Last month porn types Jamie Brendon Stroud (aka Chip Tanner, gymnast) and Nick Dent (aka Reese Rideout, stripping instructor), made their “Dancing For Gender Equality” debut, uploading a video of them dancing — if that’s what you want to call it — with a picture-in-picture representation of two chicks doing the exact same thing. The point? That YouTube censors male homoerotic clips, but girls getting jiggy with it are somehow allowed. Last week, they found another girl-on-girl clip that was permitted by the YouTube cops. And performed a scene-by-scene remake.
You show them, boys! Or you know, don’t, and just keep making these videos.
TommyOC
That is an awesome way to protest and show open discrimination all at the same time.
Ken S
I’m all for their cause; the double-standards that deem the exact same actions by women and men to be “cute/hot” versus “obscene” respectively serve offensive stereotypes. Among them: that female sexuality is ‘harmless’ (because of the implied belief that they’re passive) while male sexuality is *always* predatory or licentious; that the female body is ‘beautiful’ but the male body is vulgar or ugly; and that women subjecting themselves to objectification is appropriate, because the audience is presumed to be (“normal”) straight males, but other men objectifying themselves is wrong because it subversively ‘queers’ the presumed audience.
Though, I wouldn’t mind if it took them a couple more videos before they won their fight 😉
Daveny
I’m sold on this protest lol
EdWoody
Chip Tanner is so delicious.
Adrian Acosta
They are certainly making a good point.
However, regardless of the gender of the person dancing these videos are in violation of YouTube agreement because they are using copy written music.
Jeffree
Great idea! You’d think, logically, that YouTube’s policies would be gender-neutral because the more viewers they get, the more money they make, but they do censor even non-sexually explicit male male stuff more.
A few gay male comics I know (doing very clean material) had their vids flagged/ pulled without coming close crossing the TOS guidelines, so we’re now inspired by these guys to remake the vids with women comics doing the same routines to see what happens.
But the dancing stuff is still more fun !
scott ny'er
This is AWESOME.
So funny and a brilliant way to protest the inequality. Reese Rideout… I’m digging him more and more, as I read about him and his doings.
Marcus
@Daveny:
So am I!
Love these videos.
jj
Say what you will about gay for pay guys, but they do seem to be genuinely nice funny guys who love their gay fans.
justiceontherocks
You have to love it when two guys with great asses flip flop.
Oh Boy
Hilarious!
I love Nick Dent/ Reese Rideout whatever-his-name is. He is not only hot but funny as hell.
Ian
@Max Campbell: Nick/Reese states he is “gay for pay” and completely heterosexual, so the statement is apt.
BamBam
@Max Campbell!!!
Exclamation points!!!
B
No. 5 · Adrian Acosta wrote, “They are certainly making a good point. However, regardless of the gender of the person dancing these videos are in violation of YouTube agreement because they are using copy written music.”
Except they are not violating U.S. copyright law – there is an exemption for parodies, criticism, and comment – http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf and
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (according the latter):
“Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. “The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. “The nature of the copyrighted work
3. “The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. “The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”
Also look at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fsupct%2Fhtml%2F92-1292.ZS.html&ei=DStbTcvOOIe8sAO1hdG7Dg&usg=AFQjCNF2juGH3NJ1LQreAgexTISd2A8T1w for a Supreme Court decision.
seattle guy
Reese Rideout is just insanely adorable. And hot. Very, very hot. So what if he’s straight? As long as he keeps doing it with guys, I’ll be a fan. 😉
Jonathan
@seattle guy: Uh, yeah.
merkin
Im just making an educated guess but I think the reason why M/M stuff is taken down more is because its flagged more (by homophobes). YouTube like other massive sites like Wikipedia and Facebook, relies on user complaints to make it aware of problems. In some cases there’s not even a human involved in the decision process. If enough users flag something as inappropriate its automatically taken down. I dont know if thats how YT operates, but Im pretty sure the problem stems with viewers, not YT itself. That doesnt mean they shouldnt figure out a way to fix this problem. So long as they keep the guys deep-throating banana clips, though, Im happy
Adrian Acosta
@@B: @#18
true, but
“if you use an audio track of a sound recording owned by a record label without that record label’s permission, your video may be infringing the copyrights of others, and may be subject to removal.”
taken from: http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright
Technically the record labels could ask youtube to take these videos down – bot, the videos from the guys and the girls.
B
No. 22 · Adrian Acosta wrote, “@@B: @#18 true, but “if you use an audio track of a sound recording owned by a record label without that record label’s permission, your video may be infringing the copyrights of others, and may be subject to removal.””
As you said, you found that statement on youtube’s web site. It is general advise, simply worded, but all videos on youtube are not parodies. Probably most aren’t parodies.
SteveDenver
Several years ago the Denver International Film Festival aired a scene-by-scene of a daytime soap opera episode featuring male actors. When the filmmaker submitted the reel to the MPAA, it was given an NC-17 rating, even though there was NO nudity, only kissing and “naked” actors in bedroom scenes. Film festivals, including Sundance, picked it up.
Lots of women are unaware, but in New York City, it is legal for women to appear topless in public. Lesbian Avengers sued the city requiring equal treatment of men and women: either guys have to put on their shirts or be cited and fined, or women are free to remove theirs. The city reached a decision in 1996 for the latter.
William Maltese
This whole series is a genuine hoot!