Is she even old enough to be smoking? Pretty though.

Okay, don't get me wrong, this is pure awesome and all, but isn't there some rule against porn?
Again, I love it, but this is definitely soft-core porn if ever there was any.

>> ^ponceleon:
Okay, don't get me wrong, this is pure awesome and all, but isn't there some rule against porn?
Again, I love it, but this is definitely soft-core porn if ever there was any.


sorry too busy noticing artistic merit to notice

You should change the tags to vintage, viral, commercial...
this has to be an advertisement for Lacoste !!

I'm with ponce, after a quick google on Jacques Magazine I came up with some interesting finds.

Now, the new "Definition" is " "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. "

The entire purpose of the magazine however, is to be artfully sexual. It's playboy.. but a high class playboy.
"Where the good get naughty, and the Naughty get Naked"

Now, before I go any further, this is definitely *Viral

Now, onto this EXACT issue, Cover, "A red light says "Stop": this redhead's eyes undoubtedly say "Go": so just what message do her sexy stockings and garter give?

On the (something) theigh of this volumptuous vixen, these innovative intimates from agent Provocateur serve as both an incitation and a challenge."
(or, that's what I can make out, the text is stupidly small and difficult to read)

Anyway.. Wheres it has artistic merit to it.. it's still for an adult magazine. This.. may have to be discussed.

Adding video to channels (Viral) - requested by Shepppard.

so, *discuss it why don't ya there Sheppard??!! Have some drama farhad2000.....How's the weather treatin' ya?? Yer gal know yer watching this stuff??

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

Hurry, HU-rry hurry, step right up and seeee the gremlin...WATCH and LEARN as he lures the probies and weak of sift, into the arena to stir up the rabble...ONE thin dime, two nickles, five and five pennies, one tenth of a dollar...Hurry HU-rry Hurry!

*art

Adding video to channels (Art) - requested by geo321.

*quality

Videos that are under discussion may not be invoked quality - ignoring quality request by geo321.

^^^I'll agree it's artful-Highart???? Nahh. Some amateur wanker with a girl that agrees with him that her bodys' worth a peep.....She kinna feels herself up a bit awkwardly, maybe it's her first time on camera. Maybe its the first time farhad has seen titties that big onna redhead-MAAAybe, farhad is trying to stir up the crowd into a frenzy with his erudite, sophisticated manner. Perhaps he, like most of you pathetic excuses for schizophrenic earth-dwellers in this current Piscean cusp of a paradigm, are addicted to porno like choggies' addicted to bacon??

Take your hand(s), off the DICK!!

What's your problem withis this video choggie?>> ^choggie:
^I'll agree it's artful-Highart???? Nahh. Some amateur wanker with a girl that agrees with him that her bodys' worth a peep.....She kinna feels herself up a bit awkwardly, maybe it's her first time on camera. Maybe its the first time farhad has seen titties that big onna redhead-MAAAybe, farhad is trying to stir up the crowd into a frenzy with his erudite, sophisticated manner. Perhaps he, like most of you pathetic excuses for schizophrenic earth-dwellers in this current Piscean cusp of a paradigm, are addicted to porno like choggies' addicted to bacon??
Take your hand(s), off the DICK!!

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'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..

If this were shot on a miniDV camcorder (or at least not made to look like black and white film) there'd be no debate -- grainy black and white and a song from a Scorsese film doesn't automatically make something art. I'm not saying this does or doesn't belong here because I really don't particularly care, but don't try to pass it off as art, because it isn't. It's clearly jerk-off fodder.

So Choggie, you put this video here to discuss what is the endpoint you're hoping to achieve?

As pasted above, part of our definition of "explicit sexual content" is content that lacks any reasonable artistic merit. Though it may be debatable if the video as a whole should be considered a work of art, it is pretty clear that it does possess reasonable artistic merit.

Because of that and since it fails the DWT, I'm going to go ahead and *return the video.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by lucky760.

Art.

Now if you'll excuse me, Choggie has made me hungry for a BLT.

It's tacky. Definitely not art.

*nochannel
*femme
*sexuality
*music
*viral

This video has been removed from all channels (Art, Femme, Sexuality, Music, Viral) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by Sarzy. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Femme, Music, Sexuality, Viral) - requested by Sarzy.

>> ^Sarzy:
It's tacky. Definitely not art.
nochannel
femme
sexuality
music
viral


This bothers the crap out of me. You post the sift, you get to choose the tags. If the sifter says it's art, then it's *art. This isn't a blatant bad-tag situation, like putting a sift in Asia just because a passer-by happens to be an Asian person.

You don't have to agree with him.

Adding video to channels (Art) - requested by KnivesOut.

