Yeah, so, uhm, *quality *doublepromote.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, July 28th, 2010 8:55pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Buttocks, Ruth Hogben, Slowmotion Spankings' to 'Buttocks, Ruth Hogben, Slowmotion Spankings, bewbs, TnA' - edited by gwiz665

It's black and white so that makes it art right?

I don't care what you think..... I'm upvoting.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

It's black and white so that makes it art right?


Congratulations, here's your degree from Columbia Upstairs Art College!

Well I can now officially die a happy man.

The internet is for art.

This is porn.

And I am upvoting it.

There I said it.

Actually, I'm going to throw this into the *discuss pile because I just had a very interesting thought:

The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.

I actually find this video both more artful AND more pornographic than the chick in car with tits video which brings me to the conclusion that "art" and "pornography" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.

This brings me to my next question: The sift rule on porn seem to imply that as long as it has some artistic or educational merit, it is okay. By that logic, I'm kind of the mind that this should be okay, but on the other hand it does seem to open up a potential barrel of porn monkeys if we say out loud that artful porn is a-ok...

... so what do people think? I'm kinda on the fence leaning towards saying yes, because frankly this video is just full of awesome.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by ponceleon.

It's fine. I'm here with two women who have no problem with it at all.

I don't have time to really discuss this right now but I'll say the altered time had a big influence on me wanting to sift this. If it was just two chicks spanking each other in real time, that would be lame. The slow motion effect is what does it for me.

I'm here and I'm ok with it.
>> ^Deano:

It's fine. I'm here with two women who have no problem with it at all.

>> ^ponceleon:

Actually, I'm going to throw this into the discuss pile because I just had a very interesting thought:
The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.
I actually find this video both more artful AND more pornographic than the chick in car with tits video which brings me to the conclusion that "art" and "pornography" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.
This brings me to my next question: The sift rule on porn seem to imply that as long as it has some artistic or educational merit, it is okay. By that logic, I'm kind of the mind that this should be okay, but on the other hand it does seem to open up a potential barrel of porn monkeys if we say out loud that artful porn is a-ok...
... so what do people think? I'm kinda on the fence leaning towards saying yes, because frankly this video is just full of awesome.


You make an interesting point. As it stands in the US now, pornography is illegal because of obscenity laws. That is the reason for porn plot, because a video of nothing but sex could be brought up on obscenity charges. Porn is still made on the basis it is an "Art" movie that has sex in it. And as you point out, are and pron aren't mutually exclusive. However, you could just have an understanding that pron, without any artistic merit, isn't allowed. This creates a gray area and becomes very arbitrary, but might be one of the only solutions that doesn't involve over censoring, or opening the flood gates of pron trolling.

On that note, I thought the video was kind of neat, mainly because of the slow motion shock waves rippling across the buttock. Hard to show that without some kind of nudity. I know there exists a sexual fetish based around spankings, but this didn't seem to fit in that category of video.

This is not porn, not at all. It is nudity and it's sexuality, but porn? No way.

I don't see any dudes, so it's cool with me!

I'm cool with this. Of course, if dag ultimately absolutely HAS to take it down due to advertisers' requests, I'm fine (although less so) with it, too.

I find pretty much two definitions of pornography no matter where I look.

The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.

Obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

>> ^ponceleon:
The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.


Where may we view this other video for... umm, research?

I agree with your first point, but when you get into "artistic merit" is where you've gone over the cliff. We cannot, I repeat, cannot have aesthetic taste police and still think we possess the right to freedom of expression.

>> ^jimnms:

I find pretty much two definitions of pornography no matter where I look.

The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.

Oh, it's like deja vu all over again.

So yeah, I'm going to *return this. I think the consensus so far is that it's risqué but not outright porn. @volumptuous is right about artistic merit as well. As soon as we get into judging what is art and what isn't, we're gonna have a sea of different opinions.

On the "I know it when I see it" scale, this isn't porn for 99 % of people.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by gwiz665.

I think I just upvoted with all of my heart....vox populi est vox dei....God sez this isn't porn, and who am I to argue with God?

For the record, I'm not voting down because I think this is porn or because I'm a prude or anything like that; I just didn't like the video.

