(26-11-2010 16:47 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]"It noted some of the material broadcast was so strong it would be considered equivalent to hardcore material which is not permitted on British TV either free-to-air or under encryption."
REALLY??????
So having a camera inside of a woman's vagina as a man ejaculates inside of her on a non adult channel is OK and not hardcore?????
REALLY????? That sounds like X rated content to me!
Seeing anuses and penises and vaginas on Sexcetera, Sexarama and Eurotrash on NON adult channels in not considered hardcore or more explicit??????
That makes complete sense 
What you talking about? The most I've seen on them shows, at the most, is a bit of bush
People seriously need to stop blaming ofcom, 60 breaches is taking this piss, big style
Trouble is this will shock any other channels to tame their output too, if callers or girls want more 'entertaining' performances elsewhere. It was fun while it lasted, but I for one will stop watching and calling them if that happens. When you consider what adult content is freely and easily accessible on a computer or smartphone, going after relatively soft call channels is pretty petty and a waste of resources. Far bigger problems in this country.
I hope this will encourage more and better internet stream based sites, with HD quality output, that Ofcom cannot touch.
(26-11-2010 17:17 )polo249 Wrote: [ -> ]soaps show drugs,rape & so on because its ment to show real life right...so yes thats context. now bangbabes/phone channels should be able to show nudity/stronger material because its an adult show right...so why is that not in context?
Because, as it says somewhere in the report, Ofcom don't allow material that's sole aim is to be sexually stimulating on a non-encrypted channel.
I don't think it's right, but comparisons to normal TV channels and normal TV shows are completely pointless as these channels are unique. It is perhaps because of this that Ofcom can have their way with these channels as there were no previously established guidelines for such content.
(26-11-2010 17:18 )burnerb Wrote: [ -> ]Why cant they continue broadcasting only as a web-stream???
they can if they want to but people would push the ladies into doing stuff which some may not be comfortable doing. i have said before on previous threads. you have streams for daytime stuff like the pad/early bird and you something like sexstation on other streams and on other the stream half of each where the girl maybe only toppless. this cater for the tastes of everyone.
(26-11-2010 17:06 )Scotsman Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2010 17:05 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]yet in soaps they show violence, drug abuse, rape, sex from 7pm to 8pm daily and ofcom does nothing
Again, context.
Context?
Saw 4 and other very violent movies? What's the context for those? They are all meant to entertain us and make us feel something. There's nothing educational about them, is there?
The Sexarama/Sexcetera shows are all arousing, and not educational, as it's only telling us about all of the sexually deviant places in the world. Great education there! Swingers clubs, brothels, all portrayed in a fun way. That's responsible
Is it really necessary to see what the inside of a vagina sees during sex, with the penis ejaculating almost onto the camera? What age group is that suppose to be meant for??? It's on a non adult channel, so there's an even stronger possibility that a child will see that. Most teens already know what sex looks and feels like, so this almost seems as if this particular program was meant for CHILDREN? That can't be, can it?. Context right?
All of those programs are meant to get a reaction from us and to entertain us, so why is it so evil for an adult channel to entertain us as well??
Clearly Offcom doesn't have an issue with sex, as they allow hardcore "educational" programs, as well as rather explicit non educational programs like the ones I've mentioned. So if they don't have a problem with sex and showing us graphic images and footage, then why is it improper to have the adult channels do the same. Is seeing graphic violence on a regular channel now more acceptable than seeing a fully nude woman on an adult channel? UFC matches are real and live, and very violent with a cheering audience as two people punch each other into pulp, yet that's more acceptable and proper than a nude woman entertaining us
It's like they accept the fact that people enjoy watching real violence, yet they can't accept the fact that MANY NORMAL people enjoy watching nudity as well. No wonder the violent offenders in the U.K get an easy deal
I'd love to hear Offcom's explanation on context
(26-11-2010 17:27 )Scotsman Wrote: [ -> ]Because, as it says somewhere in the report, Ofcom don't allow material that's sole aim is to be sexually stimulating on a non-encrypted channel.
And that, in a nutshell, is the total absurdity of Ofcom's position. They accept that there is a demand for the channels and that they should remain available for people who want to watch or take part and yet bury their heads in the sand (or up their own arses, I'm not sure which) and refuse to see that the
whole point of the thing is . . . SEXUAL STIMULATION.
sports like boxing and ufc did not have licences the fighters could be done for assault and sky or espn or five could be in breach of the ofcom rules.
Never liked Bangbabes anyway, so no great loss for me
(26-11-2010 17:28 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2010 17:06 )Scotsman Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2010 17:05 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]yet in soaps they show violence, drug abuse, rape, sex from 7pm to 8pm daily and ofcom does nothing
Again, context.
Context?
Saw 4 and other very violent movies? What's the context for those? They are all meant to entertain us and make us feel something. There's nothing educational about them, is there?
The Sexarama/Sexcetera shows are all arousing, and not educational, as it's only telling us about all of the sexually deviant places in the world. Great education there! Swingers clubs, brothels, all portrayed in a fun way. That's responsible
Is it really necessary to see what the inside of a vagina sees during sex, with the penis ejaculating almost onto the camera? What age group is that suppose to be meant for??? It's on a non adult channel, so there's an even stronger possibility that a child will see that. Most teens already know what sex looks and feels like, so this almost seems as if this particular program was meant for CHILDREN? That can't be, can it?. Context right?
All of those programs are meant to get a reaction from us and to entertain us, so why is it so evil for an adult channel to entertain us as well??
Clearly Offcom doesn't have an issue with sex, as they allow hardcore "educational" programs, as well as rather explicit non educational programs like the ones I've mentioned. So if they don't have a problem with sex and showing us graphic images and footage, then why is it improper to have the adult channels do the same. Is seeing graphic violence on a regular channel now more acceptable than seeing a fully nude woman on an adult channel? UFC matches are real and live, and very violent with a cheering audience as two people punch each other into pulp, yet that's more acceptable and proper than a nude woman entertaining us
I'd love to hear Offcom's explanation on context
Surely you can see the massive, massive difference?
The violence in the Saw movies and various other violent films is there, in some cases, to serve the story or, in most cases, for entertainment purposes. The comparison is completely irrelevant as people under the age of 18 supposedly don't have access to such films.
Sexarama etc. are magazine shows and display the kind of material they do because it's part of the stories they're covering. That happens to be porn movies or brothels in Eastern Europe or whatever, but it has a context other than just to make you wank.
Whatever that show was with the camera inside her vagina, I can't remember the name of it, but it was a sex tips show for adults. To educate adults on how to improve their sex lives or something along those lines. Again, that has clear context to it other than just to help people get off.
The UFC is an absolutely laughable comparison since it's a sport.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Ofcom and think the channels should have different rules to all other programmes since they're completely unique but the rules are there, Bang knew them, Bang were fined, warned, whatever soooooo many times yet still kept breaching Ofcom's rules.
(26-11-2010 17:37 )vila Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2010 17:27 )Scotsman Wrote: [ -> ]Because, as it says somewhere in the report, Ofcom don't allow material that's sole aim is to be sexually stimulating on a non-encrypted channel.
And that, in a nutshell, is the total absurdity of Ofcom's position. They accept that there is a demand for the channels and that they should remain available for people who want to watch or take part and yet bury their heads in the sand (or up their own arses, I'm not sure which) and refuse to see that the whole point of the thing is . . . SEXUAL STIMULATION.
well said vila...i'm not to good at explaining myself as others but this hits the nail right on the head