I've watched it 5 times now. Not once did I see a bike... is it some sort of new invisible bike technology?

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

I've watched it 5 times now. Not once did I see a bike... is it some sort of new invisible bike technology?
Perhaps "bike" is a euphemism? (I don't relish being a buzzkill, but does this not run afoul of VideoSift's content policy?)

i think it's the think that gets in the way. not sure though. requires moar research.

The advert succeeded in delivering half the message - everyone's thinking about riding but not in the context that would benefit a summer bike rental company

It's porn. Soft music and soft focus don't change that. But let's be open and *discuss the issue.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by messenger.

*music

Adding video to channels (Music) - requested by messenger.

Sexual yes. Porn no.>> ^messenger:

It's porn. Soft music and soft focus don't change that. But let's be open and discuss the issue.

I like it.

It *is* soft porn though. And I'm betting they did not get permission to use that music.

@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.

This is erotica, not porn.

And yes, I am saying that with a straight face.

Assuming this discussion has run its course.

*return

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by critical_d.

>> ^critical_d:

Assuming this discussion has run its course.
return


Thank you @critical_d

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.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by messenger.

>> ^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.

I'm with messenger...it's porn. Soft, rather artistic porn, but nonetheless. OTOH, I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

I think it's more than a bit farfetched to call it a commercial. It's 3:30 of semi-naked girls, followed by a 25 second credit that says it's an ad for bike rentals. Without that text statement, there's nothing at all in this clip to make one think of renting bikes.

" "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.

@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 ?

If that's not porn, then the definition of porn must be far more nuanced than I realized.

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

I think it's porn - soft core, but still. I know it's all subjective, and it's a grey fuzzy line, but I think this one falls on the porn side. The Britta one falls on the other side, IMHO - because it's just nudity without any real sexual content. Let's *discuss again, but I think this will have to go.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by dag.

Seems sift legal even though it is pure vote gathering tripe.

>> ^messenger:

"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.

Ok, I could see how this could be in violation of "da rule" now that I read it again. I still can't call this porn, though. If I was looking for porn and someone said, "Here, watch this.", I'd say, "No, I'm serious..."

But, if this is a violation, so is Supra girl. They both have the exact same "story": Once upon a time there was some titties. Buy our shit. The end.

As a bike enthusiast, I didn't even notice the girls until you guys pointed them out. This is not porn.

The man loves his bikes!

This is nowhere near porn. This is like a beer commercial. Mark it *nsfw and move on.

Edit: Having now watched it properly, I'm gonna recant the "nowhere near porn". It's not really porn though, we've had worse on here. Most of it sifted by me.
>> ^Hybrid:

As a bike enthusiast, I didn't even notice the girls until you guys pointed them out. This is not porn.

don't discard this video. i like bikes too and would hate to see this leave @Eklek's Biking! playlist

Here are some interesting articles regarding the erotica versus porn debate.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201104/what-distinguishes-erotica-pornography

http://varietypages.jamiedebree.com/2011/02/24/sex-on-the-page-porn-vs-erotica.aspx

http://www.jessink.com/porn_vs_erotica.htm

There's nothing stopping @Eklek from keeping a discarded vid in his playlist!
>> ^kulpims:

don't discard this video. i like bikes too and would hate to see this leave @Eklek's Biking! playlist

[wrong tab]

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.

The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

I don't think you should transpose how you feel the sift should be (not just you but in general)...it's not an individual's call. As far as pornography...as somebody that looks at it every day, not joking here, I masturbate to internet porn daily so I'm kind of a connoisseur, this is not porn. Would I show it to my mother? no. Then again, that's me. I would say this does walk some sort of line. Some might claim "slippery slope" others might cry "CENSORSHIP!" and both sides will be right and wrong at the same time.

What is a sure thing, though, keeping this on videosift won't change anything. The controversy will die off by Tuesday and it'll all be forgotten until it'll used as precedence in the next debate about some overtly provocative advertisement. Also I wouldn't view Vimeo as a propagator of pornography, so in some cases I think it's ok to use one of our accepted video hosts as a proxy for posting criterion.

[edit] no disrespect by the first part, I was speaking towards everybody here >> ^spoco2:

>> ^pumkinandstorm:
Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.
The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

@rottenseed I'm not even using 'me' as the yardstick by which I'm judging this sift poorly, I'm using @dag 's previously stated position on things like this, and the entry quoted above from the guidelines. The sift is a place to browse videos that have merit in one form or another (be they funny, smart, thought provoking, what have you). As this video has no merit other than being to turn people on, it doesn't belong here. Why do people keep trying to push this type of stuff onto the sift? It's not like it's in ANY way hard to find if you want it, why can't this be just ONE place you won't find it?

And I don't think a simple 'if I don't classify it as porn then it should be here' is really going to cut the mustard.

I reckon this is dross and the Sift is better off without it.

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

@rottenseed - I don't think passing the buck on what's permissible to our video hosts is a good way to go. We've always set that line internally.

I agree with @spoco2 that there is no shortage of this kind of stuff on the Internet - why does VideoSift have to be one more dump for it? What sets VideoSift apart is the things we say no to.

You edited yours ! I can edit mine !

The correct answer of course if for all of us to spend a couple hours a day watching the dirtiest ultrahardcore porn we can find, until we are so desensitized that the real merits of this video are unclouded.

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

OK, so I think there has been enough time for interested parties to voice an opinion - it's a gray line, but IMO it's over it. I'm going to make the call and say this has to go. Sorry @pumkinandstorm. *kill.

Permanently discarding this video - kill requested by dag.

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

*discard

Only queued or published posts may be discarded - ignoring discard request by dag.

@spoco2 "merit" is funny word...

@dagthere is no shortage of this kind of stuff on the Internet - why does VideoSift have to be one more dump for it?

Take a look at the top 15...there's plenty of that kind of stuff on the internet...

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

That's true - and a valid point. I guess it comes down to VideoSift's raison d'etre - jack off fuel or entertaining, thought provoking videos and good conversation?

>> ^rottenseed:

@spoco2 "merit" is funny word...
@dagthere is no shortage of this kind of stuff on the Internet - why does VideoSift have to be one more dump for it?
Take a look at the top 15...there's plenty of that kind of stuff on the internet...

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

Also, it's NoFap September - did you not get the memo?

Well there's plenty of places to go for jack-off fuel. Unless you're the type of guy in a titty bar trying to look down the cocktail waitress's blouse, if you want to handle business you go somewhere that brokers your own specific kind of wonderful smut.

It's your site, I'm just trying to help with generalizing the rules to these abstract and subjective ideas like "pornography". But where the line is hazy, I always tend to vote away from censorship >> ^dag:

That's true - and a valid point. I guess it comes down to VideoSift's raison d'etre - jack off fuel or entertaining, thought provoking videos and good conversation?
>> ^rottenseed:
@spoco2 "merit" is funny word...
@dagthere is no shortage of this kind of stuff on the Internet - why does VideoSift have to be one more dump for it?
Take a look at the top 15...there's plenty of that kind of stuff on the internet...

>> ^dag:

Also, it's NoFap September - did you not get the memo?



FYI September is like 2.592 million seconds long buddy