Insults aside I'm with kagenin, it happens.

>> ^kagenin:

>> ^entr0py:
This video is useless unless they tell us what drugs she's on. Seriously watch just the last minute and try to deny it, she's out of her gourd.

I've put girls in that state without drugs. You must be doing something wrong.

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.

>> ^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.

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.

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

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.

>> ^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.

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

Heh, fair enough. I didn't mean to be patronizing.. it just came so naturally.

Well, I think I almost completely agree in that definition. There's plenty of other content that intends to arouse the viewer without actually being porn though, a reading of an erotic novel, commercials (usually beer commercials) and such all intends to arouse the view, but should not be considered porn either.

To be pornography, it should contain two things: 1) the intention to arouse the viewer 2) actual sexual content.

A woman suggestively eating a banana isn't porn. Elderly (or younger) women sitting in a circle masturbating is certainly skating the borders of it, even it it's framed as if not to arouse - but instead be hilarious. It's all a big gray area. I'm not certain dag and lucky actually meant pornography when they wrote it in the faq though, it's basically just to keep sexually explicit content to a minimum (I think). And this is certainly pretty explicit.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

I'm a trend-setter.

In fairness to the video I posted, I'm very well aware that that one is skating the edges of porn-land, that's part of the reason I posted it. Before that I posted http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-orgasm-explicit (very nfsw) which eventually got discarded as porn. I think arguably both could have passed, but the latter is clearly "worse", ie. more pornographic. I think the above video is a little bit more pornographic as well. The reason the "ins and outs" video is not porn, is that it's clearly not about getting anyone off, even though it might (you pervs..).

Like snuff, the porn definition of videosift is not wholly identical with the dictionary version, and that's fine, just a bit confusing at times.

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^berticus:
i'm incredibly disappointed, and torn.
on the one hand i think it's so unbelievably cool to see a video of "older" women learning to enjoy sexual experience so uninhibitedly.
on the other, the fact that it's an EIT video just shows that most people think this is something shocking or revolting and therefore relegated to humour.
i was cheering for those old girls right up until the spirity wafty nonsense at the end.
but worst of all is reading the comments here, save for pb's.
there is already a fuckton of 'porn' on this site. most of the guys here (and some ladies) vote up videos that serve no purpose other than sexual stimulation. so what is the line that separates those kept from those discarded? because it doesn't seem to be anything well defined. it just seems like the boys club gets together and grunts appreciation or not.
well fuck that.

I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.
Nothing educational, or nothing that you can see on a basic cable channel. Again, i did my own search. The worst I could find was from Gwiz, something to the tune of "Explaining the vagina" with a live subject. Everything else was either clothed, or educational (I.e. you could see the same pictures in a medical textbook.)
The content isn't there. Friday nights on cable t.v. you can see soft core porn movies, played out more artfully then porn, and the most you'll see is maybe a boob, and a couple thrusting motions.
So, go on. Find me a video of this quality. Something showing explicit sexual stimulation, leaving absolutely nothing up to the imagination.

so true

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
It's fake anyway.
I know for a fact that women can't have orgasms.

Nice.

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
It's fake anyway.
I know for a fact that women can't have orgasms.

>> ^entr0py:
This video is useless unless they tell us what drugs she's on. Seriously watch just the last minute and try to deny it, she's out of her gourd.


I've put girls in that state without drugs. You must be doing something wrong.