I guarantee no one who makes "lesbian porn" has any doubt who it's made for.

It's not porn-for-lesbians, it's porn for people who like watching girls go at it. Whether or not they're realistically portrayed lesbians has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It's fantasy for people with no imagination.

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?"

The man loves his bikes!

This is nowhere near porn. This is like a beer commercial. Mark it *nsfw and move on.

Edit: Having now watched it properly, I'm gonna recant the "nowhere near porn". It's not really porn though, we've had worse on here. Most of it sifted by me.
>> ^Hybrid:

As a bike enthusiast, I didn't even notice the girls until you guys pointed them out. This is not porn.

As a bike enthusiast, I didn't even notice the girls until you guys pointed them out. This is not porn.

If that's not porn, then the definition of porn must be far more nuanced than I realized.

This is erotica, not porn.

And yes, I am saying that with a straight face.

I'm just sad it's not porn ads. Hot girls near my area always want to chat.

Watching it again with notes.
Single * are what he says, double ** are what I respond.
*Dopamine is released for novelty - aka new girls/guys.
*No control group, since everyone watches porn.
*Doctors thinks people who like porn, have ADD and related things.
*Internet porn is as different from sex, as video games from checkers.
*Porn is addictive, because of our built-in reward system (dopamine, binge mechanism).
*Excessive addiction, leads to brain changes (other pleasures numbed, hyper reactive to porn, willpower erosion) like all other addictions.
*"Reddit effect" constant novelty is addicting.
*He talks about a voluntary control group of people who voluntarily give up internet porn. I have issues with this.
** In people who voluntarily give up internet porn, there will often be other factors leading to this; say a wife that hates it and influence the man to also hate it. Or some bad experience might turn a person off it. My point is, that he assumes that there's only one variable changes from the rest of the people, and that's not really true, since many other factors play into it, since something caused the willing rejection of internet porn. It's not a true control group.
** Overuse of porn desensitizes the brain, stopping the use returns the sensitivity. This makes sense. This is like any other addiction, this does not say anything about whether or not porn is bad, it says overuse/addiction to porn is bad. I agree with that.

He wants us to not be addicted to porn. This does not speak against anything I've said in this thread.

*isdupe>> ^Stingray:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Not-porn

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Not-porn

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Stingray. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

this is not porn. call it erotic art