*music, for the house of the rising son.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^Sarzy:
It's tacky. Definitely not art.
nochannel
femme
sexuality
music
viral

This bothers the crap out of me. You post the sift, you get to choose the tags. If the sifter says it's art, then it's art. This isn't a blatant bad-tag situation, like putting a sift in Asia just because a passer-by happens to be an Asian person.
You don't have to agree with him.


Well, I disagree, I think this is a blatant bad-tag situation, but I don't feel like getting to a tag war so whatever.

>> ^Sarzy:
It's tacky. Definitely not art.


Not to get into a pissing match with you, but it is art. I see a representation of color, form, contrast, use of space, etc. used to provoke a thought or feeling.

You may not like it, tacky as it may be to you. I don't care for graffiti, but it's art, nonetheless. So is this.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
>> ^Sarzy:
It's tacky. Definitely not art.

Not to get into a pissing match with you, but it is art. I see a representation of color, form, contrast, use of space, etc. used to provoke a thought or feeling.
You may not like it, tacky as it may be to you. I don't care for graffiti, but it's art, nonetheless. So is this.


Well, I suppose you are right, in that you can argue that anything that calls itself art is art. But I still find this tacky and condescending. It's obviously trying to go for a French New Wave sort of vibe, but in the clunkiest way imaginable. I don't think it has any more artistic merit than something like that Seinfeld porn knock-off someone made a while back, but that's just my opinion.

better than any cinemax softies

>> ^deathcow:
I like it but I was hoping she'd get her bare ass up in the air and spank herself there towards the end.


Just buy the damn magazine.

Completely failed the Dag Wood Test.

So I googled the Dag Wood Test because I didn't recognize the term and this is the only refererence I found:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Fat-Girl-Ping-Pong-Passes-the-Dag-Wood-Test

Lawl... back on topic. I still feel that this is soft-core porn. I mean, we should be straight here that soft-core porn is not mutually exclusive with Art, but the fact remains that if I was caught looking at this video by a female worker at my place of employment I would surely lose my job (or at least end up in HR hell).

The comments made me think to exactly what my point is and I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I guess my fear is that I don't come to Videosift for outright porn and by letting this video pass muster, we are changing the fundamental purpose of the site. Again, I'm not a moderator or anything and I can definitely subscribe that this is, in the grand scheme of porn, on the artsy side of things, but it is still porn, plain and simple.

That said, I'm a man of common sense and I realize that this doesn't mean we are going to start approving double donkey penetration videos, but I suppose part of me feels this is just slightly out of place.

Devils advocate in me should point out that I've previously posted:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Russ-Meyer-Mondo-Topless

Common guys, why is this a discussion?
Farhad2000, We know you know the parameters for posting...
Sorry, but come on...

Edit: ... not that I didn't like it

Well... in fairness, we've already sifted stuff that definitely doesn't pass the Dag Wood Test.

>> ^schmawy:
Completely failed the Dag Wood Test.

To be even more fairer I voted for it. I don't want porn on The Sift either, but this had the charm of finding one of your uncle's old girly mags. >> ^gwiz665:
Well... in fairness, we've already sifted stuff that definitely doesn't pass the Dag Wood Test.
>> ^schmawy:
Completely failed the Dag Wood Test.

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.

I see it as a beautiful song with a beautifully artistic rhythmic *quality video.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by geo321.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'teasing, nudity, sexy, super 6, beauty' to 'teasing, nudity, sexy, super 6, beauty, bewbs' - edited by calvados

>> ^geo321:
I see it as a beautiful song with a beautifully artistic rhythmic quality video.


What about this is truly so artistic?

Is it when she busts her tits out and starts rubbing them? Or how bout when she strokes her cooch?

Nakedness =/= art. Adding music to behind the scenes footage of a pornshoot =/= art.

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. I'm not ashamed of it, when it's artistic, I enjoy it. This, however, is for <ahref="http://fashionindie.com/fashion-porn-jacques-magazine/">porn. Which again, don't get me wrong, I do LOOK at, but not on videosift.

You think it's a beautiful song?
Here ya go.

You want beauty in art, with nudity involved? Here or Here

You want a chick touching herself for the sole reason of erotic stimulation, both for herself and anybody else who looks at the magazine she's going to be in? See above.

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.>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^geo321:
I see it as a beautiful song with a beautifully artistic rhythmic quality video.

What about this is truly so artistic?
Is it when she busts her tits out and starts rubbing them? Or how bout when she strokes her cooch?
Nakedness =/= art. Adding music to behind the scenes footage of a pornshoot =/= art.
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. I'm not ashamed of it, when it's artistic, I enjoy it. This, however, is for <ahref="http://fashionindie.com/fashion-porn-jacques-magazine/">porn. Which again, don't get me wrong, I do LOOK at, but not on videosift.
You think it's a beautiful song?
Here ya go.
You want beauty in art, with nudity involved? Here or Here
You want a chick touching herself for the sole reason of erotic stimulation, both for herself and anybody else who looks at the magazine she's going to be in? See above.

