IIRC she dated Marilyn Manson, no?

Studies have shown that with a thumbnail like that this video's shooting straight to #1.

Didnt I hear something about videos here passing the "boner test"? I aint complaining..

^the "Dag Wood Test" is the official name of it. It's tried, tested, and true.


(Except for that video involving the sheep. I don't know why that one didn't pass)

published by LadyDeath 1 hour 1 minute 56 seconds ago • 225 views

I Know also non members watch this but


wow 225 Views in 1 hour... and 13 Votes Brilliant !!! LOL funny

*Promote For Those Who dont Like To see "porn"

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 12:20pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter LadyDeath.

Them is some big fake boobies.

[edit] Why must women do that? Anyone can spot em a mile away, and they just look unnatural.

And this passes the wood test because any chub you might have had immediately goes away when the fat guy comes out.

Thanks for the thumbnail prominently displaying ta-tas on the front page. Not that I don't appreciate it... but some of us are still at work.

Remember, it's not porn if it's old-timey. Or pseudo-old-timey.

Upvote for the thumbnail alone.

you think that is a condom blown up?

Eh, usually I can appreciate Burlesque, but this isn't even mediocre.

And who shows the goods right off the bat?

I'm obviously too gay for this video, I passed the dag test with ease.

>> ^roguewrx:
Thanks for the thumbnail prominently displaying ta-tas on the front page. Not that I don't appreciate it... but some of us are still at work.



well I dont know How to change the thumbnail..sorry..and you can use the mouse to scroll down the page fast...and I think is small don't you think??

Nice balloon you got there

classy lady...and she was married to Maryiln Manson. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...read the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Hard-Road-Out-Hell/dp/0060987464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216176107&sr=8-1

This is soft porn. Can somebody please do something about this? I come to videosift so that I don't have to deal with this type of disgusting objectification of women. Come on, guys.

And LadyDeath, WTF?!

fake

>> ^thepinky:
This is soft porn. Can somebody please do something about this? I come to videosift so that I don't have to deal with this type of disgusting and pornographic objectification of women. Come on, guys.
And LadyDeath, WTF?!



I just have to say whatever Im not going to deal with another kid saying this is porn...If you dont like it and if you think this is SO DISGUSTING dont watch it,you saw the thumbnail...end of this,,Im not wasting my time with people who dont understand.

979 views SWEET!!!!! Someone help to change this thumbnail people is "crying" here because is woman with boobs in the sift front page omg they never seen nothing like that before,and she is not naked LOL

>> ^LadyDeath:
>> ^thepinky:
This is soft porn. Can somebody please do something about this? I come to videosift so that I don't have to deal with this type of disgusting and pronographic objectification of women. Come on, guys.
And LadyDeath, WTF?!

I just have to say whatever Im not going to deal with another kid saying this porn...If you dont like it and if you think this is SO DISGUSTING dont watch it,you saw thumbnail...end of this,,Im not wasting my time with people who dont understand.
Yeah, I "understand" that this is the modern world's sad, sad, sad excuse for art.

> Studies have shown that with a thumbnail like that this
> video's shooting straight to #1.

yes.. solid performance, rocketing straight up, hard to beat!

her nipples are covered

*TITS

Alright, this is a video of someone doing what they love.
I don't understand the controversy. Just because I watched this doesn't make me think of a woman as an object. I see her dancing, and I see her doing something she loves to do. I'm not sitting here thinking "I'd hit that so hard she'd walk funny for a week" I'm actually sitting here enjoying it because it's a dance.

People need to seriously reconsider what they want to pick fights with. Society on the whole has come to terms of equality. Black, White, Yellow, Purple, brown, male or female, everybody has equal rights and opportunities.
No race is better then the other, and same goes for the Sexes.

People don't treat women as brainless objects anymore. You can vote, you can drive, you can work, the only thing you can't do is pee standing up. People have accepted that women are NOT objects anymore, and therefore can actually watch something like this and appreciate it as art.

Because we (at least not all of us), don't have our head in the gutter anymore and can accept it.

>> ^Shepppard:
Alright, this is a video of someone doing what they love.
I don't understand the controversy. Just because I watched this doesn't make me think of a woman as an object. I see her dancing, and I see her doing something she loves to do. I'm not sitting here thinking "I'd hit that so hard she'd walk funny for a week" I'm actually sitting here enjoying it because it's a dance.
People need to seriously reconsider what they want to pick fights with. Society on the whole has come to terms of equality. Black, White, Yellow, Purple, brown, male or female, everybody has equal rights and opportunities.
No race is better then the other, and same goes for the Sexes.
People don't treat women as brainless objects anymore. You can vote, you can drive, you can work, the only thing you can't do is pee standing up. People have accepted that women are NOT objects anymore, and therefore can actually watch something like this and appreciate it as art.
Because we (at least not all of us), don't have our head in the gutter anymore and can accept it.


wow wow wow Lovely words

I'll never understand why people get so upset about sexuality. 1. It's natural and 2. I can appreciate this as an art form; one that women used as a profession in order to survive. Hell, this isn't even stripping...its performance art.

Sex, in all its form and splendor, is not something to get upset over. Life's too short.

If this video were an artistic dance celebrating the beauty of the male body, say, if he had a jewel hanging off the end of his penis, would you still think it was art? Would you have upvoted? Don't try to say it isn't erotic. It is sexual material created purely for arousal. That's called porn.

Sex is great. Let's keep it off the Sift like we're supposed to.

I don't agree with the idea that this is an objectification of women.

This woman lives off of taking advantage of a the carnal weakness of some men and woman. She is not an object, she is an entrepreneur and good for her for finding her niche, exploiting it, and getting rich. If anything, we are the mindless object.

I'm sorry, I just don't think we should have to live up to the twisted standards of the sexually repressed and frustrated. Enjoy your bodies while you can! They are beautiful and one of few sources of joy in the hard world.

But be safe of course

well there's only one way to find out.. post the male equivalent!

You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.

To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.

I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.

>> ^Bleedingsnowman:
I don't agree with the idea that this is an objectification of women.
This woman lives off of taking advantage of a the carnal weakness of some men and woman. She is not an object, she is an entrepreneur and good for her for finding her niche, exploiting it, and getting rich.
I'm sorry, I just don't think we should have to live up to the twisted standards of the sexually repressed and frustrated. Enjoy your bodies while you can! They are beautiful and one of few sources of joy in the hard world.
But be safe of course

>> ^thepinky:
If this video were an artistic dance celebrating the beauty of the male body, say, if he had a jewel hanging off the end of his penis, would you still think it was art? Would you have upvoted? Don't try to say it isn't erotic. It is sexual material created purely for arousal. That's called porn.
Sex is great. Let's keep it off the Sift like we're supposed to.


