NO WALLS. NO BARRIERS

What was this song called?

>>71967727
House of Air

>>71967656
THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT SHOW TWO MEN SUCKING SHIT OUT OF EACHOTHERS ASSHOLES ON YOUTUBE PROVES THAT WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO FOR COMPLETE HOMOSEXUAL EMANCIPATION

>>71967656
disgusting video, catchy song

>>71967727
>>71967739
>>71968362
>>71968405
>>>/pol/

>>71968405
The song was unironically good.

>>71968405
We wouldn't be talking about it without the disgusting music video. So to some extent it worked

>>71968426
You don't have to be /pol/ to find that video disgusting

>>71967727
dey eat de poopoo

What is this

>>71968426
I resent pol but this video was offensive

What ever happened to fags resenting the image of them being trashy sexual deviants?

>>71968633
Google House of Air Vimeo. The video was banned from Youtube

Why are people so horrified at outlandish sex practices if two consenting people are involved? What is wrong about it being shown in art? Have you ever heard of Robert Mapplethorpe? How can you ever pretend to be disgusted at sex if all you need to jack off is horrifyingly dull porn presenting a safe product instead of the dangerous elemental experience of genuine human touch? Why are all the retarded nerds on the internet such hypocrites? Haven't you losers learned the one important fucking thing?

>>71968750
Because piss and shit and inserting fists into asses is not something I want to see and it's disgusting

>>71968761
then move on and watch something else, who cares about shit like this while there are so many really horrifying things going on everyday?

Just watched it
AMA

>>71968774
Yeah, that's what I did when I saw it. Doesn't mean I can't share how I felt about it when a thread a happens to appear on /mu/.

>>71968788
thoughts on trout mask replica?

>>71968750
The video was just porn you retard, and it was on YouTube. I'm a liberal, but I guarantee you had it been straight sex happening, it would have been banned within hours, instead of being allowed on YouTube for like 2 weeks or whatever.

>>71968828
it was age restricted and likening every explicit scene you see to regular pornographic content is one of the primary signs for being over conditioned on jacking off to porn. Explicit scene aren't meaningless non-art in all cases just because porn is. House of Air was a clever video and made a statement even if it just worked to gross out normies. Again, children shouldn't be able to see it so who cares?

>>71968816
I heard hints of frownland in it

>>71968865
It was simulated sex by pornographic actors. In what world is that not pornography? No one gives a fuck if it was "art" or not; this deterioration of what counts as "art" is what's making "art" as shitty as it is today.

>>71968911
>In what world is that not pornography?
Apparently context and nuance do matter and we don't have to keep explicit sex away from art completely if it helps to make a point. Maybe it's because I'm European but I just don't get the US on this one: Why not chill the fuck out about consensual sex? Why should it bother you if other people do something weird to each other?