Yeah, it is getting out of hand. And if you actually read, thepinky is not calling out your girlfriend. She's just saying she finds it offensive and wishes it wouldn't be there. If it was an attack as you claim, you wouldn't be the only one that said something along those lines. This is a debate over whether it is objectifying women, not whether it should've been posted.

As far as your girlfriend goes, that was the lowest possible blow she could've dealt. You and she may not care, but because of that, she will never have my respect, and I'm sure several people here agree.

In reply to this comment by Zonbie:
>> ^direpickle:
^LadyDeath:
Wow, that was really uncalled for.


This is getting outta hand

ThePinky - stop singling out LadyDeath for posting Burlesque - its not porn. I am getting sick of people objecting to art because its offensive. It's NSFW because some may find it inappropriate - erotica has existed for centuries - if you find it offensive then don't watch but singling out one user for posting it is not right.

Videosift is not policing its content because that would daage the sift, but individuals can block content if they wish.

Also, it's insulting to Dita to say she is being exploited; its her art and profession.
You could argue she exploits the carnal instincts of her audience - but thats a different story.

>> ^direpickle:
^LadyDeath:
Wow, that was really uncalled for.


This is getting outta hand

ThePinky - stop singling out LadyDeath for posting Burlesque - its not porn. I am getting sick of people objecting to art because its offensive. It's NSFW because some may find it inappropriate - erotica has existed for centuries - if you find it offensive then don't watch but singling out one user for posting it is not right.

Videosift is not policing its content because that would daage the sift, but individuals can block content if they wish.

Also, it's insulting to Dita to say she is being exploited; its her art and profession.
You could argue she exploits the carnal instincts of her audience - but thats a different story.

Laura you scroundrel! lol yes I wanted to post her congrats 100 message
but you beat me to it

so
2months 1week 100 star points
wooh, thats a lotta posts

should point out that 95% of LadyD's stars are from sifted videos thats a lots of quality posts right there!

congrats sweetie

look forward to all your next posts as always, you're my favourite sifter

everyone have a look at LadyD's Personnal Queue there is some great stuff there

Some of my all time favourite sifts (in no particular order)

Wizard Of Oz Set To Pink Floyd
Quality first sift!

Dita Von Teese Martini Performance
Dita, showing us how burlesque is done (NSFW)

Keeping It Real On The Phone
Always. Keep it real.

World In Conflict : Soviet Assault
Computer Game Cinematic - I could not post this

Awesome Music!
Enslaved - Path To Vanir Great Song and one of my favourites

So - congrats again honey keep sifting!

QUICK! Someone call Dita Von Teese and tell her that someone on the internet knows what's best for her and thinks that she's being exploited. This woman is obviously misguided in her principles and should not be allowed the right to think for herself!

I don't believe our sexual orientation dictates our likeness towards forms, there are many male forms that males find appealing as well, in the creation of role models of physique especially.

I would disagree on pulling in classical art into this, what you are talking about is the classical view of the perfected man. The best example is Michelangelo's own statue of David. If you look at that piece you will find that it's entirely manipulated to create an appealing form. The head, arms and hands are enlarged, the physique is manipulated as well as the genitalia itself, the entire body follows golden ratio principles. It's basically a facade of reality.

Furthermore my response was mostly to do with adressing Pinky's question of why we don't see men exploited in this way. We do in the chip n' dale dancers but you will find their standards of form are more restrictive then say female strip clubs. Because as I said the base male form is not as appealing as the female form.

>> ^dag:
Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.
>> ^Farhad2000:
The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.
The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU.

And my thoughts on Dita Von Teese's burlesque can be found here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dita-Von-Teese-New-Orleans-Burlesque-StripTease-Performance#comment-464035

Since there is no standard definition for pornography, I'll simply offer mine:

Pornography is more than just objectification and arousal, but it's also about exploitation. In most porn you see women being controlled by men, being nothing more than sex toys. Women's heads are pushed down onto the genitals so they'll give blowjobs, or men ejaculate onto their faces, butts, or breasts, or they are gangbanged, or they are depicted in subservient roles like maids or secretaries who are really there to please their bosses. So they are the inferiors to males, basically.

