Legality and morality of making and buying nonconsentual tickling videos (long)

[starfires]

This is a spinoff from the thread titled "The Maid..." -- I didn't want to hijack that thread too much with my objections.
By "nonconsensual tickling videos" (NTV, for brevity) I mean videos where the specific selling point of the product is that a real (not staged) unsuspecting victim is tied and tickled without consent, then offered money to sign a waiver that releases the producers from criminal responsibility. IIRC, such videos were made by at least two producers, the latest being "Without Consent" by TC Productions. For the purposes of this discussin, a video where consenting actors act as if they have been abducted and tickled against their will are not NTVs.

1. Is producing NTVs a crime?
If not for the waiver, it definitely would be (charges of sexual assault and kidnapping, at least). I am not a lawyer, but I think there are jurisdictions where a waiver for criminal activity signed after the fact has no force. If the victim signs it, then files criminal charges anyway, the charges might hold, though the victim might then be forced to return the bribe through a civil suit. The victim probably won't file charges, but that does not mean it's not a crime (just like murder is a crime, even if the victim does not file charges).

2. If producing NTVs is a crime, is it provable/prosecutable?
Well, the evidence is available for sale, so proving that it happened is no problem. The burden of proof is on the producers to prove that it was consensual, and if they manage that, they will face the charges of fraud (false advertizing) instead.

3. Regardless of whether producing an NTV is criminal, is it ethical?
Assumption: long, truly nonconsensual tickling (where the victim does not give concent at all, express or implied, before or after the fact) is unethical.
If the victim was asked beforehand whether she would submit to the tickling session for X amount of money, she would have faced two choices:
(a) accept the money and endure the tickling,
(b) refuse the money and leave.
If she was given the same choices after the session and retroactively chose (a), then the tickling would not have been unethical. If she chooses (b) after the fact, you're screwed, but that's beside the point. The problem is, the choices the victim is given after the fact are not (a) and (b) as above, because the tickling is already in her memory and cannot be undone. After all the bargaining for X is done, the victim, most likely in a traumatized state, faces the following choices instead:
(c) accept the money and leave,
(d) refuse the money and seek justice against the producers,
(e) accept the money and seek justice against the producers.
A consent to tickling requires one to have a choice between "tickling" and "no tickling", not "now that I've been tickled, what do I do about it". Even if the victim chooses (c), that does not make the tickling consensual, because there is no alternate choice here that says "no tickling". Therefore, I believe the tickling in case of NTVs is unconsensual even after the waiver is signed, thus producing NTVs is unethical.
The only way I can think of that one can try to obtain consent after the fact is to ask the victim after the session: "If before the session you were given choices (a) and (b), which would you have chosen?" The problem is that if you offer her money to say "I would have chosen (a)", she might lie just to get the money (in reality choosing (c) instead of (a)), in which case you still don't get consent.

4. If producing NTVs is unethical, is it also unethical to buy them?
If a person is tickled without consent, raped, murdered, or otherwise victimized, and somebody happens to film that, I wouldn't have a problem with watching that (as long as the person that filmed that (a) was not capable of doing something more useful at the time, such as helping the victim, for reasons I can respect, and (b) submits a copy of the tape to the appropriate agency for the purpose of catching the perp).
However, in case of an NTV, the producers of the video victimized a person and filmed it, with the specific intent to sell the resulting video and make a profit. That means, they expected enough demand for such a video to cover their expenses, including the victim's bribe -- otherwise they would not have done it. By exhibiting demand for that video, their customers prove them right, and encourage them (and others) to make similar videos. Thus, I believe it is unethical, in most cases, to buy a video documenting a real unethical act.

5. If producing NTVs is criminal, is consuming them also criminal? Probably, considering it is already criminal to knowingly consume other products of criminal activities (such as buying snuff porn, child porn, and stolen property) because consuming the products of criminal activity encourages people to perpetrate such activities again.

Whew, that was long. Still with me? Comments, questions, counterarguments?

 

[ticklevids]

non con....

i've made and watched and most definitely purchased non con tickling videos and I think that if you think that it's 'criminal', then you haven't been watching the news lately.

 

[starfires]

Ok, so it's not as criminal as shooting people and blowing up buildings, but then again, neither is insider trading, and that's still criminal.

 

[Neutron]

ticklevids attitude..

Is sad 🙁. Just plain sad 🙁.

*edited for golden rule violation*

Tron

 

[korovan]

Starfires, I agree with everything you've said, and I also admire the clarity and precision of your rhetoric: bravo.

Ticklevids... what can I say to you? Your logic is flawed, at best. How can you believe that forcing a tickle-torture scene on someone truly against her will for your own amusement and for monetary gain is anything but but criminal and unethical? As Starfires admits: it is not world-class villainy. But a trivial crime is still a crime.

 

[Darkknight]

I understand and agree with all of Starfires thread.

Maybe it's me, I always imagined nonconsensual as a fantasy only.
To have it be real, would be criminal and morally wrong TO ME.

Then a long time ago I saw a video that was as close to nonconsensual as it possibly could get. It's was a solo producer, not any of the major tickle vid companies we know and love.

