Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

Blowjob on Film4 from Tuesday. 'In the Cut' with Meg Ryan.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=I57YJ7YI

Thanks to dunx for the heads up.

^^^ Well actually the cock was fake, but it still looked realistic. But if you go back about 18 months, I remember film4 showing a docufilm called "Life Song". It was suposed to take you on a journey, from birth to death in a series of clips set to music. The film however was totally uncut, and showed full penertration, ejaculation & blow jobs between both men & women.

Now don't get me wrong, none of this shocked me. But it really does illustrate the need to have the babe channels re-catergorised as adult, instead of advertisment. It's this catergorisation that's resricting the content that can be shown. As the babeshow have to follow our strict set of advertising laws.

So unless they change the catergorisation of the channels. Then nothing will change.

Lee Nelson, telephone.

(09-09-2011 23:58 )eccles Wrote:  Lee Nelson, telephone.

Eh??

(27-08-2011 22:33 )eccles Wrote:  Mocumentary film Confetti is on BBC2 at the moment. Its about 3 couples competing to win Most Original Wedding. One couple,Robert Webb and the woman with large eyes* from the Mitchell and Webb series have just been on screen for about 5 minutes buff naked. No minge but lots of cock shots, and he may have had a semi in some of them. Meanwhile on the babe channels babes either wear knickers or keep their front off camera.

Confetti (2006) cert 15
"Features strong language and nudity"
Its a serious film, and OK the nudity is a small part but even so - the cast includes Martin Freeman, Jessica Hynes, Stephen Mangan, Meredith MacNeill, Robert Webb, *Olivia Colman, Vincent Franklin, Jason Watkins, Felicity Montague, Jimmy Carr, Alison Steadman, Mark Wootton, Sarah Hadland, Ron Cook, Julia Davis. IMDB

Oh my, a topless woman has just servered up tea to the gay wedding planners and Olivia has her tits out again. Humour at its best.

This was absolutely brilliant - mockumentary at its best! I'm so glad I stumbled across it. As for the nudity, there was full frontal from both Webb and Olivia Colman. As for Webb having a semi... no, he's just well endowed.

(10-09-2011 12:34 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(09-09-2011 23:58 )eccles Wrote:  Lee Nelson, telephone.

Eh??

On Thursdays show he featured a man with an 8 inch flacid penis. He got it out, fortunately it was blurred. The women in the audience were visibly impressed. There was then the sound of a phone ringing and with reluctance he "answered" it.

(11-09-2011 00:45 )eccles Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 12:34 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(09-09-2011 23:58 )eccles Wrote:  Lee Nelson, telephone.

Eh??

On Thursdays show he featured a man with an 8 inch flacid penis. He got it out, fortunately it was blurred. The women in the audience were visibly impressed. There was then the sound of a phone ringing and with reluctance he "answered" it.

Well, I sort of understand the relevance now, but I'm still totally baffled by the phone ringing thing? What do you mean the phone rang and he 'answered' it??

Maybe you had to have seen the show?

I think it's difficult to equate, in Ofcon World, nudity on mainstream films to nudity and sex on overtly sexual channels.
Ofcon's fear, I feel, is of a society out of control. If R18 is allowed then this fear becomes nearer reality for them.
They imagine large amounts of hard core porn in circulation (now it is only avaiable through sex shops).

It matters not one bit that our very near neighbours in Europe have been comfortable with adults being able to watch hard core for years. It does no damage, yet Ofcon need to control it.

As I have asked the question before, what do Ofcon think they are achieving by the witch hunt against adult entetainment on UK TV?

blackjaques, what they achieve is some backward notion of 'no sex please' "Britishness".

Causing supposed offence of the type OFCOM believe the Comms Act 2003 requires them to prevent "unless justified by the context" is NOT permitted under Human Rights law. Which means OFCOM are guilty of crimes against humanity.

The "offensive and harmful material" the Comms Act requires OFCOM to protect the public from can never be 'justified by the context'. The only type of material this clause could possibly refer to and be lawfully censored according to Human Rights law is in fact illegal in any context. It is the type of material for which we have 'hate' crimes - malicious defamation, discrimination, inciteful, vindictive. Offensive material is by definition that which ATTACKS certain people or sections of society. Pornographic material intended to cause sexual stimulation does not attack or incite hatred against anyone or anything. Moreover, the law would not and could not permit pornographic material to be legally sold if it was considered to be offensive and harmful to members of the public.

The fact is the BBFC routinely cut any and all offensive, obscene or harmful material from anything passed at R18. OFCOM's claims to be protecting folks from that which has already been rendered LEGALLY safe for men, women or children to watch are clearly bogus and OFCOM's actions are thus unnecessary and without any legal basis.

OFCOM's actions are in themselves blatantly discriminatory and thus offensive and harmful. OFCOM cannot claim to be protecting the public from harm and offence when they themselves are guilty of such CRIMES!

(11-09-2011 20:59 )IanG Wrote:  What a great post you are spot on
blackjaques, what they achieve is some backward notion of 'no sex please' "Britishness".

Causing supposed offence of the type OFCOM believe the Comms Act 2003 requires them to prevent "unless justified by the context" is NOT permitted under Human Rights law. Which means OFCOM are guilty of crimes against humanity.

The "offensive and harmful material" the Comms Act requires OFCOM to protect the public from can never be 'justified by the context'. The only type of material this clause could possibly refer to and be lawfully censored according to Human Rights law is in fact illegal in any context. It is the type of material for which we have 'hate' crimes - malicious defamation, discrimination, inciteful, vindictive. Offensive material is by definition that which ATTACKS certain people or sections of society. Pornographic material intended to cause sexual stimulation does not attack or incite hatred against anyone or anything. Moreover, the law would not and could not permit pornographic material to be legally sold if it was considered to be offensive and harmful to members of the public.

The fact is the BBFC routinely cut any and all offensive, obscene or harmful material from anything passed at R18. OFCOM's claims to be protecting folks from that which has already been rendered LEGALLY safe for men, women or children to watch are clearly bogus and OFCOM's actions are thus unnecessary and without any legal basis.

OFCOM's actions are in themselves blatantly discriminatory and thus offensive and harmful. OFCOM cannot claim to be protecting the public from harm and offence when they themselves are guilty of such CRIMES!