Hey man, not for nothing but, let's let the hotforwords Ruskie work on the etymology for us....(got an in with her as of now), since all the pole-polishers and nub-punchers on this site seem to want to spread their own personal form of cheer on the subject, not to mention the public masturbation sans therapy.....Dagmarrrr, don't let the site's users tell you what you already know, drop a nut and define the rules yerselfish......

Ohhh and by the by, to whomever it may be that has one opinion or the other as to whether some breasts or some penis' have any allure for one monkey or the other and wish to offer THEIR definition of what porn is or is not...again, go fuck yourselves, make a viddy, and push that shit on your own street corner..

and stop all the cursin' while yer at it...Why not let Jesus give you some pointers regarding your potty mouths, eh?

Matthew 15:11: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Let's see if the lady responds, god knows these monkeys need some release-

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I should also probably mention that the post that led to this post has been killed. But you can still access all the comments and figure out why it was killed by reading to the end.
http://www.videosift.com/video/EIT-After-Dark-CIRCLE-JERKIN

I back this 100 %. I'd rather be here and be square than not be here at all.

I don't like "censoring" things, but this isn't our playground, there's no constitution, no natural freedoms, so to consciously say "we don't want this" is acceptable, because it is your site. I wouldn't want anyone coming into my house and crap on the table either.

I said it at the end of the 'circle-jerk' debate and I'll say it here; why all the debate? If Dag is going to kill it, better to kill it sooner rather than after a long protracted discussion that goes nowhere.

Oh and for a definition of 'porn' that videosift can use, how about this?: Anything that upsets the advertisers.

While these points may be distasteful to some, it seems to be what happens here so why can't it be in the FAQ?

P.S. choggie: nice bible quote, you've really made me think.

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
I said it at the end of the 'circle-jerk' debate and I'll say it here; why all the debate? If Dag is going to kill it, better to kill it sooner rather than after a long protracted discussion that goes nowhere.
Oh and for a definition of 'porn' that videosift can use, how about this?: Anything that upsets the advertisers.
While these points may be distasteful to some, it seems to be what happens here so why can't it be in the FAQ?
P.S. choggie: nice bible quote, you've really made me think.


Since its inception, the Sift has not allowed explicit sexual content. That fact has never been up for a vote. Even after multiple comments and opportunities for people to come to that conclusion, this fact still seems to be difficult for some to grasp. Among others having this problem, two of those, ironically, title themselves thinker and brain. It is to laugh.

I agree then. The 'fact' shouldn't be up to a vote if that's how this place is going to be run. Perhaps next time these things can be killed before innocent eyes can be harmed by NSFW parody.

However, I am serious about defining porn, at least in part, as things which would detract advertisers. I do enjoy videosift and while my moral barometer may be a bit more liberal than some, I would like to see it continue.

I do not believe that the EIT video is porn, but if advertisers would have an issue, I am ultimately fine with its removal.

for me, porn really comes down to a matter of intent.
that circle jerkin video was never, in any point of its production, intended as pornography.
i personally hate porn that exploits or degrades another human being, or seriously fucks with some peoples idea of women and sex, and i dont want to see it anywhere. but not everything featuring arousal is exploitative, and not everything featuring arousal is pornographic.
this particular video was first intended as sexual education for a very umm... niche demographic, and then as parody. and the intent is very clear and unambiguous.

"upsetting the advertisers" is a reason to remove something that i'm not going to argue with.
but i stand by argument in the other thread, to someone who doesnt jerk off to titties, the thin line between "this stupid video of a bare chested woman is ok because it only makes me think about a boner, but this stupid video of this bare chested is not ok because it actually gave me a boner" doesn't exist.
so you need to draw a line better for the 5% of the sift who can't get a boner.

"No sexually explicit content". There.

^what's the difference between a female who get's off to seeing other women masturbating, and a male who get's off watching other males doing the same? Because the context (those unfamiliar with EIT had to be educated as to the context) involves parody does that make the material un porn-like?

Switch the gender-If this were making fun of a bunch of liberated males who loved everything about their cocobolos and got together on Tuesday nights with Big Gay Al pulling taffy and exploring the wonders of their Jizmo, would that have been discussed?? Lemme answer-no. Because the submitter would have been put in time-out. Just because one can't see the results when most girls are nutting baby, don't mean they ain't no juices a-looses....it's fucking porn, and your attitude bea discriminates in favor of the female...so it' sexist as well.

