Are Gays Being Censored Online?
By: Joe Thompson
2.9.2012
Last night designer Andrew Christian sent out an open letter to YouTube regarding both the removal of their "Pink Paradise" video and the blocking of the company's video channel for two weeks. At the same time, UK website PinkNews posted a story about the Facbeook fan page L’Homme du Jour (Man of the Day), which features sexy male model photography for a primarily gay male audience. The picture that got the site suspended is of model Leo Silva in a black bikini (top graphic, bottom right image) that was taken by Brazilian photographer Antonio Bezerra; evidently someone complained that it was too lewd, so Facebook sent the page admins a note saying it broke the social network's community standards rules in its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
“I think that the removal of this image is outrageous, we live in a modern society where people (and especially women) are allowed to wear even skimpier and even less than what is shown in this image," L’Homme du Jour's Ray Clark said to the online pub. "This image contains no nudity nor is it sexually suggestive." While the page became live again a few hours later, Clark explains, “On numerous occasions we have advised Facebook that we are committed to adhering to their community standards and have asked them to clarify exactly what is and isn’t acceptable, but of course they remain mysteriously silent on the issue.”
Ask around and you'll probably hear similar stories. While working at Unzipped Media we constantly noted adult companies like Raging Stallion Studios having their fan pages blocked. That's not too surprising, because even though the images they displayed weren't precisely pornographic, the pictures' settings, marketing language and fan-generated copy surrounding them were definitely for mature audiences. But Facebook also blocked OutServe, the gay military page, and pulled an image from the Dangerous Minds' page because it was considered “sexually suggestive” and “abusive,” even though it was a picture from the UK soap opera EastEnders (top graphic, bottom left image). YouTube took a similar tact with Unzipped, yanking a video interview with Beau Breedlove where the young man discussed having an affair with Portland, Oregon Mayor Sam Adams. In all these cases there was nothing pornographic about the content, but some anonymous person was offended by it, reported the image or video to the website admins, and that was enough for censorship.
As blogger John Aravosis wrote when discussing the Facebook / OutServe situation, “This is starting to reek of an anti-gay action by the fake complainant, and we can’t have Facebook setting up a precedent where they pull down the pages of legitimate gay groups every time a homophobe makes up a lie.”
Designer Andrew Christian seems to agree with that sentiment toward YouTube. In his letter he states, "We're disappointed and confused about [our video's] removal for inappropriate content when there are hundreds of thousands of videos featuring overtly sexual female imagery. We are a company that only produces menswear, and it feels unfair that our ads are held to different standards for featuring the male body." Indeed, to support this point, Christian lists 14 links to heterosexual videos that violate YouTube's community guidelines. He continues with, "There is no doubt in our mind that there would be no issue if the exact same video was posted with female models instead of male. Are you being homophobic or is it something else?"
Check out Christian's video, now hosted on Vimeo, and let us know if you think it should have been yanked. Then ask yourself, are we dealing with homophobic people, a public that is uncomfortable with sexy male bodies, or both? And how do we as a progressive community change that situation?
YouTube links Andrew Christian posted that violate the site's community guidelines.
•Fully exposed breasts / butt:
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DKlqxMNdST1g%26ob...
•Female pool party video with just as much exposed butt and small swimsuits:
http://youtu.be/wvXqDkTH8sw
•Vagina showing through underwear:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?shva=1#inbox/1355e10f35eb8bfb
•Lingering shots of tight underwear, exposed butts (and over 18 million views):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APtj3EvhfWA
•Visible nipples and butts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh0CHgov1lQ
•Full exposed breasts:
http://youtu.be/PfgiQwnpYkE
•Camel toe video:
http://youtu.be/Mtg5feqGkso
•Entire video is slow motion close-ups of bouncing breasts:
http://youtu.be/hP8nnCqK4gE
•Girl rubbing her barely covered body, very near nudity:
http://youtu.be/HveOjP3nQpI
•Women making out and putting their hands under each others' underwear:
http://youtu.be/P9DSK4Rtu0w
•Exposed butts, near-exposed breasts:
http://youtu.be/gwxzz_KqAUY
•Porn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9DSK4Rtu0w
•Straight man butt shots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pMgK7Q5y94
•Male butt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TiOGeNsoqA&feature=related
Comments
worry about facebook it could come back and haunt everyone for years to come
So now men in swimwear are offensive! Roll on 1885!!
