I've often thought that the shows could 'get away' with more, if they dropped some of the more problematic aspects of their shows, i.e. the way they choose to 'frame' the body, and the language that gets used when referring to it. The nudity can't a problem by itself; it must be the potentially offensive (to women, principally) mode(s) of display and crude wordage, combined with the 'unknown' element of a live broadcast and the soliciting for calls (i.e. cash) aspect.
I have NEVER been convinced that Ofcon are applying logical arguments to justify their censorship
There is a culture of fear and repression in their obssesive need to censor sexual imagery on UK TV.
They don't like it; they will not tolerate it.
(22-02-2013 21:47 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]There is a culture of fear and repression in their obssesive need to censor sexual imagery on UK TV.
They don't like it; they will not tolerate it.
But that's to go back to this idea that Ofcom is a bunch of sexually repressed, puritan reactionaries, which is unrealistic (basically a caricature). Ofcom is bound to be a varied mix of people who are quite balanced, if a little bureaucratic. I'm not buying any conspiracy-type theories. I don't think they're driven by fear or repressive instinct. They're more likely to be concerned with the depiction of sexuality in a modern, progressive, supposedly less sexist world.
(22-02-2013 21:59 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ] (22-02-2013 21:47 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]There is a culture of fear and repression in their obssesive need to censor sexual imagery on UK TV.
They don't like it; they will not tolerate it.
But that's to go back to this idea that Ofcom is a bunch of sexually repressed, puritan reactionaries, which is unrealistic (basically a caricature). Ofcom is bound to be a varied mix of people who are quite balanced, if a little bureaucratic. I'm not buying any conspiracy-type theories. I don't think they're driven by fear or repressive instinct. They're more likely to be concerned with the depiction of sexuality in a modern, progressive, supposedly less sexist world.
Nothing I have seen in their judgements convinces me that they are a balanced set of individuals.
Why do you think they need to censor the encrypted programmes?
Do you believe their views that children need protecting when/if they are viewing these images?
(22-02-2013 22:31 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you think they need to censor the encrypted programmes?
Never access/don't have any interest in the encrypted shows. My guess would be again that it's an issue with the way women are depicted therein (sexually subservient/hackneyed pain-inflicting doms, etc.) and disparaging language used. As I say, just a guess. I can't believe the nudity in-and-of-itself would be the problem.
(22-02-2013 19:56 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2009 21:38 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I was approached by hotel voyer to be on it, about a yearish ago.
It's a shame we never got to see you on Hotel Voyeur
(31-12-2010 16:29 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I have done stuff for ofcom before (although not for the adult tv).
O i see 
(03-01-2011 14:57 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]Mainstream tv nudity can only be done if it's art and they have to get permission to broadcast it .
I never realized that 
(06-02-2011 13:12 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ] I questioned some guidelines which were published, and was told we're ofcom we make the rules, you're just a producer (which i was at the time), i then did some work for them and managed to make a slight change.
What were the guidelines you questioned and managed to make a slight change ? .
ofcom don't classify it as adult tv. therefore under their rules was for teleshopping. Load of bollocks.
I can't remember the exact guidelines. was going back nearly a decade.
(22-02-2013 22:44 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ] (22-02-2013 22:31 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you think they need to censor the encrypted programmes?
Never access/don't have any interest in the encrypted shows. My guess would be again that it's an issue with the way women are depicted therein (sexually subservient/hackneyed pain-inflicting doms, etc.) and disparaging language used. As I say, just a guess. I can't believe the nudity in-and-of-itself would be the problem.
I have seen a few and the were no doms, no subs, just very watered down straight sex, like alcohol free beer. Explicit sex is banned because sex shop owners dont want the competition.
RCTV Wrote:They also weren't keen that I had I just had a local Spanish licence rather than a national Spanish licence.
I can half understand Ofcom saying that if a channel is licensed for local broadcasting in one small area they would be acting outside the terms of that license if the broadcast more widely. It’s the same situation as if one of the local broadcasters being set up went national, or a local radio station decided it was going to broadcast footage on Sky. What I don’t see is what the country has to do with it or why Ofcom had any say in the matter.
