Ofcom & The UK Adult Industry

I have mainly played "Devil's Advocate" with most aspects of the UK adult industry, but there is only so much you can say or do with certain situations... Some will take it on board, others won't. That's par for the course with this kinda thing...

OFCOM have forced people in the industry into a corner - especially when it comes to pay-per-view content in particular. However, with the opportunity to keep making money from other mediums, like the Internet, there is no real incentive for people in the UK adult industry to challenge the regulators/authorities. They have found ways around the problem. The end result is a stalemate, and the people who usually pay the price are the customers.

If it was my decision, under the current rules & regulations, I wouldn't even bother showing censored porn on pay-per-view channels... With the opportunity for most people to see fully uncut porn on the Internet/DVD, to script or shoot anything in a "porn style", and not show hardcore content, is just pointless. Personally, I would keep porn exclusive to the Internet/DVD and use alternatives for pay-per-view that compliment the current free-to-view formats.

I've had my eye on the talent across these channels for a while now... Apart from the phone sex/chat channels, there are no alternative platforms on adult TV for girls who don't want to go into hardcore porn. From my point of view, the one good thing the current rules & regulations have done is present a challenge to be creative and come up with alternatives. It's just a question of whether business people and key personnel in the industry want to make something different happen...

PS - Feel free to post any views regarding both sides of the current situation...

(07-06-2010 12:08 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  With the opportunity for most people to see fully uncut porn on the Internet/DVD, to script or shoot anything in a "porn style", and not show hardcore content, is just pointless.

Try telling Richard Desmond that

(07-06-2010 12:08 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  From my point of view, the one good thing the current rules & regulations have done is present a challenge to be creative and come up with alternatives. It's just a question of whether business people and key personnel in the industry want to make something different happen...

Sorry, can't agree. The endless badly defined regulations and months of hands-off followed by random tough enforcement have totally stiffled creativity, apart from the occasional attempt to find loopholes. Rude chat is not allowed so the babes take endless 1-2-1 phone calls and adopt one of just three safe "approved" poses. Anything outside the safe zone is a potential £50k fine, so why risk it?

No flash the gash. No live uncensored talk. No strips. No fun strip games, no count down, no nudie weather forecasts, no mud wrestling. Even spitting, baby oil and mutual nipple play are against broadcaster "voluntrary own" rules.

(07-06-2010 12:08 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  I have mainly played "Devil's Advocate" with most aspects of the UK adult industry, but there is only so much you can say or do with certain situations... Some will take it on board, others won't. That's par for the course with this kinda thing...

If it had been decided some time ago to allow hardcore we would
today have very few babe channels or none at all. We would have seen hardcore channels as part of basic subscription or only an extra £2/month for a few channels. So Ofcom has actually been good for babe channels - it is just a fluke they exist. Count yourself lucky teleshopping is not banned on TV!

There is however some accountability problem in how we do things 'at arms length'. But I do think hardcore will be on adult TV soon - just because it is overdue.

If ofcom would just back off and allow the babe channels to get on with the job of entertaining us the shows would be a lot more creative, right now all the channels are stuck in a rut living in fear of showing too much but at the same time trying there best to give us some kind of show. If violence is allowed on the tv, why not full frontal babe shows, I think so long as the watershed rules are obeyed then there really shouldn't be a problem with it. Sexstation when it first appeared on tv was a revelolution as for the first time full frontal nudity was shown free to air but all that stopped when ofcom stopped it and I really don't know what harm it was doing and how they could justify in clamping down so hard on the regulations. Until ofcom come to accept these channels have a purpose to fulfil then expectations will never be met. The channels have improved since 2009 but they have to be allowed to show more or the level of interest will drop and the channels will eventually go out of business.

The new government have announced, they would like input from the general public as to where cuts should be made in order to save them money during the forescene hard times ahead. Perhaps now would be a good time to organise a petition or something similar to get rid of ofcom, 30,000 + members, should be a sizeable voice.

(07-06-2010 23:15 )eccles Wrote:  

(07-06-2010 12:08 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  From my point of view, the one good thing the current rules & regulations have done is present a challenge to be creative and come up with alternatives. It's just a question of whether business people and key personnel in the industry want to make something different happen...

Sorry, can't agree. The endless badly defined regulations and months of hands-off followed by random tough enforcement have totally stiffled creativity, apart from the occasional attempt to find loopholes. Rude chat is not allowed so the babes take endless 1-2-1 phone calls and adopt one of just three safe "approved" poses. Anything outside the safe zone is a potential £50k fine, so why risk it?

No flash the gash. No live uncensored talk. No strips. No fun strip games, no count down, no nudie weather forecasts, no mud wrestling. Even spitting, baby oil and mutual nipple play are against broadcaster "voluntrary own" rules.

I don't agree with OFCOM's current rules & regulations either. I'm all for freedom of choice within reason...

My original plans would not have been allowed on UK pay-per-view because of OFCOM... In hindsight, even though I didn't appreciate the problems they posed, it has resulted in me coming up with alternatives that I believe will benefit the industry.

What I don't quite understand is why is it ok for virgin 1 to air naked office well before the watershed but deemed unaceptable to show full frontal on an adult channel. For me call it what you like but the naked office is nothing short of voyeuristic material and anybody who watchs it for any other reason is a fucking liar. Its that far from the truth that I would even go as far to say that it hired actors to make it look real because nobody in there right mind would actually do this, I certainly don't know anybody who would. Call it non sexual nudity but most people watching it are only to get some kind of titilation out of it which is exactly the same reason why people choose to view the babe channels so wheres the difference?

(08-06-2010 20:37 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  What I don't quite understand is why is it ok for virgin 1 to air naked office well before the watershed but deemed unaceptable to show full frontal on an adult channel. For me call it what you like but the naked office is nothing short of voyeuristic material and anybody who watchs it for any other reason is a fucking liar. Its that far from the truth that I would even go as far to say that it hired actors to make it look real because nobody in there right mind would actually do this, I certainly don't know anybody who would. Call it non sexual nudity but most people watching it are only to get some kind of titilation out of it which is exactly the same reason why people choose to view the babe channels so wheres the difference?

It has something to do with the babe channels come under a different set of guidelines,i think it is because they come under the heading of the shopping channels or advertising,i asked a similar question once Aceman did explain it but cant Quite remember the exact terminology.

(08-06-2010 21:23 )bombshell Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 20:37 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  What I don't quite understand is why is it ok for virgin 1 to air naked office well before the watershed but deemed unaceptable to show full frontal on an adult channel. For me call it what you like but the naked office is nothing short of voyeuristic material and anybody who watchs it for any other reason is a fucking liar. Its that far from the truth that I would even go as far to say that it hired actors to make it look real because nobody in there right mind would actually do this, I certainly don't know anybody who would. Call it non sexual nudity but most people watching it are only to get some kind of titilation out of it which is exactly the same reason why people choose to view the babe channels so wheres the difference?

It has something to do with the babe channels come under a different set of guidelines,i think it is because they come under the heading of the shopping channels or advertising,i asked a similar question once Aceman did explain it but cant Quite remember the exact terminology.

The reason no-one can remember the explanation is simply because the rules don't make sense. Last week a TV critic described one of these shows as nothing more than an excuse to show naked flesh on TV. You know it. I know it. The TV critics know it, despite being media luvvies who usually applaud wooden minority interest documentaries about Peruvian nose flutes. None of the Camden Arts and Cocaine set watch this kind of junk TV. The only people who are taken in are Ofcom.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want them to start banning evening nudity, but a bit of consistency would be welcome.