Animals tickling debate (stay civilized)

[Lost_My_Mind]

Ok. I'm pretty understanding about fetishes, as long as 4 rules are not broken. Those 4 rules being:

1) No kids.
2) No death (oddly enough rape/pain isnt against this rule, so long as they dont die or become injured.)
3) No dead bodys.
4) No beastiality.

Take special notice to that last one TMF, because some of you highly disturb me. Why is it that the hillary duff video, a non-sexual video that was played on MTV is banned here, but yet i commonly see artwork or stories about cats licking naked girls feet as punishment?

Dont get me wrong on 2 things though. The first is that i really am indifferent on the whole hillary duff video.

The second thing not to get me wrong on is that, if you take out the cat mentioned earlier, that sentance would be hott!!!

Its the cat that bothers me. It bothers me for both hypicritical and self-moral reasons.

If the woman wernt naked, and it were a childrens style cartoon, it wouldnt bother me. At that point you'd be exploring the more innocent areas of tickling. However when you have a dominatrix in a leather corset, holding a long feather like its a whip, and a tied up naked girl laughing her head off...........i cant exactly say that its non-sexual.

So my debate is this, why can cats be included into your sexual fantasys, just because no sex is involved with them?

Needless to say, i'll be taking the side of anti-animal in this debate. I dont want any flame wars, i dont want an arguement. I want an actual debate.

That is to say someone who will go back and forth with me proving their side with facts and/or reasoning.....not name calling. Someone who will admit when they've been bested in that round, and i will do the same.

 

[AphxA]

My understanding is this, hillary duff is underage so the clip is not allowed because she is a minor.

 

[tickledorange]

And from the looks of it, she's going to be 17 forever, thanks to the Disney Channel.

 

[WorkInProgress]

I honestly don't see the problem. I've read accounts where someone's feet were doused in salt water and then licked by a ravenous goat. I mean, when it comes to bestiality, the only possible reason I can think of for there to be anything wrong with it is if it inflicts a rape on an unconsenting animal. When all the animal is doing is licking someone's foot, a completely voluntary act, then no pain or coercion is being inflicted on the animal doing the licking: the animal is having the time of its life, and will stop licking as soon as the sole of the foot ceases to be tasty. I may be wrong, but I think some of the lees here would gladly volunteer to be tied down and tickled by the tongue of a cat or a goat, and I would expect this to be perfectly fair game for discussion and narration. Even if there's a rule against use of non-consenting parties, I can't see how licking a foot is a non-consenting act: the animal is simply being provided with an opportunity, and if the animal ins't interested, the foot goes disappointingly unlicked.

 

[Lost_My_Mind]

ok, as relating to hillary duff, i dont really care. I was just using that as a point of referance.

Onto the animals:

Your logic is along the lines of If the goat is willing, then its fine. I never said my problem was with the consent of the animal, considering stories and toons are completely fictional.

My problem is that in most of these examples, the woman is naked, or sexually sugjestive. There are a LOT of people who get sexual enjoyment, and masterbate to these pictures. Now, lets break this down to its most basic core...


That would mean two things:

1) Lee's are getting sexual satisfaction from an animal.
2) Viewers are getting sexual satisfaction from watching animals.

Thats where i become anti-animal here.

I used the hillary duff example because:

If underage is illegal in the real world, its illegal on the TMF
So, if animals are illegal in the real world, then they're illegal here too, right? Nope.

 

[Drago69]

Animals licking feet, or anywhere (when it's supposed to tickle, and not just a dog licking someone face ouit of happiness, etc.) is a turn off to me. However, I just go with the fact that what I feel when turned on by something, people feel over this, so it doesn't matter too much to me.

 

[JohnnyB]

My 2 cents is that as regards the animals, people are not getting sexual satisfaction from the animal, but rather the victim who is being tickled. The animal is a tool of tickling in the same way as a feather or fingernails.

 

[Newcastle Uni]

Same here. I agree with the chap above me. I actually rather enjoy videos featuring a cat or dog licking feet - more so than videos without the animal.
I'm not aroused by the animal or attracted to the animal, but rather I'm attracted by the unique response it engenders in the ticklee! How delicious!
I see the cat (animal), I know that its there and i will masturbate to a close up of the cat licking soles, but my thoughts are concentrated on what is happening to the girl and not what is being done by the animal.