You sound like the worst kind...an oppressor. Lets all live in shame and disgust when looking at the human form. What about the pictures of jesus wearing nothing but a cloth covering his crotch...sounds a little erotic by your standards. The worst part of this is that she is not even naked, and doesn't do anything but walk back and forth with a giant balloon. You want to talk about objectifying women, give a little more depth in your reasoning. Fight for the women in 3rd world countries being sold as sex slaves,or being castrated, not someone who is agreeing to the terms of their sexuality.

Women like you are the ones who objectify women as you think of them in those terms and tag anyone with an open sexuality a slut or promiscuous.

Haha, I like how the idea of enjoying our bodies suddenly leads to things like molestation, despite that - since we are using generalizations - repressing sexual desires leads to such deplorable indulgences (i.e. molestation within the Catholic church).

If you're hanging out with guys that depreciate their women because of porn, then you should probably start hanging out with different guys, or tell your girlfriends to find new boyfriends. Those guys obviously have a confusion of fantasy and reality (an unfortunately common phenomenon). Any man worth staying with finds as much pleasure from making his partner feel just as appreciated as he does.

I don't really see this argument going anywhere since you are arguing from the stand point of religious piety, and I argue from the side of human nature with no consideration for caring of some type of divine referee. It is impossible for our stand points to cross - anywhere. While you consider myself lost, I think the same of you, so I believe the only option is to "agree to disagree" as they say.

Also I wasn't trying to call you, personally, sexually repressed, just the people who, from a position of begrudging power, condemn openness and reality, like homosexuality, in an attempt to vindicate their unhappiness.

>> ^thepinky:
You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.
To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.
I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.


If you think this is porn, I think you really have issues.

The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.

The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU. Both men and women enjoy seeing female form more then the male form, because the female form represents beauty in the arts, and in very essence it is beautiful.

A celebration of that form is not pornographic.

Burlesque is about fantasy, its art, its about the exploration of carnal desires not their fulfillment. Pornography on the other hand is not, its literally about the physical act of sex, its the act more then the fantasy itself.

This feeds into the way carnal desires work on a psychological level.

We enjoy watching erotic films, romantic novels, romantic movies or stuff like this because there is a framework of fantasy at work, we create an emotional resonance that leads into the sexual act. Most of the people in that audience watch a show like this and go home and fuck like rabbits. Because it feeds that fantasy, we look at our partner and want to do all kinds of kinky things to them.

That's why Victoria Secret sales are so strong.

People get bored of making 'love' and intimacy, because it doesn't work like Disney in the real world. You need to create spice in your sex life, love and intimacy is about the first year or so of being in love, after that you need to work to have a good sex life, sexual fulfillment is just as much a issue of a relationship as communication.

Psychologically when we are with our partners we often have a very different view of them then the reality of them, in essence we desire them for a fantasy perspective we possess of them linked to created concept we have based on time spent together, desire, interests and that unquantifiable aspect of love. Psychologists assume this is necessary for monotony and the actual act of sex.

Others enjoy pornography because its the fulfillment of that fantasy being fast forward devoid of emotion to the act of sex itself. However without a level of fantasy the act of sex degrades to one of physical perversion. How many times have you seen porn or been fucking and had a Epiphany of oh my god this looks horrid. Because it does. Its a very animalistic base act of fulfillment. We dress it up alot with all kinds of concepts but at the end of the day it's as raw as watching two dogs humping. This is why porn has to create some basic level of fantasy, even if its crude and stupid, the girl next door, the frisky teacher, the plumber and so on and so forth. You will find that the best porn actually is more erotica then porn.

With regards to your idea that porn tears apart marriages.

Its a ridiculous concept. I personally believe in our modern, fast paced, everything at your finger tips, your needs met by company X world both men and women have unrealistic expectations of their partners.

Women desire heroic characters with a soft inner shell that can make chicken soup for you. Men desire a slave worker cook whose a harlot in the bedroom.

Pornography is not infidelity, its the release of sexual desire that is persistent in the man nature, by nature we are built to fuck as many things as possible to seed our DNA code. That's nature and God designed. I seen alot of couples deal with this in the long term by fantasizing or spicing up their sex lives, they love one another but that initial spark and heat is gone, something they need to work at to get back. Going to burlesque shows or strip clubs together or watching soft core or filming themselves or dressing up or kinky things and eventually exploring their own sexuality. There is reason swingers clubs and the such exist, because people sometimes love to be together but seek to explore themselves sexually or other people with their partners.

At the same time I have seen many people being paralyzed by sex, being utterly frighted of it, because of some silly indoctrination they received when they were younger. Unable to satisfy themselves and eventually their partners because they were essentially sexually suppressed.

I could go on and on but I really think your concepts of what is porn and sexuality is based around misjudged postulations of a religious framework. We lived in several cycles of religious control of sexuality all of them showed it is a facade that tried to suppress what is essentially our nature. While sex and or booze isn't so much an issue now, its more about homosexuality which is basically love.

Remember Alfred Kinsey's research and work changed the way we looked at sexuality in the 1930s enabling the 60s sexual revolution, which was connected with free love, female empowerment, and the coming of the pill.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

I would just like to bring this video to people's attention. Nobody attacked that video saying that it was ZOMG pron. Some people said maybe it was a bit homoerotic, but I don't think it is so much worse than female burlesque.

Anyway, I'm glad that farhad wrote that long essay. I essentially agree with everything he said.

I am sorry that you feel that way about porn, thepinky, but I strongly believe that you are mistaken. While yes, some (most?) porn is disgusting, I think that is unjust to categorize every performance featuring the female form together. It's a bit like saying that just because some terrible author writes in English, then therefore all English novels are so terrible.

As ladydeath pointed out, it is unfortunate that your viewpoint doesn't allow you to enjoy this video, but just skip on, and watch the next one. If you are fixated on seeing some injustice, you will see it everywhere you look. If you believe that the air causes every problem in the world, you can find proof of it everywhere you look. Sometimes it is hard to separate cause and effect.

Ohio-Exotic-Homogeneous Variable Asexual Incorporated.

but farhad, imagine a show with the expectation of carnal desire realized annnd a suite on the 98th floor and brunch at 4....DND

Hm, I go to sleep, and I wake up to all of this...
well I think its all been said, this isn't porn - and it does not objectify women - in fact its a good example of art against porn - its just a shame some people think if you show your boobs or the full exposed shape of your body its porn

LadyD says if you don't like don't watch - sounds good to me
I know thumbnail is a bit dodgey - but she isn't actully naked (unlike, I should say - some videos on the sift)

Nothing wrong with naked though and it does not automatically make something porn!

oh and ThePinky, arguing that some men said they perceived woman as objects, does not still make this porn, or objectify Dita. Naked body dancing - doesn't equal porn, not now, not tomorrow not ever.

