+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity (/showthread.php?tid=28022)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Digital Dave - 05-04-2011 10:10
(04-04-2011 23:52 )StanTheMan Wrote:(04-04-2011 19:47 )Digital Dave Wrote: I haven't heard of a Louis Theroux doc on the babe shows but there was a very entertaining one made around 2005 which featured babe shows and one of the more extreme religious channels (Revelation TV).
I've been looking for it ever since as a download but never found it. It featured TVX and a new startup called Girl Fever which lasted just a few weeks. The dickhead running it hadn't a clue and to make matters worse his studio got burgled. He then revealed that he had no insurance cover!
I think the doc was on BBC3 if anyone's ever heard of it. It was certainly in a Louis Theroux style.
I think that was it, Dave! I remember the plonker getting his studios burgled and not having insurence or something. I also remember something about the 'Ofcom-safe' knicker check that the girls had to go through each night. Was this the same show?
Anyway, if this was on BBC3 then it definatley wasn't Louis. I haven't emailed him the idea, by the way, cos there's not a single place on the whole www that has a contact for him.
Arron88's reminded me of the title 'Porno, Preachers and Peddlers', originally broadcast on BBC3 in July 2006:
http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-12526/episodes/414472
Stan, the Ofcom-compliant knicker check was indeed part of the same show - they got the documentary maker to do the inspection at TVX, very funny!
You can contact Louis Theroux via his agent:
http://www.capelland.com/pages/broadcasters/index.asp?CID=154
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - StanTheMan - 05-04-2011 23:28
(05-04-2011 00:45 )eccles Wrote: It wouldnt have been Luois Theroux because if I feel the urge to spend time in the company of nerdy twats I go to work.
You have the taste of a dog turd, eccles
Yes, I know, that insult doesn't even make sense, but DON'T DISS THEROUX!
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - StanTheMan - 05-04-2011 23:32
(05-04-2011 10:10 )Digital Dave Wrote: You can contact Louis Theroux via his agent:
http://www.capelland.com/pages/broadcasters/index.asp?CID=154
Thanks, Dave. I have already been PM this same link, but thanks anyway. As well as suggesting a doc on the babeshows, I want to ask why such a high profile journalist has such a SHIT website. I could design him a better one with my fucking eyes shut. Check it out:
http://louistheroux.com/
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Digital Dave - 06-04-2011 00:26
(05-04-2011 23:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:(05-04-2011 10:10 )Digital Dave Wrote: You can contact Louis Theroux via his agent:
http://www.capelland.com/pages/broadcasters/index.asp?CID=154
Thanks, Dave. I have already been PM this same link, but thanks anyway. As well as suggesting a doc on the babeshows, I want to ask why such a high profile journalist has such a SHIT website. I could design him a better one with my fucking eyes shut. Check it out:
http://louistheroux.com/
Jesus, you have a point, that's terrible! We could alert the Westborough Baptist Church to his lack of web skills, I'm sure they'd have a field day! I'm enjoying their tweets on Twitter, totally loony but entertaining.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 06-04-2011 01:04
(05-04-2011 23:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:(05-04-2011 10:10 )Digital Dave Wrote: You can contact Louis Theroux via his agent:
http://www.capelland.com/pages/broadcasters/index.asp?CID=154
Thanks, Dave. I have already been PM this same link, but thanks anyway. As well as suggesting a doc on the babeshows, I want to ask why such a high profile journalist has such a SHIT website. I could design him a better one with my fucking eyes shut. Check it out:
http://louistheroux.com/
Dont diss the man Stan.
He probably got the software from a cereal packet, and as he says its his first attempt. Hes only had a year. Curious that he describes himself as a BBC journalist yet uses a "4" logo in the address bar. Still its totally in keeping with his faux innocent image and not bad use of technology for an arts graduate from the older generation (pushing 40).
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 06-04-2011 23:39
I know its fast becoming a cliche to mention Sexcetera, but specifics matter.
23:40 Sky channel 122 LivingIt today. Sexcetera.
Its the one about German rubber fetishists.
Caught a glimpse of a clit ring and a full frontal pus*y. The ring was visible for a second or two, the full frontal showed a standing woman from knees to head for 5-10 seconds, so not close up, but similar strength to some european channels. Either of these would be sufficient to get an adult channel a severe reprimand. Later a clearer open legged shot was pixellated, the ones mentioned above were not.
Then we were shown a woman in rubber having her hands tied to the end of a bed - restraint is a big no-no with the BBFC. The woman then had fingers intrusively thrust into her mouth while it appeared that a woman with a strap on was vaginally penetrating her - this was not clearly visible but implied by the position and "a viewer could reasonably believe it to be real" as Ofcom might put it.
A photograph in the background showed a woman drinking from what appeared to be a large clear bowl of urine.
This was followed by a segment on a swingers dating site and a swingers club. Communal sex was shown, no detail but what was happening was unambiguous.
A naked man was shown with bound testicles having something poured over his clearly visible (flacid) penis.
