ACTUALLY nonconsentual videos?!?

[NYCity]

NYCITY
You are right, that was a great video!!! I just loved the way she got her feet tickled! God did she beg and laugh! And did you not love it when he pulled of her socks!!! There needs to be much more tapes made like that not less!!!

No, Leostar, I did not love it, for all the reasons cited. I said that I thought it was the real deal, but I don't in anyway condone what they did to this girl. My fantasies are non-consensual, and so are my favorite stories, because they are victimless. When it's done to real person though, entirely different story.

As for how Paradise Vision got away with it, I can only speculate that she was paid a lot of hush money after the fact, plus that she was a prostitute, and prostitutes are frequently beaten, raped, etc, without going to the cops. It's very conceivable that that's what happened here.

Incidently, my favorite video ever was "Safeword" by TJ Productions which appeared to start out consensual and than turn non-consensual. The difference is that I heard someone on this forum that they saw an interview with the ticklee, Jade, who said that it was staged. Plus the fact that she did another tickling video with the same company, "I Need The Money" in which, while you know she HATES being tickled, does in fact consent. I guess because she needed the money.

 

[njjen3953]

Re: Re: GRRRRR!

I'm still waiting to be treated with honesty and respect at a job. 😎

SuperTickler,
For once we agree. I knew it would happen eventually. 😛 😉

jen

 

[SuperTickler]

News Flash! Hell Freezes Over! Film at Eleven!

SuperTickler,
For once we agree. I knew it would happen eventually. 😛 😉 jen

Hopefully, it won't be the last time! 😎

 

[U.N.Owen]

Well, gosharootie, I don't know how I missed these incredibly literate, well-written and deeply philosophical posts by derekwa! Though I must've seen one of them, as there is what I think to be a somewhat sensible reply by me. Or, perhaps, I just gave these posts the credibilty they deserved, which was zero!

All right, you guys all got your "sensitivity" points from the women in the Forum so you can count on them responding to your IMs in the chatroom. All this bile over something that hasn't even happened...sheesh! Don't you guys have any REAL issues in your lives to deal with? 😎

Frankly, ST, I find it highly amusing that you accuse others of self-righteousness, and in the same breath pontificate from your "superior" morality, telling all of us that anything that doesn't bother you must be right.

I'm so sorry if concern for assault victims bores you, and if you see it only as "chick crap." If you also see any expression of concern for women as a cynical attempt to pick up women... well, I wouldn't want you dating my sister is all I can say.

I'm also so terribly sorry you've never been treated with proper respect at work. Funny, I didn't know that because you don't like the way you've been treated, it means no one else has a right to be treated as they might wish. Interesting rule. I'd much rather stick to Kalnod's laws.

So why don't you allow other people to express concern about something that HAS been seriously proposed, and stop telling us all that YOUR morality trumps ours?

Also, Paradise claims that is HAS happened. If they're telling the truth, they should be indicted -- so the "phony issue" ploy really doesn't wash.

 

[njjen3953]

Re: News Flash! Hell Freezes Over! Film at Eleven!

Hopefully, it won't be the last time! 😎

I sure do hope it won't either. 🙂

 

[Everlast]

.....guys, I think we should all just agree that we'll never reach a settlement on this subject.....I mean, it's obviously too iffy to agree upon, and some of these posts are gettin too philosophical, even for the stoners

......so, I guess what I'm tryin to say is.....ah hell, just look at the bunny....

 

[Dirkman]

Here's something I was thinking about along these lines:

A lot of people who watch tickling videos fantasise that they are watching NC tickling. Most stories that people write are NC as well, to a much greater degree as it's all made up, so easier to do.

I've been checking out tickling videos, stories etc on the net for about 5 years, and with the exception of the Paradise Vision video, have never seen NC tickling mentioned as far as videos go.

Even though everyone's against it in principle, I would have thought there'd be some people who'd actually make videos that they then put on the net.