Art is beauty, and something to be appreciated, this is erotica; not porn, erotica tells a story or explores an idea, it can use the human body, porn is performing explicit sex acts - meant to arouse sexual interest in the reader.

It really is impossible for me to argue with you all because my sense of morality is so different that I'm basically a freak among Sifters. I DO believe that repression of our sexual desires is a bad thing, but sex should never be detached from emotion. Think about it. Everything bad about sex and immmoral sexual acts stems from this separation. When sex becomes something besides a means of expressing love, it deteriorates. It turns into an addiction. It leads to other things. I'm not saying this occurs all of the time or for everybody, but as a society, yes. I believe that sexuality between equal partners is the best way to get sexual release, and that it is the abuse of our sexuality that makes us need more than that. A little fantasy and roleplay and other fun stuff can be great, sure. But I believe that human sexuality can be fully realized by two people. Just them. No strangers. Just two bodies and love and sex. You can do whatever you want to keep it real and exciting, but I don't believe that you should need anybody but your partner for something that intimate. I donno. It makes me feel pretty special that all my partner needs is me. I know that you guys don't agree, and I don't really care. I'm happy. A relationship that is based on emotion rather than sex (and that uses sex as an enhancement of that affection and intimacy and for a bit of fun rather than using the partner as a means to an end) is going to be a stronger and more lasting relationship everytime.

The idea that men are more sexual than women is a chauvenistic principle that has been around for decades and is the cause of the historical sexual repression of women. This woman is not engaging in a sexual act for her own pleasure and satisfaction. She is displaying her sexuality for the enjoyment of others. I don't see this as empowering her in any way, but some feminists would, yes.

Again, the Male Gaze. Men look, women are looked upon.

Yeah, whatever. I don't care whether you think it is porn or not anymore. I guess my definition is a little more strict than yours. I define it as material created specifically to arouse, and that's what I think this is. But if you are often exposed to porn this would seem very classy and not pornographic at all. Whatever. You're desensitized.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way. I've had other women make private comments on my profile about this, but none of them have said anything in here. *sigh* Oh, what a world.

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

Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.
The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU.

Guys, I'm really just mad about something else. It periodically finds its way into my head and I get pissed off and hurt and crazy for a couple of days until it passes.

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

Thanks for sharing ThePinky.

This is actually a good discussion - everyone please keep things civil. I've noticed sometimes that when personal revelations come out in a thread - that's the tipping point when things go berzerk. But not on our community.

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

Also, on a larger question - I don't find this arousing. I think I might be desensitized - as are many males on the net.

The only appeal for me of this video is the rustic retro vintage angle - but to be honest she's not doing a whole hell of a lot. The novelty in the champagne glass video was a bit better.

>> ^dag:
Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.

Yeah, well, Michelangelo liked weiners.

"The idea that men are more sexual than women is a chauvenistic principle"

Really? Is that way women are constantly saying "men are pigs"?

Or do you think that we enjoy creating stereotypes of ourselves that women hate?

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

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>>
Yeah, well, Michelangelo liked weiners.


That's my point. His concept of beauty was formed by his sexuality - and reflected in his artwork. Though admittedly - You don't have to be gay to think David is beautiful.

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

So anyway - I love the female body - but I can understand that an alien coming to earth without our sexual inclinations would not share my concept of beauty.

"You find those fatty sacks on the front of the torso that secrete the sticky white fluid attractive?"

PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS SO THAT IF I HAVE SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT POSTING PERSONAL THINGS I CAN DELETE IT!!!



God You dont have to discuss your private life in here for "Simple Art Video"
This is Getting so Dramatic Again and Again...

^thepinky:

I don't like that to be ascribed feminine character traits is one of the most degrading things that can be said to a man ("pussy", "girly", "sissy", even "gay")

Since there is no standard definition for pornography, I'll simply offer mine:

Pornography is more than just objectification and arousal, but it's also about exploitation. In most porn you see women being controlled by men, being nothing more than sex toys. Women's heads are pushed down onto the genitals so they'll give blowjobs, or men ejaculate onto their faces, butts, or breasts, or they are gangbanged, or they are depicted in subservient roles like maids or secretaries who are really there to please their bosses. So they are the inferiors to males, basically.

Obviously we don't see any exploitation aspect to this video, because firstly there are no men in her act, and secondly Dita is in control. She's not giving lap dances or hustling for dollar bills on a stage. She's doing the entire dance to her own choreography, and we're simply left to watch. Sure, she is arousing, and she's also allowing herself to be objectified, but she's not being exploited in any way. (In fact it is my understanding that Dita Von Teese has been careful to control the copyrights to most of her images, that way she'll make herself wealthy, and not some man.) All three conditions (objectification, arousal, exploitation) need to be met for me to call it porn. Instead I would label this as "erotica," which is a subtle but important distinction.

Just one man's opinion, and I'm not looking to sway anyone to my way of thinking.

^LadyDeath:

Wow, that was really uncalled for.

Off topic a little bit, but since when were we supposed to keep sex off of the sift?

Sorry to hear about this thepinky, I really am. I would hope that if your psychologist has helped you to understand why the perpetrator did this to you, then they also should have helped you gain some objectivity too. The most innocent things can aid some peoples craziness. I think we all know that it is never just one thing that causes such behaviour as you have had to suffer, they are just factors in an already warped mind.

LadyDeath, I get your point and why you are reactionary to thepinky, she called you out for no good reason. But I think to say that someone is overdramatising when they've just spilled something so personal is a little off. Therapy comes in all shapes and forms, it's not for us to decide how and when people should share their stuff.

I don't believe our sexual orientation dictates our likeness towards forms, there are many male forms that males find appealing as well, in the creation of role models of physique especially.

I would disagree on pulling in classical art into this, what you are talking about is the classical view of the perfected man. The best example is Michelangelo's own statue of David. If you look at that piece you will find that it's entirely manipulated to create an appealing form. The head, arms and hands are enlarged, the physique is manipulated as well as the genitalia itself, the entire body follows golden ratio principles. It's basically a facade of reality.

Furthermore my response was mostly to do with adressing Pinky's question of why we don't see men exploited in this way. We do in the chip n' dale dancers but you will find their standards of form are more restrictive then say female strip clubs. Because as I said the base male form is not as appealing as the female form.

>> ^dag:
Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.
>> ^Farhad2000:
The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.
The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU.

