Magic Touch Productions on the subject of teen tickling

[TMF Jeff]

Hi everyone,

Having just released a video featuring a teen being tickled just on the right side of the legality issue (18 year-old Ember):

I thought I'd express my opinion on the subject of teen tickling and age in general.

But before I do, let me get this out of the way:
Check out my new video, Strip Tickle, starring the above-pictured Ember, at http://www.magict.com/striptickle.shtml
(only $40, order now!)

Ok, as I was saying, I've put a lot of thought into this subject during the time I've been making videos, and what I've concluded can be boiled down into two points. The first is that there is no truth in this issue, it totally depends on which facts you choose to place the most emphasis on. Second, I think that in fact there are two seperate issues at play in the one subject of underage tickling. One is the tickling of underage people in general, for recreational purposes so to speak. , and the second is the legal possibility of filming an underage person being tickled

Tickling in and of itself is devoid of any sexual content at all. It just is. When an infant is tickled by her mother, it is all about mother-daughter bonding. On the other hand, when a teenage boy tickles his girlfriend, it is about, probably and presumably, flirting and exploring sexuality. Finally, when people with a fetish engage in tickling play, it is a whole other thing entirely, about power-exchange and such. My point is that the social element of tickling, its "meaning," is contextual. Sex, by which I mean penetration of whatever orifice is relevent to the act, is much more specific, and while it's meaning can vary, it does so across a much more narrow spectrum. I think it would be fair to say that tickling is defined by it's intent, while sex is defined by the act itself.

To get specific, let's take a hypothetical instance of a home movie in which a 40 year-old mother tickles her 12 year-old daughter, without any knowledge of the concept of tickling as a fetish act. It seems obvious that that video footage is totally innocent. That same footage in the tickling video collection of a fetishist takes on a different meaning. I'm not saying it's wrong, but the intent of the viewer seems to change things in some way, at least to me.

There is a book called, I think, Children at Play, which contains images of nude children playing. Many bookstores carry it and it's apparently a legitemate body of work by a photographer. However, it also happens to turn up in the homes of many pedophiles (Michael Jackson had a copy when they searched his home. Maybe he loves kids and maybe it's something else, I'm just saying it happened )

Is the book pornographic? It depends. If you love children and love photography and are interested in seeing picture of children playing, then it's probably a perfectly innocent thing to look at. On the other hand, if you think sex with children is ok, then looking at that book probably means something else entirely. It's both things at the same time, depending on who's involved, which is why it's such a complicated subject.

The other issue is the legality of putting underage people in tickling videos. Fortunately this one is a lot clearer for the most part. If you are making a video to market to a fetish audience it is a fetish video, period. One can talk about the innocence of tickling until they are blue in the face, and 99 out of 100 times a judge would laugh them right into a maximum sentance in a federal prison. Part of our wonderful, wacky judicial system is the fact that anything can happen when 12 people vote, but try making a video of 16 year-olds frolicking naked in a garden and selling it in an adult store, and see what that gets you.

My point in outlining everything like this, as a set of contradictions, is that I believe that there is no absolute truth inherent to the issue. It's riddled with fuzzy things like intent and point-of-view. I think as responsible fetishists, though, we want to err closer to the side of caution than not.

My final note is that if you think I've expressed an opinion here, you've totally missed my point

 

[Ultratickler]

The post is somewhat opinionated, but the opinions you expressed are fairly mainstream (so it seems essentially factual and undebatable).

On your point about putting "underage" girls in tickling videos, I still don't see why this would be illegal. There is no law or precedent I know of that would make such an act illegal (if the video is marketed to a fetish audience or not).

However, I wouldn't say age is the issue at all. It's all about the appearance (and reaction of course). I'm sure just about all ticklers would rather tickle a hot 30 year old girl who looks 16, rather than a 16 year old girl who looks 30. I will make the assumption that most people here do desire to tickle girls that they are attracted to. Consequently, most people here would desire to tickle attractive teen girls (more so than older women) because it is something that is genetically inherent within males (and similarly among most or all other mammal species). However, due to laws and media-driven factors, 18 has evolved into the "legal age", which leads to all the under-18 debate.

