Your video, NV Women Sentenced to Life for Asking Minor for Sex, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Kevlar:

Jury nullification. Jury nullification. Jury nullification.

You're singing my song.

I'll allow you the honor of *fearing this:

http://videosift.com/video/NV-Women-Sentenced-to-Life-for-Asking-Minor-to-Fondle-Her

-Is it porn? Yes.
-Is it art? Yes.
-Does it have "artistic merit"? (IMO) No.
-Are the fun police trying to stop us from appreciating the human body? I don't know, would you have voted this up if the video featured a young Adonis fondling his business? I'm guessing not.
-Does this belong on the sift? Doesn't bother me, but it's not my site.

You don't need to use the pretense of art in order to justify looking at naked ladies. It's OK to look at naked ladies. It's human nature. If we didn't like looking at naked ladies, our species would probably not exist.

>> ^geo321:
I'm thinking that it would be a beautiful world if we could recognize and accept the naked forms of human beings and be able to respect those forms as a part of our lives that there'e nothing to be ashamed of..


It's not the nudity, it'd the breast squeezing and finger fucking.

>> ^geo321:
Her gestures moving along with the music are artistic to me. Art is subjective. I just don't get censoring a video for breasts. I guess that's North America for us.


Her "gestures" are squeezing her breasts and finger fucking.

>> ^geo321:
My view is that I don't find someone showing their breasts as that big a deal or shocking or to be instantly classified as porn.


She's not "showing" her breasts, she's fondling and squeezing them. And finger fucking.

I, personally, think the video itself is awesome. But the intention of it is so... erotically in-your-face, I don't see how anyone can argue "artistic merit".
To me, an example of female nudity, i.e. BREASTS, having "artistic merit" is the very first song in David Lynch & Angelo Badalamenti's Industrial Symphony No. 1, "I fell for you baby, like a bomb." No finger fucking.

I didn't gloss over anything you said, or state for you or anyone else what they are thinking for them. I simply find it interesting where our cultural norms towards the human body are
>>> ^Shepppard:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/geo321" title="member since December 3rd, 2008" class="profilelink">geo321
No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.
However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.
It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.
The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

I didn't gloss over anything you said, or state for you or anyone else what they are thinking for them. I simply find it interesting where our cultural norms towards the human body are.>> ^Shepppard:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/geo321" title="member since December 3rd, 2008" class="profilelink">geo321
No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.
However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.
It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.
The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

Yeah well, farhad has to work on funny, after all, he's ducked in and out here since the rabble took over, stroking himself as he leaves his trail, a legacy dying or dead on the vine-same sort of contempt for the clueless we both share, though we express it in ways that juxtapose beyond your pathetic mortal brains fathomabilities, on a good day, with pussy(or cocks, respectfully, for you gay motherfuckers) in your faces and autism as your motors.

For the cheap seats-It's porn, It's not porn. It's art, It's not art. It sucks, it blows, it's racy, it's tame, it's up to the admins ultimately to decide that they know how to form sentences and convey meaning, 69 percent of the time.

Uhhhh, Luuuuucky....dag??
"May I post video's from pornbumper here, cause, like, you know, girls with black cocks shove up their pink cooters turns me on and it's art....Oh and, gingers fondling their titties in a tasteful way is ok for television in Japan, and I was wondering, can i show my inverted asshole with a macro camera so that It looks like a baby being born as long as no one notices that it's my inflamed hemorrhoids after a round of scotch bonnet marmelase??? Huuh?? Ok???!"

May I have this girl's parent's phone number so I can tell them she's on Videosift embroiled in a bullshit diversive meaningless controversy that makes people think about just what rules mean in a world without them?? Hmmmmmmm??!!

I could give a fiddlers fuck that this is siftworthy or not.Farhad already knows the bee he stashed in the collective bonnet, he's sitting back watching the fun right now....cause his girlfriend freaked out on him and he has access to good drugs now....awwww....that's so sweeeeeet!

Religion is a drug that atheists get a contact high from.
Politics are a way for the developmentally disabled to pretend that they are having conversations that have an impact on the world they inhabit, and bacon....well, bacon should be taught in Muslim schools as Allah's manna he sent to confuse dumb motherfuckers who think that eating it everyday causes problems.

@geo321

No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.

However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.

It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.

