intimate

November 25, 2006 7:21 PM

The BBC attaches cameras tothe genitals of a man and woman. Sex ensues. NSFW Google video.
posted by four panels (153 comments total)

They stole my idea!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:23 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

I have seen this program on television. It's quite good. You gotta love the BBC.
posted by LoriFLA at 7:24 PM on November 25, 2006

I already saw this on the BBC, on Monty Python.
posted by XMLicious at 7:27 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Money shot at 3:26 . . .
posted by nostrada at 7:28 PM on November 25, 2006

I didn't make it that long...
posted by sourwookie at 7:30 PM on November 25, 2006

Call me when this is playing at the iMax.
posted by hal9k at 7:33 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Heh heh, Raj Patel, general practitioner of what, exactly? He looks like he's about to burst out laughing the whole time he's talking.
posted by XMLicious at 7:35 PM on November 25, 2006

Tonight on The Late Show with David Letterman: PenisCam!!!!
posted by The Deej at 7:35 PM on November 25, 2006

And the music, wow, classy, eh?
posted by cgc373 at 7:36 PM on November 25, 2006

I can only assume that there's a gay version forthcoming, which means that somewhere in England there's a very unhappy camera hygenist.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 PM on November 25, 2006

Why wouldn't that hygienist be happy, jonmc?
posted by cgc373 at 7:53 PM on November 25, 2006

Sexytime!
posted by Meatbomb at 7:58 PM on November 25, 2006

I totally just lost my boner. OMG.
posted by loiseau at 8:03 PM on November 25, 2006

Is this from Channel5's 'A Girl's Guide to 21st Century Sex'?
posted by unmake at 8:03 PM on November 25, 2006

"She may have her legs bent or her legs may be straight..."

OK the brits are suppoed to be uptight about sex - but the general public can't figure this out for themselves without doctors' instruction? Go ahead honey, it's ok, you can bend your legs, Dr Patel says it's ok...?
posted by scheptech at 8:05 PM on November 25, 2006

Why wouldn't that hygienist be happy, jonmc?

Turds, man, turds. He'll be scraping turds. GET IT?
posted by IronLizard at 8:07 PM on November 25, 2006

Revolutions in the porn industry:

The nickelodeon
Hugh Hefner
VHS
Cable television
The internet
Peniscam
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 8:10 PM on November 25, 2006

I thought Discovery Channel Canada's Sex Files went pretty far... but not THIS far.
posted by evilcolonel at 8:15 PM on November 25, 2006

Just think of the outrage if CPB or whatever tried to use people's tax monies for this 'filth'.

We're such a nation of 3 year olds.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:16 PM on November 25, 2006

Talk about your extreme close-ups!
posted by SisterHavana at 8:21 PM on November 25, 2006

Sexumentary. Sexturfing.
posted by stbalbach at 8:25 PM on November 25, 2006

Is this sex-ed? Sure changed since my day. If they showing to school kids it would give them a complex about hairiness.
posted by TrashyRambo at 8:29 PM on November 25, 2006

they are showing
posted by TrashyRambo at 8:30 PM on November 25, 2006

This is actually pretty interesting - how often do you get to see anything from that angle?
posted by truex at 8:30 PM on November 25, 2006

The wires coming out of both their bodies is a total turnoff.
posted by rocketman at 8:35 PM on November 25, 2006

You mean sex partners aren't meant to have wires coming out of them?

Next you'll be telling me that they don't have deflation valves.
posted by lalochezia at 8:39 PM on November 25, 2006 [6 favorites has favorites]

Part hardcore pr0n, part educational - brilliant!

Really, I found the vagina cam to be the most interesting.

Man, I wish they showed stuff like this on TV here in the US (I know Discovery Channel shows stuff like this, but it's not so, um, "detailed...).
posted by champthom at 8:39 PM on November 25, 2006

how often do you get to see anything from that angle?

I'd rather not look through my cock. Since I already think with it, that would be overwork, you know?
posted by jonmc at 8:41 PM on November 25, 2006

It was nice to see that they used an intact penis, and acknowledged the sexual importance of the frenulum (a component which is often removed during male genital cutting).
posted by spacediver at 8:43 PM on November 25, 2006

The wires coming out of both their bodies is a total turnoff.

Not for those with a Borg fetish.

I'm not one of them, btw
posted by WhipSmart at 8:45 PM on November 25, 2006

Somebody call Guillermo del Toro--this looks like the scene with the toad in Pan's Labyrinth.
posted by muckster at 9:02 PM on November 25, 2006

I don't know why there's no proper homepage for this series, but interested parties can google up the rest of the series. The video linked above is from the first episode.
posted by unmake at 9:04 PM on November 25, 2006

I'm so glad we have the BBC. After all that commercialized, lowest common denominator pandering of America's news networks, us forward-thinking Americans really appreciate the intellectual honesty of the BBC. It's like a breath of fresh air in a world of tabloid-obsessed pseudo-journalists like Bill O'Reilley and Nancy Grace.

Thanks, BBC, for showing me what it looks like when people have sex.
posted by Kronoss at 9:04 PM on November 25, 2006

Eh, I thought it was pretty stupid.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:14 PM on November 25, 2006

The TV program, not the post.


