-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
The short answer:
Underage tickling in an erotic or fetish context (such as this or similar forums) could be considered "sadistic or masochistic abuse," and thus could be defined as "child pornography" under US law.
http://www.llrx.com/features/obscenitylaws.htm
Underage tickling in an erotic or fetish context (such as this or similar forums) could be considered "sadistic or masochistic abuse," and thus could be defined as "child pornography" under US law.
PsiRedEye221
TMF Novice
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 56
- Points
- 0
I'm 19 and still a kid. So...I can see the arguement being valid. Push porn up to 21, won't hurt much.
Supernaught
Moderator
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 69
- Points
- 0
I could answer your question in four simple words...Hilary and Haley Duff. We all want to see it but the mods of these boards would rather see their mothers eaten by sharks than even have a post about it. I suspect even this post that mentions it will be C-E-N-S-O-R-E-D.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,620
- Points
- 0
I think pop culture and pedophilia-esque tendencies on a subconscious level are to blame. We live in an age where the age gap is growing and growing. Many people on adult websites, not unlike this one, want their subjects young, as young as they can get away with.
Nobody thinks about this much, but it is a psychological matter. It is easily blended in to the other fetishes a site like this introducing and fosters, but if you take the teen and preteen material alone, and place it under close scrutiny, it is clear that there is an emphasis, both visual and implied, in making these little girls sexually suggestive. That is technically pornography, as it was aimed at a target audiance, for their pursual and gratification. That is what pornography is.
This provides a breeding ground for pedophiles and a yearning for nubiles where there might not have been before.
The younger and younger they are, the more mature they are passed off and made to look. This is not a healthy exchange, as it subverts morals and blurs standards. It creates a place where its neither right or wrong and many have fallen into this realm where they get trapped. They know the laws will protect them, so they set up camp and give in to what has become a guilty pleasure.
Whats disturbing, for me at least, is seeing people wanting the girls as young as possible to the point that it is both illegal and immoral. Its like it is the dirty spice that makes seeking this material pleasurable. The fact they're underage or near so is a taboo, and it only arouses them further.
The mods here and anywhere are powerless to stop this if and when it takes place. They can only report, edit, and delete abuse of the rules and moral tenants to which this site observes and abides by, even if they wished to do more and they disgust it. They cannot question someone's personal turn-ons, and if they're within the limits, cannot do anything about them either.
People are no longer attracted to people their own age it seems. It's a different matter when a pre-teen or teen boy likes say this Hilary Duff girl, as thats just hormones and an ignorance for what this person is actually like in real life. We all have a way of assuming that our beloved celebrities and actors are just as we think they are, when they're probably not compatible with us at all. So we create fantasies and scenarios where they're like we want them.
This happens with these barely legal teen models too. We put them in clothes they may not even like, poses they may not be comfortable with, and we appeal to their vanity as very young women, we make them feel all-grown up (which they like) and a payment to get the job done. We manipulate them for our own pleasure.
The end product is a naive little girl who thinks she's doing good and is getting some positive self-esteem out of this, and in return we get to pop a woody without having to feel bad just because of the tecnicality that she's legal and she concented.
We are taking advantage of these girls and putting them in situations they probably wouldn't have been in otherwise.
We are devaluing class, sex, and cheapening what is it to be a woman. And we're doing it at a younger and younger rate. The sooner it starts, the worse it gets.
Pornography is not exclusive to the traditional sexual conduct. It is no secret that child pornography is on the rise and that we help perpetuate it by enjoying, asking for, requesting, and influencing producers to find younger and younger "models". We open the doors to more and more taboos and our very moral fiber is weakening on an organized and personal level and we don't give a damn. We care more about whats going to appease us and give us that nice feeling in our pants.
Shame on us all any time we help get a nubile or naive teen into any sort of adult situation. I think its highly unnecessary. There's plenty of adult volunteers that we don't need to approach teens.
And by "us" I mean you, and by you I mean everyone this would apply to.
I have absolutely nothing to do with it, thank God in Heaven.
Nobody thinks about this much, but it is a psychological matter. It is easily blended in to the other fetishes a site like this introducing and fosters, but if you take the teen and preteen material alone, and place it under close scrutiny, it is clear that there is an emphasis, both visual and implied, in making these little girls sexually suggestive. That is technically pornography, as it was aimed at a target audiance, for their pursual and gratification. That is what pornography is.
This provides a breeding ground for pedophiles and a yearning for nubiles where there might not have been before.
The younger and younger they are, the more mature they are passed off and made to look. This is not a healthy exchange, as it subverts morals and blurs standards. It creates a place where its neither right or wrong and many have fallen into this realm where they get trapped. They know the laws will protect them, so they set up camp and give in to what has become a guilty pleasure.
