Hi all.
I don't post much, but I'm usually around nevertheless...
Anyway, I was looking in the pictures section, and saw that "CitY of MicA" had found some interesting 'mainstream' pics from the Webshots Community picture albums. I figured he (I'm assuming he) had a good idea by doing such a search, but thought that he might have missed some in his search so I did one myself. I went to their main page and searched, simply enough "tickling". A few pages of nothing, go by. Some which may or may not be tickling, and then I stumbled upon one particular user who had compiled a file of tickling images. However, this was not what I would have expected- not that it was a complete surprise, seeing as how this is the internet and has the possibility for practically anything.
So this users file was compiled of pictures of boys, some maybe as young as 5 years old being tickled by various people in various ways. Now, I have no concern of the people who took at least some of these pictures, because most seem to have no connection in any way, and were just compiled together by this user (whom I do have some concern towards). However, as I went on I noticed a theme. There were boys actually tied up, being tickled by people off camera. Now this is a convention most of us are used to- the tickler will hide off camera in order to allow the picture to be as large, and clear as possible. Now besides the fact that they were tied up, the pictures also seemed to be following the conventions of at least some type of marketing... this is my problem/question:
It is plainly wrong to use children in any material that may be considered sexual. For the most part, even though they are usually clothed, the models in the media traded in this community, of women (or men) who are being tickled are thought of sexually. However, the mainstream likely sees nothing sexual about tickling. But when bondage is involved the implication is noticed by most people, even if they don't know much about it. What I'm getting at, is do you see anything wrong with pictures like this? Is it comparable to child pornography in the way that a tickling picture produced by one of the studios would be comparable to pornography? Do you think people like this, and images like this are bringing the community down, as a whole?
Any other comments are welcome.
Mod edit: link removed, see remark below.
I don't post much, but I'm usually around nevertheless...
Anyway, I was looking in the pictures section, and saw that "CitY of MicA" had found some interesting 'mainstream' pics from the Webshots Community picture albums. I figured he (I'm assuming he) had a good idea by doing such a search, but thought that he might have missed some in his search so I did one myself. I went to their main page and searched, simply enough "tickling". A few pages of nothing, go by. Some which may or may not be tickling, and then I stumbled upon one particular user who had compiled a file of tickling images. However, this was not what I would have expected- not that it was a complete surprise, seeing as how this is the internet and has the possibility for practically anything.
So this users file was compiled of pictures of boys, some maybe as young as 5 years old being tickled by various people in various ways. Now, I have no concern of the people who took at least some of these pictures, because most seem to have no connection in any way, and were just compiled together by this user (whom I do have some concern towards). However, as I went on I noticed a theme. There were boys actually tied up, being tickled by people off camera. Now this is a convention most of us are used to- the tickler will hide off camera in order to allow the picture to be as large, and clear as possible. Now besides the fact that they were tied up, the pictures also seemed to be following the conventions of at least some type of marketing... this is my problem/question:
It is plainly wrong to use children in any material that may be considered sexual. For the most part, even though they are usually clothed, the models in the media traded in this community, of women (or men) who are being tickled are thought of sexually. However, the mainstream likely sees nothing sexual about tickling. But when bondage is involved the implication is noticed by most people, even if they don't know much about it. What I'm getting at, is do you see anything wrong with pictures like this? Is it comparable to child pornography in the way that a tickling picture produced by one of the studios would be comparable to pornography? Do you think people like this, and images like this are bringing the community down, as a whole?
Any other comments are welcome.
Mod edit: link removed, see remark below.
Last edited by a moderator:
