Tickling Videos: Porn or Not?

[ZenTickling]

I've been asked this by more than a few models.. "is this some kind of porn?"

I really never know how to explain it. What do you think?

I know that tickling videos are certainly sexual in nature for some people, but does that make them porn? I've seen that there are people who are turned on by watching other people pop balloons.. is popping balloons porn?

If you're going to define porn as anything that a person will masterbate to or become sexually aroused by, then what isn't porn? Victoria's Secret catalog.. porn. Sexy celebrity pictures.. porn. Bikini pictures posted on facebook or myspace.. porn.

It's a tough call to make.

 

[Cy/MiG]

It's more a 'kinky video' (for lack of a better term I suppose) than porn.

Of course, if there's nudity one could make the argument...

I still say nyet.

 

[AlinasPsyche]

I'd say pornography is footage of sex and orgies and cock sucking and anal rape-age.

Stuff like that.
Soooo, I say that tickling isn't porn.

 

[oneftfboy]

in my oppinion i think its all a matter of oppinion. heck it could be argued that going nude really should not be wrong after all we are born nude arent we? but going nude is considered wrong because someone decided that it should be therefor it is that seems to be how everything works like it or not.

 

[Artoo]

I guess it's not so much that people are getting their rocks off to it that makes somthing porn. What I believe makes something porn is that it is being produced with the intent to be sold because of it's sexually provocative nature.

Tickling videos fit this description - I mean, producers primarily make them to sell them to people who find tickling sexy. People who are probably going to masturbate to said video.

In that sense, then, tickling videos are porn.

 

[Tiger.Lily]

I guess it's not so much that people are getting their rocks off to it that makes somthing porn. What I believe makes something porn is that it is being produced with the intent to be sold because of it's sexually provocative nature.

Tickling videos fit this description - I mean, producers primarily make them to sell them to people who find tickling sexy. People who are probably going to masturbate to said video.

In that sense, then, tickling videos are porn.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[DownUnder]

What I believe makes something porn is that it is being produced with the intent to be sold because of it's sexually provocative nature.

I concur.

However, does that make it "porn"? Is the word "porn" as overused as is "fetish"? I have worked with photographic models and taken photos of their feet in a clearly suggestive manner; but they'll never appear in an adult site. Is that still "porn"? Or more like "erotica"?

 

[ViperGTS]

Definition of "pornography":

"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

So...I guess it is, yeah.

 

[DownUnder]

Definition of "pornography":

"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

So...I guess it is, yeah.

I sense that Zen is trying to find a way to describe the videos to his models without referring to them as "porn". Regardless of how open-minded those models are, the mere mention of the term can be unnerving.

Sure, the end product is ending up on an adult website, and guys will be enjoying themselves off it. But is there a better term to describe them? "Erotica"? same thing. "Artistic"? That's lying. How does "adult video" sound?

 

[ViperGTS]

I sense that Zen is trying to find a way to describe the videos to his models without referring to them as "porn". Regardless of how open-minded those models are, the mere mention of the term can be unnerving.

Sure, the end product is ending up on an adult website, and guys will be enjoying themselves off it. But is there a better term to describe them? "Erotica"? same thing. "Artistic"? That's lying. How does "adult video" sound?

Yeah, I usually refer to it as Adult Entertainment.

 

[dskodj]

I guess it's not so much that people are getting their rocks off to it that makes somthing porn. What I believe makes something porn is that it is being produced with the intent to be sold because of it's sexually provocative nature.

Tickling videos fit this description - I mean, producers primarily make them to sell them to people who find tickling sexy. People who are probably going to masturbate to said video.

In that sense, then, tickling videos are porn.

What he said...I personally dont buy or watch tickle vids just for the sheer hell of it cause I find it interesting or entertaining ya know lol

 

[The Sean Man]

Yeah, I usually refer to it as Adult Entertainment.

I like to believe the word "porn" was created by people offended by the material in question. Bastards

In any case, I consider any material that contains sexual content is "adult".

Is tickling porn? Sure...why not?