Meh... artistic merit? I'm all for artful nudity, but this is dirty shite imo, hence my downvote.

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.

Art is subjective.

Composer John Cage wrote a piece of music called 4'33, which is essentially 4 minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. It is left up to the audience to figure out for themselves what the art of the piece is - if any. Is the absence of sound art? Are the tiny noises people make breathing and fidgeting in their chairs art? The point of piece, IMSO, is that art is whatever you decide to put your frame around.

I'd make the argument that anything put on film (video, DV, etc.) and arranged in a fashion to entertain people is art. I'd include porn in this as well, although I've never seen porn that I would describe as 'good', 'serious' or 'thought-provoking' art.

One more point. Art does not lose its art status just because if falls below a certain threshold of sophistication.

Gigli is art.
Nickelback is art.
Thomas Kinkade is art.
Twilight is art.

Oh, hey look, boobs!

>> ^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.

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.

Usually the "porn" you find here on sift is pretty funny. This was not funny, at all.

@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.

you will alll notice that farhad2000 has not bothered to chime in here.....arsonists usually return to the scene, the smart ones watch from afar......

I'll upvote your second comment choggie, that made me laugh.

The images you've planted in my head from the first of the two though, are going to haunt me for the rest of my life.

>> ^lucky760:
As pasted above, part of our definition of "explicit sexual content" is content that lacks any reasonable artistic merit. Though it may be debatable if the video as a whole should be considered a work of art, it is pretty clear that it does possess reasonable artistic merit.
Because of that and since it fails the DWT, I'm going to go ahead and return the video.


holy FUCK that is funny

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.

oops. sorry for the quoting duplicate mess above

Is it wrong I was trying to figure out what year Lincoln Town Car that was?

Payback, that line is gold. Definitely gave me a good chuckle.

Brilliant.
>> ^choggie:

Religion is a drug that atheists get a contact high from.

Boobies!

Oh crap, I'm late to the party aren't I?

thats the girl from pomplamoose

Whether one sifter thinks this is art or not doesn't matter. No individual is the final authority on what art is, and no one has to explain why something is art to them.

If you disagree with the tags/channel assignment, then down-vote it. If you disagree with the presence of this video on the site, then down-vote it. If you don't like the background color of the youtube embed, then down-vote it.

Why bother with the up/down arrows on the left otherwise?

Meh.

Go to the source video's Vimeo page, scroll down and watch Elize with the ice cream cone. Now that is art
I think these short "films" are more in the style of Art Imitating Porn.

appropriate for sift? probably not.

*quality

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by guitarwolf.

cigarettes make me feel ssssssssexy.

>> ^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.

^ Then down-vote it. Oh, don't have the privileges to down-vote? Sift more.

So far the only down-vote is from IssyKitty, and kudos to her for doing so.

All the other complainers have voiced their opinions with comments, but not with votes. WTF people? Is the concept of the site difficult to understand?

Maybe we should just have a big verbal debate about the artistic qualities of every video sifted, and then just let Dag decide whether it's worth keeping on the site or not.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Whether one sifter thinks this is art or not doesn't matter. No individual is the final authority on what art is, and no one has to explain why something is art to them.
If you disagree with the tags/channel assignment, then down-vote it. If you disagree with the presence of this video on the site, then down-vote it. If you don't like the background color of the youtube embed, then down-vote it.
Why bother with the up/down arrows on the left otherwise?


Personally, I would tend to look at a downvote as a -very- serious objection. Comments are a milder expression of concern or dislike.

Many of these comments have been about whether or not this video belongs on the sift. There is no clearer way to express your opinion in that regard than by voting up or down.

Personally, I didn't vote at all because, the video really wasn't that great. Just some chick squeezing her tits in a car. I didn't downvote because I thought it rode the edge. Even though it isn't art (or at least 'good' art) to me, clearly the people who made it intended for it to have some artistic sense.

> Personally, I would tend to look at a downvote as a -very- serious objection.

downvote is simply "Didn't like it ((click))" - there is no serious objection about it. The sift is supposed to bubble up videos people like, downvote is simply -- "didnt like it -- dont think its the siftworthiest -- next"

This is as much porn as this is http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-orgasm-explicit
So yeah.

>> ^gwiz665:
This is as much porn as this is http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-o
rgasm-explicit
So yeah.
Uh... no. How can you even begin to make that comparison?

