egafd.com

I'm wondering if the Adult Channel has had the Riot Act read to it by the regulators recently because it seems to be going backwards.

I'm just watching the latest "Neil Down" - lots of grunting and what might be sex (but might be simulated) yet we're not actually seeing much. Much less than his last series - that's for sure.

Apart from the "post-cum" facial shot, yesterday's "Uniforms" was the same and, to my mind, Ally McSqueal is much tamer than Star Whores or 00 Heaven.

So what's happened and who do we have to start lobbying (and please don't say David Blunkett - who is the person who actually regulates the Adult Channel). I cannot for the life of me see how seeing a woman using a dildo, or even consensual sex, can possibly be a problem on subscription channels after midnight - particularly now hardcore sex videos are readily, legally available here.

We've come a long way these last eighteen months - now, can we get this sorted too?

I gave up on softcore digital channels ages ago. TAC does piss me off, but not for it's homegrown stuff - that's often the best thing about it. It pisses me off cos it just seems to have a limited number of films and just loops them round every six weeks or so. I subscribed for a while, then it dawned on me that I've actually seen all they've got and all I'm paying for is the new UK stuff, which to my mind wasn't worth ?7.99 a month...

last nights episode of 'uniforms' was as explicit as any s/c prog shown on sky satellite tv. it contained numerous glimpses of erections (including a hand job partially obscured by laura hermenson's hair), a bout of shadow boxing (increasingly popular) and as you mention, a lingering shot of her come covered face at the end.

the previous nights episode of a-levels contained more or less full on pussy licking and shots of dildoing as overt as is allowable at this time.

in other words i think your analysis is wrong. what is true, however, is that a lot of producers don't seem to take full advantage of what is now acceptable broadcasting. i think this is in part due to some programme makers playing safe and being overly cautious but also, it can be due to of a lack of technical competence in things such as camera work/set ups, etc. i would put neil down's stuff in this camp.

as is the way with the authorities in this country, they're too unprincipled or cowardly to make plain for everyone, what is and is not acceptable for broadcasting. historical precedence would suggest they probably see things becoming gradually more hardcore over an extended period of time, until one day, we have it coming out of our televisions, without even recalling how we got it. a bit like the way in which ever harder sex mags slowly infiltrated the shelves of your local newsagent.

as for who to complain to, you want to visit these people - itc, although at some point they will be superceded by these people - ofcom but as to when they will actually come into being, is anyones guess.

{ hope your right mr woodgnome. But can you imagine this government doing so. They ere called "liberal" but I think they are more restrictive than the tories were (porn wise).

Get a receiver that can get you euro-hardcore. Palco have been showing Uncle Bens early stuff but apart from that its all Rocco and other aggressive euro-porn. Also apperently Ultra-Blue have shown Benjamiins stuff lately but I do not know if its the UK or VCA versions.

Zippy & Bungle, you've been in your box too long. Over the last two years, hardcore videos and magazines have become legally available to buy in the UK. My local newsagent now has hardcore mags on his top-shelf. You can now import hardcore videos - customs may open them, but, unlike before, they will now send them on - not seize them. The Labour government has let this quietly go by (so no big rows, no last-ditch fight by Mary Whitehouse etc) and we're all happy.

Now imagine if we had a Tory Home Secretary - they and the Daily Mail would have led a big campaign against the liberalisation and I bet it would have been reversed. Luckily we don't have one and by the time the Tories get back (which they will one day) it will be too late to turn the clock back.

as you point out, new labour are not exactly friends of the civil liberties movement and there is no way this government (or any other, for that matter) will ever proactively acknowledge peoples entitlement to access hardcore pornography - BUT there is doing nothing and "doing nothing".

while this administration isn't principled in any fundamental sense, it is pragmantic. i would hope that the likes of blunkett and others in the home office, are being properly briefed by whitehall, as to the states growing impotence (appropriate word) in controlling what it is people choose to watch/enjoy and spend their money on.

as society grows ever more disparate and complex and expensive to administer, governments will continue to focus their limited resources upon areas where it can show tangible results - hence the relaxation of the classification of cannabis.

new labour no more approves of dope smoking, than it does video depictions of anal sex but it knows that attempts to suppress or eliminate such pleasures, are simply ways of throwing good money after bad. i hope i'm not being over optimistic in this analysis - after all, politicians have been known to do incredibly stupid and pointless things, as a result of misplaced vanity/playing to the gallery, etc.

i just i think this particular tide in the affairs of man, is moving our way and is powerful enough to sweep the authorities along with it.

here's hoping, anyway!

I think you're wrong to suggest that the moves on cannabis and hardcore porn are simply the result of the powers that be deciding that it is too difficult and costly to carry on trying to take action against them.

A key component here is public opinion - if public opinion was still vehemently against liberalisation of the cannabis/hardcore porn rules, then we may not have seen the recent cannabis statement and the complete lack of action to reverse the court ruling on Hardcore videos that (happily) opened the floodgates.

Similarly opinion within the Labour Party - if that too had been vehemently against liberalisation, it probably wouldn't have happened. Given that most Labour MPs, supporters etc generally favour people being able to do their own thing (remember the age of consent equalisation), as long as it doesn't harm others, there would have been little, if any pressure for a clampdown there.

In recent years its become fashionable among politicians to say "Hey, I think cannnabis is ok" and this will win them votes from the millions who smoke it. I do not hear politicians saying "Hey, porns pretty cool" because they are scared of being labelled a pervy onanist and they also believe its not a vote winner because very few fans of porn admit they are so the powers that be think its just a few old men in raincoats and not a big vote winner. I think also that they may believe (possibly correctly) that to be seen as pro-porn will lose them female voters.

I actually reckon that if a politico did come out and say 'actually, I don't think consensual adult porn is socially harmful if marketed responsibly and I don't think the hidebound distinction between 'hardcore' and 'softcore' has any moral value whatsoever', most people would be alightly surprised, but ultimately nod and say 'that makes sense to me'. It's just a question of guts.