Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

Just got home from nightshift and SKY ARTS are showing naked states by that pretentious fuck Spencer Tunick, tits, ass, bollocks all in it's glory at eh lets see 7 O'clock in the morning exactly when kids could be watching, to be honest I couldn't give a fuck either way it's just that Ofcom deem it unacceptable at the same time for the babe channels which can be locked out unlike SKY FUCKING ARTS to cover up, they can't even get away with wearing Bikini's, once again double fucking standards being applied here!

The bizarre attitudes that pervade British society regarding sex and nudity must be in the blood. I remember as a youngster trying to stay up to watch Barbarella (especially the opening sequence) while my gran was babysitting. Mum bursts in from Bingo and orders me to bed much to my disappointment. 'You're not watching that filth!' she shouted. A month or two later I am sat watching the Wicker Man with mum and dad in the room when Britt Ekland does her naked dance and not a word was spoken, despite my pyjama bottoms bulging alarmingly (I added the last bit for effect, in reality no one would have noticed any difference). Why? Did my bingo loving mum have a deep seated hatred for Roger Vadim?
As far as contextual nudity and sex, something Ofcom keep spouting on about and what is harmful to children. If as a 10 year old boy I decide to sneak downstairs and grab a cookie and a glass of milk while mum and dad are asleep, what is to stop me firing up the tv, film 4 and whoa.......Rocco Siffredi in Romance, Margot Stilley in 9 songs or even worse, Kathy Bates in About Schmidt, possibly the most disturbing nudity ever committed to screen. Hang on a minute though, this isn't that gratuitous babeshow stuff, you know the pussy slip stuff that gets in your brain and eats it from the inside, no, no, no this is contextual nudity! 'Son is that you downstairs?' 'Yeah dad.' 'You'd better not be watching the babeshows!' 'No dad, no, just Rocco with a spear poking some French girl!' 'Don't forget son, it's only a film, it's in context and in blighty we don't do that sort of thing! Bloody French!'
When I was 11 my best mate's dad worked at a printers and got free magazines to proof and print, I got the final version as a freebee. Practical Photography, Amateur Photographer and a real arty one just called Photography. Apart from porn mags, which we also passed around at this age, it was the most nudity I had ever seen.
It is quite pathetic with the technology available to kids today to get so hung up about the babeshows. The BBFC have shown common sense in recent years but Ofcom quite frankly are a bunch of dangerous, interfering arses who are only interested in empire building and self preservation.
As for me, after all these years of being exposed to excessive nudity, sex and very little of it in context, I have done ok and I am unaffected.
At this point my wife has asked me , in the interest of balance, to point out that although my early experience of the Wicker Man has not harmed me in any way, she is thoroughly sick of me dressing in pyjamas, wearing a policeman's helmet and shutting myself in the spare bedroom and refusing to come out until she has danced naked across the landing smacking her buttocks, the walls and the spare bedroom door! Don't judge me too harshly.

(23-02-2011 17:14 )Webbiola Wrote:  The bizarre attitudes that pervade British society regarding sex and nudity must be in the blood. I remember as a youngster trying to stay up to watch Barbarella (especially the opening sequence) while my gran was babysitting. Mum bursts in from Bingo and orders me to bed much to my disappointment. 'You're not watching that filth!' she shouted. A month or two later I am sat watching the Wicker Man with mum and dad in the room when Britt Ekland does her naked dance and not a word was spoken, despite my pyjama bottoms bulging alarmingly (I added the last bit for effect, in reality no one would have noticed any difference). Why? Did my bingo loving mum have a deep seated hatred for Roger Vadim?
As far as contextual nudity and sex, something Ofcom keep spouting on about and what is harmful to children. If as a 10 year old boy I decide to sneak downstairs and grab a cookie and a glass of milk while mum and dad are asleep, what is to stop me firing up the tv, film 4 and whoa.......Rocco Siffredi in Romance, Margot Stilley in 9 songs or even worse, Kathy Bates in About Schmidt, possibly the most disturbing nudity ever committed to screen. Hang on a minute though, this isn't that gratuitous babeshow stuff, you know the pussy slip stuff that gets in your brain and eats it from the inside, no, no, no this is contextual nudity! 'Son is that you downstairs?' 'Yeah dad.' 'You'd better not be watching the babeshows!' 'No dad, no, just Rocco with a spear poking some French girl!' 'Don't forget son, it's only a film, it's in context and in blighty we don't do that sort of thing! Bloody French!'
When I was 11 my best mate's dad worked at a printers and got free magazines to proof and print, I got the final version as a freebee. Practical Photography, Amateur Photographer and a real arty one just called Photography. Apart from porn mags, which we also passed around at this age, it was the most nudity I had ever seen.
It is quite pathetic with the technology available to kids today to get so hung up about the babeshows. The BBFC have shown common sense in recent years but Ofcom quite frankly are a bunch of dangerous, interfering arses who are only interested in empire building and self preservation.
As for me, after all these years of being exposed to excessive nudity, sex and very little of it in context, I have done ok and I am unaffected.
At this point my wife has asked me , in the interest of balance, to point out that although my early experience of the Wicker Man has not harmed me in any way, she is thoroughly sick of me dressing in pyjamas, wearing a policeman's helmet and shutting myself in the spare bedroom and refusing to come out until she has danced naked across the landing smacking her buttocks, the walls and the spare bedroom door! Don't judge me too harshly.

Webbiola, that is a brilliant and funny piece. Everyone of a certain age i'm sure will appreciate that.

