New Ofcom Rules

(01-01-2011 14:56 )gazfc Wrote:  Sorry but what sexcetra are you watching because the most I've seen on them is a bit of bush the rest is pixalated.

For your first point, you can see what you want, you just have to pay for the privilege (as you more than likely would have to if bang and elite etc wanted to show full frontal)

I posted this before Christmas, but recently I've seen a man getting banged in the ass with a strapon, where we could see his anus in clear detail, as well as vaginal lips and a woman being stimulated on a dildo chair, open leg and not blurred.

What do you think of my latest post? Do you find normal female body parts to be dangerous to view on adult channels, after the watershed? How is an image of a body part going to harm someone? Please don't mention context.

(01-01-2011 14:56 )gazfc Wrote:  Sorry but what sexcetra are you watching because the most I've seen on them is a bit of bush the rest is pixalated.

For your first point, you can see what you want, you just have to pay for the privilege (as you more than likely would have to if bang and elite etc wanted to show full frontal)

Agreed gazfc! but if you do pay you won`t see anything more than a few pussy shots,maybe the odd exited cock but you won`t see the two together,the most explicit I saw last year was on babestation xtreme but even that has gone now and they have even heavily edited all the good stuff out of the programs that have been shown before

(01-01-2011 17:09 )mrmann Wrote:  I posted this before Christmas, but recently I've seen a man getting banged in the ass with a strapon, where we could see his anus in clear detail, as well as vaginal lips and a woman being stimulated on a dildo chair, open leg and not blurred.

What do you think of my latest post? Do you find normal female body parts to be dangerous to view on adult channels, after the watershed? How is an image of a body part going to harm someone? Please don't mention context.

Unless you get a different version to me and this person http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid710634 and the many others that have posted the same, I'd say you imagine what you see

guess you didn't read this post of mine? http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid710502

(01-01-2011 17:14 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  Agreed gazfc! but if you do pay you won`t see anything more than a few pussy shots,maybe the odd exited cock but you won`t see the two together,the most explicit I saw last year was on babestation xtreme but even that has gone now and they have even heavily edited all the good stuff out of the programs that have been shown before

Not sure really, cant get my head around half the stuff cellcast does

By any chance do they edit it & try to make it look like its new footage??

(01-01-2011 17:18 )gazfc Wrote:  By any chance do they edit it & try to make it look like its new footage??

No they just cut chunks out,no continuity just cut and a lot of the programs now just finish abrubtly no ending ,fuck all just finish.
It`s all just a load of fucking pathetic censored crap now and most of it could or should I dare say should,be on free to watch tv

(01-01-2011 16:46 )RCTV Wrote:  

(01-01-2011 16:04 )mr mystery Wrote:  You can't compare Ofcom and the police , the police are a instrument of the law and their duty is to enforce the laws of the land that have been passed in parliament , anyone the police deem to have broken the law then have to be judged in court by a independent authority and not by the police them selves , Ofcom make their own rules and regulations up to suit them selves and sit in judgement of any channel they think is in breach of their own rules that have not been passed in parliament , in essence Ofcom are judge jury and executioner of the tv channels , but what irks me is Ofcom stated a few years ago that it is ok for for girls to wear bikinis and wear next to nothing on day time tv , i remember a few years ago when daytime rules were more or less the same as they are now , then over night and with Ofcom's blessing the day time girls were allowed due to new Ofcom rules allowed to wear bikini's and put on more raunchier shows , why have they suddenly decided that their own daytime rules were wrong ? , are they being leaned on by this government ? .

nope as different people set the rules and different people deal with complaints.

The reason they where changed a few years ago was because it was deemed a good idea to as there wasn't many complaints, but then they went to far and the complaints flooded in. So they changed back and also the change in government also aided in the new rules.

Nonsense. no complaints have ever 'flooded in' with regard to the babe channels. They come through in ones and twos, and are usually by rival babe channels, not members of the public.

(01-01-2011 17:18 )gazfc Wrote:  Unless you get a different version to me and this person http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid710634 and the many others that have posted the same, I'd say you imagine what you see

guess you didn't read this post of mine? http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid710502

No, I don't make up things like this. The strapon scene might have been on Eurotrash, but the woman being stimulated in the dildo chair was definitely on Sexcetera, about three weeks ago.

As for the pay to see more comment, well I don't think most of us would be against that, and I see nothing wrong with charging a fee to see uncensored nudity. I'd certainly pay a bit to see that, if it was for the right channels, but Ofcom doesn't want to let the shows go to encryption, so this seems unlikely. The websites are great, but it's not always the same as watching the women live. The only good thing about the current censorship, is that it's more fun when there are slips, or when rules are being bent, but it still gets old after a while.

@mrmann


These shows you mention do you not find it strange that nobody else has seen what you describe even though they've been getting repeated by for nearly a decade now

(01-01-2011 18:18 )gazfc Wrote:  @mrmann


These shows you mention do you not find it strange that nobody else has seen what you describe even though they've been getting repeated by for nearly a decade now

No. Why would I?

You didn't answer my question about seeing a normal body part on adult channels after the watershed.

