Stumble Thisnsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw nsfw
+ hilarious sound effects.
+ hilarious sound effects.
Featured Member Comment
Charles Barkley calls himself a "Dumbass!" - “That was turrible.” read more by snoozedoctor
Charles Barkley calls himself a "Dumbass!" - “That was turrible.” read more by snoozedoctor
Kung Fu Sex--uh, It Is NOT Safe For Work Related Videos
 Acknowledge Desire - Kung Fu (TV Series) |  Kung fu hustle: Funniest scene |  The Fly Slayer, Kung Fu Master |
tags:
Comments 
And I never would have dared to post this, but the first time I saw this, I laughed my ass off. I still do.
And I'm thinking that the Invincible Wheel would cause chafing.
I don't want to rain on everybody's parade here, but this is definitely porn, guys. Hilarious, yes; terrible, yes; but still porn.
Just because you got this file when you typed "asian sex" into Limewire doesn't make it porn.
Upvote this comment if you want it to stay. Down vote it if you want it to go.
See? Comment voting comes in useful.
If the consensus is that it's not porn and can stay, I'll upvote it and hope it goes to the top 15, but I just felt that this was definitely pushing if not crossing the line.
And it's funny how a simple comedic comment has become the standard rule of passing judgment on border-line videos.
I don't think there needs to be a line drawn. If you (generalization) really can't tell what porn is and isn't, maybe you should head on over to Youporn and compare this to anything over there.
*return
I don't think it's right that this was returned before a woman gave her opinion. There IS genitalia. I agree with JAPR that it's obviously porn. The angles are porn-shots. A woman being pumped, from the pumper's point of view is a good example. I say chuck it.
I figure the number of upvotes speaks for the overall opinion, and dag's refusal to take a stance made it unfortunately clear that simply because it was funny rather than arousing, this would be allowed to slip by without much of a fight. Good to see I'm not alone in thinking that it goes against VS's rules.
I don't think so. I tried to make the above in generic terms for a reason.
I know the sift has had quite a few discussions on snuff, and while im not going to get in to that here, if/as we are banning snuff, consider the following:
A clip from a snuff film, showing a clearly snuff part to it.
Its not very good snuff.
Its shot in a manner that makes it seem ridiculous and comedic.
Its still snuff.
I don't think anyone would think it had a place here, simply because it was poor snuff and comedic.
I think the same reasoning applies. It is bad porn, and it is ridiculous, but its still porn.
The internet is huge. most of it has porn. Having a few parts of it which don't have porn is no bad thing. This is a part that seeks not to have porn.
Keeping it here goes against that.
I fail to see how this falls under that definition. It's not porn. It's a a comedy with a breast in it. How is that different than a Chevy Chase flick from the 80s?
Unless I missed it, I saw no genitalia. Just massive bush.
Allowing this wouldn't even create a slippery slope.
[edit] And Persephone - it's kinda cheesy they way you said it was returned before a woman gave her opinion - that makes it seem like a woman's opinion should have more weight than a man's.
And Issy - you're doing it too - should a woman's opinion matter more than a mans? It's just how it comes across.
If only every porno had this much production value.
And I never would have dared to post this, but the first time I saw this, I laughed my ass off. I still do.
I would think that with you having posted this earlier, you wouldn't be so adamant in trying to argue that it's somehow all of a sudden not porn, MG. I don't think this is a matter of "what other people have to say" on the issue. It's not about opinions: this is clearly a clip from a (badly-done) porn. VideoSift's rules say no porn. How is that something that should need discussion?
2) The rule is to prevent this place from becoming just another porn dump.
3) Ok, maybe this clip is from a real porn, but when sbchapm posted it here, he didn't do it thinking "Oh sweet, maybe someone will rub one out to this." No, it was more like "Holy shit this is hilarious." By posting it with the latter mentality, I think it negates any reasons it was made, and creates a new set of reasons, i.e. comedic value.
But seriously, how many other porn clips are out there that are REMOTELY like this? I think it's safe to say 1:1,000,000,000. I just don't think we have to worry about this place becoming Youporn just because this clip stays. There's enough warnings to keep people from clicking on it when they shouldn't.
Ok, well, we've voiced our opinions, so lets see what everyone else has to say.
And Issy - you're doing it too - should a woman's opinion matter more than a mans? It's just how it comes across.
