The non-consensual crap

[The Last Laugh]

the models signed the release forms that cleared this activity only after the filming. I suppose one can argue that as consent was given after the fact then the videos are ultimately consensual, but I'd argue that because the tickling wasn't consented to beforehand, what was produced is in fact a non-con video.

I don't believe that's how it happened. The main argument against this is that no producer would be stupid enough to take such a ridiculous risk. A model could make more money by suing the idiot than by accepting the producer's bribe money after the shoot.

Then again, maybe people are even stupider than I think they are.

 

[Babbles]

It IS irresponsible if not criminal.

Well, consider this scenario:

1. A producer tells a model he wants to tie her up and film her struggling against some rope bondage. No other physical activity will occur.

2. The model agrees to this activity.

3. Once the model is restrained the producer has the model tickled, an activity she did not agree to beforehand.

4. Once the filming is over, the producer gives the model a wad of cash to get her to sign a consent form that allows the tickling.

The producer is of course running the risk that the model will call the cops, or get her SO over to raise some hell, but he's willing to take that chance and, ultimately, his plan works. Plausible?

I'm not condoning such desception, mind you; I find it abhorrent. But I believe it has occurred from time to time.

Yes, apparently it has.

It seems the creep was sued, and disappeared --- but his tapes are still sold by another company ----

And that's not the only one ---- Others have supposedly mis/used women (and/or prostitutes) from third-world countries.

People ARE stupider ---- some do think they can get away with it, and by selling videos convincingly labelled "REAL" Non-Con, producers are just encouraging it, it looks like they got away with it. Maybe that's why the above-mentioned creep decided to try it, I don't know. Or the others.

 

[Babbles]

When you use the term "non-consensual" it sounds like the model got raped, or was forced to do something against her will, but this is not the case, because a model was not dragged, kidnapped, druged, held against her will. She gave consent the first step she took into that room and she knew what was going to happened. She knew what she was coming for.

I'm sorry to be repetitive ---- But it's important it's understood not everyone feels like you do, some just do bondage for money --- No S&M because they hate it. Not all of them have known there was more involved ---

And that's apparently what HAS happened ---- almost if not as bad as rape for some who can't stand it, worse than pain, as I wrote elsewhere ----

---as those masochists who look for pain have said as well. Many of them prefer whips to tickling.

I've had this fetish from childhood --- but I can't stand it for more than a short time ---- if someone paid me to tie me up, and then surprised me with tickling in a manner and to an extent I can't stand ----
or any other *torture I did NOT expect ---- because he thought he could get away with it,

that would be a complete nightmare
and yes I'd have his internal organs (gradually) for breakfast ASAP while he's still
...attempting to breathe.... If they're lucky, their victims will turn on them in a like manner....

but some guys DO think they can get away with this.

It seems hookers have been victimized since a certain sicko didn't think they'd complain. As I said above ---- same with creeps who shoot in third world countries. It does look like some of them may have gotten away with it.

But if they advertise ----- People should protest ----- There should be SOME safety net so that this can't be done,
or at least ---- Not sold as such.

If they're not allowed to sell it --- if they're pursued legally if it really looks like Non-Con torture, that should be publicized and that would hopefully discourage any other sickos from harming prostitutes, strippers or poor women...

 

[Maestro1874]

Ok, I don't understand the non-consensual crap I have been reading a lot on this forum. I thought that the basis of the tickle torture fetish was to be out of control of the situation. Trusting your partner is one thing, but I love to give absolute power to Skely to do with me whatever he wants, because for me is exciting not to know what he is going to do next, or how far he is going to go. That is what makes tickle torture so adictive for me. I mean If a model do not trust the producer, just walk away before he tie you up, or don't sign the release at the end. Many models abuse the use of the safeword and they don't understand that a safeword is only for emergencies, but when a session is about tickle torture, hello, you are going to be tortured, and what makes this out of this world is the feeling of being totally out of control.

When you use the term "non-consensual" it sounds like the model got raped, or was forced to do something against her will, but this is not the case, because a model was not dragged, kidnapped, druged, held against her will. She gave consent the first step she took into that room and she knew what was going to happened. She knew what she was coming for.

Non-consensual means the same things as it does in almost everything else - jail time.

 

[rhiannon]

Babbles, where did you get that information from? Hookers?? I know only of that one fake non-con video with a girl that was said to be a hooker.

About third world countries, do you refer to "Tickling in South-East Asia"?

