(16-02-2013 18:20 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ]Titles must not be misleading on the nature of the programme
...
'My Daughter The Teenage Nudist' was about a teenage girl (someone's daughter) who was a nudist. Nothing misleading there at all, move on.
If you were disappointed it was not wall to wall naked fanny, that was simply your own expectation, it was in no way implied from the title of the programme, nor from the summary of it's content.
Before you all start pouncing on the back of Fedup. He does have a point which you have all largely missed. His grievance with the documentary wasn't so much the fact that it showed a hell of lot of Penis's from the outset. It was really that the balance throughout wasn't properly distributed so I kind of agree with him the title of the programme was rather misleading.
Also I agree with him on the sexist nature of so many recent programmes wherea's the vagina is either censored, blurred etc or not shown at all but the penis is ok to show in all it's glory. Big Brother 2012 was a perfect example of this. We want to see fairness across the whole board of channels. That was always his point before all discussion on this subject get's blown out of proportion
You speak about balance, but you also need to look at why they where shown and what narration when around it. It is far more complicated then what the person has said, as there will often be a reason as to why it is edited that way.
Lets ignore the cockfest for a second here, why was the programme misleading?
Don't get me started on the pile of shit that is big brother.
(16-02-2013 18:20 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ][My Daughter The Nudist] was just a penis show with every opportunity to show explicit adult male genitals and if they didn't the men just pulled their pants down.
(17-02-2013 18:24 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Before you all start pouncing on the back of Fedup. He does have a point which you have all largely missed. His grievance with the documentary wasn't so much the fact that it showed a hell of lot of Penis's from the outset. It was really that the balance throughout wasn't properly distributed so I kind of agree with him the title of the programme was rather misleading.
The job of a documentary is to more or less objectively capture and display scenes, events and circumstances that actually pertain to a particular subject or place. It follows then, that if you're making a documentary about nudists, it will feature far more men than women, because far more men than women choose to become nudists. They also tend to be more boorish than the women, I'd wager (hence all the flashing and playing to camera). If you're not reflecting that bias in the final edit of your documentary, you're not being true to the genre. 'Equal' gender screen time is an irrelevance.
Titles are subjectively interpretable, and on the whole mean jack cack (Abigail's Party never once directly features Abigail, or shows the party she's attending. It's a stage and TV play, not a documentary, but a title is a convenience label as much as anything, and as I say, open to different readings. If some programme makers are setting out to show what kind of a lion's den a nudist camp represents to a young woman about to enter, again lots of men are going to feature, title be damned. It's unavoidable.)
But putting aside the issue of documentary verisimilitude and 'truth' to title, though; if you want to talk about the bias existing between gay and straight representation on TV, count up how many free-to-air live phone and text request shows are currently available for gay viewers as opposed to how many there currently are for straight viewers. Doesn't take long for inequality to emerge, does it? By my reckoning you currently need less than the finger of one hand to tot up the former.
Also, a tip: if you're going to keep arguing that this supposed discrimination against hetero viewers is 'sexist,' then it's advisable not to do your railing in a fucking forum set up in praise of and for the dissemination of 'lad's mag' style soft porn material! Join the Digitalspy boards, or somewhere like that. I'm being serious. Argue your case within the setting of a general popular media forum like that, with a balanced mix of both men and women (unlike this place) and see what kind of feedback you get and where it leads. Digitalspy is well established and people who work in television keep tabs on it.
how many women are actually involved in this discussion of nudists on here... from what I can tell one.
Trolling through this crap that is on air tonight it really does make you think just how fucking sad and tragic it is that we have such a regulator that has more or less taken out all of the fun when it comes to this type of entertainment. It's so restrictive, it's beyond belief.
Let's just say that when Ed Richards eventually fucks off from ofcom that how brilliant it would be for a new chief executive to come in and and more or less tell the rest of the board members to stop the witch hunt now. How refreshing it would also be if we could hear something positive such as Adult Channels have as much right as the rest of the channels do to be entertaining and that they do indeed have a purpose.
The inconsistency at the moment is alarming to say the least. Even when we have seen a decent show the camera operator has been that over cautious and nervous that it's killed the whole point of it all such as was the case with Lacey's show last night on Babestation.
I may cap the shows from time to time but don't be fooled for one minute if you're thinking that all is green on the grass with me. It's an entirely different side to me. Call it artistic if you like. My focus has always been to defeat those bastards at ofcom HQ
I don't really get the obsession with seeing pussy on mainstream tv. 'Babeshow' pussy, yes, because they are the girls we all fantasize about but 'ordinary' pussy? I'm sure most of us have woken up next to it often enough.
There also seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of human anatomy. If you put a man and a woman, side by side, in a normal, closed legs, standing position you will see all of the male genitals "in all their glory" but very little pussy. It's an unavoidable fact of human anatomy.
To get a detailed view of a pussy the girl has to bend right over, arse to camera, or sit back and spread her legs wide. The male equivilent, to my mind, would be an erect penis. Since you're not going to see either in a mainstream nudist documentary, or reality show, I fail to see where the discrimination lies.
Personally speaking, I can't remember the last time I saw a penis on tv, but then again I don't trawl the tv guides looking for it.
Why is Ed Richards being the one blamed when it is all committee based...
(18-02-2013 11:59 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]Why is Ed Richards being the one blamed when it is all committee based...
i would have thought that any final decisions were down to him as a whole,which is why he gets both barrels
(18-02-2013 12:32 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ] (18-02-2013 11:59 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]Why is Ed Richards being the one blamed when it is all committee based...
i would have thought that any final decisions were down to him as a whole,which is why he gets both barrels
No, it's all committee decided, he just happens to be the chair at this time.