Ofcom Discussion

(21-03-2013 00:50 )RCTV Wrote:  remember this forum is very much a minority, so their rules/guidelines could actually be what the vast majority think.

Is it though? There are plenty of people who arent interested in sex on TV but where are the anti brigade? If they existed Ofcom would be swamped with complaints. Check the response when a new lapdancing club tried to open up. "Mothers" groups and "religious" groups picketing the site and mass mailing councillors. Quotes used because they arent really representative. But when Ofcom consults on sex channels just one Church group has a letter campaign. Where are the thousands of letters from Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and Guardian readers? Zilch. Angey feminists? Barely any. Sex shops worried about losing business? You bet.

Or look at the annual Media Tracker survey. 83% of parents said they had not seen any harmful material in the previous 12 months. 15% had, but violence was the most commonly cited type (10%), followed by sexual content (8%) and swearing (5%), closely followed by antisocial behaviour (4%) and alcohol/substance abuse (3%) (based on 589 parents). Note that this refers to all broadcasting, so the sexual content could be snogging in East Enders or Rhianna performing a risque dance on X Factor. Children and parents: media use and attitudes report

If the vast majority of parents, or even nonparents, were opposed to sex on TV Ofcom would be all over them like a rash and get surveys out to support their actions.

(21-03-2013 00:50 )RCTV Wrote:  remember this forum is very much a minority, so their rules/guidelines could actually be what the vast majority think.

Yep, and the ardently anti-Ofcom/pro harder material lot are a smaller sub-set of that minority. Also, to restate/make clearer: people should stop trying to equate indifference to change with a lack of interest in sex. As is proved by the enduring popularity of both the night shows as stand, and the day shows (especially these, really), there is a strong case for stating that plenty find the current output interesting/satisfying, and couldn't care less about 'restrictions,' because, in the case of these viewers, nothing that they actually want to see is being restricted. Not wanting to see harder core material does not indicate a lack of sexual interest! To believe or imply that is like claiming that people who don't like heavy metal don't like rock music as a whole. Harder/faster/louder/more explicit isn't really an objective measure of anything, in terms of taste.

Edit: Another restatement: I don't personally think that Ofcom is being driven by puritanism or modern-day Mary Whitehouses. I think they're concerned with ensuring that the shows don't present the babes in ways that are excessively degrading to women, or that reinforce the old-fashioned chauvinistic, patriarchal order of things to an unacceptable degree. In other words, Ofcom making sure that harder material doesn't make it to the screens via these shows isn't the thin end of an agenda wedge, and they wouldn't then work to progressively dilute the shows to the extent that they would disappear completely.

(24-03-2013 03:12 )Addison Wrote:   I don't personally think that Ofcom is being driven by puritanism or modern-day Mary Whitehouses. I think they're concerned with ensuring that the shows don't present the babes in ways that are excessively degrading to women, or that reinforce the old-fashioned chauvinistic, patriarchal order of things to an unacceptable degree. In other words, Ofcom making sure that harder material doesn't make it to the screens via these shows isn't the thin end of an agenda wedge, and they wouldn't then work to progressively dilute the shows to the extent that they would disappear completely.

So if you're theory is correct Ofcom banned the RLC girls from wearing nurse and air hostess uniforms etc on daytime tv because they thought it was degrading the girls ? .
So does this theory also cover why Ofcom allow the night girls to spread their legs facing the camera and do ass to came positions while wearing tiny thongs as long as every thing is covered, but don't allow tasteful full frontal nudity like what the eUrotic channel girls do because they think tasteful full frontal nudity is degrading, but girls spreading their legs from front and rear isn't degrading ?.
Iv'e never seen Ofcom mention anything in their teleshopping rules that the channels are censored more than editorial programs because they are concerned about the shows degrading women, it's all about protecting children and exceeding generally expected standards for programs classed as advertising/teleshopping as far as i can see, Ofcom are always banging on about the babe channels having less leeway than editorial programs when censoring what the UK adult population is allowed to watch on channels they licence and regard as teleshopping .

