Hardcore Profits (BBC2)

[scoobyood]

It starts out declaring some small village a porn haven.. because they have access Sky TV and the internet :suspect: .. the internet was in the street! :eek:

Then the presenter went after a puritanical politician for taking money from the Marriott hotel chain.. who happen to offer porn on demand. I would have thought that hypocrisy is something for the US people who vote for that guy to investigate... and has nothing to do with porn itself or the point of this program. Then it attacks some finical investors for investing in porn, Visa for doing transactions for it's customers who buy porn and Mobile operators for taking a cut from people buying porn on their phones (btw who on earth does that?! £1.50 a minute to jack off in the street? :cuckoo: )

Then he declares the US porn business to blame for stupid people in Africa not wearing condoms. Forgetting of course that the Catholic church directly tell those people not to wear them because it's sinful. Personally I think the porn industry is the LAST group the world should rely on to teach safe sex. That's the job for schools.

It was also not touched on that Travel Lodge might not offer porn now because UK porn laws probably mean that most customers wouldn't bother to pay through the nose to have the weak stuff on their TV, when they can just use the wifi/3G and get it off the internet. That has nothing to do with a moral stance the program alludes to, if they could make money from it I'm sure they would.

Interesting bit of information though, pornotube gets 40 billion page views a month. That's insane.

So what on earth was this program for? It's moral stance was strange and drifted from irrelevant to muddled. The 'endearing' attitude to the old man at the beginning who liked to look up girls skirts 40 years ago was frickin creepy.

[Mr Majestik]

I saw some of this show. It was the kind of sensationalist Daily Mail journalism you expect from ITV's tonight rather than the BBC.

[ian turner]

Hmm programme about porn , why ? Er viewing figures ?

[andybhoy]

Personally I think the porn industry is the LAST group the world should rely on to teach safe sex. That's the job for schools.

I

Agree that it's not the porn industry's job but disagree it's the school's job. Parents should be taking responsibility for sex education. Not saying it shouldn't be taught in the schools but parents should be engaged instead of foisting off responsibility.

[Bigsby]

Interesting bit of information though, pornotube gets 40 billion page views a month. That's insane.


Agreed, much better porn sites out there.

[Alastair]

It starts out declaring some small village a porn haven.. because they have access Sky TV and the internet :suspect: .. the internet was in the street! :eek:

<snip>

The 'endearing' attitude to the old man at the beginning who liked to look up girls skirts 40 years ago was frickin creepy.

The relevance of the village was because Mary Whitehouse used to live there. The point was it could be anywhere, even a small little supposedly untouched village.

You've taken that guys comments out of context, he commented that 'in his day' a guy would be titillated by the sight of a girls thigh exposed by a gust of wind. When these days full-on hardcore is common place everywhere. There was nothing perverse about his view.

I agree the program did have a swinging moral compass and strayed off the focus wildly. But lets not get too carried away, some points were valid.

If you've seen any of Tim Samuels other documentaries (eg The Zimmers) its of a similar vein.

[fattyboombatty]

The relevance of the village was because Mary Whitehouse used to live there. The point was it could be anywhere, even a small little supposedly untouched village.

You've taken that guys comments out of context, he commented that 'in his day' a guy would be titillated by the sight of a girls thigh exposed by a gust of wind. When these days full-on hardcore is common place everywhere. There was nothing perverse about his view.

I agree the program did have a swinging moral compass and strayed off the focus wildly. But lets not get too carried away, some points were valid.

If you've seen any of Tim Samuels other documentaries (eg The Zimmers) its of a similar vein.


well, quite...

[camaj]

I would have thought that hypocrisy is something for the US people who vote for that guy to investigate

If you could call that hypocrisy. At worse it's "taking money from the porn industry" except the connection is tenuous at best.

[Jimmyboy]

well, quite...

Seriously, was that even worth hitting the post reply button for?

[martinb]

I

Interesting bit of information though, pornotube gets 40 billion page views a month. That's insane.



make that 40 billion and 1.