[Retracted]

QUICK! Someone call Dita Von Teese and tell her that someone on the internet knows what's best for her and thinks that she's being exploited. This woman is obviously misguided in her principles and should not be allowed the right to think for herself!

I don't think this counts as porn; I'm not voting it up because I wasn't really entertained.

Incidentally, the bubble dance has a long history in burlesque. It was originally developed by Sally Rand. You can look up a performance of it on youtube, though I'm going to sift it as soon as I post this comment. I think the original has a lot more grace to it, but it's also less of a strip show and more of a dance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_dance

LadyDeath, I downvoted your comment because it really was unnecessary for you to quote her comment, when she specifically requested you didn't, to make a comment of your own that neither addressed her comment, nor contributed to the general discussion.

" Because as I said the base male form is not as appealing as the female form. "

yeah, I must concur, and it has to do with my sexuality....meaning, " I'd rather look at a hundred naken women, and trip on the variety of distributions \than a hunndred men's peckers and abdominal fat....much more comely and intriguing-0When I want to get excited about a the classic male figure, I check a mirror, baby!!!"

>> ^direpickle:
^LadyDeath:
Wow, that was really uncalled for.


This is getting outta hand

ThePinky - stop singling out LadyDeath for posting Burlesque - its not porn. I am getting sick of people objecting to art because its offensive. It's NSFW because some may find it inappropriate - erotica has existed for centuries - if you find it offensive then don't watch but singling out one user for posting it is not right.

Videosift is not policing its content because that would daage the sift, but individuals can block content if they wish.

Also, it's insulting to Dita to say she is being exploited; its her art and profession.
You could argue she exploits the carnal instincts of her audience - but thats a different story.

I watched it because of the huge...uh...balloon. I upvoted because of the....uh....jazz.

porn is natural, regardless of whether this video depicts pornography or not (which, in my opinion, it does not).

anyone who says porn is not natural needs to look closer at history as a whole.

Her breasts don't look like breasts, they look like silicone bags. It kind of takes the sex appeal off.
Unless bags of liquid gel do something for you.

Also, the routine isn't very.... ambitious? I found it quite boring.

this really is the most retarded subject to debate. The only thing good that came from this is my realization that there are people out there so uptight they actually think nudity is immoral.

You may argue that whatever encourages lust or sexual thought is immoral. Well...I love a beautiful woman's foot in a nice open toed heel. Does that mean every time I look at a female foot and get a bit of a spark and a turn on that we should cover every female's foot? I can get aroused by a fully clothed female. What now?

Now in some cultures through out time they hide other areas like the face. Now if a woman were to unveil her face that'd be (in my estimation) the equivalent of a woman here showing her breast. It'd be a turn on to those who have not yet seen her bare face. Yet you, as a female, walk around with your face in the open all day. In their culture, you'd probably be stoned.

Conversely in other cultures, women and men walk around fully nude. This is both acceptable and does not increase any sort of objectification in the role of a either sex.

What's the enemy, nudity or censorship? My thoughts are my thoughts and as long as I treat them as a passing cloud and let them go instead of pretending they're not their I can handle them in a healthy socially acceptable manner.

I registered just to make this comment...

...Has it escaped anyone's attention (Pinky?) that the cultures that most want to cover the female body are also the one's least likely to afford them equal status and rights?

I don't even see this as NSFW, unless you work for a ministry. And anyway, why are you watching videos at work?

awww hell viewer_666, s'called multi-tasking and hating the fuck outta the thought of a job-JOB......AAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

>> ^viewer_999:
I don't even see this as NSFW, unless you work for a ministry. And anyway, why are you watching videos at work?


lunch break

>> ^nazdorovia:
I don't think this counts as porn; I'm not voting it up because I wasn't really entertained.
Incidentally, the bubble dance has a long history in burlesque. It was originally developed by Sally Rand. You can look up a performance of it on youtube, though I'm going to sift it as soon as I post this comment. I think the original has a lot more grace to it, but it's also less of a strip show and more of a dance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_dance
LadyDeath, I downvoted your comment because it really was unnecessary for you to quote her comment, when she specifically requested you didn't, to make a comment of your own that neither addressed her comment, nor contributed to the general discussion.



I don't care what do you think.. This is getting out of the limits...she started a huge drama for one simple video....and Im tired of this...

Yeah this is a retarded debate - someone finds something offensive and dosnt want it here...what about everyone else who doesn't find it offensive?

If you dont like it dont watch and move on...

oh and btw a video with NSFW and "strip tease" in the title, you can't say you didn't know what was coming...

...just sayin'

>> thepinky (you asked not to be quoted so I will oblige)

Being ascribed female character traits is indeed derogatory towards a man. However, this is not exclusively one way. I doubt most women enjoy being called "butch" or "manly". Of course, I'm willing to admit that there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions on the other side too, and you will undoubtedly find men who like being called "girly" just as frequently as you will find women who like being called "manly".

In addition, it is my opinion that being "laid back" is, in itself, neither positive nor negative, and is solely dependant on the situation. I would say that being laid back about spilt milk is a good thing (unless it starts to stink , whilst being laid back about bankruptcy is not.

On the subject of the video itself, I also believe that it's not pornographic. However, I also find it to be rather dull and uninteresting. I didn't find it erotic, nor titillating, nor particularly entertaining. I guess I must be built wrong

Conversation on whether this is 'art' or 'softporn' reminds me of BBC documentary "How Art Made the World", in which they open by discussing the Venus of Willendorf (http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/s/images/stoneag_willendorf.lg.jpg), a female-form sculpture from >25,000 B.C..

Turns other there are many eerily similar ancient sculptures from many different ancient cultures... the most attractive thing to sculpt was a female form with exaggerated sexuality (nude with large hips/breasts/etc.) and a lot of weight on her (a rarity with the hard lives they led). The sculptures are also devoid of facial features...

Anyhow, the only point I really wanted to make is that there are a lot of different emotions involved in the human condition, and we've always been driven to control and harness our emotions and the emotions of others. First breakthrough was complex language, then art,... now we have Zoloft and porn on DVD... truly we've come a long way.

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by Zonbie.

