I watched the video Paul, and no I wouldn't describe it as pornographic but millions of people would. A semi naked female in a pop video will almost always be described as pornographic, or something approaching pornographic.
I couldn't think of one reason (without being cynical) why Bjork found it necessary to have her breasts on display in the video.
Be honest Paul, do you think it was necessary for Bjork to show her breasts in that video? Do you think the song demanded it? Do you think the video sold the song well because there was naked breasts on display? Once again I'm asking you to be totally honest here Paul, do you think the breasts were on display to gain some free publicity for the song in the hope it would increase sales for Bjork?
Just to clear something up, I wasn't suggesting naked breasts are in the same league as a little girl being anally raped. I was suggesting that if the video makers could get away with a vid showing the rape scene in graphic detail they would, not because we need to see it but because it'd cause a media storm and make them money, and when we become de-sensitised to that where do we go next?. It has to start somewhere, and I'm sure you'll agree we are far more de-sensitised to images of naked people than we were 30 years ago, and I'm not convinced its a good thing because I don't know where it will end.