[scoobyood]

If you could call that hypocrisy. At worse it's "taking money from the porn industry" except the connection is tenuous at best.

He's a puritan/religious right wing politician who is out spoken about the evils of porn.... so yes he's a hypocrite to take money from a company that makes money off selling porn.

I was saying that it's a tenuous link and a complete waste of time for a BBC program to call out.... only the voters of that politician would even remotely care.

How have I said anything incorrect? Or did you just not read it properly?

[Alastair]

How have I said anything incorrect? Or did you just not read it properly?

Care to comment on my reply above? Given your obvious high ground on the subject, wonder if you actually watched it properly.

[scoobyood]

The relevance of the village was because Mary Whitehouse used to live there. The point was it could be anywhere, even a small little supposedly untouched village.

You've taken that guys comments out of context, he commented that 'in his day' a guy would be titillated by the sight of a girls thigh exposed by a gust of wind. When these days full-on hardcore is common place everywhere. There was nothing perverse about his view.

I agree the program did have a swinging moral compass and strayed off the focus wildly. But lets not get too carried away, some points were valid.

If you've seen any of Tim Samuels other documentaries (eg The Zimmers) its of a similar vein.


How is it a "valid point" to mention that Sky TV and the internet have reached a small village? Who on earth would think they don't have access to those things? What special dispensation should we give a small village and why wouldn't it's inhabitants be the same as the rest of the human race by being interested in sex?

Okay the old man isn't a perv for checking out some thigh. But his point is still wrong and he was still a little creepy. I don't know about you but just because I grew up with internet access it mean I need to see hardcore sex to be "titillated". A pretty girl showing some nice ankles on a summer's day might cause me to check her out.. does that give me the "Victorian moral high ground" over some sexually promiscuous young lad with his 1950's thing for thigh's? .. see how ridiculous that is?

[camaj]

How have I said anything incorrect? Or did you just not read it properly?

You didn't mention that he was someone who was puritanical. So it makes sense now. I wasn't suggesting that you had failed to spot that it was a tenuous link, I was just agreeing with you

[scoobyood]

You didn't mention that he was someone who was puritanical. So it makes sense now.

First thing I said..


Then the presenter went after a puritanical politician for taking money from the Marriott hotel chain..

[camaj]

Guess I must have missed that then

[Jimmyboy]

How is it a "valid point" to mention that Sky TV and the internet have reached a small village? Who on earth would think they don't have access to those things?

Why are you so intent on interpreting this from such a skewed angle? Its obvious the points raised in this show were going to be wrong by default judging by your initial response. The point (quite clearly) was to illustrate that legitimate family orientated business's and the political establishment are making huge profits on pronography and that this is leading to a main streaming of pronographic content. Yes it was erratic but that's largely because it covered so many different angles that each one really needed its own show, that doesn't mean that all of these points were necessarily wrong. I don't believe this guy was anti-pron, on the contrary he appeared to be a consumer of it. He's just arguing that it should stay within clearly defined parameters.

Besides, if you thought this one was bad and reactionary you should have seen the one that aired on Bravo a few months back. Which was kind of ironic considering Bravo run that behind the scenes pron show every other night.

[scoobyood]

Why are you so intent on interpreting this from such a skewed angle? Its obvious the points raised in this show were going to be wrong by default judging by your initial response. The point (quite clearly) was to illustrate that legitimate family orientated business's and the political establishment are making huge profits on pronography and that this is leading to a main streaming of pronographic content. Yes it was erratic but that's largely because it covered so many different angles that each one really needed its own show, that doesn't mean that all of these points were necessarily wrong. I don't believe this guy was anti-pron, on the contrary he appeared to be a consumer of it. He's just arguing that it should stay within clearly defined parameters.


Genuine question, how do you think I looking at it in a skewed angle? I'm saying that the (bit in bold) is utterly impossible to achieve on every single level imaginable. The porn genie is out of the bottle, the internet isn't going anywhere. That renders every single argument, muddled, right or wrong, the program was trying to make, irrelevant. I agree that the man wasn't doing the show with an anti-porn agenda; that leaves the show with nothing to say, it's merely making wary jabs at certain groups. In the case of blaming the porn industry for Africans getting aids it's a naive silly jab because of the well documented actions of the Vatican....