If you get 5 opinions on an issue, does it become true? how about 10? how about 1000?
Does a balance of opinions make a discussion more balanced? Is a balanced discussion more desirable than jumping up and down in glee that 10 or 20 or 30 people have all agreed on an issue?
"Comedic snuff? We have a new low for bad analogies."
Saying i was comparing comedic porn to comedic snuff as a direct analogy misses the point. We don't allow porn. we don't allow snuff. I laid out a generic reasoning, that i feel is appropriate and should be applicable to anything we decide not to allow. i showed how it would apply to snuff. I showed how and why i think it should apply to porn.
The point, is that i feel the same reasoning method, for deciding if something is valid or not, should be applicable to both, and anything else we decided to disallow, and the "comedic as mitigating" was generic and could be replaced with any other aspect of a vid which we normally feel gives it good reason to be here. it is not a comparison of content, between the "ridiculous snuff" and "ridiculous porn". Its an application of reasoning to decide if it should be discarded.
If my "abstract" reasoning were agreed, there would still be the question of "is it porn, be it bad porn or otherwise". My view is that it is, and some agree, but clearly some do not.
[edit] Brushing it off? No, just trying not to get so serious and edgy about a comedy clip.
P.S. - Out of curiosity, I'm looking for back-story.
Allowing this wouldn't even create a slippery slope.
Thats irrelevant. You can argue that "this vid wont encourage more like it" but so what. if we don't allow porn, we don't allow porn singular, not "only disallow the 2nd or 10th porn vid, because tis only a problem on mass"
Its also irrelevant if you feel allowing this vid was a special case, and so didn't set a precedent for allowing more porn, as the rule should still hold. It shouldn't "only has to be applied if more porn would be justified if we didn't". The porn isn't being disallowed because of fear of porn on mass.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
2) The rule is to prevent this place from becoming just another porn dump.
Oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize you were there at the original meeting when the rules of the FAQ were originally drawn up. I hadn't understood that it was only important that we didn't become a porn ranking system for the universe having to deal with tons of porn a day. </sarcasm>
That may be your interpretation of it, but i'm sure others of us see "no porn" to mean "no porn" rather than "not lots of porn please, we're British and couldn't cope"
3) Ok, maybe this clip is from a real porn, but when sbchapm posted it here, he didn't do it thinking "Oh sweet, maybe someone will rub one out to this." No, it was more like "Holy shit this is hilarious." By posting it with the latter mentality, I think it negates any reasons it was made, and creates a new set of reasons, i.e. comedic value.
My earlier argument was to illustrate exactly why i don't agree. If it is porn, its porn. If it is also * nochannel * porn * comedy * parody * wildwestshow * grindhouse it's still ALSO in porn, and IS porn, and shouldn't be here.
But seriously, how many other porn clips are out there that are REMOTELY like this? I think it's safe to say 1:1,000,000,000. I just don't think we have to worry about this place becoming Youporn just because this clip stays. There's enough warnings to keep people from clicking on it when they shouldn't.
Ah, i misunderstood the "Porn is only allowed in the * NSFW channel and then its ok, oh, but invoke the channel 20 times and run around your house backwards too"
Ass; I kick it.
You can read a summary of it here. (I haven't yet)
[edit] There's no need to be condescending, Thylan. You can easily make your point otherwise.
What say you, OTHER FEMALES? Kidding MG... but seriously, I even saw quite a few concede to the fact that this IS porn. If that is the case, it is pretty cut and dry.
::Changes avatar - Runs away, ducks for cover::
In reply to this comment by James Roe:
yeah, i will nuke this dudes avatar. I certainly agree that avatar spam is a no no and is worthy of the ban hammer.
Ummm... you're not in any way commercially affiliated with that movie MG? j/k
Nice connection there, though.
I say it's porn. And yes, MGR I've seen at least ten parody-porns all the way through and I've seen trailers for more than that so no, this isn't unique. It's uncommon, but not at all unique. NOt that that should matter in the slightest; if its porn and we say "no porn" then NO PORN.
It's not that hardcore but it'll open up a flood of softcore videos that aren't allowed. My vote is kill it.
This video is labeled nsfw, and it just isn't porn in the traditional sense (and if you want to argue that it is you've clearly not seen enough porn
When you see a hairy bush inches from someone's face, it passes for porn. This shit is silly fun, but fuck all if it belongs on the sift....