Wow, thanks! This is the first comment that has been persuasive for me at all. I think you convinced me. Good job. That's difficult to do.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Since there is no standard definition for pornography, I'll simply offer mine:
Pornography is more than just objectification and arousal, but it's also about exploitation. In most porn you see women being controlled by men, being nothing more than sex toys. Women's heads are pushed down onto the genitals so they'll give blowjobs, or men ejaculate onto their faces, butts, or breasts, or they are gangbanged, or they are depicted in subservient roles like maids or secretaries who are really there to please their bosses. So they are the inferiors to males, basically.
Obviously we don't see any exploitation aspect to this video, because firstly there are no men in her act, and secondly Dita is in control. She's not giving lap dances or hustling for dollar bills on a stage. She's doing the entire dance to her own choreography, and we're simply left to watch. Sure, she is arousing, and she's also allowing herself to be objectified, but she's not being exploited in any way. (In fact it is my understanding that Dita Von Teese has been careful to control the copyrights to most of her images, that way she'll make herself wealthy, and not some man.) All three conditions (objectification, arousal, exploitation) need to be met for me to call it porn. Instead I would label this as "erotica," which is a subtle but important distinction.
Just one man's opinion, and I'm not looking to sway anyone to my way of thinking.

I only viewed this video for the comments.

Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

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

^ Well put as usual oohahh

so much text

Go to a stip club, look around, and tell me who's being exploited.

"Dude, I think she really likes me".

i think the whole "men are ugly argument" is slightly retarded, have anyone looked at Michaelangelo David recently, or a 1001 other male nude statues that I could care to mention?

And anyone who doesn't believe that this : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Belvedere_Apollo_Pio-Clementino_Inv1015.jpg

isn't art, and is actually pornography is clearly insane.

She's a little too skinny for my taste. Though the trumpet playing is good.

Long time lurker, first time poster. This thread convince me to jump in and say something (because the comments are the things that make the sifts that much more enjoyable around here).

To start, did anyone bother to ask Ms. Von Teese if she feels exploited? I mean, she is the woman of the minute as it were, did anyone bother to get her input before jumping in to save her from objectification?

Wasn't that the point of women's rights? Being free to choose what you want to do without fear, judgement or condemnation?

Second, while I sympathise with where you're coming from thepinky, doesn't making broad generalisations about us men kinda send everyone back to square one on the whole inequality of the sexes issue? If we don't make the choice you want us to make, we get condemned even though you do not have the right to tell us what to do (likewise, we hold no such right over you).

Aren't there enough actual inequalities still around in everyones society to go after that we really have to get all hot and bothered about this storm in a d-cup?

>> ^thepinky:
This woman is not engaging in a sexual act for her own pleasure and satisfaction. She is displaying her sexuality for the enjoyment of others. I don't see this as empowering her in any way, but some feminists would, yes.
Again, the Male Gaze. Men look, women are looked upon.


I think it's a stretch to call it either porn or art. I see a woman choosing to display her lovely (minus the implants) form to best advantage. The general consensus seems to be that her act is interesting and attractive to people of whatever gender or sexual persuasion. How is that not empowering to her both as a performer and as a person?

If I may-I just wanted to add a couple of things.

For one, I voted against this video because I rather disliked it. Didn't find it either remotely arousing (am a male), nor mildly entertaining, nor sift-worthy, partly because there's a similar performance of Von Teese here already.

I also strongly disagree with thepinky on many counts; however I would like to think I also understand reasons behind some of her opinions.

To not go into further detail, I will say this - I know more women than I could count (even some men, mind you) that have been sexually abused. To be more precise, the number's more than 20 at the least. More than one of them have been my girlfriends.

By the way - about a quarter of all the women in a Western society will have been sexually abused at some point during her life.

As a result of all this I have discussed the subject with many folks in great detail, many times over. Hence there's me feeling rather qualified saying:

1. Porn is in no more a reason behind sexual assaults than welsh kitties are. At best, and very seldom still, it might be an insignificant factor stimulating this kind of behaviour, however, most of the time, it does negate these desires, both in short and long-terms. Any assailant saying they were motivated by porn is obviously finding excuses; and if any psychologist is buying that crap, they need their diploma taken away from them ASAP.

2. Openness about sexuality is really the key to rehabilitation. Porn can, if anything, actually help victims of sexual abuse, even though it has to be a gradual process, but for one, it's a lot better than erotic novels. This is because of using fantasy when reading a book rather than direct visual stimuli in pornography - the former quite often has women readers picturing themselves in the stead of female protagonists and therefore being more likely to cause traumatic comparisons/flashbacks than the latter, in which one should feel a lot more disconnected from the people involved in the sexual act.

3... Ah, well, there are a lot more things I wanted to say. I will simply use this opportunity then, to implore LadyDeath to take cue from Zonbie and try and express herself with more eloquence in the future and to also try to be less aggressive. And, to also edit out that quotation of thepinky's comment. Please? That would be most kind.

This video sucked.
Watching a woman playing with a giant balloon is retarded.

i think we need an occasional hard porn around here

Having no emotional attachment to a person does not imply denying the agency of a person. Porn is not objectification.

... and this isn't porn

Perhaps not, but if there were a man in the video instead it wouldn't have made the top 15.

Hear ye, hear ye -- I wrote to Ms. von Teese's webmaster to invite the lady herself to join the discussion (a long shot, I know) and got this response:


Here is an excerpt from one of many interviews Dita has done and has been asked about the feminist issue. Se has no interest in reading online opinions of people regarding what she does. It's an age old argument, no one ever wins it!


Some feminists would say it imprisons women, would you agree?
This is always such a boring argument, and it doesn't have much merit considering that in fact, the majority of my fans are women. Over 80 percent of my website members are women. My fan letters come from women that are happy to embrace the spirit of glamour and sensuality, and to comsider an alternative form of sexy. And I understand that feminism is about equality and the right to choose. When you tell someone like me that I shouldn't be allowed to do what I love, because it hurts women, well, that's not a feminist ideal, is it, because then I'm not free, and I lose my equality. And also, when they make mainstream films, you know, the bigwigs and lawyers work out what showing the lead actress's tits are worth, her ass is worth, etc, etc ... they put dollar amounts on everything. How is this different? Should all nudity in film be censored if it's a woman? The feminist argument has no limits and therefore, I say it has no true merit. And above all the feminist arguments, I care only about preserving the age-old art of the showgirl.

Bravo, Calvados. Some one did bother to ask the woman herself.

Yes! The female of the human species is the most beautiful of females of all species! This video once again proves this! Thank you, LadyDeath!! Thank you, Thepinky, for also being a human female.

Human Females, FTW!!! *Fornicatin' Teasin' Wimmins!!!!

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

Upvote finally from me for the discussion. Way to go Calvados.

Where's the filth? the sex, the carnal intensity?

She doesn't move, she doesn't dance, she just strips - and badly!


If she was truly talanted she could make porn look like art, instead she succeeds in making art look like porn.

People who think this is art... please try to create some art, pretty please?

If it's art, what is she communicating? This is as close to art as Fergie is... and I hope we can all make the assertion that Fergalicious is, with the most generous judgement, 'art' only in the kind of way that nearly anything can be art.