All-in-all, I'm sure that 18 (and 19) will remain the most popular age for tickle-video models, unless some younger entrepreneurs get into the tickling-video market (which would certainly be interesting).

UT

 

[devilscabanaboy]

somewhat off topic, but I'm curious . . .

Jeff,
I was curious how much it cost you to film Strip Tickle, considering it required a bit more "exposure" for Ember than most videos, and a hell of a lot more contact. Of course, I'm curious in comparison to a regular model - what kind of offer do you make with these women, or is it all a negotiation? I've actually been curious for awhile on this topic, but this latest video of yours (which looks great btw) seems to me to be more extreme. If you feel this question doesn't belong on the board, go ahead and delete it, but feel free to e-mail a response to me (my e-mail address is linked to my profile, I believe).

DCB

 

[Machival]

This falls into the whole "bizarre-ass laws and regulations set into effect by congress many, many obsolete years ago" category. Someone, somewhere along the line, decided that 18 is the "age of consent" for just about everything but drinking. However, it's amusing that in most states, 16 is the legal age of consent for sexual relations with someone else who is 16 or 17. So, if you're 17 and your girlfriend is 16, you can screw all you want, legally. However, when you turn 18, you have to stop having sex until she turns 18, meaning you have to wait a year to have sex, even though you already legally could. So if you have sex with your girlfriend the day before your 18th birthday, it's perfectly fine. However, if it's found out that you had sex on or after your 18th birthday, you can get arrested for statutory rape and put in jail for several years. How's that for logic? And I also find it really rather amusing that the age of consent for sex w/someone else in the "teenage sex window of opportunity" is 16 and the age of consent for viewing "adult-oriented material" is 18. You can have sex, but you can't look at it in magazines or on the internet. Doesn't that make a whole shitload of sense? What if you videotape it while you're doing it? Can't watch it. Actually, you can't watch it EVER 'cause before you turn 18, it'd be considered pornographic and after you turn 18 it'd be considered child porn. Another question arises: if you were to take pictures of yourself naked at age, say, 16 and then keep them until you were 18 and start selling them online or in your backyard or your parents' grocery store, would it still be considered illegal seeing as they're pictures of you and you're not only consenting to the distribution and taking of the pictures, but in charge of the whole operation yourself? These laws, along with many others on the next "Congress: the Obsolete Legislation"

Jeff, perhaps you could get around all of this somehow. If you have the girl you're tickling make the video herself (i.e. buy the tape, say on the tape that it was her production, etc), then wait until she was 18 and have her co-distribute it with yourself, (granted, there would be a year or 2 wait in between) could THAT be considered legal seeing as she'd be the one distributing? Maybe if you got another underage person to tickle her and they both co-distributed it with you upon their turning 18? Or maybe you could have her make the tape herself without any help from you, then she could sell it and the rights of the tape to you upon her 18th (and the tickler's 18th) birthday and you could then distribute it? You must look for legal loopholes, Jeff. There's gotta be some way around all of it.

Good luck.

 

[MN Tikl]

Jeff-

As both an attorney and a tickling enthusiast, I really enjoyed your post on this topic. I think you are right on the mark. What people generally misunderstand is that intent (or, more plainly put -- what is in your mind) *does* play a large part in defining many crimes in our society. [the hate crime debate is, in large part, based upon the false premise that you cannot punish somebody for simple 'intent'; of course, we do this in society all the time, e.g., we have different degrees of murder which, in large part, depend on the perpetrator's intent/frame of mind]

I do not practice criminal law, but to take this to an extreme, assume there was a group of people who had a fetish for freckles. If you were to photograph underage girls with freckles and sell these photos to an audience of fetishists, you would be guilty of a crime. In essence, you are engaged in the sale of material, the purpose of which is to sexually arouse the buyer -- in law they call it 'appealing primarily to prurient interest' -- and you are using underage girls to further your enterprise. It makes not a bit of difference that, taken on their own, freckles are asexual. It's the intent that counts. And the intent is, in large part, defined by the clientele. If dermatologists purchased the pictures (and this was your target audience), no problem. But if you are advertising your freckle pics on the internet, in alt.fetish.freckles, you're gonna have a legal problem.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I want to thank you guys for the thought-provoking comments.

