The UK Babe Channels Forum

I find much of the "Ofcom don't like sex" argument to be childish and uninformed. Just because you don't happen to agree with the view taken by Ofcom, doesn't mean that they are a group a Victoria prudes, who blush at the merest sight of a penis.

Ofcom essentially try and reflect public taste. If you compare the views of the general public against the views of members of this forum on the content of the babe channels, you'll no doubt find a marked difference. Until the former catches up with the latter, I think you'll find Ofcom are far more comfortable with mild titilation, rather than outright pornography.

And how much of the "show us more" argument is actually driven by the fact that you can't currently see it? The channels deliver sexual content, surely that can't be denied. But I often wonder if people really want to see Danica's pussy simply because they haven't yet seen it. If the channels were allowed full nudity, wouldn't people just come on here demanding that penetration be allowed?

Some fair points by the last poster but surely the fundamental issue here is the right to choose. Ofcom can protect me me from the vile and disgusting if they must but who gives them the general right to dictate what I choose to watch?????

(01-11-2010 22:26 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]I find much of the "Ofcom don't like sex" argument to be childish and uninformed. Just because you don't happen to agree with the view taken by Ofcom, doesn't mean that they are a group a Victoria prudes, who blush at the merest sight of a penis.

Ofcom essentially try and reflect public taste. If you compare the views of the general public against the views of members of this forum on the content of the babe channels, you'll no doubt find a marked difference. Until the former catches up with the latter, I think you'll find Ofcom are far more comfortable with mild titilation, rather than outright pornography.

At last a sensible, well thought-post in a thread which certainly arouses strong passions, but also generates more heat than light. Quite honestly the thought that the opinions of the majority of contributors to this board (myself included) represent those of the bulk of the British public is quite ridiculous. We are a pressure group (im)pure and simple and as such tend to feel that ours is the only opinion that matters and that the rest of the world is against us.

(01-11-2010 22:26 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]I find much of the "Ofcom don't like sex" argument to be childish and uninformed. Just because you don't happen to agree with the view taken by Ofcom, doesn't mean that they are a group a Victoria prudes, who blush at the merest sight of a penis.

Ofcom essentially try and reflect public taste. If you compare the views of the general public against the views of members of this forum on the content of the babe channels, you'll no doubt find a marked difference. Until the former catches up with the latter, I think you'll find Ofcom are far more comfortable with mild titilation, rather than outright pornography.

And how much of the "show us more" argument is actually driven by the fact that you can't currently see it? The channels deliver sexual content, surely that can't be denied. But I often wonder if people really want to see Danica's pussy simply because they haven't yet seen it. If the channels were allowed full nudity, wouldn't people just come on here demanding that penetration be allowed?

First of all, if full nudity was allowed, then what would be the big deal with penetration from themselves or another woman? Why would that have to be taboo? I'd be perfectly content without that, but if they could show full nudity, then it would be childish not to allow the women to pleasure each other. It just wouldn't make any sense!

What the viewers want is for the women to be allowed to show what they like, and do as they please. Men make up most of the viewers, and men want to see vaginas and not be treated like idiots. It's a VAGINA!!! There is a clitoris and the labia!! It's NORMAL, and NOT gross and tramatic to look at! It's ridiculous that part of a female body is considered BAD, when it's on adult channels. America treats penises like this, and I once saw police officers outside a cinema because one of the actors in a movie showed his penis for exactly ONE SECOND! OMG!!! They had to make sure that nobody under 17 was let inside, because seeing a penis in a movie is obviously the end of the world.

Also, our views are important, because we are the ones who are actually calling, and texting, joining the websites and watching the shows, which keeps them in business. Why should the views of the other people matter as much, if they have no other interest in these channels other than wanting them banned? If they don't want to see a fully nude and uncensored woman on TV on an adult channel, late at night (Remember the Watershed?), then they can put a block on the channels, not let their little children watch TV after nine, or not turn to the channels themselves. If one of their kids happens to be super lucky and manages to catch a glimpse of a normal human body, then the parents should be mature enough to handle the situation in a different way, other than complaining to Offcom because of their own stupidity. However, in the end, if a child happened to see this content (God save us), they can rest assured that they turned to these channels, and not to SAW 4 instead!!!

I fully understand that these channels might go against the morals and religions of certain people, and there's nothing wrong about that, but that doesn't give them the right to dictate what an entire country (SKY is available in other countries as well) is allowed to watch. It's not like we are asking for violent B/G SDM porn here!