The point (quite clearly) was to illustrate that legitimate family orientated business's and the political establishment are making huge profits on pronography
So, if the show isn't going after these groups on moral grounds, then all they can do is reveal hypocrisy. If a large corporation has a clear boundaries and it's not like they are putting porn in kids cartoons, then there isn't a problem is there, there's no to hypocrisy reveal. On the occasion they did reveal hypocrisy it was an American politician that no one in this country can vote for, recognise or are interested in. That's how far and wide they needed to go to hunt for a point for this program.

[Alastair]

How is it a "valid point" to mention that Sky TV and the internet have reached a small village?

A pretty girl showing some nice ankles on a summer's day might cause me to check her out.. does that give me the "Victorian moral high ground" over some sexually promiscuous young lad with his 1950's thing for thigh's? .. see how ridiculous that is?

Its valid as it could be ANY village, but that one was where Mary Whitehouse lived! Thats the point, any place anywhere has access to porn via Sky/Internet/Mobile phone etc. I really dont think you've understood this show at all

A guy is creepy for talking about checking out girls, yet easy and widespread access to hardcore porn is just the same and has no downside??

Can you not see the hypocrisy of politicians taking the moral high ground while taking donations funded by porn. It may not be a total crusade against these people but relevant all the same. If I watch a program about corruption in South Africa, just because its about SA doesnt make it irrelevant. You may have zero interest in foreign issues but others will.

You talk about companies having boundaries, if you watched properly you would have seen these companies relied entirely on law. With hotels only quoting they screen nothing illegal. With no moral question over anything they show. A large corporation like many featured will have PR divisions falling over themselves to clean up the fallout from shows like this. Legal? Yes. Possibly bad for business when exposed? Highly likely.

[Roberto]

I'm amazed people make so much money from porn, i mean it's mostly free on the internet these days. Just seems odd people paying for porn :thinking:

[Jimmyboy]

Genuine question, how do you think I looking at it in a skewed angle?

Because from your very first post, you've created straw man arguments out of all the issues the show raised. Rather than dealing with the points made in the show you've invented different ones which are far more farcical via disingenuous interpretation.

I'm saying that the (bit in bold) is utterly impossible to achieve on every single level imaginable. The porn genie is out of the bottle, the internet isn't going anywhere. That renders every single argument, muddled, right or wrong, the program was trying to make, irrelevant.

The argument was never as linear as that, it wasn't so much about how pron operates within its own field but more to do with how its tentacles had expanded to legitimate business who would never want to be associated publically with such content. Why is this point so difficult to understand? People seemed to get it when Michael Moore caused a scene in Wallmart for having a complacent attitude towards fire arm and ammunition sales.

I agree that the man wasn't doing the show with an anti-porn agenda; that leaves the show with nothing to say, it's merely making wary jabs at certain groups. In the case of blaming the porn industry for Africans getting aids it's a naive silly jab because of the well documented actions of the Vatican....

I agree that this was a separate issue and its one that I can't see the pron industry having control over considering this content was going out on the black market. I do think its equally just as silly to shoehorn in blame directly to the Vatican as well. The Church has done a phenomenal amount of good over the decades for the African continent, far more than most secular liberals shaking their fist over the interwebs.


If a large corporation has a clear boundaries and it's not like they are putting porn in kids cartoons, then there isn't a problem is there, there's no to hypocrisy reveal.

But there is a problem. If it wasn't a problem they wouldn't be hiding their profits from the sex industry in the way they currently are. Corporations do at least like to create the illusion of responsibility.

On the occasion they did reveal hypocrisy it was an American politician that no one in this country can vote for, recognise or are interested in. That's how far and wide they needed to go to hunt for a point for this program.

The point to the politician is that he claimed to be anti-pron, pro-women. Yet he was exposed as taking money that had been generated through pron. I don't think the concern was about 1 politician going against their personal principles for more cash, it was more about the wider issue of pron money starting to influence the top level political establishment.