To reply to Machival, and the subject in general, while I agree that there are some twists that could be taken to skirt the rules, there is nothing to justify that risk. I think MN will agree when I say that the only true test of the legality of an act is a trial. I can think something is perfectly legal and safe, but the only way to find out would be to have it come before a judge. And if it turned out I was wrong, it would be too late to turn back.

Also, I dont think that having the model be 18 when the video was released but 16 at the time of filming would be any protection. There was a porn actress in the 80's whose name escapes me who was discovered to have made some movies before she was 18 and there was a lot of trouble from that. But even if it was, again there's no reason to do it, so why take the chance?

Really the difference between a 16 year-old and an 18-year old is a small one in every sense except the legal one. Which may be arbitrary, unfair, or stupid, but its still the one that has to take ultimate precedence.I think that there are plenty of fully mature people under 18 and plenty of immature people over 18, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and the law has drawn it at 18. Prior to being 18 a person is not considered capable of making an "informed" consent. I believe, and maybe MN can clarify this for me, that anyone under 18's signature is not fully valid on a contract, which is why parents or guuardians are required to sign as well. And before anyone brings it up, I would not film an underage girl even if her parent signed, because again the possible risk is not balanced by the possible reward.

All in all, I think this is a fascinating subject, but I should emphasize that I'm interested in it theoretically, not for the purpose of making a video. 18 is perfectly fine as a minimum age for a video.

 

[MistressMia]

This is a fascinating subject!

BTW, if a person is really determined on this...why not get an 18 yo model that looks 16?

I'm really trying to be open-minded in this...

Just thought I'd give you my 2 cents anyway...

 

[Oblesklk]

These kinds of threads rarely showed up on alt.multimedia.tk...hmmm I wonder why I'm liking the TMF more and more each week. I think once you get past the fact that there's thousands of other ticklers out there in the world, and there's million of megabytes of tickling material out there, you begin to get bored with these things, and start exploring more subjects that "matter."

These issues are incredibly important, as they do define the moral boundaries that we tend to operate with as a community.

I've always been fascinated and a little sickened by this society's (and by society, I guess I mean just American, since this is the country I grew up in), views towards minors. It seems they are to be castaways, written off, viewed wholly as immature, immoral, ignorant, and totally defenseless...until they're 18. The day they turn 18 is the day where it's magically ok for them to do anything, for they are an adult. Well I've never subscribed to this theory, and I will never let it shape my principles. Wisdom and maturity come with time. They come from experience, patience, and an understanding of the world around you. For some, this might happen at a very young age. For others, it will never happen.

I do respect this country's laws, but it's important to distinguish the "law" from our own morality. I think producing a commercial video of an underage model is not a good idea, if for nothing else, the legality of the contract made and the required consent of the parents. Another legal reason against this is an excellent one that MN Tikl mentions: intent.

I do recognize the wonders and ambiguity that tickling represent. It is the most sublime of all human communication, because it can mean nothing, yet everything. It can be innocuous, or seductive. It can occur between a mother and her newborn, or two lovers in the heat of passion. Tickling is mostly grey. If someone were to kiss you on the lips, there is little ambiguity in that. However, if someone tickles you, it can mean just about anything. It could be playful, or it could be a sign of deeper yearnings. So this brings me to the point above: intent. What were you hoping would come of these actions?