I don't think that anyone in authority is claiming that the human body (male or female) is disguisting or bad. This is where we get back to the issue of 'context'. Depicting a female body in a sexualised situation (eg. the babe channels) does surely require a different approach to depicting the female body in the contect of an educational documentary. I'm guessing that the general public would not be happy with 13 and 14 year old boys watching a highly sexualised depiction of women that was widely available on free-to-air TV.

mrmann, you argue your case strongly, but I cannot agree that there is no difference between a 'flash the gash' type of event and a girl clearly and openly fucking herself with a dildo.

If I had a criticism, it would be with the babe channels themselves, not Ofcom. What have they done to PIN-protect their channels? Nothing, because they judge that they would rather offer the free-to-air access that tamer content allows, than sticking everything behind a PIN or monthly subscription. Just have a look with what TVX are allowed to broadcast once their call shows fall behind the curtain of their subscription service.

I also tend to think (although I don't really have any firm evidence) that Ofcom don't feel the need to cater for the stronger tastes requested on this forum because such content is freely available online. There's a certain irony in us typing away on our computers complaining that we're being deprived of hardcore porn to watch!

(02-11-2010 00:30 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that anyone in authority is claiming that the human body (male or female) is disguisting or bad. This is where we get back to the issue of 'context'. Depicting a female body in a sexualised situation (eg. the babe channels) does surely require a different approach to depicting the female body in the contect of an educational documentary. I'm guessing that the general public would not be happy with 13 and 14 year old boys watching a highly sexualised depiction of women that was widely available on free-to-air TV.

mrmann, you argue your case strongly, but I cannot agree that there is no difference between a 'flash the gash' type of event and a girl clearly and openly fucking herself with a dildo.

If I had a criticism, it would be with the babe channels themselves, not Ofcom. What have they done to PIN-protect their channels? Nothing, because they judge that they would rather offer the free-to-air access that tamer content allows, than sticking everything behind a PIN or monthly subscription. Just have a look with what TVX are allowed to broadcast once their call shows fall behind the curtain of their subscription service.

I also tend to think (although I don't really have any firm evidence) that Ofcom don't feel the need to cater for the stronger tastes requested on this forum because such content is freely available online. There's a certain irony in us typing away on our computers complaining that we're being deprived of hardcore porn to watch!

Good points there too! Sure there's a slight difference between uncensored nudity and dildo insertion, but is it really an important difference? If we can see a vagina, then why not insertion? The women already touch themselves, so it wouldn't be anything new really except that we'd actually be allowed to see more for once.

You're right about the pin protection, as these channels haven't done anything about it. Maybe they don't care to afterall, or it's too expensive, but I'm sure they'd make a profit and that the viewers would be willing to pay enough to see less censored content. Babestation Xtreme is still running.

As for the 13 - 14 year old comment, how would these channels do damage to them? If a parent was that obsessed with not letting their teenagers watch something like this (I wouldn't want my kids to watch it either, but that doesn't mean it would be dangerous for them to), then they can block it, right? Last time I checked there were block options, unless I'm mistaken.

Also, regarding the educational aspect. Nobody is watching these shows to be educated (Not saying you think that). The mere fact that these channels are even on TV, shows us that Offcom put them there for a reason, which is to entertain and arouse us. Do they think that what is already shown to us is educational? Of course they don't, which is why I can't understand their views on this matter. The fact that they let us see almost anything sexual on these channels except for a vagina, is proof to me that they find vaginas to be disgusting and extreme.

I could understand if Offcom and the channel producers decided not to show full frontal because they're worried they'd be showing too much for free, but the pin code would fix that. However, even if Offcom did let up and we were allowed to see what we wanted without the pin code, the women and the channels would still make money from the callers and texters and from the fact that the channels have their own websites, as do the women.

So there you have it. Either uncensored without the pin code, or uncensored with the pin code. To me those are the best options.

(02-11-2010 00:57 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-11-2010 00:30 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that anyone in authority is claiming that the human body (male or female) is disguisting or bad. This is where we get back to the issue of 'context'. Depicting a female body in a sexualised situation (eg. the babe channels) does surely require a different approach to depicting the female body in the contect of an educational documentary. I'm guessing that the general public would not be happy with 13 and 14 year old boys watching a highly sexualised depiction of women that was widely available on free-to-air TV.

mrmann, you argue your case strongly, but I cannot agree that there is no difference between a 'flash the gash' type of event and a girl clearly and openly fucking herself with a dildo.

If I had a criticism, it would be with the babe channels themselves, not Ofcom. What have they done to PIN-protect their channels? Nothing, because they judge that they would rather offer the free-to-air access that tamer content allows, than sticking everything behind a PIN or monthly subscription. Just have a look with what TVX are allowed to broadcast once their call shows fall behind the curtain of their subscription service.

I also tend to think (although I don't really have any firm evidence) that Ofcom don't feel the need to cater for the stronger tastes requested on this forum because such content is freely available online. There's a certain irony in us typing away on our computers complaining that we're being deprived of hardcore porn to watch!

