Your video, First Fully-Articulated 3D Printed Gown Feat. Dita Von Teese, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

Yummy, *promote the tease Teese.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I'm home alone and have nothing better to do than respond to this thread, because a lot of the comments in here still bother me. So... here goes nothing.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> The video in question (Dita) is an act of grace a beauty, not a vivid depiction of sex. The act is designed to be something that one merely watches, from which they are detached and it is forever that way. It is a solo act meant to please for the sake of a good show.


WRONG! There is absolutely nothing graceful or beautiful about that (or her, really). See my comment on the performance in a minute.


Dirty books, on the other hand, are of a couple's acts in the bedroom, written to suck the reader into the characters words and actions, even letting them place themselves into the character's shoes. The book is more about being a part of the act, making the reader imagine (through ample use of details and adjectives) every part of sex. It's porn you read, and not watch, though I will say it is not disgusting or objectifying as real porn.


You know why women love romance novels? Because we can imagine it's our significant other doing everything the protagonist in the novel is. Generally it's a scene that plays out in our minds with the characters, not us (women). But even if we were picturing ourselves in that mental scene, it would be with our significant other. Because really, the sex scenes in romance novels are a lot more exciting than ones in real life. If we got enough romance, we wouldn't need to read romance novels. There's nothing disgusting or objectifying about getting a little inspiration. It's erotica - not porn.


My question to you is this: How can you tell the internet in one comment that "Even I can appreciate burlesque" but in the next, tell the internet that it's not acceptable for men with significant others to watch it, if only for art of the performance?


Burlesque is an art, but that's not burlesque. That's a terrible, terrible striptease. You haven't seen any of the great old burlesque. It originated as a sort of comedy show. Gypsy Rose Lee (who, by the way, the Warner Brothers movie "Gypsy" is about. I guarantee you Dita is not burlesque if Warner Bros. did a burlesque movie) and Sally Rand (not quite as good, I don't think, but still notable, and the woman who originated the fan dance). Do you see any comedy in Dita's "work?" I didn't think so. It used to be a complete one-act comedy show, not a two-minute, poorly-done dance where you end up in nothing but nipple pasties and a g-string. Look up some of the Bettie Page stuff on here.

P.S. "Even I can appreciate burlesque" means I like some, but not this [Dita]. For someone who admits they've only seen two clips of burlesque, how dare you confront me on something like that? Look up the history of burlesque. Maybe watch someone other than Dita von Teese. It's like someone saying they don't like a particular artist, or a particular period in art history. It doesn't mean I dislike every painting ever made, or that no one should look at art anymore because I decided I don't like it. Burlesque has never been about the ability to strip down from a dress to pasties and a g-string in less than 20 seconds. There's nothing burlesque about her act - it's a striptease, pure and simple.


I hold that burlesque is only that; an art. I personally don't get any arousal from it, not does it raise any carnal desires within myself. Hell, I've only seen two instances of it, both here on the sift. The female body, with all it's curves, is designed to flow like water in almost all directions. Combined with graceful movements and a dynamic act, it is a thing of grace and beauty.


Oh please. You just admitted yourself you've only ever seen two instances of burlesque. How can you possibly go on about how graceful it is, and how it's such a glorious artform, when you've seen two "dances," both by the same woman?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
As I looked around, I saw (obviously) many women in bikinis. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about bikinis, but it got me thinking about the whole "objectification" thing. If women, as a whole, don't want to be objectified, why wear such a reveling swim suit when there are plenty of good looking alternatives? [edit] What I'm saying it that it opens them up to it.
And for that matter, why put make up on?


1) You've heard it before, but it obviously bears repeating - Women don't dress up for men. They dress up for other women. I shouldn't have to think every morning when I get dressed, "If I see someone with a penis today, will he say something lewd if I'm wearing this? Might someone possibly get excited?" I dress for other women. Would they think I'm attractive? Intimidating? Smart? Chic? If I wanted to dress to attract attention from men, I'd walk around in a bikini top and shorts. But I don't.

