Congratulations! Your star points have been deducted due to your lewd comment about my chin. Don't mess with the robot.

WHAT FUCKING YEAR IS THIS??!!

Talk about a dupe.

I'm pretty sure there is a live version not discarded somewhere..
http://www.videosift.com/video/Are-you-lewd-and-crude-Youll-get-your-just-dessert
http://www.videosift.com/video/FUNNY-spring-break-clip

lewd act within 1000 feet of a church is a felony? Should tell the priests that so they keep the hands off the kids!

I'd suspect shitting in a toilet at a church is lewd... quite gross actually. A felony! Taking a piss is lewd.. felony! Scratching one's balls in public. lewd! felony! Saying fuck you. Lewd! felony!

Saying god kills anyone who crosses his path that disagrees with him and anyone who is a nonbeliever will suffer an agonizing death, then suffer an eternity in some magical firey torture realm. Perfectly good. Not lewd in the least.

Magic is real my friends. Magical people with bird wings in the sky are real.

Because I believe in fairy tales.. that means I know what is good and what is bad. You do not.

I did not know about that "lewd act within 1000 ft of a church is a felony" law.

videosift informs again!

Siftbot finally got us back for that lewd video of his girlfriend. (It was still worth it!)

homophile... awesome..

"The homophile movement in the U. S. developed early in the 1950s with the formation of the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, and One. Donald Webster Cory's The Homosexual in America served as a manifesto for these groups which were dedicated to improving the "plight of the homosexual." The tiny groups' publications in the 1950's encouraged gay and lesbian people to "act normal" and fit in (lesbians belong in dresses, gay men don't), and recruited prominent "experts" like psychiatrists and psychologists to comment on homosexuality. The experts were often willing to concede that homosexuals are not dangerous, and that they can even "make a contribution to society," but precious few granted that homosexuality is anything but a mental illness.

The accommodationism of the homophiles has often been criticized as cowardly, but had they marched in the streets in 1955 shouting "out of the closets into the streets," the way gay libbers did fifteen years later, they would have found themselves locked up en masse on Lewd Vag charges, or worse."

i learned something today and now so did you!

Punisher -

That's EXACTLY what they should do - ignore the complaints.

When you are a government official (elected or otherwise) you are not to intervene in issues such as this. I know this having held elected office in my community.

If the sign was in any way lewd or vulgar, it would more than likely be addressed under a public nuisance ordinance, in which case the city would be duty-bound to address it. Under any other circumstance it potentially amounts to violating the establishment clause.

Passing this on as a private individual is one thing but as a representative of the government, pulling crap like this leaves you (justifiably IMHO) wide open for a lawsuit and that's precisely what's happened.

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?

^I don't think so. It's a medical discussion of sex and sexual dysfunction, nothing lewd or gratuitous. Unless you work for Pat Robertson, I think it's safe for work. (Not "you" personally, syncron. Just "you" in the broader, generalized sense.)

Am I the only one who finds the champagne-spraying-in-the-face a but lewd given the mixed-gender podium? Not that I mind a bit of lewdness mind you; I just never thought of it that way before.

I always put my lewd parts on display when I go to a job interview. Why hide them? They may help you land that job. Terrible analogy!

A voice of conservatism here. If I see a book with a vulgar title and lewd picture on the cover, I'm not likely to buy it. (Granted, it's damn embarrassing at the checkout). However, if between the covers it gets a bit bawdy, in a funny way, I don't mind. You might say it's two-faced, but it's the same reason I wear clothes when I go outside. I have some lewd parts, but I don't want to put them on prominent display.

I agree with Smibbo and jonny. The only part that really irritated me about the shaming / whatever you want to call it was the his sister was brought into it. Yeah, if he really is a penis, she might already know. But who advertises that they attempt to barrage other websites with lewd, inappropriate comments and generally be worthless? I wouldn't. "Hey sis, guess what I did today?" Probably didn't happen. So she might know about his general face-to-face interactions with people, but once the internet is introduced, people's interactions often change.

If I found out my brother had been such an ass that random people on the internet were saying crude things about me, i'd be less than impressed. And I wouldn't be as irritated with him as I would at everyone on this site that participated.

Yes, all the accusations were mildly childish. It would've been much more mature being handled as a "Hey, this guy sucks. Now everyone knows," instead of "Post everything terrible you can possibly think of about this guy here."

Long story short, don't bring other family members into it. Especially siblings. She did absolutely nothing to contribute or encourage, so there's definitely nothing good that could come from it.

SG,

You've misunderstood. Your criteria for disliking something may be rational or irrational. Disliking something doesn't make you irrational.

On Country

You don't like 'modern' country, but you do like country, which means you haven't written off an entire genre of music (I'm not judging, it's just an observation).

I happen to agree with you on country, but there is some decent stuff out there if you look for it. If you don't already know Abigail Washburn, then she is soon to be one of your favorites. Other acts to look for are Old Crow Medicine Show, Wilco and Nickel Creek. None of it but the AW stuff really stack up to Patsy Cline or Johnny Cash, but it's a helluva lot better than the drivel on the radio.

In general, music on commercial radio is horrible.

Jazz and Hip-Hop

Jazz and Hip-hop are actually more similar than you think.

-They both use the same types of rhythmic syncopations. This point is made clearly by an excellent mashup of an Eminem song and an old piano rag. The track is called 'Snookered' by a DJ named Freelance Hairdresser. You can follow these syncopations from ragtime to Dixie Jazz, to Swing, Rock, Bop, Soul, Funk, and eventually Hip-Hop.

