Both taken from the post you sent back from discussion. It was staying there because there's no advertisements and therefore in a form of "Limbo". The sponsors names aren't associated with anything to do in sift talk, and therefore cannot pull their funding. You, therefore, decided to not return it to vote, but then doublepromote to put it straight up on front page. After dag said it's staying in sift talk.


>> ^dag:
Yes. Censorship. Let's go there. You might as well invoke Hitler too- it seems that's the direction your hyperbole is heading.
In fact, the fate of this group masturbation video may validate or destroy Democracy in the western world as we know it. We must choose wisely!
Anywhooo ... I've offered to leave this in Sift Talk where you can visit it as much as you want - tell your friends, too! Post it to Facebook- we can't cover up this awesome masterpiece of video journalism. Power to the people and keep up the good fight against wicked censorship ... my liberty loving brothers and sisters.
>>


>> ^dag:
I'm not sure on your definition of "most people". Your sample size might be a bit small.
Yes, I do think sponsors will object to this post- it's hurt us before:
http://blog.videosift.com/dag/Kicked-out-of-an-Australian-Ad-Network
http://www.videosift.com/video/AHHH-Cmon-Fu
ck-A-Guy-Worst-Rap-Lyrics-Ever?loadcomm=1#comment-494318
It's great to take a moral stand- but I'd like to continue to be able to pay the server bills- and consistently uphold the guidelines for this site that have been in place since February of 2006.

only if you dont spike it with a roofie like last time, the kids are home this weekend.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
blah blah blah blah blah blah
whoosh i'm spent

need a red bull?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

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

By promoting this to the front page of the Sift- I think some damage has been done to our little community. I know you've been following the discussions on this stuff. Hobbled until we figure this out.

In reply to this comment by brain:
*promote

...and smells like soy sauce.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Don't touch it! It might give you cancer!



I initially wanted to go with "It'll go off in your hair", but I toned it down... and yet I couldn't help but put it down here anyway! In reply to this comment by Drax:
This is the most dangerous sift... EVER!

Heh, fair enough. I didn't mean to be patronizing.. it just came so naturally.

Well, I think I almost completely agree in that definition. There's plenty of other content that intends to arouse the viewer without actually being porn though, a reading of an erotic novel, commercials (usually beer commercials) and such all intends to arouse the view, but should not be considered porn either.

To be pornography, it should contain two things: 1) the intention to arouse the viewer 2) actual sexual content.

A woman suggestively eating a banana isn't porn. Elderly (or younger) women sitting in a circle masturbating is certainly skating the borders of it, even it it's framed as if not to arouse - but instead be hilarious. It's all a big gray area. I'm not certain dag and lucky actually meant pornography when they wrote it in the faq though, it's basically just to keep sexually explicit content to a minimum (I think). And this is certainly pretty explicit.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

Don't touch it! It might give you cancer!



I initially wanted to go with "It'll go off in your hair", but I toned it down... and yet I couldn't help but put it down here anyway! In reply to this comment by Drax:
This is the most dangerous sift... EVER!

I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

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

Yes, you're such a rebel. Way to stick it to the man Thinker.

And yes @PeggedBea- he's obviously a keeper- love your decision making processes.

>> ^thinker247:
Gee whiz, Mister. I was just followin' the rules like I was supposta'.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
blah blah blah blah blah blah
whoosh i'm spent

need a red bull?

>> ^kulpims:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://dag.videosift.com" title="member since February 16th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 136, 0);">dag: i know you're concerned about sponsors and all that shit and i understand your point of view, i think. enough to know it's useless to debate this any further cause you're gonna discard it anyway.
just a few words though: what happened to majority rule? i thought we don't need administrators to tell us what content is acceptable and what is not. why not let votes decide the issue of porn or no porn? besides you and your girlfriend lucky i only see 2 guys here who think this video is too shocking for the general public - sheppard and choggs (a big fuck you to both of them). for me this is an issue of freedom of expression and i'm sorry to see choggie fight against it as I've always supported his bloody right to express himself on VS in his unique and often misunderstood way. my position on the matter is clear as always - censorship sucks and never works out



While I didn't go back and count, you're already off by at least half. Dag and I don't think this is Siftworthy, either. Since I've been here, this has been unacceptable content for this site. It's not the subject matter. It's not that it's an argument from prudishness. This stuff has always been available . . . somewhere else.