2) Just because women wear revealing clothing doesn't mean they're inviting you to look. I lost 20 pounds and bought myself a bikini, because I felt good about my body again. I regained so much self-confidence just by owning it, and that I was no longer embarrassed or felt fat walking around in one. That doesn't mean I wear it just to attract attention, or in the hopes that guys compliment me. I wouldn't take a compliment seriously if I was wearing a bikini anyway - I know my boobs are all you were looking at.

Maybe I wear makeup because I want to feel pretty, or I got a pimple this morning, or I have a sunburn and my skin tone is uneven. Why should it matter?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Theeeere's that artist I was askin' about!!! One of the very few LEFT here on the sift still worth bothering with!!!....Fuckin' A Westy, I got yer back brother-I too dabble....Y'know that Sift Hell is a dangerous vor-teese......Too bad one can't simply shove 9000 pounds of Kak viddies and entire channels even down that pipe.......straight the fuck up in there......Votes don't seem to do justice now anymore, Doooooo They!!!!

Sure someone already hopped on ya, sloppy seconds are fine with ol' choggie.....

It's just an attempt to help balance in a way all the attention videos get if they draw attention to the beauty of the female form, even if it's not the primary reason the video is notable.

It's of course different in a number of ways, but St. Pierre's aesthetic style is part of why he's one of the more visible celebrities in his sport.

>> ^thepinky:
And what of the problems of our society? What DO they stem from? Are we supposed to completely refrain from assigning blame to any of our own practices? Are we supposed to allow our society to deteriorate because we can't get to the root causes of our problems and fix them? There is a general trend on the Sift toward the attitude that the fewer controls and restraints on behavior, the better. That nothing matters except pleasure and freedom. I just don't agree with that philosophy. Sometimes your freedoms hurt other people, and in order to be moral, people have to sacrifice a few freedoms. Porn doesn't help, it hurts.


A very one sided view of the situation.

Sex crime existed before widely distributed pornography. Except in the past, it was often accepted (such as nobles predilections for young boys or assaulting the cleaning staff as the whim took them)if not tacitly encouraged. That is not to say pornographic texts did not exist, just the ability to lay hands on them has never been so easy.

Then you have sexual deviancy/molestation in absentia of pornography. People who have had their sexuality repressed often have it manifest in unhealthy fashions. The Catholic church is a great example. Priests and "bad Catholic schoolgirls" come to mind.

Lastly, what about the millions of people world wide who enjoy sex without love, sex with themselves, sex with porn or just enjoy watching it for the compelling storyline (bwahahaha) who never actually commit a sex crime?

Isn't it far more likely that a person with certain proclivities or perversions (or just a rapist/molester) collects pornography because it is what they are interested in? Similar to violent people enjoying violent media (rather than the contention that violent media makes people violent...). Porn may desensitise a person but I honestly believe it doesn't create monsters, the monster is already in the person.

>> ^thepinky:
Porn distorts our view of sex. Porn separates sex from love and emotion.

Have you considered that there was never a connection to begin with? Sex with someone you love is a very different experience than sex alone, yes, but it's a big jump from that to saying that sex with love is right and sex without is wrong.

We wonder "Why-oh-why is child molestation increasing? Oh what can we do about it? Oh, no, porn couldn't make any difference, because I view porn! There's no way that there is anything bad about it! I get sexual release! If anything else, it KEEPS them from doing bad things!" and on and on and on. Porn DOES NOT decrease the need for sexual release, it increases it. The more you look at porn, the more often you want to, the more interesting you want it to be, and some people take it too far. Just because you don' doesn't mean that it isn't a disgusting an unnatural thing. Do you think sex crimes develop because a person's sexuality was kept under good regulation?

I've never wondered that, no, not least of all because I'm not aware of any such trend. Do you have statistics to back up that claim?