Oh, hell. The post too.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:15 PM on November 25, 2006

You want episode 1. Most of the "Guide" is rubbish. Fast forward to the good bits.
posted by meehawl at 9:23 PM on November 25, 2006

You can tell from the moment Robert Winston isn't on screen that this is Channel 5, not the BBC.
posted by cillit bang at 9:25 PM on November 25, 2006

I'm so glad we have the BBC. After all that commercialized, lowest common denominator pandering

Do you actually know anything about UK television? This is not a BBC show. It's from Channel 5 - a German-owned commercial, lowest common denominator panderer. Modelled after US channels, I am told. Its director of programming once memorably described its core product as "films, football and fucking". The parent group, Bertelsmann/RTL, also produces The Apprentice and Pop Idol/American Idol. Like I said, lowest common denominator.
posted by meehawl at 9:30 PM on November 25, 2006

Lame-O!

I'm still waiting 'til I can see what *really* happens, by viewing it all from inside a sperm!
posted by washburn at 9:35 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Just think of the outrage if CPB or whatever tried to use people's tax monies for this 'filth'.

We're such a nation of 3 year olds.

Or, just as you dislike exchanging your tax dollars for bullets and bombs, other taxpayers don't appreciate paying for a graphic exposition of something that people have managed to figure out for themselves for thousands of years.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:37 PM on November 25, 2006

He's kinda giving her the 'ol ramrod action, isn't he? I mean, that may be a realistic depiction of sex for some people, but I would certainly hope they're a minority. Do they show the women doing more than just laying there in the other parts of the series?
posted by Mr. Gunn at 10:05 PM on November 25, 2006

Jeez. Three minutes and twenty-six seconds? She's gotta be pretty frustrated.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:06 PM on November 25, 2006

- DON 3-D GLASSES NOW -
posted by boo_radley at 10:27 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

fuck it
posted by wtfchuck at 10:29 PM on November 25, 2006

I'm so glad we have the BBC. After all that commercialized, lowest common denominator pandering

Do you actually know anything about UK television? This is not a BBC show. It's from Channel 5 - a German-owned commercial, lowest common denominator panderer. Modelled after US channels, I am told.

Sorry, meehawl. Didn't know that it wasn't BBC. And no, I do not know much about UK television. Dude, We've got like 352 channels in the US and they all pretty much suck. Even BBC America kind of sucks because it's all home makeover shows and What Not to Wear.

But still, it's nice to know that this sex thing isn't BBC.
posted by Kronoss at 10:35 PM on November 25, 2006

well, people have figured it out for thousands of years, yet still manage to be incredibly stupid about sex--not helped by those who object to the graphic nature of anything that might make them less stupid...all the delicate talking around it perpetuates an aura of embarrassment that causes way more problems than honestly tackling the subject head-on...sex education needs to be this direct...

...and i love how he wears the gold chain through it all...
posted by troybob at 10:38 PM on November 25, 2006

It was nice to see that they used an intact penis, and acknowledged the sexual importance of the frenulum (a component which is often removed during male genital cutting).

MY PENIS IS BETTER THAN YOURS.
posted by StopMakingSense at 10:47 PM on November 25, 2006

Sex, politics, and kittens. These are a few of my favorite things to be commented on metafilter
posted by Kudos at 10:48 PM on November 25, 2006

I could masturbate to this.
posted by borkingchikapa at 10:49 PM on November 25, 2006

Modelled after US channels, I am told.

Oh, snap!
posted by dhammond at 10:49 PM on November 25, 2006

Aaaah-OOOOOGAH!
posted by newfers at 10:50 PM on November 25, 2006

I hate all the damn fast cuts, it just depersonalizes and 'stylizes' the whole thing. Boring.

And it's like they're trying to be clinical and literally 'pornographic' at the same time.

But the end result seems neither clinical nor pornographic.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 PM on November 25, 2006

Thanks, BBC, for showing me what it looks like when people have sex.

Not just any sex, but sex with coax cables coming out of the womans vagina.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 PM on November 25, 2006

Some things really should be done in the dark without cameras.
posted by mrbill at 12:20 AM on November 26, 2006

They're made of meat.
posted by Nelson at 12:31 AM on November 26, 2006

Bow-chicka-bow-bow ...
posted by bwg at 12:39 AM on November 26, 2006

other taxpayers don't appreciate paying for a graphic exposition of something that people have managed to figure out for themselves for thousands of years

People have vag cams?

I did not know that
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:58 AM on November 26, 2006

It had a good dance and you could beat to it...
posted by darkstar at 1:00 AM on November 26, 2006

Missionary Position Propaganda!
posted by Zendogg at 1:17 AM on November 26, 2006

It's good to know that the missionary REALLY is the most efficient to both partners as well as the potential, eh, outcome. It gives me an excuse to be lazy in bed!
posted by Bravocharlie at 1:53 AM on November 26, 2006

What slayed me was that it was all scientific fact up until the point of female orgasm.
Then it shifts into theory.
posted by hypersloth at 2:08 AM on November 26, 2006

Truly the best of the web.
posted by grouse at 2:23 AM on November 26, 2006

I took a Human Sexuality course at a community college in Dallas in 1984. It was a very good class, actually. The text was Masters and Johnson's Human Sexuality, which I thought and still think is excellent. I still have it. The instructor was practicing sex therapist and he seemed to be pretty unmindful of what the community might expect from such a class. He and his supplementary materials were very explicit.

There were about 25 students, about evenly divided between men and women. Most were the same age as me, about 19 or a bit less, just out of high school.

The body's responses during sexual arousal and through orgasm and after are very interesting, widespread, and varied. We spent a lot of time studying them in the book. But one memorable day the instructor arrived with a projector and two short films.