Obviously we don't see any exploitation aspect to this video, because firstly there are no men in her act, and secondly Dita is in control. She's not giving lap dances or hustling for dollar bills on a stage. She's doing the entire dance to her own choreography, and we're simply left to watch. Sure, she is arousing, and she's also allowing herself to be objectified, but she's not being exploited in any way. (In fact it is my understanding that Dita Von Teese has been careful to control the copyrights to most of her images, that way she'll make herself wealthy, and not some man.) All three conditions (objectification, arousal, exploitation) need to be met for me to call it porn. Instead I would label this as "erotica," which is a subtle but important distinction.

Just one man's opinion, and I'm not looking to sway anyone to my way of thinking.

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

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>>
Yeah, well, Michelangelo liked weiners.


That's my point. His concept of beauty was formed by his sexuality - and reflected in his artwork. Though admittedly - You don't have to be gay to think David is beautiful.

>> ^dag:
Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.

Yeah, well, Michelangelo liked weiners.

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

Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.
The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU.

Accusing the men of the sites for being sexist probably isn't a good start. The best thing IMO would be for the women to post more videos that would appeal to other women. Oh wait, that's stereotyping and not all women like womenly things. Damn, it looks like we can't breathe without seeming sexist. (Sorry, I just really hate feminists. All talk no walk. Worst then Door to Door Mormons because they have an offensive attitude about it. Atleast most of them.) I treat women like human beings. Just because A MALE human enjoys a FEMALE human in a burlesque that no one is forcing her to do (See http://www.videosift.com/video/Dita-Von-Teese-New-Orleans-Burlesque-StripTease-Performance ) or any other situation where a woman is portrayed in a sexual nature of any way shape of form, does not mean that man is being sexist. Just because there are leads roles of the male nature in movies from Hollywood, does not mean all men are sexist. Just because men are interested in beautiful women does not make a man sexist. Men like women. Women like men. Women like women. Men like men. That's just how it is.

Finally, I'll give a word of advice. If you want to point out how wrong our world is because it is run by men, by all means, do so. But don't sit here and blame a casual internet viewer of videos of being sexist, because that's not where the problem lies. Most people on this site are above average intelligence. It's like that for a reason. Give us the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming everyone here is an asshole for objectifying women, and give us the right to speak our minds. "That chick is hot." Is a completely acceptable reply to the viewing of a beautiful female body. By ANY gender.

Hm, I go to sleep, and I wake up to all of this...
well I think its all been said, this isn't porn - and it does not objectify women - in fact its a good example of art against porn - its just a shame some people think if you show your boobs or the full exposed shape of your body its porn

LadyD says if you don't like don't watch - sounds good to me
I know thumbnail is a bit dodgey - but she isn't actully naked (unlike, I should say - some videos on the sift)

Nothing wrong with naked though and it does not automatically make something porn!

oh and ThePinky, arguing that some men said they perceived woman as objects, does not still make this porn, or objectify Dita. Naked body dancing - doesn't equal porn, not now, not tomorrow not ever.

Art is beauty, and something to be appreciated, this is erotica; not porn, erotica tells a story or explores an idea, it can use the human body, porn is performing explicit sex acts - meant to arouse sexual interest in the reader.

>> ^thepinky:
You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.
To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.
I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.


If you think this is porn, I think you really have issues.

The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.

The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU. Both men and women enjoy seeing female form more then the male form, because the female form represents beauty in the arts, and in very essence it is beautiful.

A celebration of that form is not pornographic.

Burlesque is about fantasy, its art, its about the exploration of carnal desires not their fulfillment. Pornography on the other hand is not, its literally about the physical act of sex, its the act more then the fantasy itself.

This feeds into the way carnal desires work on a psychological level.

We enjoy watching erotic films, romantic novels, romantic movies or stuff like this because there is a framework of fantasy at work, we create an emotional resonance that leads into the sexual act. Most of the people in that audience watch a show like this and go home and fuck like rabbits. Because it feeds that fantasy, we look at our partner and want to do all kinds of kinky things to them.

That's why Victoria Secret sales are so strong.