Not saying that's a bad thing.....just saying you might have a stick-up-the- ass attitude about it. Brain???...you simply like to poke a hornet's nest with a stick on a field trip to watch everyone scatter....naughty naughty naughty!!!

^ huh? this isnt a matter of sexual preferences.

its a matter of i dont see the difference, tits is fucking tits. maybe i could gage it if titties regularly gave me a boner, but they dont. tits is tits and there are tits all over this site. (the eroticise video that didnt feature masturbating ladies, but ladies with bare titties got killed too for the same reason)
make more sense dearie, either that or read more carefully. your adderall should be able to help you with that.

A video is unacceptable if it meets both of these two criteria:
1) it contains nudity
b) it is more likely to be found in an adult bookstore than in an art gallery or a doctor's office

Go fuck yourself, silvercord. And fuck your useless opinion of me and of brain.

You sit here and talk shit about people, but do you give anything of value to the conversation? No. You make a playlist mocking brain, titled "It's All About You, Isn't It?" That's petty and vindictive. You have no right to espouse your opinion like you're better than us. Fuck you.

I did what I did because I didn't see dag's post about not returning the video. I just thought it would be funny, in the middle of the silly back and forth, to return the video and upvote it (it had 9 votes at the time,) and then promote it. It was just a goofy idea for a laugh and I stand by my right to use the invocations I am allowed as I see fit. However, if I had seen dag's post about not returning the video because of sponsor issues, I wouldn't have stirred the shit.

Fuck you for throwing your weight around like you're some sort of know-it-all.

Asshole.

>> ^silvercord:
>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
I said it at the end of the 'circle-jerk' debate and I'll say it here; why all the debate? If Dag is going to kill it, better to kill it sooner rather than after a long protracted discussion that goes nowhere.
Oh and for a definition of 'porn' that videosift can use, how about this?: Anything that upsets the advertisers.
While these points may be distasteful to some, it seems to be what happens here so why can't it be in the FAQ?
P.S. choggie: nice bible quote, you've really made me think.

Since its inception, the Sift has not allowed explicit sexual content. That fact has never been up for a vote. Even after multiple comments and opportunities for people to come to that conclusion, this fact still seems to be difficult for some to grasp. Among others having this problem, two of those, ironically, title themselves thinker and brain. It is to laugh.

How about this?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Massive-Attack-Paradise-Circus

You want me to kill it?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Why not have the debate? I'm not 100% sure on views nor a perfect arbiter- I thought in this case it was pretty clear, but doesn't mean I didn't want to hear dissenting opinions.

"Anything that upsets the advertisers" besides sounding kind of weasely, is wrong. As I mentioned in the post above our decision on "no porn" happened way before advertising was a factor- and is a choice we made at the inception of the Sift. Also, advertiser's definition of "salacious material" is just as nebulous, if not more so than ours.

No, we need our own well thought out definition that serves the community. I'm leery of using the word "nudity" because I definitely don't want the human body to be off-limits.

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
I said it at the end of the 'circle-jerk' debate and I'll say it here; why all the debate? If Dag is going to kill it, better to kill it sooner rather than after a long protracted discussion that goes nowhere.
Oh and for a definition of 'porn' that videosift can use, how about this?: Anything that upsets the advertisers.
While these points may be distasteful to some, it seems to be what happens here so why can't it be in the FAQ?
P.S. choggie: nice bible quote, you've really made me think.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm in a public area surrounded by kids- can't watch this right now. Use your judgment. >> ^thegrimsleeper:
How about this?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Massive-Attack-Paradise-Circus
You want me to kill it?

nah, it sounds more like they just broke up. and if thats the case, then let me know, because that asshole has some serious explaining to do.
>> ^thinker247:
You make a playlist mocking brain, titled "It's All About You, Isn't It?" That's petty and vindictive.
>> ^silvercord:
>> ^BreaksTheEarth:
I said it at the end of the 'circle-jerk' debate and I'll say it here; why all the debate? If Dag is going to kill it, better to kill it sooner rather than after a long protracted discussion that goes nowhere.
Oh and for a definition of 'porn' that videosift can use, how about this?: Anything that upsets the advertisers.
While these points may be distasteful to some, it seems to be what happens here so why can't it be in the FAQ?
P.S. choggie: nice bible quote, you've really made me think.