You hear about people who film/photograph child porn, and sites with thousands of images etc, but in 5 years no-one's ever made a NC tickling clip? Surely that can't be the case? Has anyone ever seen or even heard of a NC clip?

Or are things like that even more secretive then child pornography, and only known to a select few people who are involved in it?

With all the thousands of NC stories floating around, do we think that no NC videos have ever been made in places like Thailand (no offence to anyone from there) where laws might be somewhat slacker or not enforced?

Or is it so amazingly secret that we just never come across it?

What does everyone think?

LEB

I think that I will be honest and say that I'd love to see a nonconsentual video that is really good, as long as the model was compensated after the shoot and was ok with it afterwards. In fact, I would REALLY love to see that.
Dirk

 

[Dirkman]

Re: I agree with SuperTickler

I agree with SuperTickler on this (not the first time).

Nearly all of my tickling fantasies are non-consensual, and I am tired of reading about the evils of such interests on this forum.

Labels like "Assault" and "Rape" do a real injustice to real "Assault" and "Rape", even though tickle torturing an unwilling victim would most likely be considered a crime.

How many noble people on this forum have NEVER tickled someone without getting their permission first (e. g. squeezing someone's ribs with your fingers from behind or tickling a younger (or older?) sibling)?

Given the opportunity to tickle-torture some unwilling victim, I would probably decline. On the other hand, I would probably buy a video of this nature without feeling that I am supporting crime.

Redway, I applaud you for your honesty and will say that I totally agree with you, and I bet deep down a lot of others do too but fear what people would think of them if they admitted it.
Dirk

 

[U.N.Owen]

If there's one thing in this thread that has really irritated me, it's being told "you REALLY agree with me, but won't admit it because you want to look all goody-goody."

I detest stories and images where tickling is torture -- though I have no desire to censor others as long as it all remains FICTION. In real life, if the girl doesn't agree to it, forget it. And for me, if she doesn't enjoy it, forget it. The fact that you think otherwise doesn't mean I secretly agree with you. Nor do I think I'm alone.

Further, I just don't see admirable courage in justifying a violent assault (and yes, if tickling is deliberate torture without consent, it's violent, even if the victim laughs), just because one finds it personally titillating. People have rights, and the right not to be tied and tickled against their will is DEFINITELY one the law would protect. Some nut was actually arrested for grabbing a guy in the woods and tickling his feet. The police didn't say, "oh, tickling is silly, that's not assault." They treated the assailant as a violent criminal. And yes, that's a true story. I read a report on it on lexus-nexus, the national newspaper database.

I would just close with a final word of advice to those who think forced tickling is not a crime: don't try it for real, or you might find the girl and the authorities take a different view. Beyond that, I really have nothing else to say on this topic. It's all been said several times by me and by others. I will let this thread go its merry way, or slip peacefully into oblivion.

Ciao.

 

[CDFGA]

Violent assault??

Well, first off, you shouldn't believe everything you read, hear or see in the news media, they are under no legal obligation to be truthful (Though I'm not debating your story) they bend, stretch and just plain lie about things all the time to make something interesting, and plead ignorance when confronted. I don't know the whole story you quoted, sounds pretty sick, but just tickling someone in an everyday situation is not a "violent crime". And describing tickling as a "violent assault" is inaccurate, and I say this with law enforcement expeirence. -Not "assault" simply because you tickled someone. On the other hand, tying someone up and/ or forcing most anything against someones will ranges from "false imprisonment" to "kidnapping", depending on the circumstances, and when those charges get brought up, the fact that someone got tickled in the process will be moot. And, say in a crowd or something you tickle a lady's sides, (Not recommended) you could be charged with something like "simple battery", not "assault" (Read the legal definitions of "assault", -a felony.) There are a lot of variables you have to prove when you charge someone with something. And, yes, charging someone with assault for poking someone in the ribs is very excessive, though I don't condone it, or recommend you do it. Yes, "simple battery" is a misdemeanor, but it is still a crime. Charging someone or even accusing someone of "violent assault" for tickling someone does tend to belittle the real assaults that do occur when people are actually harmed. And I have seen "violent assaults" and I'm sure the victims wish they were "only" tickled.