They were unintentionally a bit humorous as the setting was a very sterile and unfriendly looking clinical environment with a steel table and various equipment. Worse, the narrator even had a foreign accent and the films were ancient, making the whole thing look like some cold war experiment. One film had a female subject who masturbated to orgasm while the various responses were identified and filmed in close-up, as necessary. The second film was a male subject and my humor at the discomfort of the girl next to me evaporated as I squirmed a bit.

Anyway, this short films leaves so much out that it's practically worthless. There's actually some interesting blood congestion changes that happen to a woman right before and during orgasm that you can see, if you're looking. They also don't mention that after orgasm both sexes have a refractory period where they are unable to have another orgasm. For women, the length of time is almost negligible. For men, it's measured in minutes.

The film with the woman had an in-vaginal camera, as this film does. The one I saw was much more informative and revealing, though. At orgasm, the muscles near the uterus and at the upper vagina cause a rhythmic contraction that is thought to possibly draw sperm inward.

One thing I wonder about is the assertion at the end of the film that the male pretty much immediately loses his erection. I just can't remember if I was taught that this was the norm, or not. But I do know that it's not true in my case, a fact that I only recently (well, in the last ten years) understood the significance of and how that differentiates my personal experience of sex. That's assuming I am somewhat abnormal about this, which I've been told but otherwise don't know. Anyone else?

Finally, I'm skeptical about all the claims made in this particular film about the benefits of the so-called missionary position. I've known very few women who feel it's the most pleasurable, although this film makes a case for both maximum stimulation of the clitoris (certainly not true) and of the g-spot (perhaps some truth to this). Chances for conception? Until I see some controlled studies, I'm going to be skeptical of a supposedly scientific conclusion that reinforces the prejudices of a particular culture.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:29 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Docuporn? Pornumentary?
posted by hypersloth at 2:31 AM on November 26, 2006

Pornography documentary.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:17 AM on November 26, 2006

Ethereal Bligh: Maybe you should read this before shooting missionary down so fast.

(Also yeah, It's not like you need to lose your erection to not be able to orgasm. Unless you also have a non-existent refractory period, in which case - lucky you!)

Channel 5 sucks. Never post anything by C5 ever again, especially if you mislabel it as a BBC production.
posted by public at 3:18 AM on November 26, 2006

Better pornography documentary.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:30 AM on November 26, 2006

When this will be aired on FOX??
posted by zouhair at 3:43 AM on November 26, 2006

It was nice to see that they used an intact penis, and acknowledged the sexual importance of the frenulum (a component which is often removed during male genital cutting).

It was nice to see that they used a penis-cam for those "Oh, my God, this is like something out of Dune" scenes, and acknowledged the sexual importance of watching other people fuck (a component which is often removed during film cutting).

It reminds me of old-fashioned porn disguised as scientific research.
posted by pracowity at 4:11 AM on November 26, 2006

So, which US network is buying the rights to this? I hear Steve Carrell is going to play the vagina in the remake.
posted by tapeguy at 4:31 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Just lie back and think of England. . .
posted by Jimbob at 5:09 AM on November 26, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Obviously the whole thing is faked. Where's the part where the cat jumps on the bed? When does she yell "You're leaning on my hair"? Why isn't the TV on? And for god sakes why aren't either of them wearing socks? This is why I hate so-called documentaries, they miss so many of the finer points.
posted by Gungho at 5:31 AM on November 26, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]

From public's link:

The technique was developed by American psychotherapist Edward Eichel and other researchers, and originally published in 1988 in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy

I must be a fucking genius, because I figured that one out all on my own. Did anyone seriously not know this? It's called 'bump n grind', isn't it?
posted by IronLizard at 5:35 AM on November 26, 2006

I haven't watched the clip but fromm what people have said in work I thought it was a reshowing of an old BBC clip from one of Robert Winston's series or Horizon.

This isn't supposed to detract from the fact that five sucks and showing other channels' repeats is pretty much their M.O.
posted by fullerine at 5:56 AM on November 26, 2006

It reminds me of old-fashioned porn disguised as scientific research.

Eheh you like it don't you ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:30 AM on November 26, 2006

Where's the MRI movie of people fucking? That was cooler.
posted by meehawl at 6:37 AM on November 26, 2006

It was nice to see that they used an intact penis, and acknowledged the sexual importance of the frenulum (a component which is often removed during male genital cutting).

It's totally unremarkable to see an uncut penis (in the right context, of course) in the UK - as this study shows, only a minority of British men are circumcised (and many of these men are Jewish or Muslim for whom it's a mandatory procedure), and this number is falling year on year. Routine (for non-medical reasons) circumcision is not available on the NHS.

So I don't think the programme-makers were making any kind of statement on the merits/drawbacks of circumcision, as it's just not a routine procedure here any more (if it ever was), unless for religious reasons.
posted by altolinguistic at 6:57 AM on November 26, 2006

If you look closely you can see the wires from the stunt cock.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:22 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

It was nice to see that they used an intact penis, and acknowledged the sexual importance of the frenulum (a component which is often removed during male genital cutting).

Your favorite penis sucks.
posted by The Bellman at 7:29 AM on November 26, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Even it is Channel 5, I have watched this program on television in the United States. Maybe HBO, BBCAmerica, or some other network showed it. I didn't watch the entire linked video, but I definitely remember this show. I assumed incorrectly that it was the BBC.
posted by LoriFLA at 7:31 AM on November 26, 2006

I was thinking about this further. It *could* have been on the BBC, but then it would have more prominently featured:

• Bonobos
• David Attenborough narration
• Radio show tie-in
• Edinburgh festival and stage version
• Lots of advertising for an accompanying book and DVD

posted by meehawl at 8:17 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

I hear Steve Carrell is going to play the vagina in the remake.