So as far as the "right age" in which to tickle someone, I firmly believe morally that depends entirely on the individual. Some people mature very fast, others will always need to be protected from themselves. So at that grey point in which the ticklee on film goes from being "tickled for fun" to "being exploited" doesn't really depend on age, but rather a sense of self that the model has. And that varies with every age, gender, religion, culture, and size of humanity.

Now I'm pretty much only talking about tickling someone for commercial purposes. Tickling younger people for fun is an entirely different thread. Maybe tomorrow night

In summary: I like to ramble about philosophical things. And I like reading about them. They truly make these boards eternal.

 

[ticklishboy]

My own two pence (or two cents)

Yeah, society sucks, and it's not just in the U.S. In England, it's just as bad, if not WORSE (take the British Board of Film Certification - BBFC for example. Most films which are released are edited to the point of insanity, and of course, there are many films which you can buy in the U.S, but are banned in the U.K!!!).

True, some people mature faster than others. True, everyone assumes that you automatically become an adult at the age of 18. True, tickling is not always sexual...it can be for fun, and can bond people closer together.

I think the main problem started when tickling was techincally classifed as BDSM, and the subject of tickle torture. Like wipping, dominence and other stuff, tickling somehow managed to get itself firmly routed in that category. However, unlike the above, tickling can be enjoyed in any form, in a playful or a sexual nature.

Just my view point...sorry if i'm talking complete and utter rubbish

 

[MN Tikl]

Jeff -- you are right. A minor's signature on a contract means very little. They can breach the contract with virtual impunity. Once they reach the age of 18, they must reaffirm the contract (re-sign it), to make it completely binding.

To follow up on the thoughts of Oblesklk, I would like to raise my glass to those in our community who have gotten past the old flame-war mentality of previous forums. Through various nick names (mostly containing 'tikl' in some form), I've been a frequenter of the various tickling boards since the very earliest days of widespread internet use. I remember discovering the IRC (or whatever it was called back then), and the "Tickling" chat room, back in my undergraduate days of college! For context, this was back in the late 80's! It has been so satisfying to see our community mature over the past decade.

 

[Strelnikov]

I wonder how many of our members are parents, as I am. Here's my perspective on the matter.

My daughters are 8 and 21 years old. If I tickle them, it's parent/child bonding. If YOU do so to the 21 year old, it's her business. The exception is if you hurt her. If YOU tickle the little one, it's child molestation. In either of the latter two cases, if I catch you, you will meet Mr. Winchester, and he is not your friend.

I engaged in teen tickling when I was a teen myself. Since then, I've restricted my efforts to grown-ups. Adults have no business engaging in fetish behavior with underage people - no exceptions.

Strelnikov

 

[Blackstar216]

I'll agree for the square, Strelnikov. I'm no parent. But dag. Come on now. HOw many of us are just DYING to tickle a 15 year old girl or absolutely MUST see some young teen on tape? Certainly not me. Besides, the finest women in this world are between 22-29 anyway.
Not to offend, but just to shake things up a bit. If one is hard pressed to see a high school underclassmen tickled on tape, what WOULDN'T one want to see that same girl doing? Think on that one for a while.

 

[Machival]

When I posted my reply to Jeff's topic, I was, of course, discussing the legality of the situation and not the morality. Of course it's very disturbing for an adult to engage in any kind of sexual act, be it penetration or even a simple fetishism, with a child. I believe that child molesters are just as bad as, if not worse than, murderers. Trust me, I know from experience. Until I finally resolved what happened to me, told my family and worked through it, it caused a great deal of problems in my life, especially just before I finally got help. What molesters don't realize is that they're not just getting off, they're fucking up the life of the person they're molesting.

