at the right time to decide what's fit for themselves and their children to watch. Ofcom have neither the right nor power to dictate what any other adult in this land CAN and SHOULD be able to watch on TV if they so choose.

And that's the bottom line. Unless you (all of us) stand up for our right to be treated like adults living in a free country then, we will inevitably be treated like kids in a fascist dictatorship. If you don't fight for your rights then, you don't have any rights, indeed, you don't deserve any rights.

Just because muslims have rules that say they must pray 5 times a day to Allah doesn't give them the right to force atheists to pray 5 times a day to their load of fiction. Likewise, just because Ofcom believe a similar load of bullshit, doesn't give them the right to tell me what I can or can't watch or what 'adult' channels can or can't broadcast. If the material is legal according to the laws of the land then it is legal to broadcast - end of. It is thus Ofcom's job to educate those who do not wish to view such material in order to protect themselves and, in so doing, respect the fundamental legal rights of every other adult in this land to view adult material at their own discretion.

(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?

I obviously missed this post when it was originally made and I have to say I am having major difficulties understanding it.

The fuel for these expectations is the fact that they are adult channels, designed to be watched by over 18's as the frequently broadcast warnings keep telling us.

Therefore, I expect to be able to see the same level of material on the channels as I can see from adult films with 18 certificates that are freely broadcast on other parts of the Sky platform. Given the subject matter, I expect to hear certain language used by presenters when I can hear that same language used freely in those same films.

That is where the expectation comes from. When I first started watching these channels, there was full frontal nudity, there were sex toys (albeit with no penetration) and there was the kind of sexual language you would expect to see from channels broadcasting to an over 18's audience. Again, that contributed to what I expect to see on channels like these.

The fact that these channels don't show material of that kind at the moment still does not change what I expect to be allowed for broadcast and neither should it alter my expectations in any way.

For example, if the 8.00 bus continually turned up at 8.10 every morning, it wouldn't then automatically follow that my expectations that it should turn up on time should be altered just because of the status quo that currently existed.

Spot on.

I hope Sooky sees this reply as I felt she totally misunderstood the issue.

As you say, what these channels currently deliver is neither here nor there, it's what we logically expect to see from channels of this nature that is the nub of the argument.

Ofcom defend their position by saying that the babe channels constantly exceed this generic expectation. We say this is nonsense and based on bias and prejudice, rather than reasoned and empirical argument.

But where do these expectations come from, given what the scope of these shows has always been? With the exception of Babestar (very much an anomaly), the free to view unencrypted programmes have always been providers of glam-core/soft-core material. This is a type of live adult material that these shows helped to pioneer. These shows aren't somehow biding their time until Ofcom gets zapped. They're a fully developed category apart. Their stock-in-trade has always been glamour, teasing, and suggestive rather than explicit erotica. The babes real personalities at the moment still count for something and find expression through the shows (less so than in the early days of Babestation, Babecast and LiveXXX, but that element is still there, and it's important; they haven't yet become Babestar-style automatons). They provide something complete in itself, not necessarily a watered down version of what we'd get if Ofcom went away. In any case, if beautiful legs get you more aroused than a clit-shot then this material isn't watered down in any way, shape or form; it's pure promised land material in itself! Welcome to the world of multitudinous tastes!

Since others have stated what they expect/don't expect from these shows, I will too. I expect the shows to remain consistent and loyal to the live soft-core interactive request structure that they helped create and develop. I expect them to maintain their specific character and independence within the adult entertainment sphere. I expect to see solo or sometimes girl/girl soft-core glamour performances that aren't explicit and that have an element of creativity and that leave the imagination room to work in. I don't expect to see hours of clitoral close ups, depersonalised dildo ramming/sucking and drearily monotonous sex slang talk. As MARCCE says, that stuff can be found in other places. We don't need en masse replication across the 900 channels. The babe shows are one of the only places you can view the softer material that many find more of a turn on. This material has an audience and needs a outlet.

Most of the time, at least one or two of the shows provide me with what I want, and that would seem to be the same story for quite a few others here, to judge from the poll result. Of course things aren't perfect; you'd have to create your own bespoke private channel to achieve that, but I'm satisfied with the content more or less. My areas of concern would be: picture quality, camera-work quality and the size, style and placement of screen graphics. I wouldn't want to see a dip in the quality of the former, and I especially wouldn't want to see the latter get out of hand.

(16-03-2010 21:47 )Addison Wrote:  These shows aren't somehow biding their time until Ofcom gets zapped. They're a fully developed category apart. Their stock-in-trade has always been glamour, teasing, and suggestive rather than explicit erotica.

They provide something complete in itself, not necessarily a watered down version of what we'd get if Ofcom went away.

Addison, in the above excerpt of your post, i believe you've hit the real crux of this "argument". Anything else is for a different argument.. which is where the majority of the posts before me are relevant.

(16-03-2010 21:47 )Addison Wrote:  In any case, if beautiful legs get you more aroused than a clit-shot then this material isn't watered down in any way, shape or form; it's pure promised land material in itself! Welcome to the world of multitudinous tastes!

The babe shows are one of the only places you can view the softer material that many find more of a turn on. This material has an audience and needs a outlet.

The other excerpts, also highlighted above, is why not only do i like/watch these babe shows, but also why, with the what i stated at the very top in mind, the shows generally do reach my expectations. I say generally, as, like you stated yourself, anything more/else would have to be a bespoke channel geared to your own personal tastes.

(16-03-2010 16:30 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I hope Sooky sees this reply as I felt she totally misunderstood the issue.

I misunderstood nothing - I merely don't agree with the supposed issue.

I do not and never have expected anything other than what is currently on offer from the 900 channels

If you must have issue, take it up with the pin protected, subscription based 'porn' channels

I would expect porn from them - instead of the watered down stuff they broadcast.

From the babe channels - I do not see why anyone would expect anything other than what is currently on display. Nor do I think it is fair for you all to assume that what you want is the majority norm

A poll on this forum does not constitute accurate data

EDIT: Also, have none of you considered the fact that the shows themselves may well not want to be too explicit? What would be the point in having more explicit photos etc available on their subscription websites if you could see it for free on the tv?