That'd be one hairy motherfuckin' hoo-hah. Perhaps they should have Robin Williams play the schlong so it will just look like two jungles crashing into each other.

Even it is Channel 5, I have watched this program on television in the United States.

Are you sure it wasn't one of the manifold Desmond Morris shows? There's one with internal cum-shots and footage of a cervix dancing around in a pool of spooge as the woman has herself a merry little orgasm.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:33 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

The first thing that crossed my mind was John Cleese in The Meaning of Life.

"Wymer! This is for your benefit. Would you kindly wake up? I've no intention of going through this all again."
posted by furtive at 8:47 AM on November 26, 2006

The clip would have been better if the man had been dressed as a pizza delivery driver who spouted horrible double entendres.
posted by horsewithnoname at 8:54 AM on November 26, 2006

[cue 1970s porn music] **leer** "So, you ordered the ExtraSausageCam?"
posted by FelliniBlank at 9:31 AM on November 26, 2006

Perhaps they should have Robin Williams play the schlong so it will just look like two jungles crashing into each other.

I was drinking coffee when I read this...now there's coffee everywhere. Thanks.
posted by pinespree at 9:32 AM on November 26, 2006

How did they exactly mount the camera in the vag? I mean, wouldn't the penis pull the wires out?
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:35 AM on November 26, 2006

Do you actually know anything about UK television? This is not a BBC show. It's from Channel 5 - a German-owned commercial, lowest common denominator panderer. Modelled after US channels, I am told. Its director of programming once memorably described its core product as "films, football and fucking". The parent group, Bertelsmann/RTL, also produces The Apprentice and Pop Idol/American Idol. Like I said, lowest common denominator.

I must be a prime example of humanity. I am not divisible by the Apprentice nor Pop Idol.
posted by srboisvert at 10:28 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Most women don't orgasm in the missionary position...
posted by kika at 11:16 AM on November 26, 2006

Ah, here it is:
Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal.
posted by meehawl at 11:27 AM on November 26, 2006

Kwantsar writes "Or, just as you dislike exchanging your tax dollars for bullets and bombs, other taxpayers don't appreciate paying for a graphic exposition of something that people have managed to figure out for themselves for thousands of years."

Troll. There's a massive difference between killing people, and educating people about a simple biological function, and you know it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:43 AM on November 26, 2006

DenOfSizer writes "How did they exactly mount the camera in the vag?"

Very carefully.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:48 AM on November 26, 2006

Troll. There's a massive difference between killing people, and educating people about a simple biological function, and you know it.

"The thing I approve of and the thing I don't approve of are different and therefore Kwantsar is a troll."
posted by Kwantsar at 11:55 AM on November 26, 2006

Wow, this is disturbingly like the Japanese "hentai" animation/comic cliche of showing cross-section or internal views, either as a "picture-in-picture" or in a separate cut.

It's all there: the cockhead burrowing its way in like a pink subway, the in-your-face money shot; the only thing missing is a slow-motion shot of glittery, iridescent sperm splashing directly into the womb in slow motion, with a heavily echoed "SHEEEEEEENG!" sound and fast-moving lines of color in the background.
posted by jake at 12:01 PM on November 26, 2006

Oh. And some tentacles or the doctor talking about some sort of occult pact.
posted by jake at 12:02 PM on November 26, 2006

"The thing I approve of and the thing I don't approve of are different and therefore Kwantsar is a troll."

Here, Kwantsar, try this instead:

dirtynumbangelboy: Discrimination against gays is like discrimination against blacks.

konolia: There's a massive difference between being born a black person and having homosexual sex and you know it.

dirtynumbangelboy: troll.

Not that I agree with either Kwantsar or konolia. But it's funny how things work, isn't it? Saying that X is like Y in order to convince an antagonist that they're wrong in their assessment of either X or Y almost never works and each side accuses the other of being disingenuous or delusional. It doesn't seem to stop most of us from trying the tactic. But given how often we ourselves attempt it in earnest, you'd think that it would occur to us that when someone else does it about something we disagree, they may be in earnest, as well.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:13 PM on November 26, 2006

Missionary position and the g-spot - the stimulation of the g-spot happens to different degrees depending on the general shape of the vagina and the size and curve of the penis. Some barely touch the g-spot at all, others get fireworks. Also, I've found that doggy-style (actual scientifical term) allows for deeper penetration.
I've done a lot of.. um.. personal research on this.
posted by Zack_Replica at 1:34 PM on November 26, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: Troll.

Troll. There's a massive difference between educating people about a simple biological function, and tillitating them with tax dollars, and you know it.
posted by econous at 2:34 PM on November 26, 2006

konolia: There's a massive difference between being born a black person and having homosexual sex and you know it.

That's baiting him and you know it. Gay people have to put up with a ton of shit that they don't deserve and unlike such actions against black people, it's legally condoned by a lot of society, so don't gloss that over, especially since whatever you may think of gay sex, it's ultimately nothing to you.
posted by jonmc at 2:49 PM on November 26, 2006

How on earth did this turn into another thread about gay people?
posted by Hildegarde at 3:15 PM on November 26, 2006

Sex is fantastic, spectacul , entertaining, anti-war and doesn't kill you if you handle it correctly , news at 11 !
posted by elpapacito at 3:18 PM on November 26, 2006

There's a massive difference between educating people about a simple biological function, and tillitating them with tax dollars, and you know it.

