Hrmmm...
To compare nonconsentual tickling with rape is quite an extreme leap of logic. Assault? Perhaps. Rape? Quite a far cry.
I can remember a cavalcade of near-countless instances of being held against my will and tickled, and doing the same to others. When I was a great deal younger, I can recall a few times being tickled to the point of urination. It was all unintentional, of course... I mean, I'm sure it wasn't anyone's intention to make me piss myself... but to place that into the same category as "rape" is quite a stretch. I think the most extreme classification you could give it would be "assault", unless actual criminal sexual misconduct was involved. (i.e., say, masturbating while you do it or, to use your words, "get[ting] off on her torment" or, like, any kind of genital contact.)
I, too, doubt the nonconsentual authenticity of the so-called "nonconsentual" tickling videos that are currently on the market, but I've learned that greed is an incredibly powerful driving factor. There's a saying I heard once that goes something along the lines of, "Pay a man enough, and he'll walk barefoot through hell." Sure, you can say the hooker should've gone to a judge, but then you have to start thinking about the credibility of the "dwellers of the 'underworld'". You can't honestly believe that the judge is going to take every word that comes out of a *****'s mouth as gospel. (That is, of course, if she was really a ***** to begin with and not just a paid actress in a staged scenario, in which case she wouldn't even have to worry about going to court.) I'm sure it took a lot of negotiation to reach a price that would satisfy her, but getting paid a hefty amount from someone as compensation for something that's practically one of the most innocent methods of "torture" or "assault" one can fathom is a surefire thing. You get paid, you get paid. Going to court involves a lot of effort, paperwork, fees, etc. for the mere CHANCE at being awarded some money. And if you're one of those kinds of people with low credibility, it may turn out to be a complete waste of time.
As an aside: I don't really see how the "one-eyed man is king" quote fits in with your argument at all, Sadistictickler. The saying basically means that a person with greater ability finds himself at a great advantage when in the company of the inept. It doesn't matter if you're the best in that field (the man with both eyes and full sight) as long as you're more able than those around you. The one not so blind leading the blind, because he can, to a greater extent than those around him, see. And it's actually an old english proverb.
Anyway, I never meant to imply that women were merely "there for our pleasure" or whatever it was. That's at the end of the spectrum furthest away from what I really believe regarding relationships and sexuality and whatnot. But you have to take into account the fact that the subject in the Footparadise "nonconsentual" video was a *****, so basically... I mean... yeah, for the right price, she actually IS there for the pleasure of men. It's sad that there are people who become reduced to that state, but it's reality. I'm not saying they're necessarily asking to be assaulted in any way, that's not my point. The point is, technically, men pay her money so that she can be "there for their pleasure". The only difference here is that the negotiation took place after the encounter as opposed to beforehand. She'd most likely have agreed to be tied up and tickled anyway if they'd presented the offer and the satisfying compensatory amount before the entire "session" began as opposed to raising the price afterwards to get her to be cool about the whole thing. Sure, it was a risk to assume that such would be the case, but it seems like they gambled and won, really. (Though, of course, when you think about people like *****s who sell themselves for money, maybe it wasn't such a gambit after all...)
And it seems as though some of you may be arguing your points merely because you're afraid of the legal repercussions, as opposed to a strong moral standing against nonconsentual tickling. "Think of this strange thing called the law". Bringing "the law" into it implies that if it weren't illegal, you'd be saying "hell, yeah! go for it!" I'm not trying to twist any of your words, and perhaps I'm wrong, but arguing that "you can't do that because it's against the law" basically means that if it weren't against the law, it'd be totally okay. There's a difference between the laws of society, the laws of logic and the laws of the heart, so to speak.
But back to my original post, the tickling models bringing in friends could work as a valid idea because, I mean, how many times have you tickled a friend of yours even if you knew they totally hated it? The only difference would be the tickling video production company capitalizing by just happening to have a camera set up to capture the whole event.
In any event, I'm not advocating tying someone up and tickling them to the point of actual, physical torture. And kidnapping? Not in the least bit. I never suggested they go out and grab some random person off of the streets and mercilessly just tickle the hell out of them. Actually, I was never really advocating anything to begin with, merely pointing out a few different ways one can actually say "nonconsentual" and be entirely truthful about it.
But, yeah... "rape"? I mean... come on.