Very brief shot of what appeared to be a butt plug getting rammed somewhere, but too brief to be sure.
Short scene featuring a man identified as "Gelding" whose penis was shown being stretched in ways that looked very uncomfortable, painful even.
A woman was shown with about 6 pegs or clamps attached to each breast.
23:55 Pixellated close up image of a naked woman lowering herself onto a large dildo in a public club. Pixellated but flaps could just be made out. The fit young woman then proceeded to deep throat a grey double ended didlo, taking about 6-10 inches down her throat. This was not pixellated. This took place in front of a large audience "which would have the effect of raising the erotic impact" as Ofcom might put it (Im thinking of their comments about Asian Babes).
00:00 A woman is being banged from behind by one man while she eats out another woman. Her mouth can clearly be seen on the other womans genital area and a small amount of displaced outer labia may be visible. No pixellation. Similar in strength to encrypted live sex shows.
00:02 Two fit naked young women on a boat. One has open legs towards the camera, the other is vigorously masterbating her. Pixellated but pretty clear what is going on. This strength material - shown from a greater distance - got SportXXX in trouble years ago when they ran pixellated pre encryption shows.
COMMENTARY
This is an unencryped channel outside the adult area. It is in the low numbered channels, reflecting relative popularity (Sky recently reorganised, putting more popular channels nearer 100). The show is repeated frequently, so it is hard to argue that it has a serious educational or informative role - it quickly becomes a repeat that imparts no new information. This suggests that the shows are for erotic entertainment/sexual arousal/humour in order to sell advertising space or bolster subscriptions (only available with a viewing card).
Ofcoms survey into public attitudes showed that while there was acceptance of sexual content, either for genuine dramatic effect, documentary purposes/sex education or in discreet adult entertainment channels, there was unease and markedly less tolerance of "perverse" sex such as anal, watersports, bondage, S&M and group. In other words the average Daily Mail reader accepted straight sex and full on nudity, thing they might be exposed to in their own bedrooms, but not stuff that went beyond their own personal boundaries.
The relevance of this is that that Sexcetera, on a general entertainment channel aimed at a mixed audience has featured a range of so called "preverse" sexual activities that would be sufficient to require a babe channel to have mandatory encryption regardless of the degree of nudity.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - StanTheMan - 06-04-2011 23:42
I like to tell myself it's not even his site, eccles, just someone masquerading as him. There's no way his agents would let his official website stink up cyberspace like that.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 06-04-2011 23:49
Not what I was looking for, but still interesting
From UTakMarketing
ASA rules in favour of orgasms before 11pm and clears Durex advert
Apr 8, 2009
It's a good day for the marketing industry and we've now a new found form of respect for the Advertising Standards Authority as it ruled that women may orgasm on TV before 11pm.
The ruling followed a complaint regarding an ad for Durex "pleasure gel" that showed a montage of women having an orgasm to the tune of the Queen of the Night Aria from Mozart's Magic Flute.
The campaign was given a post-11pm restriction by the TV ad clearance body Clearcast, but ran on Channel 4 at 10.05pm, prompting the complaint that it was "offensive and overly graphic".
The ruling proves, says the ad industry, that the regulatory system will be effective in controlling any explicit ads when a ban on condom commercials before 9pm is waived.
Channel 4 said it ran the TV ad before the 11pm restriction because from "time to time" it deemed that ads should be run next to "appropriate programming" earlier in the evening. The Durex ad ran just before the film Venus in a "conscious scheduling decision".
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - SneasleyWipes - 06-04-2011 23:53
DId anyone watch the Crimson Petal and THe white?? That is sure to get loads of ofcom complaints, because there was minge and some tits straight after 9:00pm two situations of doggystyle, one cleaning herself in a bowl with abrush, one fingering although not shown was audible, one reflected simulated blowjob off a mirror on the ceiling. THis is based of a book. BUt the trailers on BBc did not advertise it in this way, IM sure loads of people were shocked. IMagine kids watching it with their parents just after 9:00 pm. Im sure it will be somewhere in the news in the next days. Its on the BBC iplayer now.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 07-04-2011 00:07
Jack Wills Catalogue Advert Banned
Although aimed at 18-22 year olds who must have an age verified account to receive the catalog, the ASA banned some Jack Wills clothing adverts on the grounds that younger people could get hold of the catalog.
Heres what they were worried about
![[Image: article-1373842-0B7CDFDF00000578-74_233x320.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/06/article-1373842-0B7CDFDF00000578-74_233x320.jpg)
Helpfully family newspaper the Daily Mail published the offending photo today in an article about the ad. No chance of young people getting hold on mummys paper is there.
Retail Gazette reports that "Another retailer in trouble with the ASA today was B&Q which produced an advert showing a women insulating a loft next to the tag line “easy to install”.
The ASA ruled that the advert was irresponsible as it showed the woman wearing no protective clothing, and so it was likely to be seen to be condoning unsafe practices."
Good thing they didnt have Frankie Boyle doing a voiceover suggesing Katie Prices son could install it, or Mexicans, or they really would have been for the high jump.