im sorry you all can talk after watching that?? jaw dropped... and slightly aroused... no words

It could be as simple as he knocked the thing over, or sneezed, or a cat jumped up onto the table. But yeah, cuts are going to arouse suspicion in a video like this. He should have reshot the whole thing instead.

To have the horn is that feeling you get when you are aroused and looking for sex. You can also say that you are feeling horny. For example. "cor blimey gunva, I just took a gander at 'er garters and it's given me the right horn it 'as." Although I have never heard it being used for the penis it is more about the feeling.

Oh My Gawd! Women get aroused too?
Who would have thunk???


... He's just figuring this out now..., after like, what is he? 100 years old?

Well, I'm aroused.

Something comes!
Not from the grave,
But from beyond.

No!
Nothing can save,
You from beyond.

If this were more about "Behind the scenes of a photo shoot" or something, perhaps I'd be more inclined to say it can stay, but as @luxury_pie pointed out, it's described solely as "sexy moments," which means the video's "sole intent is to cause sexual arousal."

This is definitiely not porn as I understand porn.

For arguing purposes here again, THOSE rules:

"VideoSift does not allow videos containing explicit sexual content. If such a video is submitted, it will be promptly removed and the submitter may be subject to a temporary or permanent ban.

"Explicit sexual content" is defined on VideoSift as gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature lacking any reasonable artistic and educational merit, implying its sole intent is to cause sexual arousal."

It's not solely about porn. It's about content. As the title says: "Whiteleys Sexiest Moments" I vote for removing this.

I don't think you should transpose how you feel the sift should be (not just you but in general)...it's not an individual's call. As far as pornography...as somebody that looks at it every day, not joking here, I masturbate to internet porn daily so I'm kind of a connoisseur, this is not porn. Would I show it to my mother? no. Then again, that's me. I would say this does walk some sort of line. Some might claim "slippery slope" others might cry "CENSORSHIP!" and both sides will be right and wrong at the same time.

What is a sure thing, though, keeping this on videosift won't change anything. The controversy will die off by Tuesday and it'll all be forgotten until it'll used as precedence in the next debate about some overtly provocative advertisement. Also I wouldn't view Vimeo as a propagator of pornography, so in some cases I think it's ok to use one of our accepted video hosts as a proxy for posting criterion.

[edit] no disrespect by the first part, I was speaking towards everybody here >> ^spoco2:

>> ^pumkinandstorm:
Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.
The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.

The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

>> ^messenger:

"Explicit sexual content" is defined on VideoSift as gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature lacking any reasonable artistic and educational merit, implying its sole intent is to cause sexual arousal." -- Da rules.
We're not prudes here, so 4 of those don't count of lack of proper nudity, and Girl in a Toyota is funny and has a story. Britta crosses the line and should also be discussed. If it had been discussed and approved already, you'd have a point.

Ok, I could see how this could be in violation of "da rule" now that I read it again. I still can't call this porn, though. If I was looking for porn and someone said, "Here, watch this.", I'd say, "No, I'm serious..."

But, if this is a violation, so is Supra girl. They both have the exact same "story": Once upon a time there was some titties. Buy our shit. The end.

" "Explicit sexual content" is defined on VideoSift as gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature lacking any reasonable artistic and educational merit, implying its sole intent is to cause sexual arousal." -- Da rules.

We're not prudes here, so 4 of those don't count of lack of proper nudity, and Girl in a Toyota is funny and has a story. Britta crosses the line and should also be * discussed. If it had been discussed and approved already, you'd have a point.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^messenger:
Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?
And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.
They all work for me, but that's neither here nor there.
On the point of "single-purpose fap material"...
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Huh-Title-Just-a-minute
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Girl-in-a-To
yota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goe
s-topless-in-Choke
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Kate-Upton-The-Many-Talents
-of-Kate-Upton
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Hot-Girl-Dancing-Around-in-H
er-Underwear
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-B
ETTER-than-Japanese-game-shows
I can't call this video enjoyable for any reason but that's also neither here nor there, IMO.
I like the line to be clear as well, but it never is. It depends who submits, who complains, what day it is, which way the wind is blowing, etc. I just can't justifiably call this pornographic; certainly no more so than any of those accepted videos above.

i find that a,b or c cups with large nipples quite arousing.
In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Thanks! I wanted a double D at first, but my surgeon told me it would be too much for my frame.
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
congrats on the big d!

I think this has a lot to do with zeitgeist as well. The market for degrading porn is there, so it gets produced. There are different ways to quell it, like outlawing, or affecting the market in some way. Essentially, we would want to make people want the "good stuff" and not want the "bad stuff", but this is a problem with all sorts of things.

Some places, like denmark, have a "fat tax", to make people eat more healthy. You can also subsidize healthy food/porn from a government perspective. Alternatively, you need someone high in the industry that says "fuck this, we're only making good things now" like a steve jobs of porn. Heh.

When peoples' tastes change, the market changes with it. It's a shame that we're being driven towards wilder and wilder stuff, but I'm not sure what it takes to push back.
>> ^spoco2:

@gwiz665
I agree that the 'control group' isn't really one, as it is, as you said, severely skewed, it's just the best he had to work with.
I haven't looked at the studies at all, but you would think they could do ones that looked at frequency of porn use vs affects. They said they couldn't find anyone who didn't use it, but there sure as hell will be big differences between the amount people do.
And surely they could have a trial where they prescribe the amount of porn watched, and types for a period of time.
All of these things can be done even without a 'clean' control group.
So yeah, it seems like there isn't 'good' data on this.
But I certainly dislike the way that porn is so mainstream, and so anti female now. If you look hard enough you can find pockets of porn where everyone in it is respected and you see her feelings and arousal being addressed as well as his, but it's rare. There's far more 'Bangbus' and 'drunk coeds' shit.
I'd love to know a way to swing porn back to the respectful side of the spectrum, so that when people did just random porn searches, more often than not they saw real looking people having loving sex.... but I have no idea how that could ever be done.

@gwiz665

I agree that the 'control group' isn't really one, as it is, as you said, severely skewed, it's just the best he had to work with.

I haven't looked at the studies at all, but you would think they could do ones that looked at frequency of porn use vs affects. They said they couldn't find anyone who didn't use it, but there sure as hell will be big differences between the amount people do.

And surely they could have a trial where they prescribe the amount of porn watched, and types for a period of time.

All of these things can be done even without a 'clean' control group.

So yeah, it seems like there isn't 'good' data on this.

But I certainly dislike the way that porn is so mainstream, and so anti female now. If you look hard enough you can find pockets of porn where everyone in it is respected and you see her feelings and arousal being addressed as well as his, but it's rare. There's far more 'Bangbus' and 'drunk coeds' shit.

I'd love to know a way to swing porn back to the respectful side of the spectrum, so that when people did just random porn searches, more often than not they saw real looking people having loving sex.... but I have no idea how that could ever be done.