NSFW, Nudity, and the Sift: Pushing and then defining the boundaries
In case siftbot discards it promptly, I'm posting this message to archive/document the discussion on NSFW, nudity, and the Sift
The discussion from the Wild Things 3 video merits a permanent placeholder on Sift Talk, i.e., this post.
The rough consensus is that nudity in itself isn't a reason to get rid of a vid. People making out also isn't. Combine the two, and you're going into sexual territory.
In any case, aside from fully-clothed-kissing, you probably want to put an NSFW tag on the video. And if you're going into something a bit more risque, there had better be a valid reason for what you're doing.
Valid reasons include artistic/cultural significance and humour/uniqueness. Just because there might be a valid reason, however, does not guarantee the video will survive - Sifters need to agree with that rationale, through the blunt tool of voting, and the more nuanced tool of debating a vid in its comments.
This nuance means that if a famous pr0n scene is posted (B-list celebrity's private tape, whatever), just because it's (in)famous, doesn't mean it belongs. Hilarious bloopers that aren't in themselves sexual, on the other hand, are another story.
Elaboration, dissenting opinions and additional commentary is, as always, welcome.
The discussion from the Wild Things 3 video merits a permanent placeholder on Sift Talk, i.e., this post.
The rough consensus is that nudity in itself isn't a reason to get rid of a vid. People making out also isn't. Combine the two, and you're going into sexual territory.
In any case, aside from fully-clothed-kissing, you probably want to put an NSFW tag on the video. And if you're going into something a bit more risque, there had better be a valid reason for what you're doing.
Valid reasons include artistic/cultural significance and humour/uniqueness. Just because there might be a valid reason, however, does not guarantee the video will survive - Sifters need to agree with that rationale, through the blunt tool of voting, and the more nuanced tool of debating a vid in its comments.
This nuance means that if a famous pr0n scene is posted (B-list celebrity's private tape, whatever), just because it's (in)famous, doesn't mean it belongs. Hilarious bloopers that aren't in themselves sexual, on the other hand, are another story.
Elaboration, dissenting opinions and additional commentary is, as always, welcome.
9 Comments
pho3n1xif you wanna type all that up for that rule, go ahead, but that's just going to confuse people.
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I think for the most part, our current system works pretty well. I agree that if it's something without artistic/cultural merit, and just designed to "get people off" then it doesn't belong here.
For the most part however in these cases, I would express my feelings by a down vote. If it's really blatant, (porn) I would use my [star]discard power.
dotdudeThe local New Orleans Academy of Fine Art maintains the following philosophy: if you can master the human figure, you can paint anything you want. At the other end of the spectrum, the avant-garde has embraced porn in art. ARTNEWS has already had two issues devoted to the subject in the last three years.
As Attorney General, John Ashcroft found it necessary to hide Liberty’s (the statue) exposed boob behind a blue curtain when he addressed the press. An art teacher in Texas lost her job because a kid saw a nude statue and complained.
I did sit through a documentary about the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) rating system, “ This Film Has Not Been Rated Yet.” It did point out that in the US we’re harsher on sex in films than violence. In Europe it is the opposite. There were interviews with directors who had to fight NC-17 ratings. Non-missionary, pubic hair and weird sex seemed to put a film in NC-17 territory. Sometimes the amount of seconds made a difference.
And now thanks to John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig and the Angry Inch) there is “Shortbus.” It’s an art film with real sex scenes. Three guys do for the “The Star Bangle Banner” what “American Pie” did for apple pie. There are several plotlines involving relationships and the main characters go to a club called Shortbus.
Anyway, I’m torn on the whole issue. I’m tired of folks making such a big deal of nudity. But at the same time I don’t need to see every bodily function up close and personal. I’ll vote as needed.
bnsaI'm all for T&A, nudity, lesbians making out, and porn (Woo Hoo!) However, I stood up because I'm noticing that the content on VS is pushing the boundries every day, and while we can down vote all day long, most people will upvote T&A, Nudity, lesbians making out and Porn... why? Because SEX SELLS. Its been with us since the dawn of time and will continue to be with us. Few people object anymore and I was surprised no one (see comment section) objected to the original video that showed frontal nudity, which supports my point. My Wild Things video was to prove a point and ask the question: ok where does VS draw the line? I guess now we know a little better. I hated to have to speak up but I shouldn't have to (especially since I'm all for it - BUT NOT HERE). I guess I care too much about VS to see it become just another regular site.
Siftquistion!!! VIVA LA RESISTANCE!
LOL! :-P ~
joedirtHmm.. this was thought provoking. I am guilty of the bouncing tennis boob vote..
I also just pushed the innocent / nsfw envelope. Enjoy.
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=19711
theo47My comment from the thread:
It's not about the pot and the kettle, it's about artistic merit. The Fast Times clip is famous (or maybe, as you like to put it, infamous), and as dag said, is actually making a joke about gratuitous nudity.
Your clip, on the other hand, works on pretty much one level, and that's why it was appropriately downvoted - not for the nudity, but for the content. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Wild Things 3 just ain't the same thing. Ain't even in the same ballpark.
You're probably the only person on the Sift who's seen Wild Things 3, and even then maybe only this clip. There just isn't anything more to offer here other than lesbian nudity - which I am TOTALLY not against, but there are clearly other places on the internets where you can find that sort of thing, and plenty more explicit.
So I hear.
All that said, sex may sell, bnsa - but I like to think the standards at VS are just a tad higher than a million other stroke sites where you can watch hot lesbian action free or relatively free of charge. And by the way, my Fast Times clip is certainly not the first one to contain nudity and get a lot of upvotes:
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=18509
pho3n1xthen the magician then... that was acceptable? cause it seemed to get a lot of votes. and yet the NPH clip wasn't? this is where the confusion will come in.
jwrayI disapprove of any kind of over-arching rule about pornography. Let the voting system decide on an individual video basis.
KrupoWell jwray, our ruleset has worked out pretty nicely so far. There have been some borderline cases that were actually *-blogged but we in the end allowed voters to decide in certain borderline cases.
Blatant pr0n is still out though, and the logic has been discussed in depth in various threads.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.