The point I was trying to make is that the rules, laws and regulations regarding 'age of consent' need to be updated to suit the changing times and lifestyles of society. I know someone who was arrested for statutory rape. He was only a couple of years older than the girl and they had been having a very serious relationship. In fact, the girl's parents even allowed him to move in with them and took it upon themselves to buy them methods of birth control. However, his relationship with her parents deteriorated for one reason or another and, seeing as he had turned 18, they decided to report him for statutory rape. What doesn't make sense is the fact that they had been having sex long before he turned 18 and legally it was just fine and dandy, but as soon as his birthday rolled around it became a crime.

The fact of the matter still remains, though, that to the people on this board, tickling can be both the way others see it, as an innocent, playful bit of fun, or the way those with a fetish see it, as a sexual turn-on. Like the lawyer said, it's all about intent.

However, this is all coming from the vantage point of someone who has just recently turned 18. My attraction to females of the opposite sex in terms of age ranges from late teens to early twenties. I've tickled my sister's teenage friends before, so to me it'd be cool to have a teen tickled on tape. However, the purchasers of the tape probably won't all be around 18 years old. When you really get down and think about it, I think it'd be really rather scary for an adult of, say, age 30 or 40 to be tickling a girl of, say, 16 or 17. When I put it in that point of view, I'm totally against a teenage tickling video. I guess I didn't take enough time to think about the total target audience of the video, only my personal feelings about it. I'm sure that as my age progresses, my want to see a teen tickled will decrease more and more as my tastes in women change in terms of age and other factors.

I really think, though, that the laws should be updated. I should be able to date someone who's under the age of 18, just as long as they're not, like, 12 or something. I think the statutory rape laws should be modified to coincide more with the 'age of consent for sexual relations' laws. If the age of consent for sex is 16 in your state and you're 18 years old, you should still be able to date 16 year olds and older. Granted, 30 year olds shouldn't be able to date 16 year olds, but if you're only a few years older than a 16 year old, you should still be able to date them and... well... 'stuff'. Of course, the age of consent in each state varies, so it'd have to be modified at the state level, but it should still be modified nonetheless.

Oblesklk, I couldn't agree with you more in terms of our society's ridiculous views on minors. I don't mean to blow my own horn or anything, but I find myself to be a great deal smarter than the majority of the people twice my age. I know the difference between right and wrong and have for many, many years. I should've been given the rights of an 18 year old at age 12. I hate the fact that people under the age of 18 are considered to be incapable of making a valid decision regarding anything. At age 16, I had a job making less than minimum wage. A lot less, actually. Yet I still had to pay the normal percentages for taxes. On top of that, I also couldn't vote, so I had absolutely no voice whatsoever in how the money that was being taken away from me was being spent. I had the burden of responsibilities, but not the privileges that, for adults, come with said responsibilities. And the thing is, it's not like having age limits set on things really makes that much of a difference anyway. Say, for example, I really want to smoke, for some odd reason. I want to smoke REALLY BAD. However, I don't want to break the law, so I hold off until I turn 18. What's the point? It's not like once I turn 18, I'm going to mature so much and change my mind to such an extent that I don't want to have anything to do with cigarettes anymore. "I wanted to smoke so bad as a minor, but now that I'm 18, I'm /mature/ enough to not want to anymore."

That's another thing: maturity. Maturity, I'm sorry to say, folks, isn't age-dependent. I'm more mature than people a lot older than I am and probably less mature than people a lot younger than I am. Plus, my maturity level changes depending on my mood and the situation I'm in. Some things I say can have the maturity level of a ten year old, but some of the things I say can be so mature I can qualify for medicare and social security. Granted, maturity does tend to change with age, but it's not entirely dependent. Also, the things we restrict aren't even related to maturity at all. Take drinking, for instance. You can have a 300lb 15-year-old that can hold more liquor than a 150lb 25-year-old. Plus, that 15-year-old can be smart enough to know when to stop, whereas the 25-year-old could be a binge-drinking college student with his head so far up his ass that he believes he's invincible. And although maturity also isn't related directly to intelligence, it's a lot closer of a relation than maturity to age, so perhaps we should set an 'I.Q. of consent', rather than an 'age of consent'. It just baffles me that we hand rights and privileges out like candy to any 21 year old, including morons and idiots, but the intelligent minors are treated like incoherent, non-applicable, dependent, thoughtless pieces of shit incapable of making any kind of valid decision or opinion. It's very, very sad.

