The UK Babe Channels Forum

(01-01-2011 00:11 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]The survey about sex on tv was not about the adult industry, it was about sex scenes on tv shows and about how people felt about them and not about the babe channels.

So why are they using the survey against adult channels, as they seem to be doing?

Was the survey solely intended as a manipulative exercise that they could use and interpret as they see fit?

Quote:I'm not going to answer that as that comparison is stupid and wouldn't even call it a comparison, as a general election doesn't involve complaints.

Ofcom go on complaints by people about rules that are broken, so they investigate them.

There is a difference between rule breaks, which are reported, and people woh are offended. They don't have to be offended, to report a rule break.

Are you serious, if the queen installed a parliament with a minority of the votes as oppose the land slide victory, there would be a revolution. It's a perfectly apt comparison. One you chose to ignore. You sound very much like ofcom.

This ofcom must be the only place where the minority is listened too over the majority.

You speak of them enforcing the rules. Change them to be more representative of today's society, remember - 'in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked upon as some shocking'. times evolve and with it rules and regulations have to be changed.

In ofcoms case it seems they willfully disrespect the majority over the minority.

(31-12-2010 17:38 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(30-12-2010 21:24 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ]Without the info to back an argument up one way or the other, I don't want to speculate too much about who makes up what. However, I don't just think it's likely that Ofcom is made up of 'people with different [sexual] tastes and leanings,' I think it's likely that the adult population of the world is made up of such people. What I'm saying is: when you start to look at it, sexual taste seems to be divisible right down to the point where you arrive at a sub-set of one.

So you think the inclusion of devout Christian (and Olympic triple jumper) Jonathan Edwards on the Ofcom panel is just a coincidence?

Stan
How up to date is your information. Ofcom has a maximum of 13 members on it's contents board. Here's the latest names i could find.

Members Present:
Philip Graf Chairman, Adam Singer Deputy Chairman, Richard Ayre Member & Chair of the Broadcast Review Committee, Sue Balsom Member, Chris Banatvala Member, Millie Banerjee Member, Tim Gardam Member, Pam Giddy Member, Anthony Lilley Member, Paul Moore Member, Stewart Purvis Member, Joyce Taylor Member, Kath Worrall Member

(01-01-2011 00:11 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]The survey about sex on tv was not about the adult industry, it was about sex scenes on tv shows and about how people felt about them and not about the babe channels.

Hate to jump into what seems be turning into a flame war, discussing each other rather than Ofcom, but...

The survey looked at 9 clips, selectively chosen by Ofcom to inform their decision making process re sexual content in drama, sex-drama, fake sex-documentaries, and babe channels. The only areas not covered were BBFC rated films and premium pay encrypted sex channels.

Of the 9 clips 3 were from channels in the Adult section of the Sky EPG:
A sex drama on Playboy One at 11pm (then FTA) with strong real sex (non explicit)
A trailer for Spice Extreme broadcast FTA at 8pm with strong fetish content but no actual sex or nudity
A trailer for Red hot 40+ broadcast FTA at midnight with strong real sex (non explicit).

Nowhere in the detailed discussion of factors making content Acceptable/Unacceptable was being a trailer identified as a mitigating factor or context. So 1/3rd of the clips were from the Sky Adult section.

The survey group specifically identified the fact that they knew what to expect (sex) as grounds for increased acceptability - there was less chance of them accidentially tuning in. They also cited smaller audience sizes, the opt-in nature of Sky, and the ability to lock or delete all adult channels.

What they did not specifically do was look at the babe show format, where one or two women roll around live with few clothes, flashing as much as they are allowed and making sexual moves. But frankly the real-sex in the Playboy clip would have been at least as strong. The babes are flashing, the people in Playboy were fucking.

(01-01-2011 02:28 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Stan
How up to date is your information. Ofcom has a maximum of 13 members on it's contents board. Here's the latest names i could find.

Probably not up to date at all, to be honest, GPP. Maybe he's not there now, but the fact that he was there at all says it all really.

Thanks for the list.

(31-12-2010 22:05 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom rules aren't draconian at all, they are actually there to protect the vast majority of the population.

a lot of the time it is good as it is protecting the vast majority of the population.

