(03-11-2010 00:43 )eccles Wrote:  

(01-11-2010 21:26 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  ... And how much of the "show us more" argument is actually driven by the fact that you can't currently see it? The channels deliver sexual content, surely that can't be denied. But I often wonder if people really want to see Danica's pussy simply because they haven't yet seen it. If the channels were allowed full nudity, wouldn't people just come on here demanding that penetration be allowed?

People have been demanding penetration since Ofcom started, at least on encrypted channels, and at one point thought it was going to happen.

Is part of the drive simply because Danica's pussy or whatever is banned now? If that were allowed on FTA would we be back next week asking for more?

Yes and No. There is a tendancy to want more, but most babe channel viewers recognise there is should be a line between free and restricted channels, and actual penetrative s*x is a good place to draw that line.

What is frustrating at the momenent is the rules are so restrictive that the babes cant put on a natural act the way they might in a club. If the hand strays between the legs - even if innocently or absent mindedly - thats a potential 5-figure fine. You and I can tell the difference between masturbation type rubbing and scratching an itch, Ofcom cant or wont. Adjusting the thong might give an unintential flash. It happens on beaches, goes largely unnoticed and raises no more than a smile in those who do notice. Its over in a second, hardly time to knock one off. But to Ofcom its a serious breach, transmission of explicit sexual content, a "sex-work", and could lead to a 5-figure fine.

So the channels play safe with poses and clothing and warn the babes to be careful rather than carefree. When 90% of possible poses and combinations could lead to a fine they play safe, sticking to repetive safe formats and wooden acts. (The odd slip still occurs, but the overall climate is safe and restrictive).

Would pussy be the end of civilisation if allowed on free channels after 11pm? Or similated sex acts that a loon could mistake for real? No, otherwise it would not be allowed in serious drama.

Would R18 on encrypted channels be the end of civilisation? No, it might even be civilising. No-one will watch it without actively seeking it out and humans have been having sex for literally hundreds of years.

But would allowing full blown close up penetration lead to demands for more extreme material? Yes and No. There will always be a few people with bizarre minority tastes, but that doesnt mean they are the majority. For most men the natural limit of desire is penetration and the money shot because thats how nature made us.

(03-11-2010 21:33 )eccles Wrote:  fair enough MrMann, but from a censorship point of view theres not a huge difference between dildo use and full boy-girl. If one is banned the other probably will be too.

(04-11-2010 21:20 )mrmann Wrote:  The Naked Office is on channel 114 Living now, and there is a male penis in full view and uncesnored. This is a show with a bit of comedy, and doesn't seem educational to me. So a penis is fine for comedy, but a vagina is not allowed on an adult channel??? Wow, even further proof that many of the people at Offcom find vaginas to be disgusting and harmful.

(04-11-2010 23:38 )HenryF Wrote:  No MrMann, you are wrong. I think context is key in this particular case. The penis in question was positioned as a post-modern, neo realist homage to Brunellesci. I can't believe you didn't spot that.

(04-11-2010 23:45 )mrmann Wrote:  I like your sarcasm! You were being sarcastic, right?

(05-11-2010 00:04 )HenryF Wrote:  

(04-11-2010 23:45 )mrmann Wrote:  I like your sarcasm! You were being sarcastic, right?

Yup. I'd love to be in on an Ofcom sanctions board meeting - all trying to outdo each other to be the most politically correct. Some of their decision making process is Pythonesque.