Uh...Wild Things 3?

Something can't be "infamous" if it was never famous to begin with.
Let's try not to turn VS into a smut-fest, mmkay?

interesting post. possible act of VS rebellion bnsa?

Discarded due to negative votes by members

*blog

VS Posting Rules: "We do not want pornography or "snuff" films (in which people die). There are plenty of other sites that have these markets covered, but it's not for us."

The definition of pornography (according to websters) is "any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire" which http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=19286 violates VS rules clearly, therefore, why isn't this discarded?

To answer your question: Smut-Fest? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? So who exactly is setting the rules if its ok for one person to post nudity/pornography and not another since obviously this appears to be a question of what exactly is pornography and what isn't (i.e. What turns you on?) As far as VS turning into a smut-fest, well, if these links don't push it into that catagory, yours does. So why discriminate this movie if yours is just the beginning?

All mine is, is a combination of: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=10552 (Kissing) and your video: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=19286 which shows breasts (Since that's OK) and as far as pushing the boundries, these others support this: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=19293 (breasts)
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=19111 (more breasts)

Dotdude, Ant, original VS members... I'm calling you out because I feel I'm the only one enforcing what appears to be a obsolete rule.

What happened to the "Moderators"?...The ones who set the rules to begin with? I'm raising the red flag not because I'm offended by breasts (Love the clip BTW) but because I believed in what I thought the original founders of the group did about VS, to have a clean safe place to enjoy videos. Do we not care anymore? I hate to be the bad guy but I thought VS was self-moderated, supported by the original moderators.

We need to talk about this because someone is sending the wrong signal out and more will follow unless we either abandon this rule or enforce it.

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by gold star member bnsa)

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

The linked video from Fast Times was about teenage sexual yearning, the shame of getting caught masturbating and a great deal of nostalgia for a lot of the 30ish and 40ish members of the Sift. I did not find it gratuitous or arousing. Seriously, I checked - not even a chubby. ;-)

The video which you have brought to our attention above, to prove a point I think, is very gratuitous and although perhaps not porn per se, not something that I want on the Sift. That's why I downvoted it. Remember downvoting can happen to any video. This video, I did not like - hence the downvote. We're all free to do that, and it has no direct connection to the posting guidelines.

I understand you feel strongly about this BNSA, but it seems ironic that you would be calling so much attention to this clip to try and get the Sift to move in the opposite direction.

I think moderation is working quite well on VS. anything of an even slightly mature nature is getting tagged NSFW before it makes it out of the queue, and the filter works well for people who don't want to see even slightly risque material.

If thine eye offends, pluck it out - or perhaps turn on the NSFW filter, probably less painful.

I care less about this video and it being downvoted. I care more about the VS Standards in which seem to going to the wayside and no one objecting. More of these types of videos will find their way onto VS and it totally contradicts what the rules are. THAT'S the issue I'm bringing up. I'm finding it harder and harder to care about anything anymore because the "squeeky wheel" turns out to be more annoying than helpful.

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

Reality is that we live in shades of gray. One person's offensive material is another's standard fare. We will never reach 100% consensus, that's why they are posting "guidelines" not rules. We do our best to use common sense in interpreting them.

I don't think that VideoSift is any more smut laden than when it started, maybe even less so, with more people watching and ever vigilant.

I'll hold my tongue from now on. Sorry.

:-/

(Please delete this blog)

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

No need to hold your tongue, it's worthy of discussion - though if this video was indeed to make a point, I would suggest just making a SiftTalk post instead.

Opinions and points-of-views are welcome here - as a community we have to operate from consensus. That's why discussion is good.

im of the opinion that if there is some other meaning to the clip other than solely T&A it has a valid case for staying.

Agreed with ren; for the record, I downvoted "Choco Party" for the very reason you brought it up here - I imagine Ant may have had similar logic.

I hadn't seen the tennis one before, but I'll be glad to downvote it now (done) since it's not especially funny/interesting.

Going back to this vid, "Side boobs" are the key little flesh-coloured boundary line between pr0n and non pr0n for actual "sexual things" (as opposed to non-use/fondling, in which case there's more leeway, i.e. Ridgemont) according to the dynamic definition that has evolved at VS (reference: look up the naked boss video).

Since there's contact/fondling, this video just barely passes (very strategically placed arm there!).

bnsa, one thing that's key, is the importance of the nsfw tag - it's probably allowed a bit more boundary pushing at the Sift thant here was before. There are still limits (no hardcore pile-ups), but artistic/cultural/humour arguments exist to allow a vid to stay (the "Instructional Kissing Video" was great b/c it spawned the posting of the Oz version as a kind of gender balancer).

I think it's safe to *return this now.

Returning this video from Sift Talk (Returned by gold star member Krupo)

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.