The UK Babe Channels Forum

A big problem is lack of honesty. Most people I work with freely admit to drinking and many admit to smoking, but I have never once heard someone admit to having a wank or watching porn. The closest it ever gets is a wry grin and lack of denial.

Have you ever heard a friend or colleague say they are "just nipping out for a quick wank"? No, me neither.

This gives the people who are uncomfortable with the whole sex, nudity, squelching noises thing free rein to try and get it banned. Not one politician, public figure or pressure group apart from porn businesses themselves say a single thing in support.

Its as if any mention of providing for the poor, unemployment benefit, sate pensions, universal education and healthcare was automatically equated with the worst excesses of communism and anyone supporting those ideas faced pariah status, unemployment and definitely would not get elected as a Labour MP. (Feel free to substitute right wing alternatives like profit, motivation and letting incompetent businesses sink).

As for the precautionary principle, Ofcom have some explaining to do. It would be easy for them to write to Sky and ask them to ship Sky boxes with the Adult section locked on new boxes, and to use a different default PIN number so kids would not be able to access adult material unless their parents let them. This would cost Sky very little to implement. It would also be easy to ask manufacturers of Freeview boxes not to undelete channels when rescanned, particularly if auto rescanned. This might or might not be practical and low cost, but Ofcom have not even asked.

If you were in charge, believed that something risked "harm" to children and it was easy to do something about, would you, or would you say "Not my job"?

Eccles, something which I thought about was.

You look at alcohol, that used to be something that was seen as good and that now has the view of it isn't good for you and can cause cancer.

A child can drink who is 5 or older on private property (for the person who said about Children drinking)

You look at smoking, used to be something that was seen as good for you and now it isn't.

Porn has never had that, the adult industry has never really been seen in a good light, right from the ladies of the night when men often had a Jekyll and Hyde lifestyle, and this will never change, as it has been ingrained in our society for hundreds of years. This has extended to liking babe channels and what people think of them and what they do.

My big question for RCTV:

Do you think full frontal nudity on clearly labled adult channels after midnight is harmful, or anywhere near as harmfull as some of the violence and graphic sexual content on non adult channels?

Bare in mind, that we can see bare asses, breasts, ass smacking, bum licking, and partial full frontal already (Babestation) on these channels.

There is some shit on PickTV at 1am that involves sex or is about porn, not ever watched it, just seen it on and thought what shit is that.

I would say it would be harmful to some people to see full frontal nudity, but tbh it's not going to be many people up at that time.

Thanks, but do you think Ofcom really needs to ban this from labled adult channels at this hour, when it's just a natural body part, and when very few people who find this offensive will be up at this hour?

Sexcetera is still airing, and I once saw an episode about a man who mutilated his penis for pleasure, all uncensored, so to me and many others, that's far more offensive than a natural female body part.

One might argue that UFC fighting is more offensive as well, when it portays violence as something to cheer for, whereas the adult channels are only exploring the natural sexual nature of humans. That's what I find offensive, that Ofcom would allow a violent sport where people cheer another person on as they pound someone's face, yet a nude female body is not OK to them

But that is labelled as something that is clearly about what it says. Babe channels are described as adult chat still I believe and there is no reference. I also think the fact that it is live broadcast has something to do with ofcom's stance.

An ADULT title is common sense, and IS clearly labled though, and UFC fights are also live much of the time.

The clear difference to me is that real life violence, even in an agreed upon match is OK, yet women going nude and showing a normal body part on TV channels with clear lableling is NOT.

I don't get it.

People are both violent, and both sexual, yet, sexuality is the one more commonly used, because it's NON violent and NON harmful.

Also, keep in mind that we're talking about full frontal nudity, not hardcore porn, violent porn or nasty fetish porn.

If I had a child, and they somehow managed to outthink me and the TV controller, let alone be awake and out of their room after 10pm (Under age 8, they'd be in bed much earlier), I'd much rather they saw an image of a woman's vagina, than someone getting their face pounded into a bloody pulp as people cheer them on. The message my child might gain from a nude woman is that "Huh, so that's what a nude woman looks like", whereas their reaction to real life fighting matches might be "Huh, so adults like violence and are violent people, ewww blood, this is disturbing". I'm not someone who's too restrictive toward certain types of violent movies, but I'm just making a comparison. At a very young age, what I find more possibly harmful is violence, than a woman's vagina.

What is more harmful to a young child in your eyes?



Or this, which is allowed:



Watch at 18:00 as the opponent punches Michael again, even as he is lying on his back, out of it. Take notice of all the blood stains on the mat.

My response to my child asking about a vagina: "Well, that's just a normal body part that all women have". "Why is she acting like that?" "She's acting like that because she's being funny, and because she wants the attention of a man, because when a man and a woman are at a certain age, they can have a baby together, just like me and mommy! Now, off to sleep."

My response to my child asking about the UFC moment above "Well, they were just playing". "Oh, well then I think the other guy was mad at the other man". "Yeah well...." "Um, well I guess sometimes certain people enjoy watching other men hit each other". "Why?". "I'm not sure, but it was all just pretend". "OK, yes it was real, but the other guy wasn't hurt". "You're right, he was". "The truth, is that violence sells, and people are violent and the world can be a shitty place". "Off to bed now, sweet dreams!"

LOL You get the idea

fighting in the sport sense is very different to violence.

the babechannels are classed as teleshopping so aren't obviously involving sexual activity. Not sure what the information on sky information screen says, but it may not be obvious that it is adult, not 100% sure though. Also think that some of the channel names and programmes don't say anything about sexual chat, and just say about chat.

(04-03-2013 01:51 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]fighting in the sport sense is very different to violence.

the babechannels are classed as teleshopping so aren't obviously involving sexual activity. Not sure what the information on sky information screen says, but it may not be obvious that it is adult, not 100% sure though. Also think that some of the channel names and programmes don't say anything about sexual chat, and just say about chat.

The babe channels say ADULT on my SKY menu

How is fighting in the sport sense different to violence? It's real contact, with blood and sometimes broken bones, not pretend in movies or shows. People cheer on the blood as well, which is real life violence in a sense. It's not a moderate contact martial arts competition, but full on pounding someone into the ground for sport and fun, and this is allowed, yet a normal body part on clearly labeled channels after midnight is not.

(04-03-2013 01:08 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]My response to my child asking about a vagina: "Well, that's just a normal body part that all women have". "Why is she acting like that?" "She's acting like that because she's being funny, and because she wants the attention of a man

What gender is your (presumably hypothetical) child?

We all know how much children mimic what they see on tv when playing amongst themselves, often in public places. If that's your response to a young girls question then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. There's no reason to suppose a young girl would be any less curious about what was being broadcast on a channel they weren't supposed to be viewing, than a young boy.

The bottom line is, it's the parents responsibility to ensure children don't have access to adult material at an inappropriate age, end of. Trying to argue that it doesn't really matter, that much, is just giving Ofcom the ammunition they need.