Apparently we’re not ENTIRELY inspired by Monkeyframers. I’m not talking about the non-dialog thing, but rather the winner of the latest round. I read the 10 Second Club rules, and more or less it said:
Yes, you guys put a warning saying that if it had an 18 on it, you might not want to see it for fear of sexual/violent content. But what if someone just wanted to download it, downloaded it without even seeing the 18, and then got arrested?
I’m so angry because pornography, no matter how pleasing, shouldn’t be in contests available to anybody who wants to vote. (Even if, as it seems to be with our latest winner, it’s using chickens. Ew.)
It’s not our fault if someone ignores the big gigantic warning saying you might not want to watch the animation. There is no way to protect these things from idiots. People in countries where it’s against the law should know better.
Edit:
As far as I know, you don’t live in a country where it’s against the law, and you’re the only person who’s complained so far.
The 10 Second Club does not set the rules for Monkeyframers.
You have no reason to be angry (except perhaps at yourself) – you read
the warning, yet downloaded and watched the animation anyways.
Nature TV shows depict animals having sex without
requiring any warning – I doubt anybody has been
arrested for watching one. I should also point out that
most of the sex in the animation was offscreen too.
That rule from the 10 Second club you cite has to do
mostly with the laws in Japan about not allowing web
sites with nudity (which the animation in question had
none). The original 10 Second Club started in Japan.
We are also fortunate that our voting system allows
people to rate animations without seeing all of them.
Anyways, I must also mention that I think it was an
excellent animation from a technical standpoint and
that it truly deserved to win the round.