...Let's just try to keep things in perspective, and stop exaggerating so much.

 

[redway10]

Several posts here have stated that I stated that I was being 'attacked' by some posts. Nope.

I said I was tired of all the preaching. I never said I was hurt or offended by the preaching.

And the preaching in this thread is very self-righteous (i. e. 'convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others'). You can't read most of these posts without feeling like they are being handed down with the authority of the ten commandments (or 6, I suppose).

And the preachy support of the preachers has become complete overkill, like there is an NC-tickling epidemic going on.

Comparing non-consensual tickling to rape is preposterous, and yes, wrong, except extremely severe or brutal NC-tickling (still not rape!); but there are many forms of NC-tickling that are not extremely severe or frightening, which is obviously what I was referring to (did I have to say that?)

I do believe that holding someone down and tickling them against their will (happens fairly frequently: charges never filed, prison time not served), is not 'assault' unless it is severe or brutal (only assault in the most technical sense). And it is still not rape. How brutal would an NC-tickling seesion have to be to be seriously compared to rape?

I obviously was never referring to an NC-tickling situation between strangers (or any kind of very severe or brutal NC-tickling situation), which would be much different, but this happens extremely rarely. I have always assumed that the preachers were mostly talking about NC-tickling between friends of some sort, since 'stranger tickling' (or brutal tickling) would obviously be a serious matter.

Almost any kind of touching of a stranger is unacceptable, and railing against kidnaping and tickling a stranger would be ridiculous since it would be obviously wrong. This would be an extremely unusual type of NC-tickling (and an almost non-existent occurrence). I was obviously never referring to a situation of this type. You don't invade a stranger's personal space.

However, even though tickling a friend past the point of protest is "wrong" in the most literal sense, they would nearly always forgive you (except some people), and they would NOT accuse you of rape. Sneaking up behind someone and yelling 'boo!' is wrong too (in the literal sense), but railing against it is massive overkill.

I don't think that rolling a friend in a blanket and tickling them for a period of time without their consent (not severely or for a very long time), even past the point of protest is 'rape', but it certainly would be NC, and considered 'rape' by this group, which is really unjust to those who have been sexually molested or raped.

Give me a break and distiguish between various levels of a situation. Something that has NOT been done in this thread at all.

Or at least stop jumping up and down about the horrible evils of all forms of NC-tickling.

 

[U.N.Owen]

Re: Violent assault??

...Let's just try to keep things in perspective, and stop exaggerating so much.

Well, I said I was finished with this thread, but I will allow myself one final reply.

I began this thread to respond to a particular and very specific suggestion, namely that a bondage model known to hate tickling be tricked into being bound and tickle tortured for the enjoyment of video purchasers. That is assault, no matter how much people argue. Do you really want to claim that that would be LEGAL, to say nothing of ethical?

I have NOT said or implied anything about friends tickling each other when they may not want to be tickled.

So, please stop distorting my arguments and then attacking your versions of them as exaggeration.

Further, spare me your repeated claims that calling forced tickling assault trivializes severe violence. Those making such absurd statements should watch whom they accuse of "self-righteous preaching." The fact that literal rape is vastly worse than forced tickling doesn't mean that the latter is not assault. Or do only the worst crimes count? Does arresting someone for socking another guy in the jaw mean that you're trivializing murder by taking a "mere" bruising seriously? Try forcing a stranger into tickle torture -- ALL I am or have ever been talking about here -- and see how the police respond.

