Curious if there's any public nudity and/or "indecency" laws in the city of SF.

Or perhaps they just got a permit or something for the day.

Why isn't lying on News Channels illegal? Blatant lying should come with fines and bans. If nudity is wrong than certainly lying is.

Wow, you're really taking offence at not being able to post nudie videos on the sift? Why so @pumkinandstorm? If there's some cool video which also happens to have nudity (we have quite a few here already), then people are cool with that, as we are not prudes... but really, the Sift just isn't a place to come and look for videos when you're feeling a tad randy... why is that a bad thing? Are you annoyed that the Disney channel doesn't have naked chicks in between episodes of Phineas and Ferb?

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?"

wtf @pumkinandstorm, what's with the nude videos all of a sudden? This, like the bike one, has nothing going for it other than attractive naked women. As such, shouldn't really be here. There are thousands of places on the internet to go to for porn and erotica and nudity for the sake of it, why does the sift have to have it to?

I for one vote to remove this... should it be discussed also?

@dag? thoughts.

>> ^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.

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

I think it's porn - soft core, but still. I know it's all subjective, and it's a grey fuzzy line, but I think this one falls on the porn side. The Britta one falls on the other side, IMHO - because it's just nudity without any real sexual content. Let's *discuss again, but I think this will have to go.

" "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.

*nsfw (brief nudity at the end)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Drax:
This link has a 1080p version of the actual dance (with the nudity) ...just sayin'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_pGiae3Zbc&feature=plcp

Our friend @deathcow gifted us with this (I remember this very, very well).
http://videosift.com/video/Argentina-Dancing-w-Stars-Couple-Goes-Fully-Nude


And it's much appreciated, but unfortunatly that link only has a low-rez option for the video.

>> ^Drax:

This link has a 1080p version of the actual dance (with the nudity) ...just sayin'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_pGiae3Zbc&feature=plcp

Our friend @deathcow gifted us with this (I remember this very, very well).

http://videosift.com/video/Argentina-Dancing-w-Stars-Couple-Goes-Fully-Nude

This link has a 1080p version of the actual dance (with the nudity) ...just sayin'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_pGiae3Zbc&feature=plcp

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Yay for boobies! Except those really bad fake tits, blegh.
Also, I'm all for the right to bare your breasts (especially for feeding, no question), I'm also partly against it. If they were free to be freed anywhere, anytime their sexual appeal would lessen. I like to leave somethings to the imagination. May sound a bit prudish, but not knowing and teasing is usually more exciting


Luckily nature has given us an amazing gift; we're programmed to love boobs and in the long term we can never get bored of them. Young men everywhere with internet access will confirm this. Finally evolution gets something right.

Public nudity laws are really bizarre, but that's our society for you. As long as everybody thinks everybody else's business is their business this nonsense will persist.