Childbirth may not be suitable for minors

A family friend had a baby this morning! Yay! My five year old was quite put out that he was not able to watch the baby being born. As a consolation prize, I promised to YouTube some birth videos for him in lieu of tonight’s bedtime stories. I had a nice set of links emailed to me for my women’s health class by a local birth attendant, so I started with those. I vaguely knew that some of them required you to click through and say you were not a minor in order to watch – a fact about which my students rightly grumbled. Tonight after the kid’s bedtime, I did a little more investigation into the “potentially inappropriate” YouTube content situation.

What was it about the childbirth videos that made them potentially inappropriate?

To divine the answer, I tried searching for non-human birth videos. Cat, dog, monkey, elephant, sheep, panda, dolphin, seal, killer whale, angel shark, royal white tiger, and kangaroo, all came up just fine and barrier-free.

But when you search just childbirth or “human childbirth,” the videos tend to be marked with:

This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community.

To view this video or group, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up.

Then – and this is the best part, in my opinion – once you are past the warning page and watching the video, there is a header that says

This video may not be suitable for minors.

Irony, much?

Is there any other event that human beings universally experience (as minors, nonetheless) besides being born?

You can do it, you just can’t see it/learn about it? This is a problem. Especially considering that a lot of people give birth before the age of 18.

What makes human birth potentially inappropriate? Is is the semi- (or sometimes full) nudity? The presence (sometimes clearly seen, sometimes just clearly implied by the fact that a baby came from that general area) of a human vulva & vagina?

Going with the vagina theory, I tried searching “Caeserean.” Caeserean birth videos carry no warning. It’s totally fine to show major surgery, blood & guts, seemingly-headless bodies with babies being extracted through large incisions by bloody gloved hands (often also from seemingly-headless medical staff). But not *gasp* a vagina through which a baby us naturally passing the way babies have passed since the beginning of humanity!

Like most of my stories, this one gets weirder still. You know how YouTube lists “related” videos to the one you’re watching, along the sidebar? I linked from Ceasearean birth to “toddlers nursing,” which I was pleasantly surprised to find free of the above 18-or-over warning.

Than, I linked from toddlers nursing to “breastfeeding video,” which – for some reason – has the videos titled “shaved asian has multiple orgasms” and “I’M 15 AND I’VE SLEPT WITH MEN OVER 300 TIMES!” listed as related. Hrm…social tagging is great and all, but someone needs a little authority control or something there.

Neither of the above videos (“shaved asian…” or “I’m 15…”) carried the 18-or-over warning. Neither shows any full nudity or uncovered vaginas, just plenty of sexual talk and innuendo; perhaps that is why. Would I rather have my kindergartener watching a video of someone’s homebirth, or a talk show excerpt in which a 15-year old girl is interrogated about her sexual activities? Are my values that out of touch? If I ever needed a clear example of the old “what is offensive to you is a miracle to me (and possibly vice versa)” principle, there it is on YouTube.

On principle I don’t like making anyone register with a site to be allowed to watch certain videos. It’s like hiding the sex books behind the desk, even if you allow them to circulate to those who come ask for them, making then technically “available.” I understand that websites may have liability concerns, though, and why they might attempt to have some sort of nominal barrier to underage viewing of certain types of material.

I’m aware that YouTube has this process wherein viewers can tag a video as potentially inappropriate for minors, and then eventually someone on staff is supposed to review those videos and remove them if they truly are offensive. I was vaguely aware of this from previous allegations of censorship of certain political views. Apparently they also took down a bunch of birth and breastfeeding videos last fall, but are perhaps no longer doing so now? I guess just keeping the kids out of birth is now a satisfactory solution. Hrm.

It just makes me feel sad to see where these lines get drawn. Sad, but also fortunate, to be in a library community that generally supports its members in resisting such line-drawing. Um, so remind me not to go work for YouTube/Google, okay? I like my intellectual freedom. And my kid’s.




Filed under censorship, gender, Health, Intellectual freedom

5 responses to “Childbirth may not be suitable for minors

  1. Pingback: YouTube videos on CanWest info issues « Social Justice Librarian

  2. Thank you for linking to my blog posting about censorship on YouTube. While YouTube did respond to my request to have the video reposted, they have since taken it down again. I was also notified that if I reposted it, my account would be permanently disabled. As I mentioned in my blog, the video was far less graphic than many of the hospital birth videos on YouTube. It simply showed a woman peacefully catching her own baby in an unassisted homebirth. For one reason or another, YouTube found this offensive.

  3. greyson

    Laura, do I understand you correctly that you appealed when YouTube removed your video due to alleged unspecified terms of use violation last year, they reinstated the video on YouTube, and then have now re-taken it down for alleged terms of use violation? Have they specified what terms of use the video allegedly violated?

    If this is the case, that is incredibly frustrating. I believe I have seen the video you are talking about, and agree that, while including nudity, it is not very “graphic” or “gory.” Additionally, there are many other unassisted birth videos still available, it appears, so it is curious why this particular one would be taken down.

    The user-generated “warning” page is annoying enough, as it is so arbitrary. I would expect more clarity and consistency, though, from a decision made by the actual company itself – such as removing the video.

  4. Here is one of the messages they sent me, but it doesn’t really explain their reasons for deleting it:

    Dear Member:
    After being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature.

    An unassisted childbirth:

    This is the second video removal notice for your account. If you receive one more, your account will be permanently disabled and all of your previously uploaded videos will be taken down.

    Please refer to our Terms of Use and the Community Guidelines for more information on what video material is not permitted on YouTube.
    The YouTube Team

    I also tried posting it on Google and MySpace, but both deleted it within a few hours. The video is currently posted on my website and also on Jumpcut (for now).

    As far as why people find it so offensive, I speculated about this in another blog posting –

    Basically I think it has to do with fear of birth, fear of powerful women, and sexual shame and guilt.

  5. archbald duri

    I agree.i dont suport childbirth.its doubling the responsibility of parents.negletion of children is increasing due to childbirth(opinion).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s