This video was allowed to be on YouTube with no warning of explicit content
Does animation make the violence and sexually explicit (as well as objectifying and sexist) elements justifiable?
Does the fact it is animals make it justifiable?
Does this make all the regulation against violence and sex in film and TV and therefore the work of the BBFC and OfCom invalid as well as other regulators of fictional media around the world?
How come a video about underprivileged people living on the street is given flak and effectively banned but a video like this is fine?
These are videos where you do not need to log in, and many of them are not marked with Explicit Content.
VIOLENCE
The hints that there is adult content in this video due to the club setting will go over the heads of younger viewers
SEXUALITY
...
Two versions were filmed for this video, the word "Unrated Version" however doesn't anchor the explicit content.
(There is the argument that the nudity and sexual interaction is tongue-and-cheek, see this interview on Fox News with one of the female actors used and interview with the female director Diane Martel)
...
Could be also read as mocking the very important issue of safe sex for the teen audience
...
The use of a muppet in the sexual encounter could be said to make it not as explicit, however through some shots it is clear that it is signifying a proper human sexual encounter:
The negative filter hides it, but there is consumption of alcohol, sexual encounter
...
SEXUAL VIOLENCE
This particular useful example due to the tween audience of this pop rock band:
...
VIDS THAT WERE RATED EXPLICIT
The same way indie films seem to be treated harsher than studio films, are more mainstream, mass-appealing acts favoured despite explicit content in their music videos?
Was/IS MTV a better regulator of music videos than YouTube now is?
These are videos where you do not need to log in, and many of them are not marked with Explicit Content.
VIOLENCE
The hints that there is adult content in this video due to the club setting will go over the heads of younger viewers
SEXUALITY
...
Two versions were filmed for this video, the word "Unrated Version" however doesn't anchor the explicit content.
(There is the argument that the nudity and sexual interaction is tongue-and-cheek, see this interview on Fox News with one of the female actors used and interview with the female director Diane Martel)
...
Could be also read as mocking the very important issue of safe sex for the teen audience
...
The use of a muppet in the sexual encounter could be said to make it not as explicit, however through some shots it is clear that it is signifying a proper human sexual encounter:
The negative filter hides it, but there is consumption of alcohol, sexual encounter
...
SEXUAL VIOLENCE
This particular useful example due to the tween audience of this pop rock band:
...
VIDS THAT WERE RATED EXPLICIT
The same way indie films seem to be treated harsher than studio films, are more mainstream, mass-appealing acts favoured despite explicit content in their music videos?
Was/IS MTV a better regulator of music videos than YouTube now is?
No comments:
Post a Comment