The furthest this is from porn is that it is 'classy' porn.
I agree with thepinky. This has no place on the sift.
I don't mind the nudity but this isn't the site for drivel.

>> ^schmawy:
Bravo, Calvados. Some one did bother to ask the woman herself.

>> ^dag:
Upvote finally from me for the discussion. Way to go Calvados.


Ta gents -- I have my moments

Ok.....Who has opened the gate on these ornery wimmin what want to fuss and moan about burlesque....

What is art, eh rabidness??? Would you perhaps not know if one or more so-called "artists" bit the ass of awareness, attached to your frame....

Drivel eh???? I will challenge that last statement with some cut and paste at random, online dictionary's litigious syno-hom, and say that YES, No, the Videosift is full of drivel, and this post ain't one of the culprits, you insolent, insipid, insane little girl...if you ARE A GIRL!!

2drivel, garbage
a worthless message

abstraction
╚relation
╚social relation
╚communication
╚message; content; subject matter; substance
╚drivel, garbage
╚pap; pablum
╚folderol; rubbish; tripe; trumpery; trash; wish-wash; applesauce; codswallop
╚chickenshit
╚bunk; bunkum; buncombe; guff; rot; hogwash


nOW.....Crawl back in yer P-hole, please....you insult yourself.

You do know what insipid means, eh???
Perhap exact a a refund from all the $$$ you have paid for "Higher" learning, or if you haven't yet, because yer still in low-school, save it-waste of money , and try holiday instead.....

Thank you for adding to the adventure of language with your personal example of drivel, Choggie.

Hmmmmm, perhaps someone needs the definition of passive-aggression, shoved up their self-satisfied asshole......unless they were sincere, and I'll return the thanks, with the inappropriate usage of the word you afforded, but a much harsher view of someone else's "opinion".....

>> ^rabidness:
People who think this is art... please try to create some art, pretty please?
If it's art, what is she communicating? This is as close to art as Fergie is... and I hope we can all make the assertion that Fergalicious is, with the most generous judgement, 'art' only in the kind of way that nearly anything can be art.
The furthest this is from porn is that it is 'classy' porn.
I agree with thepinky. This has no place on the sift.
I don't mind the nudity but this isn't the site for drivel.



"This has no place on the sift"
4 days 9 hours 27 minutes ago • 6141 views
89 votes whatever,keep the comments coming

O LAWD! Ich würde lieber nicht einmischen, aber ich muss.

But I like Ladies with names like Dita Von Teese, or Kat Von D. There is something about these names... cant quiet put my name on it.

This is a subculture. Like tattoos, hackers, anime nuts, and well sifters. So don't freak out.

>> ^oohahh:
Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".
In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]
Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.
Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.
Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:
What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?
Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.
Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.
So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?
What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?
Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.
Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

Great reply. Thanks.

quote was deleted requested by thepinky I Hope the down voters are happy now and so ms pinky

I'm not talking about Dita. I'm talking about all forms of erotica, porn, whatever. Dita may love it, but she is a sex object when she is on that stage. All that matters is her body, whether she realizes it or not. That is what objectification is. Dita is the effect of a culture, not the cause of it. Anytime sex is removed from love, someone is an object. SOMEONE is a means to an end. And that end is sex.

There are so many comments to reply to that I don't know where to start!

I can't talk about this anymore. It is emotionally draining, frustrating, and above all, pointless and hopeless. You're blind to what porn does, what it did to me, and what it is doing to you.

Peace.

One more thing:

I really appreciate your kindness and understanding, but I have to admit that this part of the comment makes me so upset I don't even know where to begin. Ladydeath, don't read this if you don't want the drama. I gave you fair warning. You don't have to read it.

It makes me feel almost unbearably frustrated that something that is so influential in sex crime is so socially accepted that people don't even see it as a cause. Okay, I'm not talking about the video, I'm talking about porn now. Porn distorts our view of sex. Porn separates sex from love and emotion. Porn makes people into objects and into means to an end. True story: An innocent little boy exposed to porn does evil things to little girls and it takes him years to overcome it, but he does overcome it because he is a good person. PORN did that! P-O-R-N. It wasn't that the little boy was inherently evil or had some kind of sexual disorder. He was exposed to a sick and twisted and distorted exploitation of the human body and of the act of intercourse.

We wonder "Why-oh-why is child molestation increasing? Oh what can we do about it? Oh, no, porn couldn't make any difference, because I view porn! There's no way that there is anything bad about it! I get sexual release! If anything else, it KEEPS them from doing bad things!" and on and on and on. Porn DOES NOT decrease the need for sexual release, it increases it. The more you look at porn, the more often you want to, the more interesting you want it to be, and some people take it too far. Just because you don' doesn't mean that it isn't a disgusting an unnatural thing. Do you think sex crimes develop because a person's sexuality was kept under good regulation? Repression, as some of you call it. And don't give me the Catholic priest argument. The vast majority of the world's sex predators are not Catholic priests, and the vast majority of Catholic priests are not sex predators. I swear, all the people who wanted to justify unbridled sexual release just loved that whole scandal. Do you think that the guy who, because of his religion or whatever the cause may be, has never looked at porn and who is going to wait until marriage to have sex is going to one day go out and rape a kid because his sexuality has been repressed? No, he's not. In fact, that guy isn't even sexually frustrated. He's pretty darn happy, because his control is his own choice. I know many guys like that. I'll tell you the guy who is sexually frustrated. He's the guy that sits at home and jacks off all day to porn. THAT guy is frustrated.

You're going to say that porn is not the cause of sex crime. Well, maybe it isn't. But it certainly helps. Porn may be a correlational feature, but it is not insignificant. It does not teach control of inappropriate sexual tendencies, it perpetuates and increases inappropriate sexual tendencies.

I beleive in this so much that I can't even respond coherently. I feel like I can't even begin to make you understand how wrong you are. It's like trying to explain to a blind person what red looks like.

I know what your arguments are going to be, but I'm sick of trying. I'm going to go do something that will actually make a difference now.

>> ^EDD:
1. Porn is in no more a reason behind sexual assaults than welsh kitties are. At best, and very seldom still, it might be an insignificant factor stimulating this kind of behaviour, however, most of the time, it does negate these desires, both in short and long-terms. Any assailant saying they were motivated by porn is obviously finding excuses; and if any psychologist is buying that crap, they need their diploma taken away from them ASAP.
2. Openness about sexuality is really the key to rehabilitation. Porn can, if anything, actually help victims of sexual abuse, even though it has to be a gradual process, but for one, it's a lot better than erotic novels. This is because of using fantasy when reading a book rather than direct visual stimuli in pornography - the former quite often has women readers picturing themselves in the stead of female protagonists and therefore being more likely to cause traumatic comparisons/flashbacks than the latter, in which one should feel a lot more disconnected from the people involved in the sexual act.

