Survey on TV Warnings

It is my contention that the regulation of televisual entertainment in the UK is fundamentally flawed, and I have supported my theory by conducting a full survey, which I shall be furnishing to Ofcom forthwith. The regulator will be receiving the following report…

MY THEORY
Viewers do not wish to be warned when a programme contains nudity. It spoils the surprise, as well as wasting time which could be filled with additional nudity. It is like being told the result of a football match before the highlights show. Or like arriving at the cinema to watch The Black Death, and being told by the usher that: “…The guy with the big body and the small head gets the plague, but just as you think he’s finally wheezing his last grim breath, he miraculously survives. So he’s now immune from the plague, and you think he’s invincible. But then his horse gets the plague, flips its lid, throws him in a moat, and he drowns.”
There is no longer any point in watching this movie (if there ever was in the first place) because you now know what is going to happen. The pre-warning has destroyed any enjoyment you would have gained. Assuming you enjoy stories about the plague, that is – which if you’ve gone to see a film called The Black Death, I suppose you probably will.

MY SURVEY
My survey (conducted outside Aldi, in a crash helmet) has proved that viewers do not wish to know what is going to happen in a given piece of entertainment. 84 out of 100 viewers said they would prefer to be surprised by vigorously wobbling naked breasts than to be pre-advised of their impending appearance.
Interestingly, however, what my survey also revealed is that viewers do not want to watch nauseating crap. In fact, when asked the question: “Do you enjoy nauseating crap?” a resounding 99 out of 100 viewers said no. The other viewer ticked ‘Don’t know’, but said he would change his answer to a “yes” or a “no” if there was a prize. More interestingly still, when asked if they would like an official warning when a TV programme was absolute abysmal pompous shit, 95% of viewers gave an unqualified yes. The other 5% also said yes, but added that they would still watch the programme anyway.

MY CONCLUSION
It is thus my clear conclusion that all warnings currently designated to nudity should be re-designated to nauseating crap. A simple “Warning: this programme is shit. It contains nauseating crap, from the start, and throughout.” would be perfectly adequate.

Post of the year for me!

To be honest when I tune into the babe channels I know what to expect and what I want to see, however I don't know if its just me but if I'm watching say an action movie the last thing I expect to see is a sex scene. Nothing against sex scenes but sometimes I find they add these scenes into movies purely for shock value as a lot of the time they actually have nothing to do with the integral plot of the movie and there is nothing more embarrassing if you just so happen to be sitting in the living room with the wrong type of audience If you follow my drift. So its purely from a personal point of view I'd rather know the context of the movie before hand in order to avoid these awkward situations. I like porn but I still have my morals.

I think a warning such as "The following programmes are intended for adults over 18 years of age and may contain scenes of sex, nudity and bad language" should be followed by programmes which actually contain material intended for adult-only audiences and should indeed show scenes of sex, nudity and bad language. Unfortunately, for all those discerning adult viewers who like this type of progamming, this is not the case.

What such warnings should say is "The following programmes are not suitable for persons of a religious or puerile 'British' disposition as they may contain material that is not justified by 'the context' as decided solely by OFCOM however, they will still certainly not contain any material which is remotely sexually arousing, sexually explicit or in any way 'filthy' by anyone's 'standards' and may in fact be suitable for viewing by any person of 13 years and over."

(19-09-2010 20:44 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  To be honest when I tune into the babe channels I know what to expect and what I want to see, however I don't know if its just me but if I'm watching say an action movie the last thing I expect to see is a sex scene. Nothing against sex scenes but sometimes I find they add these scenes into movies purely for shock value as a lot of the time they actually have nothing to do with the integral plot of the movie and there is nothing more embarrassing if you just so happen to be sitting in the living room with the wrong type of audience If you follow my drift. So its purely from a personal point of view I'd rather know the context of the movie before hand in order to avoid these awkward situations. I like porn but I still have my morals.

Was watching "Dexter" the other night with my nephews aged 15 and 18. For those of you who don't know it, it's the ultimate cop-revenge series, a serial killer works for the Miami police in forensics, gets to know the identities of nasty killers the law can't touch and takes them out. There is a small amount of gore, but mostly its implied. The shock and gore level is lower than most teenage shoot'em'up games.

Suddenly a female journalist was being graphically humped by one of the investigating officers. Shapely sweaty breasts bouncing back and forwards like noones business. Think that went on for at least a minute. It was very enjoyable, and had I been on my own I might have got Reginald out and let him watch (he only has one eye and spends most of the time in the dark). But it definitely went far beyond what was required to establish that someone was leaking information. OK, it was after 9pm, but on any sane and rational evaluation of the facts it was gratuitious and Ofcom should act.

Except that they should not. The show is entertainment, and if the production team feel thats what needed, and the audience are happy then everyone is happy and the viewers get to enjoy well-crafted intellegent drama.

Sadly sex for pleasure has no place in Mr & Mrs Ofcom's lives. It has to be "justified", which is pretty much the Catholic view. Wonder if we can get Peter Tatchell, Richard Dawkins and Sinead O'Connor to march on Riverside House?