What is now the point of these channels

(17-02-2012 01:13 )Addison Wrote:  

(16-02-2012 20:52 )continental19 Wrote:  

(16-02-2012 20:49 )iloveMegan Wrote:  

(16-02-2012 20:32 )continental19 Wrote:  they'll always be homosexuals in this world

What does that have to do with anything?

The reason i mentioned this is because Ofcom deem any girl on girl contact offensive, i don't personally care if people are gay or not, live and let live i say.

An odd thing to say, and an odd reason given for saying it. If you're trying to imply that Ofcom is controlled by homosexuals out to frustrate the likes of you, then ask yourself this: why is there such an overwhelming bias towards heterosexual (or lesbian with an eye on the hetero market) material across the Sky adult channels? What is there available for gay viewers at present? A couple of channels of pre-recorded/encrypted stuff among the forest of straight channels doing live, unencrypted request stuff? Not exactly an even balance, is it? Personally I think the idea that they're censorious celibate puritans holds more water as a hunch!

I think you totally misunderstood what he said. Re-read his response.

(17-02-2012 01:45 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I think you totally misunderstood what he said.

You're correct! It's juxtaposing not living "in a perfect world" with homosexuality that clouds continental's point. Read casually, it can sound as though the latter is "at fault" for causing the former. Saying: "we don't live in a perfect world, Ofcom," to make it clear that it's Ofcom's supposed ideal view of the world that's being taken to task, or saying there'll always be a variety of sexuality in the world rather than singling out homosexuality would've made it clearer (okay, I've finished with this spade, now ). My point about the imbalance between straight and gay programmes still stands though (if progressiveness and democratisation and greater tolerance is at the heart of the anti-Ofcom movement, then the question of why there is so little gay material should be raised from time to time, even by those who would have no interest in watching it). That said, I shouldn't have steamed in without re-reading first, and you're right to pull me up.

(17-02-2012 01:13 )Addison Wrote:  

(16-02-2012 20:52 )continental19 Wrote:  

(16-02-2012 20:49 )iloveMegan Wrote:  

(16-02-2012 20:32 )continental19 Wrote:  they'll always be homosexuals in this world

What does that have to do with anything?

The reason i mentioned this is because Ofcom deem any girl on girl contact offensive, i don't personally care if people are gay or not, live and let live i say.

An odd thing to say, and an odd reason given for saying it. If you're trying to imply that Ofcom is controlled by homosexuals out to frustrate the likes of you, then ask yourself this: why is there such an overwhelming bias towards heterosexual (or lesbian with an eye on the hetero market) material across the Sky adult channels? What is there available for gay viewers at present? A couple of channels of pre-recorded/encrypted stuff among the forest of straight channels doing live, unencrypted request stuff? Not exactly an even balance, is it? Personally I think the idea that they're censorious celibate puritans holds more water as a hunch!

An interesting viewpoint.

I have always believed that Ofcon had a "public school" bias and therefore were more sympathetic to the homosexual sector.
I, of course, may be totally wrong.

There is a gay channel on Sky. What is the content like? How far do they go in showing gay sex?

Do they allow erections as the Adult channel does?

Erect penises on show, btw, is R18 activity, as defined by BBFC.

Too may questions, I know, but I am curious as to how Ofcon view gay sex as it has a lot of bearing on how they view hetro programmes.

May I add that, in the 21st century, I do think it is unbelievably childish to even have this conversation. Other countries in Western Europe have been showing hatd core sex for years without any known ill effect.

We need to grow up.

Ofcon, please fuck off.

So far as I know there has only ever been one reported complaint about a gay channel, a year or so ago.

In the freeviews some of the "male presenters spoke to camera fully naked with their genitals in full view and on occasion in close up. Brief but nonexplicit sequences of sexual activity, where genitals were frequently and clearly visible, were also shown and on occasions the genitals were being handled. In addition, some explicit sexual language was used by the presenters."

In its defence GayTV said it had broadcast similar freeviews over the past decade without complaint. They said that when the channel was set up the ITC had said it "would be permitted to show male genitalia in homosexual promotional programming more frequently than would be permitted in equivalent heterosexual promotions" basically because staright men can look at breasts, but gays dont have breasts.

No written record of this could be found and Ofcom said it was not bound by decisions the ITC might have made - it was a different body with a fresh set of rules. (Bulletin 138 20 July 2009).

So male genitals might have been quietly tolerated in gay freeviews but not straight ones for 10 years, depending on who you believe.

Did Ofcom ever sample gay freeviews, or did they never ever check up? If they did perform spot checks did they see naked genitals, genitals being handled, and hear explicit language? If so why did they take no action?

The other interesting point is that similar material was broadcast for 10 years without complaint.

No mums were worried that their sons might see it and be offended or tunr gay. Or that their daughters might see it and faint. No vicars, their wives, vergers, organists or militant Christians ever tuned in and were sufficiently offended to complain.

