Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(26-01-2012 02:11 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(25-01-2012 17:04 )IanG Wrote:  OFCOM's stance is simply untenable. It is clear that the British public do NOT have a problem with the portrayal of explicit sex and nudity on TV else OFCOM would be inundated with complaints about programmes such as The Sex Education Show, Embarrassing Bodies and the Lover's Guide on Body in Balance TV.

This does raise another question; if sex and nudity on tv are not the problem - as is clearly illustrated here - then just what is Ofcom's problem with the babeshows?

My belief is that they fear that there will be a porn explosion amongst the British working class.

If full R18 is allowed on TV, then there will be a whole host of porn DVD's circulating, if the babes are allowed to go naked even after the watershed, then evrybody will be watching them and getting off on them so there will be a total loss of control of the lower classes.

Censorship is, very often, a fear of the loss of control.

Hell, they may even fear that they themselves will enjoy watching proper adult entertainment therefore it must be controlled.

Again, in my belief, this government (and as were the one before) are pulling the strings quietly in the background.

I cannot believe that senior Whitehall civil servants and Ofcon are not in regular contact.

Every government knows the power of the media.

(26-01-2012 20:28 )blackjaques Wrote:  My belief is that they fear that there will be a porn explosion amongst the British working class.

If full R18 is allowed on TV, then there will be a whole host of porn DVD's circulating, if the babes are allowed to go naked even after the watershed, then evrybody will be watching them and getting off on them so there will be a total loss of control of the lower classes.

Censorship is, very often, a fear of the loss of control.

Hell, they may even fear that they themselves will enjoy watching proper adult entertainment therefore it must be controlled.

Again, in my belief, this government (and as were the one before) are pulling the strings quietly in the background.

I cannot believe that senior Whitehall civil servants and Ofcon are not in regular contact.

Every government knows the power of the media.

R18 is already allowed on the non adult labled channels! Open leg, uncensored oral, penetration, anal, women using dildos on their boyfriends, ejaculation. All of that is shown on non adult channels, where anyone could happen upon. Ofcon wants money and control over the babe channels. It's sad that we can see a woman getting her vagina licked on non adult channels, yet full frontal on the babe channels can result in a huge fine. Quite irresponsible and hypocritical of Ofcon to act this way!

Just seen the BeNaughty.com advert for a dating site on E4.

It shows a man and woman getting dressed before going out on the pull - slightly blurred images of both their naked backsides are shown as they pull their pants up. They then go out on the street in stockings and suspenders. This was just before 10:30pm.

Its an advert. Adverts have to strictly abide by deceny standards - they cannot claim dramatic justification. So is it OK to show bum cheeks and cracks?

If anyone doesn't know Sky channel 275 "Body in balance" has been showing the lovers guide uncut every Thursday night from 11pm -1130pm for the last month and is on right now and shows R18 material on a non adult channel without even a 18 cert in the EPG

(27-01-2012 00:13 )mr mystery Wrote:  If anyone doesn't know Sky channel 275 "Body in balance" has been showing the lovers guide uncut every Thursday night from 11pm -1130pm for the last month and is on right now and shows R18 material on a non adult channel without even a 18 cert in the EPG

You're missing Ofcom's favourite word; 'educational'.

(27-01-2012 00:13 )mr mystery Wrote:  If anyone doesn't know Sky channel 275 "Body in balance" has been showing the lovers guide uncut every Thursday night from 11pm -1130pm for the last month and is on right now .

This just goes to show the Hypocrisy of Ofcom, they are happy to allow this on TV, yet when it comes to specific Adult channels, Ofcom change there stance, and start making lame excuses against them. I'm so sick and tired of this double minded mentality, Ofcom somehow need to be either deregulated or put out of business, maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but we all must hope.

(27-01-2012 00:26 )continental19 Wrote:  This just goes to show the Hypocrisy of Ofcom, they are happy to allow this on TV, yet when it comes to specific Adult channels, Ofcom change there stance, and start making lame excuses against them. I'm so sick and tired of this double minded mentality, Ofcom somehow need to be either deregulated or put out of business, maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but we all must hope.

Maybe they consider shows like The Lovers Guide to be taking a mature and respectful look at sex (then again, maybe it doesn't; I haven't seen any of it!), whereas more explicit content on the 900 channels might shape viewers attitudes in the opposite direction? Certainly if a babe gets reduced to a groin-thrusting automaton, intoning the same very narrow range of spur-on lines over and over, the effect is depersonalising; ultimately demeaning her and anyone watching her. I think the shows need to buck their ideas up, but greater explicitness is no guarantee that they'd become the vibrant, entertaining shows they used to be. More has been lost than what intermittent pussy slips and sex toy play brought to the 'table.'

Brilliant! The restrictions are dehumanising. I have some ancient clips from Babestar (I think) where two of the babes were in a relationship and one demonstrated techniques on the other. Nothing expicit actually visible, but real sex was happening. Demonstrating sex technique - and the need to consider your partners pleasure, not just your own - is key to avoiding Victorian style marriages where one or both parties were miserable and resented each other. But Ofcom act against the public interest by banning the biggest operators in the sector from any discussion of the subject.

As has been said many times before, the only reason the babeshows cannot show the same stuff that can be seen on the other channels is that they are now classified as "advertising/teleshopping" channels and therefore come under a different set of rules. I don't think that anyone who watches babestation would argue about this classification.
If they stopped putting all the telephone numbers on the screen, and stopped trying to sell the girls pics and vids, there would not be a problem with the content, but they would soon go out of business and there would be no shows.
Comparing babeshow channel content against ordinary channel content seems rather pointless in this respect. The question should be "Why do the advertising/teleshopping channels have different rules to the normal channels?"

If my memory serves me correct, the only Babe channel which works under a foreign licence is Babestation. Now I no they still have to toe the line somewhat with ofcom, however I've noticed in the last 2-3 months that the content they've been putting out appears to be quite a bit stronger than it has been.
There has been a bit more interaction i.e 241's to some degree and it just seems Babestation seem to be stepping things up in general. Now is this all to do with having a foreign licence? my answer I think is yes. Ofcom can push Babestation to some degree but I don't think ofcom want all the hassle with babestation because of all the legal wranglings that would go with it.
Another question I have is why the other babe channels either can't or won't apply for a foreign licence like babestation can? Is it to do with money? I don't no, but it might be worth a look from the other channels.