Whats disturbing, for me at least, is seeing people wanting the girls as young as possible to the point that it is both illegal and immoral. Its like it is the dirty spice that makes seeking this material pleasurable. The fact they're underage or near so is a taboo, and it only arouses them further.
The mods here and anywhere are powerless to stop this if and when it takes place. They can only report, edit, and delete abuse of the rules and moral tenants to which this site observes and abides by, even if they wished to do more and they disgust it. They cannot question someone's personal turn-ons, and if they're within the limits, cannot do anything about them either.
People are no longer attracted to people their own age it seems. It's a different matter when a pre-teen or teen boy likes say this Hilary Duff girl, as thats just hormones and an ignorance for what this person is actually like in real life. We all have a way of assuming that our beloved celebrities and actors are just as we think they are, when they're probably not compatible with us at all. So we create fantasies and scenarios where they're like we want them.
This happens with these barely legal teen models too. We put them in clothes they may not even like, poses they may not be comfortable with, and we appeal to their vanity as very young women, we make them feel all-grown up (which they like) and a payment to get the job done. We manipulate them for our own pleasure.
The end product is a naive little girl who thinks she's doing good and is getting some positive self-esteem out of this, and in return we get to pop a woody without having to feel bad just because of the tecnicality that she's legal and she concented.
We are taking advantage of these girls and putting them in situations they probably wouldn't have been in otherwise.
We are devaluing class, sex, and cheapening what is it to be a woman. And we're doing it at a younger and younger rate. The sooner it starts, the worse it gets.
Pornography is not exclusive to the traditional sexual conduct. It is no secret that child pornography is on the rise and that we help perpetuate it by enjoying, asking for, requesting, and influencing producers to find younger and younger "models". We open the doors to more and more taboos and our very moral fiber is weakening on an organized and personal level and we don't give a damn. We care more about whats going to appease us and give us that nice feeling in our pants.
Shame on us all any time we help get a nubile or naive teen into any sort of adult situation. I think its highly unnecessary. There's plenty of adult volunteers that we don't need to approach teens.
And by "us" I mean you, and by you I mean everyone this would apply to.
I have absolutely nothing to do with it, thank God in Heaven.
Last edited:
taragohn
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Messages
- 514
- Points
- 0
Do not get me wrong I think child porn is wrong in the deepest meanng of the word.
But why is it that the US always seem to pound on sexual content and sex related issues while children are allowed to get their drivers licence at the age of 16 in the US.
Furthermore getting a gun in US is as easy as getting a bank account (yes I saw the bit of Bowling for Colombine)
Personally I think these two issues are far more dangerous than showing a bare breast on TV
But why is it that the US always seem to pound on sexual content and sex related issues while children are allowed to get their drivers licence at the age of 16 in the US.
Furthermore getting a gun in US is as easy as getting a bank account (yes I saw the bit of Bowling for Colombine)
Personally I think these two issues are far more dangerous than showing a bare breast on TV
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,620
- Points
- 0
Because theres nothing moral or immoral about a drivers licence. Remember that it is a priveledge, not a right. And the person, even if they are 16, is supposed to be properly trained by that time to operate an auto-mobile.
If they cannot and this causes a serious accident then the law handles the rest. Theres no reason to question giving a licence to drive to a young person, since generally earlier on they learn the value of being a good driver and the reprocussions (and costs) of being a bad one. Having a gun is much the same. Its your responsibility to learn and know how to use it properly and for what. Nothing immoral about a gun or a licence to wield a gun(s).
Driving in and of itself is it's own teacher. You learn new situations as you drive, and you're wiser for it and less likely to repeat any mistakes.
With pornography however, that is to say, child pornography, its a totally different issue completely.
I see the point you're trying to make, but it has very little to do with this topic in the context of underage material and the morality and legality of it.
This isn't about tv, and its not about a "bare breast". Its about something much more insidious and its here on this site. We're not to talk about it as if it's somewhere else and it's some other site or the rest of the internet's problem. No, its here too.
If they cannot and this causes a serious accident then the law handles the rest. Theres no reason to question giving a licence to drive to a young person, since generally earlier on they learn the value of being a good driver and the reprocussions (and costs) of being a bad one. Having a gun is much the same. Its your responsibility to learn and know how to use it properly and for what. Nothing immoral about a gun or a licence to wield a gun(s).
Driving in and of itself is it's own teacher. You learn new situations as you drive, and you're wiser for it and less likely to repeat any mistakes.
With pornography however, that is to say, child pornography, its a totally different issue completely.
