(29-10-2010 23:15 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]Somehwhat soon after, I happened to watch Robocop. As you might expect, watching Peter Weller's character Murphy get blown apart infront of laughing thugs didn't sit too well with me. I managed to make it through the rest of the movie, but for the remainder of the day, I believe I was in a slight state of shock. Even for the rest of the week, I felt a bit like I wasn't really there, just kind of nervous as well. Over a little time that changed of course, and the movie didn't make me violent or anything like that, but I was a bit more aware of how violent the world could be.
I genuinely still can't watch that scene even now. Makes me feel sick. How anyone could claim nakedness more harmful than that is a mystery.
(29-10-2010 23:59 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]Eurotrash:The Sexy Bits is on 121 channel one right now, showing full frontal nudity. Penises, vaginas, and even a bit of anus as well. One of the photgraphers is even excited about shooting his first c*m shot underwater. It's all a bit arousing
I've never understood why those types of programs are deemed ok to be broadcast so long as the genitals are blurred out. I mean the content and intention is clear; why pornographic activity can be shown, but the sight of genitals would somehow push it beyond acceptable is bizarre. Just shows that it's not the content, but a weird outdated obsession with classing gentials as offensive - I mean it's not as if any of the viewing audience have genitals themselves is it?
The private parts were NOT blurred out on the Eurotrash show.
(30-10-2010 00:40 )lucent-x Wrote: [ -> ]I've never understood why those types of programs are deemed ok to be broadcast so long as the genitals are blurred out. I mean the content and intention is clear; why pornographic activity can be shown, but the sight of genitals would somehow push it beyond acceptable is bizarre. Just shows that it's not the content, but a weird outdated obsession with classing gentials as offensive - I mean it's not as if any of the viewing audience have genitals themselves is it?
I seem to recall that they didn't bother blurring out the genitals very much in the original run. Whether that's changed in the compilation format I couldn't say, but there used to be lots of uncensored flashing on Eurotrash. That's part of why we watched it, of course. And no-one I know who saw it was left mentally or emotionally damaged. Nor did society collapse; no, the government saw to that but that's another tale for another blog!
Incidentally, I too was much more shocked and upset by the level of vilence in films like RoboCop and Predator, etc when I was young and impressionable than I ever was by my first glimpse of pussy (which, frankly, left me excited and looking forward to getting some). That seems to have been the case with most of us?
(29-10-2010 23:15 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]Somehwhat soon after, I happened to watch Robocop. As you might expect, watching Peter Weller's character Murphy get blown apart infront of laughing thugs didn't sit too well with me. I managed to make it through the rest of the movie, but for the remainder of the day, I believe I was in a slight state of shock. Even for the rest of the week, I felt a bit like I wasn't really there, just kind of nervous as well. Over a little time that changed of course, and the movie didn't make me violent or anything like that, but I was a bit more aware of how violent the world could be.
The director of Robocop, Paul Verhoven said that his intention was to portray the real damage a gunshot would inflict and that he finds it repugnant that when gunshot deaths are normally depicted in cinema, you often see the victim just "fall down", without any real implication of the actual horror.
Have a look at the tea time ITV version of Robocop:
We have put together a strong argument here... but how will things ever change? Cant see my local MP tabling a question in the House or the local community launching a petition!!!
(30-10-2010 01:13 )Krill Liberator Wrote: [ -> ]I seem to recall that they didn't bother blurring out the genitals very much in the original run.
Well we know OFCOM don't mind a penis, so long as it's under 90°, on TV after the watershed. It's the female genitals they don't want us to see. Eurotrash and the like have shown frontal female nudity but it's only ever a barbie style 'groove' shot at best, very rarely do you actually see lips or indeed a vagina in all it's gory, sorry, glory. And that's it, it's not the 'content', it's purely the sight of a pussy that OFCOM deem unacceptable - although clearly they get slipped into, albeit very briefly, those types of programs every now an again. If anyone remembers Channel5's Sex and Shopping series they'll know there was alot of actual pornographic sexual activity broadcast, but with any real glimpse of pussy pixillated. So who do they think won't be offended by basically porn on the tv, but would be offended if a vagina get shown during it? OCFOM can't give us the 'documentarily editorially justifed' and not 'purely for arousal' argument, as Eurotrash and Sexarama etc. are clearly designed for titillation and arousal, just because of their format and the fact they dub those mad foreigners with regional accents it doesn't make them any different to the babe channels aims and content really.