I'm not a fan of porn. It doesn't offend me or disgust me, I'm just not into it. Just because it offends and disgusts you doesn't make it an unnatural thing. Most of nature is offensive and disgusting. If you doubt, just look at the hagfish.

Regulating sexuality (your words) should be far more offensive and disgusting to you than anything consenting adults do behind closed doors with a director, camera (wo)man, stage hands and lighting specialists watching.

I aim to please.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Now, THAT made me laugh. Props to you for making me laugh at myself.

>> ^gwiz665:
It dances so prettily...

>> ^Farhad2000:
Your hypothesis that porn is related to sexual assault is very slim. The argument is the same as saying that watching violence on TV makes people violent. Both acts occur naturally, even with the removal of porn and violence such acts will exist.
I live in the Arab world, women here wear hijabs, pant suits, and long skirts. There is very little sexual stimulus. The internet here is filtered. Most lay men cannot access any pron what so ever. Yet sexual crimes here are just as prevalent. Especially the gang rape of maids, young boys and other forms of sexual abuse.
I think you connect the act of sex, and porn and sexual abuse together. I believe sexual abuse is a expression of power over an individual, the act of molestation that fulfills a certain dark seated sexual desire. There are countless accounts of serial killers who only got sexual satisfaction upon killing their victims, then masturbating on them, or necrophilia. Most of these people were psychopaths to begin with, how can one imply that what they did was because they say watched porn when they were young.
I think you underestimate the human nature, and it's ability to lay blame anywhere but themselves. People who commit sex crimes always say that it was abuse they received or porn they viewed, they can never admit that maybe they are simply are inherently skewed and like nothing more then raping or touching little girls.
There is too much of that in society now, I have a problem X, its not me that is at fault its society or practice Y.
I don't know a thing about Arab culture, but that argument doesn't hold water for me because the causes of sexual crime in the Arab world may be completely different. For example, the lack of sexual stimulus and the repression of women's sexuality are possible causes. As you said, rape is about control. I think that in a culture where women are controlled, crimes of control are more likely to happen. I'm guessing that many sex crimes in Arab nations stem from the culture's distortion of sex, just as ours do. Their repression of sexuality in women may not be heathy, either. I really can't say, but I think we ought to reach a happy medium.

I wasn't implying that all necrophiliacs are what they are because of a porn problem. I'm not even saying that all sexual abusers are consumers of porn. I'm saying that porn CAN and DOES cause sexual problems, and I have seen it occur with my own two eyes. The person in question is not a psychopath. He is a good person. Any problems that he had when he was younger stemmed from an exposure to porn at a young age. I am positive that he would not have done what he did if he hadn't been looking at porn since age 7. He was an innocent kid. Of course, that's just one example and it doesn't always turn out that way. But say he already had a tendency toward sexual crime. Do you think porn would encourage or stifle that tendency? A society that teaches a healthy regulation of sexual activity is more likely to help that guy than a society that teaches him to masturbate to porn with increasing frequency. Just my opinion.

Not all molestation is about control. Rape, probably. I think that molestation is sometimes simply about what gets the person off.

And what of the problems of our society? What DO they stem from? Are we supposed to completely refrain from assigning blame to any of our own practices? Are we supposed to allow our society to deteriorate because we can't get to the root causes of our problems and fix them? There is a general trend on the Sift toward the attitude that the fewer controls and restraints on behavior, the better. That nothing matters except pleasure and freedom. I just don't agree with that philosophy. Sometimes your freedoms hurt other people, and in order to be moral, people have to sacrifice a few freedoms. Porn doesn't help, it hurts.

Now, THAT made me laugh. Props to you for making me laugh at myself.

>> ^gwiz665:
It dances so prettily...

>> ^thepinky:
THANK YOU! Seriously. No hard feelings. I kinda deserved it and I was asking for it.
You don't mind if I continue to argue and comment in here, right? Because I could totally stop.
>> ^LadyDeath:
quote was deleted requested by thepinky I Hope the down voters are happy now and so ms pinky



Oh No Dear Feel Free to keep your argument here...even If I Still Think the word Porn should not be in These comments because has nothing to be with the video...