People get bored of making 'love' and intimacy, because it doesn't work like Disney in the real world. You need to create spice in your sex life, love and intimacy is about the first year or so of being in love, after that you need to work to have a good sex life, sexual fulfillment is just as much a issue of a relationship as communication.

Psychologically when we are with our partners we often have a very different view of them then the reality of them, in essence we desire them for a fantasy perspective we possess of them linked to created concept we have based on time spent together, desire, interests and that unquantifiable aspect of love. Psychologists assume this is necessary for monotony and the actual act of sex.

Others enjoy pornography because its the fulfillment of that fantasy being fast forward devoid of emotion to the act of sex itself. However without a level of fantasy the act of sex degrades to one of physical perversion. How many times have you seen porn or been fucking and had a Epiphany of oh my god this looks horrid. Because it does. Its a very animalistic base act of fulfillment. We dress it up alot with all kinds of concepts but at the end of the day it's as raw as watching two dogs humping. This is why porn has to create some basic level of fantasy, even if its crude and stupid, the girl next door, the frisky teacher, the plumber and so on and so forth. You will find that the best porn actually is more erotica then porn.

With regards to your idea that porn tears apart marriages.

Its a ridiculous concept. I personally believe in our modern, fast paced, everything at your finger tips, your needs met by company X world both men and women have unrealistic expectations of their partners.

Women desire heroic characters with a soft inner shell that can make chicken soup for you. Men desire a slave worker cook whose a harlot in the bedroom.

Pornography is not infidelity, its the release of sexual desire that is persistent in the man nature, by nature we are built to fuck as many things as possible to seed our DNA code. That's nature and God designed. I seen alot of couples deal with this in the long term by fantasizing or spicing up their sex lives, they love one another but that initial spark and heat is gone, something they need to work at to get back. Going to burlesque shows or strip clubs together or watching soft core or filming themselves or dressing up or kinky things and eventually exploring their own sexuality. There is reason swingers clubs and the such exist, because people sometimes love to be together but seek to explore themselves sexually or other people with their partners.

At the same time I have seen many people being paralyzed by sex, being utterly frighted of it, because of some silly indoctrination they received when they were younger. Unable to satisfy themselves and eventually their partners because they were essentially sexually suppressed.

I could go on and on but I really think your concepts of what is porn and sexuality is based around misjudged postulations of a religious framework. We lived in several cycles of religious control of sexuality all of them showed it is a facade that tried to suppress what is essentially our nature. While sex and or booze isn't so much an issue now, its more about homosexuality which is basically love.

Remember Alfred Kinsey's research and work changed the way we looked at sexuality in the 1930s enabling the 60s sexual revolution, which was connected with free love, female empowerment, and the coming of the pill.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

>> ^thepinky:
If this video were an artistic dance celebrating the beauty of the male body, say, if he had a jewel hanging off the end of his penis, would you still think it was art? Would you have upvoted? Don't try to say it isn't erotic. It is sexual material created purely for arousal. That's called porn.
Sex is great. Let's keep it off the Sift like we're supposed to.


You sound like the worst kind...an oppressor. Lets all live in shame and disgust when looking at the human form. What about the pictures of jesus wearing nothing but a cloth covering his crotch...sounds a little erotic by your standards. The worst part of this is that she is not even naked, and doesn't do anything but walk back and forth with a giant balloon. You want to talk about objectifying women, give a little more depth in your reasoning. Fight for the women in 3rd world countries being sold as sex slaves,or being castrated, not someone who is agreeing to the terms of their sexuality.

Women like you are the ones who objectify women as you think of them in those terms and tag anyone with an open sexuality a slut or promiscuous.

You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.

To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.

I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
I don't agree with the idea that this is an objectification of women.
This woman lives off of taking advantage of a the carnal weakness of some men and woman. She is not an object, she is an entrepreneur and good for her for finding her niche, exploiting it, and getting rich.
I'm sorry, I just don't think we should have to live up to the twisted standards of the sexually repressed and frustrated. Enjoy your bodies while you can! They are beautiful and one of few sources of joy in the hard world.
But be safe of course