Ofcom Public Attitudes Survey

What an eye opener! Here we have everything laid out for us, regarding what is or what isn't considered acceptable in a survey done by Ofcom, and yet Ofcom disregards this because they don't like the answers. Why do a survey in the first place?

I hope the producers from all of the babe channels, as well as the women themselves, read this and come to their own conclusions.

This on the face of it looks good news for tv in general,but first of all it needs to be implimented by the channels and that means all of them sticking together and going for it,all showing full nudity ,after watershed,and not bowing down to Ofcom.
If they stuck together and did this, then ,what are Ofcom going to do? Fine them all? take away All of there licences?
Oh and don`t forget, justify why they must have spent,god knows how much public money on this survey,just to ignore the results and still stick to there draconian ways.
Tv producers do your stuff and lets get rid of these weirdos for good

Thanks all. These are the guidelines that Ofcom should have been using since 16 Dec 2009, when the 2009 Broadcasting Code came into force. Between 16 Dec 2009 and 1 Sept 2010 Babe channels also had to show Editorial Justification. Since then they have been classified as Teleshopping for the express reason of removing the Editorial Justification difficulty.

Grounds for complaint:
Children -> not an issue after 11pm, so says the survey
Offence -> see the survey, but most things tolerated on Adult channels.

Will I be forwarding this to Ofcom? No. They have already read the survey, and heard channels defences. But it will be going somewhere.

(31-12-2010 01:47 )eccles Wrote:  Sexual Intercourse
Non-explicit real and realistic sex is acceptable on FTA Adult channels. It must be after 11pm. Fetish, group or anal content drastically reduces acceptability. 2-4-1s featuring side-on oral sex and didlo use would be acceptable.

Serioulsy well done, eccles!

I find the above regulation quite astonishing. Not because side-on dildo use is permitted, but the fact that the Babeshows aren't bothering to utilize it.

Just let me make sure I have this correct. The babeshows could have actual side-on dildo insertion after 11pm, and Ofcom couldn't touch them for it?? Or is this merely what public attitude says and Ofcom are failing to reflect this with their regs?

[edit] Sorry, got a little excited there. I've now read your posts more thouroughly and realise it's the latter that applies.

Don't blame you for getting excited Stan!
If the attitudes of the general public have any bearing on future determination of standards of decency, as formulated by the regulators and law-makers, then perhaps we can indeed look forward to that shining, enlightened time that I still believe will come to pass.

It cannot always be doom and/or gloom.
New year, new hope, new resolve, guys!

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

Do the Ofcom Regulations permit side-on dildo use? The published Rules are so vague as to be meaningless, but the unwritten real rules probably do not allow this.

If Ofcom adhered to the public attitudes survey would it be allowed? Yes.

Clip 9 was from Red Hot 40+ and showed couples engaged in real sexual intercourse (body parts were pixellated). This was rated almost as acceptable as a Channel 4 cartoon sex-education show, and nearly as acceptable as a shagging scene from the BBC2 "Rome" drama. Difficult to see how Ofcom can permit the BBC2 and C4 shows with large general audiences but not comparable activity on a clearly labelled adult channel.

A full 28% of the survey group found it Totally Acceptable.

Clip 7 was from a Playboy sex-drama and showed repeated real sex scenes (oral and full intercourse, though sex organs were not visible). More people considered this Acceptable than Unacceptable.

Clip 6 was a Virgin1 sex-documentary showing pixellated or blurred oral sex. 20% more people found this Acceptable than Unacceptable.

How could Ofcom use Offense as grounds to block real-non explict sex after 11 on clearly labelled Adult Sex channels?

It doesn't make much sense, does it?

(02-01-2011 01:04 )mrmann Wrote:  It doesn't make much sense, does it?

No it doesnt, and thats one of the things that annoys me. Sexerama, Sexcetera, The 21st Century Womans Guide To Sex were not genuine documentaries, they were/are thinly veiled excuses to show arousing material for viewer enjoyment and to increase viewer numbers. In some cases they reel in viewers too dishonest with themselves to admit that they get a sexual frission from sexual content: anyone seen "hy Men Watch Porn" on Channel One and able to comment?

But there is a figleaf of pretence, so everyone pretends otherwise.

As for Peepshow, Grey's Anatomy and Meet The Fockers, words fail me.

(02-01-2011 03:26 )eccles Wrote:  Sexarama, Sexcetera, The 21st Century Womans Guide To Sex were not genuine documentaries, they were/are thinly veiled excuses to show arousing material for viewer enjoyment and to increase viewer numbers. In some cases they reel in viewers too dishonest with themselves to admit that they get a sexual frission from sexual content: anyone seen "Why Men Watch Porn" on Channel One and able to comment?

I didn't see it - didn't know it was on or I'd have probably looked out for it as a point of interest.
Well, we know why we watch porn. (the exquisite score) We also know why we watch such other 'lite-porn' shows as mentioned above. Good old Eurotrash; all the guys watched it, we'd talk about it at work... but we'd stop shy of adding "and I had a really stormin' wank all over that czech bird's tits an' all". Why is that?
Somehow, the notion of watching porn in itself no longer ranks as a great taboo, but we still as a society skirt round the horrid, sticky topic of self-abuse in relation to it. Weird.
And maybe that's where the problem lies; it isn't about arousing material, it's just that the folks in charge of this country haven't yet accepted that our modern state (born of a once-great-but-prudish former empire) has gone through puberty and grown up. Hell, we've let them meet the girlfriend (adult entertainment) and they still haven't got the message.
I wish our political mum and dad were a little less stuffy and more contemporary and easy-going in their social outlook.

Then we could all agree what a great wank we all had over last night's babeshows.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

Quote:Many participants said that images of anal sex, group sex and sex involving fetishes were also personally offensive and this made them less acceptable. (page 41)

Oh dear, it appears the great British public are unaware of the laws against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation...and so too are those bastards at OFCOM.

Anyhow, in relation to all the sexual material deemed Acceptable on FTA TV, has anyone watched Movies4'Men' recently? The last couple of times I've flicked through at around 2am, the supposed 'adult' films have quite literally shown women exposing their breasts as they're undressing to do a sex scene and then it jump-cuts to the next scene - all simulated sex has been edited out completely. I think they should rename Movies4Men to Movies4Kids to avoid prosecution under the trades descriptions act...

Oh and don't overlook the fact that this survey was published in 2009, yet, sexual content on late night 'adult' TV (and esp. Babeshows that no longer 'need' to justify anything editorially) has all but disappeared. OFCOM simply prove themselves to be bigots who believe they know better than the public they're supposed to fucking well serve!

One last point. Almost all complaints against Bang Media were in relation to breaches of the Code. The Code is supposed to be created according to the Comms Act. The Comms Act says OFCOM's Code is to protect against "offensive and harmful material". Clearly, the shite in the Code doesn't match what the public find acceptable according to this survey. Nor indeed, does OFCOM's 'cautionary approach' provide, or rely upon, the necessary evidence required to prove this type of publically acceptable material is 'harmful'. Clearly, as the Code stands, it is at odds with OFCOM's remit according to the law that requires them to draw up their Code. Any material found to be in breach of the Code is NOT in breach of the law or what the law says OFCOM can fuck about with.

Indeed, OFCOM's 'cautionary approach' is based on the lack of evidence of harm. To use this line of argument as OFCOM have done is rather like banning overhead power cables because there's a lack of evidence they cause harm or, banning mobile phones because there's a lack of evidence they cause harm. As 'hardcore' R18-type porn has already been declared safe for children to view according to all the available evidence, there is quite obviously going to be a lack of evidence to prove the opposite. Using this simple fact as a reason to impose totally unnecessary restrictions and censorship on TV programmes is thus utterly unfounded, unethical and totally illegal.

Moreover, as masturbating has been medically proven to improve physical and mental health and, with HIV and other STIs on the rise, the most HARMLESS and BENEFICIAL way to enjoy sex is by watching and wanking to porn. OFCOM cannot be seen to be protecting the public from harm while they demand pathetically offensive softcore tripe be peddled at great expense to expectant audiences.