(20-02-2010 16:03 )Addison Wrote:  While there's talk of viewer 'expectation' here, I haven't seen much mention of the possible views of the babe themselves. What about their expectations? There seems to be an assumption that if and when Ofcom is defeated, the girls will all be dropping their knickers, parting their lips and thrusting dildos back and forth in marathon hardcore sessions. For starters, not all the girls will be up for that sort of thing. One of the most popular babes there has ever been, Tara Lee, never gave in to appearing in hardcore material or posing for full frontal shots; there'll be quite a few others like her (professional, reliable, popular babes who aren't going to be dropped from the rosters and replaced just like that, even if Ofcom and the like were to rendered powerless to influence babe programming).

Another thing is that while some (maybe many) babes across the shows have had some hardcore experience and would be prepared to go further if they were allowed to, how many are honestly going to want to hammer it hardcore for the number of hours per night/per week these shows are on air for? Psyching yourself up to perform in a video, with a fixed shooting schedule and finishing date, is one thing, but doing that sort of stuff from ten at night until half five in the morning several nights a week is something else.

It also has to be pointed out (yes, I know this is going to peeve you, Stan ) that a taste for hardcore isn't necessarily shared by everyone, or even by a large majority, here. "Non-hardcore-ists," remember, tune into these shows in order to help them rub out a good one, just like the hardcore crew does, so their objections to hardcore wouldn't be coming from any sort of outraged, Whitehouse-esque killjoy angle. They'd be based on the reasonable, practical fact that hardcore doesn't get them off like the more slowly paced, gentler erotic stuff does, and they wouldn't want to see their favoured sorts of material completely elbowed out of the road in the wake of a shake up.

There's more to all of this than just aiming to neutralise the influence of dastardly big brother watchdog organisations.

(20-02-2010 02:12 )IanG Wrote:  

(19-02-2010 18:03 )aaron Wrote:  This poll refers to the free channels in the adult section, not the channels shown under encryption, as it would be logical to have higher expectations of encrypted and paid for material.

This is primarily about the FTA babe channels - that claim by Ofcom relates to Bang Babes.

If you paid for a subscription channel, do any of them measure up to your logically higher expectations?

(27-02-2010 03:14 )IanG Wrote:  Winston_Wolfe, can you point me to where Ofcom have made such claims re passive viewers and chat channel context?

I agree this is bullshit, after all, how can Ofcom claim the content isn't justified by context if they themselves can't hear the conversation on the broadcast tapes? Indeed, as Ofcom have banned the broadcast of 'strong language' that features in the soundtrack of these chat channels then it is they that are responsible for creating this silent/unknown context that allows them to fine these channels - isn't that convenient...its a stitch-up...!

But what of those viewers that call to take part or listen-in? They alone know the full context of these shows. These channels only exist because they cater to those that actually call-in and use their other services. The context thus exists in and with the unseen presence of the customer.

Indeed, the contextual justification for the content of these shows depends on what the customer wants and what the presenter is willing to do to satisfy the customer's request.