+- 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 - Krill Liberator - 11-02-2011 16:49
(11-02-2011 14:19 )StanTheMan Wrote:Yes, that's right, it was!(11-02-2011 14:12 )Krill Liberator Wrote:(10-02-2011 23:34 )eccles Wrote: Noticed an ad twice tonight for a Renault featuring Dita von Tease going topless (back view). Is that allowed?Not during daytime viewing hours, it would seem.
"A racy car advertisement, featuring busty burlesque star Dita Von Teese and peppered with cameos from Rihanna and French soccer ace Thierry Henry, has been banned from broadcast on daytime TV in the UK."(http://www.popcrunch.com/dita-von-teese-commercial-banned/ 7/2/11)
Boooo.
But it was a back view!! I haven't seen the ad, but I presume no part of the breasts are visible? This is getting ridiculous - random fines and bans going out willy-nilly with absolutely no continuity! What about all those perfume and shower gel adverts with half naked women??
No boobage, not even a three-quarter rear sneak... I agree it's beyond silly when THAT gets banned. What's next, I wonder?
As for the shower gel ads as a genre, yeah - I don't get that at all. Context? I think it's true that a guy can find pretty much any female flesh to be a turn-on; hell, if we didn't the entire Human race would be in dire trouble!
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 11-02-2011 22:16
ITV1+1 just now (10:14pm), advert showing lots of houses, streets and roofs had a shot into a window showing a naked man (from behind) ironing. Thats nudity before 11pm on a mainstream TV channel with no artistic justification that I could discern. In fact I still dont know what was being advertised.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 13-02-2011 00:21
(11-02-2011 16:49 )Krill Liberator Wrote: ... Context? I think it's true that a guy can find pretty much any female flesh to be a turn-on; hell, if we didn't the entire Human race would be in dire trouble!
Ofcom regulations make it quite clear that Contect is not a factor when considering adverts and "considerably less latitude exists".
So it its ok to go topless or implied nude at X o'clock in a shower gel/car/perfume advert, it must be ok at the same time on a babe channel. Or is it too much to expect consistency from Ofcom?
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 13-02-2011 00:25
Heres an odd one. ChannelAKA has a 1 hour XXX slot on now where they show topless music vids (within limits). There are some tasty new ones on tonight, one featuring a model I half recognise rolling around topless in a Ferrari. Careful, dont slime the seats girl! An earlier one had 3 women jello wrestling. Mmmm jello.
Didnt catch the title, but in the previous vid logos on the bands shirts were pixellated. Advertising rules you see.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scottishbloke - 13-02-2011 00:31
What ever happened to Fashion Tv that was fucking brilliant, sometimes you even got a bit of daytime nudity on it, how things have changed. It's also quite Ironic that SKY ARTS seems to most of the time show stuff thats's not art. Nothing against Queen Infact they're my favourite band as I have all their DVD's and CD's but they're never off the fucking telly.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 13-02-2011 02:45
Not exactly mainstream nudity, but definitely a case of mainstreeam rules vs babeshow.
Watching Star Wars earlier I was struck by just how dangerous it is to broadcast R2D2 accessing computers. Basically R2D2 sticks a body part into a wall socket to access the mainframe for Lando Fetts space station.
You dont have to be a genius to imagine 2 year olds sticking their fingers or screwdrivers into mains sockets. Its called imitable behaviour and if Ofcom bothered to enforce their own rules it would be banned. Or am I being over nervous?
PS Sky Arts is a rip off and should be hauled over the coals by Trading Standards. As ScottinhGuy says, most of the content consists of 1970s pop music or documentaries about it (Tuesday: Elvis, Chis Jagger, Stones in the Park) and most of the content is repeated endlessly. There must be about 1 hour of new material a month. And its in the same package as Home (Bargin Hunt), Good Food and Style Network, channels for vacuous morons.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - StanTheMan - 13-02-2011 09:31
(13-02-2011 00:21 )eccles Wrote: So it its ok to go topless or implied nude at X o'clock in a shower gel/car/perfume advert, it must be ok at the same time on a babe channel. Or is it too much to expect consistency from Ofcom?
I'm going to play devil's advocate here - I promise not to do it again because anything I say that so much as hints at understanding Ofcom policy makes me feel nauseous and dirty, but, what we have to consider in a case like this is duration. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to expect nine hours of daytime toplessness just because a 30 sec shower gel advert features a three-quater profile of a bird's left tit.
It is fair, however, to expect nine hours of daytime toplessness on the grounds that it wouldn't harm a damn soul!!
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 14-02-2011 01:02
So we can expect 30 seconds toplessness on a daytime babe channel to be tolerated by Ofcom? Or 30 seconds fanny at night as a babe changes position?
I understand what you are saying, but dont really understand Ofcoms position. Is duration a factor? They have never said so. And context is OK when they like the product, but not when they dislike it?
Besides Im not sure I can last 9 hours. 8 is my record, but mainly because the Chinese Twins flaked out and Candi had to go to work.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - StanTheMan - 14-02-2011 15:05
(14-02-2011 01:02 )eccles Wrote: So we can expect 30 seconds toplessness on a daytime babe channel to be tolerated by Ofcom? Or 30 seconds fanny at night as a babe changes position?
Well I know I promised not to continue my Ofcom 'defense' (Arrggghhhh!) but let's just be clear here. To my knowledge, there's no advert (day or night) that features actual toplessness. Not full-on toplessness, at least.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 14-02-2011 22:01
Carex, implied nude
To be fair not sure if this has been shown on UK TV
Sanex Ad
Vaseline Sea of Skin
Fairly sure I have seen this on UK TV
Kelly Brook Reebok Advert / ITN
Seriously though, Ofcom says topless is not permitted in adverts before 10pm, not full on nipple views, but any topless, even just bsck, and implied nude is not permitted before 11pm, so they should be consistent. None=None.