To be fair, the "I don't like what's being done with my tax dollars" canard is fairly weak — perhaps among the weakest arguments presented so far, since it masks moral prudishness under an entirely different, faked outrage.

I could make the same argument against any number of things done with my tax dollars that are unrelated to sexually explicit television programming, but we all agree to taxation to, for example, subsidize wealthy people driving SUVs.

At some point, you decide to learn to cope with society organizing itself and providing services — some of which you may not agree with — or we all live in an anarchic condition.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:41 PM on November 26, 2006

I'm sorry, is there any evidence that this video was funded by tax dollars? It doesn't even appear to be a BBC production. What are you guys talking about?
posted by grouse at 4:18 PM on November 26, 2006

grouse: the fpp mentions BBC. Perhaps the poster was going by the brit accent of the narrator.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:30 PM on November 26, 2006

It doesn't even appear to be a BBC production.

And BBC revenues are not even provided through taxation - they are collected as a capitation fee on TV-owning households. Well, I guess the nearest analogue of it is a poll tax. Here's one I prepared earlier. By my quick reckoning, a similar licence fee scheme in the US would give a "UBC" an annual revenue of $23 billion, excluding income from licencing and merchandising. That would pay for a lot of vag cams.
posted by meehawl at 4:30 PM on November 26, 2006

At some point, you decide to learn to cope with society organizing itself and providing services — some of which you may not agree with — or we all live in an anarchic condition.

My argument isn't a "canard" (as I understand the word to be defined, it's nowhere close)-- and I can assure you, I bear little prudishness. Naked women are great.

You're attributing extremism where none need exist.
posted by Kwantsar at 4:31 PM on November 26, 2006

Grouse, in the UK, Channel 5 is one of the channels paid for with TV license fees.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:36 PM on November 26, 2006

BP, Channel 5 is most definitely not paid for by licence fees. Didn't you get the memo? Licence fees are disbursed as follows:

   * 50% - BBC One and BBC Two
    * 15% - local TV and radio
    * 12% - network radio
    * 10% - digital (BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, CBBC, CBeebies)
    * 10% - transmission costs and licence fee collection
    * 3% - BBC Online, Ceefax, and Interactive Content (including bbc.co.uk and BBCi)

posted by meehawl at 4:39 PM on November 26, 2006

You're right about that, but you do need a license to watch it. I guess this is equivalent to a "TV tax", if you will.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:42 PM on November 26, 2006

Let me translate this into American then. Let's say American TV watchers had to pay to watch any TV, but 100% of the money went to PBS and NPR. Could you then talk about Fox's latest Alien Autopsy™ show being paid for with tax dollars?

No, you couldn't.
posted by grouse at 4:46 PM on November 26, 2006

If the license fee isn't paid, the infrastructure can't be run to distribute the channels to TV watchers. In that sense, I agree with the original comment that the license fee is a "tax" in that it pays for the service that allows Five to broadcast signal.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:56 PM on November 26, 2006

Let me translate this into American then.

I still don't get it. Maybe if you said it reeeaaal slooow and used hand puppets.
posted by jonmc at 5:00 PM on November 26, 2006

Similarly, I am annoyed that my taxes were used to develop the Playstation 3. While none of my tax payments went directly to Sony, they did go in part to the maintenance of the electrical system in Japan, and without power, Sony would have been unable to produce the Playstation 3.
posted by Bugbread at 5:15 PM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Ah, this thread has moved into Stage 2 of the 'Americans discuss UK TV' blueprint.

Stage 1: 'See all the awesome stuff they get on the BBC. US TV sucks so badly because of, like, Fox or something.'

Stage 2: 'In the UK, you have to have, like, a license to even own a TV. It's like TVs are dangerous like guns or something.'

Though this has never happened in my presence, I dream that somewhere, occasionally, perhaps in the distant future, threads will move on to Stage 3, where people make a connection between these two facts.
posted by beniamino at 5:16 PM on November 26, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]

(all of which has little to do with the actual post. Which, doubtless, has more to do with Channel 5 execs correctly understanding that erect cocks and penetration translate directly into revenue. If it was the BBC, they would be hairier.)
posted by beniamino at 5:19 PM on November 26, 2006

Similarly, I am annoyed that my taxes were used to develop the Playstation 3. While none of my tax payments went directly to Sony, they did go in part to the maintenance of the electrical system in Japan, and without power, Sony would have been unable to produce the Playstation 3.

None of what you've said is false. The cost of establishing and running public utilities does indeed subsidize private industry, including your example, and is part of the social contract you've agreed to by paying taxes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:20 PM on November 26, 2006

Ah, ok, if you're looking at it with that wide a lens, then I have no truck with you.
posted by Bugbread at 5:24 PM on November 26, 2006

Ah, ok, if you're looking at it with that wide a lens, then I have no truck with you.

I don't know it's that wide in the case of the television license, but you are entirely correct that many public works, including state-owned utilities, subsidize private capitalism.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:31 PM on November 26, 2006

Wow, the BBC made sex boring.
posted by fluffycreature at 5:42 PM on November 26, 2006

No fluffycreature, that was just what your SO said.
posted by econous at 6:19 PM on November 26, 2006

How on earth did this turn into another thread about gay people?