SO ONCE AND FOR ALL, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE TICKLING THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. I agree no court would be interested in the casual or even extended tickling without consent that happens between friends and family every day, nor should they be. I was talking about actual attack of a stranger. YES, I agree that hardly ever happens. But my POINT was that it was being SERIOUSLY PROPOSED AS A GOOD IDEA FOR A VIDEO. So once again, putting a ludicrous argument in my mouth and attacking it is a straw man argument.

If it is "self-righteous preaching" to say that thus tricking and torturing a stranger is wrong, then long live the self-righteous.

And that, really and truly, is my last word on the subject.

 

[CDFGA]

" I began this thread to respond to a particular and very specific suggestion, namely that a bondage model known to hate tickling be tricked into being bound and tickle tortured for the enjoyment of video purchasers. That is assault, no matter how much people argue. Do you really want to claim that that would be LEGAL, to say nothing of ethical? "

......Maybe, maybe not, according to the prior agreement they apparently made, contract signed, etc. (You say "Tricked into being bound" ...If you are "bound" against your will, like I said, it's either "false imprisonment" or "kidnapping" depending on the severity, tickling would play a rather small role in the prosecution of that. ...-and you say it's a BONDAGE MODEL too!!, hmmmm, that would mean she consentually gets tied up, huh?) Interesting....

" That is assault, no matter how much people argue "

....No, sir it is not, you have several variables you have to consider to prove assault (felony), like I said, and with someone being a "BONDAGE MODEL", they must not have had to be tricked too much.


" Does arresting someone for socking another guy in the jaw mean that you're trivializing murder by taking a "mere" bruising seriously? "

....No, but it's not "attempted murder", either.

All I'm saying is it's people like y'all that blow things way out of porportion. Every crime is not felony prosecutable, I'm sorry to tell you that, as bad as you may want it that way.

-What legal experteise of the law do you have, sir?? I am just curious.
...And, yes, I edited this post to correct my spelling mistake, I was sleepy when I wrote it.

Let's not get so carried away, boys and girls.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

mr. cdfga

in illinois tickling someone w/o their permission is a felony. it's called deviate sexual assult. do it while they are tied up, and tricked, and you'll be looking at the inside of a 8x8 cell for many years! fetish model or not, if the woman was hired to do one thing and then another act was done w/o her prior consent, it is criminal. refuse to untie her upon demand, and it's an extra can of worms.
sugar coat it anyway you want it's still going to get you in trouble!
what is my back ground? i was with the chicago police dept some years ago, and have asked these type questions over the years, with lawyers, and other police officers.
steve

 

[U.N.Owen]

Tilting at windmills...

*Sigh* All right, here we go, one last time.

If a bondage model has agreed to be tied up, it means... gee! she's agreed to be tied up! I'd have thought you could understand that without detailed explanation. Apparently, you believe that once somebody agrees to anything "kinky" anything else you do to them is OK. Curiously, the law doesn't agree. It's funny, but I hadn't realized that agreeing to a certain set of conditions meant giving up your right not to have those conditions exceeded! If you tried it, and our hypothetical bondage model sued, I certainly wouldn't want to be your lawyer. But gee, I guess if a woman accepts bondage, she has no rights except to give you whatever pleasure you want from her...

Listen carefully, and maybe you'll understand my rather obvious point that seems to be eluding you: doing almost ANYTHING to a stranger against their will by force is a crime. Tickle torturing a bound woman who hasn't agreed to it would certainly count as doing something to her by force that she hadn't agreed to. Doing anything that can be construed as torture is ASSAULT. Yes, sir, it is! Call it anything you want, but I wouldn't advise trying it for real... the judge wouldn't find your smug assurance that "it depends on variables" to be terribly convincing.

As for punching somebody in the jaw not being attempted murder, now THERE'S a powerful rejoinder! My point was that it was a crime, even though vastly short of murder. Your point was... sorry, you don't seem to have one. 😕 Or are you now saying that anything short of attempted murder isn't really a crime?