They are not restrictions, they are actually making the girls have more dignity and actually let them be girls and not toys for men, which atm the channels seem to be turning them in to.

Forgive me here, RCTV, but rarely have I read so much bollocks in a single post.

You're wrong on every point. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact!

1) Ofcom's rules are so Draconian it's not even funny. Explain to us why other fta channels are allowed to get away with far more sexually explicit material night after night.

2) Protecting the vast majority of the population from what, for fuck's sake?? How the fuck can you work in this industry and have such prudish views and beliefs regarding these channels. I bet your shows were a fucking hoot!!

3) '... making the girls have more dignity and actually let them be girls and not toys for men' - Have you ever stopped to think why these channels are located in the ADULT section of the EPG? The girls' primary concern is to provide sexual titilation for their callers. If we want girls being girls and not 'toys for men' we have 700+ other channels to choose from.

You work for Ofcom - end of!!

I'm sorry - you must really be starting to feel as though you're being picked on, but you can stop it if you just refrain from being so silly about all of this.

(01-01-2011 00:15 )nailpouchofmine Wrote: [ -> ]So your trying to say now that the babe channels are not tv shows?
Well then what the hell are they?
I have been back to your post 28.12.2010,20.34hr whre you state that you do not work for Ofcom,so which statement is the truth?

They are not TV shows as you or i would like to think, they are now classified as 'teleshopping' and as such have no editorial content. Any complaints against the channels since 1st Sept 2010 are still assessed by Ofcom but against the BCAP code. This followed a european court decision i believe against a swiss operator that ultimately required Ofcom to consult and reclassify these broadcasts. Teleshopping channels are monitored by the ASA who are an industry based self regulatory organisation. Due to the specialist (read controversial) nature of the babeshows and the ASA's lack of enforcement teeth Ofcom decided to retain enforcement of these channels, as well as some other specialist channels.
You can see why following an ASA adjudication on two complaints made against a Playboy advert in a free Sports magazine.

ASA Adjudication on Playboy TV UK Ltd
Playboy TV UK Ltd
Aquis House
27-37 Station Road
Hayes
Middlesex
UB3 4DX

Date:
14 July 2010

Media:
Magazine

Sector:
Leisure

Number of complaints:
2

Complaint Ref:
121345

Ad
A two-page ad in Sport magazine for an adult TV subscription channel was titled "WHERE ARE ALL THE MEN? STAYING IN JUST GOT FUN" and showed an image of a woman in her underwear standing in an empty pole dancing club. The ad included the text "THE 6 CHANNEL LINE UP The world’s most beautiful women come to your screen and bring you the best in quality erotic entertainment Watch the hardest British sex featuring the UK's filthiest talent Three channels of themed programming showing wall to wall non-stop sex Watch the best Top Shelf girls being absolutely filthy every night of the week".

Issue
1. Two complainants objected that the ad was offensive, sexist and degrading towards women.

2. One of the complainants also objected that the ad was irresponsible because they believed it was inappropriate for publication in a free magazine where it could easily be seen by children.

CAP Code (Edition 11)
2.25.15.2
Response
Playboy TV UK Ltd (Playboy TV) did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

1. Sport magazine said they took the view that Playboy TV was an offshoot of an established and credible male media brand that was universally accepted. They said, whilst the ad promoted a niche service, they believed the description and the imagery was within the realms of taste and decency, albeit of an adult nature.

2. Sport magazine said the magazine was targeted at 20 to 44-year-old adult males and provided a breakdown of audience demographics from 2008 and 2009. They said all hand distribution was aimed at their target audience via merchandisers, who were briefed to distribute to professional 20 to 44-year-old males. They also said the magazine was available for pick up by consumers at places including gyms, corporate locations and airport lounges where they would reach the same target audience.

Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Playboy TV's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code clause 2.6 (Non-response). We reminded them of their obligations under the Code and told them to respond promptly in the future.

