The UK Babe Channels Forum

I've just read your Post and you do come up with some extremely valid points.I think the one point which really stood out to me was the issue of the babe channels wanting to keep things as they are, maybe they just want to live with the current rules and regs and just go along with things.
I myself I'm like you, better to have something than nothing, I'll continue to watch the babe channels and as the months unfold maybe ofcom will ease the current restrictions? But I think everything must be done in moderation, if they allow full frontal nudity say from midnight onwards for those current babe channels then I dont see it being a major issue. I guess what you were saying is that if other channels start popping up there might be a chance things might start getting out of hand mmmh.
It a tough one to call, I guess we'll all have to wait and see what comes forth.

(09-09-2011 23:05 )Light Entertainment Wrote: [ -> ]As I see it, there's a high risk that, if successful, a petition like this could put some or even all babeshows out of business. If Ofcom relaxed the rules on sexual content, it wouldn't just be babeshows who'd be at liberty to take immediate advantage of the new situation. Once you uncensor content in the way many of the people signing this petition would like, there's no reason why you can't get 'porn' springing up everywhere - not just on babe channels. By 'porn' I simply mean explicit sexually-themed material, there for its own sake and with no other context. Even one or more of the 'big' mainstream channels may consider adult-themed content for through-the-night transmission if it was established that public opposition no longer existed, and the regulators were to lift the current restrictions. This would assume something of a cultural change in the UK of course, but without that cultural change, a petition of this type could never achieve its aims anyway.

Who knows for sure what effect the above would have, but it's hard to see the babeshows in their current format being able to brush off a much wider realm of available adult entertainment across more powerful channels - much of it perhaps offered as a completely free experience for the viewer and financed by a trad advertising model. I can't really imagine how you could open the floodgates to 'free TV porn', and not see a catastrophic plunge in business for all pay-service sex-themed formats virtually overnight.

As StanTheMan says, the babeshows have a nice little business going (well, it's quite a big business in some cases). Change the boundaries, and potentially, babeshows suddenly have to compete with a raft of much more visually explicit content than a lot of their own girls are prepared to provide. Consider that the alternatives could be free, and where does that leave the babe channels, with what in all honesty is an expensive and notoriously unreliable service? Some niche viewers would doubtless still follow the babeshows (I would). But how many of those casual viewers considered so important by some shows would still spend money on babe channel services when they could just flick channels and bash one off over a 'sanitised porn film'? If the casual viewers are as big a commercial component as some channel reps have implied, the result as I see it could be a crisis for some babeshows, and the end for others.

True, it is a pain for the channels having to 'police' slips and stay compliant - especially when an act is used to more explicit work and being 'free and easy' with her performances. But my sense is that the channels would much rather put up with that little bit of hassle and observe the current rules, than open the whole thing up to the prospect of 'free TV porn' and all the commercial risk that would bring. Babeshows are at least in part a product of the environment, and commercially they thrive on not being able to show or say certain things. But what's most important at present is that no one else can come along and show/say those things - not for the purpose of sexual stimulation, anyway. If they could, suddenly it would be a completely different environment.

I respect the efforts of those who've stood up for what they believe in with this petition, but my impression is that the shows themselves very avidly don't want anything changed. I'd rather have babeshows as they are than a homogenised loop of 'sanitised porn films' every night, which could very well be where night time TV would head if explicit sexual material became viable for free to air transmission. I fall into the "careful what you wish for" category. But that's only my perception, of course.

(07-09-2011 21:14 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ]I do agree about the babe channels being an easy target, but in so many ways the channels make themselves an easy target.

Forgive me if I've missed something here and am jumping the gun, but in what ways do the channels make themselves an easy target? What sort of content would you suggest on an adult-themed liveshow, in order to take the heat off - girls fully dressed at all times?

(09-09-2011 19:30 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]mines a simple question,why havent any of the babes themselves signied it?

Good question. I was thinking some of their employers might not be keen. But thinking about it there have been tales of babes being fined a months wages for a slip (that Ofcom saw) or suspended and sent on stalinist reeducation courses. Its not a minor nuisance, thousands of pounds are at stake. Same goes for producers. Theres a good reason why some babes only have 2 poses and hardly ever move. Anything else is risky.

(09-09-2011 23:05 )Light Entertainment Wrote: [ -> ]If Ofcom relaxed the rules on sexual content, it wouldn't just be babeshows who'd be at liberty to take immediate advantage of the new situation.