Good points there too! Sure there's a slight difference between uncensored nudity and dildo insertion, but is it really an important difference? If we can see a vagina, then why not insertion? The women already touch themselves, so it wouldn't be anything new really except that we'd actually be allowed to see more for once.

You're right about the pin protection, as these channels haven't done anything about it. Maybe they don't care to afterall, or it's too expensive, but I'm sure they'd make a profit and that the viewers would be willing to pay enough to see less censored content. Babestation Xtreme is still running.

As for the 13 - 14 year old comment, how would these channels do damage to them? If a parent was that obsessed with not letting their teenagers watch something like this (I wouldn't want my kids to watch it either, but that doesn't mean it would be dangerous for them to), then they can block it, right? Last time I checked there were block options, unless I'm mistaken.

Also, regarding the educational aspect. Nobody is watching these shows to be educated (Not saying you think that). The mere fact that these channels are even on TV, shows us that Offcom put them there for a reason, which is to entertain and arouse us. Do they think that what is already shown to us is educational? Of course they don't, which is why I can't understand their views on this matter. The fact that they let us see almost anything sexual on these channels except for a vagina, is proof to me that they find vaginas to be disgusting and extreme.

I could understand if Offcom and the channel producers decided not to show full frontal because they're worried they'd be showing too much for free, but the pin code would fix that. However, even if Offcom did let up and we were allowed to see what we wanted without the pin code, the women and the channels would still make money from the callers and texters and from the fact that the channels have their own websites, as do the women.

So there you have it. Either uncensored without the pin code, or uncensored with the pin code. To me those are the best options.

Hmmm, yes. Watch this version of 21st century guide to sex which went out on Fiver a few weeks ago.
http://www.blinkbox.com/Free/Television/...Sex-S01E06.
The sex instruction is very educational.

(01-11-2010 22:26 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]... And how much of the "show us more" argument is actually driven by the fact that you can't currently see it? The channels deliver sexual content, surely that can't be denied. But I often wonder if people really want to see Danica's pussy simply because they haven't yet seen it. If the channels were allowed full nudity, wouldn't people just come on here demanding that penetration be allowed?

People have been demanding penetration since Ofcom started, at least on encrypted channels, and at one point thought it was going to happen.

Is part of the drive simply because Danica's pussy or whatever is banned now? If that were allowed on FTA would we be back next week asking for more?

Yes and No. There is a tendancy to want more, but most babe channel viewers recognise there is should be a line between free and restricted channels, and actual penetrative s*x is a good place to draw that line.

What is frustrating at the momenent is the rules are so restrictive that the babes cant put on a natural act the way they might in a club. If the hand strays between the legs - even if innocently or absent mindedly - thats a potential 5-figure fine. You and I can tell the difference between masturbation type rubbing and scratching an itch, Ofcom cant or wont. Adjusting the thong might give an unintential flash. It happens on beaches, goes largely unnoticed and raises no more than a smile in those who do notice. Its over in a second, hardly time to knock one off. But to Ofcom its a serious breach, transmission of explicit sexual content, a "sex-work", and could lead to a 5-figure fine.

So the channels play safe with poses and clothing and warn the babes to be careful rather than carefree. When 90% of possible poses and combinations could lead to a fine they play safe, sticking to repetive safe formats and wooden acts. (The odd slip still occurs, but the overall climate is safe and restrictive).

Would pussy be the end of civilisation if allowed on free channels after 11pm? Or similated sex acts that a loon could mistake for real? No, otherwise it would not be allowed in serious drama.

Would R18 on encrypted channels be the end of civilisation? No, it might even be civilising. No-one will watch it without actively seeking it out and humans have been having sex for literally hundreds of years.

But would allowing full blown close up penetration lead to demands for more extreme material? Yes and No. There will always be a few people with bizarre minority tastes, but that doesnt mean they are the majority. For most men the natural limit of desire is penetration and the money shot because thats how nature made us.

(03-11-2010 01:33 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-11-2010 00:57 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-11-2010 00:30 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that anyone in authority is claiming that the human body (male or female) is disguisting or bad. This is where we get back to the issue of 'context'. Depicting a female body in a sexualised situation (eg. the babe channels) does surely require a different approach to depicting the female body in the contect of an educational documentary. I'm guessing that the general public would not be happy with 13 and 14 year old boys watching a highly sexualised depiction of women that was widely available on free-to-air TV.

mrmann, you argue your case strongly, but I cannot agree that there is no difference between a 'flash the gash' type of event and a girl clearly and openly fucking herself with a dildo.