Addison Wrote:Art/serious drama can and will make reference to the human body and the fact that we're sexual creatures, but such content is never an end in itself.
Some art/drama/documentary nudity is non-sexual and may be there to illustrate a specific point, like what skin cancer looks like. But some art IS erotic. Almost all dance is stylised fucking or a comeon. Some film and TV sex scenes are explicit (Betty Blue, Say You Love Me). The difference is that the scene is either minimal or a small part of the over production, so the audience will not be aroused all the way through. And lets be honest, some sex scenes are longer than strictly necessary because the producer or director is deliberately spicing it up.
No way do TV channels get permission to show artistic nudity in advance. That would make Ofcom a censor and they are clear they do not censor anything in advance. It would also prevent them from punishing a channel afterwards. There is a case on record of Playboy believing it had been given a green light only to be found in breach after. Ofcom tried to say they do not preapprove content and what was said was not approval, or guidance, or was unauthorised, something like that.
They might answer a general question in theoretical terms, but reserve the right to have a different opinion when they see the actual show. For example “Is it all right to zoom in on underpants that have a wide crotch” sounds OK, but what is they are flesh coloured? See through? Microscopically thin figure hugging spray on rubber? Pulled tight revealing cameltoe?
Ofcom seem to want it both ways. By consulting independent third parties, inviting young people, the Welsh, Scots and Irish to put their views they can claim they are following best practice. But they only listen to comments that support their view, making minor concessions, and gradually those independent voices that disagree with them are pushed aside. Imagine if the Conservative party had consultation forums. Initially they would attract people with a range of opinions, some antiTory but interested in politics and how the country runs and wanting to change things. After a few years the trades unionists and social welfare enthusiasts would have been marginalised and would drift away, only to be attacked later for “supporting Tories”.
Addison Wrote:I've often thought that the shows could 'get away' with more, if they dropped some of the more problematic aspects of their shows, i.e. the way they choose to 'frame' the body, and the language that gets used when referring to it. The nudity can't a problem by itself; it must be the potentially offensive (to women, principally) mode(s) of display and crude wordage
Quite right. Ofcom attitudes surveys identify exactly these things. In theory crude body close ups, skanky sex talk, harsh lighting, rough functional sets, impersonal sex all make shows more offensive to women. Soft lighting, a gentle loving approach, mood music, candles, romantic clothing, a romantic set, focus on the whole woman as a person and sex in a wider context (marriage, plot) all make sex less offensive.
Note that word: “Offence” not “Harm” and not “Tolerable”. In principle exactly the same level of nudity could be more/less offensive depending on the above. It could be equally explicit, and if before or near the watershed, equally acceptable from a kid safety point.
The trouble is those factors were collected in discussion about drama and fundamentally misunderstand how adult chat shows work. Noone is going to pay £1.53 a minute to listen to someone sweetalking a model for 3 hours in the hope of getting her to take her top off or go on a date. Adult chat shows are no more meant to be female orientated than a commando action movie is*. The criteria should not be offence, it should be the limit of what society finds acceptable for other people to watch. And that should be absolutes, regardless of context.
Back to the original point, Ofcom don’t want explicit material on late night TV. All the soft furnishings and gentle romantic talk would change nothing, they would find another reason to ban it.
(* Yes, I know there are some female viewers, but they are not the main audience.)
(23-02-2013 00:08 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Some art/drama/documentary nudity is non-sexual and may be there to illustrate a specific point, like what skin cancer looks like. But some art IS erotic. Almost all dance is stylised fucking or a comeon. Some film and TV sex scenes are explicit (Betty Blue, Say You Love Me). The difference is that the scene is either minimal or a small part of the over production, so the audience will not be aroused all the way through. And lets be honest, some sex scenes are longer than strictly necessary because the producer or director is deliberately spicing it up.
Not sure about 'almost all' dance, but I think we're in broad agreement. Erotic art is usually celebratory in a way that empowers the person being depicted or filmed, in some way. It's not being narrowly or perfunctorily exploitative. Sex scenes in films can be as long as you like, as long they're in support of character development/fowarding the narrative (e.g. the longish fuck scene in Don't Look Now).