[scoobyood]

The argument was never as linear as that, it wasn't so much about how pron operates within its own field but more to do with how its tentacles had expanded to legitimate business who would never want to be associated publically with such content.

What like Visa? Who would be surprised that they make money off porn when they probably deal with something like 50% of all card transactions in the world. Not exactly a shocker is it. It's also not revelatory that the mobile companies are taking a cut from people buying porn, pick up a newspaper and it'll have pages full of adverts for mobile porn. You'd have to been an idiot not to expect the operators to take a cut of that premium traffic on their network when they take a cut of everything else. It's also not a surprising that all those companies would route their money trails because I'd imagine most of their customers don't want "titty videos such and such" to pop up on their bills. So it's not moral motivated, it's practical. Also if it's hardcore porn they'll not want it getting back to them because of the legal mess they could potential encounter with this countries obscenity laws.

Seeing as we're clearly going to descend into an essay/multi-reply quagmire here; your tone to me on personal level has turned a little condescending... and you're defending the catholic church for actively demanding people with aids NOT to use a condom.. which is murder by proxy. So I'm out ;) Have a good day.

[scoobyood]

Its valid as it could be ANY village, but that one was where Mary Whitehouse lived! Thats the point, any place anywhere has access to porn via Sky/Internet/Mobile phone etc. I really dont think you've understood this show at all

You say ANY village like that means something. As if a village, even Mary Whitehouse's, should, for some reason, be more pure than any other place.

Villages.. they can access the internet now! :eek: Was that on the news? Did I miss it?

So, so what? I could go to the middle of the pacific ocean with a sat modem, guess what.. the internet is there too. Doesn't everyone know this? :suspect: They just wanted an excuse to show archive footage and bring up Whitehouse. They made no arguments for or against anything at all.


Can you not see the hypocrisy of politicians taking the moral high ground while taking donations funded by porn. It may not be a total crusade against these people but relevant all the same. If I watch a program about corruption in South Africa, just because its about SA doesnt make it irrelevant. You may have zero interest in foreign issues but others will.

He's a puritan/religious right wing politician who is out spoken about the evils of porn.... so yes he's a hypocrite to take money from a company that makes money off selling porn.

I was saying that it's a tenuous link and a complete waste of time for a BBC program to call out.... only the voters of that politician would even remotely care.


:thumbs:

You talk about companies having boundaries, if you watched properly you would have seen these companies relied entirely on law. With hotels only quoting they screen nothing illegal. With no moral question over anything they show. A large corporation like many featured will have PR divisions falling over themselves to clean up the fallout from shows like this. Legal? Yes. Possibly bad for business when exposed? Highly likely.

Yeah because no one knows that you can get porn in hotel rooms.. they hide that fact from their customers because they don't want to deal with the fall out from the moral police... ;)

As long as they don't break the law who cares?


BTW.. if this guy had actually gone on a moral crusade on these topics while interviewing the exact same people and actually had an agenda this would have been a much better program; because it would have had a point. As I and others have said in this thread, the guy didn't have a problem with porn. So... bottom line.... WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE MAKE MONEY FROM IT? It only matters to the people who are against porn.

[Alastair]

You say ANY village like that means something. As if a village, even Mary Whitehouse's, should, for some reason, be more pure than any other place.

Villages.. they can access the internet now! :eek: Was that on the news? Did I miss it?

Yeah because no one knows that you can get porn in hotel rooms.. they hide that fact from their customers because they don't want to deal with the fall out from the moral police... ;)

As long as they don't break the law who cares?


BTW.. if this guy had actually gone on a moral crusade on these topics while interviewing the exact same people and actually had an agenda this would have been a much better program; because it would have had a point. As I and others have said in this thread, the guy didn't have a problem with porn. So... bottom line.... WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE MAKE MONEY FROM IT? It only matters to the people who are against porn.

If the program was so pointless why did you waste 60 minutes watching it? You seem totally incapable of even seeing any other viewpoint than your own.