All the qualities of this video that substantiate the "It's artistic" claims are missing in your "How-to Squirt" video. No interesting music, no artsy angles or filters or lighting. It's just a woman getting jacked off.

If your howto video has any merit outside of pure jack-off-ability, it's that it is almost clinical. Almost. Except that it's not, because that guy isn't a doctor, and that's not a procedure covered under any insurance plans.

So no, this isn't even a 10th of the porn of your "howto squirt" sift.

I'm not substantiating mine as "artistic", I'm saying mine has an educational value that this certainly does not have.

This is just a girl finger fucking in black and white, that doesn't make it artistic, that just make it a girl finger fucking in black and white.

If anything this video is far more made for people to jack off than the one I posted. I see very little merit as non-porn in the video above, other than to say "wow, it's certainly... artistic". Bah, humbug.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^gwiz665:
This is as much porn as this is http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-o
rgasm-explicit
So yeah.
Uh... no. How can you even begin to make that comparison?
All the qualities of this video that substantiate the "It's artistic" claims are missing in your "How-to Squirt" video. No interesting music, no artsy angles or filters or lighting. It's just a woman getting jacked off.
If your howto video has any merit outside of pure jack-off-ability, it's that it is almost clinical. Almost. Except that it's not, because that guy isn't a doctor, and that's not a procedure covered under any insurance plans.
So no, this isn't even a 10th of the porn of your "howto squirt" sift.

-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.

In retrospect I can see that it's hypocritical of me to cast judgement on your howto video. If you think it's art, sure why not, it's art.

However, in the continuum of what's acceptable in thumbnail on the front page, Tori falls closer to the OK side, and your howto vid is far into the "no fucking way" side. That's apparently reason enough to have a sift summarily executed by the state.>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not substantiating mine as "artistic"...[snip]

>> ^KnivesOut:
^ Then down-vote it. Oh, don't have the privileges to down-vote? Sift more.



What the hell? Why are you being such an ass?

You've been a member for 4 years, and your first sift came from 2 years ago, don't tell someone who's been here 7 months to sift more, when you yourself hadn't sifted ANYTHING for 2 goddamn years.

I'm with storm on this, A downvote isn't meant to be taken personally, but we're not just bots sifting videos, we're people. I've downvoted maybe 5 things for my entire stay on the sift, if I disagree with something, I voice my opinion. I may still offend the person who sifted the video but at least they'll know why.

And besides, when the video already has as many votes as it does, what's the point of a downvote? It's not like there's going to be 34 sifters who just suddenly appear out of nowhere, downvote, and then get this video removed.

Now, back on topic, this isn't art. Gwiz's vid isn't really educational. They both, however, fall into the exact same category. I can go out, pee in the snow and call it art. Would I showcase it as art? No, it's not appropriate and it's an insult to those who take their work seriously. Again, this is the set of a porn shoot, its someone with a camcorder, and they've just added a layer of music and a film grain on top. This isn't art, or as people are pointing out, it's not art to me.

Someone hit it on the head earlier, would you show this to an elementry school class, or place this in a museum? can you show it to a group of kids and say "This is beautiful because.." and not offend anybody, parents included?

I'm all for porn, I'm all for artistic nudity. This only falls into one of those though, and it's not art.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^KnivesOut:
^ Then down-vote it. Oh, don't have the privileges to down-vote? Sift more.


What the hell? Why are you being such an ass?
Maybe try decaf.

I think the squirting orgasm was educational and certainly had more merit than this. I don't think mine was art, fuck no, and neither is this.

Thumbnails has nothing to do with being discarded - I would hope - at least this was allowed to stay: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-ins-and-outs-of-a-Vagina

@Krupo: Yay controversies!!!!

I smell a mashup video...!!

>> ^gwiz665:
I think the squirting orgasm was educational and certainly had more merit than this. I don't think mine was art, fuck no, and neither is this.

>> ^Drax:
I smell a mashup video...!!
>> ^gwiz665:
I think the squirting orgasm was educational and certainly had more merit than this. I don't think mine was art, fuck no, and neither is this.



It would smell like cigarette smoke and massive quantities of lube.

Ah, like an average tuesday night where I get burned with cigarettes and molested repeatedly... I don't know why I joined that damn club in the first place.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^Drax:
I smell a mashup video...!!
>> ^gwiz665:
I think the squirting orgasm was educational and certainly had more merit than this. I don't think mine was art, fuck no, and neither is this.


It would smell like cigarette smoke and massive quantities of lube.

In the opinion of this occasional smoker, there is too much smoking going on in this video. Really hurts the hawtness.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 8:37am PST - promote requested by geo321.

This is why we need a *pretentious tag.

jesus, geo.. i'm really sensing a theme.