egafd.com

I thought this was worthy of a mention here.

Ofcom has cleared A Girl's Guide to 21st Century Sex, ruling that the Five programme did not breach the Broadcasting Code.

21 viewers complained to the regulator, claiming that the programme contained "shocking and explicit" material worthy of an R18 rating from the BBFC. The complainants also claimed that the programme could impart "inappropriate information to vulnerable young girls."

The show contained footage of sexual activity including the filming of ejaculation in a woman's vagina. Topics ranging from masturbation to STIs were discussed in detail.

In its response to the complaints, Ofcom said that the programme was "factual" and "educational", and noted that there was no ban on the broadcast of non-simulated sexual intercourse on television. The regulator said that images of "real" sex "should not automatically be equated with BBFC-rated R18 material," and added that "the portrayal of sex in this programme genuinely sought to inform and educate rather than stimulate or arouse sexually."

Source:

These people complain because they are trying to protect you from all this nasty horrible sex thats on our TV's at the moment.
You should applaud them for this thankless task they are doing !whistle!

I think we shouldnt look at people at Ofcom and the BBFC as bad guys at all. They are actually protecting those who complain from..well complaining. You and I might love our porn but who gives a hoot about watching it on tv when the good stuff is available to buy on dvd anyway.

I dont know about you guys, but I wouldnt waste my time watching a movie for free on terrestrial tv when i can watch it in beautiful 5.1 surround sound uninterrupted by adverts with all the naughty bits left in.

Lets face it, the BBFC and OFCOM came into being from busy bodies like Mary Whitehouse because she was too old and doddery to reach for the remote control...Oh shit thats not cricket is it! A por attempt at humour bless Marys fishermans friends lozenges..but you know, if there was nothing in place, some party pooper would use all this as ammunition to set up the same thing.

Lets face it, its not like they didnt have a good reason to show the programme and it wasnt prurient like what us filthy porno people do. Sod showing an internal cum shot. We wouldve had it spraying jets over some gorgeous young fillys smiling upturned face in slow motion like a coca cola advert...Now that wouldve got the calls in for sure.

I disagree.

The BBFC supressed R18 until the High Court actually scrutinised the letter of the law and checked how the BBFC had been interpreting it, it was then discovered that the BBFC had been acting unlawfully, and we could, under the terms of the VRA 1984, have had hardcore porn at R18 all along. They routinely cut 25% of current R18 submissions.

Ofcon do not allow R18 to be broadcast because they don't think that a PIN number is sufficient protection for under 18's. Ofcom does not recommend to the government (The Department of Culture, Media and Sport) that other European broadcasters showing "R18" material to UK subscribers should have a proscription order imposed on them, yet it still seeks to prevent and prohibit UK broadcasters from showing the equivalent material.

But it turns ot that Ofcon are blatantly guilty of yet more hypocricy!!

Ofcom have recently made a rule change that allows TV evangelists to appeal for money on screen.

The change comes after a consultation process found that channels being beamed in from overseas, and therefore not subject to British broadcasting rules, rendered the previous regulations ineffectual.

Ofcon changes it`s position because material is available on foreign satellite channels but won't extend that to adult broadcast!!

If the BBFC and Ofcon expect producers to obey their guidelines then surely, the guidelines themselves must be seen to be lawful?

Ofcon could not find any evidence to suggest R18 porn would cause `serious imparement to minors' and neither could the BBFC, yet one is more represive than the other.

The Obscene Publications Act and supporting legislation, all require burden of proof based evidence or judgement that some material is 'dangerous or corrupting' in order to restrict access to it legally. Any unjustified ban or restriction is a breach of Freedom of Expression. The BBFC generally at least give an explianation. Ofcon have failed to provide any such justification, they admit in their R18 report that there is no evidence to suggest R18 could cause serious imparement to minors. Ofcon openly admit to enforcing a `precationary` restriction, which by definition is disproportionate and unjustified, relying totally on personal taste and opinion as to its necessity.

Now lets have a look at the BBFC. They have a real issue with bondage, it's an absolute no-no. So to the land of the rising sun - Japan.

Japan produces some of the most extreme porn I think you'll agree. Very little finds it's way through Soho Square. The Dr Milton Diamond study in Japan began in the early 1990s during a time of rising sex crime in Japan involving `routine` rapes of 13 year old schoolgirls by teenage boys. The Japanese could not understand the cause of this rising trend (it peaked at about 3 rapes of 13 year old girls per day), until they considered what had changed in their society pre and post war - the answer was the post war US imposed puritanical censorship, suppression of Geishas, massage parlours, brothels etc., plus, there was no compulsory sex education in schools. So they went about changing things back to how they were in the `good old days`. They allowed massage parlours and brothels, relaxed censorship of the type of material that was permitted (but still pixilate genitals as `obscene`) and introduced a compulsory 12+ sex education in schools. Over the course of the following 10 years, the Diamond study recorded a steady fall in sex crimes in Japan, which fell by over 84% - from one of the highest rates in the world to THE lowest rate ANYWHERE in the world (less than 2 cases per 100,000 capita in 2000 - the UK was around 70 cases per 100,000 capita in 2000). Another benefit, apart from the safest streets for women and children anywhere in the world, came in the shape of a 95% conviction rate for those being accused of sex crimes - the cases being so blatant that nearly all the accused ended up in jail (in the UK conviction rate for rapists is around 5-10%).

Could it be that the BBFC have it all wrong?

Now they want thier sticky little fingers on the internet. You see, I knew the internet was a bad thing. Just think, until the internet, there were no violent crimes, no women being raped and killed, nothing. Then along comes the internet and these normal law abiding people who have no interest in such things, all began wanting to rape and murder people.

The whole issue of censorship in this country is a mess and needs a judicial review. Both the BBFC and Ofcon, to coin a phrase, are "unfit for purpose".

Haven't we seen it all before more than 10 years ago on Desmond Morris' 'The Human Animal'? I seem to remember seeing graphic footage of a penis ejaculating inside a vagina and then astonishing footage, showing the importance of the female orgasm in pregnancy, of the cervix dipping itself into the spunk when the woman climaxed.

I was about 14 and watching with my parents. I have never been, nor shall I ever be, more embarrassed in my entire life!