THANK YOU! Seriously. No hard feelings. I kinda deserved it and I was asking for it.

You don't mind if I continue to argue and comment in here, right? Because I could totally stop.

>> ^LadyDeath:
quote was deleted requested by thepinky I Hope the down voters are happy now and so ms pinky

A Feminist Defense of Pornography

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html

Your hypothesis that porn is related to sexual assault is very slim. The argument is the same as saying that watching violence on TV makes people violent. Both acts occur naturally, even with the removal of porn and violence such acts will exist.

I live in the Arab world, women here wear hijabs, pant suits, and long skirts. There is very little sexual stimulus. The internet here is filtered. Most lay men cannot access any pron what so ever. Yet sexual crimes here are just as prevalent. Especially the gang rape of maids, young boys and other forms of sexual abuse.

I think you connect the act of sex, and porn and sexual abuse together. I believe sexual abuse is a expression of power over an individual, the act of molestation that fulfills a certain dark seated sexual desire. There are countless accounts of serial killers who only got sexual satisfaction upon killing their victims, then masturbating on them, or necrophilia. Most of these people were psychopaths to begin with, how can one imply that what they did was because they say watched porn when they were young.

I think you underestimate the human nature, and it's ability to lay blame anywhere but themselves. People who commit sex crimes always say that it was abuse they received or porn they viewed, they can never admit that maybe they are simply are inherently skewed and like nothing more then raping or touching little girls.

There is too much of that in society now, I have a problem X, its not me that is at fault its society or practice Y.

Farhad: I wish I could up-vote your comment a thousand times.

MrFisk: I think this is my favorite part of your linked article:

Dissecting Anti-Porn
Do the specific accusations hurled at pornography stand up under examination?

Pornography is degrading to women.
Degrading is a subjective term. I find commercials in which women become orgasmic over soapsuds to be tremendously degrading. The bottom line is that every woman has the right to define what is degrading and liberating for herself.

The assumed degradation is often linked to the "objectification" of women: that is, porn converts them into sexual objects. What does this mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because objects don't have sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn portrays women as "sexual beings" makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the term sex objects means showing women as body parts, reducing them to physical objects. What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women as "brains" or as spiritual beings. If I concentrated on a woman's sense of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading? Why is it degrading to focus on her sexuality?

Pornography leads to violence against women.
A cause-and-effect relationship is drawn between men viewing pornography and men attacking women, especially in the form of rape. But studies and experts disagree as to whether any relationship exists between pornography and violence, between images and behavior. Even the pro-censorship Meese Commission Report admitted that the data connecting pornography to violence was unreliable.

Other studies, such as the one prepared by feminist Thelma McCormick in 1983 for the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women, find no pattern to connect porn and sex crimes. Incredibly, the Task Force suppressed the study and reassigned the project to a pro-censorship male, who returned the "correct" results. His study was published.

What of real-world feedback? In Japan, where pornography depicting graphic and brutal violence is widely available, rape is much lower per capita than in the United States, where violence in porn is severely restricted.

>> ^thepinky:
THANK YOU! Seriously. No hard feelings. I kinda deserved it and I was asking for it.
You don't mind if I continue to argue and comment in here, right? Because I could totally stop.
>> ^LadyDeath:
quote was deleted requested by thepinky I Hope the down voters are happy now and so ms pinky



Oh No Dear Feel Free to keep your argument here...even If I Still Think the word Porn should not be in These comments because has nothing to be with the video...

It dances so prettily...

Now, THAT made me laugh. Props to you for making me laugh at myself.

>> ^gwiz665:
It dances so prettily...

>> ^Farhad2000:
Your hypothesis that porn is related to sexual assault is very slim. The argument is the same as saying that watching violence on TV makes people violent. Both acts occur naturally, even with the removal of porn and violence such acts will exist.
I live in the Arab world, women here wear hijabs, pant suits, and long skirts. There is very little sexual stimulus. The internet here is filtered. Most lay men cannot access any pron what so ever. Yet sexual crimes here are just as prevalent. Especially the gang rape of maids, young boys and other forms of sexual abuse.
I think you connect the act of sex, and porn and sexual abuse together. I believe sexual abuse is a expression of power over an individual, the act of molestation that fulfills a certain dark seated sexual desire. There are countless accounts of serial killers who only got sexual satisfaction upon killing their victims, then masturbating on them, or necrophilia. Most of these people were psychopaths to begin with, how can one imply that what they did was because they say watched porn when they were young.
I think you underestimate the human nature, and it's ability to lay blame anywhere but themselves. People who commit sex crimes always say that it was abuse they received or porn they viewed, they can never admit that maybe they are simply are inherently skewed and like nothing more then raping or touching little girls.
There is too much of that in society now, I have a problem X, its not me that is at fault its society or practice Y.
I don't know a thing about Arab culture, but that argument doesn't hold water for me because the causes of sexual crime in the Arab world may be completely different. For example, the lack of sexual stimulus and the repression of women's sexuality are possible causes. As you said, rape is about control. I think that in a culture where women are controlled, crimes of control are more likely to happen. I'm guessing that many sex crimes in Arab nations stem from the culture's distortion of sex, just as ours do. Their repression of sexuality in women may not be heathy, either. I really can't say, but I think we ought to reach a happy medium.

I wasn't implying that all necrophiliacs are what they are because of a porn problem. I'm not even saying that all sexual abusers are consumers of porn. I'm saying that porn CAN and DOES cause sexual problems, and I have seen it occur with my own two eyes. The person in question is not a psychopath. He is a good person. Any problems that he had when he was younger stemmed from an exposure to porn at a young age. I am positive that he would not have done what he did if he hadn't been looking at porn since age 7. He was an innocent kid. Of course, that's just one example and it doesn't always turn out that way. But say he already had a tendency toward sexual crime. Do you think porn would encourage or stifle that tendency? A society that teaches a healthy regulation of sexual activity is more likely to help that guy than a society that teaches him to masturbate to porn with increasing frequency. Just my opinion.

Not all molestation is about control. Rape, probably. I think that molestation is sometimes simply about what gets the person off.