The way the petition is worded 18-strength material would be allowed after 9 but only on encrypted channels. Free to air channels could show 18-strength content after 10, but only with "adequate" labelling and the ability to block them. Theres wriggle room there but it could mean free channel in the Adult section depending on how much MPs are willing to deregulate. That could prevent the likes of Bravo, Men&Motors, Sky Arts, E4 showing Mens Shows before midnight even if they wanted to.

Clause 3 does say any channel could show adult content after midnight. It could happen, and frankly Im amazed that major channels turn over to teleshopping and poker late at night, but in reality it would be no more than variety shows with some risque content, or endless nudie repeats.

Audience numbers drop off rapidly late at night - peak viewing is 10pm to midnight. The early bird gets the viewers and the core audience is not going to channel hop between widely separated mainstream channels for endless repeats. (Just how old are those Sexcetera shows?)

Chances are that if mainstream broadcasters want solid sex content, rather than variety shows with the odd flash, they will buy in content from the likes of Portland, rather than dirty their hands making their own content. In a similar vein channels like LivingGit simulcast psychic content rather than make their own.

Besides right now the mainstream channels have substantial latitude because they can claim artistic justification. The girls at work tell me there is plenty of nudity in The Borgias. I dont get to see it myself because it is too early. Facejacker had a tasty scene where Arts Luvvie Brian Bdonge (?) critiques a Life Modelling class featuring a very naked tasty model. Or theres C4s Life Modelling shows during the day, cocks and minge out.

Anyone see Lee Nelson on Thursday? It featured a man with an 8 inch flacid penis, blurred out. Lee then proceeded to use it as a phone. And didnt wash his hands after.

very good post, lots of good points made light entertainment

as this is the second petition i have signed about OFSCUM i hope they listen to the ADULT babeshow fans

(09-09-2011 23:05 )Light Entertainment Wrote: [ -> ][Ofcom shit]

well said,the fact also being on the other hand that in the current state of play some channels have already gone because of the strict nature ofcom pursues ,i dont for one minute expect ever to see graphic porn on tv ,but i simply cant see the harm in a babe show being exactly that ,with models being allowed to portray themselves without having to constantly be told off for "baring" too much or ofcom issuing fines for silly little mishaps what happen in everyday life,what else do people expect to see on these channels ,a night version of loose women?

(10-09-2011 14:51 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2011 23:05 )Light Entertainment Wrote: [ -> ][Ofcom shit]

well said,the fact also being on the other hand that in the current state of play some channels have already gone because of the strict nature ofcom pursues ,i dont for one minute expect ever to see graphic porn on tv ,but i simply cant see the harm in a babe show being exactly that ,with models being allowed to portray themselves without having to constantly be told off for "baring" too much or ofcom issuing fines for silly little mishaps what happen in everyday life,what else do people expect to see on these channels ,a night version of loose women?

Lol a night version of loose woman i like it, look these channels are under the adult section of the Sky EPG guide, and if parents want to block them using a pin, it'll only take them a few minutes to complete. Plus one thing you can't manage to do is accidentally stumble on them as you can do on freeview TV, i mean you've only got to go past the news, and you have adult channels starting from 11or12 pm, which in my view is more of a risk to younger viewers, especially these days when so many kids have TV's in there bedrooms.
However getting back to the matter we've been discussing, i think the babe channels are against a rock and a hard place, i do believe if the channels had there way they would want more sexual content and so would the babes themselves. But since Ofcom started sticking there bloody noses in with more and more rules and regs the playing field has completely changed. Now you could argue, have the babe channels crossed the line and pushed the boundaries that ofcom has allowed over the yrs? i personally don't think they have, i tend to feel it's Ofcoms excuse just to have more control and incur more fines as they see fit, and all the rest is just smoke and mirrors.

(10-09-2011 14:51 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2011 23:05 )Light Entertainment Wrote: [ -> ][Ofcom shit]

what else do people expect to see on these channels ,a night version of loose women?

Yup, thats what Ofcom want, but preferably with the language toned down.

Here are the knickers Ofcom wants them to wear

(10-09-2011 19:55 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]... i tend to feel it's Ofcoms excuse just to have more control and incur more fines as they see fit, and all the rest is just smoke and mirrors.

You have a point. The Guidelines are demonstrably arbitrary. They ban anything that looks like or a blind person could mistake for ejaculate but none of their surveys have identified this as an issue and it has not been identified as an issue in a single investigation.

They also ban oil but the surveys did not mention it as something raising the level of offence. It is mentioned in various investigations but this has no independent basis. Meanwhile the Sanex commercial shows all sorts of coloured fluids being poured over a crowd of womens naked backs.

Inconsistent. Arbitrary.