Tags for this video have been changed from 'Lulu and the Lampshades, cup' to 'Lulu and the Lampshades, cup, percussion' - edited by calvados

*livemusic

Adding video to channels (Livemusic) - requested by deathcow.

I sure will miss you.

The percussion is impressive. The singing is great.

Doing both together? Wow.

You had to cheapen the performance by labeling her as a "cute girl".

How about "talented girl"?

>> ^brycewi19:

You had to cheapen the performance by labeling her as a "cute girl".
How about "talented girl"?


I disagree. Yes, she is talented and anyone that watches the video will see/hear that. But, she also happens to be cute. What is so wrong with noticing that? How does it cheapen an otherwise excellent performance by calling the performer "cute" (when they actually happen to be "cute")?

>> ^brycewi19:

You had to cheapen the performance by labeling her as a "cute girl".
How about "talented girl"?


I couldn't agree more. I fucking cringe every time I see a video title beginning with "cute girl". What the hell does the person's gender, let alone their physical appearance, have ANYTHING to do with the content of the video. You don't see that giant spider video, currently at #3, titled "tall guy with big hands has massive spider". Why? Because it's a dude. If it was a girl, it'd be "OMG! Hot girl has balls of steel".

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

she also happens to be cute. What is so wrong with noticing that? How does it cheapen an otherwise excellent performance by calling the performer "cute" (when they actually happen to be "cute")?


Trying to argue the merits of the title just reinforces the male internet user stereotype of a loser with the self esteem of a hollowed out coconut. Stop it!

How about talented woman? (Sorry, couldn't resist -- I still mourn that grown women are called girls.)

Having said that, I must say that I rather liked the "cute" label. I know, I know, call me inconsistent. But when vid after vid after vid fawn over gorgeous women, with long and lingering camera shots over body parts, it gets pretty oppressive feeling if you are just ... normal. So this young woman who is healthy and talented and charming gets a label of "cute"? It was a relief.

And yeah, it sucks, too.

>> ^brycewi19:

You had to cheapen the performance by labeling her as a "cute girl".
How about "talented girl"?

Here is why brycewil9 is right: https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/.

Check your privledge.

>> ^brycewi19:

You had to cheapen the performance by labeling her as a "cute girl".
How about "talented girl"?

Is this a thing? There are several videos like this on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I0Ldg8qIwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I can't tell which came first. The version posted here has some down votes.

oh cry me a friggin river... she's cute, get over it... we're a fucking ocean of animals, we appreciate a pretty face... so go fight your DNA instincts whilest pissing into the wind and jousting at some windmills

Bow wow, dear deathcow, bow wow.

That makes sense if you read the link of @Angua1. It's really great, once you get past the opening -- if you decide to explore it, I recommend starting with this sentence, partway down:

A man has the privilege of walking past a group of strange women without worrying about being catcalled, or leered at, or having sexual suggestions tossed at him.

There follows a parable that I found pretty dang compelling. And pretty funny, given that you live in Alaska and it "stars" a Husky dog.

And yes, I agree with you about biological "imperatives" -- study after study have proven that men are visual animals. To argue with that is profoundly idiotic, indeed jousting at windmills. I don't think that is the point though. I think all this is being asked for is an "Oh. I didn't think about it that way. Huh."

>> ^deathcow:

oh cry me a friggin river... she's cute, get over it... we're a fucking ocean of animals, we appreciate a pretty face... so go fight your DNA instincts whilest pissing into the wind and jousting at some windmills

things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

...
...
...
seriously?

You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?

>> ^deathcow:

things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

Upvote the talented, attractive, utterly depressing, woman.

TITTIES!!!!!!

Seriously though, I also find that it's pointless to try and force political correctness, especially on the interwebs. Fact is most hetero men would probably agree that it's impossible for them not to be dominated by sexual thoughts even while watching an otherwise 'innocent' video such as this one. There are those who express it and those who choose not to, the most you could accuse the ones who don't resist the urge is a general lack of sophistication....

>> ^brycewi19:

You had to cheapen the performance by labeling her as a "cute girl".
How about "talented girl"?


Debbie Downer. As luck would have it I'm not a eunuch. Which I'm thankful for when watching a talented and attractive woman sing a very pleasant song.

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.



<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>

>> ^StimulusMax:

...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

But but but....

