O/T The Adult Channel - Getting Tamer?

[KJ]

Anyone moticed that TAC seems to have backed away from showing cumshots hitting their target. Those scenes were removed from last night's repeat of the lovely Sarah Daykin's Anal Gangbang. Similar cuts seem to have been made to Cum Drinking Sluts and other programmes shown on the Thirsty Girls theme night, somewhat defeating the object!

[Frank]

Yes, they are getting tamer. New shoots are, I am told, being shot with more care to show less. Sad isn't it.

I am sure they are not doing it out of choice. I wonder what pressure is being applied?

[Mr Whippy]

Totally agree,

I have only been watching for a year and there are definitely less close ups, erections, flashes of pink and general good stuff.

The new Elen Cole/Michelle Thorne show on Saturday is no harder than basic 18 cert available in blockbuster.

Same goes for TVX, I have cancelled my subs and TAC will be next if it doesn't get back to a bit of decent carpet munching.
As KJ says someone has obviously made an editorial decision, for the worse I am afraid.

[marcusallen]

I refer to my reply below, re the "Full Contact" thread and will not repeat it here.

Please remember that the moguls who run TAC,TVX etc gained their millions by pushing the boundaries as far as they dared, and then some, at a certain time in their lives. That time is now over as innovators, entrepeneurs and hustlers.

They are now BUSINESSMEN seeking (and in certain cases, gaining), political and "legitimate" recognition. Having made their very considerable fortunes in one way (which is definately to be admired)they now devote their considerable energy and talent in pursuing their dream of respectability and recognition. To be associated with any kind of movement to further the openness of sexuality and freedom of the individual is not on their agenda.

Power corrupts and in these cases, the corruption is to the detriment of their (formerly)avowed dedication to the cause of open sexual activities in line with many other "civilised" countries.

[A Concerned Viewer]

They had a complaint by a viewer upheld. See:

[KJ]

So for "viewer" read "do-gooder who paid the fee in order to cause trouble"

[Dibble]

Precisely KJ, but the term "do gooder" is misleading. These sad fuckers are simply bigots and zealots from both the left and right of politics. They get these strange ideas into their head - untested by objectivity - where they become lodged and then to go on and consume them from within. They cloak themselves in the righteous garments of 'moral crusaders' and 'social reformers' which gives them a cosy glow as they go about their business (relatively unhindered by the pathetic, cap dothing, sheep-like masses) of harnessing the State to stop other people doing what they themselves don't like doing.

"Do-gooders?" What's that mean? Doesn?t it depend on how you define "good?" It's rather like that other nonsensical term "Politically correct" Hasn't anyone else noticed that anything which is termed "politically correct" is only correct if you are an earnest, Guardian reading, hand-wringing, public sector working, lower middleclass tosser, who's keen on left of centre politics?

Officer Dibble.

[Richard B]

"Officer Dibble" - given your attack on "politically correct" people - and your description of them - what does that make you?

[Dibble]

I don't know, I don't quite understand. Maybe I'm politically incorrect? But that sounds a little boring. Maybe you could rephrase the question?

However, I will venture that I worship at the dogma-free alter of truth and objectivity. I?m immune to other people?s 'isms' I like to think I stand outside of all that looking in at all the silly, predictable people saying they believe in this and they believe that just to court popularity and acceptance by their peers.


Officer Dibble - Commissioner For Objective Opinions

[Richard B]

"Do-gooders?" What's that mean? Doesn?t it depend on how you define "good?" It's rather like that other nonsensical term "Politically correct" Hasn't anyone else noticed that anything which is termed "politically correct" is only correct if you are an earnest, Guardian reading, hand-wringing, public sector working, lower middleclass tosser, who's keen on left of centre politics?

Call that "truth and objectivity"? I don't think so - looks pretty subjective and objectionable to me.