I see the point you're trying to make, but it has very little to do with this topic in the context of underage material and the morality and legality of it.
This isn't about tv, and its not about a "bare breast". Its about something much more insidious and its here on this site. We're not to talk about it as if it's somewhere else and it's some other site or the rest of the internet's problem. No, its here too.
Last edited:
taragohn
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Messages
- 514
- Points
- 0
Point taken
But I think you jump to easily from under aged tickling stuff to child pornography
Again do not take me for a pedophile I really find it sick and sad
But I still feel that in some countries like the US they tend to put to much pressure on sexual topics and tend to quickly stick the label "adult content" on stuff that to my opinion seems not damaging
As for the word damaging (and I know this is a little of topic) I feel that there are a lot more damaging issues in the world than "adult content" which in my opinion the US put far to much pressure on.
But I think you jump to easily from under aged tickling stuff to child pornography
Again do not take me for a pedophile I really find it sick and sad
But I still feel that in some countries like the US they tend to put to much pressure on sexual topics and tend to quickly stick the label "adult content" on stuff that to my opinion seems not damaging
As for the word damaging (and I know this is a little of topic) I feel that there are a lot more damaging issues in the world than "adult content" which in my opinion the US put far to much pressure on.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,620
- Points
- 0
I'm not jumping from anything to anything else, I'm staying consistantly with the same issue. Underaged tickling and child pornography are heavily intertwined.
I'm not saying you are a pedophile, nor do I have any reason to believe you are.
As for the mismanagement of the government's time with important social, moral, political and economic issues, I agree (this is a problem with all world governments, not just the U.S). That doesn't change what this is though. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. If that upsets people and they get defensive I understand, as the matter must mean something to them.
I'm not saying you are a pedophile, nor do I have any reason to believe you are.
As for the mismanagement of the government's time with important social, moral, political and economic issues, I agree (this is a problem with all world governments, not just the U.S). That doesn't change what this is though. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. If that upsets people and they get defensive I understand, as the matter must mean something to them.
Last edited:
Supernaught
Moderator
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 69
- Points
- 0
If you believe in some old man in the sky who knows all named "God" then you have a whole set of problems worse than kiddie porn. I am very much against kiddie porn but kiddie is 15 and under as in some states 16 is legal with (of course) consent. I dont believe Hilary Duff tickling her sisters foot with her road manager fully clothed is pornography in even the slightest of ways so you go ahead and call "Homeland Security" on me! It does show how this country is not going towards pedophilia Mr. Dracula but to a buttoned up, uptight Leave it to Beaver type land where we all have to be politically correct and no one can say whats really on their mind. Take heart...im just here for stories and vid-clips. Your morality bores the piss out of me so spare me the getting involved in your silly discussions.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,620
- Points
- 0
You're using an example of something I don't disagree with though. I did not once insinuate what you are saying. Your sarcasm is unnecessary and your troll-like attempt on my religious beliefs are petty.
And, if you didn't want to get involved, you shouldn't have said anything. You weren't big enough to not take offense to it, so you did it to yourself, I didn't make you post. So....in actuality...you're the one wasting my time, not the other way about. 🙂
And, if you didn't want to get involved, you shouldn't have said anything. You weren't big enough to not take offense to it, so you did it to yourself, I didn't make you post. So....in actuality...you're the one wasting my time, not the other way about. 🙂
Last edited:
Supernaught
Moderator
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 69
- Points
- 0
Oh yeah, well Hurley is in an insane asylum and the island is all in his head!!!
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,620
- Points
- 0
Sure....whatever.
I posted to respond to aucklandtickler. He asked for an opinion to his otherwise interesting posts, and I obliged him. If he doesn't like it either, at least I know I can expect him to handle any response he gives me with some basic respect.
I posted to respond to aucklandtickler. He asked for an opinion to his otherwise interesting posts, and I obliged him. If he doesn't like it either, at least I know I can expect him to handle any response he gives me with some basic respect.
shadowscurse1
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 268
- Points
- 0
No offense or anything Vlad but I kinda agree your jumping from underage tickling to child porn in my opinion anyway. For example, if i went on a trip with some friends of mine, and lets just say one of their younger sisters come along, and she is about 14 years old......on this trip we are taking lots of pictures as the scenery is beautiful.......my friends little sister tries to take a picture of me while im looking out of our vans window.....she is sitting next to me in the seat and turns to take the picture........POOF it flashes in my face as i turned at the last moment one of my friends turns from the front seat and goes to do the same to his sister...i tickle her foot, which was near me on the seat because she turned in the seat for the pic........ my friend takes his pic and it catches me tickling her foot, for a brief moment, as playful revenge for makeing the camera flash go off in my face.....He posts the pic on his site and names it Revenge...........is that child porn? Thats what i would consider just tickling some girls foot...not child porn...but you seem to be saying that anything involving a person under 18 and tickling is child porn.......id say the same for the hilary duff clip...i really didnt see any porn like material in that clip. And thats the end of my extremly long example/opinion hehe...but please do post a response and continue as i want to see more of where your comeing from to understand you better.....oh and also its awsome that you have faith in God dont let anyone tell you differently =P
shadowscurse1
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 268
- Points
- 0
And yes it may be hard to read lol. On the web i dont really bother to take the time to make good grammar and non run on sentences. Hopefully you can understand my gibberish.