 

[ZenTickling]

So is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition pornography?

 

[ZenTickling]

This isn't about me and my models. It was just something that came up which I found interesting.

What I believe makes something porn is that it is being produced with the intent to be sold because of it's sexually provocative nature.

Television advertisers take advantage of our instinctual interest in sexually provocative material to sell their products. I know Levis sells jeans, but their commercials are blatantly sexual with the intent to produce some level of arousal.

http: //www.youtube .com/watch?v=fW-qSlX9UtA
http: //www.youtube .com/watch?v=-zP0pN-aLcI

(erase the spaces)

 

[DownUnder]

So is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition pornography?

That's why I asked the question, "where does porn end and 'adult' start?"

Going by Viper's definition, SI's editors' intentions should be taken into account. How much did they intend for their readers to "enjoy" themselves?

In fact, I haven't even voted. My bottom is hurting from all the fence-sitting.

 

[ZenTickling]

That's why I asked the question, "where does porn end and 'adult' start?"

Going by Viper's definition, SI's editors' intentions should be taken into account. How much did they intend for their readers to "enjoy" themselves?

Why would you buy a magazine filled with pictures of supermodels in bikinis? What would you do with it?

LOL.

 

[CrystalLight]

I think it all depends on the person's attraction to tickling.

Some can watch videos or clips and feel no arousal. Other's do become turned on by viewing them and use them as a form of porn.

 

[drew70]

I guess it's not so much that people are getting their rocks off to it that makes somthing porn. What I believe makes something porn is that it is being produced with the intent to be sold because of it's sexually provocative nature.

Tickling videos fit this description - I mean, producers primarily make them to sell them to people who find tickling sexy. People who are probably going to masturbate to said video.

In that sense, then, tickling videos are porn.

Artoos comments line up pretty well with the dictionary definition of porn, but I myself can't buy into this definition for a couple of reasons.

1) I don't believe that something <del>should</del> can be defined by the intent of it's creator. We define things by what is actually there, not what somebody wants it to be. Hence, porn should be determined by content.

Consider the phrase, "soft porn." By the dictionary definition, soft porn would be material that the creator only has mild aspirations for sexual gratification, while "hardcore porn" would refer to material to which the creators really really want us to spank our monkeys. This is based on the criterea for porn being based on <em>in</em>tent rather than <em>con</em>tent.

But that's not the reality. The reality is we classify soft porn vs hardcore by the content. If it's sexy women posing in see-through lingerie, it's soft porn. If it's group anal sex we're talking about, then we tend to label it as hardcore.

2) Does it make sense that producers of porn have any other intent than to make bucks?

Hypothetical: What if producers of porn suddenly found out that people were buying their product in droves for reasons other than sexual gratification? Say, to read the jokes or to study a healthy body for medical purposes?

Do you believe the porn producers would take any offense, or try to put a stop to it? After all, these customers are not fulfulling the <em>intent</em> of the producers.

Hypothetical: Pedophile Pedro works for a firm that markets children's clothing. Pedro is responsible for producing the catalogues. He takes great satisfaction in including pictures of all the children especially in the undergarment section. He wants to please his online pedo pals.

By the official definition of porn, since it's Pete's <em>intent</em> for this catalogue to give sexual gratification, anybody who shops with it is looking at "pornography." The reality is that most people are simply shopping for clothes for their children, and if you suggested they were holding pornography in their hands, they'd probably take a few steps back away from you.

In summary, the dictionary definition of porn needs an overhaul. The criterea should be determined by content, not intent. So to answer the original question posed, I would say that tickling videos are not porn unless their content also includes recognizable elements of pornography. Nudity, physical contact with genetalia, etc.

Fully clothed models tickling each other does not qualify as porn by any reasonable definition.
__________________

<a href="http://s367.photobucket.com/albums/oo119/70drew70/?action=view&current=DREW70-small.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo119/70drew70/DREW70-small.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
<a href="http://drew70.thumblogger.com"><img src="http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo119/70drew70/drew70piano.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> <a href="http://s367.photobucket.com/albums/oo119/70drew70/?action=view&current=3dancers.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo119/70drew70/3dancers.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
​

 

[tcklft]

Yep, it's porn.

