+- 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 - eccles - 08-06-2011 21:29
Just the Ad, not the film.
On an unrelated note, the BBFC have refused The Human Centipede 2 a certificate. Banned.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - shankey! - 08-06-2011 22:06
well if tonights live episode of embarressing illnesses is anything to go by thats what i call bad taste before 9pm a bloke live on cam showing his boil infested balls and an overweight woman showing of her spotty arse ,turned me right off my balti ;(
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scottishbloke - 08-06-2011 22:11
(08-06-2011 22:06 )shankey! Wrote: well if tonights live episode of embarressing illnesses is anything to go by thats what i call bad taste before 9pm a bloke live on cam showing his boil infested balls and an overweight woman showing of her spotty arse ,turned me right off my balti ;(
Yeah it seems that nudity is allright in the world of ofcom so long as it isn't a turn on and tonights episode was fucking disgusting and also well before the 9 O'clock watershed.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Tonywauk - 09-06-2011 08:52
[quote='Scottishbloke' pid='809875' dateline='1303694784']
Well no chance of seeing any sort of arty type theatre nudity on any of the SKY ARTS channels, it's a fucking sham, nothing but an entire weekend of showing Andre Rieu, nothing against the odd bit of classical music but this is really taking the piss now
What on earth has Andre Rieu got to do with so-called 'classical' music? He is as much a 'classical' musician as Katherine Jenkins is an opera singer.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scotsman - 09-06-2011 19:12
Mainstream nudity is accepted because of the context. It's either educational or part of a drama or whatever, it's all about context. The babeshows have nudity purely for sexual stimulation, which isn't allowed.
I don't agree with it, but it's been clear from numerous Ofcom reports that that's the case, so why does this arguement of mainstream nudity keep coming up?
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scottishbloke - 09-06-2011 19:34
(09-06-2011 19:12 )Scotsman Wrote: Mainstream nudity is accepted because of the context. It's either educational or part of a drama or whatever, it's all about context. The babeshows have nudity purely for sexual stimulation, which isn't allowed.
I don't agree with it, but it's been clear from numerous Ofcom reports that that's the case, so why does this arguement of mainstream nudity keep coming up?
Well I don't agree with this seeing someone present their testicles at the time of night when it was broadcast was fucking double standards, I mean I was eating my tea at the time and I just about threw up when I seen this repulsive site. A Fucking Boil on a testicle, I mean what the fuck put it away and it's also worth pointing out that no prior warning on the context of this programme had been given out before airing. Anyway what the fuck is wrong with the babe channels showing full nudity for sexual stimulation, Isn't that the whole purpose of these channels in the first place and furthermore what the hell is wrong with it. Sex and the right to be sexually stimulated is part of your basic human rights simple as that. It's either one rule for all or it just stinks of double standards. Ofcom should not be the judge, jury and decision maker on what we choose to watch in the privacy of our own homes. Sex is part of the human evolution and this right has to be respected, no questions asked.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - blackjaques - 09-06-2011 21:33
(09-06-2011 19:12 )Scotsman Wrote: Mainstream nudity is accepted because of the context. It's either educational or part of a drama or whatever, it's all about context. The babeshows have nudity purely for sexual stimulation, which isn't allowed.
I don't agree with it, but it's been clear from numerous Ofcom reports that that's the case, so why does this arguement of mainstream nudity keep coming up?
Yes, that is the crux of it. Ofcon will not allow us to get sexually stimulated.
A TV regulator, our moral guardians & the social services all rolled in to one. That's value for money. Aren't we lucky in the UK?
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - shankey! - 09-06-2011 22:13
(09-06-2011 21:33 )blackjaques Wrote:(09-06-2011 19:12 )Scotsman Wrote: Mainstream nudity is accepted because of the context. It's either educational or part of a drama or whatever, it's all about context. The babeshows have nudity purely for sexual stimulation, which isn't allowed.
I don't agree with it, but it's been clear from numerous Ofcom reports that that's the case, so why does this arguement of mainstream nudity keep coming up?
Yes, that is the crux of it. Ofcon will not allow us to get sexually stimulated.
A TV regulator, our moral guardians & the social services all rolled in to one. That's value for money. Aren't we lucky in the UK?
but surely ofcom realise that if nudity is shown no matter what the programme people will still find it stimulating,if i am watching an opera and theres some girl on bollock naked my body is going to react no matter what the shows about the same could be said about anything in general, if your fetish is feet does that mean ofcom will sanction adverts for shoes?if you get my meaning,its impossible to censor certain things and not something else without it affecting somebody, i dont think anyone is rallying for hardcore sex to be allowed, just the same as the rest of europe ,which we are supposed to be a part of
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 10-06-2011 01:16
You get turned on by Art? What a perv. Its pure and beautiful, not wank material.
Next you will be telling me Michelangeos David was wank material for gay Italian nobelmen. How could anyone gay/female look an image of a slim young naked man and have impure thoughts?
Ofcom would argue that the bollock boil was medical education and the shock value might actually make some people go to the doctor and get treatment. It was repulsive so noone would get turned on, so thats OK. It could be worth arguing that some of the mingers on the niche babe channels would not get anyone turned on, so it would be all right for them to brazenly stuff fingers up their fannies. I DIDNT NAME ANYONE, DONT GET EXCITED. And personally I find the sight of a fit busty blonde a turnoff, like many men I was frightened by one as a child, so it would be all right to watch one getting down.
There is a large constituency of men who would benefit from medical and sexual education. We are men so definition we avoid going to the doctor until it is too late. The babes are best placed to demonstrate how to perform a testicular examination (with help from the cameraman) and will be guaranteed to get our attention in a way that Eamon Holmes would not. Sorry if I have put you off your food again.
And we need sexual/relationship advice, right? Otherwise we wouldnt watch babe channels? So demonstrating how to please a woman is in the public interest. Tonight: How to find the clitoris. Tomorrow: How to put up shelves. The day after: How to pretend to be interested in what a womans mother says. Next day: Oral sex, right and wrong way.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scotsman - 11-06-2011 10:47
(09-06-2011 19:34 )Scottishbloke Wrote:(09-06-2011 19:12 )Scotsman Wrote: Mainstream nudity is accepted because of the context. It's either educational or part of a drama or whatever, it's all about context. The babeshows have nudity purely for sexual stimulation, which isn't allowed.
I don't agree with it, but it's been clear from numerous Ofcom reports that that's the case, so why does this arguement of mainstream nudity keep coming up?
Well I don't agree with this seeing someone present their testicles at the time of night when it was broadcast was fucking double standards, I mean I was eating my tea at the time and I just about threw up when I seen this repulsive site. A Fucking Boil on a testicle, I mean what the fuck put it away and it's also worth pointing out that no prior warning on the context of this programme had been given out before airing. Anyway what the fuck is wrong with the babe channels showing full nudity for sexual stimulation, Isn't that the whole purpose of these channels in the first place and furthermore what the hell is wrong with it. Sex and the right to be sexually stimulated is part of your basic human rights simple as that. It's either one rule for all or it just stinks of double standards. Ofcom should not be the judge, jury and decision maker on what we choose to watch in the privacy of our own homes. Sex is part of the human evolution and this right has to be respected, no questions asked.
I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out their reasoning for it which I can completely understand. Showing some guys boil on his ballsack is exploitative from Channel 4, as most of their programming is, but it's under the guise of a proper show with good reason to be showing disgusting nuts. The babe shows have no other reason behind them than sexual stimulation for the purposes of selling their product. Whether or not that's right or wrong or whatever is completely irrelevant as it's Ofcom's ruling and that's that. It may be shit, but it is the way it is.