Nah,,,
I do understand why they pulled the ad. It s a bit trashy.
Has anyone here (I read about 20 of the posts and didn't see) responded to "then don't look at it"'s comments.. Problem - when HBO, CBS, FOX, Disney or any entertainment loses its appeal by either becoming offensive OR less entertaining people in general will "not look at it anymore". I completely understand wanting to meet the entertainment needs of the masses.. if the majority are offended, (and it is much too lewd for the general population on any public airing) then it should not be there. We don't go to Disney World to watch this.. why should I expect to see it on You Tube.. If you want to see it go to the appropriate venu where it is expected and appreciated.
I did enjoy seeing the video, but would be surprised to see it on YOUTube/FaceBook or anywhere like that and totally understand removing.
Even more - you don't go to a five star restaurant and complain that you can't order a milk shake or Big Mac.. so how can anyone complain about this.. again in response to "then don't watch" find the Venue that fits the need..
Even though I hope this will be appreciated as entertainment to all and not offensive.. if people (majority and the business hosting it) do not desire to cator to that audience they have EVERY right not to do so. There are other sites/services that fit the bill.
I would rather not have to pay extra for those, and the financial wizardry is grinding the gears in that direction.. today we have LOGO which is great for some of that (fitting that bill).
If you were watching your favorite network or show..
and the next part/episide/whatever changed to educational model on children's fingerpainting or nursing home craft works or what ever disinterests you (any one in general) you lose interest and move on to something else..
Each entertainment (online/television/other media) wants to keep as much of the market share as they can..
Don't like it - support companies that cater to US.. like LOGO
On the other hand (I suppose).. why should I be subject to the antics of the meat woman (wore a fake meat dress) who was quoted as saying "sleep with any man with a big......." (close to the meaning quote) or other celeb who puts it all out there.. admittedly all of whom "fags" are "supposed" to adore, while I am offended
Just recognizing the point of view.. I still like the music provided by artists like Madonna.. Lady Gaga.. Cher and All the icons of the genre
I love how the vast majority of gays arent even FULLY out (friends, family, AND work) yet they bitch about being censured. Really? For one, I am ashamed that ads like that are even considered gay. Just cause I like men does not mean I want a partially/naked man to be my mascot. Its trashy, cheap, and demeaning to me and my sexuality. I'd have pulled it down myself given the opportunity.
short and sweet if you are offended dont watch plain and simple .
What do you expect ? All these major companies are run by straight men. Most of them hate us or are scared of us.
When we have millions of gay people still afraid to even admit they are gay there is no way we will ever address these issues. We can't even get people here in the US to sign a petition to demand anti gay laws at Federal level are removed.
We as a community are weak and stupid so these companies can do what they like because we are too stupid to ever fight back. How many gays will boycott Facebook for doing this ? I would say none - the queens think putting their new photos online and chatting is far more important than their human rights. Until we grow up we deserve to be treated like idiots.
Seriously homophobic. There is always a double standard. Those men (in some cases women) in power are so afraid of their own sexuality and ours that they can't stand how comfortable we are with ours and our bodies.
And there is always a double standard for gays:
They may be bad for military to be around dudes, yet no one really talks about the amount of women who are raped
Some Christians obsess with it for biblical reasons, but are fine with ignoring the rules that apply to others
Gays are going to ruin marriage, but a 50% divorce rate is fine
Gays are not suppose to show public displays of affection because it offends, yet you see heteros kissing and holding hands in public (who says I want to look at that...they want to touch, touch inside their home)
Gays are immoral, yet heteros have the abortions, unwanted children, high divorce, most domestic violence
Gays are unnatural, but people are fine with unnatural when its them, like contraceptives, medical technology, and pretty much everything else that separate humans from what nature intended.
If gays were smart, they would put their resources into increasing the gay population. Way too few gays, way too many straights.
and HOW do you increase the gay population,, kill all the straight guys? or just have sex with them ...
exactly, most straight people are cool with gays, just so long as we aren't close to their children, and keep to ourselves, basically to stay in the closet and keep quiet, gay marriage would increase the cost for str8"s to get married, more demand for places to have a wedding/reception, and the service industry, its prob a republican thing,
pink paradise? When are gays going to accept they are men....get a better color.
