(03-11-2010 01:43 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
I'd rather NOT see B/G porn, because I don't want to watch ejaculation. All I want is to see a vagina for once! Fully nude women, and fully nude women doing what they want. If the women want to use dildos, then that's fine, but all I really care about is that the women aren't censored.
fair enough MrMann, but from a censorship point of view theres not a huge difference between dildo use and full boy-girl. If one is banned the other probably will be too.
(03-11-2010 22:33 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]fair enough MrMann, but from a censorship point of view theres not a huge difference between dildo use and full boy-girl. If one is banned the other probably will be too.
I think there's a bigger difference between women using dildos and B/G porn, than there is between women showing full frontal and also using dildos. With the women, all you have is them being naked and playing with each other, but with a man and woman, you have full on penis in vagina action with the guy ejaculating all over the woman. It wouldn't ruin a kid's life if they saw this, but there's still a difference.
I'd still be OK with G/B porn being allowed on the adult channels, though it never will be unless it's encrypted. Also, most of the women involved in B/G porn are not my cup of tea. For now, all I really want is for the women to have their freedom of showing their natural body parts, without the silly censorship which tells them that they have something to be ashamed of.
I agree with you MrMann, there is huge difference between a woman doing something to herself, and being penetrated, and non-penetrative GG is at the softer end of the scale. (Though don't underestimate the gross out factor of a straight woman being brought to orgasm by another woman - body and brain pulling in very different directions). And yes, ejaculation is a mile away from a chocolate box pretty woman flashing her fanny.
But the censors dont seem to see it that way, and thats the point I was trying to make. The line they seem to draw is intimate contact, or penetration. Magazines never used to allow any touching of genitals, except less sensitive edges, so a woman used to be able to hold herself open but not run inner labia. Then suddenly it changed and everything up to penetration and ejactulation was allowed. The obscenity law didnt move forward an inch at a time, it jumped from hands-off to hands-in in a single leap.
And DVDs did the same, going from tame material that could barely show open leg shots - even in R18 - to full blown depictions of almost any legal act, including stuff that most couples do not get up to.
The law seems to jump from "can censor" to "should not censor" rather than nudge the boundaries.
Don't get me wrong, I dont particularly want to see B/G all night every night, particularly if it involves weedy Billy Mitchell lookalikes as employed on one of the UK channels before Ofcom stopped it, or a hideous munter like on the Spanish TVL live sex shows.
Occasionally, yes, with good looking and enthusiastic participants showing originallity. Frequently with bored looking munters shagging by numbers, no.
And I dont think hardcore should be on channels that people can stumble across.
When it comes to nudity and fanny, I think its hard to justify banning it on free channels if it very late at night, particularly if those channels can be locked out. Just nudity is a lot less offensive to some people than full on sex, and much less damaging to a kid than SAW or AUDITION.
Should hardcore just be on subscription channels after midnight? This is where we might disagree. It would be really easy for Sky to send out new Sky boxes with the Adult section locked. That way anyone who saw an Adult show would be in a house where they had been deliberately unlocked, rather than just typing in the wrong channel number.
Ofcom on the other hand says "stronger sexual content" can only be shown on Encrypted PREMIUM channels. Encryption isnt enough for them. Adult verification isnt enough. Ofcom say money must change hands.
To me Ofcom seem to be muddling up audience protection with commercial decisions.
Good post above.
I would simply suggest that the intelligent level headed average person who tunes in to the channels does not necessarily want full blown sex or even penetration. I just want to see more than the dictators at Ofcom will allow me to see!
Promise I wont become depraved and threaten the very fabric of society Mr Ofcom!!!!
(05-11-2010 00:38 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ]No MrMann, you are wrong. I think context is key in this particular case. The penis in question was positioned as a post-modern, neo realist homage to Brunellesci. I can't believe you didn't spot that.
I like your sarcasm! You were being sarcastic, right?
(05-11-2010 00:45 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]I like your sarcasm! You were being sarcastic, right?
Yup. I'd love to be in on an Ofcom sanctions board meeting - all trying to outdo each other to be the most politically correct. Some of their decision making process is Pythonesque.
(05-11-2010 01:04 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2010 00:45 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]I like your sarcasm! You were being sarcastic, right?
Yup. I'd love to be in on an Ofcom sanctions board meeting - all trying to outdo each other to be the most politically correct. Some of their decision making process is Pythonesque.
By the way, Sexcetera is on SKY173 right now, and I've seen multiple shots of vaginas, and open leg shots as well.
Good night.