I think I have an appropriate analogy to illustrate my thoughts on animal tickling.

In a porn video a man might masturbate to a close up image of a male penetrating a women. I don't watch these kinds of videos myself, but I'm led to believe that the man is more interested in whats being done to the women than the fact that hes wanking to a dirty great big penis which occupies half of the screen. Hes aware that the penis is there, and perhaps is more turned on by the penis being there, but he is also selectively ignoring it. Our man is more interested in how the penis is affecting the woman.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I'm okay with the animals because...

A.) They are historically accurate ( I assume even more accurate than the traditional feather concept)

B.) I'm not getting turend on by the animal, I'm getting turned on by the ticklish reraction.

C.) The animal adds a freaky, dirty, I'm-such-a-bad-boy element into somethig that is pretty perverted and, at the same time, not all that terrible in the big scheme of things.

I'm also okay with Hillary Duff, too. Sheesh, up until the late 1920s you could legally MARRRY a 13 year old in Kentucky.

 

[Newcastle Uni]

I'm okay with the animals because...

A.) They are historically accurate ( I assume even more accurate than the traditional feather concept)

B.) I'm not getting turend on by the animal, I'm getting turned on by the ticklish reraction.

C.) The animal adds a freaky, dirty, I'm-such-a-bad-boy element into somethig that is pretty perverted and, at the same time, not all that terrible in the big scheme of things.

I'm also okay with Hillary Duff, too. Sheesh, up until the late 1920s you could legally MARRRY a 13 year old in Kentucky.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with someone who is older than 16 being portrayed in a sexual way. At 16 you are an adult in my book and should be allowed to vote, drink, have sex and do other things. For those of you about to complain, I would like to say that I've met many well-informed and intelligent 16 yr olds and of course 16 yr olds have there own perspective on life which is why they should be allowed to vote to represent the teen view on life, the universe and everything.

 

[chicago]

Coming from someone who just turned 18 and can remember quite accurately what it was like to be 16, I think the laws having to do with age such as driving, smoking, drinking, piercing, tattooing, whatever, should probably be stricter. At 16, you're lucky if you've gone through puberty yet. Teenagers, with their raging hormones, rebellious nature, and curiousity to experiment with certain things are pretty much a bunch of nut jobs. And with all the drunk driving accidents (a friend of mine, at graduation decided getting drunk and driving head-on into a semi was a good idea of a celebration) and the 2.5 million teenagers getting STDs each year... I have one question. Where are these well-informed and intelligent 16 year olds and exactly how many is "many".

Sorry if this got off topic

 

[starfires]

I'm going to shuffle your post a bit for clarity of my point:

Your logic is along the lines of If the goat is willing, then its fine. I never said my problem was with the consent of the animal, considering stories and toons are completely fictional.
[ ... shuffle ... ]
I used the hillary duff example because:

If underage is illegal in the real world, its illegal on the TMF
So, if animals are illegal in the real world, then they're illegal here too, right? Nope.

The reason underage [sex, I am assuming] in real world is illegal, is that the State believes underage people are not mature enough to give considered, informed consent. In other words, they don't know what's good for them.
I can talk more about consent or lack thereof, but if that's not your issue I won't bother.

My problem is that in most of these examples, the woman is naked, or sexually sugjestive. There are a LOT of people who get sexual enjoyment, and masterbate[sic] to these pictures. Now, lets break this down to its most basic core...


That would mean two things:

1) Lee's[sic] are getting sexual satisfaction from an animal.
2) Viewers are getting sexual satisfaction from watching animals.

Thats where i become anti-animal here.

So what is the problem you are having with (1) and (2) happening to other people? If you are not into it, don't do it/don't watch it. Would it help if the various media involving animals were labelled so, such as "Cat/M" or "Octopus/FFFFFFFF", so you'll know not to click on it?