While I enjoyed the ad, it was a little to hot for youtube. However, a lot of gay material is flagged or censored on youtube for purely homophobic reasons, not for nudity etc. I'm a drag queen and I've had my videos flagged as inappropriate, etc. Hell, I put on extra clothing for my videos, so they are far from lude. LGBT people are censored, and I think it's time it stopped.
Just so you know it is not against youtubes policy to censor nudity or partial nudity in artistic endeavors. So photoshoots, music videos, art projects and such will be allowed to contain nudity and advertising for clothing companies will not.
It's not homophobia it's community guidelines read them before uploading.
forgot to add nudity is allowed in educational videos as well.
Im not going to lie, that was a very hot advertisement hehe makes me want some Andrew Christian underwear, but they did go a little too sexual. But, they have a point about always letting girls expose their breasts and ass and their videos dont get removed but ours do. Not fair!!
then dont look at it
cute video.......dreadful music.
I'm gay and I love seeing a hot man in a swim suit. That being said, I have to agree that open sites do need to have some standards for what is printed or published.
There are many sites like gay.com and gay.net and a ton of others where those pictures, for a specific audience, can be published. I don't want my nieces and nephews going through Facebook and coming across pictures like that. And since Facebook won't enforce its own age requirements with children as young as 6 or 7 having accounts, there does need to be some censorship.
Of course.. we're all being censored, monitored, you name it. As we go to ball games and look for dates, the powers that be are taking away our freedoms and creating Trillions of dollars in debt that our countries 'owe' them, the global elites, offshore bankers.
We must all push back and you can learn more at INFOWARS.COM since every day (except Saturday) of the week there's a new show for 3-4 hours for free.
RON PAUL 2012
He's our ONLY hope!
He's a Constitutionalist.
Anyone who doesn't support the Constitution shouldn't be in government and may be guilty of Treason.
Obama is a FRAUD!
It was perfectly acceptable to have the page pulled.
I think that this is just another example of whiny militant homosexuals crying cause they are not allowed to do what they want, when they want, wherever they want.
Jesus the way you people go on you would think we are still living in the middle ages with gays persecuted left right and center when that is clearly not the case as it is blatantly obvious that the mainstream goes out of it's way to accommodate gay issues.
You not getting your own way is not homophobia it is decency, morality and community standards.
It is you people who give the rest of us LGBT folk a bad name. No wonder there are still people who hate us.
"... the militant homosexuals...." ? Thank you Anita Bryant for crawling back out of the scum.
Look up the word "militant"--and then name ONE PERSON in the movement for our equality who fits.
There is no such thing as "gay pride." But there is certainly gay shame. And it comes from us and is directed toward us. Shed your shame. Be proud that you are no longer ashamed.
"The word militant, which is both an adjective and a noun, usually is used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"
Are you trying to tell me there are no people who have devoted their life to fighting for gay rights and have never instigated violence or committed criminal acts to get their point across.
As one example from American politics (I'm Scottish so don't know much about American politics) there was the rioting after Dan White was given his ridiculous sentence in which the San Francisco gay Community/Activists rioted and destroyed parts of the city as well as government property. Little bit Militant don't you think.
What about the recent event where a gay rights campaigner attempted to disrupt and stop Rick Santorum from speaking by constantly shouting about gay rights? Militant behaviour.
What's wrong with a civil debate?
I personally have known a number of gay rights activists who have resorted to violence and criminal Behaviour (otherwise known as typical left wing behavour) here in Scotland.
That's the literal definition anyway. My personal use of the word was to refer to people who assume that whenever they don't get what they want, when they want or frankly if anything upsets them at all it's not because they themselves are arseholes it's always homophobia. Nothing they do is wrong they simply can't get by in life because of homophobia. Whatever happened to personal responsibility.
It is people like that the militant homosexuals who bring the entire movement down and continue to make life hell for the rest of us normal, average and sane LGBT folk.
I get what you're saying Mark, but the same standards need to be given to hetero commercials too. It was indicated that there were hetero commercials on the site that didn't get pulled but were just as sexy with female models. Probably the bigger issue is that someone has to make a complaint, and a commercial like the underwear ad gets the attention of homophobes to make complaints, and say a Dallas cowboy cheerleader commercial they may not complain about. This ad does push the limits, but is it worse somehow than straight ones that do ?
