Rihanna's "S&M" Gets Banned In 11 Countries & My 2 Cents On The Matter

Rihanna's newest music video has been rendered too hot for air in eleven countries, where it has faced a variety of bans, while some radio stations around the world are choosing to air the song after a certain time. One of the countries in the United Kingdom, where BBC Radio 1, the most listened to national contemporary hit radio station, has chosen to only play the song after 7pm. Other countries have decided to pull the video all together from television, and YouTube has flagged the video, meaning only signed-in members 18 or older are able to view it from the most popular video-sharing site on the web. Even MTV is considering re-editing it so as not the cause controversy.

Watch the sex-tacular video below:

Yes, the video is sexual with the rope, whips, ball-gags, and leashes, and of course controversy would arise from the content it contains. It is no surprise that BBC has chosen to restrict its playable airtime after the controversy surrounding Christina Aguilera and her performances on the X-Factor in the UK, and certain countries, particularly devoutly religious countries, were guaranteed to be upset at the video. Where the humor and blatant hypocrisy comes in is with MTV and YouTube.

MTV is a network that airs both the Jersey Shore and the new series Skins, programs that have faced unrelenting criticism for their overtly sexual themes and adult content. This is the very network that has earned millions in revenue from shows like 16 and Pregnant and Undressed, but yet are considering editing the music video due to hyper-sexual subjects in the video.

Lastly, YouTube has become very sensitive to these issues recently as well. Lady Gaga's "Telephone" video was deemed to risque and needed to be re-edited for the mainstream public. Like Rihanna's video, the "explicit" version requires a log-in. This has become commonplace now with the likes of M.I.A. and Christina Aguilera facing similar censorship. Yet, what is facetious about the argument to protect our innocent youth is that a simple Google search can provide your child with instant pornography. Furthermore, internet predators are within a Yahoo! search away from being in contact with your child, something far more tangibly dangerous and out-right scary.

Some may choose to apply safeguards, such as a child-lock or child-proof web browsing so as to protect them from justifiable concerns that lurk on the net, which would likely prevent your child from even entering the cybersphere of YouTube. I agree the videos in question are not suitable for children, but we often try to demonstrate this protectionism by targeting the most easy examples, like music, when there are far more dangerous predatory items online.

In conclusion, I find the censorship to be annoying, as if you could not tell yet. But this controversy will likely translate to publicity (there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?) for the singer and song and watch as it ascends up the chart. It's already risen more than twenty spots since the video's release in the US. So much for censorship.