Since its inception, the Sift has not allowed explicit sexual content. That fact has never been up for a vote. Even after multiple comments and opportunities for people to come to that conclusion, this fact still seems to be difficult for some to grasp. Among others having this problem, two of those, ironically, title themselves thinker and brain. It is to laugh.

I'd have to say yes, that's porn. Just because it's being used as a music video doesn't change that. I actually found it really interesting, honestly, but that's irrelevant.

If they had been a bit more aggressive with the editing, it might have been ok. As it is there's footage of sex acts that ought to be part of anybody's definition of porn.>> ^thegrimsleeper:
How about this?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Massive-Attack-Paradise-Circus
You want me to kill it?

dag, since this is really your rule and since what is and isn't porn varies from person to person, you're ultimately going to have to define this. Here's some suggested language, though.

- Graphic depictions of human masturbation are not allowed.
- Graphic depictions of human sexual intercourse are not allowed.
- Frontal nudity should be limited to comedic, artistic or educational context.

I'd avoid using the word "titillation" since we've got plenty of stuff that could be titillating but is clearly not porn.

The Sift can survive without it. Besides, how long have we run and this is the first real incident regarding it? Let it die already. Most of the time anything nude-wise is uploaded to the Sift with the best of intentions and can be recognized as cultural, mature and of value. This probably should have died off through the voting system, and not even become an issue.

Move along, nothing to see here.

I actually looked up a few definitions of pornography the best homogenization I could come up with was "the depiction of erotic behavior with the primary intent to cause sexual arousal"

Of course I'm also fond of what Justice Stewart said,"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,..."

I think the best thing is to have a definition like I gave with the understanding videos will be killed if necessary should they be considered too sexual and explicit. I'd rather see a more permissive policy than one that kills any video with boobies, penises and/or is of a sexual nature. There have been some good sifted videos that by a strict definition could be considered porn, but I don't think many sifters would.

I think that's pretty much the policy we've had, though maybe unspoken, but it does seem to have kept out the girls gone wild/naughty nurses IV videos and kept in http://www.videosift.com/video/Catholic-High-School-Girls-in-Trouble

Just my two cents.

I still stand by my definition:


If it depicts some form of sexual act, solo, with a partner, or with multiple partners and or animals, including any form of penetration, stimulation, or violation of naughty bits, it's porn. (Soft core is tricky, there is no actual view of "Penetration", and the most you'll ever see is a boob, but it all depends on how the advertisers view breasts, and if they're desensitized to the issue.)

If its something about describing anatomy, like a diagram, or something that is meant for educational purposes, as in the birth of a child, that's educational.

If it's about the female form, tastefully posed to show some larger picture of a form of beauty, that's art.
(Specific example of this is Three women being painted to form a tiger) Most body paint videos fall under this category.

>> ^dag:
- especially me. (no I'm not telling what my fetish is)


Wait..


It's Apples, isn't it? Hah!

this is not a debate. it's a hunt for more nsfw videos we can discard. here's one for the prude brigade: http://www.videosift.com/video/Model-abuse

From a "first time visiting" standpoint you would have to keep a distinction between tasteful and becoming another muchosucko (Don't ever go to that site if you value your eyesight).

I remember the "Kung Fu Sex" video was a big debate but to me that was pretty damn funny vs. being actual porn. The most you see in that is what would be passable for an R-rated movie most likely here. Another example would be the uncensored scene from Eyes Wide Shut. Graphic but up to the viewer to interpret it as artful. Realdoll documentary could be considered fairly graphic as well, but it passes as fine someplace else and would never make it here in the US.

Coming up with rules for this sounds like a logistical nightmare. If I learned anything from watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated is that self-regulation has its own strengths and weaknesses. What is porn/obscene to one person could be tame to another.

The bottom line though is although censorship sucks, the site has to pay the bills As for me, well there is a whole entire site elsewhere devoted to what I require. (Before you ask, no... its not beasttube)

Sometimes My kids watch through some videos with me on the sift.
Now I'm an artist, I've been through art school. I have drawn, painted and sculpted nudes countless times and have no issues with the human form whatsoever. (and yes, I've seen porn...) I am fairly liberal when it comes to nudity.

