Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

(16-03-2010 20:47 )Addison Wrote:  But where do these expectations come from, given what the scope of these shows has always been? With the exception of Babestar (very much an anomaly), the free to view unencrypted programmes have always been providers of glam-core/soft-core material.

Addison, the above tells me just one thing; you haven't been watching these shows since the beginning. Unencrypted programmes have not always been providers of 'glam-core/soft-core material'. Back in their hay-day they offered the kind of material that I still expect to see to this day, but Ofcom didn't like this and so drew up a set of rules to stop it from happening.

But SxciiSooky is still missing the point (or refusing to see it) regardless of what she might say. As MARCEE says, the fuel for our expectations is blindingly obvious and I fail to see why the odd one or two of the members here can't see what Ofcom are doing. None of you have so far addressed the point we keep making about being able to see much stronger material and hear much stronger languge on channels that aren't specificaly aimed at an adult audience. Perhaps a short analogy will make it clearer. Let's say you're discussing adult content on UK televison with an Italian who's just arrived in this country. You tell him that we have hundreds of channels, and that we also have an adult section which shows adult liveshows. You then explain that in actual fact, it's these adult channels - and these adult channels alone - that are not permitted to show full frontal nudty or use bad language. Imagine the puzzled look you'd receive? And he'd be puzzled with good reason, too!

(16-03-2010 22:36 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  EDIT: Also, have none of you considered the fact that the shows themselves may well not want to be too explicit? What would be the point in having more explicit photos etc available on their subscription websites if you could see it for free on the tv?

Well past history, where the likes of Sexstation/Blue Kiss showed far stronger stuff than it currently shows and where even more recently the likes of SportXXX have pushed towards showing some full frontal stuff, suggests that some of the channels at the very least would move towards it if allowed to do so.

And the whole point here, which although you say you're not misunderstanding but you quite patently are, is what should people reasonably expect from channels set up purely for the purpose of sexual arousal and broadcasting for an adult audience. What we have become attuned to under Ofcom's watered down rules is neither here nor there.

A lot of the channels may stay exactly as they are. Some girls on channels that went for stronger content may not do so and stay pretty much as they are now and everyone accepts that would be the case. What shouldn't be open to question however, is that the 900 channels should be allowed to provide material in line with what the mainstream channels can show for an adult audience and at the moment that quite clearly isn't the case.

(17-03-2010 13:37 )MARCCE Wrote:  which although you say you're not misunderstanding but you quite patently are

A difference of opinion does not equate to a lack of understanding. I understand full well the 'issue' you lot are trying to perpetuate, I just do not agree that it is of as much importance and relevance as you lot do.

Have none of you even stopped to comprehend the fact that many of the girls themselves do not want to go any further than they currently are? While it is easy to dismiss every issue people have with the channels and their content on the big boogeyman type organisation of Ofcom, along with the continual assumption that similar issues are as a direct involvement from channel bosses - often it is a simple case of the girl does not want to do more than she is willing to. No amount of 'campaigning' etc is going to make a girl go outwith her comfort zone - nor should it

Also, having had a glance over the BACVA blog a few nights ago and subsequently looking at it now - I find it interesting that particular non supportive posts that were made on one of the entries are now 'absent'....now who is guilty of censorship?

(17-03-2010 00:41 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(16-03-2010 20:47 )Addison Wrote:  But where do these expectations come from, given what the scope of these shows has always been? With the exception of Babestar (very much an anomaly), the free to view unencrypted programmes have always been providers of glam-core/soft-core material.

Addison, the above tells me just one thing; you haven't been watching these shows since the beginning.

This thread and some of the posts within it might suggest otherwise! I wasn't watching from the absolute outset, but I picked up on the existence of Babestation and Babecast a couple of months after they launched. I've got a recording of Georgette Neale doing the Babecast 'late babe' show, which dates from August 2003 (it shows someone with a hardcore porn track record engaging in a little late night dirty talk - back then the babe's side of the convo was broadcast - and no pussy flashing!), and in all honesty I'm scratching my head trying to think of shows back then that went much further than those of today.

On the freeview request segment of Live Callgirls (which appeared I think sometime in 2005) they used to do a bit of fairly mild, desultory dildo play, used the words 'cock' and 'pussy' (very much a 'meh' state of affairs as far as I was concerned, but to each his own) and also did their nanosecond 'peek Of pussy' routine right before they encrypted at 23:15. LiveXXX sometimes did something similar in the lead up to the encrypted part of their show. Neither really did anything more with dildos (or the Sky remote control, which they would sometimes use as a surrogate) then than the babes without dildos do today with their fingers. It's true that the old shows used to be far more spontaneous, off-the-cuff, humorous, and not bound by simpering sex-kitten role-play like some of today's shows, and certainly some of us miss that sort of stuff.

I maintain that Babestar was the odd show out. It alone went further, but the picture quality was so chronic, and the backgrounds the girls were badly superimposed against so headache-inducing that I never watched it for any length of time. I think its posthumous reputation is very much out of proportion relative to what it actually used to serve up.

(17-03-2010 18:42 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  A difference of opinion does not equate to a lack of understanding. I understand full well the 'issue' you lot are trying to perpetuate, I just do not agree that it is of as much importance and relevance as you lot do.

Have none of you even stopped to comprehend the fact that many of the girls themselves do not want to go any further than they currently are? While it is easy to dismiss every issue people have with the channels and their content on the big boogeyman type organisation of Ofcom, along with the continual assumption that similar issues are as a direct involvement from channel bosses - often it is a simple case of the girl does not want to do more than she is willing to. No amount of 'campaigning' etc is going to make a girl go outwith her comfort zone - nor should it

Also, having had a glance over the BACVA blog a few nights ago and subsequently looking at it now - I find it interesting that particular non supportive posts that were made on one of the entries are now 'absent'....now who is guilty of censorship?

