...??? about a younger female..

[whistler1]

Andrew Marks, 42, was arrested a few days ago in Long Island for "endagering the welfare of a child." His crime: he approached 14- and 15- year-old girls and asked questions about their feet, and requested that they model footwear for him. He also rubbed one girl's foot for "10 seconds." He is now out on bail.

Full story here.

In sum, it might not be such a good idea for adults to touch underaged girls' feet.

Irrelevant drivel. He would have been arrested if he approached 18 year olds as well.

In this case the original poster knows the girl in question, so is not some random stranger on the street.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Irrelevant drivel. He would have been arrested if he approached 18 year olds as well.

In this case the original poster knows the girl in question, so is not some random stranger on the street.

This discussion is about adult men touching 14-year-old childrens' feet, a body part that is not normally touched in ordinary social interaction and which would arouse suspicion in the heart of any parent with a functioning brain. A current news story about a man arrested for touching 14- and 15- year-olds' feet is hardly "irrelevant" in a discussion about men touching 14-year-olds' feet.

Further, the gentleman was charged with CHILD endangerment, not with simple assault. The discussion here is about whether adult men may safely fondle minors' feet for sexual gratification and hope that no parent becomes suspicious.

I hope that this is now clear.

 

[GEORGIATKLER]

You Have The Right To Remain Stupid...............

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/

😛

BUT IN THE 12 STEP PROGRAM YOU HAVE IN MIND ARE THE STEPS TAKEN BY ALLURING, UNDERAGE FEET? LOL! SERIOUSLY, THIS REMINDS ME OF THE THREAD ON THE VIDEOS FOR SALE OF MINORS BEING TICKLED. SUCH CONTACT WITH MINORS IS DEFACTO ILLEGAL. TO DO SO IS TO RISK ARREST. IT IS DEEMED ILLEGAL BY SOCIETY TO PROTECT THE YOUNG. WHILE THE AGE OF MAJORITY MAY BE ARGUED, THE YEARS YOU DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH WOULD BE THE ONES IN YOUR JAIL SENTENCE. BOOK EM' DANO!!

 

[-Kunoke-]

This discussion is about adult men touching 14-year-old childrens' feet, a body part that is not normally touched in ordinary social interaction and which would arouse suspicion in the heart of any parent with a functioning brain. A current news story about a man arrested for touching 14- and 15- year-olds' feet is hardly "irrelevant" in a discussion about men touching 14-year-olds' feet.

Further, the gentleman was charged with CHILD endangerment, not with simple assault. The discussion here is about whether adult men may safely fondle minors' feet for sexual gratification and hope that no parent becomes suspicious.

I hope that this is now clear.

Now that's a good point. However...

This case can almost only be made if its a stranger. Surely anyone he was familiar with would be fine, and that goes for anyone. I'm sure that even if the person got upset, the guy wouldn't get charged or anything, because it was just playful tickling between accuaintences, possibly more than that. But, whistler, you are not taking the situation correctly. The playing with her breasts argument does hold water. In the way that we put it at least. No, it is not illegal. It's a question of morality. The people commiting the action knows it's sexual to themselves, even if no one else does. That's the issue at hand.

 

[shyguy10]

uumm the guy who was arrested. he freaking crosssed the line!!! its guys like that make me feel bad that i have a foot fetish. i would never ask a girl who i dont freaking know questions like that...especiallly if they are young. dam!! yeah at the party i wanted to tickle the 14 year olds feet. however it wasnt to the point that i was about to cum on myself. yes she had nice feet but i did not try anything just because although she and i had talked during the party i didnt dare ask anything about her feet. and even if i did tickle her feet it would have been PLAYFULL...no trying to suck her toes, smell, massage...etc. the guy in the article should have been locked up then beat up side the head! dumb a**!!!! anyways thats just straight horrible.

 

[MistressValerie1]

This is for Whistler, the applicable criminal code provisions from the two largest US states regarding unwelcomed touching. New York makes no distinction as to age, but California has a special law pertaining to all persons under 18.

New York:

S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.
....
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.

California:

647.6. (a) Every person who annoys or molests any child under the
age of 18 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
....
(d) (1) In any case in which a person is convicted of violating
this section and probation is granted, the court shall require
counseling as a condition of probation, unless the court makes a
written statement in the court record, that counseling would be
inappropriate or ineffective.
(2) In any case in which a person is convicted of violating this
section, and as a condition of probation, the court prohibits the
defendant from having contact with the victim, the court order
prohibiting contact shall not be modified except upon the request of
the victim and a finding by the court that the modification is in the
best interest of the victim. As used in this paragraph, "contact
with the victim" includes all physical contact, being in the presence
of the victim, communication by any means, any communication by a
third party acting on behalf of the defendant, and any gifts.

(The term "molest" in the California statute has the dictionary definition, meaning "to bother." Sexual assaults are covered in a different part of the penal code.)

 

[MistressValerie1]

uumm the guy who was arrested. he freaking crosssed the line!!! its guys like that make me feel bad that i have a foot fetish. i would never ask a girl who i dont freaking know questions like that...especiallly if they are young. dam!! yeah at the party i wanted to tickle the 14 year olds feet. however it wasnt to the point that i was about to cum on myself. yes she had nice feet but i did not try anything just because although she and i had talked during the party i didnt dare ask anything about her feet. and even if i did tickle her feet it would have been PLAYFULL...no trying to suck her toes, smell, massage...etc. the guy in the article should have been locked up then beat up side the head! dumb a**!!!! anyways thats just straight horrible.