 

[Babbles]

Babbles, where did you get that information from? Hookers?? I know only of that one fake non-con video with a girl that was said to be a hooker.

About third world countries, do you refer to "Tickling in South-East Asia"?

Hi Rhiannon,

I was told there was a lawsuit filed by a group of hookers against someone who tied them up and tickle-tortured them around the time the maker of the TickleSlaves videos vanished --- Perhaps they were not prostitutes, I don't know their identities --

The supposedly fake non-con was/is put out by Tickling Paradise, which then bought the above. I don't know if it's somehow legal for them to sell those tapes if they're genuine non-con, it's possible the women involved are not aware their assault tapes resurfaced however many years later...

And yes, I was referring to South-East Asia (I didn't want to give them additional advertisement). Unfortunately I wouldn't doubt it's happened elsewhere

 

[rhiannon]

Sounds like an urban legend to me to be honest. If that was the case, there is no way that those videos would still be on sale! They would have vanished along with the producer because they would have been evidence!

The girls who model in the South-East Asia clips are definitely not having non-con stuff done to them. Simple evidence: every single girl does more than one clip with them! How would that work if the producer was doing non-con stuff?

 

[Babbles]

Hope you're right.

Sounds like an urban legend to me to be honest. If that was the case, there is no way that those videos would still be on sale! They would have vanished along with the producer because they would have been evidence!

The girls who model in the South-East Asia clips are definitely not having non-con stuff done to them. Simple evidence: every single girl does more than one clip with them! How would that work if the producer was doing non-con stuff?

I hope you're right, but it's possible copies were made, kept hidden, etc. The friend who told me about the lawsuit said he thought it was weird at the time, he remembered seeing that in mainstream media. He couldn't tell me for sure if it was related to Tickle Slaves, but he remembered an article with a lawsuit on the topic, years ago.

As far as South-East Asia, again I hope you're right. If that's the case it's most likely all "above-board" unless the last tapes made with those models were non-con,
or unless they used other models only once --- Did they all return?

I'd prefer not to give them more publicity, real or not -- As I've said, either way it's irresponsible unless there's some marker labelling it as a convincing fake
(and not to be tried at home...).

It's also very scary that the material is believed to be non-con, whether or not it is, and there is such a demand from those who openly state they believe it's real and want more.

For the models' safety I'd hope there would be exit interviews -- and afterwards, not pre-taped...

 

[SadCuzNotTcklsh]

There's plenty of non-con stories we read. What's stopping someone from saying this story is about me, and so-and-so plans on making this really happen. I guess my question is, how much of a problem is the thought alone?

 

[rhiannon]

I hope you're right, but it's possible copies were made, kept hidden, etc

And then being sold online?? No way!! Seriously, no way! Somebody would point it out to the police, and then the seller is in deep shit!

hope you're right, but it's possible copies were made, kept hidden, etc. The friend who told me about the lawsuit said he thought it was weird at the time, he remembered seeing that in mainstream media.

I think that would for sure have showed up here!

Did they all return?

I'd prefer not to give them more publicity, real or not -- As I've said, either way it's irresponsible unless there's some marker labelling it as a convincing fake
(and not to be tried at home...).

Yes, they all returned. And as far as I know the South-East Asia company NEVER claimed their clips to be non-con, and they do indeed have interviews with their models.

 

[skelyrata]

The equation

The problem I see is that there are two different levels of consent.

Is like an equation, first you have the braket [] and then you have the parentheris () which is inside the braket so think of a video like this [ ( ) ] .

Now, I think that what most bonafide producers and fetishists dream to achieve and see is a video in which the first level of consent is respected but the second level of consent is waved. Thats what most producers refer as non-consensual (including myself) or simply put a state of mind where the model has no control over what is going to happened, and therefore, the fear, and the thrill of not know how much she can take and how long this is going to last, or what is he up to now, becomes a key element of the video.

Is kind of an arrangement I make with the model that once the camera starts rolling I'll be the judge of how much is enough. The safeword becomes a signal that I found a hotspot and that she is on the edge, but It is up to me to push that edge and see how far she can go. And yes, I always keep eye contact on her face. But In the beginning I have found that the entire mood of a tickling session was killed by her over using the safeword because she just was affraid to be on the edge.

But the general concept of consent is always respected and present.

Of course if any producer, or anybody violates that general level of consent then they should be reported and put out of business.

Models should make public posts about those creeps and make sure nobody else work for them.