The point isn't that you "shouldn't" enjoy the attractive woman, the point was why was it included in the title?

And I get the PC fatigue. The Sift is predominantly male. It is a playground. As much as I would love it, I think it isn't "fair" to expect you to "check your privilege" at all times. That is exhausting and no fun.

And it can be exhausting and no fun to be a woman here. Just a fact.

I think all that can be expected is ... graciousness.

How about this for a plan? We few women and women-friendly men stay mostly quiet about our discomfort (unless something goes too far), and when we snap and finally say something, you guys could just go "oh, I see your point" instead of arguing -- and maybe even, just take 5 minutes and try to see the point. After all, you are surrounded by women all the time. If you took a little time to self-reflect, you might learn something useful.

Or not.

You suggest that men are "intrinsically 'horndogs'," because, like all other animals, we want to pass on our genetic material. I understand how that might explain why we're predisposed to want to mate, but that doesn't explain why it's considered acceptable (or natural) for men to act like "horndogs". What if our society's courtship rituals necessitated a great deal of respect and reverence for the intelligence of those we courted? Acting like a "horndog" would be contrary to the aim of passing on our genetic material.

Let me ask you this: Women, as animals, also have a fundamental desire to pass on their genes. Why, then, in our society*, is it not considered normal for women to act as "horndogs?" (I'm not suggesting women don't lust after men, they of course do. It's not, however, considered socially acceptable** for them to portray that lust in the same manner).

* I use the term society loosely to mean Western Society, but of course there are sub-societies and sub-cultures and we all come from different places.
** Again, a generalization, but I think we can all agree that the portrayal of men as objects of lust occurs much less than women.

EDIT: Furthermore, are you suggesting that men's drive to procreate overrides all other desires? Have we, as a species, not overcome that drive at all? Do we not have alternative pursuits and drives? What about those people who find it satisfactory to leave a legacy though their work, rather than through their children?

EDIT 2: And do you really think that drive to pass on our genetics is sufficient to explain human sexuality? How do you explain people having sex for pleasure? Homosexuality? Birth control? I see so many holes in the biological justification for behaviour.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.

<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>
>> ^StimulusMax:
...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

@StimulusMax - you make very valid points. I think at this stage in the thread, we're diluting the basic point that someone has pointed out - men are visual animals, and in the grand scheme of things, calling a girl "cute" isn't that big of a deal. If a woman were to post a video of a "cute" guy doing this same thing, I (and probably most people) wouldn't get offended, though honestly, it probably would not get a whole lot of votes, simply because the poster emphasized the attractiveness of the guy, making it seem like it's the predominant quality of the video.

Thank-you. I also edited my comment as you were replying.

I don't think it's sufficient to say "what if the tables were turned". It's a completely different context. Angua1's link above illustrates this fallacy. I agree that calling a girl cute is relatively harmless (relative to what?), and given the nature of the sift, where we're encouraged to make our videos as a appealing and watchable as possible in order to win votes, it makes sense that we are going to try to use sex appeal. Can you, however, acknowledge that it must be frustrating for women to always be judged through the lens of their appearance and sexual desirability, rather than for the skills and talents that they have worked hard to cultivate? This girl's routine should be enough to impress us, regardless of her "cuteness".

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax - you make very valid points. I think at this stage in the thread, we're diluting the basic point that someone has pointed out - men are visual animals, and in the grand scheme of things, calling a girl "cute" isn't that big of a deal. If a woman were to post a video of a "cute" guy doing this same thing, I (and probably most people) wouldn't get offended, though honestly, it probably would not get a whole lot of votes, simply because the poster emphasized the attractiveness of the guy, making it seem like it's the predominant quality of the video.

@StimulusMax -yes I can. And I didn't read that article. Is there a tl;dr version?

I'm intrinsically a hotdog.

"Cute" gets the votes. There is no shame in that.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The dupe was entitled "Cup Music is Awesome!"

How the frig does anyone DO THAT? Top stuff... great voice, nice song, talented fricken cup noises

As for the arguments about the title. I almost didn't even watch this because it was yet another bloody video with 'cute girl... ' in the title. I too hate that she is reduced to being cute just for the votes.

But I'm glad I watched, because besides the dick title it was a great vid

I never realized how satisfying it is to tip the first social domino.