I have watched rental movies with my kids and some nudity has come up. As a parent, I cringe a little and quietly watch to see the reactions my kids have - Mostly so as not to create a situation out of it and turn it into a non-issue. My son (8) cringes, covers his eyes and asks to let him know when it's over. My daughter (13) has a different reaction, she responds with "Gross", frowns, and continues watching - to which I comment, "no it isn't, get over it", again to try and make it a non-issue. There is a place in story telling and in real life where nudity and sex exists - I say get over it and move on.

If I were to come across content, created for "explicit pleasurable gratification" or "exploitation", I'd probably hit the stop button and mention that it wasn't appropriate for kids. I wouldn't make an issue of it because it doesn't offend me. But I make a decision and off it goes.

As with watching videos on the sift, I don't care about nudity in documentaries, I don't care about nudity as an art form, I don't care about nudity from a doctor's point of view or even as educational. I don't care about scantily clad figures (m or f) being admired or made fun of. We gawk at people in real life for their "assets", so we should be able to here.

But, I don't expect to come across videos that are suggestively inappropriate. Stripping them nude, just so we can gawk at their nakedness for no other reason, just may be inappropriate for this site, (there are already sites for that). Footage such as explicit nude sex scenes from R-rated movies, I can do without here on the Sift. R-rated excerpts from X-rated movies probably also shouldn't make their home here.

At no point here, am I suggesting we, on the sift, are kids, (as in my illustrations above), but I think Dag has a good idea and understanding of what he does and doesn't want this site to become. This site is a filter for good and great video clips, meme, comedy and making fun at things obviously messed up. What it isn't is a place to pile the trash.

-- just some thoughts...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've been really trying to work out a good definition but it's a very slippery subject. Looking around the web- it seems that this has been a problem for websites for a long time. Porn is in the eye of the beholder. Here's a laundry list of things that we don't want:

- Close up depiction of a sexual act, solo or with others- this means you're seeing things at an organ level.
- Human organs in a state of sexual arousal. Erect cocks, wet vaginas.
- Posing or display of human nudity solely to provoke a sexual response - that means if there's no other purpose to the video than just seeing a person showing their bits for the viewer's sexual pleasure.

Anything else?

I like overcast's descriptions:

- Graphic depictions of human masturbation are not allowed.
- Graphic depictions of human sexual intercourse are not allowed.
- Frontal nudity should be limited to comedic, artistic or educational context.

And I am fully on the side of the sift being very strict with this. Yes you can have nudity (National Geographic and educational videos etc.), you can even have sex (The internal view of people having sex comes to mind), but I think it should be a case of... put forward those guidelines, but also it has to come down to a personal decision in some cases, and it's your decision is final, and if you don't like it then go to youporn.

I have no issues with porn per se, I DO have huge issues with the trend of mainstream porn at the moment to degrade women to a huge degree and completely forget the erotic side of sex. So I am completely with you on that front Dag... and, as you say, there are plenty of places to find porn on the web if you want it, so why does it need to be here? I have this site open at work, and so would rather not have to explain some thumbnail on the front page if it's open when my boss comes around.

And trying to suggest that the video in question was ok because a) It wasn't degrading, and b) It was cut such that it was supposed to be funny is missing the point. This is not about whether or not we're prudish, it's merely drawing a line in the sand as to what should go on this site, and a video of women masturbating, and showing the full act, can clearly be blocked for stepping over that line.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Massive-Attack-Paradise-Circus
^^^
^^^Might wanna kill that dag or lucky, innocents may still be able to see it if they follow the convenient link above...definitely porn....cocksucking does still register as porn on everyone's scale who has been discussing the issue here, including those who would say NO IT DOES NOT...those people simply don't know WHAT they believe yet...

I may misunderstand the situation, but the bottom line is advertisers being unwilling to have their ads displayed against certain kinds of material. You can't lose those ads or we all lose VideoSift. So I guess the better question to ask is how do they define it? The reason I'm saying this is because no matter how tightly you try to define it, there will always be videos on the edge of those guidelines that may still be unacceptable to advertisers.

>> ^burdturgler:
I may misunderstand the situation, but the bottom line is advertisers being unwilling to have their ads displayed against certain kinds of material. You can't lose those ads or we all lose VideoSift. So I guess the better question to ask is how do they define it? The reason I'm saying this is because no matter how tightly you try to define it, there will always be videos on the edge of those guidelines that may still be unacceptable to advertisers.