I could keep going on this topic for probably the length of a novel, but I figure I'll cut myself off here before this rant gets /too/ carried away... although I'll probably end up ranting more on another post somewhere, but... this is good enough for now.

To sum up, I just think it's about time that we take a look at some of the laws regarding minors and 'maturity' and rethink our standpoint as a nation and a society about the whole thing. Life sucks, but maybe someday someone will come along with enough sense to make things logical and right. Until that day, though, life will continue to suck and there's next to nothing we can do to stop it, unfortunately.

The End

 

[Strelnikov]

When we talk about "maturity", we're really talking about walking-around sense. That's something the young lack. We acquire it over time by having our noses rubbed in life's realities. It's the ability to defer gratification, think ahead, and apply life experience to sift the bullshit for the kernel of truth.

French politician Georges Clemenceau once said that anyone who wasn't a socialist at age 20 had no heart, but anyone who was still a socialist at age 30 had no brain. To which I'll add, anyone who isn't a cynic at age 40 hasn't been paying attention.

Strelnikov

 

[Oblesklk]

I'm getting a "little" off topic here, just wanted to throw my two cents on a couple of points some folks made.

Machival - The law isn't perfect. There is nobody that abides by the law that will agree with every facet of the law 100%. But, given our progression at the time, it's the best we've come up with I've always been frustrated with the expectations that we adults have with minors. People usually live up to their expectations. If their environment has written them off, then you can draw your own conclusions. In a country that willingly send their children off to a foreign land to die, shows little reservations about trying them as an adult in a court of law, it is sure odd that letting an above average teen vote or drink seems so incredibly foreign to us. Who here remembers studies in psychology about the effects of positive and negative reinforcements on humans?

Anyhow, the ideology behind cigarettes is a pretty easy one. Children and teens are still developing mentally and physically until they're in their late teens. Smoking, contrary to what many trusted Philip Morris executives will tell you, really does stunt your growth and inhibit your mental facilities. For someone that has not developed fully, this would be devestating.

Strelnikov - I wondered who said that quote. There was a line very similar in Swimming with Sharks in which Kevin Spacey is explaining some of the things wrong with the MTV generation. The movie's script is absolutely wonderful, I would advise it to anyone. Anyhow, I do consider myself a socialist, a very strong one. And I am 25, so I guess I have 5 more years before I become a full blown capitalist Although, to be fair, if 5 years in a top-notch, spiritually devoid business school coupled with becoming a far too young professional surrounded by foaming capitalists doesn't turn me, I don't think anything will. But stranger things have happened.

The topic is starting to meander a bit (no thanks to me) but I really am enjoying reading people's reponses. Keep it up!

 

[tklr22]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, because I only skmed through the replys but a suggestion I have to the idea about a underage tickling video is to invest in a video that has an underage theme. A perfect example: the Babysitter by Foot Paradise. No I am not going to reveiw the video here but I think for anyone who is into underage tickling might want to check this out.

 

[MN Tikl]

Political Meandering...

Just recently I was down in Texas and a business associate of mine said something similar to Strelnikov's quote of Clemenceau: "Those who aren't Democrats at age 18 don't have a heart; those who are not Republicans at age 35 don't have a brain."

[btw, I disagreed with her at the time, but I'm not going to tell you why; I don't think this forum is set up for political debate... That said, however (and at the risk of opening up a can of worms), I do wonder what the overall political makeup is of our group. Is there a correlation between love of tickling and 1 or more political ideologies? Hmmmmm Perhaps a separate discussion board needs to be created to explore this issue]

Thanks to Strelnikov for showing me the genesis of the quote!