THANK YOU! Seriously. No hard feelings. I kinda deserved it and I was asking for it.

You don't mind if I continue to argue and comment in here, right? Because I could totally stop.

>> ^LadyDeath:
quote was deleted requested by thepinky I Hope the down voters are happy now and so ms pinky

One more thing:

I really appreciate your kindness and understanding, but I have to admit that this part of the comment makes me so upset I don't even know where to begin. Ladydeath, don't read this if you don't want the drama. I gave you fair warning. You don't have to read it.

It makes me feel almost unbearably frustrated that something that is so influential in sex crime is so socially accepted that people don't even see it as a cause. Okay, I'm not talking about the video, I'm talking about porn now. Porn distorts our view of sex. Porn separates sex from love and emotion. Porn makes people into objects and into means to an end. True story: An innocent little boy exposed to porn does evil things to little girls and it takes him years to overcome it, but he does overcome it because he is a good person. PORN did that! P-O-R-N. It wasn't that the little boy was inherently evil or had some kind of sexual disorder. He was exposed to a sick and twisted and distorted exploitation of the human body and of the act of intercourse.

We wonder "Why-oh-why is child molestation increasing? Oh what can we do about it? Oh, no, porn couldn't make any difference, because I view porn! There's no way that there is anything bad about it! I get sexual release! If anything else, it KEEPS them from doing bad things!" and on and on and on. Porn DOES NOT decrease the need for sexual release, it increases it. The more you look at porn, the more often you want to, the more interesting you want it to be, and some people take it too far. Just because you don' doesn't mean that it isn't a disgusting an unnatural thing. Do you think sex crimes develop because a person's sexuality was kept under good regulation? Repression, as some of you call it. And don't give me the Catholic priest argument. The vast majority of the world's sex predators are not Catholic priests, and the vast majority of Catholic priests are not sex predators. I swear, all the people who wanted to justify unbridled sexual release just loved that whole scandal. Do you think that the guy who, because of his religion or whatever the cause may be, has never looked at porn and who is going to wait until marriage to have sex is going to one day go out and rape a kid because his sexuality has been repressed? No, he's not. In fact, that guy isn't even sexually frustrated. He's pretty darn happy, because his control is his own choice. I know many guys like that. I'll tell you the guy who is sexually frustrated. He's the guy that sits at home and jacks off all day to porn. THAT guy is frustrated.

You're going to say that porn is not the cause of sex crime. Well, maybe it isn't. But it certainly helps. Porn may be a correlational feature, but it is not insignificant. It does not teach control of inappropriate sexual tendencies, it perpetuates and increases inappropriate sexual tendencies.

I beleive in this so much that I can't even respond coherently. I feel like I can't even begin to make you understand how wrong you are. It's like trying to explain to a blind person what red looks like.

I know what your arguments are going to be, but I'm sick of trying. I'm going to go do something that will actually make a difference now.

>> ^EDD:
1. Porn is in no more a reason behind sexual assaults than welsh kitties are. At best, and very seldom still, it might be an insignificant factor stimulating this kind of behaviour, however, most of the time, it does negate these desires, both in short and long-terms. Any assailant saying they were motivated by porn is obviously finding excuses; and if any psychologist is buying that crap, they need their diploma taken away from them ASAP.
2. Openness about sexuality is really the key to rehabilitation. Porn can, if anything, actually help victims of sexual abuse, even though it has to be a gradual process, but for one, it's a lot better than erotic novels. This is because of using fantasy when reading a book rather than direct visual stimuli in pornography - the former quite often has women readers picturing themselves in the stead of female protagonists and therefore being more likely to cause traumatic comparisons/flashbacks than the latter, in which one should feel a lot more disconnected from the people involved in the sexual act.