What I need to answer it again, NO

If you had taken the time to read some of my posts you would of known that by now

Gazfc, the pic you posted raises thought in the kind of direction I feel this discussion could do with heading. But it doesn't illustrate the all-important issue of context. As I think everyone posting in this thread knows, context is Ofcom's reason for limiting explicit visuals on babeshows, but what I don't think people are getting is the significance of context. I know it's a word mrmann doesn’t want to hear (sorry mrmann), but I see it as a key point.

A photo of male gay sex on a sexually-themed forum is not greatly out of context. It's not gonna be of interest to the majority of members, but since most members probably watch porn involving men, they're not gonna be shocked or upset by it. However, I'd ask those who feel that context is meaningless to consider the following...

You're on a train with some friends, your parents, and your boss (assuming you're not your own boss). A male guard walks into the carriage, but rather than asking for tickets, he drops his trousers and pants, stands in front of you all and starts wanking a hard-on. Now, if anyone suggests that they wouldn't find this situation in any way uncomfortable, I'd suggest they're way out of step with the thinking of society in general, and therefore not contributing an opinion which should have a bearing on the way the public should be treated by a TV channel and/or its regulator. I would expect almost anyone in a situation like the above to take immediate issue with guard in the strongest possible fashion and almost certainly start proceedings against the railway company. The incident would probably become front page news, and most likely create a major public outrage. The guard would surely be arrested for indecent exposure, and would pay the legal penalty, lose his job, etc. I wouldn't envisage anyone on this forum writing letters of protest should the guard go to prison.

This illustrates context. If the guard had gone off and made a porn film in his own time, he could have behaved in the same way, but (provided the film was entirely consentual and appropriately marketed) been entirely within the bounds of acceptability. It's not his behaviour per se which has proved offensive. It's his disregard for accepted social standards, and the psychological discomfort/distress he's caused to you, your friends, your parents, and your boss. Even if you personally didn't mind being flashed at, how would your boss have reacted had you sat there and said: "No, that's fine actually. A guard should be free to express himself as he wishes - please carry on masturbating Mr Guard, if you so wish"? You probably wouldn't make Employee of the Month, put it that way. Sometimes, even if our own views are very liberal, we have to tailor them to fit in with the people around us.

Sex in itself is not offensive. It can't be. None of us would be here if it was. But it can be used to offend, in the same way as something else which isn't in itself offensive. Like your fingers, for instance. If you use them to write a letter of thanks to someone then fingers are positive. If you use them to flick the Vs at someone, they're offensive. You can argue all year about why people should take offence when someone flicks the Vs at them, but the fact is they do - it's against social etiquette and is regarded as an insult. It doesn't hurt anyone, it's not dangerous, but it's offensive. If you were a football referee and one player flicked the Vs at another, you'd be expected to send him/her off. If someone approached you after the game and said: "What's so offensive about fingers?", you'd probably say: "Nothing. I sent off the player for the sentiment of his/her gesture, which constituted unacceptable behaviour".

So things which are totally inoffensive in themselves can cause offence, and sexual behaviour is one of many examples. Ofcom cannot ban sex on TV. Because sex is not offensive. What Ofcom have to ascertain is the sentiment behind any TV content (not just sexual), and how that will meet with the emotions of what they consider to be the typical viewer.

Deeply ingrained into our culture is a sense that sex screened on TV without any mitigation can be there only for the purpose of the viewer's arousal, and that intent until very recently has been considered unacceptable. As to why that is, well, it's like saying why is a finger gesture unacceptable? No reason other than that people are brought up to be offended by it. It's just the way things are, and you can't break down an entire culture overnight. Even if a belief is misguided or entirely wrong, it still exists, and can't be ignored. Babeshows are the first widespread TV phenomenon here in the UK which have existed solely to sexually titillate, without any mitigation. This is why Ofcom treats babeshows differently from other examples of sexual content. It's not about whether sex in babeshows is any more wrong than sex in an education show. It about whether the typical viewer will accept it in the same way. Even Sexcetera can be regarded as a documentary about real people's sex lives, and therefore it has a pretext other than sexually exciting the viewer. The pretext is tenuous, but it exists, and probably helps Sexcetera into a more lenient category.

However, there has been progress with Ofcom's acceptance of babeshows. At least now they publish some guidelines and have a framework which recognises the shows as legitimate packages. Ofcom now officially sanction content which just over two years back the Freeview babeshows dared not screen. There are lots of problems with Ofcom, but taking an aggressive and intolerant stance against them will achieve nothing. All of life is a compromise, and its my firm belief that changing opinion is a matter of starting in the middle ground where people can negotiate with meaning, then working steadily toward your target.

I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't love sexy TV shows, and ideally I'd like the girls to be free to work up to their personal sexual boundaries. But I recognise that this is complicated. One girl's actions will have a bearing on another girl, and that's a concern in an environment where lots of colleagues/friends have different boundaries and don't want to make each other uncomfortable. Colleague respect could implement its own restrictions even if Ofcom went down the lav tomorrow. And that of course is not to mention the commercial implications of screening harder content. In Babestation's case for example, I wouldn't envisage the free-to-air content changing much at all in the absence of Ofcom. Not unless they were happy to lose a fortune per night in pic downloads that is.