To my mind this destroys any argument about risk of offence from accidentially tuning in. The risk of accidentially tuning in to a gay freeview is exactly the same as the risk from a straight one. The only reason the risk from a free to air channel is higher is because they are not encrypted 50 minutes of the hour. Ofcom does not look at probablity anyway.

This suggests that the only people claiming to be offended are people who deliberately tuned in.

Since they must have known what they were doing and stayed on the channel long enough to be offended the complaints are fake and should be ignored.

Ok firstly I would i would like to clear up any confusion, when I mentioned about homosexuals I was also including lesbians as well, maybe I should of just left it as lesbians, however I have nothing against gays or lesbians whatsoever as I've said live and let live. Right that's sorted.
Ofcom have deemed any girl girl interaction as potentially harmful or offensive why? Who the F**K knows!! However I do agree with the comments made that there is only girl girl action on the Babe channels namely babestation. Once again I'm only guessing here, but I don't no if the current rules have been changed or slackened a bit from Ofcom, but in the last oh I'd say what 3-4 months maybe, that Babestation have been pushing the 241 action a lot lot more which in my opinion is great. Scottishbloke made a good remark when he said, " while there's still babe channels on, there's still hope " which is true. Look we would all love to turn the clock back to how the babe channels used to be, but that ain't happening I'm afraid folks, I guess we have to hope that maybe Ofcoms attitude will change.

(18-02-2012 02:05 )eccles Wrote:  So far as I know there has only ever been one reported complaint about a gay channel, a year or so ago.

[SNIP]

Excellent post, once again.

To me this gives further credence to my argument that Ofcon fear the adult male heterosexual population getting sexually aroused.

They are OK about gay people as these are a minority, but they fear the hetros getting turned on hence the need for censorship.

(18-02-2012 09:36 )blackjaques Wrote:  Excellent post, once again.

To me this gives further credence to my argument that Ofcon fear the adult male heterosexual population getting sexually aroused.

They are OK about gay people as these are a minority, but they fear the hetros getting turned on hence the need for censorship.

It's a valid concern.

Many's the time on knocking one out over something on the telly, my very next thought has been to bring down the government!

I tune in to these channels mostly every night, if not all night, then part of it. And the reason that I do is, I am frightened of missing something, but I never do miss anything. And when Iv'e done with watching I usually sum it up with one word "crap" then I go to my bed. That now leads me on to ask, why can anyone possibly like these shows so much that they will go to the time and trouble of recording stuff as caps and then submit them right away after the show. When in their original state, as I say, they were diabolical.

As an example lets take Dionne Daniels, I have nothing against the girl. And she is super fit. But is she really that good that someone has to record her every time she is on. And it is not only Dionne that is treated in this way, lot's of the girls are. I would love to hear why these girls deserve to have so much attention poured over them. I can understand why people find them attractive, but there must come a time when they no longer appeal. But it seems no, because Dionne has been around for years, and so have many others. So please enlighten me, for if you just want attractive girls to look at then plenty of soaps and the like fit that bill, and with them you get a storyline.

(21-02-2012 15:30 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  I tune in to these channels mostly every night, if not all night, then part of it. And the reason that I do is, I am frightened of missing something, but I never do miss anything. And when Iv'e done with watching I usually sum it up with one word "crap" then I go to my bed. That now leads me on to ask, why can anyone possibly like these shows so much that they will go to the time and trouble of recording stuff as caps and then submit them right away after the show. When in their original state, as I say, they were diabolical.

This has been again and again in here in one way or another, but some seem unable to absorb it: all some guys need to be aroused is the sight of a fit babe on a bed showing her legs and stomach and shoulders and feet, etc. That's what they would choose to watch if there were no broadcasting restrictions. They see the body parts they like best and then they build a fantasy around it and it's a highly satisfying experience. Women being more or less themselves rather than transforming themselves into a cliched sex doll is also what appeals, I think. For the likes of you it's obviously not enough, but for many it is. For me, a babe crotch-thrusting and yelling about being rammed hard does nothing, because I don't think it's true to the way she would choose to act if she weren't doing it for a job. I've never cared about that sort of performance with women I've been with in real life either, because that's exactly what it seems to be: a performance; an acting job. It's a way of behaving that the woman thinks a man needs in order to get off. Well to me and others like me it's always been unnecessary and a bore. A fit female body is beautiful and a turn on in itself; it doesn't have to be 'sold' with dirty talk; neither does its beauty and sexiness reside solely in the crotch and breasts; it exists all over. Guys who like 'softer' performances are getting the same charge from watching these babes that you might from a babe oiling up, switching to auto-pout, getting the cameraman to zoom in on her pussy and wailing "Fuck me hard, big boy!" It doesn't seem fair I know, but hey, life isn't fair!

(21-02-2012 15:30 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote:  I would love to hear why these girls deserve to have so much attention poured over them. I can understand why people find them attractive, but there must come a time when they no longer appeal.

Single?