-What legal experteice of the law do you have, sir?? I am just curious.

Several college courses on the law; historical study and coursework; fairly extensive reading of court decisions, case law, and precedents; frequent perusal of Black's law dictionary and other standard sources; and routine following of legal issues in the news. Doubtless you have a J.D., so hey, how can I compete?

Yet your powerful erudition is not exactly bolstered by your spelling of "expertise" as "experteice." Is that related to an aperitif? When the judge throws the book at you, maybe he can make it a dictionary.

I've already sidestepped my own decision not to write any more in this thread -- but your sneering challenge to my basic comprehension of basic issues somehow seemed to require an answer. But now, sir, I have answered you -- you will doubtless deny that, but I couldn't care less -- and I can honestly say that I am tired of wasting my time. Reply all you like... knock yourself out, defending your "right" to objectify women and abuse them for your enjoyment. I, for one, am tired of listening to you.

P.S.: Areenactor posted while I was writing this. THANK YOU, SIR, AND KUDOS for your lucid, reasonable and well-informed contribution to this ridiculous "debate!" You wrote: "fetish model or not, if the woman was hired to do one thing and then another act was done w/o her prior consent, it is criminal." It couldn't be put more clearly! But I was forgetting: the "experteice" of others is doubtless greater than ours...

 

[CDFGA]

I hear ya!!

Ha ha ha, I love it when y'all get all ruffled up!!
("Deviate sexual assault" includes tickling someone? Where could I see a copy of that code section?)

 

[qjakal]

New info?

Let's move on unless there's a new aspect of this to be explored....Q

 

[LEB]

Actually my question wasn't actually about whether it's ok or not to force NC tickling on someone, but a) whether it actually goes on somewhere around the world, for the purpose of making videos, and b) if it does, how come no-one ever hears about it?

For instance, despite being much more illegal (however people want to label tickling), snuff movies are still apparently made, as is child pornography. What I'm saying is while I've heard of those (and rape and beastiality videos), I've not seen even a hint of NC tickling.

I wondered if people think that's it's not done (like some people in the Philipines kidnapping some girl to make NC videos, or whatever), or whether it is out there somewhere and we just don't know about it, in the same way we know *of* child porn, but (most of us hopefully) wouldn't know where to find any?

Which I think is a different route for the topic.

LEB

 

[U.N.Owen]

If you're curious about it, I'd advise putting it in a new thread, so this one can die in peace. All possible points have been made.

 

[Leostar]

The bottom line is this, we need more Non C videos made where the lady goes crazy being tickled, i dont care if she likes it or not! If your going to make a real tickling video do it right, use a realy realy ticklish lady and drive her nuts! Than pay her well!!!

 

[Dirkman]

If there's one thing in this thread that has really irritated me, it's being told "you REALLY agree with me, but won't admit it because you want to look all goody-goody."

I detest stories and images where tickling is torture -- though I have no desire to censor others as long as it all remains FICTION. In real life, if the girl doesn't agree to it, forget it. And for me, if she doesn't enjoy it, forget it. The fact that you think otherwise doesn't mean I secretly agree with you. Nor do I think I'm alone.

Further, I just don't see admirable courage in justifying a violent assault (and yes, if tickling is deliberate torture without consent, it's violent, even if the victim laughs), just because one finds it personally titillating. People have rights, and the right not to be tied and tickled against their will is DEFINITELY one the law would protect. Some nut was actually arrested for grabbing a guy in the woods and tickling his feet. The police didn't say, "oh, tickling is silly, that's not assault." They treated the assailant as a violent criminal. And yes, that's a true story. I read a report on it on lexus-nexus, the national newspaper database.

I would just close with a final word of advice to those who think forced tickling is not a crime: don't try it for real, or you might find the girl and the authorities take a different view. Beyond that, I really have nothing else to say on this topic. It's all been said several times by me and by others. I will let this thread go its merry way, or slip peacefully into oblivion.
Ciao.

