Tickling Videos: Porn or Not?

[-Hari-]

I vote "Porn" I based this on the majority and I hate doing so, But the bare facts leave me no other option.

Porn is something produced to sexualy exite the viewer, that is what the majority of tickling producers (if not all) make this material for. And thats what it tends to be used for.

There are always exeptions, the well known turtles scene with april for instance may sexualy exite some people but thats not its intention so isnt porn, so why shouldnt there be tickling producers or artists that are doing it with the intention to simply have fun? So I guess its down to intention, but as i said, im going on majority here.

I dont like refering to it as porn because I for one didnt watch porn before, at no point in my life could you have looked under my matress or on my computer and find a porn mag or video and for some reason ive always had a little self respect for that fact. And these Tickling clips/images have put that to an end, So I accept it for what it is, unfortunatly, but then we are only human.


Hari

 

[The Last Laugh]

Definition of "pornography":

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

So...I guess it is, yeah.

Actually, since that definition specifies "sexually explicit", I don't believe that it applies to some tickling videos. Like those that have a casual, no-nudity approach, like my own. They're meant for sexual arousal, no doubt about it, but they're not sexually explicit per se.

Seriously, if I thought for one second that my videos qualify as actual porn, I'd shut down The Last Laugh immediately. Fortunately, I don't believe it's the case.

 

[DJ Tickler]

If models are naked or in “skimpy” outfits it is defined as “adult entertainment or “soft porn” in my books.

However if the models are fully clothed and there is no sexual acts it is not porn in any way, shape or form!

Examples of tickling not being porn is “The Last Laugh”…there is no way you could classify this as a porn or even adult entertainment even though I might find this sexually arousing.

A personal example of a company I believe you could classify as porn is “Laughing Gas Zone”…there is tickling but there is also the deliberate attempt to bring the girl to orgasm or perform sexual arousal on her. There is nothing wrong with this but you would have to classify it as porn with a kink, but its still porn.

Almost every other tickling company out there I would more classify it as adult entertainment the porn as it is very light.

By the way I only mentioned the two above companies because they came to mind first, there are a few more here that fall under Not Porn/ Porn/ and Adult Entertainment so please don’t anyone attack me

DJ Tickler

 

[Soda83pop]

Seriously, if I thought for one second that my videos qualify as actual porn, I'd shut down The Last Laugh immediately. Fortunately, I don't believe it's the case.

You distribute through clips4sale, which has 2257 Compliance. They obviously think its porn, even if you dont.

And actually, I went to your site and I didnt see any 2257 link anywhere. I am not a lawyer so you dont have to take my word for it, but you may seriously want to look into that (unless your statements concerning your models is your 2257 and I didnt pay attention).
.

 

[DownUnder]

If models are naked or in “skimpy” outfits it is defined as “adult entertainment or “soft porn” in my books.

However if the models are fully clothed and there is no sexual acts it is not porn in any way, shape or form!

Examples of tickling not being porn is “The Last Laugh”…there is no way you could classify this as a porn or even adult entertainment even though I might find this sexually arousing.

A personal example of a company I believe you could classify as porn is “Laughing Gas Zone”…there is tickling but there is also the deliberate attempt to bring the girl to orgasm or perform sexual arousal on her. There is nothing wrong with this but you would have to classify it as porn with a kink, but its still porn.

Almost every other tickling company out there I would more classify it as adult entertainment the porn as it is very light.

By the way I only mentioned the two above companies because they came to mind first, there are a few more here that fall under Not Porn/ Porn/ and Adult Entertainment so please don’t anyone attack me

DJ Tickler

We should have had this debate when the Bill Henson thing was in full swing

For those who are not familiar with what happened: Bill Henson is an Australian art photographer who, in May this year, held an exhibition in Sydney, which featured images of a nude 13-year-old girl. Just prior to its launch, police seized the images, and referred the case to child protection agencies. Less than a month later, the case was withdrawn, but not before it attracted widespread debate and pressure from the art community.

Wikipedia gave a good synopsis of the events, as well as the "offending" images (as links) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson

I don't want to start a debate on "art vs. porn". The feeling I'm getting here is that if the community at large and legislative bodies can't make firm definitions, what hopes do we, a small and self-regulating community, have?