 

[HisFlyinFingers]

As to banning certain videos, I believe it works like this:

Any video, created for sexual stimulation and featuring in any way a minor, is illegal to make, own, hold, or view. Regardless of the situation, allowing a minor in such a position is legally rape. Such videos are (rightfully) banned from the TMF, at the very least because the TMF could be shut down and it's owners prosecuted for their presence.

Raping an animal is also illegal (in most places). However, allowing or encouraging (but not forcing) an animal to participate in sex is (usually) not. Furthermore, in a situation such as you describe, it would be difficult to suggest that the animal was damaged or harmed. As such, the TMF cannot be punished for showing such material (if it is illegal where you live, however, you probably can be for viewing it).

 

[TklDuo-Drew]

I think we need to arrest the dog who licked the gals soles in Rowan and Martin's "Once Upon a Horse". Oh wait.....that was back in the early 60s....the dog probably is no longer with us.



Drew

 

[parkcity]

Get a lawyer

I think we need to arrest the dog who licked the gals soles in Rowan and Martin's "Once Upon a Horse". Oh wait.....that was back in the early 60s....the dog probably is no longer with us.

Then clearly we need to sue his estate for damages.

 

[starfires]

... Furthermore, in a situation such as you describe, it would be difficult to suggest that the animal was damaged or harmed.

I believe people have tried insisting that sexual relations with an animal are always rape, even if the animal appears willing. It's a rather paranoid argument if you ask me, but it can go something like this. Consider two cases:
1. A dog licks an adult human's genitals.
2. A minor human in a biohazard suit voluntarily hand-masturbates an adult human.
I am pretty sure case 2 is illegal (maybe sexual assault, because no penetration is involved). There is no risk of physical damage[*], no risk of STDs, and no risk of pregnancy, so why is it illegal? Because of the possibility of psychological damage. Having a sexual experience like that might give the kid nightmares for years, or worse problems. So how do we know if the dog in case 1 is traumatized for life? And if we can't know for sure that it's safe for the dog's psyche, then we can't allow it.


[*] Well, technically it can cause Carpal Tunnel, but so can typing and that's not illegal for minors.

 

[grippedchimp]

Many probably know that I'm into the animals licking feet (and armpits) business, and so many have brought about some very valid points about it. Some I would've said as well.

Nobody would give a rat's ass about the animal doing the licking, and frankly, nor would the animal itself! It couldn't give a monkeys about the consequences. All it wants is to be fed, and if you give it that opportunity, it'll take it without a thought. And it's true that what really attracts us to this situation is the ticklee's reaction, which is usually intense for a prolonged period since the animal generally licks for a quite a good while. And yes, this has gone on for centuries too. The only outcome for animal in that situation is that it's no longer hungry and has had its tastebuds satisfied.

I suppose the matter is about Hillary Duff. Don't really care much for her, but if this was posted in a UK forum, it would be legal since the legal consent age here is 16. And in Chile, the legal consent age is 12!

On the flipside, is it illegal for an animal to rape a human being?

 

[WorkInProgress]

Actually, the laws differ from state to state, but it seems to me that there's still a big difference in terms of potential harmfulness. I would say that the difference manifests itself in two points:

(1.) Society has more of a consistent interest in protecting minors from exploitation of any kind.

(2.) Getting sexual aroused by activity involving minors, even in publically accessible fantasies, is a lot harder to achieve in non-exploitative ways.

Let me put it another way. Consider the question, "what harm does it do." If we're talking about minors, I can easily produce reasons why any sort of inclusion of minors in any sort of pornography or any sort of sexual arousing activity is harmful. If we're talking about animals, I'm a lot more inclined to consider it on a case-by-case basis. When it comes to someone volunteering to be tied down and have his or her foot splashed with salty water and then licked by a goat, I don't see any non-consenting party being exploited. I see a tasty delight for the goat, exquisite ecstasy for the lee, and live entertainment for the spectators that's hilarious for some and arousing for others. I can't imagine a better example of a win-win situation.

There are, by the way, other bondage videos on the racks that involve non-consenting creatures being captured by being impaled in the mouth by sharp metal and tortured by being yanked around a lake, but you'll find those in the section marked "Sport: Fly-Fishing" rather than the one marked "Adult: BDSM." I'd sure rather be the goat than the fish.