Because the gays have the best sex and are a temptation for the righteous and holy.

If you look closely you can see the wires from the stunt cock.

What's the difference between the 'Barnum & Bailey Circus' and the 'Radio City Rockettes?'

One is a "stunning array of cunts!"
posted by ericb at 6:32 PM on November 26, 2006

I'm most surprised that there have been no posters chiming in that they would not fuck either or both of the people in the video due to [fairly benign body trait here].

EB: Regarding loss of erection after ejaculation, "it depends". If I want, and my partner is willing, I can maintain an erection until another ejaculation. But, if the sexual encounter is "over", then yeah, it goes down pretty quick (60 seconds? Not the 3 seconds the time-lapse in the video showed) . I could actually do 3 in a row back in college, but now I'm an old married man and a homeowner (i.e. privacy), so I just haven't the need anymore.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:33 PM on November 26, 2006

Ynoxas, try renting.
posted by econous at 7:15 PM on November 26, 2006

Google video appears to be removed. Any fresh links?
posted by u2604ab at 7:26 PM on November 26, 2006

yes
posted by analogue at 9:10 PM on November 26, 2006

analogue : yes
Cheers.
posted by econous at 9:58 PM on November 26, 2006

I had no idea that BBC3 and BBC4 got so little money compared to BBC 1 and 2. Torchwood (BBC 3) must be really selling well overseas - I think CBC might be involved.

how does CBC get its money? Is that through tax?

But I have to say, no one should ever dis television liscences until they've had one. We pay the same amount of money as you do in Canada for basic cable only, have just about the same number of watchable channels (with a digital box), and then have at least 4 (BBC 1 - 4) completely AD-FREE. And the BBC sets a higher standard for writing and acting, such that TV here is much better than Canadian (even though the population is only 2 times bigger). Where is the draw back?
posted by jb at 2:01 AM on November 27, 2006

Kwantsar writes "'The thing I approve of and the thing I don't approve of are different and therefore Kwantsar is a troll.'"

*sigh*

No. You're a troll because you're equating murder--state-sanctioned, sure--and education.

Hildegarde writes "How on earth did this turn into another thread about gay people?"

Not my fault, for once.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:26 AM on November 27, 2006

My argument isn't a "canard" (as I understand the word to be defined, it's nowhere close)

It is indeed a canard, and it has been trotted out in the past by such folk as Rudy Guiliani and Jesse Helms as a underhanded way to bend the state to their moral will by using tactics of economic bullying. You may claim you do not share this prudish view, and fair enough, but I respectfully note that you should be aware you are using the same rhetorical tactic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:05 AM on November 27, 2006

I'd rather not look through my cock.

It seems like it would be rather useful to me.

"Possible bandits sighted at three o'clock. Wingman, can you zoom in for a closer look? Over"

"Yes sir. It appears to be gonhorrea. Repeat, internal lesions associated with gonhorrea! Over"

"Roger that, wingman. OK, we're abandoning the mission. Repeat, abandoning the mission. Get your pants and shoes back on, and get out of the building as fast as you can. Do not, repeat, do not leave your phone number. Over and out!"

"Errr, I'm a little bored with penetrative sex, baby. How do you feel about giving me a tit wank instead?"

"But this is the first time we've ever done it? How can you be bored already?"

*shrug*

"What can I tell you, baby? I guess I've got a short attention span?"

"Yeah, well, it matches the size of your penis. Get the fuck out of here..."

Another potential disaster averted via the help of PenisCam!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:11 AM on November 27, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Let me translate this into American then. Let's say American TV watchers had to pay to watch any TV, but 100% of the money went to PBS and NPR. Could you then talk about Fox's latest Alien Autopsy™ show being paid for with tax dollars?

So it wasn't your tax dollars that paid Justin Timberlake to expose Janet Jackson's nipple?

What you Americans need is a system like we have in the UK, where the church forms part of the government, through the bishops having seats in the House of Lords, and having the Queen be a non-elected head of state.

That way, your tax-funded porn gets two thumbs up from all of the bishops and the queen as they, vote for more funding for the BBC, and we can all jerk off to the hot scenes on Jerry Springer: the Opera, safe in the knowledge that songs like 'Three Nipple Inbreed Cousin Fucker' and 'Chick with a Dick' get widespread national attention.

My life would be so much poorer if I didn't know all the words to 'Montel Cums Dirty'.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:26 AM on November 27, 2006

So it wasn't your tax dollars that paid Justin Timberlake to expose Janet Jackson's nipple?

Well, it happened in Reliant Stadium, which is partially paid for by tax dollars. So in a Blazecock Pileon universe it was tax dollars that made the wardrobe malfunction possible.
posted by grouse at 7:33 AM on November 27, 2006

In a grouse universe, everything is as free as air. I'd love to move there. Convertible Saab 9-3s are just too pricey in my universe.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 AM on November 27, 2006

Nah, in the grouse universe (aka the real world) it's not sensible to say that tax dollars (or "tax sterling," really) pay for programming that was entirely paid for by advertising. In the grouse universe this would be easily seen as a sophistic attempt to defend a statement that was quickly revealed to be incorrect ("Channel 5 is one of the channels paid for with TV license fees").

This doesn't appear to be a BBC program. It's not paid for with tax money.
posted by grouse at 11:05 AM on November 27, 2006

Blazecock: you sound like you're about 2/3 of the way through your intermediate macro class. Good luck on finals! *wink*

Infrastructure costs should not be considered part of the expense for individual goods or services, because individual producers cannot choose whether or not to pay for infrastructure, or whether or not to utilize said infrastructure.

Everything is not a governmental subsidy, even if you think you see it everywhere.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:37 AM on November 27, 2006

Nah, in the grouse universe (aka the real world) it's not sensible to say that tax dollars (or "tax sterling," really) pay for programming that was entirely paid for by advertising.

According to meehawl's memo, 10% of the license fees pay for transmission costs, and Five uses BBC transmitters, so its expenses are offset. As near as I can tell, Five does not runs its own antennas.

In the grouse universe this would be easily seen as a sophistic attempt to defend a statement that was quickly revealed to be incorrect ("Channel 5 is one of the channels paid for with TV license fees").

Since license fees are used to pay for transmitting Five signal (along with the other four channels), Five's operation is subsidized by license fees.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:58 AM on November 27, 2006

No, Blazecock. There's no such thing as a "BBC transmitter". The UK's transmitters are owned by National Grid Wireless (formerly Crown Castle) and Arqiva and are generally shared between all channels.

I can't find a source that says exactly who pays for them, but it's entirely likely that the number you refer to is the cost of broadcasting BBC channels alone, and that Five pays its own way.
posted by cillit bang at 12:30 PM on November 27, 2006

This suggests they share transmitters. I suppose it is possible that Five pays for the upkeep of the antennas and for the staff to run them, but given the license fee applies for viewers of this channel, it seems unlikely.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:45 PM on November 27, 2006

Can we get away from economics and back to talking about sex?
posted by meehawl at 12:51 PM on November 27, 2006

The BBC spends £166.9 million on transmission a year. Channel 4 spends £47.8 million on transmission a year. Five is not as good at putting detailed financial reports on the web, but the assumption that they would get a free ride is really hard to accept, and has not been supported by a shred of evidence.
posted by grouse at 1:02 PM on November 27, 2006

Blazecock Pileon Specifies: something

Sorry old boy, as a tax payer and license owner I must correct you. They transmit shitters. Which is why I won't have one of the damn things in my house. I do drive though, mostly past places. I just thought I'd clear that up, I do hate ambiguity... it just lacks sincerity.
posted by econous at 1:37 PM on November 27, 2006

yes
posted by analogue at 9:10 PM PST on November 26

On that page? Where?
posted by Critical_Beatdown at 8:54 PM on November 27, 2006

Five is not as good at putting detailed financial reports on the web, but the assumption that they would get a free ride is really hard to accept, and has not been supported by a shred of evidence.

You and I seem to differ on what the meaning of "free ride" entails. If the transmission costs are subsidized by the license fee, Five's cost of business is lowered.

So far there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and the implication of various documents linked so far indicates that transmission costs enable broadcast of the five analog stations, BBC 1, 2 and 3, and Channels 4 and 5. I don't have information on the digital Freeview business model.

In any case, grouse, I won't be losing any sleep quibbling over details. I was simply responding to Kwantsar's original point about taxation; namely, it seems the definition of taxation reasonably applies here ("poll tax"), and taxation in general pays for things we may not necessarily agree that we like.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:12 AM on November 28, 2006

If the transmission costs are subsidized by the license fee, Five's cost of business is lowered.

But they aren't.

So far there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and the implication of various documents linked so far indicates that transmission costs enable broadcast of the five analog stations, BBC 1, 2 and 3, and Channels 4 and 5.

Sorry, what implication? I see no implication that the BBC is paying or even subsidizing for the broadcast of non-BBC analog stations anywhere. To the contrary, you can see that, for example, Channel 4 pays £20.5 million a year on analog transmission alone.

Additionally, BBC 3 is not one of the five analog networks. This whole discussion is just an exercise in you repeatedly display your ignorance of British television and the way it is funded. Next thing we know you're going to look at a line item for e-mail security in the BBC's budget and from that claim that the BBC is subsidizing Hotmail hacking other people's e-mail accounts.
posted by grouse at 3:50 PM on November 28, 2006

I see no implication that the BBC is paying or even subsidizing for the broadcast of non-BBC analog stations anywhere.

I made no such implication anywhere in this thread. I suggested that the links suggest that license fees which cover transmission costs for the five analog stations must, by definition, also cover Five's transmission costs.

I can't begin to imagine why you and others keep dragging the BBC into this.

Next thing we know you're going to look at a line item for e-mail security in the BBC's budget and from that claim that the BBC is subsidizing Hotmail hacking other people's e-mail accounts.

Now you're just being silly. And I'm through being baited into responding to your insults. When you're ready to behave like an adult I'll be happy to converse with you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:46 PM on November 28, 2006

the links suggest that license fees which cover transmission costs for the five analog stations

No, there is no link that suggests that license fees cover transmission costs for non-BBC stations. The license fees cover transmission costs for BBC stations only. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I've even supplied the figures on how much Channel 4 spends on its own transmission costs.

As far as analog goes, the transmission costs include BBC1, BBC2 and the radio stations (£77.2 million). The rest of the "transmission costs" money goes to the BBC's digital transmission (£89.7 million). The information meehawl reports above comes from the BBC, and can be seen in more detail in its annual report.

I can't begin to imagine why you and others keep dragging the BBC into this.

That's because you don't understand the way the license fee works. The licences are issued by the BBC. Payment is owed to the BBC. See, for example, Halsbury's Laws of England: Telecommunications and Broadcasting paragraphs 303 and 304:

A licence for the use of a television receiver (a 'TV licence') may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit; and must be issued subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Secretary of State may require by a direction to the BBC... Sums which a person is liable to pay by virtue of such regulations must be paid to the BBC and are recoverable by it accordingly.

The BBC isn't paying for the other networks' transmission costs. They have advertising to pay for that.
posted by grouse at 6:12 PM on November 28, 2006

I think lots of folks are misunderstanding what Blazecock is saying.

He isn't saying that Channel 5 gets money from the BBC license.
He isn't saying that Channel 5's transmission costs are paid for by the BBC license.
He's saying that Channel 5 is transmitted via a BBC antenna, which Channel 5 does indeed pay for, but for which BBC funds are also supplied.
So he isn't saying that Channel 5 is directly funded by the license, but that it uses antennas which are partially supported by licensing fees. Hence "When you pay your licensing fee, you're paying for BBC antennas. Channel 5 is paying to use these antennas, but the only reason the antennas even exist in the first place for Channel 5 to use is due to licensing fees, hence your license fees are indirectly enabling Channel 5 transmission."

I don't particularly buy that it's a good argument, but from what little I know, it's not factually incorrect, it just stretches the scope of "supported by taxes" to a degree I think is unreasonable.
posted by Bugbread at 9:16 PM on November 28, 2006

He isn't saying that Channel 5's transmission costs are paid for by the BBC license.

Yes he is:

"I suggested that the links suggest that license fees which cover transmission costs for the five analog stations must, by definition, also cover Five's transmission costs."

(and we've already established that they aren't BBC antennas, which makes the only plausible argument "Five would have to pay more if the BBC didn't exist", which has little to do with license fees)
posted by cillit bang at 9:42 PM on November 28, 2006

Ok, let me rephrase myself.

It is my understanding that what he is trying to say is not that the TV licensing fee pays directly for Five's transmission costs, but that part of it pays for the antenna, thus partially supporting Five's ability to broadcast. I think perhaps the quote you posted was a slip of the expression (but, of course, I don't know for sure, that's just my guess).

cillit bang writes "and we've already established that they aren't BBC antennas, which makes the only plausible argument 'Five would have to pay more if the BBC didn't exist', which has little to do with license fees"

Er, I'm not following. Why would the argument change based on who owns the antenna? As far as I can see, it's that part of the license fee is paid for transmission costs, and the same antennas are used for the BBC and Channel 5, thus part of the license fee is being used to support something which Channel 5 is using. That statement is totally independent of who owns the antenna.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 PM on November 28, 2006

I think lots of folks are misunderstanding what Blazecock is saying.

• That's because he keeps changing what he is saying as his previous statements are revealed to be incorrect.

He isn't saying that Channel 5 gets money from the BBC license.

• Except when he is: "Grouse, in the UK, Channel 5 is one of the channels paid for with TV license fees."

He isn't saying that Channel 5's transmission costs are paid for by the BBC license.

• Except when he is: "I suggested that the links suggest that license fees which cover transmission costs for the five analog stations must, by definition, also cover Five's transmission costs."

It is my understanding that what he is trying to say is not that the TV licensing fee pays directly for Five's transmission costs, but that part of it pays for the antenna, thus partially supporting Five's ability to broadcast.

• No. NGW and Arqiva (for-profit enterprises) pay for the antenna. They then charge users, including the BBC, Channel 4, Five, digital multiplexes, radio stations, and so on, to use the antenna. A portion of the license fee does not go to NGW and Arqiva directly for the construction and maintenance of antennas. BBC pays to use their transmitters just like anyone else would.

As far as I can see, it's that part of the license fee is paid for transmission costs

• No, part of the license fee is used to pay for the BBC's own transmission costs. It's not "transmission costs" generally for all television networks—it's the BBC's transmission costs and not anyone else's.

and the same antennas are used for the BBC and Channel 5, thus part of the license fee is being used to support something which Channel 5 is using.

• Since the same antennas are used in some cases, part of ITV, Channel 4, and Five's advertising revenue is being used to support something which the BBC is using. I think it would be silly to then suggest that the BBC is therefore subsidized by advertising dollars.
• In the U.S., if a PBS and NBC affiliate were both paying to use a third-party transmitter, few would argue that tax money and donations were subsidizing NBC since they were being used to support something that NBC was using. I am perplexed that people are arguing the same here.
• I think some of the confusion may arise because one is required to have a TV licence even if one only watches Five, and never the BBC. But you would be required to have a TV licence even if you only watched CNN International via a satellite subscription you paid for individually, and your TV were incapable of even picking up BBC/ITV/Channel 4/Five transmissions.

posted by grouse at 4:46 AM on November 29, 2006

Wow, I didn't realize Blazecock had switched what he was saying quite so often.

grouse writes "I think it would be silly to then suggest that the BBC is therefore subsidized by advertising dollars."

I think it's silly too. It was just bothering me that Blazecock appeared, to me, to be saying silly thing A, and people were accusing him of saying incorrect thing B. On review, yeah, he seems to be saying a mix of silly thing A and incorrect thing B.
posted by Bugbread at 6:29 AM on November 29, 2006

Does anyone have a working link for this video? The original one posted is no longer available. I wanted to share this with someone but now it's gone!
posted by RoseovSharon at 1:49 PM on November 30, 2006

I looked and the only one I could find was as a BitTorrent. Incidentally, I posted it on my website.
posted by mongonikol at 2:40 PM on December 22, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]