1. Not upheld

We understood that, although the free magazine was potentially available to a large variety of consumers, it was targeted at men who were interested in sport and efforts had been made to distribute in accordance with that demographic. We understood the phrases "filthiest talent" and "Top Shelf girls being absolutely filthy every night of the week" to be enticements to readers to trial the adult subscription service and considered that the ad itself was not commenting on women in general or inviting readers to view all women in that way and was unlikely to be seen by most readers as sexist and degrading. Although we understood that some people might have found the ad and the product which it promoted to be distasteful, we considered that it did not contain explicit imagery or text that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers of Sport.

We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers of Sport magazine and was unlikely to be seen as sexist and degrading

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 5.1 and 5.2 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted, although young boys may have been interested in the content of Sport, the magazine was targeted at adult males and the manner of distribution meant that it was unlikely that children would be directly handed a copy or would be able to pick it up from the other locations in which it was available. We concluded that, because children were unlikely to see the ad, it was acceptable for publication in Sport magazine.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 2.2 (Responsible advertising) but did not find it in breach.

The ASA was nevertheless concerned that Playboy TV had not responded to its enquiries and considered that to be in breach of clause 2.6 of the CAP Code.

Action
We told Playboy TV to respond promptly to ASA queries in the future

Don't you just love the tone of the finding against Playboy for non response. That is why Ofcom would not allow them to enforce against the babechannels as it would not be to the style or heavy handedness that they practice. To me the ASA made a fair and proportional decision, Ofcom would have found 'in breach' given the chance.

Quote:The survey looked at 9 clips, selectively chosen by Ofcom to inform their decision making process re sexual content in drama

That's a dumb ass thing right there. For this type of survey you take a random selection of random people. That is, you go on to the streets and ask random adults if they would be offended at seeing sexually explicit content in either adult channels or post water shed or what have you, and IF THEY WOULD ACTUALLY WATCH THESE CHANNELS.

You don't select the material and ask if you think it's too strong. That's a different thing altogether. A bit like selecting a few people and giving them differing flavours of monster munch (one shit flavoured) or going out into the streets and asking if people liked monster munch, you'd get a completely different response. If you follow my logic.

Who did they show the clips too? little grey haired old ladies? I can't see younger people being offended by anything.


How was the questions worded? what exactly where the clips? Does anybody know these things.

Just sounds an exercise in manipulation if you ask me.

(01-01-2011 03:05 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]1) Ofcom's rules are so Draconian it's not even funny. Explain to us why other fta channels are allowed to get away with far more sexually explicit material night after night.

Probably Because they've not had a complaint against them, the babeshows are always going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to this double standard as other things will be brief glances that will go unnoticed while the babechannels are on 24/7 which makes it easier for somebody to pinpoint the rules break

2) Protecting the vast majority of the population from what, for fuck's sake?? How the fuck can you work in this industry and have such prudish views and beliefs regarding these channels. I bet your shows were a fucking hoot!!

3) '... making the girls have more dignity and actually let them be girls and not toys for men' - Have you ever stopped to think why these channels are located in the ADULT section of the EPG? The girls' primary concern is to provide sexual titilation for their callers. If we want girls being girls and not 'toys for men' we have 700+ other channels to choose from.

Now thats an interesting one, for me these channels are a sexline not a sexshow, what we see on tv is a free bonus we get on the back of the people that call in


I'm sorry - you must really be starting to feel as though you're being picked on, but you can stop it if you just refrain from being so silly about all of this.

She's not been silly and neither am I we can just see others opinions on the matter and understand that other people could be offended by what can be seen on the channels. It's like my potty mouth, I swear Alot but at the same time I know many find that offensive and if somebody does I take that fact into consideration and will always make the effort not 2.

My main reason for my posts in these threads was in regards to what was been shown on daytime shows which IMO was to strong for un-encrypted daytime shows but for some reason that was ignored by alot of people, who made the assumption that i thought the nightshows should be censored (Which if it did was never meant to come across that way) as a result I've had some ridiculous and very disturbing accusations aimed at me (something I never expected from such a liberal bunch of people)


As for the other posts regarding that nobody could even find the human body or the act of sex offensive, I've got a test for y'all

How many of you find this offensive?? very NSFW

Click the spoiler button to view




I dont find it offensive but alot will, I mean we still live in a country where two men cant even kiss in publc without people hurling abuse at them, That to me is not the liberal open minded country some of you claim we live in.