I have a friend who was kidnapped, beaten, and raped. She was one of the most outgoing, intelligent people I knew, but she has now become a mess. That my friend is an assault. Now I would never go out and tie some girl under her will and tickle her and I do not condone others to do that, but I will say that I fantasize about it and I will say that it is not in the same league as what I have described above and to imply that it is in the same league is insulting to every victim of true violent assault. Tickling may be uncombfortable if its not welcome but lets be REAL here.
The Dirk

 

[Dirkman]

The bottom line is this, we need more Non C videos made where the lady goes crazy being tickled, i dont care if she likes it or not! If your going to make a real tickling video do it right, use a realy realy ticklish lady and drive her nuts! Than pay her well!!!

Ahh, yeah. What he said. Hope the "TIB" is reading all this.

 

[Double T]

My two cents

In the past, I have stated that I am who I am, I make no applogies for who I am, and if that annoys you, it's your problem. So I do not fear being labeled a "Goody-goody" When I say I back MadKalnod, and U.N.Owen 100% on this issue. My reasons would be redundant at this point, for anything I would have to say has all ready been said. Bravo, gentelmen. Bravo!

 

[U.N.Owen]

I have a friend who was kidnapped, beaten, and raped. She was one of the most outgoing, intelligent people I knew, but she has now become a mess. That my friend is an assault. Now I would never go out and tie some girl under her will and tickle her and I do not condone others to do that, but I will say that I fantasize about it and I will say that it is not in the same league as what I have described above and to imply that it is in the same league is insulting to every victim of true violent assault. Tickling may be uncombfortable if its not welcome but lets be REAL here.
The Dirk

I fail to understand why the point I have made so many times seems so difficult for some people to grasp.

The fact that there are vastly WORSE crimes than forced tickling -- such as the atrocity that befell your friend -- does not mean that LESSER crimes are not criminal! Assault covers a wide range of criminal acts, from the comparatively minor to the most heinous. But attacking and tickling a stranger against her will is STILL assault. The fact that you COULD do vastly worse things doesn't de-criminalize it.

You say yourself you wouldn't do it or condone it. Where then is it somehow not "real" to argue with those who say it SHOULD be done, which is all I stared this thread to do? Labeling such a practice as the criminal act it would in fact be does not in any way cheapen or downplay the sufferings of those who are kidnapped and raped.

I REITERATE, since my argument has been repeatedly and ludicrously misrepresented on this point: I am not trivializing severe assault by saying forced tickling is "in the same league," since I never suggested that it is! As I said before: a punch in the jaw is a crime. So is murder. To accept that murder is vastly worse, one doesn't have to say that the punch is okey dokey.

By your logic, it is insulting to murder victims to call any other form of violence an attack. If it is insulting to assault victims to call anything short of the worst assaults a crime, then surely it is insulting to murder victims to call any less serious attacks a crime. In fact, the word "assault" can apply to the heinous crime of rape, and also to far less damaging acts which are still, nonetheless, criminal.

I'm afraid I'm not going to say, "Okay, forget about lesser crimes, 'cause I don't want to insult the victims of bigger ones by saying the lesser ones are also crimes." That makes no sense. That's why the law recognizes a whole host of DEGREES in any form of crime, including assault.

Now please... let this thread die.

 

[CDFGA]

Wow!!

By: U.N.Owen
TMF REGULAR
07-14-2002 10:52 PM:
" I'm afraid I'm not going to say, "Okay, forget about lesser crimes, 'cause I don't want to insult the victims of bigger ones by saying the lesser ones are also crimes." That makes no sense. That's why the law recognizes a whole host of DEGREES in any form of crime, including assault. "

.....Exactly the point I was making several posts ago that you disagreed with, man! Different degrees of crime, including: "Battery", "Assault", "Sexual deviancy" etc.!
....I thought you weren't going to post anymore on this the time before you last posted??