i have just been flicking through my tv channels and came across one of the 10 minute free view adds for one of the channels
and what did i see clips of girls kissing licking and touching
so why can they show this stuff on the adds for hardcore tv but not on the babechannels
i dont understand the difference we are not asking for hardcore just a bit of kissing licking and touching
Context. It's a word Ofcom like to use often, isn't it? But can anyone explain the thinking behind their logic which says an explicit shot of a vagina is 'potentially harmful' on a babeshow, but not if shown in some film on film4? And do Ofcom really think the children they're puporting to protect actually understand context anyway? If their argument is that such images are potentially harmful to children, why does it matter where they see it?
(08-01-2011 23:44 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Context. It's a word Ofcom like to use often, isn't it? But can anyone explain the thinking behind their logic which says an explicit shot of a vagina is 'potentially harmful' on a babeshow, but not if shown in some film on film4? And do Ofcom really think the children they're puporting to protect actually understand context anyway? If their argument is that such images are potentially harmful to children, why does it matter where they see it?
Can you tell me Stan,where the kids see it because I can never find it.
Oh well I will just have to ask the grandkids when the next load of porn is on tv.....oh and ask them to tape it for me
Context is vitally important in explaining why it is ok to have explicit images in a serious Channel 4 documentary aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy. A 15 year old might find it a turn on, but they also get turned on by suggestively shaped clouds and table legs. But any other explicit content is almost always avoidable if the producer tries. I recently saw Lake Placid 3, cert 18, and the blurb warned it contained strong sexualised nudity. True enough an attractive young couple go skinny dipping in the first few minutes, the girl mounts the man and he suddendly moves so his head is between her legs. Turns out hes being pulled by a crocodile. (No! not "pulled" that way). Definitely not suitable for family viewing. But the scene could have been filmed less sexually. Or from a distance. Or replaced with something else. If a film or TV drama absolutely depends on graphic sex to establish a plot point then it has probably been written as a vehivle for sex, rather than the sex being a byproduct.
(09-01-2011 00:45 )nailpouchofmine Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2011 23:44 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Context. It's a word Ofcom like to use often, isn't it? But can anyone explain the thinking behind their logic which says an explicit shot of a vagina is 'potentially harmful' on a babeshow, but not if shown in some film on film4? And do Ofcom really think the children they're puporting to protect actually understand context anyway? If their argument is that such images are potentially harmful to children, why does it matter where they see it?
Can you tell me Stan,where the kids see it because I can never find it.
Just keep an eye on Film4's late-night films.
eccles Wrote:Context is vitally important in explaining why it is ok to have explicit images in a serious Channel 4 documentary aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy. A 15 year old might find it a turn on, but they also get turned on by suggestively shaped clouds and table legs. But any other explicit content is almost always avoidable if the producer tries. I recently saw Lake Placid 3, cert 18, and the blurb warned it contained strong sexualised nudity. True enough an attractive young couple go skinny dipping in the first few minutes, the girl mounts the man and he suddendly moves so his head is between her legs. Turns out hes being pulled by a crocodile. (No! not "pulled" that way). Definitely not suitable for family viewing. But the scene could have been filmed less sexually. Or from a distance. Or replaced with something else. If a film or TV drama absolutely depends on graphic sex to establish a plot point then it has probably been written as a vehivle for sex, rather than the sex being a byproduct.
Sorry, eccles, I'm not sure if that's meant to be taken as a serious theory to Ofcom's logic Re. context, or purley ironically.
Either way it still doesn't explain - given that children can't be expected to understand context - why Ofcom think explicit nudity is harmful if shown on a babeshow, but not if in some 'controversial' film.
Anyone else see Pants Off Dance Off on MTV 160?
WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?
I've just seen two penises (Very brief glimpses mind you), and the men tucking them between their legs like Buffalo Bill.
Also, bare asses and bare breasts.
I'm waiting to see if any vaginas are shown in full frontal/
Ofcom are full of shite!!!
Not to generalize, but it seems that the British have and enjoy a lot of sexualy themed shows, and yet the adult channels are so fu^^ed with because Ofcon has more power over them.
I remember that being on VIVA a while back. Strange logic that makes it okay for a programme to show cocks and full frontal nudity on position 21 in the Freeview guide and yet not at 90+.
(09-01-2011 15:46 )burnt toast Wrote: [ -> ]I remember that being on VIVA a while back. Strange logic that makes it okay for a programme to show cocks and full frontal nudity on position 21 in the Freeview guide and yet not at 90+.
Re. Pants Off, Dance Off. It may well have been uncencored on VIVA, burnt toast, but it certainly isn't on MTV or wherever it is they show it on Sky. In fact it's little more than an advert for the MTV website as when it comes to the 'pants off' part, the picture freezes and you get a message saying, "Wanna see more? Visit (website) for the full strip..." - or words to that effect.
This is the document on which Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are based
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie.../sextv.pdf
If you would like to read it thorougly and want to comment on any obvious flaws, anomalies etc, please contact me by PM. Succinct, bullet points would be useful
I am making a report for my MP who has written to the head of Ofcom and the relevant Ministers to ask for clarification of this and other matters