One or the other of you might have witnessed me getting a bit hot under the collar in a couple of threads involving the idea of non-consensual tickling.
There was one guy, who had this I'm-the-true-Tickle-Torture-Guru-thing going. He seemed to feel that all this other talk and filming of so-called tickle torture was just "playing," by a lot of people who did not have the stomach for the real thing - the true, painful, frightening foot torture. And lots of folk were going, "rahrahrah!!! You're our hero - that's the way we want it! Real, non-consensual, let-'em-have-it stuff caught on video!"
I mean, non-consensual tickling is hardly a rare phenomenon. Most people who sneak in a casual tickle here and there don't ask the person, "Hey, do you give me permission to tickle you?" They go ahead and do it and then wait for the reaction. Mostly that's fine in a private setting, but is considered sexual harassment in inappropriate settings like the workplace or by adults on kids in schools, etc.
Then there is the tickling that takes place among ones peers, friends and family, where there is a kind of unspoken, tacit agreement that the touchy-feely stuff is tolerated, often welcome, and will not lead to anger unless carried to extremes or against ones will. Social pressures will often compel ticklees to play along - like in a Renfaire situation - and be a good sport. And even here - should a person really resist and object and threaten court action- which they may very well have the right to pursue, if their demands are not met - the ticklers, who are also doing it in the spirit of fun, i.e. "play,"
would soon stop with the necessary deference.
But the real non-consensual thing would start if a person objected strongly and was then nonetheless tickled or tortured relentlessly. So now you have an angry, resisting, possibly tearful and vengeful ticklee on your hands, who is going to do her/his level best not to react, especially in front of a camera.
Now, I can understand that someone might get off on that - like people also get off on rape. But it beats me why anyone would want to make a movie of it. And what the quality of such a movie would be, unless there was a third party? And...and...and...
Now picture the other situation (I am not a video producer, so bear with my imagination.)
Producer, (interviewing ticklish model): You say you're ticklish? You'll be
paid $200 bucks for the session. Please sign this contract that
indemnifies us and remember that, once you are tied down on that
bed/table, there will be no going back. You'll be tickled relentlessly no
matter what you say.
Girl, (hard up for cash, anxious to make it as an actress/model): I hope you
won't be disappointed in me. Remember, my reactions are really
unpredictable when I'm tickled.
Producer, (keeping his cool): I reckon we'll be able to handle that.
Model: I'll probably scream the place down.
Producer: Our customers won't mind that. (heehee)
Model: I hope I won't break your bondage equipment.
Producer: The stuff's quite stable - and the buyers won't mind.
Model: I hope you don't mind if I can't help pleading for mercy?
Producer: Our customers are very understanding. By the way, would you
accept £250.- for the shoot?
Then you have a controlled situation, good lights, everyone anxious to do a good job - and probably having some fun, too. Enjoy the clip.
Or take Kujman's Tickle Palace - a great site by a really creative mind. I loved it - put me somewhere in the Arabian Nights with all sorts of fantasies of harems of ticklish ladies eager to serve my wishes. But, hell, it is only fun because it IS play - pretend. If it turned out to be real, or I thought it actually existed somewhere, I'd be online to Amnesty International right now.
So what's the deal with the non-consensual thing? Why put something on film that is (normally) neither legal or ethical in order to get a technically substandard result. Or why be fooled into thinking that something is really non-consensual when it is placed in a quality setting with high-tech equipment on video record for all to see?
I'm mystified? What's the attraction?
There was one guy, who had this I'm-the-true-Tickle-Torture-Guru-thing going. He seemed to feel that all this other talk and filming of so-called tickle torture was just "playing," by a lot of people who did not have the stomach for the real thing - the true, painful, frightening foot torture. And lots of folk were going, "rahrahrah!!! You're our hero - that's the way we want it! Real, non-consensual, let-'em-have-it stuff caught on video!"
I mean, non-consensual tickling is hardly a rare phenomenon. Most people who sneak in a casual tickle here and there don't ask the person, "Hey, do you give me permission to tickle you?" They go ahead and do it and then wait for the reaction. Mostly that's fine in a private setting, but is considered sexual harassment in inappropriate settings like the workplace or by adults on kids in schools, etc.
Then there is the tickling that takes place among ones peers, friends and family, where there is a kind of unspoken, tacit agreement that the touchy-feely stuff is tolerated, often welcome, and will not lead to anger unless carried to extremes or against ones will. Social pressures will often compel ticklees to play along - like in a Renfaire situation - and be a good sport. And even here - should a person really resist and object and threaten court action- which they may very well have the right to pursue, if their demands are not met - the ticklers, who are also doing it in the spirit of fun, i.e. "play,"
would soon stop with the necessary deference.
But the real non-consensual thing would start if a person objected strongly and was then nonetheless tickled or tortured relentlessly. So now you have an angry, resisting, possibly tearful and vengeful ticklee on your hands, who is going to do her/his level best not to react, especially in front of a camera.
Now, I can understand that someone might get off on that - like people also get off on rape. But it beats me why anyone would want to make a movie of it. And what the quality of such a movie would be, unless there was a third party? And...and...and...
Now picture the other situation (I am not a video producer, so bear with my imagination.)
Producer, (interviewing ticklish model): You say you're ticklish? You'll be
paid $200 bucks for the session. Please sign this contract that
indemnifies us and remember that, once you are tied down on that
bed/table, there will be no going back. You'll be tickled relentlessly no
matter what you say.
Girl, (hard up for cash, anxious to make it as an actress/model): I hope you
won't be disappointed in me. Remember, my reactions are really
unpredictable when I'm tickled.
Producer, (keeping his cool): I reckon we'll be able to handle that.
Model: I'll probably scream the place down.
Producer: Our customers won't mind that. (heehee)
Model: I hope I won't break your bondage equipment.
Producer: The stuff's quite stable - and the buyers won't mind.
Model: I hope you don't mind if I can't help pleading for mercy?
Producer: Our customers are very understanding. By the way, would you
accept £250.- for the shoot?
Then you have a controlled situation, good lights, everyone anxious to do a good job - and probably having some fun, too. Enjoy the clip.
Or take Kujman's Tickle Palace - a great site by a really creative mind. I loved it - put me somewhere in the Arabian Nights with all sorts of fantasies of harems of ticklish ladies eager to serve my wishes. But, hell, it is only fun because it IS play - pretend. If it turned out to be real, or I thought it actually existed somewhere, I'd be online to Amnesty International right now.
So what's the deal with the non-consensual thing? Why put something on film that is (normally) neither legal or ethical in order to get a technically substandard result. Or why be fooled into thinking that something is really non-consensual when it is placed in a quality setting with high-tech equipment on video record for all to see?
I'm mystified? What's the attraction?
which makes it even better.
