Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

Savvybuyer

Serendipitious wrote: »

I wonder whether different rules apply for men and women or whether on-screen nudity is a matter of individual consent in each individual contract?

I thought they couldn't show the penis erect (the "Mull of Kintyre" rule) - unless it was in a medical context - but that nudity of penises, or breasts, in itself wasn't disallowed after 9pm (ah, that other arbitrary standard again!:(:rotfl:).

I suspect they would even less have shown a vagina? We seem to put women's body parts under so much more taboo in our society. But I've no idea why they couldn't even show the breasts. I suspect there is no rational answer and we shouldn't be seeking one - it's probably simply that a different member of staff happened to review each programme (was the penis live so that they couldn't pixelate it?) and the person that happened to see one thing thought it was okay whereas the person that saw the breasts thought they weren't. Different people do have different standards - and individuals applying different own personal opinions within organisations can lead to inconsitencies - or maybe - this often happens with NTs! - perhaps the person seeing the penis programme, at the television station, didn't even notice the penis at all? People miss things, all the time. Just so careless:rotfl:.

EDIT: I think the classification boards denied having a Mull of Kintyre rule. But I think it's the distinction between pornography (whatever that is:rotfl:) and simple nudity.

Obviously there's brief nudity (woohoo!), more prolonged nudity, full frontal from a distance and close-ups and it all depends on the "context" (whatever that is:rotfl:).

Anyway, as this issue has nothing to do with moneysaving, I'm going to move on from it now.

Sunshinemummy

Savvybuyer wrote: »

That's what I've just asked:rotfl::rotfl:.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sorry!

I would rather the man's bits be pixelated...they really are not the nicest things to see.....yuck!

Jelly_Biactol

bubbs wrote: »

We didnt want to go more than once, the stairs were the novelty as we lived in a bungalow

That made me :rotfl:
Eeh, when stairs were a novelty - those were t' days ... Kids today, they don't know they're born:D

davemorton

Savvybuyer wrote: »

But the question is: did you have to see the penis?
(...Could you not have averted your eyes?:rotfl::rotfl:)

Didnt have a chance Savvy, iy was just there, right in the middle of the screen shouting at me!! :eek:

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Are you complaining that the ladies bits were pixelated, or that the mens bits were not?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Havent decided yet.

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Sorry!

I would rather the man's bits be pixelated...they really are not the nicest things to see.....yuck!

Me too! :cool:

Sunshinemummy

DM, can you also complain about the inconsistencies in the film Burnt....:eek::eek::eek:

It is based in London... but:-

the main character rode a motorbike without a helmet.
they keep smoking inside.
they took a blood sample to take a drugs test.
I could go on and on and on.... and the film is not finished!

Our 10,000 post!.... not anymore... one post deleted!

Jelly_Biactol

bubbs wrote: »

Hello stranger
I will come and scrub your back:rotfl:

Hello yourself :wave: and everyone else of course:)
Thanks for the kind offer, I've got a back scrub but all the bristles are dropping out - most disconcerting the first time, when the bath ended up with what looked like black hairs all over it:eek: Now fully cleaned and refreshed (took a nice glass of Chenic Blanc in with me).

savvy_sal wrote: »

No.Your ok.I'll use the one in the outhouse:rotfl::rotfl:

Not the one with the cut-up newspaper on a string?!?:eek::D

Serendipitious

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I thought they couldn't show the penis erect (the "Mull of Kintyre" rule) - unless it was in a medical context - but that nudity of penises or breasts in itself wasn't disallowed after 9pm (ah, that other arbitrary standard again!:(:rotfl:).

The female in question might have specified certain broadcasting requirements before agreeing to go on. Suppose the only way to tell is to watch and see what happens in other instances. (Which I won't be doing as I don't watch it anyway.)

Sunshinemummy

davemorton wrote: »

Didnt have a chance Savvy, iy was just there, right in the middle of the screen shouting at me!! :eek:


Havent decided yet.



Me too! :cool:

I think you should complain about the man's bits... and go into graphic detail about how horrid a mans' bits are!

davemorton

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

DM, can you also complain about the inconsistencies in the film Burnt....:eek::eek::eek:

It is based in London... but:-

the main character rode a motorbike without a helmet.
they keep smoking inside.
they took a blood sample to take a drugs test.
I could go on and on and on.... and the film is not finished!

Oooo, I watched that the other week, sure I shouted at the tv about the no helmet!!

EEEE, listen to me, first I am complaining about having to look at one, then I am moaning about there not being one!!

Sunshinemummy

Serendipitious wrote: »

The female in question might have specified certain broadcasting requirements before agreeing to go on. Suppose the only way to tell is to watch and see what happens in other instances. (Which I won't be doing as I don't watch it anyway.)

God, I wished the man had specified the same broadcasting requirements!!!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: