Sex With Strangers

[Tony6]

I was up late the other night catching up on some paper work .I turn the tv over and saw two girls one with a **** on having **x and two men having **** .On channel four at 11.30 ish

This was very graphic .

Whats going on with the tv broadcasting standards.This was total filth and degrading and immoral.

If only will could bring back Mary Whitehouse see would sort it out.

Is this the Blair`s moral society ????

__________________________
Moderator

edited, this is a "family forum"

 

[nstreet]

You didn't have to watch it though to check the content did you!.

You could always change channel. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown. Leave MW where she is, the world is a much better place. One thing I can't abide are people who try to impose their standards upon others. Your name isn't Saddam by any chance is it?

Let US make up our own minds.

 

[AdamW]

Yes, totally unacceptable and disgraceful. Any idea if it is being repeated?

I can understand why this would upset someone though. It is so easy to get hold of good quality "art films" nowadays, that there really is no need for blatant titilation on TV. Erotica yes, but "art" no. "Art" is a choice. You can buy it if you want it, but if you don't want it, and don't buy it, you shouldn't run the risk of seeing it when channel hopping at night.

Channel 4 have always been right on the boundary of what is or isn't allowed, Eurotrash would often show things that were borderline (and boy was I an avid viewer of it when I was an adolescent!). But, I think showing people actually having sex, even if you don't "see it going in", is crossing the line.

EDIT: I had to use the word "art" because the p-word that rhymes with "horn" is apparently rude.

 

[AdamW]

How long were you watching this for anyway?! I'm guessing the two-girls with the cod-piece were on first and the two "special friends" were on later...

 

[planenut]

The chance of watching something like this, either intentionally or accidentally as one switches into a channel, have increased because the standards of decency have dropped. There was a time when one could safely watch family television up to midnight, and those who wanted to indulge in something of a level beyond that, would come in from the pub with the knowledge that they would be getting the entertainment that pleased them after that time.
Due to the lowering of standards and the idea that this is the type of thing we want, the "watershed" of 9p.m. was created so that one could pack the kids off to bed, and those that did not want to watch could choose an alternative having been able to plan it with the programme pages.
What really annoys me, is when earlier than that, a programme is introduced with a warning (accepted, a warning) that something "different" will be shown, before that "watershed".
Also, tell me one soap that does not involve people, some only youths, talking about or actually appearing to be involved in some sexual activity?
Standards are no such thing; what is acceptable to one person is not to another, nobody has a right to impose their standards on another, but every one will have an opinion on it, even me.

 

[Richardp]

I agree its disgusting, let me know if its repeated so I can check it out for myself.
The only time I've been upset by this sort of thing is when I've been watching the tele with my daughter in the room , otherwise its up to you if you don't like it hit the switch, I remember my Nan years ago watching Monty python and a bloke was playing the piano in the nude(at the time it was very rude) she just couldnt stop giggleing.

 

[AdamW]

I have noticed that the music channels have got pretty bad at pre-watershed unsuitability. Many artists now produce a "radio" version of a song, and an uncut "dirty" version. So, usually on the mainstream music channels they would play the radio version pre-9pm, and the dirty version if they put a word like "Extreme" in the title of the programme.

But, I have heard the F-word on Kerrang at all times of the day, often repeatedly.

Also, words that are acceptable in the US, but not in the UK, often slip through the nets. For instance, "b*stard", "b*tch", "a*se", "b*gger" and "bl**dy hell", none of which you really want kids using, are heard often in The Simpsons! The last three usually only if the character is "British". I love The Simpsons, but I do think they should take into account their wider market when they script it.

 

[kendor]

Sign of the times? But really what has Labour got to do with it??
It is the responsibility of the broadcaster to make sure their content fits in with the rules that govern them.
The trouble is the boundaries get pushed by the one's that try to take the risk in order to boost ratings sometimes they get away with it other times they get rapped, we will see shortly if this latest incident ends up in a fine or slapped wrist.
Mary Whitehouse took it upon herself to highlight what she thought was in bad taste and that's where the problem lies, to make a moral judgement takes a poll of the viewing public and their views not a small group of people.
In the sixties and seventies the viewpoint of the public was generally fairly open minded and a lot of "groundbreaking" explicit material found it's way into the public domain as seems to be the case these days.

One would hope that children would be tucked up in bed fast asleep by the old chucking out time.

 

[securespark]

Yes, totally unacceptable and disgraceful. Any idea if it is being repeated?

Adam,

reminds me of the court sketch from Not the Nine O Clock News where certain items crop up in the conversation. A fuddy-duddy judge has to be told what a VCR and digital watch are because he is unaware of their function. However, when " a deluxe inflatable doll" is mentioned, the judge says immediately, "Oh, yes! That's the one with real hair........!"

On a serious note, I often find words like "F*ck" are left intact, but other words edited out. To my (depraved) mind, there are not many more words more graphic than that. Some will disagree, I'm sure.

But one of the words that no-one ever edits out, but I think is exceedingly rude is "Flange".

Anybody else got "rude" words that should be deleted by broadcasters??

 

[keyplayer]

Jugs.

 

[big-all]

Yes, totally unacceptable and disgraceful. Any idea if it is being repeated?

Adam,

reminds me of the court sketch from Not the Nine O Clock News where certain items crop up in the conversation. A fuddy-duddy judge has to be told what a VCR and digital watch are because he is unaware of their function. However, when " a deluxe inflatable doll" is mentioned, the judge says immediately, "Oh, yes! That's the one with real hair........!"quote]



i know i am sad but i have got hours and hours of not the and spitting immages on tape ][/

 

[kendor]

Anybody else got "rude" words that should be deleted by broadcasters??

I find "Michael" and "Howard" quite offensive words when put together

 

[Rider]

I suppose at least that programme was on at a later time, unlike the soaps that show young and older people in bed together quite a bit. They are on at a time of day when TV should be free of sex scenes. I think some story lines and the accompanying bedroom scenes play their part in children wanting to grow up too quickly and try it out for themselves. A rule or two ought to be applied to these programs I reckon. What happened to the 'after 9 o'clock' thing?

Regarding sex programs that are on after that time, I'm curious enough to have a look at how some people live but I get bored with looking in on it after 10 minutes or so. Anyway, if anyone, wants to see something like that, it's pretty easy these days to get hold of a tape, DVD or pay a subscription to one of the adult channels. These show far more of what's wanted and it's a concious decision to watch them. I don't think it should be possible to fall across sex prorammes when flipping through the everyday TV channels. These programmes are supposed to be adult ones on at an adult time. Well, most young kids I know have a TV in their bedroom and many don't go to sleep very early either. This sort of program will get seen by those it isn't intended for.

Times might have been thought 'prudish' when I was young. What could be seen on TV was strictly governed. However, what is acceptable for general broadcast seems to have swung much too far in the other direction in my opinion. TV stations are pushing the boundaries further all the time. Perhaps soon, there will be no line drawn at all. I feel a bit uncomfortable about what they show now since probably all ages get to see it. I'm willing to agree I'm old fashioned though. Those who think programmes like the channel 4 ones are OK, can maybe look forward to more detailed sexual antics being acceptable in the not too distant future.

 

[kendor]

When analogue is finally put to rest and digital reins supreme then you will be able to have parental control over what is watched so "watch this space".

 

[pipme]

Oh no..... not another plethora of multi-function buttons .... lets have that intelligent DVD recorder which drops the stupid adverts, then we can view anything but news 1 day in arrears ... without the sh ite !!