{edit} I personally don't think Ofcom are concerned about the girls and i don't think it has got anything to do with the censorship of these adult teleshopping channels, Just remember Ofcom do allow harder more explicit live content such as the girls being shown explicitly full frontal having a wank if the viewer pays to see them via pay per view or subscription, so Ofcom don't seem to think the girls are being presented in a way that is degrading the if the viewer is paying .

yeah mrmystery your right. its to do with the protection of children from "harmful material" and the teleshopping rules. does annoy me the children issue given there are safeguards already in place, espcially on sky with pin protection etc

Ofcom are required by law to provide (adequate) protection from harm and offence, particularly for children. Offence is in relation to Generally Accepted Standards - what society thinks, not what the boss thinks. Harm is independent of opinion, the audience might like something but it could also be harming them or society (think racism, sexism, homophobia, religious extremism).

Those are the only legal grounds for banning content.

Any regulator that starts straying outside its legal authority is on dangerous grounds and ultimately the people at the top can have their arses sued off. The legal latin phrase is ultra vires.

Consideration about harm to performers performers is ultra vires. The competent authority for that is the police. Or the Health & Safety Executive.

If they start regulating content on grounds that it might harm performers (degrading is a kind of harm) they would have to ban Man V Food, Dirty Sanchez, Big Brother, The Incredible Mr Goodwin, Formula 1, long running soaps and the guest spots on Loose Women.

The BBFC dont ban 'degrading' content because of harm to participants, but because, in their view, most viewers find it off the scale for offence. Bukkake, double anal, dangerous stunts and real execution videos are OK in the BBFCs eyes, but toilet stuff is not and fisting could be dangerous if (adult) viewers copy it.

They are a strange breed, aren't they, this Ofcon group.

It is the only area where the state (in the guise of Ofcon) censor legitimately any imagery on TV.

What I'm talking about is the censorship of full-on penetraton and oral sex. The state needs to prohibit this type of image from the British people. They justify this by claiming protection of children as their reason.
There is no other genre of film, no other programmes which are subject to state intervention like sexual programming is.
Says a lot about the UK, does that.

These shows are thrown together with little or no artistic merit whatsoever. By unscrupulous profit minded people, whose sole intent it is to lighten the wallets of viewers who have nothing better to do with their cash other than pour it into the pockets of these so called programme makers. So if the TV companies persist in making it clear that their drive for profits is what counts more than anything, then Ofcom have every right to keep them in check. Sadly it is mainly the people who are wise enough not to feed this all consuming cash cow that do all the complaining about Ofcom, whilst those who are quite happy with what they see on screen, keep the beast alive. Until the satisfied customers become unsatisfied customers with the crap being shown to them, and cease paying their two pounds per minute phone calls, then the nonsense that calls itself "adult TV" will have to change it's ways and make it's output a little more adult viewer friendly. That then may change what seems like heavy handed bullying tactics by Ofcom.. But as I say, as long as people are happy to pay, things will stay the same.

There has been nothing new in years in the industry and most of guys backstage don't often have qualifications, a lot actually know the girls or are mates of other crew members, and just stay in the industry as they can't get jobs in wider industry as they are laughed at.

The adult channels are the laughing stock of the industry.

The level of prejudice in this country is such that working in the adult industry is likely to be a one way street. Easy to get into, difficult to get out of. Noone is going to employ a former porn model as a gameshow host, regional news reporter and actress, except perhaps in a very minor "no name, no lines" role. The same probably goes for directors and producers. The only people I can think of who made the transition were Melinda Messenger, who worked at the mild end of the glamour industry, and Michael Winner, whose 1960s nudist film was tame by even 1980s standards.

(07-04-2013 04:15 )eccles Wrote:  The level of prejudice in this country is such that working in the adult industry is likely to be a one way street. Easy to get into, difficult to get out of. Noone is going to employ a former porn model as a gameshow host, regional news reporter and actress, except perhaps in a very minor "no name, no lines" role. The same probably goes for directors and producers. The only people I can think of who made the transition were Melinda Messenger, who worked at the mild end of the glamour industry, and Michael Winner, whose 1960s nudist film was tame by even 1980s standards.

Agree, but not just limited to UK; US is just as bad, or worse. The performer/director/producer has to wait it out long enough to be "forgotten". In this day of internet, however, I don't think there is such a thing as "long enough" or "forgotten".