The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

I said nothing of strippers, that's a straw man to my observations. I respect your views on the video, and where that line lyes between what is porn or not is an ongoing debate. My view is that I don't find someone showing their breasts as that big a deal or shocking or to be instantly classified as porn. . >> ^Shepppard:
Her gestures to the music?
so.. a stripper dances to the same song. Suddenly something that's completely sexual, for the sole intent of her getting more money by causing arousal, is now art because she's doing it to music?
The difference is that the stripper is at least DANCING, which is one of the arts. This is just her sitting there fondling herself. The fact that music is present is irrelevant.

>> ^Shepppard:
Her gestures to the music?
so.. a stripper dances to the same song. Suddenly something that's completely sexual, for the sole intent of her getting more money by causing arousal, is now art because she's doing it to music?
The difference is that the stripper is at least DANCING, which is one of the arts, again, she's just sitting there fondling herself. The fact that music is present is irrelevant.


Yes, stripping can easily be art. Art, like so many things, is purely in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, this is definitely art. It's also definitely soft-core porn. There is no conflict between the two.

Her gestures to the music?

so.. a stripper dances to the same song. Suddenly something that's completely sexual, for the sole intent of her getting more money by causing arousal, is now art because she's doing it to music?

The difference is that the stripper is at least DANCING, which is one of the arts. This is just her sitting there fondling herself. The fact that music is present is irrelevant.

This isn't art imo.

THIS is art

This video is of a chick posing for getting her picture taken for guys to fap to in a naughty magazine, the intent is purely for sexual eroticism, the fact that it's in black and white with a soundtrack really doesn't mean anything as sarzy said.

The video isn't of her posing to show off the beauty and softness of the female form. She's sitting in a car fondling herself because it's going to get guys off somewhere. I won't downvote this, but I don't think this belongs here, this pushes the bounds of the new guidelines.

In all seriousness... this crosses the line between art and porn. It is soft-core. It is awesome. But this is porn. I wouldn't show it to a child. If I was a teacher, I would probably get fired for showing it in a class.

I'll put it in this way: if she was dancing ballet and was naked, I'd call it art. If it was nudity in a film which was otherwise not about sex, I'd call it art. In this case, she's fondling herself, she's making those I'm-hot-and-bothered faces. The author's intent (art, viral, whatever) is irrelevant. It's porn.

Again, I'm in no way detracting from the absolute awesomeness of this, but it is through and through porn.

To paraphrase that old saying, I'm not sure how to define porn, but I know when I see it.

I think what rebuilder is getting at as far as personal computers is their full proprietary build-type. Makes it harder to open a device and fondle all the pretty parts and such. This has been a big turn off to many non-apple PC users. An analogy would be like comparing an apple PC to a new Lexus vs. a non-apple PC to a '64 Pontiac GTO. Both are beautiful in their own respect, but one of them is more fun (but probably more of a pain) to get under the hood to modify/f*ck with.

Sr. Jobs would like very much to have a device that is fully integrated with very little need for the user to fondle and adjust. The problem with the design intent to fully automate everything, is the lack of customization that may be desired by an owner. Now, I know you apple-fans and your apps will contest that you can find anything that you'd ever want out there somewhere. But to us, non-apple users, we'd prefer the hassle of setting something up for the ability to breach some EULAs and treat "intellectual property" as a joke. Mac, doesn't make that very easy. Sure you can open it out of the box and be running in 3 minutes, but sometimes I wanna get down and dirty.

>> ^dag:
"Closed down Big Brother Devices"? Really? Have they blocked the Internet?
You want to know what a closed down device is? Any mobile phone manufactured before the advent of the iPhone. Thanks Apple for forcing the carriers to allow phones do more than just use their crappy "on deck" software.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^dag:
Likewise, the blind hatred for Apple as a company, while very trendy I know, doesn't really make you any cooler in the eyes of your peers.
There, I said it. That feels better.

You know what my worst-case scenario for Apple is? That the Ipad really rocks, that they sell a bazillion units, and they keep making more of these closed-down big brother devices. Apple is killing the personal computer as a free device, giving us well thought-out interfaces at the cost of the ability to choose for ourselves what we want to do with our gear. And most people won't give a damn. That's why, since the iPhone, and especially the iPad, I've gone from indifferent to antagonistic towards Apple. And I'm writing this on a Mac.