Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

From todays TV magazine in The Times:

Quote:The Tudors BBC Two 8pm (19 Feb)
...And the night before her beheading, she asks for the executioners block to be brought to the Tower so she can practice laying her head on it. In the nude, of course. As the write Michael Hirst has said, "Showtime commissioned me to write entertainment, not history."

So not artistically justified then.

(19-02-2011 16:14 )skateguy Wrote:  At the moment though, I can't think of a valid reason why this difference in their core purpose should matter. Why should nudity be allowed in programmes that are produced to entertain and inform, but not in adult programmes that are produced to sell? Does this difference make the odd flash of nudity in an adult sales-oriented programme more harmful, unbearable or sinister? To me, logic would suggest that a programme "who's principle aim is to make money from selling sex, nothing more nothing less" would be permitted to show an equal if not greater level of nudity.

I couldn't have put it better, skateguy, but let's just remember one thing; Ofcom are a bunch of kunts who have no concept or understanding of logic, or any of the above analyses. We're wasting out time - end of. That's where these Ofcom discussions end as far as I'm concerned*


*Until I next decide to stick my worth in, of course.

(19-02-2011 15:30 )andyct5 Wrote:  this all seems a bit pointless.

One idea is to compile evidence about the hypocracy and sheer stupidity of regulations that tits fanny and fuvking are OK if actors are reading a script but not if they are being spontaneous.

Smell The Roses said "All the programmes that have been mentioned in this thread, whether they be drama or documentary, they all have one thing in common. The main purposes for them is to entertain" but erotic entertainment is not different, just a sub-category of entertainment. At the end of the day ITV, Five, Bravo, Sky Sports all exist to make money for their shareholders, not because of some higher artistic calling. Even Meryn Braggs fatuous South Bank Show was only shown on ITV to tick a box in ITVs licence conditions, not because Lew Grade was actually interested in the Peruvian Nose Flute.

Agree with Stan below (or is it below after I click Submit?). Problem is Ofcom do not have an open mind, made their minds up long before any consultation, and misuse public funds to keep the Daily Mail off their backs.

I myself think the rules set out by Ofcom regarding the type of nudity is totally illogical to say the least. But saying that, many on these boards would like to see a pay channel that would be encrypted, and to me that is every bit as illogical as anything Ofcom can come up with. Why is it okay to see nudity if you can pay for it, but not if you can't. To me the logical way out would be to have encryption, but have it free to view. I know that I am far from being the first to suggest this. But if there is any better suggestion I have yet to hear it.

My earlier posts went against what the main posters on here said. But what I find with these Broadcasting Regulation threads are you can disagree and still get on with other posters, the same cannot be said elsewhere.

So as long as you all know that I am never wrong. I can't see a problem,

Quote:not because Lew Grade was actually interested in the Peruvian Nose Flute.

Damn i missed it

sorry if this has been said before but this is simple...if u wanna see how one sided mainstream nudity & babeshow nudity is simply watch the film antichrist, which was show in cinemas all over the country...it shows an hard penis (ok fake, but looks dam real) that gets hit with a lump of wood by his wife, who them wanks him off till he cums pure blood!!! then his wife open her legs & wanks (you see all the lips & so on) then she cuts off her own lips with a pair of scissors....now if for one thought you couldnt show male or female genitals on tv or film unless its art or whatever way they get round it!! also the the amout of violence that goes along with it is simply mind blowing. dont get me wrong i love horror & have no problem with the film myself....but it sure shows an inconsistency in what the people in control shows.

(20-02-2011 18:11 )smell the roses Wrote:  ... To me the logical way out would be to have encryption, but have it free to view. I know that I am far from being the first to suggest this. But if there is any better suggestion I have yet to hear it.

Agree with you, every other genre regards subscription as simply a commercial decision. Antichrist has been seen on both Sky Arts free apart from £1 a month subscription to the Lifestyle package, with no age verification, and on premium channel Sky Inde. Given time it will pop up on Film 4 totally free.

Late at night adult material should be allowed for entertainment except on the main public service channels.

It has been argued that Sky charge a shedload of money for encryption, but using the usual PIN code costs Sky nothing. What does cost Sky is processing a credit card payment.

