Ofcom Discussion

(19-07-2011 20:34 )blackjaques Wrote:  

(19-07-2011 18:05 )schmoo Wrote:  But is it? Ofcom/govenment, i believe, have already intimated they wish to "get involved" in the internet scene too..

"First we take Manhattan.................................."

(19-07-2011 19:58 )Roquentin Wrote:  I dont think they should all move to internet. But pretty much stay as they are now (within guidelines) then additional parallel content on a stream online. They would need the shop window on TV as the source of punters. That might work. Worth trying anyways.

I don't want that either because I'd still be losing out; nothing worth watching on Sky (if they stay as they are) and no interest in the webstreams... so where would I get my hit??

With respect Stan (and we've known each other a long time) I do think you have a bit of a psychological condition, whereby you only find images displayed on a TV screen erotic!

I suggest that you invest in an internet TV as they're coming down in price all the time - that way you could sit happily watching a webstream on your TV.

At the end of the day, how the signal gets to your TV (either via an aerial, satellite dish or the internet) should be of no consequence to your enjoyment. For you however, it does seem to be.

A psychological condition, eh?

It's nothing so complicated, Dave. In fact, it's all to do with 'forbidden fruit' syndrome. As much as I whine on about Ofcom, I'm not necessarily looking for a complete removal of censorship. I have no interest in the webstreams because there's no censorship there - everything we see is permitted. It's only when liberties are taken with the rules governing the shows on Sky that I am truly aroused. As an example I'd say that Babestar had the mix absolutely perfect; never going so far OTT that they'd end up in court, but going much further than the rules permitted.

That's what I miss. It is also the reason I have no interest in the webstreams.

(20-07-2011 14:54 )StanTheMan Wrote:  As much as I whine on about Ofcom, I'm not necessarily looking for a complete removal of censorship. I have no interest in the webstreams because there's no censorship there - everything we see is permitted. It's only when liberties are taken with the rules governing the shows on Sky that I am truly aroused.

That's one weird fetish, Stan! I think someone should draw Scottishbloke's attention to this, because I think he thinks you're both singing from the same hymn sheet with regard to the eradication of babe show censorship, and I don't think you are!

(20-07-2011 22:21 )Addison Wrote:  That's one weird fetish, Stan! I think someone should draw Scottishbloke's attention to this, because I think he thinks you're both singing from the same hymn sheet with regard to the eradication of babe show censorship, and I don't think you are!

Not ever so weird, Addison. The Forbidden Fruit mentality has been around since... well, since Adam and Eve. Unless, of course, you're an evolutionist, but even then it's still been around for ever.

The censorship things is a funny one. I hate and resent these self-appointed moral guardians telling me what degree of porn is safe for me, but at the same time a total scrapping of it (censorship) would mean I'd grow bored of the babeshows fairly quickly.

But, if I had a choice between how they are now and a no holds barred approach, I'd choose the latter every time.

(20-07-2011 14:25 )Digital Dave Wrote:  With respect Stan (and we've known each other a long time) I do think you have a bit of a psychological condition, whereby you only find images displayed on a TV screen erotic!

I suggest that you invest in an internet TV as they're coming down in price all the time - that way you could sit happily watching a webstream on your TV.

At the end of the day, how the signal gets to your TV (either via an aerial, satellite dish or the internet) should be of no consequence to your enjoyment. For you however, it does seem to be.

Unfortunately this doesn't work in practice because unless the feed comes directly from a studio the quality of the picture is governed by the bandwidth of the broadcasting model; there are some stunning shows which are "spoiled" by the poor quality of the picture. I can see where Stan is coming from and have some sympathy with the principle. Ultimately a bit of pussy when it's not really allowed and in the detail only TV can provide, hits the mark for me.

For those of you who might get tired of uncensored shows , there's a way around this. Allow the women to show what they want, but have them keep it to a minimum for much of the time, to build suspense and keep us thrilled. I'd still be thrilled if they went all out though, and showed everything up front.

(20-07-2011 23:38 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  

(20-07-2011 14:25 )Digital Dave Wrote:  With respect Stan (and we've known each other a long time) I do think you have a bit of a psychological condition, whereby you only find images displayed on a TV screen erotic!

I suggest that you invest in an internet TV as they're coming down in price all the time - that way you could sit happily watching a webstream on your TV.

At the end of the day, how the signal gets to your TV (either via an aerial, satellite dish or the internet) should be of no consequence to your enjoyment. For you however, it does seem to be.

Unfortunately this doesn't work in practice because unless the feed comes directly from a studio the quality of the picture is governed by the bandwidth of the broadcasting model; there are some stunning shows which are "spoiled" by the poor quality of the picture. I can see where Stan is coming from and have some sympathy with the principle. Ultimately a bit of pussy when it's not really allowed and in the detail only TV can provide, hits the mark for me.

That doesn't really work either because as we all know, 'TV' is not automatically good quality. In the 900s it's normally very poor quality, with the honorable exception of Storm and Elite (but even they're not proper mainstream broadcast quality).

Conversely you can have very high quality webstreams.

For me a webstream is simply not the same as a TV channel. Connecting it to the TV would help, but I like the thought that its live and on TV. And financially it would fail, at least any time in the next 3 years. The big strength of being onSky is that channels are in the EPG and anyone with a Sky box can access them without tech skills or rewiring. The web has literally hundreds of sites, another porn site would get lost in the crowd.

Id also like to see some sex in normal TV. It used to happen. Comedy, satire, cabaret shows used to feature the odd risque sketch. These days you have to have a certificate stating that any sex/nudity is dramatically justified and we have segregation. Mainstream TV = pretent adults have no interest in sex.