Figleaf: The Biggest Cover Up In History
BBC 4, Mon 21 Feb midnight to 1am

I had company, flicked though safe channels and parked on this. Left the room for a few minutes while some topless paintings that Queen Victoria gave to Prince Albert were discussed.

Came back in to find a full screen black and white minge.

Here is a detail from the show of a statue on Notre Dame cathederal. They may actually be holding an apple, rather than greeting a friend, but certainly suggestive, and Ofcom would have a fit if a babeshow showed anything similar.


Here is detail from Florinda, a gift from Victoria to Albert in 1852


Here is a shot of Iris Messenger of the Gods, from the Rodin Museaum. A close up followed a few seconds after. So my visitors saw that while I was out of the room. No wonder they were grinning.


Finally the minge. Not as big as I remembered, but I did change channels very quickly.


OK, it was a show about artistic censorship, so perhaps I should not have been surprised, but arguably making a documentary about sex is simply a thin excuse to show nude images.

(24-02-2011 01:43 )eccles Wrote:  Figleaf: The Biggest Cover Up In History
BBC 4, Mon 21 Feb midnight to 1am

I flagged this up already, about a week ago or so. Pretty shit really, but another example of Ofcunts double standards.

(23-02-2011 17:14 )Webbiola Wrote:  Hang on a minute though, this isn't that gratuitous babeshow stuff, you know the pussy slip stuff that gets in your brain and eats it from the inside, no, no, no this is contextual nudity!

Makes you wanna fuckin weep, don't it? Brilliant post, by the way!

Again, more proof that the babeshows are getting unfairly treated. Here is some other examples:
SkyArts1, 'Naked States' was broadcasted at 6am to 7:30am Monday and contains full frontal nudity.
Fiver, 'Girls guide to 21st century sex' was broadcasted last night at 10pm and contained uncensored hardcore material.
Now, correct me if i'm wrong but at 6am onwards on a weekday, is that not the time that most families are getting kids ready for school and whether in context or not a more likely time for kids to view tv.
The reason why most of us are putting examples up here, is for those in charge of the babeshows to use as evidence against Ofcom for being unfairly treated and in hope that you (babeshows) use them to get Ofcom off your backs and bring back the good old days because then everyone wins then, the viewers will get a better show and you'll (babeshows) get more revenue. It is a win win result.

I thought nudity was not allowed before 9pm except in documentaries, so that's a clear breach of the rules.

When Girls Guide was first broadcast there were shedloads of complaints but Ofcom couldnt touch it because it was a documentary. But they made it clear that it was not to be repeated before 11pm.

How about 9am on Sunday morning. More full frontal nudity than you will ever see on the babeshows after 9pm (ever). Normally a one hour programme but edited down to the good bits.



Never mind context, young children have no understanding of this and would not want to watch, prefering some fun cartoon character that interacts and speaks with adults, Scooby Doo etc.
Pre-teens would sneak away prretending to clean their room and watch alone whilst cracking one off.
Mixed teen groups would blush with an embarrassed snigger but carryon watching and teasing each other with some of them wishing they were alone to crack one off, with one bright spark commenting something about the liberation of the masses to express their freedom in a state of nudity in a square normally used by the army to supress left wing fascists anti-authoritarian demonstrations.

Give it a watch and put yourself in Ofc@m's shoes given that you have received a complaint, no warning was given before this broadcast that it contained nudity.

Rules
Scheduling and content information

1.1 Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.

1.2 In the provision of services, broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect people under eighteen. For television services, this is in addition to their obligations resulting from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (in particular, Article 27, see Appendix 2).

1.3 Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

Meaning of "children":
Children are people under the age of fifteen years.

Meaning of "appropriate scheduling":
Appropriate scheduling should be judged according to:

the nature of the content;
the likely number and age range of children in the audience, taking into account school time, weekends and holidays;
the start time and finish time of the programme;
the nature of the channel or station and the particular programme; and
the likely expectations of the audience for a particular channel or station at a particular time and on a particular day.

1.4 Television broadcasters must observe the watershed.

1.7 For television programmes broadcast before the watershed, or for radio programmes broadcast when children are particularly likely to be listening, clear information about content that may distress some children should be given, if appropriate, to the audience (taking into account the context).

Nudity
1.21 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context.

Principle
To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.

Rules
Generally Accepted Standards

2.1 Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.

2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.(Note to Rule 2.2: News is regulated under Section Five of the Code.)

2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of "context" below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

Meaning of "context":
Context includes (but is not limited to):

the editorial content of the programme, programmes or series;
the service on which the material is broadcast;
the time of broadcast;
what other programmes are scheduled before and after the programme or programmes concerned;
the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally or programmes of a particular description;
the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience;
the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience for example by giving information; and
the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares.

So your homework this week lol and using less than three paragraphs, challenge Ofc@m. Phrases such as F@ck Off Ofc@m will be accepted pre watershed as long as it is used in context.

Young people are not capable of understanding context.

Thats why it makes sense to have tighter controls before the watershed.
Aside from genuine educational material nudity should not be on show during the day because of that.

(Actually I will qualify that by limiting controls to channels widely available to children, but thats another story).

To allow sex and nudity "in context" only makes sense if every viewer has the intellectual equipment to understand the context and frankly thats a wooly fantasy. Showing revolutionary violence on TV news shows terrifies kids however much adults may want to know what is going on. Kids between 10 and 17 just see smut, not a shakesperan actress baring her breast in a tender scene.

A sensible regime would distinguish between adult and non-adult broadcasting. Subject to suitable controls - time, channel, encryption - channels should be allowed to show adult content, without silly distinctions between adult drama, crime/forensics, horror and sexual content.