Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bloody topless spoken word weird' to 'Bloody, topless, spoken word, weird' - edited by Sagemind

Don't get why some girls wear string bottom bikinis in public.

Fuck girl, go topless or on a nude beach because it's less slutty or sugestive than that skimpy thing.

" What is it that we do that strikes them as funny?"

One of them is using wads of paper to wipe our asses...
Here's a few more...

Absence of topless beaches in the U.S.
Our often obsessive pre-occupation with germs and the west's plethoric use of "products" for grooming
Kissing anyone besides a lover on the mouth
Leaving home at 18 to "live on one's own" (unlike Americans, family units enjoy an enduring and innate cohesion-Most other cultures also have a healthy respect and prominent place for their seniors that the west has forgotten as well)
Halloween (the U.S. is the only country that celebrates this like Americans do)

In Ontario you can be topless in the whole province, male or female. (even inside though I'm guessing at that)

"Roxy has defended the ad by saying that it believes women can be both athletes and sexy at the same time."

That's valid, if they show'd her being an athlete. They show'd her topless in undies on a bed, and then showering, and then preparing to go surf. It's totally cool for women to look and feel sexy when they want to, but this is an ad and it's obviously trying to get attention by using a sexy young model. If they had just shown her doing some epic surfing, something I a physically fit man can't do, it would be THAT much sexier.

Also not that her face is always out of frame, she's not a person with an identity she's parts to draw the eye.

Sure, everything is all cute and funny, then you find your cat's lungs stuck in your vacuum filter. That's really hard to clean out, what with your girlfriend shrieking at you and threatening to call the SPCA and the cops. Then PETA sends out its topless death squad to hunt you down and while you're staring at their tits, they beat you to within an inch of your life with vegan pepperoni loaves. Then you find out that due to your upcoming animal-cruelty charges, your HMO has dropped you and you now face $100,000+ in hospital fees. All because your cat is funny.

...or so I've heard.

These are pretty mild, really.

See http://www.dumblaws.com/

In NY it's legal for women to go topless but illegal to wear form-fitting clothing.

In NY it's illegal to walk around with an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sunday.

In AL it's illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket.

In GA it's illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sunday.

(WTF was this ice cream cone fetish people had back in the day?)

In AZ, it's illegal to have more than 2 dildos in a house. (Presumably you can keep the rest in the shed.)

In AK it's illegal to mispronounce Arkansas.

In FL it's illegal to have sex in any position but missionary and never with a porcupine.

In MA, goatees are illegal unless you've paid the fee for a license.

And there are so many more...

Why is this represented by a screenshot of a topless girl?

Love this poem. I had the chance to "cover" it once. https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/last-thoughts-on-woody-guthrie/id219166411

If she had been topless, the would be best death scene ever.

OK, i geddit, women are hot.

At what point does merely covering up your nipples mean you're not actually topless? Size of the star labels? Or just enough to cover the nipples?

@dag, what do you say about this video here and that one there: http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goes-topless-in-Choke ?

" "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.

>> ^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-Toyota-Supra-The-full-uncensored-version-in-HD
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/Britta-from-Community-goes-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-Her-Underwear
http://sexuality.videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-BETTER-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.

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.

*controversy>> ^xxovercastxx:

@messenger
http://videosift.com/video/Skittles-Taste-the-Rainbow
http://videosift.com/video/BANNED-GERMAN-SPRITE-AD-BJ
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Tree-This-gets-a-10-on-the-weird-O-meter
I think there's precedent for this sort of thing.