The same standards are given to hetero commercials.
People have complained about the links this article has listed and they have been removed.
I highly doubt that it was a homophobe who complained about this though. More likely a concerned parent or other adult who was wary about such content on a free to access and popular video sharing website.
In regards to the dallas cowboy advert thing i am sure there will be plenty of people who complain about it and report it so that it gets removed.
The only nude or lewd content i have ever seen for long on youtube has been artistic
That is precisely the point. Apply the same standards, whether gay or not gay. Apparently in this case, a stricter standard is applied to gay men than to others. By the way, what gives with you? You're either a self-hating gay man, or else just a plain old fashioned bigot. And a very long-winded one at that.
I wouldn't say that stricter standards are applied to gay men.
to men in general yes. Full frontal Male nudity is still a big no no in places such as the cinema, theater, advertising and to a certain extent art. With places or films showing it often receiving a more restrictive license.
It's not homophobia it's borderline Misandry and i hesitate to call it that for the simple reason we live in a world dominated by men who make the rules and regulations. Most men don't really want to see huge bulges and such and are quick to react to it. Nothing to do with homophobia.
What gives with me? I'm an open bisexual male comfortable with his sexuality who also happens to be a Right Wing Nationalist and believe me that's a difficult way to live your life but i don't believe sexuality should dictate your social or economic (and as such your political) views. I can't actually compare myself to any American Parties because frankly your left are insane and your right don't have a clue what they are on about. Your republican party is what you call right wing and it stands for everything the right wing in Europe have always stood against.
I find it interesting to note however that when i was disagreeing with you your first reaction was to imply i was either a self hating gay man or a bigot (and by extension that my opinions and views were to be disregarded because I'm not "one of you").
This is what i was talking about. My not agreeing with you is not anti-gay rhetoric or homophobia. It's simply an attitude of man up, take responsibility and start behaving like normal people.
I stand against this culture of playing the victim which is so prevalent in our community. Something which you (subconsciously i assume) took part in by immediately assuming i was a bigot or self hating gay.
Yeah I'm long winded. Life long habit. my posts here are actually much shorter than i would like them to be. I just feel really bad for presenting people with a wall of text
Amen.
Keep posting Mark... you make good points. I always like your posts. Too bad so many gay men are just looking for a hook up and not getting involved
Another great example of censoring (at least on Youtube) is that heterosexual Foot-Fetish is allowed and vastly and widly spread... when gay Foot-Fetish is too often flagged and pages are even deleted... Roper4Life's Youtube page, which is always tasteful and very artistic, is a pretty good (and so sad) example of the unfairness of public perception still wrathful at times towards gay life... even in the same fetishes practiced by heterosexuals.
Sorry,
I have to agree with it being pulled. I think it went just a little too far. It might be okay for some sites, but not all. I don't think it's censorship; rather acceptable standards for a site.
While this video appears to approach the line of exhibitionism, I find nothing wrong with it. Come on guys...everyone knows that "sexy" is what promotes and sells a product. You see it all the time. All you have to do is look at ads and catalogues (looking to the past here) for ALL the major department stores and you see it. Hell...even store windows promote "sexy." So what is so different in this video? I have seen so much out there that is more revealing than what is portrayed in this video.
I also find it curious that every single link provided by Andrew Christian featuring men only leads to the signature "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service." All of the female oriented links are still up and running. There's even one that proports to be selling men's and women's swimsuits. Problem is...there are no men in the video! I just have to wonder if a man in a swimsuit were featured in this video, would it have received the "Violation of YouTube Terms of Service Award?"
After going to all of the links provided by Andrew and looking further, it is my gut feeling that, not only is YouTube homophobic, they are also malephobic! This doesn't just include YouTube. Facebook, Google, and even Twitter (surprise, surprise there) are issuing these notices! Whether heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual, any man is in danger of being censored regardless of what he is wearing (or not)!
Sorry guys, as much as I do LOVE this video I think its a bit much and can see why it would be removed from youtube. And I think this would have pulled it if were straight guys and girls in the same ad. There are limits to what can be put out there for EVERYONE to see, and as much as I really really really like see a lot of hot men showing skin and cocks (even covered up) you just know eventually it's gonna be pulled if it over the top. You will now start seeing the same happen with straight videos too.