 

[Adam]

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

Good point. On the other hand, it seems that most video producers do aim to produce material that arouses its customers. I suppose that's why I see it as a form of porn. Of course, like CrystalLight said, it depends on how you view tickling in the first place. To some, it's simply playful and doesn't really turn them on. It's all subjective.

 

[Texas_Tickle]

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.

So, what about Victoria Secret catalogs? Is that porn? If you classify 'porn' as anything you get off on, then anything can be 'porn'

 

[wumbo17412]

I guess I'd say it is.

Think about it though, if these videos weren't considered porn (in the legal sense that is) than people under 18 would be legally allowed to view it. Now your definition of the word may be different from others, but the fact stands, you must be 18 to purchase it because it is deemed to be of a sexually explicit nature. You could make the arguement that it isn't porn if the models are fully clothed, but if you say that that isn't then you are saying it is suitable for children or teens to watch. Personally I think it is porn if it is distibuted by a company specializing in adult video, but I wouldn't consider it porn if it is a bunch of girls having a slumber party tickle fight on youtube. Some could get off to that, but it is not placed on a designated pornography website by a professional producer.

The arguement I'd like to hear is debating if previews for tickling videos put on non-pornography websites could be considered porn (or at least unsuitable for non-porn websites like youtube.)

Just food for thought.

 

[kyle]

So is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition pornography?

Who wacks off to the SI swimsuit edition, 5th graders? The swimsuit edition comes with the subscription. I like to think it's a show of appreciation to their readers. Guys like to look at half-naked hot chicks all the time. We don't always have to wack off to it.

 

[milagros317]

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?

Here is my take on it: I define pornography as material created with the intention that people will use it to inspire themselves to masturbate.

Thus a Victoria's Secret catalog is not porn, even though people do use it to inspire themselves to masturbate, because the people who created it intended it to be used to sell garments.

So whether your videos are porn depends on your intention in making them.

I do not pretend that my take on this has any relevance to the laws about pornography in any jurisdiction.

 

[ZenTickling]

Guys like to look at half-naked hot chicks all the time.

Why do you like to look at half-naked hot chicks? It's because the images are sexually stimulating.. that's all. It's an evolutionary instinct.

So why would a magazine put out an issue full of images that are sexually stimulating?

 

[ZenTickling]

On the other hand, it seems that most video producers do aim to produce material that arouses its customers.

So why do movie producers include all the sex scenes and girls in skimpy outfits? They aren't aiming to produce material that arouses the viewer?

 

[DownUnder]

So why would a magazine put out an issue full of images that are sexually stimulating?

It's going to depend on what you call "sexual stimulating".

SI Swimsuit edition - making me stand up and salute? hell yeah. Bring me a happy time? - not necessarily. I'd call that "arousing", but not "stimulating".

Personal interpretation only.

 

[TicklesXXX]

Bump

 

[llllllll]

I'd vote yes. I just think the word "porn" is so ridiculously subjective, that this debate will have no end. What necrophiliacs or homosexuals might find arousing, makes me cringe in disgust. Some of the things that get me going, probably gives off the same ill feelings towards them. To each his own, when it comes to labeling, is what I say. Call it what you want!

 

[rhiannon]

I just think the word "porn" is so ridiculously subjective

Why?

 

[TicklesXXX]

I'd vote yes. I just think the word "porn" is so ridiculously subjective, that this debate will have no end. What necrophiliacs or homosexuals might find arousing, makes me cringe in disgust. Some of the things that get me going, probably gives off the same ill feelings towards them. To each his own, when it comes to labeling, is what I say. Call it what you want!

But videos with corpses only, doing anything but being death, are not porn but are grotesque and still something you would not show to the children. The same is with a lot of fetish videos that are not porn, they are grotesque...except for tickling...

Tickling is not grotesque, at least the tickling that is not bondage and naked, tickling is laugh and laugh, figthing trying to tickle a foot, and things like that. Actually most children have done that with their siblings, cousins and friends, sometime in their lives. So, I think pure tickling is not something that could be classified as porn neither grotesque. It is something common, and not rare.
What would be the difference between that tickling video and the children's game of tickling? That it is on video? That is not enough to make it porn.