You clearly have no concept of big business, public opinion and the effect this has. Your sarcasm and obvious frustration will no doubt descend further so Im out too

[Jimmyboy]

As I and others have said in this thread, the guy didn't have a problem with porn. So... bottom line.... WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE MAKE MONEY FROM IT?

People have given you an answer multiple times but you've chosen to disregard them, shut off the debate, and carry on ranting anyway.

[scoobyood]

People have given you an answer multiple times but you've chosen to disregard them, shut off the debate, and carry on ranting anyway.

Your point was that companies/corporations/politicians might have PR problems if their customer base finds out about their convoluted dealings with porn. Correct?

Well I'll answer that.... again.

You can't base a program on what corporations might regard as an image problem. Especially when 1. There has been no attempt to ask them if that is the case, it was merely a presumption by the show's producers. 2. The show itself takes no stance on whether they should regard it as an image problem. This was wonderfully illustrated by having porn stars actually read out those corporations statements. So the program can employ porn stars to reprimand companies for profiting from porn... hmmm, yeah that makes sense.

As for me ignoring people's points, all I've done is answer people's points and all I've gotten back is attacks. You've made no attempt to answer anything I've put forward. I'm going to ask a simple question. If you could answer it or give your take on then I'm sure we can continue with this debate. Though perhaps you'd like to refrain from adding in a rude tone. I've never been rude to you or applied derogatory remarks to your arguments. Give the thread a re-read, thanks.

Question:
Should a program which takes no moral stance on pornography concern itself with potential PR problems some companies might have by being tenuously connected to the porn industry?

I'll direct the question to you too Alastair, please feel free to answer.

In answer to your question, I watched the program because it's an interesting subject. I watched it all the way through when I decided I'd start a thread about it. It wouldn't be very cool to slam it when I didn't watch it all would it. As for my sarcastic comments, that's just how I write, I'm quite sarcastic in real life too. Some people find it funny :p Also I can assure you I'm not frustrated and am sitting comfortably in the lotus position as I type ;)

[Roberto]

I'll answer it. No, a good programe (and program maker) should be A-moral and A-political and should present both sides of the agurement without bias

[Jimmyboy]

Question:
Should a program which takes no moral stance on pornography concern itself with potential PR problems some companies might have by being tenuously connected to the porn industry?

Again, the issue was with how the content is being discretely main streamed, so it makes logical sense to look into changes of how its being distributed. Imagine if Mcdonalds started selling Alcopops...

[Richie]

Imagine if Mcdonalds started selling Alcopops...That would be awesome! :D

[scoobyood]

Again, the issue was with how the content is being discretely main streamed, so it makes logical sense to look into changes of how its being distributed. Imagine if Mcdonalds started selling Alcopops...

It's being main-streamed due to the freedom of the internet and free sites that were mentioned in the show. The youtubing of porn. If the program concentrated more on that it would have been more interesting. 40 billion pages views a month is not discrete either.

There has been no real change to distribution for the paid services mentioned in the program, the phones have just gotten better. Porn (regulated) has been in hotel rooms and on Sky for decades. People buying products and content with their Visa cards, also for decades (probably since the credit card was invented); and phone networks (via phone sex lines) have been working away making porn cash also for decades. That money has been funnelled through all sorts of "family focused" businesses right from day one. So them making money in that manner hasn't had anything to do with the "main-streaming" you are alluding to. Why do these practices matter now and how are they revelatory?

On the Mcdonald's thing, I know you were joking, but it's an interesting question non the less. Yes there are Mcdonald's which sell beer, wine and probably "alcopops" in this country. They also sell alcoholic drinks in normal Mcdonalds in other countries. Would any one care if Mcdonald's did that nationwide here? The Daily Mail might drum up an issue with it, doubt any one else would care. If they did it would probably be best if didn't sell it at the drive through windows (though motorway petrol stations do sell booze... ) and obviously they would need to obey the law and not sell to minors.

[Alastair]

It wouldn't be very cool to slam it when I didn't watch it all would it.

But you decided against waiting to see the 2nd part?