What is "sexually explicit videos" ? (NSFW)
 

I can see this term used in relation to youtube and vimeo. But as an European, i don't know how to interpet it. A year ago i got a warning from youtube and my video was deleted after i uploaded a video of a topless woman in jeans, just walking by her self.
Is a video of a topless woman sexually "explicit"? would it depend on the circumstance, if she is on the beach sunbathing it cold be okey, but if she is walking on a forrest path topless (my case) it's not OK. And If some one does not show any skin, but dresses hot, or do somthing kincky, it would never be sexually explicit?

It depends on the authority. YouTube might deem nudity "explicit."

I used to work in a photo lab. The company would deem something "explicit" only if it involved the touching of genitals.

Bottom, breasts, and reproductive organs would be sexually explicit by our puritanical measure. Also included would probably be profanity and sexually descriptive language.

Sorry about the trouble, we're a bit behind the times.

In America, if it shows any kind of act other than kissing (and sometimes "heavy" kissing/petting is considered sexual), a woman's nipples, or something like 56% of a woman's butt is considered sexually "explicit".

Also, dancing in the terms of "i'ma going to grind my penis into your dress like we are humping".

Basically, anything fun.

I love America. I hate our rules on sexual matters.

Bottom, breasts are not reproductive organs. And i think it's sad that they don't see the difference. Besides just showing the bottom and breasts are not porn. I wish that Europe would find it's own version of youtube and google. Then again they might adjust to American standards under pressure.

I think it depends on the site/company/ect. But the rulse are ludacris. You can have girls dacing in thongs with barely any top on and it's not sexually explicit, but then you have a black and white photo of a womans bare curves and it's sexually explicit.

Society is stupid.

You'll get no argument from me there. :thumbsup:

This thread is officially useless without pictures/video.

http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/as..._070731_ms.jpg
Not explicit


http://www.kimweston.com/special_edi...ver_nude_5.jpg

Explicit!

Thanks. I'll alter the title accordingly, but it seems obvious that we'd have to see pictures to draw lines.

Pictures of how to conducts a self breast exam - not explicit. "Beads!" - explicit.

I have a feeling I'm gonna like this thread :D

Any other fans of the new Calvin Klein ad out there?? ...............for the unenlightened:

http://www.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uplo...0mx0232680.png

On youtube, if it shows nudity, it will be cut and banned. Anything else flies...

Makes no sense to me, either.

Makes sense to me, as a member and onlooker of society's standard for parents.

Youtube is the #2 or 3 most-visited site by adolescents, aged 7 to 14.

If you are a parent, uncle or mentor to a young child, you don't want them to be bombarded by spectacles of tits, ass, or male "packages" and the way time grinds to a halt in N.America if they are displayed in a public venue. Everyone looks, and is aghast, because it's just not the foundation of what this nation was built on (old puritanical habits die hard, like the weekends).

Sure, parents should monitor what their kids are seeing, learning, and browsing on the web, but no one adult is omnipresent. Stuff slips through our filter, and it just becomes comforting to list "safe sites" like YouTube because of their hard stance on any sort of nudity whatsoever. (but they allow the most wretched, profane-filled speeches by any 15-year-old with a camera, so, it's a mixed bag.)

This culture just has this desensitization towards violence, guns, and profanity (as evidence by the TV-Y7 "too violent" cartoon programs that have been around for 20 odd years, and by the time a kid enters 4th grade, they are ridiculed if they have little inkling of what the word "fuck" means), yet we have this perverse pleasure in seeing any situation become one in which a scenario plays out plausibly, even randomly, where a young woman intimates at taking off her top, if not more.

It's our on litle quirk. At least we're not as bad as Japan.
-- Train Station

When youtube showed the hanging of Sadam, it sparked a debate hear in Europe at least in Scandinavia and Germany. I suppose it did not in the US. What is more harm full, seeing someone being executed or a woman with out cloth on her top?

The violent is public; the sexual is private.

Google cares about the following two things on Youtube:
1: Not scaring away advertisers
2: Avoiding legal action by taking down any video they get a DMCA/Copyright/Whatever notice for, regardless of whether the claim is substantiated.

@ Ideo funk and Salem... The pictures you guys posted ARE sexually explicit. They contain suggestive posing and situations. And I'm not talking about suggesting brunch!

It falls under the censorship board of any concerned party to screen and appropriately determine age factors for their viewing pleasure. I have a lot of trouble with the USA's laws on sex issues but this is one area I am quite fine with.

i don't really understand why everyone gets so worked up over the human body. Pretty sure we've all got them, pretty sure we'll all see it sometime if not already. Violence on the other hand, I may go my whole life without ever being exposed to and be a-ok for it. I'll take some boobs over seeing a guy get murdered, er, executed, any day.

In other words, 99.99999% of people will have sex at some point in there lives. So what's the big deal if it's on TV? But what percentage of people will kill another human sometime in their lives? Not a very high percentage, I'm sure. Again: I'll take boobs over blood any day. If you're a religious person, look at it like this - God/Allah/Zeus/whoever gave us all sexual organs at birth. He did not give us WMD's and M-16s until much later. If you really feel it's necessary to thump your bible/torah/moral soapbox/whatever at all of us, thump it at the violent not the sexual.

I don't get the reason for banning videos on the net either. It's normal for boys to look at porn when they are teenagers, and if there isn't a middle 'soft' porn site, they will search until they find whatever they can.

Nothing should be banned, either sexual or violent. And it's not wrong or bad to be naked.

There was less coverage of it, but it did happena bit over here (by here I mean North America, of course).

Youtube regards itself as something not unlike a media outlet, and thus videos that might otherwise be unacceptable are often accepted if they're deemed to have cultural or historical significance.

Back on topic, it's a well known fact that if a lad sees a nipple before age 18 his mind is instantly and permanently destroyed.

Think of the chilluns!

hm i did not think about the mind-destroying powers of the nipple. that is an excellent point

I'm pro-nudity. For me.. explicit would be sex (masturbation, intercourse, cum, etc). Plain nudity is alright. A naked person walking around is alright. I love that one Sigur Ros video with all the naked folks. Really pretty video. Nudity has never affected me as a child. It was there. And it was actually kinda funny.