The UK Babe Channels Forum

(31-10-2010 13:16 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]Please stop "overquoting" in your replies

If this is addressed to me please see above!!

(31-10-2010 15:52 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]Before I begin, let me just say that I happen to be a man who is very passionate and emphatic in his mode of expression (hence the regular use of highlights.) This in no way implies hostility or personal grudge. It just happens to be my idiosyncrasy.

No one is denying that these channels can afford to continue with OSG’s at the expense of the viewing public as long as the demand is met. Obviously if the public keep calling the service then they have no reason to make any changes due to adverse criticisms. But your naïve suggestion that people should just watch and be satisfied with the volume turned down, instead of ringing the girls - which only sustains and maintains the status quo - instead of having any real power to influence change with the OSG,s and the like, lacks depth.

Desiring to see the female form in all its glory is HUMAN NATURE, not “wanting to get one’s rocks off”, but satisfying the composition and instinctive constitution of the human brain.

The fact that men simply do not have the strength required to resist the lame supply, because of their overwhelming desire to see more - which on rare occasions they do get to see - will not stop them from complaining about the pathetic censorship in place…..It is just that they do not have it in their constitution to be able to resist the power that is sex.

Asking me about my level of courage is pointless. For the simple reason that I have no way of being able to substantiate any claims that I may make.

I share your passion and respect your idiosyncracy, however I think we're discussing two different points. In the interest of saving space, I propose we end it here having both made our points. Who knows though, perhaps such a topic might one day make it to BBC question time!

Regards.

(31-10-2010 16:08 )viperxxx4 Wrote: [ -> ]I share your passion and respect your idiosyncracy, however I think we're discussing two different points. In the interest of saving space, I propose we end it here having both made our points. Who knows though, perhaps such a topic might one day make it to BBC question time!

Regards.

Thank you for your contributions.

Regards

This thread assumes that the channels want to make the OSG as big as they possibly can and only audience pressure makes them limit the size. Its not like ad breaks on ITV that save on program costs (by making the shows last longer) and bring in money, big OSG dont save any costs and once they get above a readable size they dont bring in a penny extra revenue.

Ofcom make them display T&Cs and the shows are pointless without phone number. The channel name is useful too. But anything else is optional and just a matter of opinion. When putting together the OSG its tempting to load more and more info, same as web page design or a newspaper advert, but a good designer will take a step back and force themselves to minimise the clutter.

If you see a really cluttered screen its because the designer lacks that skill, or the owner is terrified of loosing business and making wrong decisions, or one of them is an obsessive compulsive.

And the small number of people who phone in are equally bothered - they want to see as much babe flesh as they can too.

I wish they wouldn't cover up but its all rules and regulations.

(01-11-2010 02:05 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]This thread assumes that the channels want to make the OSG as big as they possibly can and only audience pressure makes them limit the size. Its not like ad breaks on ITV that save on program costs (by making the shows last longer) and bring in money, big OSG dont save any costs and once they get above a readable size they dont bring in a penny extra revenue.

Ofcom make them display T&Cs and the shows are pointless without phone number. The channel name is useful too. But anything else is optional and just a matter of opinion. When putting together the OSG its tempting to load more and more info, same as web page design or a newspaper advert, but a good designer will take a step back and force themselves to minimise the clutter.



If you see a really cluttered screen its because the designer lacks that skill, or the owner is terrified of loosing business and making wrong decisions, or one of them is an obsessive compulsive.

And the small number of people who phone in are equally bothered - they want to see as much babe flesh as they can too.

When I got involved in this thread, which was then separated from its original, I had no interest in the OSG aspect of the conversation. Only in as much as it relates to censorship.

But filling the screen with as much OSG as possible, and giving the cameramen quick and easy exit options, other than moving the camera completely out of shot whenever too much flesh is about to be revealed, is as obvious as day.

ETA: So, the real problem is not the OSG's in themselves; but how cameramen arbitrarily, and inconsistently, hide behind them. There are indeed quite a lot of cameramen who do nothing BUT hide behind them.

(01-11-2010 04:21 )Classic84 Wrote: [ -> ]I wish they wouldn't cover up but its all rules and regulations.

Yes; no blame whatsoever can be attached to the Broadcasters of these channels. It rests entirely with those implementing and enforcing the rules.

The problem for you guys who watch the "Babe Channels" regularly is that there is no alternative to the censored offerrings due to Ofcon's fear of the end of civilastion as we know it.

My own view is that, if you want to watch nude girls, full -on live on Uk tv then you will have to pay for it. If you do pay, though, then you as an adult, have the right to see any lawful sexual activity taking place. No censorship, no pixellation of images. Full-on sexual, erotic tv.

We all agree with censorship at some point don't we? It's not a case of whether there should be a line, just where that line should be.

I don't think everything can be blamed on Ofcom. Apart from a small amount of regulatory information, the style, design and layout of OSGs are going to be matters for the channel itself, rather than anyone else.

This will be my final post concerning the whole censorship saga. So if there are any questions remaining after this post, then please ask them of me via the PM facility and I shall be happy to answer.

This final point to be made concerns clarifying two separate issues that are becoming conflated:

The first point is the censorship rule which forbids complete nudity and the showing of any genitalia by any of the unencrypted channels. Any of the channels who breach this rule can expect OFCOM to come down hard on them with severe fines.

The second point regards the use of OSG,s as cover. When the girls have on their underwear after the watershed, they are not in breach of any censorship rules; yet the OSG,s are still being used to cover them below the waist for a large percentage of the time, as a precautionary measure………No one can blame these producers for cowering to this degree under the threats and tyranny from OFCOM. But what we can do is to applaud those producers who refuse to be intimidated to this degree and allow for some common sense when the girls are in their underwear….Because, after all, there are many adults watching who desire some sexual gratification.