Back To The Golden Age (If Only)

(09-01-2012 06:34 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 23:57 ) Wrote:  But the idea that the problem we face is even partly due to people like me is ridiculous in the extreme.

Not only is it not ridiculous, Roquentin, it is a fact, plain and simple. Yes, of course, if Ofcom did their job properly we wouldn't be having this discussion as we would have the best of both worlds - glamour and tease from the 'soft' presenters, catering for the type of viewer who is happy with such content, and harder material from the presenters more used to such performances, for those of us who want the ruder stuff.

But it simply cannot be argued that the reluctance of babeshow producers to up the ante and start pushing boundaries isn't party due to the fact that they're making enough money from the viewers/callers who are content with what we have now.

You are effectively calling for some kind of boycott of the babechannels, which is utterly ridiculous. And the very idea that you would even partly blame me for the situation is a joke. I am not responsible for the actions of the producers of the babechannels, even if my actions do partly prompt their actions.

I also remind us all that it is a goal of ours to have a free forum, so if anyone who happens to like a particular girl, and wants to express on the threads how much they enjoy watching them or calling them, then who are we to stamp on that? (thinking more of Responsible Adult's post - comments go both ways, both criticism and praise get 'mobbed' at times). It is a weird impulse considering we are concerned about censorship.

Interesting difference of views Stan, probably not persuading each other.

(09-01-2012 13:30 )Roquentin Wrote:  You are effectively calling for some kind of boycott of the babechannels, which is utterly ridiculous. And the very idea that you would even partly blame me for the situation is a joke.

I'm doing no such thing. What right do I have to tell viewers, happy with what they're getting, that they must boycott in order to force the babeshows to give us more explicit shows? In short, no right at all.

What I am doing, is simply pointing out why the babeshow producers have no incentive to take any risks with their output. Their pockets are being lined by viewers who have no interest whatsoever in Ofcom or the way they operate, and are perfectly content with the Benny Hill-type tease we get now.

(07-01-2012 17:59 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Don't worry, RESPONSIBLE ADULT, there are still a few of us left that can see what is going on in this country, and who can also still think for themselves.

As for the bit of your post I've highlighted in red - one word: Fanboys.

(08-01-2012 22:55 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:43 )Roquentin Wrote:  I'm sorry but when I watch the babeshows I am not thinking about civil liberties at that point. I mostly watch to see the best looking girls get into a sexy performance while teasing a little or revealing themselves topless or showing curves wherever they can.

Well that's just the difference between you and those of us who would like to be treated as adults by being given the responsibility to make informed viewing choices when (supposed) adult-orientated tv starts at 9pm.

Well I am glad you do not consider our situation to be the fault of those who do enjoy what content there is. You can understand why that impression was given.

(09-01-2012 23:16 )Roquentin Wrote:  Well I am glad you do not consider our situation to be the fault of those who do enjoy what content there is. You can understand why that impression was given.

Sure I can understand. Hell I even started a thread about six months ago titled 'Are the fanboys to blame for the current state of the babeshows?'

But even then, despite my bad choice of word, I wasn't laying the blame solely at the feet of fanboys.

Let's make no mistake, we all know who is really to blame for their current output.

True Stan, true.

In a way I do see a similar situation where I would be baffled by the tastes of others. It does slightly puzzle me how the daytime shifts still appear to be profitable for the babechannels, but there it is. Presumably there is enough of a market for such content and for guys to enjoy conversation as well as beauty, perhaps they are on to a good thing, I dunno.

But if Ofcom ever get their way and all harder content phonesex goes under PIN protection (and thus I fear goes under full stop! alas a lack of shop window, yadda yadda yadda.) Well presumably Ofcom would never be able to proscribe against the level of content we see during the days (?). Dayshows might then become the totality of free-to-air babeshow broadcasting. A woeful day (woe and thrice times woe!) This thread would suddenly become effectively the entire forum!

(09-01-2012 23:16 )Roquentin Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 17:59 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Don't worry, RESPONSIBLE ADULT, there are still a few of us left that can see what is going on in this country, and who can also still think for themselves.

As for the bit of your post I've highlighted in red - one word: Fanboys.

(08-01-2012 22:55 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(08-01-2012 12:43 )Roquentin Wrote:  I'm sorry but when I watch the babeshows I am not thinking about civil liberties at that point. I mostly watch to see the best looking girls get into a sexy performance while teasing a little or revealing themselves topless or showing curves wherever they can.

Well that's just the difference between you and those of us who would like to be treated as adults by being given the responsibility to make informed viewing choices when (supposed) adult-orientated tv starts at 9pm.

Well I am glad you do not consider our situation to be the fault of those who do enjoy what content there is. You can understand why that impression was given.