Four years ago, my brother recommended this site to me because it was a place where he could allow his kids come to as well without fear of them accessing the more racy side of the web. While that opportunity has long gone by the wayside as the Sift has been largely adultified with language, sex and violence, I don't agree that we need to abridge the rest of the graphic visual library of the Internet as well. We've already had this discussion regarding snuff and it is not allowed. We've also had this discussion regarding explicit adult content. There are other places for that. Just not here.

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

I'm not sure on your definition of "most people". Your sample size might be a bit small.

Yes, I do think sponsors will object to this post- it's hurt us before:
http://blog.videosift.com/dag/Kicked-out-of-an-Australian-Ad-Network

http://www.videosift.com/video/AHHH-Cmon-Fuck-A-Guy-Worst-Rap-Lyrics-Ever?loadcomm=1#comment-494318

It's great to take a moral stand- but I'd like to continue to be able to pay the server bills- and consistently uphold the guidelines for this site that have been in place since February of 2006.



>> ^kulpims:
@dag: MOST people here don't seem to find this video inappropriate and don't feel the need to discard it. i'm aware we must follow certain rules regarding site content, but there's no need to invoke one in this particular case (unless you own this site and are afraid potential sponsors might object to such content). you accuse me of being a drama queen, but you're afraid this harmless parody might jeopardize the future of VS? get some balls, man. yeah, almost forgot: hitler! there

I'm a trend-setter.

In fairness to the video I posted, I'm very well aware that that one is skating the edges of porn-land, that's part of the reason I posted it. Before that I posted http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-orgasm-explicit (very nfsw) which eventually got discarded as porn. I think arguably both could have passed, but the latter is clearly "worse", ie. more pornographic. I think the above video is a little bit more pornographic as well. The reason the "ins and outs" video is not porn, is that it's clearly not about getting anyone off, even though it might (you pervs..).

Like snuff, the porn definition of videosift is not wholly identical with the dictionary version, and that's fine, just a bit confusing at times.

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^berticus:
i'm incredibly disappointed, and torn.
on the one hand i think it's so unbelievably cool to see a video of "older" women learning to enjoy sexual experience so uninhibitedly.
on the other, the fact that it's an EIT video just shows that most people think this is something shocking or revolting and therefore relegated to humour.
i was cheering for those old girls right up until the spirity wafty nonsense at the end.
but worst of all is reading the comments here, save for pb's.
there is already a fuckton of 'porn' on this site. most of the guys here (and some ladies) vote up videos that serve no purpose other than sexual stimulation. so what is the line that separates those kept from those discarded? because it doesn't seem to be anything well defined. it just seems like the boys club gets together and grunts appreciation or not.
well fuck that.

I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.
Nothing educational, or nothing that you can see on a basic cable channel. Again, i did my own search. The worst I could find was from Gwiz, something to the tune of "Explaining the vagina" with a live subject. Everything else was either clothed, or educational (I.e. you could see the same pictures in a medical textbook.)
The content isn't there. Friday nights on cable t.v. you can see soft core porn movies, played out more artfully then porn, and the most you'll see is maybe a boob, and a couple thrusting motions.
So, go on. Find me a video of this quality. Something showing explicit sexual stimulation, leaving absolutely nothing up to the imagination.

It seems that we're arguing somewhat different points here. On the one hand, it feels like Peggedbea and Berticus says that since the video is from/by EIT, it's implicitly and explicitly a parody and should be viewed in that context. And since it is a parody by that definition, the content should be viewed to amuse and not to titillate.
On the other hand, the definition of porn and the actual depiction in the video is what I think Shepppard is highlighting. The gender of the people in the video is irrelevant to the discussion, as is the label and desired reception, because the actual content of this sift is pornographic in nature. There are probably a hundred scenes from any given porn film that could be edited together to make a compilation like the one we're discussing, but I think Shepppard wanted to point out that the scenes themselves make that compilation inappropriate for this venue, regardless of how it was designed to be received.

Personally, I don't find Bill Hicks or Andy Kaufman funny for the sole reason of them being labeled as comedy. If someone is crass, rude and offensive, they're not funnier to me by just labeling themselves as parody.