People have to right to complain to ofcom (thats what its there for afterall) maybe they're prude's, old people, religious type's but what does that matter?? Thats the beauty of this free country we live in, all people's views are taken into account and that can only be a good thing.


Edit: Just thought Of something that really offends me, the way people on such shows as the X factor etc are bullied and humiliated now that is the kind of shit ofcom should be dealing with aswell

You'd think you guys work for ofcom the amount you think you know about it.

Eccles, I know that, but the point of the survey wasn't adult tv, it was included in the survey as it had to be, but it wasn't the focus of the survey. I have seen the clips and was actually part of the people surveyed.

Stan seriously grow some balls, you like to give it people and you can't take it yourself.
I'm not silly as believe or it or not I actually know what I'm talking about. I will reply to your post later and others.

gazfc, rofl. bet some of these guys would be offended by that.

(01-01-2011 04:16 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]SNIP

I knew they where going to do that, and did, but never found the verdict.

(01-01-2011 03:05 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me here, RCTV, but rarely have I read so much bollocks in a single post.

You're wrong on every point. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact!

1) Ofcom's rules are so Draconian it's not even funny. Explain to us why other fta channels are allowed to get away with far more sexually explicit material night after night.

gazfc has said a good thing. You like to over exagerate things, and you may not realise this, but a lot of other shows have things go on and rules changed, which not many people know about.

2) Protecting the vast majority of the population from what, for fuck's sake?? How the fuck can you work in this industry and have such prudish views and beliefs regarding these channels. I bet your shows were a fucking hoot!!

Different country, diffuerent regs and I don't work in the industry anymore (my last day of broadcasting was yesturday)
it is protecting the vast amount of people from things they don't really want to see on tv. (read above posts before you say about the survey)

3) '... making the girls have more dignity and actually let them be girls and not toys for men' - Have you ever stopped to think why these channels are located in the ADULT section of the EPG? The girls' primary concern is to provide sexual titilation for their callers. If we want girls being girls and not 'toys for men' we have 700+ other channels to choose from.

As a woman I'm VERY VERY offended by that, how in this modern age a man can think of a woman as a thing, we aint in the victorian era now. All girls no matter what they do deserve dignity and to feel comfortable, but many of the channels had 'dress codes' for the girls, which some girls didn't feel comfortable

You work for Ofcom - end of!!

No I don't

I'm sorry - you must really be starting to feel as though you're being picked on, but you can stop it if you just refrain from being so silly about all of this.

I can think of many words for you stan and none of them are nice at all.

The problem with a lot of you guys is you've commented saying their bad and then taken that frame of mind in when watching them, so you still think they are bad, when actually they are just as good, as it is still showing the girls you supposidly like, which if you then don't like the only reason you where watching is to see girls be very close to naked and not for the girls themselves.

Ofcom are doing a job and enforcing the rules, and you guys seem to constantly moan.

You would all be in shit if you moaned about the police as all they are enforcing is the law.

(01-01-2011 09:41 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]As for the other posts regarding that nobody could even find the human body or the act of sex offensive, I've got a test for y'all

How many of you find this offensive?? very NSFW

Click the spoiler button to view

Spoiler: Show

I dont find it offensive but alot will, I mean we still live in a country where two men cant even kiss in publc without people hurling abuse at them, That to me is not the liberal open minded country some of you claim we live in.

People have to right to complain to ofcom (thats what its there for afterall) maybe they're prude's, old people, religious type's but what does that matter?? Thats the beauty of this free country we live in, all people's views are taken into account and that can only be a good thing.

I for one do not find this spoiler offensive,even though I am not in anyway interested in this type of thing,but lets face it,it is each to his own and if you like that kind of sex for a turn on then that is up to you.
I do not find any kind of lesbian orientated sex offensive either,I just let people get on with what they like.
The only thing that offends me is some bastard telling me that I should be offended by images of sex and that I am not normal for wanting to see these images