So if you still want to boycot YouTube, FaceBook, and all the rest, just remember what it was like without them. Because then you will just force all the GAY ads and videos off the internet and that would be even worse.
What will happen next is some new start-up video site will come around and they will allow these hot videos to be on their site for a while, but thats only till they get bigger and then they too will tighten the controls....Thats just how the cycle works.
When the gay community, including gay.com, gay.net, and many other LGBT media outlets and organizations stop discriminating against people within the LGBT community and begins to actually practice what they preach in their messages of equality (inclusion, diversity, tolerance, acceptance, etc.), then this article will actuially have a 1/4 of an ounce of merit.
If there is any community who is more open, willing, and able to discriminate within it's own, it's the LGBT community. And this is very much why LGBT people like myself refuse to get involved, get active, and keep our checkbooks closed.
I agree. people are always complaining about how they have been wronged. always whining about who did what and never stop to think about how they represent the rest of the community as a whole. not just gay, lesbian, or straight. humans in general are very close-minded. most are just too self-absorbed to remember to remove the obstacles that they have placed in their own path. then the incessant howling about how it is always someone else's fault. for the love of all that is decent people just need to get a grip and understand that the world is built on difference. it should be celebrated, not shunned. comparing gay, bi, lesbian, trans, or straight to one another is like comparing a Picasso to a bowl of chili. it just does not make sense.
I too agree with this comment. Also the video was great but puts that stigma on the gays that we are all a bit slutty and promiscuous! Just sayin!
Amen James Richardson! It's about time we start talking about our own intolerance and stop pointing fingers at others.
Thank you Mr. Richardson very much for pointing out a glaring fact that it seems no one cares to look at or think about, something that most would rather sweep under the rug as if it weren't there but has always stood out like a badly infected thumb.
I might just copy/paste your every word and hang it on my wall. Hell, it more than deserves to be seen at the top of every so-called "LGBT" site!
Friday, Feb 10th, 12, 22:15 Hrs. M.S.T.
Hi Group,
Are Gays being Censored. You BET They Are. Thats the Way I See It.
I'm a Gay Hobbiest, - Trains/Model Railroads. I Have a Page on Facebook and as Most of Us Know on the Top Right Side It Always
Promotes - Add Friends/Associates etc.
Nothing I Hate More is the Facebook Bullshit of Adding Friends - Gay/Straight and Next Thing You Know - Your Banned/Blocked for
7, 14, or 30 Days Nor Are You Allowed to Send an Email to Potential
Friends/Associates.
I Find Facebook's Policies Very "Two Faced and Very Hypocritical.
Thanks,
Operater.
It's homophobia / double standards plain and simple. Everyone should complain about equivalent postings featuring females. Sadly, however I have also seen the double standards at least on gay sites too. Hipocracy is everywhere, fight it everywhere it appears.
Boycot YouTube, FaceBook, and all the rest.
It is good to be a Ludite.
We have to put up with all the video's of girls doing all this crap, we should be able to see these sexy young men shake it right along with them.
It's nice that gay people are standing up for, um, gay rights, but it would also be nice to see them stand up more for gender equality and challenge damaging gender stereotypes. They might begin with taking a look at how they might be re-inforcing assumptions about males being sexual animals who want to copulate with anything that crawls. It isn't exactly fair to challenge homophobia, but not sexism.
And you can't respond to this with the argument "boys will be boys". That doesn't cut it.
We are hardwired to want to mate with anything that we can.
it's part of our nature to wish to spread our seed as far and as wide as possible so yeah nothing that can be done about it. Seeing as gays are lucky enough to never run the risk of pregnancy it's a damn sight easier for gays to have multiple partners and simply by virtue of being men and not at the complete control of our emotions we don't get attached easily and all that sentimental bollocks we find it easier to move on to new ones as well.
Before you go whaaaa sexist!!!! at me believe me i know full well I'm a misogynist and I'm fine with that.
I find it ironic that this story was in a newsletter, that even though I have said I requested it, still gets images blocked, and a notification across the top that "This message looks suspicious to our SmartScreen filters." Really Hotmail?
There have been a number of instances of incredulous, seemingly homophobic issues with things associated to that company that shall remain nameless.
Post new comment