I know VISA is very strict about the content that can be sold using their logo and non-consensual is totally out of the question.


By the way, this is a very interesting discussion. Is interesting to see how many turns the concept of "non-consensual" can take.

 

[rhiannon]

But In the beginning I have found that the entire mood of a tickling session was killed by her over using the safeword because she just was affraid to be on the edge.

Well...maybe if she is afraid to be on the edge, you should respect that! It is not your place to decide when enough is enough - that decision is hers and hers only!

 

[skelyrata]

Wrong...

If she is affraid to be on the edge, she should not agree or consent to be tied up and tickled in the first place.

Well...maybe if she is afraid to be on the edge, you should respect that! It is not your place to decide when enough is enough - that decision is hers and hers only!

 

[Angel77]

Wrong...

If she is affraid to be on the edge, she should not agree or consent to be tied up and tickled in the first place.

I agree with that. If I signed up for a tickle torture vid, then I would certainly assume that I'd be pushed to the edge. Not over the edge, as I do believe in safewords but if you're not pushed to the edge, how is that a tickle torture vid? Now if you're aiming for a cute tickling vid, and some of those are indeed cute, that might be more of someone else's style. Anyhoo, that's my two cents.

 

[SadCuzNotTcklsh]

Wrong...

If she is affraid to be on the edge, she should not agree or consent to be tied up and tickled in the first place.

I kinda agree. Isn't that the whole point?

 

[Deadsea7777]

Is it technically possible to tickle a person without their consent? I mean the reflex does dissaperard in danger or stress. Is a natural defense of the body.

I believe is the same kind of fantasy as forced orgasm against the will of the victim...a fantasy. If somebody uses a vibrator against the will of the model, for sure is not an orgasm what he/she would get.

If you do something against the will of the model, it would be physical abuse.
It may be sometimes difficult to prove...because it may happen that some people may think that if you got involved in that kind of work you got what you deserved. This is incorrect but nonetheless may exist.

I suppose they are dramas and sadness in this world of models, without the help of the producers, is enough to remember that tickling model from Harmony that committed suicide.
And the potential to abuse is there with the profession, but somehow I would not think that non consensual tickling is the worst that can happen to a model.

I would say that being specific with the producer is paramount for the model, and to bring an escort too, and to read the conditions that other more veteran models impose to the producers, like "Under no circumstances I would spend the night in the home of the photographer, Hotel need to be included". After all the thin line that separates sadism from torture and abuse is the fact that in the first case is consensual and the second no.

There was a chapter of CSI MIAMI in which a porn actress retires from the business, and her boyfriend ask for a "personal only for him" one more movie, Then he tricks her an proceeds to make copies to distribute. "Cookie divine" was the name. Of course H does kick the ass of the bastard, but maybe is not so easy in real life, so better if the models keep their eyes open and their brain sharp.

 

[rhiannon]

Wrong...

If she is affraid to be on the edge, she should not agree or consent to be tied up and tickled in the first place.

Maybe she finds out that she can't stand it as well as she thought when she already agreed and consented to it! If she has never done it before, you should respect the safeword! If the material is not usable for a tickle torture clip afterwards, use it for something else or just don't use it at all!

It's like having sex...just because you consented to it when it started does not mean you can't change your mind half-way! And if a partner says stop or uses the safeword half-way, it means stop - everything else is non-con! If we were talking about sex and not tickling, you know what it would mean - rape!

Being on the edge is one thing if you play with your partner who you know well and who knows you well, but not with a model! Especially not if it's her first time being tickled or being tickled with such an intensity!

 

[SadCuzNotTcklsh]

Forgive me in advance if I offend anyone for mentioning this, but I remember hearing somewhere that women actually fantasize about being raped.
Not sure if it belongs in this discussion, but it came to mind reading this thread.

 

[Adam]

Maybe she finds out that she can't stand it as well as she thought when she already agreed and consented to it! If she has never done it before, you should respect the safeword! If the material is not usable for a tickle torture clip afterwards, use it for something else or just don't use it at all!

It's like having sex...just because you consented to it when it started does not mean you can't change your mind half-way! And if a partner says stop or uses the safeword half-way, it means stop - everything else is non-con! If we were talking about sex and not tickling, you know what it would mean - rape!

Being on the edge is one thing if you play with your partner who you know well and who knows you well, but not with a model! Especially not if it's her first time being tickled or being tickled with such an intensity!