I am a newcomer to this forum, so I apologise if what i say has already been posted. I have written to Ofcom twice the first time was to ask how they thought it appropriate to show a film (love actually) that contained simulated sex, simulated oral sex, copious amounts of nudity (granted not genitals) the use of the word fuck, fucked, or fucking so many times you lose count, all this at tea time, when it is more likely a child would be watching than at 23.00
The second was to point out that at the age of 16 you can legally get married, and legally have sex, but you will not allow that person to see a naked girl allowing discreet nudity on a babechannel at 23.00. At the age of 17, you can legally drive, you can legally fly an aircraft, and with parental consent you can join the armed forces, but you will not allow that person to see a naked girl allowing discreet nudity on a babechannel at 23.00. At the age of 18, you can do all the above also you can vote, and you can legally sign up to join the armed forces fighting for your Country, but you will not allow that person to see a naked girl allowing discreet nudity on a babechannel at 23.00. I together with countless thousands of other people think you have got your priorities wrong. To this day Ofcom have not given me the courtesy of a reply. I also wrote to David Cameron, at least his press dept. acknowledged my letter. I think collectively, we need to write to the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt MP
Dept. of Culture Media & Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
LONDON SW1Y 5DH
Lets bombard him with as many letters as we can pointing out how we feel Ofcom are acting above their station. We have to do this in a big way, the odd letter here & there is not going to make him sit up & think, but if we do it big style, maybe just maybe he may think one of his quagos (Ofcom)has taken there view on nudity on the babechannels a little too far. If we don't do anything Ofcom believe me will not change there stance, unless they are told to do so by Jeremy Hunt MP. We also need the help of the media, why not write to for example the Sun, also the Daily Star, we need as many people on our side as possible. By all means keep this thread going, but by writing on this thread we are just preaching to the converted. If anybody wants to use any of my 'letter' when writing to Jeremy Hunt, you have my permission to do so. Just one more thing, has it been suggested to ofcom that when somebody selects a babechannel to watch, a blank screen is shown with the words 'This channel contains nudity, if you are offended by nudity then leave now, you must be over the age of 18 to view this channel', you then press enter to watch the show. Surely that would eliminate any person saying I did not know what the content would be, please if you write to Jeremy Hunt or Ofcom suggest this last bit to them, it maybe our saviour.

(10-01-2012 00:33 )Flyinghi Wrote:  Just one more thing, has it been suggested to ofcom that when somebody selects a babechannel to watch, a blank screen is shown with the words 'This channel contains nudity, if you are offended by nudity then leave now, you must be over the age of 18 to view this channel', you then press enter to watch the show. Surely that would eliminate any person saying I did not know what the content would be, please if you write to Jeremy Hunt or Ofcom suggest this last bit to them, it maybe our saviour.

Three problems with the above:-
1) Mr Hunt can't usually tell offcom what todo..
2) It would cost each channel a lot of dosh to setup a warning screen.
3) The media you say write too have caused most of the problems in the first place.

It's MONEY. Plain and simple. They say context, but that's their excuse to get away with what they do. Fining a channel hundreds of thousands of pounds and placing restrictions on full frontal nudity is offensive, because they allow much more on the other channels and with no fines for them!

The context excuse doesn't work. They allow non adult channels to show everything under the sun regarding how to get ourselves off, yet they won't allow the same content or even just full frontal to be shown on channels that are designed for that same purpose

As much as it pains me to say this, I'd love to see what would happen if people complained about Guide To Sex (It's important for men to know what it feels like to get a dildo up the ass???), Generation Sex, Sexcetera, and that other show which showed every single sex act imaginable recently. I bet you anything, Ofcom won't care, and won't do anything about it. With the babe channels, they can dangle them by a string like puppets, fining as they please. Like others have said, if Ofcom really cared about this silliness, they'd remove all of the sex shows.

(10-01-2012 00:33 )Flyinghi Wrote:  I am a newcomer to this forum, so ... Just one more thing, has it been suggested to ofcom that when somebody selects a babechannel to watch, a blank screen is shown with the words 'This channel contains nudity, if you are offended by nudity then leave now, you must be over the age of 18 to view this channel', you then press enter to watch the show. Surely that would eliminate any person saying I did not know what the content would be, please if you write to Jeremy Hunt or Ofcom suggest this last bit to them, it maybe our saviour.

Flyinghi thats one hell of a first post! If only 100 new members shared that level of committment there wouldnt be a problem. Rational, well argued, moderate in tone so it doesnt get thrown into the bin. Cameron, Clegg and now Milliband are all desperate for ways of keeping voters happy at the moment.

A simple warning screen SHOULD be possible, even non intrusive to us fans. I have advocated once a day PINS and opt in on several times, but been blanked by Ofcom. As Aaron88 says, Ofcom is notionally independent of the Minister, but that does not mean they can completely ignore him. Or the Select Committee. Nor can Sky. A low cost firmware update could be applied to existing Sky boxes. At some point Ofcom will have to publically explain why they continue to bang the Offence and Child Harm drums when there is a simple low cost solution.

(10-01-2012 02:01 )eccles Wrote:  Flyinghi thats one hell of a first post! If only 100 new members shared that level of committment there wouldnt be a problem. Rational, well argued, moderate in tone so it doesnt get thrown into the bin. Cameron, Clegg and now Milliband are all desperate for ways of keeping voters happy at the moment.

A simple warning screen SHOULD be possible, even non intrusive to us fans. I have advocated once a day PINS and opt in on several times, but been blanked by Ofcom. As Aaron88 says, Ofcom is notionally independent of the Minister, but that does not mean they can completely ignore him. Or the Select Committee. Nor can Sky. A low cost firmware update could be applied to existing Sky boxes. At some point Ofcom will have to publically explain why they continue to bang the Offence and Child Harm drums when there is a simple low cost solution.

I doubt Offcom can tell sky what it can do.. but that would surely require a minister to give more powers to Offcom. However I did see a satellite paytv company had built into the remote a button for 18+ onscreen warnings.. but was some symbol a regulator had created. Again I doubt they had powers to compel them but was agreed informally. Maybe i'll try find a picture of it.