(08-01-2011 22:44 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Context. It's a word Ofcom like to use often, isn't it? But can anyone explain the thinking behind their logic which says an explicit shot of a vagina is 'potentially harmful' on a babeshow, but not if shown in some film on film4? And do Ofcom really think the children they're puporting to protect actually understand context anyway? If their argument is that such images are potentially harmful to children, why does it matter where they see it?

(08-01-2011 23:45 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 22:44 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Context. It's a word Ofcom like to use often, isn't it? But can anyone explain the thinking behind their logic which says an explicit shot of a vagina is 'potentially harmful' on a babeshow, but not if shown in some film on film4? And do Ofcom really think the children they're puporting to protect actually understand context anyway? If their argument is that such images are potentially harmful to children, why does it matter where they see it?

Can you tell me Stan,where the kids see it because I can never find it.

eccles Wrote:Context is vitally important in explaining why it is ok to have explicit images in a serious Channel 4 documentary aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy. A 15 year old might find it a turn on, but they also get turned on by suggestively shaped clouds and table legs. But any other explicit content is almost always avoidable if the producer tries. I recently saw Lake Placid 3, cert 18, and the blurb warned it contained strong sexualised nudity. True enough an attractive young couple go skinny dipping in the first few minutes, the girl mounts the man and he suddendly moves so his head is between her legs. Turns out hes being pulled by a crocodile. (No! not "pulled" that way). Definitely not suitable for family viewing. But the scene could have been filmed less sexually. Or from a distance. Or replaced with something else. If a film or TV drama absolutely depends on graphic sex to establish a plot point then it has probably been written as a vehivle for sex, rather than the sex being a byproduct.

(09-01-2011 01:35 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Sorry, eccles, I'm not sure if that's meant to be taken as a serious theory to Ofcom's logic Re. context, or purley ironically.

Either way it still doesn't explain - given that children can't be expected to understand context - why Ofcom think explicit nudity is harmful if shown on a babeshow, but not if in some 'controversial' film.

(09-01-2011 14:46 )burnt toast Wrote:  I remember that being on VIVA a while back. Strange logic that makes it okay for a programme to show cocks and full frontal nudity on position 21 in the Freeview guide and yet not at 90+.