Celtic_Emperor
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 9,620
- Points
- 0
shadowscurse said:
Your hypothetical situation is unfair and built in such a way that you know I cannot honestly speak against it.
Of course what you're saying is not child pornography, pedophilia, or immoral. The way you tell it, its a complete accident of chance.
But this matter cannot be handed off so easy just because you make a hypothetical like that as if it represents every single instance where underage material would be questionable.
The type I am talking about is the same type the mods delete (or would delete and have deleted before), and that is no coincidence. This stuff is deleted for legal reasons, but alot of people agree that on a moral level it has no place here either. And this is coming from fetishists within the community, not some tight ass ubber conservative from the white house. TT has rules and standards, TMF does, and I would hope others do as well.
It is a case by case basis and not every situation is as black and white.
Finally, I still disagree on the underage tickling not being a sort of pornography or having the capacity to be pornography.
People need to lose the stereotyped image of what they think pornography is. Its no longer just some guy some in a jump suit who comes to a house to snake some ditzy broad's drain. LOL 😀
The definition of pornography is simply something that was created with the intention to cause sexual arrousal in the target audiance by pandering to specific sexual cravings. And in the cases where underage material is created specifically for this, then it is technically, for all intents and purposes, pornography. Whenever a younger, barely legal "model" is used, in a tickling video, photo-shoot, etc, then it is pornography. I'm sorry, but thats what it is. That doesn't magically change just because she's young.
If people didn't have a fetish for this sort of thing, then it wouldn't be pornography. But because people are sexually attracted to this type of thing, as specific as it is, it makes it a sexually charged atmosphere where anything produced for the sake of that atmosphere is also sexual so long as both parties make it so. If you've got a barely legal girl in a sexually charged situation, that you intend to sell or pander to people you know are likely to jack off to it, eat it up, and pay for it, then it is pornography. No way to white wash that.
It is that that I'm talking about.
Not Hillary Duff (I only mentioned her as an example because someone else used her earlier, and even then I wasn't talking about her in this light). Not about your hypothetical, and not about anything of that sort.
The title of this thread is "How come under 18 material is band?" (banned)
Valerie provided a legal answer and I provided the moral one. Its as simple as that. Just like some people may not agree with the legal one, some won't agree with the moral one either.
Either way, it is what is it and it favors the moral and the legal.
Last edited:
PsiRedEye221
TMF Novice
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 56
- Points
- 0
You are my idol. I wish I could use large words to debate as well, I think you pretty much summed up how 99.9% of the people at this forum feel.
MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
As we have stated before, there is no hard-and-fast definition for child pornography under US law. The entire context of the images has to be taken into account, including the captions and descriptions of the content. Because this is a kinky fetish forum, pretty much everything here is going to be considered to be posted in a sexually suggestive context. If this were a general entertainment forum, we would not have this problem.
I agree with some who are concerned that the law goes too far in some cases, but there is nothing that we can do about it. There is an anti-porn witch hunt in the US and UK right now, and "protecting children," rightly or wrongly, is being offered as the reason for ever more draconian regulations.
The staff has a fiduciary duty to protect the owner's interest in not getting the board investigated or closed down, so we have to use great caution when images of children are involved. The safest approach for adult webmasters is to allow NO images of children in any context on adult sites, and other than a few mainstream pics in the funny-pics thread, that is the policy that both we and TMF follow.
Trolling this thread will only result in its closure, so we ask all members to please refrain from rude or objectionable comments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
I agree with some who are concerned that the law goes too far in some cases, but there is nothing that we can do about it. There is an anti-porn witch hunt in the US and UK right now, and "protecting children," rightly or wrongly, is being offered as the reason for ever more draconian regulations.
The staff has a fiduciary duty to protect the owner's interest in not getting the board investigated or closed down, so we have to use great caution when images of children are involved. The safest approach for adult webmasters is to allow NO images of children in any context on adult sites, and other than a few mainstream pics in the funny-pics thread, that is the policy that both we and TMF follow.