And what of the problems of our society? What DO they stem from? Are we supposed to completely refrain from assigning blame to any of our own practices? Are we supposed to allow our society to deteriorate because we can't get to the root causes of our problems and fix them? There is a general trend on the Sift toward the attitude that the fewer controls and restraints on behavior, the better. That nothing matters except pleasure and freedom. I just don't agree with that philosophy. Sometimes your freedoms hurt other people, and in order to be moral, people have to sacrifice a few freedoms. Porn doesn't help, it hurts.

i'm having a hard time making the causal connection between porn and what sound like malicious, unsolicited sex acts. it seems like an impossible to prove or even research theory...

from my perspective, rapists or molesters seek some sort of need-fulfillment that goes beyond what can easily be provided via imagination (in the form of pornographic fantasies). at least in the porn i've ever viewed, i'm not 'treated' to seemingly vicious sex acts. most of the time it strikes me as unrealistic sex with the exaggerated 'throes of passion' and needless wacky positioning. at any rate, i'm inclined to believe that people who regularly watch porn don't go outside afterwards looking for someone to abuse and mimic the recently-viewed fantasies. in fact, i think suggesting that is just absurd.

.. the whole, 'columbine massacre was caused by video games' fallacy .. but applied to porn. i think hunter s thompson hit on this in a great tongue-in-cheek one-liner: "KNOW YOUR DOPEFIEND... his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can't find a rape victim."

on a separate note, i think it's also interesting and appropriate that the same genre (burlesque dance) can elicit ranging responses. that's precisely why it is art, in the sense that modern art can often be provocative. some will say these dances empower the woman. it's her tease, it's her show, she is in control; there is no expectation of nudity like a strip club (meat market), and it would be unfair to consider the two together. on the flip side, some will say this is a degradation of her being: reduction to a 'sex object'. i mean, i hate to think of myself being reduced to one particular aspect of my personality, but this is precisely what happens when i go to work. they only care that i write code.

well, she *is* at work after all...

>> ^thepinky:
Porn distorts our view of sex. Porn separates sex from love and emotion.

Have you considered that there was never a connection to begin with? Sex with someone you love is a very different experience than sex alone, yes, but it's a big jump from that to saying that sex with love is right and sex without is wrong.

We wonder "Why-oh-why is child molestation increasing? Oh what can we do about it? Oh, no, porn couldn't make any difference, because I view porn! There's no way that there is anything bad about it! I get sexual release! If anything else, it KEEPS them from doing bad things!" and on and on and on. Porn DOES NOT decrease the need for sexual release, it increases it. The more you look at porn, the more often you want to, the more interesting you want it to be, and some people take it too far. Just because you don' doesn't mean that it isn't a disgusting an unnatural thing. Do you think sex crimes develop because a person's sexuality was kept under good regulation?

I've never wondered that, no, not least of all because I'm not aware of any such trend. Do you have statistics to back up that claim?

I'm not a fan of porn. It doesn't offend me or disgust me, I'm just not into it. Just because it offends and disgusts you doesn't make it an unnatural thing. Most of nature is offensive and disgusting. If you doubt, just look at the hagfish.

Regulating sexuality (your words) should be far more offensive and disgusting to you than anything consenting adults do behind closed doors with a director, camera (wo)man, stage hands and lighting specialists watching.

...

>> ^thepinky:
And what of the problems of our society? What DO they stem from? Are we supposed to completely refrain from assigning blame to any of our own practices? Are we supposed to allow our society to deteriorate because we can't get to the root causes of our problems and fix them? There is a general trend on the Sift toward the attitude that the fewer controls and restraints on behavior, the better. That nothing matters except pleasure and freedom. I just don't agree with that philosophy. Sometimes your freedoms hurt other people, and in order to be moral, people have to sacrifice a few freedoms. Porn doesn't help, it hurts.


A very one sided view of the situation.

Sex crime existed before widely distributed pornography. Except in the past, it was often accepted (such as nobles predilections for young boys or assaulting the cleaning staff as the whim took them)if not tacitly encouraged. That is not to say pornographic texts did not exist, just the ability to lay hands on them has never been so easy.

Then you have sexual deviancy/molestation in absentia of pornography. People who have had their sexuality repressed often have it manifest in unhealthy fashions. The Catholic church is a great example. Priests and "bad Catholic schoolgirls" come to mind.

Lastly, what about the millions of people world wide who enjoy sex without love, sex with themselves, sex with porn or just enjoy watching it for the compelling storyline (bwahahaha) who never actually commit a sex crime?

Isn't it far more likely that a person with certain proclivities or perversions (or just a rapist/molester) collects pornography because it is what they are interested in? Similar to violent people enjoying violent media (rather than the contention that violent media makes people violent...). Porn may desensitise a person but I honestly believe it doesn't create monsters, the monster is already in the person.

Farhad's opponent's argument is even flimsier than Farhad says.

Most porn is a depiction of consensual relations, not any form of assault. So that's one step further than the related spurious allegation of a cause-effect relationship between fictional violence and real violence. Most Porn is not a fictional version of sexual assault. So those who say Porn promotes sexual assault might as well say that televised baseball promotes baseball-bat-murder. Yes there are some nastier versions of porn, but don't overgeneralize.

Any problems that he had when he was younger stemmed from an exposure to porn at a young age. I am positive that he would not have done what he did if he hadn't been looking at porn since age 7. He was an innocent kid.

Since you have no data on what he would have done in the alternate universe where he didn't watch porn, that anecdote is not evidence that porn caused harm.

A society that teaches a healthy regulation of sexual activity is more likely to help that guy than a society that teaches him to masturbate to porn with increasing frequency. Just my opinion.

The overall rate of violent crime, and the overall rate of sexual assault, have decreased a lot over the past 15 years as the internet has risen. We all know that the first businesses to make billions on the internet were porn. This tends to refute your argument that porn promotes sexual assault.

Besides, masturbation is the only truly safe sex.

I kept my comment to a quip earlier, because I didn't want to engage in a big discussion, but there are a few things that need commenting.

As a resident rules-lawyer, you people don't get to call "please don't quote this"! If you wrote it, stand by it! Exactly that attitude is why an edit button is a bad thing on a forum. Objectification of women, men, animals and other objects may be a bad thing (it is most of the time), but that is allowed on this sift. We are allowed to make our opinions on the matter heard, as the flanks of this discussion certainly have. You are even allowed to downvote it, and please do that if you find the video offensive (that's what it's there for).

The whole general porn discussion is a sidetrack from the video, and should be made in a sift talk. (It is an interesting discussion, no doubt, but does it really belong here in this video thread?)

so the idea is that a normal guy reads a porno magazine and then becomes a rapist? if he had picked up a bible instead, he would become a missionary?

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by LadyDeath.

I think I missed something being discussed completely.

Am I too late?

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by doogle.

Vaginas are stupid.

^ you're a poopmouth poopyhead. i hate you, ron blankfist.

tee hee... vaginas are smart.

Fake tits = no upvotes. >:[

*dead ?

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by dingens.

Awarding chingalera with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.