I'm gonna push the envelope here a little bit and see if this slides out of the porn category and into the educational anatomy category. I'm perhaps bending the rules a little bit, but I hope the sift is big enough to hold something like this. Genitals.

I would have liked to embed the entire documentary, but I don't know where it's from - in any case, this is most interesting.

Also, big fat NSFW!

posted by Nicki Hansen (gwiz665) 4 years 3 months 1 week ago • 1,452,430 views
gwiz665 says...

For the record, I fully expect this to be discussed, but my case is that it falls under educational and that it's actually really interesting. (It's not to stir up drama.)

The general tone of the video is documentary, and while it certainly is explicit, that's sorta the only way to show stuff like this - It can't be all Hollywood and fade to black.

Anyway, I hope you'll like it.

ForgedReality says...

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ForgedReality" title="member since March 13th, 2009" class="profilelink">ForgedReality I just never realized that this much POV was actually a fetish. I think it's all weird, like the MRI sex we had here some where.


Okay, um... Did you actually go searching for that?

And to clarify, I was referring to the guy in the video. He's flaccid as a work glove.

edit - Do you realize how much of a huge pain in the ass it was to quote that just now? Good lord. It's bad enough that quotes show up UNDERNEATH the post... I wish VS would go back to the old way of quoting people.

edit2 - Fuck it. I can't get the goddamn quote to work, even though it shows up fine in the preview window. Retarded Videosift. >:[

spoco2 says...

I only got a little way through before I decided that even in my relaxed workplace, that probably was too much.

I don't think the porno music helped...

And from what I saw it lacked a certain amount of actual real aim rather than thinking up an excuse to show porn.

I would say it doesn't belong... but it's a lineball...

I'd have to say it's going to fail Dag's wood test though.

gwiz665 says...

I would much rather have embedded the entire documentary, which I assume it is from, but I couldn't find it. It's true that this is edited to be in a pornographic manner, which is a shame.

>> ^spoco2:

I only got a little way through before I decided that even in my relaxed workplace, that probably was too much.
I don't think the porno music helped...
And from what I saw it lacked a certain amount of actual real aim rather than thinking up an excuse to show porn.
I would say it doesn't belong... but it's a lineball...
I'd have to say it's going to fail Dag's wood test though.

Shepppard says...

Hmm.

It's definitely supposed to be educational, and in some parts..it kind of is..

But with all the editing going on, they get out half a sentance of something.. then it's just cut to another angle of people having sex.

Without the context of the entire Documentary, this kinda just seems like badly edited porn sequences.

I'll reserve my downvote, but that definitely doesn't pass any wood test of mine.

ponceleon says...

>> ^Shepppard:

Hmm.
It's definitely supposed to be educational, and in some parts..it kind of is..
But with all the editing going on, they get out half a sentance of something.. then it's just cut to another angle of people having sex.
Without the context of the entire Documentary, this kinda just seems like badly edited porn sequences.
I'll reserve my downvote, but that definitely doesn't pass any wood test of mine.


I gotta side with Shepp on this one. They have edited the living shit out of this and it was pretty annoying to get half-sentences all the way through it... Given that the source seems to be a site with "porn" in the title, seems pretty obvious they have edited it with that in mind.

notarobot says...

I find this video interesting and informative, however I can see how it might cross the line for some people. (sorry gwiz)

Edit: after watching this video a ...second time, I'm certain the original doc was edited together to be a little more porny. Perhaps this embed could be replaced with one *sigh* a little less... fun?

>> ^dag:

discuss for the obvious reasons.

Shepppard says...

If this were replaced with the original documentary, I'd have no problem with this, but again, as I stated, the editing seems to remove any educational merit this had.

ponceleon says...

>> ^Shepppard:

If this were replaced with the original documentary, I'd have no problem with this, but again, as I stated, the editing seems to remove any educational merit this had.


Yup, I agree. Find the original and I'm fine with it, this is highly edited and is being embedded from an all-out porn site.

Then again, I did upvote it

Sketch says...

I, admittedly, tend to be more liberal and less puritanical about this sort of thing, but I'm for it. Yes, there is obvious, unfortunate editing for pornographic purposes, but watching the anatomy at work is still informative, even if the rest of it is lost. Consider this a more focused study on just the anatomical points. I'm just really glad that it wasn't filmed in 3-D!

dag says...

I think the consensus is that this should go. It's "eduPorn" which really is still porn. Not my cup of tea - I can report complete flaccidity (could be the red wine) - but it still needs to go.

gwiz665 says...

@dag fair enough. I can understand the general consensus that it's cut like a porno "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.." etc. I'll try to find the entire documentary and sift that instead when I find it.

playlists with this video:
who bookmarked this post:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

 • view