Pure tickling is not porn, besides there are some people that feel aroused by that, it is not porn. As the furniture is not a porn object, besides there is some people with a furniture fetish.

 

[rhiannon]

What would be the difference between that tickling video and the children's game of tickling? That it is on video?

The difference is what it was made for. The tickling video was made to give people wanking material - therefore it's porn. If you videotape kids playing a tickling game, it is made with the purpose of a family video. That is the difference.

 

[mustang]

Several people watch the same tickling video. To one, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "What's the point? That was stupid". To another, he sees humor in making the ticklee laugh and squirm. To another, it is a very mild turn on, but it wouldn't enter his mind to get so excited that he would masturbate to the video. Finally, to the last one it is very erotic and incites him to masturbate, even though the ticklee is fully clothed and it has nothing to do with genitalia or sex. Obviously, it could only be said to be porn to the last guy, but that is a stretch unless you say that whatever turns you on is porn to you. What about people who have a hand fetish and are turned on by the mere sight of bare hands. In that case, every TV show or movie would be porn to him. Personally, I believe that porn is only about videos featuring sexual acts. Otherwise, you are going to have to call everything that appeals to the countless types of fetishes porn and a definition that broad loses meaning.

 

[jhop220]

Depends on the content, but for the most part it is.

 

[llllllll]

I just think the word "porn" is so ridiculously subjective
Why?

Rhiannon, I feel that way because what is considered "porn" for some folks, would seem laughable, gross, or just plain weird for others. I understand completely how most people just don't find tickling to be erotic, and that's fine with me. I feel that "porn" can be found anywhere, as long as somebody gets turned on by it...it's porn. I guess, what I'm trying to say is, I think porn is all around us, but the level of explicitness....is the topic for a whole different thread!

 

[llllllll]

One more different perspective, for those who feel that tickling videos aren't porn, and I'm a father of two. Would you feel comfortable, siting next to your young children, watching a tickling fetish video on the couch, in its' entirety? If tickle vids are not porn, then surely you'd have no issue watching them with your parents, grandparents, or priest? Yes, these might be twisted scenarios....but if it's not porn, it would be completely acceptable, and never awkward or uncomfortable, correct? It's porn,people. Let's not sugar coat anything. Soft core, mild, harmless, kinky porn....but porn, nonetheless. Just my take. Cheers!

 

[rhiannon]

I feel that way because what is considered "porn" for some folks, would seem laughable, gross, or just plain weird for others.

Still porn is pretty well defined and not all that subjective. It's just the intent that makes it porn. I mean - a regular porn movie to me is laughable, but there's still no doubt it was made to turn people on, which makes it porn. Same thing with food - I might find Sauerkraut gross, but it's still food!

 

[rhiannon]

but that is a stretch unless you say that whatever turns you on is porn to you. What about people who have a hand fetish and are turned on by the mere sight of bare hands. In that case, every TV show or movie would be porn to him. Personally, I believe that porn is only about videos featuring sexual acts. Otherwise, you are going to have to call everything that appeals to the countless types of fetishes porn and a definition that broad loses meaning.

Again, we are at the intent that makes it porn. If the clip is produced to be sold on a fetish website to people who have the fetish, then it is porn. If it's a tickling clip of two teenagers tickling each other which was uploaded to Youtube just because they thought it was fun, then it's not porn.

Let's turn this around. There are plenty of photos of me naked when I was a child, and they are in our family albums and it is perfectly fine and dandy. Now if my father had taken lots and lots of pictures of me as a child when I was naked and now shared them online with pedophiles, that would make them child porn and it would NOT be fine and dandy, that would even be illegal.

 

[llllllll]

So, to sum up...porn is in the eye of the beholder? Good enough for me. 2 girls, 1 cup was probably nauseating for all of us...but somewhere out there, some stud was wanking away saying "Oh yeah, baby. Eat that shit!!!" I'm sticking with subjective, regardless of intent. We can agree to disagree, Rhiannon.