Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know it's the Daily Mail, and as such should be ignored, but really?!


OBSCENE!!


Now unlike most Daily Mail readers I actually bothered to watch this show and I was fairly impressed. It wasn't a dry, turgid medical show and that's a good thing. It was entertaining without being titilating. At no point did it descend into pornography. Yes, the women presenting it is attractive - good. Who wants to imagine ugly people bumping "uglies"?! Her "tantric" sex was conducted fully clothed. If that turns you on - god knows what olympic wrestling does for you. If you want children to be interested you have to make it fun. Not naughty and embaressing.


And yes it was on at 8pm before the watershed but again with good reason - any later and some of the kids this should be targeting will be going to bed. In a country with the highest rate of teeneage pregnancies in Europe we're still getting our knickers in a twist over a limp cock on tv? Pur-lease. The fact that they couldn't even show sex in it's biological sense without resorting to cartoons shows how far behind as a country with some ridiculous puritan hangovers.


Pictures of women's breasts on a4 paper were as close as we got to explicit.


Please, people, whoever you are that "flooded" the OfCom switchboard to complain....grow up.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4155-the-sex-education-show/
Share on other sites

My 14 year old daughter watched this - I caught the last 10 minutes or so and watched it with her when I got home that night.


From what I saw, I thought it was brilliant. Teenagers are bombarded with unrealistic role models; to see what 'normal' penises and breasts looked like was very reassuring.


Also, she was shocked by the statistics of unprotected sex. I didn't see that bit, but it seems to reinforce the importance of using condoms that I have tried to instil in her. [Obviously she will remain a maiden until her wedding night, (can't have too many chastity belts) but just in case!]

I can't believe I'm going to do this... but I have to stick up for the DM and say that the they have simply reported the fact that people complained to Ofcom. I can't see the Daily mail expressing any of their views in this particular article. Have the Independant or Guardian written similiar artciles today?


I watched the programme and thought it was brilliant. And I might have, at the grand age of 35 and not having lead a sheltered life actually learnt something too. I just can't imagine having seen a programme like this 20 years ago on any channel at any time let alone before the watershed.


Well done Channel 4!!!! I'm V+ ing the series now for sure.


For those that missed it you can watch it on the C4 website..

I've just watched it to see what I missed the first time round. My only concern (regarding waxed pudenda) was picked up on the show by a psychologist which I thought gave it balance.


I still think it's very good, have no qualms about my daughter having seen it and in fact think it would be instructive for everyone who has/wants an active sex life to watch it.

really benjaminty? Every single line drips with smug "don't blame us we are just reporting" and no mention is made of the calls recived by the same bodies to congratulate C4. Or indeed what any positives might have come out from such a programme


Also, mentioning Mediawatch and what they have to say, without reporting their agaenda (MAry Whitehouse's ex mob) is a bit sly on their part as well


Finally, to give credence to James on another thread, they report future shows as about "pregnancy, homosexuality and abortion" - which makes them sound like "problems"

I watched it online the other night. A real hoot. That Anna Richardson is one game lass. I too thought it informative and amusing in its own frothy, flirty, tabloid way. Some intriguing facts and opinions mixed in with some over-excited giblets of mis-information, I mean are they absolutley sure about those figures for the numbers of people who trim down there? What did they say 95% of women have a Brazilian and the other 5% a Hollywood. Who they kidding? And the number of guys they claimed wax. Surely not.

Top moment had to be dearest Anna's exclamation when it dawned on her, as she had her virgin Hollywood, that the waxing mistress was about to get extra personal. "...what, inside?"

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...