Yup, You're right... NOT Porn! But it is Softcore and as such doesn't belong here.
Yes we have fully clothed Bewb videos that we up-vote but all in fun.
This does step over the line. It doesn't offend me, but that's not what is being asked here.
Is this suitable as the type of videos we want here - I say no thanks.
If you want to see this stuff, go to liveleak. Allowing it opens the door for all kinds of other stuff.

I say toss the video, keep the discussion for future reference and move forward. Brian doesn't need to be banned, a warning will do. Lets get back to sifting...

Not porn. Skinemax from the early '80's, but not porn.

Now, that being said, is it Sift-worthy? Not particularly, imho. I don't see anything of value in it, other than it being a timestamp of early '80's soft core. If it were being presented as such, then it might have a place. But it's not, so it doesn't. This is more PornBumper material, even though not technically porn from my standpoint.

THIS IS NOT PORN. THIS IS A PARODY VIDEO OF OLD LADIES FROM A REPRESSIVE GENERATION LIBERATING THEMSELVES IN THE MOST RIDICULOUS FASHION. AND FUCKING GOOD FOR THEM.
BRAINS APPOLOGY POST SAID IT BEST
titty babies are traumatized by vaginas that are not attached to porn stars.
the polling system is built into the site. and don't even get me started on the number of videos that got mass amounts of votes for being sexy. even if the content itself wasnt intended to strictly titillate, the reason these videos made it to the top was the male sift brain sexualizing it. there is even a video clip from an actual soft core porn vid, allowed to stay without the fuss.

and the talk of bannings, RIDICULOUS.

This is a perfect benchmark. This can be the limit with which anything more can be considered porn or with which any less could be considered not porn.

Play your cards wisely.

Hmm. The porn / not porn argument seems a tad arbitrary. At the current point in my life, this isn't porn for me (rather the opposite). However, I seem to recall a time in my life when I didn't have cable or satellite TV, the internet hadn't been invented yet (at least not on the consumer level), and I had no older siblings or other sources of more traditional pornography, so the lingerie section of the Sears catalog filled that niche for me (no Victoria's Secret either).

That isn't really an argument that this is porn, or even that it might be porn (presumably to a ...uh... more mature lesbian or heterosexual male audience). I won't make an argument on whether or not I think this "belongs" on the sift, but I'll say that clearly we're well into the slippery part of the slippery slope.

It's not porn, because it's not meant to titillate or stimulate sexually. My instinct tells me this would pass the dag wood test (tm) with flying colors too...

My opinion: Not porn because I perceive the intent as comedic rather than sexual. Still though:

*sexuality

Hehe, the only reason this is not porn is that it's *vintage... and we see more hardcore stuff on news-stands.

>> ^schmawy:
Very difficult to masturbate to, but I managed. Good Sift.


God among men.

I think it's yet another one of those annoying pornos where they have a heap of 'proper' content wrapped around the porn. So rather than doing what it's supposed to, which is turn you (and your partner if there) on, it instead keeps interrupting with a 'real' movie. Except they're always bad 'real' movies... so all you get is bits you want to fast forward.

And even if they're half decent... you watch normal movies for that, not porn.

Instead of this trend of higher budgets and better production values for porn (not that this is an example of a high budget, I was thinking Pirates for that)... what about making porn that's actually sensual and sexy and respectful of woman while still being darn hot.

I'm sick of movies which are touted as the next new thing in porn only to find they're big budget films which still treat women like objects and degrade them and don't show them getting pleasure. Focusing on gagging and gaping and slapping and forcing and...urgh, such a turnoff.

It's a sorry state of affairs that as porn seems to become more mainstream it becomes less and less female friendly.

Just because it's not porn for you, doesn't mean it isn't for many others. A picture of your wife's feet is porn for some. You can't be absolutely sure of the intentions behind everyone who watched this video. It is only slightly educational. It would not happen like this in real life, as I pointed out before, his subject was prepared for weeks/months in advance to be able to have an orgasm like that. What you see on the video is the result of the massaging and alleviation of pressure points throughout the body, not the finger-technique. If you think that you can achieve these results simply by repeating the finger-technique demonstrated in the video, that's unrealistic. The video didn't include any explanation of the massaging techniques, or anything else beforehand, just simply the part of the video where the action happens.

This is BS. This is not porn and if you think it is - you're wrong.

Who in the world would wank off to this video I don't get - when on whichever site this is uploaded there are a 100 more that are 1000 times more hardcore than this. And EndAll - puh-leaz, 8+ mil views mean that the majority of the viewers got off watching it? I'm absolutely sure that, like me, the majority of men were more interested in subject matter than in sneaking in a quick wank in these 10 minutes.

Let's face it - dag did the right thing for VS by taking this down - but not for the reason this was porn ('cause it's not). No, it was because the advertisers have shown they're extra-touchy about sexuality and the naked body, and it's better not to tempt fate this way. So I support dag's decision but I strongly disagree with whoever says this is porn.

For god's sake this is not porn.

You puritans.

Probably best you did, because I wouldn't have. I still think that this is not much different than the MRI one, but meh. So be it... jedi.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I was going to let you discard this, but it was on the front page, so I pulled the trigger. I will agree that it's educational- but it it's still porn, and many people would view it just for the enjoyment.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
MGR: The educational slant on it makes it not porn. Porn is for enjoyment, this is not.
Like this isn't porn either (barring rule 34): http://www.videosift.com/video/MRI-Video-Of-Couple-During-Coitus

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

I was going to let you discard this, but it was on the front page, so I pulled the trigger. I will agree that it's educational- but it it's still porn, and many people would view it just for the enjoyment.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
MGR: The educational slant on it makes it not porn. Porn is for enjoyment, this is not.
Like this isn't porn either (barring rule 34): http://www.videosift.com/video/MRI-Video-Of-Couple-During-Coitus