"viewing pornographic content alone will increase the chances of being sexually aroused by the material".
Here was me mistakenly thinking that the Point?
Paris due to her appearance such a "Sex Work"
Staff from the British Board of Film Classification are inexplicably up in arms about a management move to force them to endure hardcore rumpy-pumpy alone, the Guardian reports. While we have no doubt there are hundreds of Reg readers - in common with the BBFC's 80 battle-hardened reviewers - willing and able to cast a …
"viewing pornographic content alone will increase the chances of being sexually aroused by the material"
I would think that was the point.
I can't help but be reminded of the funniest joke in the world, from Monty Python.
In order to weaponise it for use against the Germans, each translator could only work on one word each. One guy saw two words and was hospitalised.
By making the poor censors watch the whole thing alone, they could be seriously hurt.
Oh please, quite playing the whiny victims BBFC. You are no more sensitive than the granny watching two girls one cup.
When BBC news editors edit out the scenes of shrapnel shredded babies in news reports about wars, do you imagine they whine as much?
If they are genuinely concerned of this problem, er, arising, they should resort to the time honoured method of placing a couple of photos of smiling relatives on top of their be-grumble-flicked tv.
Out of curiosity, do they actually get paid for this job? And does anyone happen to know what job agency they use? A friend of mine may be interested, you see.
... for example the mad series. You know how dogs lick each others bottoms, well swap one of those dogs for a cute Japanese girl.
If that causes the BBFC classifier to become a rapist (as per Jacqui's 'experts') then perhaps they should not be allowed to watch it. And if it doesn't, then why the hell is jacqui making it a criminal offense to view it????
I think Richard has hit upon a solution to the problem. If each examiner watched about 10 minutes on their own, then moved onto a different and non-pron flick, to be replaced by a different examiner watching the next ten minutes of pron, then this would reduce their danger of being aroused.
They could do a similar thing with chick-flicks if there was a shortage of female examiners. A male examiner could elect to watch only 15 minutes of a chick flick before moving on to a less brain damaging genre. Female examiners would have a similar 'get-out' if required to examine Chuck Norris movies.
The only problem is that this distributed form of examination may miss out on the long term plot development and subtle storyline twists that are the hallmarks of quality pron.
People who are too old/infirm/castrated etc to be sexually aroused to watch porn all day and tick boxes saying 'sick', 'depraved' 'not fit for human consumption'.
Generous bonuses for extra censoring of anything that 'might' cause an erection or harm a poor wickle childs wickle mind.
Job for life (Or until braindead).
the BBFC shouldnt be able to review anything alone at all; being able to review and classify a single movie based on the opinion of one reviewer, be it porn or anything else, opens the entire system much wider to the moires of personal taste and corruption.
and with that obvious pitfall, your rewviewrs will stream into two categories; ones that pick up the phone to vivid/anabolic et al and say "Im watching your porno. give me a grand and I'll sign off as un-offensive" and ones that mark an increased percent down as offensive to avoid on-the-job investigation.
fail idea. Cost-cutting without the slightest notion of human behaviour. good job.
the film companies pay into a pot to have the films classified and so money ought not be an issue... mind you, i suppose that would risk bias... there's got to be a way to sort out the funding issue without cutting jobs.
I can see why there is an outcry, it must be a difficult job in reality. At some point someone recommended that there be two people in a room at the same time. Now unless that argument is to be superseded then te 2 person rule should not be rescinded...
>> being able to review and classify a single movie based on the opinion of one reviewer, be it porn or anything else, opens the entire system much wider to the moires of personal taste and corruption.
Indeed, perhaps it should work more like Jury service, get a dozen or so random members of the public to decide.
Technology can surely provide a solution to the problem of unwanted tumescence at the BBFC.
Simply attach a plethysmograph to the todger of each of the censors, and hook it up to a device that applies a brief electric shock at the first sign of arousal.
Science. Making the world a better place.
"because they often contain scenes that many examiners find offensive"
that if an examiner is likely to fine a scene in any film offensive, then they made a poor career choice in reviewing porno's for the BBFC
i have seen some pretty sick stuff thanks to the internet, and so far have not managed to be offended by any of it, i simply stop watching it.
I can see the problem here - so the conclusion is that if a staff member would become aroused then the smut must be censored and not suitable for the general public. While violence and murder is perfectly acceptable for any 15 year old to be socially "educated" in (as long as it does include sex ofcourse). Sex is a no no in the UK - and then people wonder why we have the highest rate of under age pregnancies in Europe?
"What happened to Jenkins, Sir?"
"Well he was watching P$%s Drinking Wives 6 when he completely lost it. I got the shot in him just in time."
"Will he be all right?"
"I think so. The Doc's mix of Rohipnol and Morphine works like a charm. I've given him a weeks leave and we'll put him on something light for a bit. Jennifer Aniston's got something coming out which should keep his mind stable."
"So whose finishing up his report?"
"Your not doing anything much this afternoon, are you?"
After all, if there's a team of two with a man and woman, they're watching some hot pr0n, both get a little excited, you know the rest.
Much better to just have one person watching. Hmmn.
Anyway, I've seen some very dodgy porn in the past, so why is it so bad for them to watch it?
I think Bounty is right, let the examiner sit in a crowded office and there are always more than two in the same room, although they are watching different movies. That reduces also the chances for phone calls to the producer and the need for kleenex.
Last but not least costs for office space can be saved as well.
Do I get a 10 % share of the annual cost saving for the next 2 years?
This quote from the article:
The "examiners", however, say that "films that are refused an R18 certificate often include scenes that many find disturbing, including sadomasochism and sexual violence", adding that "viewing pornographic content alone will increase the chances of being sexually aroused by the material".
So effectively, what the folks at the BBFC who perform these classifications are saying is that they're inherently biased towards censorship because they don't like some things that other find quite acceptable.
If the classifiers can't approach an S&M porn film with the same objectivity that they would face the latest my little pony film then they're not fit to classify. Classification must be performed by people who can tell the difference between acceptable and unacceptable on a national scale, not by people who have an inherent distaste for certain classes of film.
This is presumably why then there is a problem with computer games classification, because the type of people who are offended by porn are almost certainly the time who are stuck in decades past and think that computer games aren't a valid form of entertainment and as my grandma would've put it, will make your eyes go square.
So if anything this protest is quite telling of why the BBFC is an extremely bad entity to be classifying anything- because the staff that work there lack objectivity and in the case of these protests are actively admitting they have a problem with some kinds of content that many millions of people do not. There is content that almost everyone agrees is bad i.e. child porn, and then there is content like this that millions don't think is bad and if they're approaching this content from the view of those who are prudish rather than from an objective view then they are as the government would say, not fit for purpose.
Is this like the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door in pairs, to guard against spiritual corruption (or abduction by sex-mad dog cloners)? Or like the Inquisition investigating "unholy" works, with one monk reading and the other praying and flogging him?
In which case, film classification should only be done by people of indomitable spiritual purity, or rather, by people who claim such spiritual purity loudly and incessantly. Press all the the fake gurus and televangelists into service and see how good they are at ripping off their followers after some twenty-four hour stretches of scat bondage.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019