I agree with you, Rhiannon. Being brought to a certain "edge" in a tickle torture video is to be expected, but there needs to be that leeway for those who have never done it before. If it's an experienced model that has done her share of tickling videos, you may be able to work out some sort of contractual agreement to take things a little further as a selling point of sorts. It must all be worked out on an individual basis.

 

[vikingo]

Non-con.

Everybody wants it. Yet, nobody wants it.

Two bullet train collides!

 

[Babbles]

And then being sold online?? No way!! Seriously, no way! Somebody would point it out to the police, and then the seller is in deep shit!

One would hope -- Ever heard of the Darwin Awards?

Both for the most ruthless --- and the most idiotic...

Just greed alone --- and the idea they can always claim "Oh, REALLY? I had NO idea.... and here I thought it was just another convincing fake!! I'm so sorry officers..."

Greedy criminals are also con artists... On paper the current seller may not appear to be nearly as guilty as they may be in reality.

But this is also why I say the label "Real Non-Con" is totally irresponsible if it's false advertising.

I think that would for sure have showed up here!

Possibly, and I'm looking for the article myself. I have to ask my friend where & when approximately he saw this --- He just mentioned it to me a day or two ago --- I don't know how old the TickleSlaves vids are either...

Even if his memory is imperfect with regard to that article he's reasonably sure he remembers having seen a long while ago, that again doesn't mean that it was about the creep who ran TickleSlaves. And it doesn't mean those vids are consensual.

Yes, they all returned. And as far as I know the South-East Asia company NEVER claimed their clips to be non-con, and they do indeed have interviews with their models.

That's not what I heard or have read here over the years --- Again, I hope you're right!! Like I said, I'd rather be proven wrong.

 

[Babbles]

"Rape fantasy" is just a roleplay.

As far as "rape fantasies" --- Contradictory term, or "oxymoron."

The difference between fantasy and reality ----

Rape by definition is what is NOT WANTED.

Not the person you want, not the action you want from them.

So if someone wants an aggressive attack, it's not rape. But they can fantasize about it as "rape."

That's a roleplay ---- some people want to feel wanted, or they just want an aggressive interaction.

Same here with tickling --- fantasy's fine --- As long as EVERYTHING is agreed to beforehand,
there are no surprises, no breach of contract...

and it's just better to "err on the side of caution" if someone behaves like they really can't take it, at least have some signal agreed upon -----

As someone else said --- if someone doesn't know what they're getting into, they need to be fully informed, and have a safeword. That should be a given.

And not everyone who models, whether a college student and/or a stripper or a hooker will feel comfortable going to the police, filing a report, publicizing their activity ----- There should be more safeguards so they're not abused.

 

[The Last Laugh]

Forgive me in advance if I offend anyone for mentioning this, but I remember hearing somewhere that women actually fantasize about being raped.

Maybe some do *fantasize* about it, but it doesn't mean they actually want it to happen.

 

[rhiannon]

Just greed alone --- and the idea they can always claim "Oh, REALLY? I had NO idea.... and here I thought it was just another convincing fake!! I'm so sorry officers..."

Not knowing that something is wrong has NEVER kept someone from being punished for it. That would be too easy!

But this is also why I say the label "Real Non-Con" is totally irresponsible if it's false advertising.

I have actually ever seen it for one clip. But I agree, it is irresponsible.

Even if his memory is imperfect with regard to that article he's reasonably sure he remembers having seen a long while ago, that again doesn't mean that it was about the creep who ran TickleSlaves. And it doesn't mean those vids are consensual.

I don't know if I know the TickleSlaves video, but I am pretty sure that there is no way a producer would film something illegal and then sell it....that's just too stupid to be true! But okay...there are also people who film themselves having sex with children and put it online.....Darwin Award...

That's not what I heard or have read here over the years --- Again, I hope you're right!! Like I said, I'd rather be proven wrong.

I have seen several previews from that producer and even bought a clip or two. They are definitely not non-con!

 

[Phineas]

I thought that the basis of the tickle torture fetish was to be out of control of the situation.

You thought wrong, because tickling doesn't mean the same thing to everyone here.

just because a model says the safeword and the tickler keeps going I think is not understanding the true nature of this fetish!

I think that anyone who says this doesn't understand what a safeword is actually for - and I, personally, would never trust someone who didn't enough to play with them. Safewords are there to communicate the need to stop right now, no questions asked, whether for personal comfort or emergency... and they're not to be disregarded because the tickler "doesn't feel like it".