 

[Soda83pop]

"Fully clothed models tickling each other does not qualify as porn by any reasonable definition."

Eh, I disagree. If I want to see any of the videos producers make here, where do I buy them? At Clips4Sale, the 1# site for downloading adult clips. I can get the full length movies at the AEBN VOD sites. All of the companies that make them professionally have their 2257 info updated and in complete order. And for the people just posting to Clips4Sale, they have done that already, and make damn sure that those posting there adhere to it in case they get busted because some jerkoff decided to upload minor clips. Here is their 2257 statement from Clips4Sale:

"18 U.S.C. 2257 Compliance Notices

All models were at least 18 years old when they were photographed. In compliance with the Federal Labeling and Record-Keeping Law (also known as 18 U.S.C. 2257), all models located within our domain were 18 years of age or older during the time of photography. All models' proof of age is held by the custodian of records, which is provided upon request and organized by or through producer & or Studio. All content and images are in full compliance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 and associated regulations. All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexual conduct or otherwise contained in Marketing Extensions Owned member sites were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the creation of such depictions. Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or at Marketing Extensions Owned member studio sites contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. '2257 and C.F.R. 75. With regard to the remaining depictions of actual sexual conduct appearing or otherwise contained in or at Marketing Extensions Owned member sites, the records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '2257 and C.F.R. 75 are kept by one of the custodian of records, and can be provided upon request. All license agreements reflecting the location of the custodian of records for any material appearing at one of the studio sites are secured by clips4sale.com. Clips4sale.com is not responsible for the production of any and all content distributed through their network. Any and all video content located in the said network has been licensed from various studios and/or production houses and/or producers (hereafter referred to as the ("Content Providers"& or Studio). All of the Content Providers & Studios that provide clips4sale.com with licensed content represent and acknowledge that all models used in the said licensed content are over 18 years of age. Moreover, all of the Content Providers collect, store, and retain all appropriate 2257 disclaimers (or their equivalents). CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS LOCATIONS: Will need to Provide Information regarding the Content Providers."

And as someone who has had to hold up on web site production because this wasnt in order, I assure you its very real, and its needed for all adult sites (read = porn)....including tickling sites. I would go as far as to say the only reason a message board like this one doesnt require it is because the people that own it arent created TMF content. But ask Jeff if he his site is 2257 compliant, or if he felt his material wasnt porn "by any reasonable definition."

Now, if someone, say Drew for example, wants to film two people tickling each other fully clothed and upload it to you tube, then I would say its not porn. But if the material is distributed through or by anyone that requires a 2257, then that by itself qualifies it as adult material, whether you label it fetish or not. The reasonable definition Im using is the legality one.

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

My own "definition" (such as it is) of tk stuff in relation to this...

If there's nudity and/or breast/genital contact, I consider it to be porn.

If the above is not present, it's just fun that could be considered kinky.

 

[jk666uk]

yes it porn

 

[Sandrock74]

Ah...the age old question: "Is it porn?"

Unless it involves nudity, I would say no. Kinky, yes. Porn, no. A video clip of a person tied up and being tickled while clothed can't be considered porn by any accepted definition of the term. Some people (probably most) may shore up their spank bank with tickle videos but that still doesn't mean its pornographic in nature. What someone does with something in privacy is irrelevant.

What if a man sees a barefoot woman on an episode of a television show? Said man then chokes the bald man until he vomits. Does that mean that television program was a porno? Of course not.

Personally, I consider pornography to be nude adults involved in some form of intercourse. A clothed person tied up and tickled? Kinky, not pornographic.

Just my two cents.

 

[Adam]

I'd say yes. Stimulating images causing arousal and whatnot. Sounds like porn to me.

 

[ZenTickling]

I'd say yes. Stimulating images causing arousal and whatnot. Sounds like porn to me.

By that definition half the shows on TV or movies in theaters are porn.