+- 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: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 03-03-2013 01:44
A big problem is lack of honesty. Most people I work with freely admit to drinking and many admit to smoking, but I have never once heard someone admit to having a wank or watching porn. The closest it ever gets is a wry grin and lack of denial.
Have you ever heard a friend or colleague say they are "just nipping out for a quick wank"? No, me neither.
This gives the people who are uncomfortable with the whole sex, nudity, squelching noises thing free rein to try and get it banned. Not one politician, public figure or pressure group apart from porn businesses themselves say a single thing in support.
Its as if any mention of providing for the poor, unemployment benefit, sate pensions, universal education and healthcare was automatically equated with the worst excesses of communism and anyone supporting those ideas faced pariah status, unemployment and definitely would not get elected as a Labour MP. (Feel free to substitute right wing alternatives like profit, motivation and letting incompetent businesses sink).
As for the precautionary principle, Ofcom have some explaining to do. It would be easy for them to write to Sky and ask them to ship Sky boxes with the Adult section locked on new boxes, and to use a different default PIN number so kids would not be able to access adult material unless their parents let them. This would cost Sky very little to implement. It would also be easy to ask manufacturers of Freeview boxes not to undelete channels when rescanned, particularly if auto rescanned. This might or might not be practical and low cost, but Ofcom have not even asked.
If you were in charge, believed that something risked "harm" to children and it was easy to do something about, would you, or would you say "Not my job"?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 03-03-2013 23:25
Eccles, something which I thought about was.
You look at alcohol, that used to be something that was seen as good and that now has the view of it isn't good for you and can cause cancer.
A child can drink who is 5 or older on private property (for the person who said about Children drinking)
You look at smoking, used to be something that was seen as good for you and now it isn't.
Porn has never had that, the adult industry has never really been seen in a good light, right from the ladies of the night when men often had a Jekyll and Hyde lifestyle, and this will never change, as it has been ingrained in our society for hundreds of years. This has extended to liking babe channels and what people think of them and what they do.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 03-03-2013 23:38
My big question for RCTV:
Do you think full frontal nudity on clearly labled adult channels after midnight is harmful, or anywhere near as harmfull as some of the violence and graphic sexual content on non adult channels?
Bare in mind, that we can see bare asses, breasts, ass smacking, bum licking, and partial full frontal already (Babestation) on these channels.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 03-03-2013 23:47
There is some shit on PickTV at 1am that involves sex or is about porn, not ever watched it, just seen it on and thought what shit is that.
I would say it would be harmful to some people to see full frontal nudity, but tbh it's not going to be many people up at that time.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 03-03-2013 23:54
Thanks, but do you think Ofcom really needs to ban this from labled adult channels at this hour, when it's just a natural body part, and when very few people who find this offensive will be up at this hour?
Sexcetera is still airing, and I once saw an episode about a man who mutilated his penis for pleasure, all uncensored, so to me and many others, that's far more offensive than a natural female body part.
One might argue that UFC fighting is more offensive as well, when it portays violence as something to cheer for, whereas the adult channels are only exploring the natural sexual nature of humans. That's what I find offensive, that Ofcom would allow a violent sport where people cheer another person on as they pound someone's face, yet a nude female body is not OK to them
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 03-03-2013 23:57
But that is labelled as something that is clearly about what it says. Babe channels are described as adult chat still I believe and there is no reference. I also think the fact that it is live broadcast has something to do with ofcom's stance.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 04-03-2013 00:08
An ADULT title is common sense, and IS clearly labled though, and UFC fights are also live much of the time.
The clear difference to me is that real life violence, even in an agreed upon match is OK, yet women going nude and showing a normal body part on TV channels with clear lableling is NOT.
I don't get it.
People are both violent, and both sexual, yet, sexuality is the one more commonly used, because it's NON violent and NON harmful.
Also, keep in mind that we're talking about full frontal nudity, not hardcore porn, violent porn or nasty fetish porn.
If I had a child, and they somehow managed to outthink me and the TV controller, let alone be awake and out of their room after 10pm (Under age 8, they'd be in bed much earlier), I'd much rather they saw an image of a woman's vagina, than someone getting their face pounded into a bloody pulp as people cheer them on. The message my child might gain from a nude woman is that "Huh, so that's what a nude woman looks like", whereas their reaction to real life fighting matches might be "Huh, so adults like violence and are violent people, ewww blood, this is disturbing". I'm not someone who's too restrictive toward certain types of violent movies, but I'm just making a comparison. At a very young age, what I find more possibly harmful is violence, than a woman's vagina.
What is more harmful to a young child in your eyes?
Or this, which is allowed:
Watch at 18:00 as the opponent punches Michael again, even as he is lying on his back, out of it. Take notice of all the blood stains on the mat.
My response to my child asking about a vagina: "Well, that's just a normal body part that all women have". "Why is she acting like that?" "She's acting like that because she's being funny, and because she wants the attention of a man, because when a man and a woman are at a certain age, they can have a baby together, just like me and mommy! Now, off to sleep."
My response to my child asking about the UFC moment above "Well, they were just playing". "Oh, well then I think the other guy was mad at the other man". "Yeah well...." "Um, well I guess sometimes certain people enjoy watching other men hit each other". "Why?". "I'm not sure, but it was all just pretend". "OK, yes it was real, but the other guy wasn't hurt". "You're right, he was". "The truth, is that violence sells, and people are violent and the world can be a shitty place". "Off to bed now, sweet dreams!"
LOL You get the idea
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 04-03-2013 00:51
fighting in the sport sense is very different to violence.
the babechannels are classed as teleshopping so aren't obviously involving sexual activity. Not sure what the information on sky information screen says, but it may not be obvious that it is adult, not 100% sure though. Also think that some of the channel names and programmes don't say anything about sexual chat, and just say about chat.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 04-03-2013 01:13
(04-03-2013 00:51 )RCTV Wrote: fighting in the sport sense is very different to violence.
the babechannels are classed as teleshopping so aren't obviously involving sexual activity. Not sure what the information on sky information screen says, but it may not be obvious that it is adult, not 100% sure though. Also think that some of the channel names and programmes don't say anything about sexual chat, and just say about chat.
The babe channels say ADULT on my SKY menu
How is fighting in the sport sense different to violence? It's real contact, with blood and sometimes broken bones, not pretend in movies or shows. People cheer on the blood as well, which is real life violence in a sense. It's not a moderate contact martial arts competition, but full on pounding someone into the ground for sport and fun, and this is allowed, yet a normal body part on clearly labeled channels after midnight is not.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - The Silent Majority - 04-03-2013 02:41
(04-03-2013 00:08 )mrmann Wrote: My response to my child asking about a vagina: "Well, that's just a normal body part that all women have". "Why is she acting like that?" "She's acting like that because she's being funny, and because she wants the attention of a man
What gender is your (presumably hypothetical) child?
We all know how much children mimic what they see on tv when playing amongst themselves, often in public places. If that's your response to a young girls question then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. There's no reason to suppose a young girl would be any less curious about what was being broadcast on a channel they weren't supposed to be viewing, than a young boy.
The bottom line is, it's the parents responsibility to ensure children don't have access to adult material at an inappropriate age, end of. Trying to argue that it doesn't really matter, that much, is just giving Ofcom the ammunition they need.