(30-10-2010 08:33 )Suurbier Wrote: [ -> ]We have put together a strong argument here... but how will things ever change? Cant see my local MP tabling a question in the House or the local community launching a petition!!!
Any petition or action on this needs to be non-specific and geared towards the general 'anti-censorship' angle, encompassing all outdated, unwarranted and generally stupid, unfair rules set by OFCOM. No MP in their right mind would just back a 'porn on the telly' petition, but include it within an overall package of adult freedom and modernising the old victorian attitudes that still exist in this country, then maybe some forward thinking MP might speak up for it.
I'd agree with that. Offcom obviously finds vaginas to be disgusting, and disgusting to look at
What kind of message is that? Women are already more insecure about their bodies throughout life than boys are, so Offcom's views are only making things worse by demonizing a normal body part that women should NOT be ashamed of.
Ofcom monitor the babe channels and listen n on calls; they even check out this forum I'm sure, but they actually read this thread or take in any of what's written here?
Only if it's incriminating, i would guess. And that's got to be a case of selective use of evidence - the classic pseudo-governmental distortion of statistics to suit the point being made as opposed to exploring the available evidence in full to arrive at the correct conclusion.
But I'd say we're getting closer and closer to some kind of truth here and it might soon be time for some form of action, even if not 'direct action' (cos that doesn't work).
Not sure if this explains anything, but according to Ofcoms response to Stonewall, the sexual orientation of their staff is:
Bisexual 0.1%
Gay man 0.7%
Gay woman/lesbian 0.1%
Hetrosexual/straight 25.1%
Not stated 73.9%
Total 100.0%
Q17 Workplace Equality Index 2011
also Q23:
Quote:Are there openly LGB people at senior levels in your organisation?
A) Yes, at top tier (not highlighted) B) Yes, at second tier (highlighted) C) Yes, at third tier (highlighted)
D) No, we do not have any openly LGB people at senior levels in the
organisation
So a broadcasting sector employer has no-one at the top tier who is openly LBT despite the industry being renouned for representation.
And why did the pro-minority Labour government not appoint any LGT board members? Were the government guilty of bias? (To be fair, I am not sure if board members are included in the survey).
Quote:23. If you have openly LGB members of staff at the three uppermost levels of your organisation, please provide an approximate figure of how many for each tier. Please also provide the name of one individual at each tier (this information will remain confidential):
xxx xxx and xxx xxx sit on the Corporate Responsibility Steering Group (‘CRSG’) and are part of the Senior Management Group (‘SMG’) and two grades below the Chief Executive Officer. Both are open about their sexuality at work and act as visible role models to colleagues across the organisation.
At third tier - xxx xxx.
It gets worse. Just 2 openly gay senior managers, and they are 3 grades below the top.
This conjours up an image of an organisation full of rugby playing beer swilling mens-men who refuse to complete Equalities forms "on principle" in between reading the Sun at their desks and saying how awful Graham Norton and Stephen Fry are. The beer and rugby injuries dull any sex drive that exists and as "real men" they say they dont need stimulus from porn mags or babe channels thank you very much.
To cap it all, in Part A they blank out the organisation name, address and number of employees - despite publishing the response on their website. Confused?
They do things differently abroad. Just watched a 25 min segment from Le Iene, a satirical show broadcast on MediaSet1, owned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berluscioni's company, documenting the making of a gangbang/bukakke film. Lots of blurring and strategically placed black boxes, and not stroke material, but not something you would feel comfortable watching with granny either. No silly Eurotrash style voices or jokey commentary, just seemed to be playing it straight "Heres what goes on". And unlike Eurotrash etc the rest of the show is non erotic. Cant see that kind of mixed show on ITV1 happening any day soon.
(Pointless post as it wont change UK attitudes, but thought it interresting).