This is actually a good point - however, I don't know how many advertisers we have but having dag phone them all up and say "Oh, by the way.. how do you classify porn?" seems like a bad idea. That's probably going to hurt the appeal of advertising on the website right away and eventually, even without any of the material posted, they may just withdraw funding altogether.

That's a tricky one.

I assumed these advertisers or the people that represent them already have some sort of T.O.S or other kind of agreement that spells out their relationship. I certainly did not imply that dag should call and ask any of them what they think is porn. What seems to happen when this has come up in the past is that they contact him for violating some arrangement. What is the arrangement? What do they classify as porn? That's my question.

Beyond the question I'm asking, what I'm trying to say is that if the advertisers are going to control the site in this way then the onus is on them to define what is unacceptable.
So, let's hear it .. what is unacceptable to them?

I know it's wishful thinking .. in the end the bills have to get paid.

So what's the deal? Am I or am I not allowed to be on videosift while naked?

>> ^rottenseed:
So what's the deal? Am I or am I not allowed to be on videosift while naked?


You are, just try not to look anybody in the eye. That's something you never recover from.

"sexually explicit material"
which can be interpreted differently depending on the individuals viewpoint.
but it doesnt matter because the sift is a self-correcting organism.
this issue has been corrected by sifters participating.
i did not find the circle jerk video particularly offensive in a puritanical sense.
grandma's gettin their cookies off...good for them.
the video was kinda funny in an odd,disturbing way.
brain and thinker were just pushing the envelope a bit to see how far it would give,the community responded=video discarded.
no harm..no foul and brain and thinker have some shiny new bling to show off for two weeks.
nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and gettin people to think or feel about something from a different perspective.that video got this discussion rolling did it not?
discussion is good...sex is good....old woman with vibrators that can power a small mobile home however...is disturbing.
in any case the envelope was pushed and the community responded.
dag and lucky's social experiment lives on!

The underlying theme in all of this back and fourth should be clear as panes of glass on the first floor of the Burj Khalifa...There is a dysfunctional element of the human condition represented in the comments of some of the most adamant in the camp that screams "acceptable content for the sift, with regard to to the video that sparked all this bullshit.

No ad-hom, no finger-pointing, the tits who disagree with my observations who either down-vote this comment or read it and feel personally, ethically, or morally offended and offer their 9283742 cents to stir up confrontation, won't be able to help themselves from showing their asses, once again.

In the immortal words of Jeffrey Goines, "AHHHHHHH, Fuck the bozos!"

Not sure if this has been raised, but I have no problem with Dag and Lucky deciding what is appropriate for their own creation. There will always be borderline things, and at the end of the day, they have the final say. What's the big deal? People take this stuff way too seriously, with your "They're stealing our freeeeeedom!!!" rhetoric.

Unfortunately, we are not going to resolve the "what is porn?" issue. This article at findlaw ought to be enough to convince even the most perseverant among us that to come to a conclusion about what is or isn't porn is an exercise in extreme futility. While it might be wonderful to think that everyone in the world ought to adopt a laissez les bon temps rouler attitude, that is simply not going to happen.

The argument of advertisers aside, there are other governing factors in this discussion. First, as Dag mentioned, exploitation. It doesn't take very much googling to find out that the drug abuse and suicide rates among porn workers are staggering. There are people literally selling their souls to be involved in this industry. By buying the product and/or propagating it through our various media, we turn a blind eye to the destruction of real people. If the objectification of women in our society is a problem (and many here on the Sift appear to think it is), then porn amplifies that problem to manifold degrees. And Dag has it right, we don't know who is being exploited and who isn't. Why even give the illusion that we support that kind of degradation?

Second,is the impact of porn upon some of the members of this site. Statistically speaking the probability is certain that there are some of our members who struggle with addiction to pornography to one degree or another. Like alcoholism, there are certain people who cannot have just one. It ought to be patently obvious that this is an area in which we have an opportunity to take care of one another rather than to invite each other into further ruin. You don't have to go much farther than the end of your block to find a family that has been negatively impacted or even torn apart by porn.

Allow me to put it this way: If a friend comes to my house and I know he's an alcoholic, I don't serve him booze and I don't break it out in front of him. Why would I hurt someone like that? While I realize that it is ultimately his responsibility whether he drinks or not, I also realize that there are those who have lost the choice to drink and to set a drink in front of them might very well be their demise. So, I give up my rights to alcohol to help the person who needs it. Same with porn. While I might have a right to post it, I also have a right to not post it. What helps more people out?