Trolling this thread will only result in its closure, so we ask all members to please refrain from rude or objectionable comments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Budweiserbob!
Staff
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,928
- Points
- 0
Here Here! 😀
Betchass1
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 804
- Points
- 0
MistressValerie said:
Thank you! Jeez, post pics of people tickling their kids someplace else.
If it's not porn, don't make me look at it!
Incidentally, why can't we post pics of children cross-dressing? I mean, wearing the clothing of the opposite sex isn't necessarily porn......
taragohn
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Messages
- 514
- Points
- 0
It is all in the eye of the beholder I think
What some may consider as pornographic other will take a different view
The same goes for considering things to be arousing. People get aroused by the weirdest things these days (myself included) but I think it is going to far to label everything as such as pornography. That way everything becomes suspicious.
Some things that end up here are not made for that purpose (the hypothetical case mentioned earlier for example) but do get interpreted like that by people.
Some things are indeed specificaly made to target that group and are therefore totally agreable labeled as child pornography
I would also like to point out that in most of the stuff posted here there seems to be no real sexual content by which I mean no actual sex or sexual actions. But again it is how people react to the stuff. We look at these pic and vids because it arouses us others might not see the adult content. I some times do not see it.
There is sometimes a fine line between them, sometimes it is clear in what category stuff falls.
Therefore I support the mods in deleting questionable stuff and there strict attitude because you can not be a 100 % sure
And just a note to auklandtickler:
Be aware that bondage is a game two people play. Being in a painfull position may not only be arousing for the dominating part the submisive part may also be quite happy about his/her position although she/he might not look it.
And Vlad
I am not religious myself but I do not find it nessecary to intentionally hurt someone who is.
As long as you do not force it on others and are happy with your life I wish you al the best
What some may consider as pornographic other will take a different view
The same goes for considering things to be arousing. People get aroused by the weirdest things these days (myself included) but I think it is going to far to label everything as such as pornography. That way everything becomes suspicious.
Some things that end up here are not made for that purpose (the hypothetical case mentioned earlier for example) but do get interpreted like that by people.
Some things are indeed specificaly made to target that group and are therefore totally agreable labeled as child pornography
I would also like to point out that in most of the stuff posted here there seems to be no real sexual content by which I mean no actual sex or sexual actions. But again it is how people react to the stuff. We look at these pic and vids because it arouses us others might not see the adult content. I some times do not see it.
There is sometimes a fine line between them, sometimes it is clear in what category stuff falls.
Therefore I support the mods in deleting questionable stuff and there strict attitude because you can not be a 100 % sure
And just a note to auklandtickler:
Be aware that bondage is a game two people play. Being in a painfull position may not only be arousing for the dominating part the submisive part may also be quite happy about his/her position although she/he might not look it.
And Vlad
I am not religious myself but I do not find it nessecary to intentionally hurt someone who is.
As long as you do not force it on others and are happy with your life I wish you al the best
Last edited:
taragohn
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Messages
- 514
- Points
- 0
I am not calling you anything because altough I do like the more hard core stuff I agree with you that some bondages are painfull to watch and do not appeal to me either
As for coercing people into restrains that are painful. If girls really do not want to they will show that. Either with words or gestures and are not likely to cooperate that easily. Many of the sites I visit do tend to give a certain air of unwillingness but that is also part of the game. In my opinion most of these sites use models that are in to the things they do and do not do it only for money.
Cause lets face it if you want to make easy money in porn there are other genres than bondage that are less painfull and make just as much money
As for coercing people into restrains that are painful. If girls really do not want to they will show that. Either with words or gestures and are not likely to cooperate that easily. Many of the sites I visit do tend to give a certain air of unwillingness but that is also part of the game. In my opinion most of these sites use models that are in to the things they do and do not do it only for money.
Cause lets face it if you want to make easy money in porn there are other genres than bondage that are less painfull and make just as much money
Supernaught
Moderator
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 69
- Points
- 0
Sorry but I cant resist this one. No matter what anyone says Hilary and her road manager tickling Haleys feet is NOT porno. Its just the same freedoms that are being taken away from Americans from right under our noses. I have seen photos in Webshots of fathers tickling their infants. Is that porno? And spare me the "if you use it to get off" argument! Some people get off on women wearing sandals so should we bar all sandals? And before the Christian Movement sweeps down on humble, fully clothed tickling clips just remember that Elvis Presley's hip gyrations were considered porno in the 1950's. They called it "raping a microphone stand" !!! We should have access to the Duff clips and any other clips where you know in your heart no harm or exploitation is being perpetrated on anyone underage. Free America once again!!!
