"My Penis And Everyone Elses" an unabashed look at the male member, Sky 248 (Really channel), 10-10:30pm.
"A Midsummers Night", ballet with almost non existent mens tights. Meat and two veg alert. Asian Babes has nothing on this. Sky Arts2, Sky channel 245, 9:30-10:30pm.
Awesome.
Totally gratuitous, lingering shots of naked females, purely titillating, no dramatic context other than "Now let's see some tits. Oh and a bit of muff too. Just so that we all understand what a naked woman is. Iiin case we were unsure. At all."
Wonderful stuff, and beings Skins, it's aimed at? Yep, teenagers.
Aaaayyy.
And that means sixteen-year-olds watch this too (and I know this because the sixteen-year-olds who've worked as weekend/part-time staff at me workplace watch it). And potentially younger. So, is it harming them? Who cares? It's after the watershed and dramatically/artistically justified, so it's
fine!
I think i want to go and punch someone random now.
No; better idea; I'll have a w@nk over that Skins clip compilation, cos it's as much vajayjay as I'll see tonight if I keep watching the babeshows.
(16-02-2011 00:11 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Saw an advert for the new series of Skins on E4 showing naked men and women falling from the sky eventually becoming fully clothed, but cannot locate anywhere. Never watched the series but here's some clips.
1.08 - so good to see there's still some young ladies willing to let the ol' pubes flourish
(16-02-2011 01:26 )Krill Liberator Wrote: [ -> ]Awesome.
Totally gratuitous, lingering shots of naked females, purely titillating, no dramatic context other than "Now let's see some tits. Oh and a bit of muff too. Just so that we all understand what a naked woman is. Iiin case we were unsure. At all."
Wonderful stuff, and beings Skins, it's aimed at? Yep, teenagers.
Aaaayyy.
And that means sixteen-year-olds watch this too (and I know this because the sixteen-year-olds who've worked as weekend/part-time staff at me workplace watch it). And potentially younger. So, is it harming them? Who cares? It's after the watershed and dramatically/artistically justified, so it's fine!
I think i want to go and punch someone random now.
No; better idea; I'll have a w@nk over that Skins clip compilation, cos it's as much vajayjay as I'll see tonight if I keep watching the babeshows.
That's one of the finest rants I've EVER read!
Come on, RCTV, let's here you justify Ofcom on this one.
(13-02-2011 03:45 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Not exactly mainstream nudity, but definitely a case of mainstreeam rules vs babeshow.
Watching Star Wars earlier I was struck by just how dangerous it is to broadcast R2D2 accessing computers. Basically R2D2 sticks a body part into a wall socket to access the mainframe for Lando Fetts space station.
You dont have to be a genius to imagine 2 year olds sticking their fingers or screwdrivers into mains sockets. Its called imitable behaviour and if Ofcom bothered to enforce their own rules it would be banned. Or am I being over nervous?
PS Sky Arts is a rip off and should be hauled over the coals by Trading Standards. As ScottinhGuy says, most of the content consists of 1970s pop music or documentaries about it (Tuesday: Elvis, Chis Jagger, Stones in the Park) and most of the content is repeated endlessly. There must be about 1 hour of new material a month. And its in the same package as Home (Bargin Hunt), Good Food and Style Network, channels for vacuous morons.
One hour of new stuff a month?
Well that is certainly more than you get on babestation xtreme.
Not unless they are counting all the old programs that have now been [very poorly edited and censored] as new.
(16-02-2011 23:31 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]i am not the first or wont be the last to say the babe channels are as much to blame as ofcom, if they are still getting calls in no matter what the content of the show they are not bothered,its up to us the paying,viewing public to start to do something about it,if they were to lose 50% of calls per night from viewers they would stand up and listen , a boycott on each and every channel 1 night a week will make them oppose these rules by ofcom if no one challenges them then nothing will ever change !!!!
And here lies the problem in a whole. The babeshows are obvioulsy still making money, so why should they bother/risk rocking the boat where Ofcom are concerned?
I'm afraid it doesn't matter one iota how much we complain, those callers who are happy with what they're getting are not going to start boycotting.
I think it's time for those of us who want stronger material on the babeshows to accept that's it's not going to happen anytime soon. I honestly haven't watched the babeshows for a few weeks now (believe that or not - I don't care either way) and I can honestly say I haven't missed them at all.
All the programmes that have been mentioned in this thread, whether they be drama or documentary, they all have one thing in common. The main purposes for them is to entertain. And that is why you cannot possibly compare them with the babechannels who's principle aim is to make money from selling sex, nothing more nothing less.
this all seems a bit pointless.
(19-02-2011 15:19 )smell the roses Wrote: [ -> ]All the programmes that have been mentioned in this thread, whether they be drama or documentary, they all have one thing in common. The main purposes for them is to entertain. And that is why you cannot possibly compare them with the babechannels who's principle aim is to make money from selling sex, nothing more nothing less.
Absolutely correct, their core purposes are different. Although I'd imagine the ultimate goal of those who produce the documentaries and dramas is to make money - I'm not certain they'd do it for free or at a cost to themselves...
At the moment though, I can't think of a valid reason why this difference in their core purpose should matter. Why should nudity be allowed in programmes that are produced to entertain and inform, but not in adult programmes that are produced to sell? Does this difference make the odd flash of nudity in an adult sales-oriented programme more harmful, unbearable or sinister? To me, logic would suggest that a programme
"who's principle aim is to make money from selling sex, nothing more nothing less" would be permitted to show an equal if not greater level of nudity.