For those two reasons, among others, I have enjoyed being a part of Videosift and, with a clear conscious, recommending this site to others.

Exploitation is an unfortunate reality connected with many many things, pornography included. But this debate isn't about whether or not pornography is acceptable on this site. Porn isn't allowed. That's already been said from the beginning. It's also not about whether pornography is addictive or whether it's immoral or to what degree I need to confess after whacking off. This discussion is about defining guidelines here regarding posting videos. Porn never has and will never be a part of Videosift. But what is porn? It seems to me the advertisers are the ones that in the end will decide this, because regardless of what reasonable wording (sudsy tits in the shower but no erect nipples?) we apply there will always be videos that violate it. So what are we doing? Trying to define our community knowing that it isn't in our control?

>> ^choggie:
The underlying theme in all of this back and fourth should be clear as panes of glass on the first floor of the Burj Khalifa...There is a dysfunctional element of the human condition represented in the comments of some of the most adamant in the camp that screams "acceptable content for the sift, with regard to to the video that sparked all this bullshit.
No ad-hom, no finger-pointing, the tits who disagree with my observations who either down-vote this comment or read it and feel personally, ethically, or morally offended and offer their 9283742 cents to stir up confrontation, won't be able to help themselves from showing their asses, once again.
In the immortal words of Jeffrey Goines, "AHHHHHHH, Fuck the bozos!"


I'm afraid those windows must be opaque with sand grit as I can't tell whether you're against those who think the vid should be on the site, or against those that think it shouldn't. And if you're getting your panties in a twist as to this even being a discussion point, then it really is about making the sift a comfortable place for most... and porn makes many uncomfortable, or at least it's something that people might rather exclude from their day to day browsing and do at other times on other sites.

"Porn", as we all know, is not clearly defined. I'd suggest you not mention porn in the rules and state the specifics of what you don't want.

>> ^burdturgler:
Exploitation is an unfortunate reality connected with many many things, pornography included. But this debate isn't about whether or not pornography is acceptable on this site. Porn isn't allowed. That's already been said from the beginning. It's also not about whether pornography is addictive or whether it's immoral or to what degree I need to confess after whacking off. This discussion is about defining guidelines here regarding posting videos. Porn never has and will never be a part of Videosift. But what is porn? It seems to me the advertisers are the ones that in the end will decide this, because regardless of what reasonable wording (sudsy tits in the shower but no erect nipples?) we apply there will always be videos that violate it. So what are we doing? Trying to define our community knowing that it isn't in our control?


My point is that you don't need an external rule if you have internal control. Do you really want someone telling you what you can post or not? Or would you rather be able to decide that for yourself based on your concern for others? Why let advertisers control that when we can do it ourselves without a written code?

>> ^silvercord:
>> ^burdturgler:
Exploitation is an unfortunate reality connected with many many things, pornography included. But this debate isn't about whether or not pornography is acceptable on this site. Porn isn't allowed. That's already been said from the beginning. It's also not about whether pornography is addictive or whether it's immoral or to what degree I need to confess after whacking off. This discussion is about defining guidelines here regarding posting videos. Porn never has and will never be a part of Videosift. But what is porn? It seems to me the advertisers are the ones that in the end will decide this, because regardless of what reasonable wording (sudsy tits in the shower but no erect nipples?) we apply there will always be videos that violate it. So what are we doing? Trying to define our community knowing that it isn't in our control?

My point is that you don't need an external rule if you have internal control. Do you really want someone telling you what you can post or not? Or would you rather be able to decide that for yourself based on your concern for others? Why let advertisers control that when we can do it ourselves without a written code?


Unfortunately the advertisers hold more power then we do. Until videosift can make a better revenue then it is on subscriptions, the advertisers pay to keep it running. If they don't like what they're funding, they pull the funding, and the sift is lost.

Determining what we can post is still important, but if the sponsors don't like it, then it has to go.

Group hug.

>> ^blankfist:
Group hug.


can we leave RS out of it?


I don't think he's wearing pants.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, yes- good for the Grandmas getting their cookies off.

I wish we could get past the idea that not wanting this content on VideoSift is somehow an act of puritanical condemnation and a statement on what's "offensive". Can we, please?

Human sexuality is a complex issue- and for many reasons- humans often require discretion around a graphic depiction of sex in a video format. This may be because we choose to delay its presentation to juveniles around us who, as carers, we feel are not ready for the content. It may be because we are dealing with the psychology of our own sexuality - OR it may be for many other reasons.