Haven't I said in my post that some girls wouldn't want to do it? Your response is still saying to me you're really not getting it. A lot of the stuff posted in this section of the forum and on the BACVA site relates to Ofcom sanctions against something that various girls have already done. Therefore they have been happy to do it, the channels have shown it and been censured for it despite stronger material being available elsewhere across a number of channels at exactly the same time. Your point above is therefore almost totally redundant.

What about the ones that would be happy to do it? Your mate Amanda is one of those quite obviously. What about the girls across several of the channels who have gone nude over the past few months and had to cover up their pussies with sticky black tape?

Do you not find that ridiculous on a channel purely designed for an adult audience?

Across all of the channels there are clearly quite a few girls that would go further if they were able to do so just as there are a few of the channels who would do the same.

The point that many of us are making is that the freedom should be there to do so if they wish and the fact that they can't just underlines Ofcom's totally inconsistent approach to the 900 channels compared with other channels out there.

I saw a section on This Morning earlier where they were comparing sex toys. If you so much as saw a hint of a sex toy on one of the babe channels, Ofcom would be down on them like a ton of bricks. Where's the consistency there? Why is it acceptable to debate clitoral stimulation on a terrestrial channel at 11.30 in the morning and yet not even mention the word clit on an adult sex channel at 11.30 at night?

What girls and channels are prepared to do is entirely down to them. What they're currently getting pulled up by Ofcom for is, or at least should be, as big a concern for regular viewers of these shows as it is to the girls and channels themselves.

First off - amanda is not my mate

Secondly - The Babechannels by their very definition is 'softcore', so to expect anything other is futile.

Thirdly - This Morning are not going to be having sex toys on there in a sexual manner, so the point is irrelevent.

Fourthly - the perpetual myth that Ofcom is a self appointed body with no powers etc is just that, a myth. Ofcom came about as a direct evolution of the broadcasting regulatory bodies over the years - coming into being as a direct result of a parliamentary act (The Communications Act 2003).

But I find it interesting again that specific points in my posts consistently get ignored

(17-03-2010 19:29 )MARCCE Wrote:  I saw a section on This Morning earlier where they were comparing sex toys. If you so much as saw a hint of a sex toy on one of the babe channels, Ofcom would be down on them like a ton of bricks. Where's the consistency there? Why is it acceptable to debate clitoral stimulation on a terrestrial channel at 11.30 in the morning and yet not even mention the word clit on an adult sex channel at 11.30 at night?

It's a question of context and presentation. I didn't see the This Morning feature you mention, but I'm assuming Schofield and Holly Willoughby weren't gyrating around on the studio sofas, sighing and rubbing dildos against their groins .

(17-03-2010 19:29 )MARCCE Wrote:  I saw a section on This Morning earlier where they were comparing sex toys. If you so much as saw a hint of a sex toy on one of the babe channels, Ofcom would be down on them like a ton of bricks. Where's the consistency there? Why is it acceptable to debate clitoral stimulation on a terrestrial channel at 11.30 in the morning and yet not even mention the word clit on an adult sex channel at 11.30 at night?

It get's worse, MARCCE. Ofcom have already admitted they won't be investigating - depsite a number of complaints.

StanTheMan Wrote:More inconsistency! Seems like Ofcom are not too keen to take on the biggger boys in the playground.

No 'This Morning' Investigation

(17-03-2010 20:23 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  First off - amanda is not my mate

Secondly - The Babechannels by their very definition is 'softcore', so to expect anything other is futile.

Thirdly - This Morning are not going to be having sex toys on there in a sexual manner, so the point is irrelevent.

Fourthly - the perpetual myth that Ofcom is a self appointed body with no powers etc is just that, a myth. Ofcom came about as a direct evolution of the broadcasting regulatory bodies over the years - coming into being as a direct result of a parliamentary act (The Communications Act 2003).

But I find it interesting again that specific points in my posts consistently get ignored

Sooky, I'm really not sure what specific points you are referring to because as far as I can see, I've responded to the specific points you've raised to me.

The babechannels are indeed "softcore" and I've never said that they're not. The fact is that "softcore" films are broadcast on various Sky movie channels at exactly the same time as the babechannels are on air and they show scenes and use language that the babechannels are either censured for, or not permitted to use at all. I'm sorry but I expect a "softcore" channel to be allowed to show full frontal nudity, even if just in a closed legs form though there will be others on here that would also say they should be allowed to go a lot further. I also expect them to be able to use sexual terms and not have to refer to them in some curious child like language.

As for This Morning, they weren't discussing those sex toys from the point of view of which one of them would be best for stirring porridge so yes, it was a sexual manner. And surely, the issue here is should that have been broadcast given the possibility of offence that could cause given that is one of Ofcom's main arguments against the babechannels?

What Ofcom were set up to do is for others to debate with you. I'm in the inconsistencies department myself

(17-03-2010 20:28 )Addison Wrote:  It's a question of context and presentation. I didn't see the This Morning feature you mention, but I'm assuming Schofield and Holly Willoughby weren't gyrating around on the studio sofas, sighing and rubbing dildos against their groins .

When it comes to context, is it something that a mid morning tv show necessarily has to show? Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy to accept this sexual openness on tv at any time of the day but it has to be consistent across the board. If a popular mid morning tv show is allowed to discuss the various merits of dildos, I see no reason why a model on an adult sex channel can't be seen pretending to deep throat one after the watershed.

And with Ofcom's apparent concern for the kids, was there not the possibility that any watching children would have been straight on the net to try and purchase the latest super dupa 24" dildo as seen on the programme?