If I had a criticism, it would be with the babe channels themselves, not Ofcom. What have they done to PIN-protect their channels? Nothing, because they judge that they would rather offer the free-to-air access that tamer content allows, than sticking everything behind a PIN or monthly subscription. Just have a look with what TVX are allowed to broadcast once their call shows fall behind the curtain of their subscription service.

I also tend to think (although I don't really have any firm evidence) that Ofcom don't feel the need to cater for the stronger tastes requested on this forum because such content is freely available online. There's a certain irony in us typing away on our computers complaining that we're being deprived of hardcore porn to watch!

Good points there too! Sure there's a slight difference between uncensored nudity and dildo insertion, but is it really an important difference? If we can see a vagina, then why not insertion? The women already touch themselves, so it wouldn't be anything new really except that we'd actually be allowed to see more for once.

You're right about the pin protection, as these channels haven't done anything about it. Maybe they don't care to afterall, or it's too expensive, but I'm sure they'd make a profit and that the viewers would be willing to pay enough to see less censored content. Babestation Xtreme is still running.

As for the 13 - 14 year old comment, how would these channels do damage to them? If a parent was that obsessed with not letting their teenagers watch something like this (I wouldn't want my kids to watch it either, but that doesn't mean it would be dangerous for them to), then they can block it, right? Last time I checked there were block options, unless I'm mistaken.

Also, regarding the educational aspect. Nobody is watching these shows to be educated (Not saying you think that). The mere fact that these channels are even on TV, shows us that Offcom put them there for a reason, which is to entertain and arouse us. Do they think that what is already shown to us is educational? Of course they don't, which is why I can't understand their views on this matter. The fact that they let us see almost anything sexual on these channels except for a vagina, is proof to me that they find vaginas to be disgusting and extreme.

I could understand if Offcom and the channel producers decided not to show full frontal because they're worried they'd be showing too much for free, but the pin code would fix that. However, even if Offcom did let up and we were allowed to see what we wanted without the pin code, the women and the channels would still make money from the callers and texters and from the fact that the channels have their own websites, as do the women.

So there you have it. Either uncensored without the pin code, or uncensored with the pin code. To me those are the best options.

Hmmm, yes. Watch this version of 21st century guide to sex which went out on Fiver a few weeks ago.
http://www.blinkbox.com/Free/Television/...Sex-S01E06.
The sex instruction is very educational.

It won't play for me, but I'm watching a different one on SKY 177 Fiver right now, and I'm looking at an uncensored penis and vagina, labia and everything. HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last Double Post in a thread of the night, seems like I have been DPing all over the place, but I find it easiest to reply to 2 separate posts in 2 separate replies rather than combining them into one big one.

Heres some info I have been looking for for a while, independent confirmation that Ofcom has deliberately chosen not to enforce part of the Broadcasting Act (presumably while levying fees that include this work). Its from the BETU union, but there is nothing clear about this on Ofcoms own site:

TUC to intervene in union's FOI campaign
26 April 2010
The Trades Union Congress has been mandated to intervene in BECTU’s long running Freedom of Information action against Ofcom.

A unanimous vote of delegates at the TUC Black Workers’ Conference in Liverpool last weekend instructed the TUC to write to ministers demanding that the broadcasting regulator reverses its policy of taking no enforcement action against licence holders in breach of their licence conditions on diversity, and that it must disclose ethnic monitoring data requested by BECTU.

Ofcom revealed its non-enforcement policy during a long-running Freedom of Information request from the union which ended up in court. Ofcom collects broadcasters’ ethnic monitoring data but, unlike its predecessor, the Independent Television Commission, refuses to publish the information licence by licence
The public has a right to know
Faisal Qureshi, chair of BECTU’s Black Members Committee, told conference that as the broadcasters are given their licences on behalf of the public, the public has the right to know how well their staffing reflects the diversity of the audience they serve.

“Recently Ofcom congratulated itself for saving the broadcasters more money over the year with its restraint on its spending,” he told conference.

“This is such an insult. It means Ofcom considers it is more important to save the broadcasting companies money by letting them get away with breaching their licence conditions on diversity. Ofcom has a legal duty to have regard for the needs and interests of the black and minority ethnic population. How can Ofcom’s actions be remotely in our interests?”

BECTU diversity officer Janice Turner commented: “Ofcom stated that fining the broadcasters or removing their licences was 'too draconian', and given the widespread breaches, was too 'resource intensive'. This is disgraceful. The union is currently awaiting a decision from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on our complaint about this.”

She added: “The TUC is now throwing its weight behind the union’s campaign. Black trades unionists from across the trade union movement unanimously support us. When is Ofcom going to accept that it’s wrong?”

and

Legal action by the broadcasting union, BECTU, against Ofcom has revealed that in 2005 the broadcasting regulator adopted a policy of taking no enforcement action against broadcasters in breach of their licence conditions on diversity.