Can we please accept though, as humans, that we may choose to prevent the display of graphic sexual material- without it making us prudish puritans -or without it making us censorious nazis?

Can the people who have gotten offended by this discussion- try and rappel down from their high horses of social justice and see that human sexuality is a special case? Videos of people fucking are not the guy standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen.
>> ^enoch:
"sexually explicit material"
which can be interpreted differently depending on the individuals viewpoint.
but it doesnt matter because the sift is a self-correcting organism.
this issue has been corrected by sifters participating.
i did not find the circle jerk video particularly offensive in a puritanical sense.
grandma's gettin their cookies off...good for them.
the video was kinda funny in an odd,disturbing way.
brain and thinker were just pushing the envelope a bit to see how far it would give,the community responded=video discarded.
no harm..no foul and brain and thinker have some shiny new bling to show off for two weeks.
nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and gettin people to think or feel about something from a different perspective.that video got this discussion rolling did it not?
discussion is good...sex is good....old woman with vibrators that can power a small mobile home however...is disturbing.
in any case the envelope was pushed and the community responded.
dag and lucky's social experiment lives on!

I really think my criteria above would cover all cases pretty well.

The "if it has nudity" check is useful as the first step in testing if a video is unacceptable because any video that does not contain nudity can not violate the porn guideline and therefore can be immediately considered acceptable if it passes this test.

In addition to the nudity clause, I think the "if it is more likely found in an adult bookstore than an art gallery or doctor's office" check does well to permit any video that is artistic or educational and disallow any video that merely depicts gratuitous nudity.

I can't think of any type of video for which these criteria wouldn't work.

It hasn't been a problem yet. I think the guidelines are clear. There's always somebody that wants to ride the line. White lines. Ticket to ride, white line highway. Tell all your friends they can go my way. Pay your toll, sell your soul. Pound for pound costs more than gold.

er...where was I? Oh yea. So hasn't been much of a problem. Somebody either decided to see how close they could get or they really thought that because it came from a site that we normally post from, that it'd be ok to post. Well, it upset dag, he's the boss let's just call it and move on. If you guys want to make it more of a community decision. You can make a hidden *porn invocation which sends it to discussion, blocks anybody under silver star from seeing it, and allows a discussion to take place, just like everything else. That way, you don't have to worry about new members or non members accidentally stumbling upon it and turning them off to the site while the video is up for debate.

If discussions are too democratic, then you can just deal with it by being the leader of this site. Not every decision you make is going to be loved by everyone, but in the end if you think it's best for YOUR site, then do it.

Here's my impression of dag.

8==D~

Nah, just playing. Believe in Jesus.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK, so first off- let's drop the loaded word "porn". Let's call it instead, "explicit sexual content" lets define explicit sexual content as:

"gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature displayed for the sole purpose of causing sexual arousal- without artistic or educational merit".

I'm a little unsure about the "artistic or educational merit" bit as I bet that would be debated in many cases. I don't want to lose "defensible nudity" like pelvic exams or someone topless in an R rated movie.

FAQ has been updated.

And my, how things have changed. I submitted this video 3.5 years ago and everyone jumped on it and kicked it out for being too sexually graphic. (I just discovered it was reposted almost a year later with nary a complaint here.)

C'est la vie.

From the FAQ:

"Explicit sexual content" is defined on VideoSift as gratuitous nudity of a sexual nature lacking any artistic and educational merit displayed solely with the intent to cause sexual arousal."

This is as ambiguous as any of the other proposed definitions.
How can you define what is intended to cause sexual arousal?

You would have to define what is "sexually arousing" first and good luck with that.
Not to mention defining "artistic" or "educational".

At what point is nudity "gratuitous"?

I like rottenseed's idea best .. leave the broader rule in place and let there be a separate restricted discussion for fringe vids.

>> ^lucky760:
FAQ has been updated.
And my, how things have changed. I submitted this video 3.5 years ago and everyone jumped on it and kicked it out for being too sexually graphic. (I just discovered it was reposted almost a year later with nary a complaint here.)
C'est la vie.

Quick somebody call the WAAAAAAAAambulance!

Should be a porn sift as well as a non porn sift.

Or just a Porn filter that's on by default.

Porn sift is over here : http://pornbumper.com/