Encryption Of Channels

I have been a subscriber to the Playboy, TVX and Redhot channels in the past and have also ordered ppn channels a few times and there always seem to be inconsistencies between the rules and the content broadcast.

Now all of the channels show stuff with the letterbox screen blocking certain things on the top and bottom of the screen and they all have content where the camera moves away just as things are about to get interesting. However, every so often you will clearly see content that from what I can understand is not supposed to be shown.

I remember when watching TVX, in particular on the shows with 'amateur' content, there were several examples from female solo scenes where you would see vaginal penetration with fingers and toys albeit for a just a split second, until the camera pans round. Again in b/g scenes there would be moments where you'd see penetration and fellatio for a couple of moments.

I ordered the newish ppn channel Playboy Lesbian the other night and I was really shocked to see some of the content when compared what we're used to with encrypted content. Now there would be 3 or 4 scenes in a row with the typical letterbox display and bastard camerwork. However there was a scene every so often that showed prolonged pussy rubbing, cunnilingus for up to a few seconds at a time, clear vaginal penetration with fingers and dildos again for a few seconds.

Now I don't know whether Playboy are allowed special dispensation because of their name because I can also remember their subscription channels showing similar content, with the most stand out thing being pussy rubbing. Playboy channels will show this without cutting away until the inner-lips are exposed, whereas if I can remember the TVX and Redhot channels barely show pussy rubbing at all.

I'm just wondereing whether anyone can clarify the rules and why one set of channels show a lot more than the others.

What Ofcon state is that no R18 images can be shown at any time.

The reality is that All the channels break this rule from time to time.

Thi smay be in the form of erect penises, cunnilingus or urination. ( It is interesting to note that, since a recent statement by BBFC, urination has not been shown by the Climax channels whereas it was ra regular feature).

The two great No-No's by Ofcon are full-on penetration and fellatio.

Penetration is permissable if shown from the side or the top.

Fellatio is pemissable on a real penis if it is shown in sillhouette or full-on on a plastic/rubber penis.

Given that Ofcon's reason to censor these images is only because of child protection, I am left wondering how the above permitted imagery is suitable for children.

There are no studies that I am aware of which categorically stae that it is fine for children to view fellatio performed on a rubber penis but not ok for them to view the same activity on a real penis.

There are certainly no grounds to fine a broadcaster up to a 6 figure sum for showing proper fellatio, I.M.O.

Of course, even if all these children who Ofcon say are watching the encrypted channels night after night DID see these activities, the High Court ruled that was no evidence of harm to minors from viewing such imagery.

Ofcon are, of course, imposing their own narrow-minded views on the viewing public just because they can.

There's nothing much we can do about it, I'm afraid, unless there is someone out there with the balls and money to take the bastards on for their absolute and total bollox.

In a word, no.

There are no rules as such, just an unjustified ban on the broadcast of R18-type material.

You must ask yourself whether the odd glimpse of penetration or inner labia would actually sell at, or qualify for, the R18 category? - I suggest it would not. R18 is for full-on, in your face, close-up sex. Indeed, the only thing which distinguishes explicit sex in standard 18-rated films from the same at R18 is whether the primary purpose or intent of the film as a whole is to cause sexual arousal - aka 'context'.

Apparently making films that are designed to turn people on requires a Restricted-18 (R18) adult classification category to ensure adults can only purchase such material from licensed sex shops. However, placing hardcore sex scenes in standard 18-rated films made with some purpose other than sexual arousal means anyone can buy them from a high street video store. Of course, if this system was designed to protect the easily offended from seeing unexpected real sex scenes in a mainstream film then its clearly flawed. Moreover, if the public are happy to have real sex in mainstream films (as the BBFC's consultations show) then there seems little point in continuing with the unnecessary restrictions on R18-type material (that are now out-of-date and out-of-touch with modern attitudes).

You hit the nail on the head with the word "inconsistent".

Technically even one frame of penetration or genital contact is R18 unless it is judged to be of a genuine plot reason (context). Whether such a short glimpse would see for R18 prices in a sex shop is neither here nor there.

Ofcom seems to take the line than clear prolonged scenes of R18 strength material should be treated as real R18 and banned, but fleeting glimpses are permitted within some kind of error tolerance.

It could be argued that if a shot is long enough to start wanking to then it should be treated as R18 but if it is too short to even get flies undone, let alone get hard, then it is safe to tolerate it. This can be justified on the grounds that if scenes are too short for sexual gratification then they do not make the product more commercially attractive.

There are of course arguments against that, but Im not here to do Ofcoms job for them.

The other point is that brief glimpses might not add commercial value, but as other people have said, if there is any risk to children it is probably similar regardless of duration because it is about exposing them to ideas. And the child safety argument is the ONLY justification for banning R18 as Ofcom decided adults could exercise choice.

A reason why the odd flash is probably tolerated is the people have to make a conscious decision to pay to watch the channels. The subscription channels dont seem to grass each other up, Ofcom doesnt go out of its way to look for trouble and even the Daily Mail isnt bothered. Without complaints the odd indiscetion gets overlooked. Not having casual channel surfers helps.

Hey guys love the rants about ofcom but switching topic why can't we campaign for studio 66 or rlc to use one of their channels to go encrypted?

Nothing can be done to stop ofcom but I'm sure the idea of encryption can be shot to the producers or whoever the hell is in charge

Basically rlc has 5 channels with the unexpected end of that Latina channel so wouldn't logic suggest that they use that spare channel to offer something different? Can be on a trial basis, atleast give it a go lol.

Get the feeling most girls are against the idea but what about the guest pornstars? What about Sydney jj?

Love to hear ur thoughts

It's been discussed elsewhere, and I just made a post about it in the Studio66 section.
The problem is that it seems to be economically un-viable to run an encrypted channel on Sky. Cellcast run BSX on freeview, but Sky charge a lot for encryption. This means it's not really viable on Sky, and on freeview, well RLC only have one fv channel, would they really want to dedicate that to encryption, and Studio66 have no fv channel at all.
The big advantage Cellcast have over the others is that they have 4 freeview channels, so they can dedicate one to encryption, and still have 3 free-to-view dedicated to their phone channels.

Oh didn't know this topic was previously discussed, oh well looks like there's no hope for change then

Not worth £20 a month to sky to watch 1 channel.

(01-12-2012 22:48 )arron88 Wrote:  Not worth £20 a month to sky to watch 1 channel.

I agree if this was the case, but I may be wrong but I thought the idea was that we want some sort of 'harder' show free to air, not subscription dependant?

(01-12-2012 23:07 )mido Wrote:  

(01-12-2012 22:48 )arron88 Wrote:  Not worth £20 a month to sky to watch 1 channel.

I agree if this was the case, but I may be wrong but I thought the idea was that we want some sort of 'harder' show free to air, not subscription dependant?

Well that's certainly what I want. There are already plenty of stronger subscription channels out there - albeit not of the liveshow variety - and the day the babeshows go subscription or internet-only is the day I stop watching.