I know that you are not a pedophile, because you stated that you would never actually fondle an underaged girl's feet. Forbidden fantasies are normal; it only becomes a problem when someone plans to act on those fantasies in real life like that weird guy in New York.

Best regards,

 

[whistler1]

This is for MistressValerie

You are completely missing the point. He knows the girl, she's not a random stranger. You do know the difference, yes?

I will use as an example my sisters friends. They are 16 years old and I've had tickle fights with them before which they normally start! This is socially acceptable even though you say it is not. Please tell me why it isn't.

This is NOT something I would do with a random stranger on the street so once again, you quoting the law just makes you look foolish since it is has nothing to do with this situation and furthermore I did not disagree with the punishment of that creepy guy. If you knew anything of the law you'd realise that he would've been charged with harassment instead if the girls were over 18, so either way he would've been arrested!

As for the breast arguement, I wouldn't dream of touching my sisters friends' breasts! That would be completely inappropriate and not socially acceptable.

For many of us tickling can be both fun and only sometimes can be a turn on. Take kissing as an analogy. A quick kiss on the cheek with a 16 year old friend is perfectly normal (compare this with playful tickling), a full on kiss means there are feelings there are sexual attraction (compare this with erotic tickling).

I hope that this is now clear.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Whistler, neither statute that I quoted above exempts friends or acquaintances, so your claim that only strangers are liable is false. In such a case, it would probably be the child's parents who be complaining.

You first entered this thread to claim that it was legal for adult men to tickle 14-year-old girls' feet, and you specifically defended the right of fetishists to obtain sexual pleasure from it by stealth. Don't you remember saying this?

so let me get this straight... a person without a foot/tickle fetish is allowed to tickle the feet of a 14 year old since it's just playing/having fun. But the same does not apply to someone who DOES have a tickling fetish?

and this?

Firstly, she's 14 and [breast touching] would be illegal, secondly it would be inappropriate to play with the breasts of ANYONE (18 or over) without consent, a quick 5 minute tickle on her feet however is innocent in the eyes of the law.

You implied that it is "innocent in the eyes of the law" to engage in a prolonged, five-minute tickling assault on a 14-year-old girl without her consent. I quoted two American laws to show you that you are incorrect, yet you simply ignored or insulted my facts.

Then, you changed your story considerably:

I will use as an example my sisters friends. They are 16 years old and I've had tickle fights with them before which they normally start! This is socially acceptable even though you say it is not. Please tell me why it isn't.

I never said anything about 16-year-olds, who are above the age of consent where I believe you live. Further, I didn't say anything about it's being "socially acceptable" or not. I merely rebutted your incorrect claim that adult men may tickle 14-year-olds with complete legal immunity, and you failed to offer any proof to the contrary. You also changed your story to mention only so-called "innocent" tickling. That is a far cry from what you were originally trying to defend.

Your unprovoked rude remarks to me are also duly noted ("irrelevant drivel," "makes you look foolish").

The rules here state:

The basic ground rules for discussions on the TickleTheater are simple: be polite, use common sense, don't break the law and don't post any material that even hints at underage lewdness.
....
Finally, any abuse towards our staff will result in immediate suspension of your account.

I suggest that you keep the above rules in mind.

 

[whistler1]

I suggest that you keep the above rules in mind.

I suggest you go back to college.

 

[MistressValerie1]

I suggest you go back to college.

You are suspended for 14 days for making abusve remarks to the staff just minutes after being warned.

 

[-Kunoke-]

I'll say this ONE MORE TIME. It's completely legal to tickle someone you know directly (DIRECTLY. NOT LIKE A FRIEND OF A FRIEND) even a minor, as long as you're sure they wont care. But its about if the parents mind or not, like Val said.

 

[MistressValerie1]

In the words of Wikipedia: "Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction (place) of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made ... " For instance, the age of consent where I live is 16, but it can vary from 12 to 18 within the US. What might be legal where I live might not be allowed somewhere else.

Anyone who has questions or concerns about legal matters should consult a qualified, licensed attorney. Most large cities have "Legal Aid" societies which offer free legal help to people who cannot afford a lawyer.

 

[lagoon]

happy ending

I wouldn't touch that 14 year old's feet with a 10 ft pole. It seems to me that you have found a "foot" friend in the 40 something year old aunt that you can continue to have tickling fun with. And she's legal. Count your blessings and forget about adolescent's nice pedicure and soles. :happy:

 

[Dussicar]

Bah! None of this silly tickling 14 year old girls for me.

Thankfully, I still have my boiling live hamsters fetish to fall back on.

 

[soleman3361]

I think that if you WERE to just tickle the 14 year old's feet, then no one would have thought anything of it, except the fact that you were being playful. The only circumstances that I think would make it different are maybe if you were actually playing with her feet rather than just a quick tickle or two, because if people see you stroking and massaging a girls feet, they will think something is up for sure. If you were even thinking about the feet sexually, I would leave them be because it would probably start making your conscience tell you that you've done wrong over and over again. Plus the fact that if people saw you getting a boner during the tickling, that could get you in both legal and social trouble. So, I think that if you are just being playful and give a quick tickle, and it's not sexual to you, then it's fine and dandy. But if it's sexual don't go near them. I've pretty much said what everyone else has, but what the hell. I second their opinions i guess. As for the aunt thing, She's not underage, and she let you play with her feet. Lucky man lol.