Why is a woman's opinion on whether or not something is porn more important than a man's opinion?

Someone always says or alludes to this being the case in every one of these debates I've ever seen.

>> ^Deano:

It's fine. I'm here with two women who have no problem with it at all.

This is incredible!
I love how the ripples from her tush translated across her body into a head toss.

It's not. I'm providing a range of opinion, from a man (moi) to two other individuals (women).

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Why is a woman's opinion on whether or not something is porn more important than a man's opinion?
Someone always says or alludes to this being the case in every one of these debates I've ever seen.
>> ^Deano:
It's fine. I'm here with two women who have no problem with it at all.

I also marveled at the ripples emanating from the but spank. Look again, they took almost as long to travel up as it took the girl to react to the spank.
Did I just write this? [8]

I came here to see the pressure wave on a rump, as a result of a moving object hitting it.

You see. The Riding Crop is moved at an arc towards the target area, at a variable speed controlled by the swinging mechanism. In this case, the Dom. When the Riding Crop makes contact with the rump, resulting in a compression* wave is a marvel to be seen only in slow motion.

Note @cybrbeast observation that the compression wave, caused by Crop impact, is intense at first until the the end when the wave loses it's intensity and dies. Think of it like taking a slinky, placing it on a flat surface lengthwise, and then compressing one end to the other. You can see the wave pulse through the slinky causing each end to bounce as the wave moves from one end to the other.

All of this takes place quicker than the eye can see. Therefore, this was a scientific exhibition of the resulting dynamics of Riding Crop vs a nice rump.

Science can oft be seen as Art.

Edit: After further review, maybe it's not a compression wave. It's more like a spherical transverse wave. Like the wave seen when someone drops a pebble into a pond.


You know what? I can't tell whether it's a spherical transverse wave, or a mixture of both transverse and longitudinal. I guess I'll have to watch it again.

This is something I can stand behind and take a whack at it.

*FAP

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Just to get this straight- it's the fact that we don't have porn here that makes everybody want to push the limit?

Is VideoSift like a woman who is more sexy with her clothes on than completely nude?

Oh yeah, smack dat ass!

Art. Definitely art.

I think this is art too but I didn't post it to the sift.

...like DAAAYYUMN dat's HOT!

Meh. Not hard enough.

I have a photographer friend that said to me "The difference between art and porn is the way you light the scene." Of course, some B&W and slow motion can't hurt either.

Notice how well everything is framed, the good taste in wardrobe, the game of domination between the two actresses. The nudity becomes an essential part of the message, not a cheap add-on like the Tie and CPR stunts.

So my vote is art.

It all comes down to this, imho: Define Porn

Artists can get away with anything. It's so not fair.

I have found the ultimate 'is it porn?' test - ask the wife. If she starts yelling at me, it's porn. If not, it's art.

It's pretty much impossible for it to be porn imo, porn is like a fix, if it's delivered in slow motion you'd need to jerk off in slow motion.

So definitely art!

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by NetRunner.

Obscenity

A. Miller Test (Miller v. California 1973)
1. The work as a whole appeals to the prurient (see sexual arousal) interest of the average person [prurient appeal].
2. It depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way [patent offensive].
3. And it lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value [LAPS value].

B. Patent Offensiveness
1. Patently offensive representations of the ultimate sex act, actual or simulated, normal or perverted.
2. Patently offensive representations of masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibitions of genitals.

C. Community Standards
1. First Amendment doesn't very from community to community.
2. But, a national standard of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness is not practical.
3. Jurors may apply local standards in determining these factors.

D. Community Standards - LAPS
1. Whether a work lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value must be decided by a reasonable-person standard, not local community standards.
2. The value of the work does not vary from one community to another even though its prurient appeal and patent offensiveness might.

*promote *controversy

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, July 29th, 2010 5:16pm PDT - promote requested by MrFisk.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

faaaaaaaaaap faaaaaaaaaap faaaaaaaaaap (bionic sounds)

Anatomy and physics, but not porn.

Wait...I guess porn would fall under anatomy and physics too, huh?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

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

C'est magnifique...adorable vidéo..Bravo à l'auteur....c'est mouillant...hummm