-The co-opting of popular tunes is also shared between the two genres. Rappers are much maligned for their use of samples and get little credit for the creative ways in which they reconstruct the source material. Jazzer's would also co-opt the popular standards of the day, tweaking the harmonies/ melodies and adding their own improvisational ideas.

-Both types of music place a large emphasis on improvisation. In Hip-Hop it's called freestyle.

-Like Hip-Hop, Jazz was an outlet for a culture largely shut out of the mainstream. Both styles of music were marginalized, maligned and generally considered lewd, crude and disgusting.

-Jazz was eventually co-opted and accepted by whites, which is happening as we speak in the hip hop world. This isn't a bad thing, as white folks had/have some nice things to add.

Finally, I must say that your characterization of Hip-hop as negative is as bad a generalization as saying all Christians are as lame as Pat Robertson. There is plenty of positive Hip-Hop out there. I'd suggest MeShell Ndegeocello, Eryka Badhu, Outkast and M.I.A. for starters.

The media spends much time attacking Hip-Hip, and buying into media distortions don't make you a racist.

The racism I speak of is subtle and internalized. If you were to recognize this racism in yourself, it would evaporate instantly upon recognition. I'm not trying to brand anyone with a scarlet R, this is just a plea for folks to be introspective and constantly in a state of self improvement.

We are all a product of our time, and although things are getting better, we have a long way to go before we are free from racism/sexism/classism/homophobia to name a few isms (and one phobia). If it exists in culture, it exists in you too.

Finally, I know I pissed many people off with this thread. It was intended to be light-hearted. I have arrived at these ideas after doing quite a bit of thinking, and didn't bother to fill in the space between A and B. In other words, I blurted out some unconventional, controversial ideas without telling you how I got to them.

Some of got it right away, but apparently others thought I was calling them Klansmen, and apparently others still ACTUALLY ARE KLANMEN (just kidding you know who.)

It probably would have been better to present these ideas as things I've discovered about myself, without forcing anyone to have to take a critical look inside their own soul. Forcing introspection is not polite.

Still, I think this discussion will be rattling around in sifty heads for some time, and at the very least, we've breached that most taboo of American taboos, racism. Maybe we should move on to classism..........

SG,

Oh, and it's so funny to call someone irrational if they dislike something that's somehow tied to a particular culture

You've misunderstood. Your criteria for disliking something may be rational or irrational. Disliking something doesn't make you irrational.

On Country

You don't like 'modern' country, but you do like country, which means you haven't written off an entire genre of music (I'm not judging, it's just an observation).

I happen to agree with you on country, but there is some decent stuff out there if you look for it. If you don't already know Abigail Washburn, then she is soon to be one of your favorites. Other acts to look for are Old Crow Medicine Show, Wilco and Nickel Creek. None of it but the AW stuff really stack up to Patsy Cline or Johnny Cash, but it's a helluva lot better than the drivel on the radio.

In general, music on commercial radio is horrible.

Jazz and Hip-Hop

Jazz and Hip-hop are actually more similar than you think.

-They both use the same types of rhythmic syncopations. This point is made clearly by an excellent mashup of an Eminem song and an old piano rag. The track is called 'Snookered' by a DJ named Freelance Hairdresser. You can follow these syncopations from ragtime to Dixie Jazz, to Swing, Rock, Bop, Soul, Funk, and eventually Hip-Hop.

-The co-opting of popular tunes is also shared between the two genres. Rappers are much maligned for their use of samples and get little credit for the creative ways in which they reconstruct the source material. Jazzer's would also co-opt the popular standards of the day, tweaking the harmonies/ melodies and adding their own improvisational ideas.

-Both types of music place a large emphasis on improvisation. In Hip-Hop it's called freestyle.

-Like Hip-Hop, Jazz was an outlet for a culture largely shut out of the mainstream. Both styles of music were marginalized, maligned and generally considered lewd, crude and disgusting.

-Jazz was eventually co-opted and accepted by whites, which is happening as we speak in the hip hop world. This isn't a bad thing, as white folks had/have some nice things to add.

Finally, I must say that your characterization of Hip-hop as negative is as bad a generalization as saying all Christians are as lame as Pat Robertson. There is plenty of positive Hip-Hop out there. I'd suggest MeShell Ndegeocello, Eryka Badhu, Outkast and M.I.A. for starters.

The media spends much time attacking Hip-Hip, and buying into media distortions don't make you a racist.

The racism I speak of is subtle and internalized. If you were to recognize this racism in yourself, it would evaporate instantly upon recognition. I'm not trying to brand anyone with a scarlet R, this is just a plea for folks to be introspective and constantly in a state of self improvement.

We are all a product of our time, and although things are getting better, we have a long way to go before we are free from racism/sexism/classism/homophobia to name a few isms (and one phobia). If it exists in culture, it exists in you too.

Finally, I know I pissed many people off with this thread. It was intended to be light-hearted. I have arrived at these ideas after doing quite a bit of thinking, and didn't bother to fill in the space between A and B. In other words, I blurted out some unconventional, controversial ideas without telling you how I got to them.

Some of got it right away, but apparently others thought I was calling them Klansmen, and apparently others still ACTUALLY ARE KLANMEN (just kidding you know who.)

It probably would have been better to present these ideas as things I've discovered about myself, without forcing anyone to have to take a critical look inside their own soul. Forcing introspection is not polite.

Still, I think this discussion will be rattling around in sifty heads for some time, and at the very least, we've breached that most taboo of American taboos, racism. Maybe we should move on to classism..........