Are Tickling Videos Considered As Pornography?

[JimBoy]

This is something I've been thinking about...

Pornography is defined as sexually explicit pictures, video, writing, and other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal in the viewer.

Notice that there is no mention of having nudity.

So if you are watching a video (or some sort of material) with two or more people tickling each other is that considered to be pornography; whether or not the people in the video are nude?

What would you say?

 

[dentrag1231]

Yes

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

I would say yes that they are. Pornography does not require nudity. It is really simply any material intended to be sexually arousing to an individual.

Now, of course, not all tickling videos are pornographic. Clips harvested from mainstream material doesn't really have intent behind it. There is a line.

 

[Journia]

I see...so if tickling paradise made tickling videos without the intent of actually arousing....hmm....ah yes!!!

 

[Journia]

I would say yes that they are. Pornography does not require nudity. It is really simply any material intended to be sexually arousing to an individual.

Now, of course, not all tickling videos are pornographic. Clips harvested from mainstream material doesn't really have intent behind it. There is a line.

But what if those girls and boys out there are intending to do it? aha!

 

[Ticklishf/f1981]

Yes

 

[Bashiku]

Doesn't have to...

 

[MistressValerie1]

Usually 😉

 

[Cbarton]

It depends on the intent of the creators first off. Many clips are just tickling for tickling's sake and have no sexual content. Then it's up to the watcher. If left armpit tickling get's you horny, then clips of that would be porn to you. If watching a fully nude person getting tickled all over and even climaxing turns you fully off, then it isn't porn to you, rest the rest of the living world (lol)...

All seriousness aside, it's all based on the intent and the use.

 

[melanie2]

i always thought porn had to do with actual sex scenes...and/or nudity..hmm eeks then hubby could be right about the websites i visit???

 

[JimBoy]

This is an interesting topic of discussion. Not all "porn" or erotic material have nudity and sex scenes.

For example, let's take a foot fetish video. Let's say the video consists of a man and a woman who are fully clothed except for the woman's bare feet. In the video the man is licking, kissing, massaging, worshiping the feet... etc.

Though the video has no sex or nudity it is made with the intent on causing sexual arousal within the viewer. No is it considered porn? Yes.

When it comes to tickling, tickling videos that are made with the intent to cause arousal within the viewers can be porn. It doesn't matter if there is nudity or sex in the video.

Are we in agreement here?

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

It depends on the intent of the creators first off. Many clips are just tickling for tickling's sake and have no sexual content. Then it's up to the watcher. If left armpit tickling get's you horny, then clips of that would be porn to you. If watching a fully nude person getting tickled all over and even climaxing turns you fully off, then it isn't porn to you, rest the rest of the living world (lol)...

All seriousness aside, it's all based on the intent and the use.

What he said. I think it's a combination of intent of the creator and the viewer's interpretation.

As a "for-instance": Somewhere out there, there's a guy who is totally into seeing women in tight blue-jeans getting tickled behind their knees. If they're lucky enough, and/or have the bucks to commission a video, for this guy, seeing such an event in a vid is the be-all and end-all for them, fetish-video-wise.

God, I hope that made some vague sense. I'm on day three of a cruddy cold-bug, and my ability to form coherent sentences is even more skewed than usual. :unwell:

 

[chicag0]

I'd say it depends on the intent of whoever made the video.

A tickle scene in a movie, not porn.

The tickling vids advertised here and on other fetish sites, I'd say are intended to arouse the audience, and thus are porn, whether the people are clothed, naked, bound, or not.

 

[meteor]

I don't know for sure but most tickling vids are mostly not porn, or possibly may be classed as soft porn. The bondage and gagging eliment, tickling witout permission, force being used would be classed as porn, nudity and the sex act with orgasms normal or forced are possible hard porn. It depends wither a vicar/ minister, my old aunt, or my wife and frieds down the pub/bar are making the assesment eveyone is different.This site offers a good mixture and people are allowed to commen which is great. sorry to bore you all kind regards meteor.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

I'd say it depends on the intent of whoever made the video.

A tickle scene in a movie, not porn.

The tickling vids advertised here and on other fetish sites, I'd say are intended to arouse the audience, and thus are porn, whether the people are clothed, naked, bound, or not.

This is my point exactly.

People can obviously find things which arouse them even if that was not the original intent of the mainstream scene. The intent of the viewer in that situation is different from the intent of the producer.

Moving over to non-nude tickling clips like Laughter is Beautiful, many of their models are not nude. However, their clips really are geared towards arousing those who share our fetish. So yes, they would be pornographic, IMO.

I guess it is the difference between X-Rated porno and XXX-Rated porno. Caligula gets the X and Farmer Bob's Hoochie MILF's Vol. 7 gets the XXX.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

the hollywood brother thinks that the answer is yes. the reason the hollywood brother thinks this is that if it is classified as porn than it can be more expensive and the consumer will still pay for it. if it were mainstream then the clips4sale would be much cheaper but since it is porn they can charge a higher rate