Only point I would disagree with you on is R18, where the standard is to have a higher standard of protection.

after watching tonights shows(sunday) all i can say it cannot possibly get any worse ,i simply cannot believe in this day and age that this country still has hang ups about the human body ,whether it be in art form eroticism or of medical instance, has it really changed that much since victorian times when cartoon drawings were passed amoungst the gentlemens clubs and bars amid fears of being prosecuted for pornographic images by the law of the land,, further to this the japenese whos own country is strictly ruled by censorship find entertaining shows to broadcast out like quiz shows where you win a prize if you have sex and inseminate your own mother is this what ofcom mean by entertainment which requires the content to allow all nudity?

Slightly off track, but relevant.

Daily Mirror 19.02.11 Wrote:Two teachers have been suspended after sex pictures of them were allegedly found on a school computer. As the allegations do not involve children, parents want the teachers back. One said yesterday: "Everyone has a private life. This is theirs."

Makes a nice change from the usual anti-sex rant.

Now a sane and balanced article from the Daily Mail about new London nightspot "The Box". Reporters are not allowed in, which explains near identical articles in the Daily Mail and Evening Standard, with photographs. Heaven forbid that anyone would suggest they are carefully contrived publicity releases.

Not clear how much real naughtiness goes on, but the point is that Prince Harry and Emma Watson are among well known visitors. If it is OK for the heir to the throne to watch erotic entertainment, why not the rest of us?

Daily Mail 20th February 2011 Wrote:Harry and the den of debauchery: Naked dancers and shouts of 'drugs are good' inside prince's latest haunt
Tucked out of sight down an alleyway in Soho, the London outpost of The Box would be easily missed by those not in the know.
But patrons whose names are on one of the most exclusive lists in the capital can pass through its etched glass doors into an atmosphere which can only be described as deliberate debauchery.
Within dark-red walls covered in mirrors, visitors find a smattering of transsexuals, a gang of braying bankers and entertainment which would make Peter Stringfellow blush.
It’s not, however, the old Soho world of peepshows. Instead The Box is billed as a ‘theatre of varieties’ – a concept which translates as cheap thrills for those with expensive tastes.
The Box started in New York, and that's where Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz were spotting kissing on Valentine's Day. The Lower East Side hotspot has also entertained Jude Law (an advisor), Kanye West, Lindsay Lohan and Lady Gaga.

Celebrity patrons in London already include Keira Knightley, who reportedly had a naked lapdance from a tattooed male artiste last week, and Prince Harry, who visited last weekend after dinner with on-off girlfriend Chelsy Davy. He was so impressed that, in his capacity as best man for Prince William, he is considering approaching certain acts about performing on his brother’s stag night. ...
... ‘When the main show ends at around 3.30am, a selection of guests are invited upstairs to the VIP area for what is described as a “more titillating” version of the show.’
...
The idea for the London branch of The Box came to him two years ago. Well-connected friends including Ben Elliot, nephew of Camilla Parker Bowles, assured him that there would be quite a market for more of the same in the UK.
He also had enthusiastic support from Simon Cowell, who enjoyed an outrageous performance by some of the New York artistes at his 50th birthday party in 2009.
...
He was granted a licence with ease. A spokesman for Westminster Council says: ‘The licence was granted after consultation with police and other groups; we believe that the operator is reputable and well regarded, and we don’t really have any concerns about it.’
Neither, clearly, do the string of royals and celebrities who have beaten a path to his door

(16-02-2011 00:11 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Saw an advert for the new series of Skins on E4 showing naked men and women falling from the sky eventually becoming fully clothed, but cannot locate anywhere. Never watched the series but here's some clips.

Don't know about the new series but the most recent broadcast bulletin shows some people (5) were offended by the falling people being naked, even after the watershed.

Programme Transmission Date Broadcaster Categories Number of complaints

Skins (trailer) 10/01/2011 E4 Nudity 2

Skins (trailer) 12/01/2011 E4 Nudity 1

Skins (trailer) 17/01/201 E4 Nudity 2


Read it and weep, some people need to get a sense of proportion.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue176.pdf