The woman stated she hated to be tickled, it was pure torture and had she known she was going to be put in stocks, I know she would have said hell no. Long story short.. she's put into them and is gagged but you can feel her screaming in ticklish agony. I know she must have been soar afterwards because she was pulling her arms and legs in great violent jerks.

This is where my fantasy got warped, its what I always dreamed of but I know she was being tortured without her permission and after a while of looking into her eyes, it made me feel... well.. not right at all. I was conflicted and not enjoying it like I imagined I would.
I guess some heavy apologies or something of cash payments were done after the torture to get her not to sue or press charges but of course you don't get to see that part on the video.

The video had other tickling scenerios and I ran into this one half way thru the tape. So what's my point? I agree with Starfire, it's still criminal to force someone to do something against their own will. Tickling or anything else. Some fantasies have to stay as such.

I can watch a TC or Paradise NCV easily, because it suits my fantasy side. As long as the acting or models seem ticklish, the thought of the NCV works for me. I know they wouldn't break the law and the girls agreed to the tickling prior.
To know one was really really made, well I wouldn't buy it. Guess I'm a freak in that manner.

Just my thoughts on this post.

DK

 

[Strelnikov]

There's not much money to be made in tickle vids, and probably less in the NCV variety - too specialized. Otherwise, I think we'd see them being made in South Asia or Eastern Europe. It would be a logical extension of the existing sex-slave trade.

Would they sell? Damn right they would. If you doubt that, read some of the threads on the topic right here on the TMF.

Strelnikov

 

[Oblesklk]

Contracts signed under duress are not enforceable in the United States, period. Under ANY conditions. The victims of genuine tickle torture can do more than simply have the courts order a cease & desist on the vendor. You're talking criminal charges now.

As for ethics...I have my own opinions, I'm sure other have theirs. The non consensual theme is fun in stories and play time, as long as it's all in good, clean fun. You take it to reality, and that's a whole other ball game.

 

[toneus79]

I am not sure what is wrong with some of the people in this Forum. Is it acceptable/ethical for Vanilla people to watch/produce videos featuring actual rape. This goes back to a thread I started a long time ago which was 'Torture, Without Consent, Why?'.

Tickling is a fun erotic thing, so why are we tolerating all these users who want to turn it into a form of suffering. Yes Tickling does produce an involuntary escape reflex (including an embarrased verbal one). However that is not the same as forcing this activity on some unwilling VICTIM.

To all you macho guys out there, who assume that 'She must be enjoying it'. Try to imagine yourself incarcerated in one of your State prisons, being non consensually Tickled, by some 300 pound hairy arsed con, with a walrus moustache. Would you enjoy that? who knows perhaps one day you might find out.

 

[TickledToDeath]

While what you said is and has much worth and truth and you make valid points, the reality of it all is that there, in my opinion and I do not think I am alone here, there really is NO actualy NCT video.

The ticklees(victims) my indeed be ticklish(but then again that too is debatable), the plot is staged and portrayed to appear as if it were a non con tickle torture vid.
The scenario is to appear as real as possible and make the viewer think that the victim is/was kidnapped and tickle tortured against their will, for if it were real, definatly charges would and could be filed for kidnapping and assult however embarassing for the victim to take it to court it would be and the end result may not as be as harsh to the kidnappers as one would expect or think upon filing said charges.
People will buy such non con vids because of the fantasy scenario of actually capturing an insanly ticklish victim, tying her/him up and tickling that victim without mercy for hours and hours driving her/him into madness then setting the victim free to remember the episode forever more in an endless nightmare of memory.

Right now the only non con tickle vids are of males or couples kidnapping females.
IF a non con tickle torture vid was produced by and consisted of a women or couple of group of women kidnapping a MALE victim, tying him to a bed or other apparatis and tickling him endlessly and relentlessly for ???????????.....would women or men purchase that video?
Would the same points be raised about its'ethics and authenticiity?

In some aspects of life, things are taken too seriously.
The advertisment of such non con vids are all all hype and marketing stragedies for the sole (soul) purpose of selling the product and to make it as real and believable as humanly possible.

The rest is in the script.


TTD

 

[BellaRisa]

Folks,

I have no idea about the realism of the non-con videos out there, I know what I think but only the participants know for sure. But whether or not such videos exist isn't my issue. My problem is how many scary emails I receive begging me to make a video like that, and how many support such material here. You guys know who you are.

The folks who want to own such a thing have no care for the victim, or what would/could happen to me in the process. I find that ultra-creepy and disturbing. It shows disrespect for me, video models, and for women in general IMO. Hilariously, these are often the same people who claim to find BDSM so very 'sick and wrong'. Since tickling is known to produce laughter rather than pain, it's fine to do under any circumstances-"after all, you're not hurting anyone". That's a stinky load of poop and you guys know it. Being tied down under false pretenses and having ANYTHING done to your body against your will is wrong. Furthermore, you guys need to make up your minds: is tickling a heinous, eeeevil intense thing that deserves respect amongst bondagers and others, or is it 'just tickling'?? You can't have your toes and suck 'em too.

Ticklevids, I have a question and I'd like an honest answer. If I were to have five or six of my larger guy friends tie you down for me, then I used a small stun-gun on you 'til you cried and gently used your bottom with a strap-on, all on video no matter how much you 'disagreed' with it and demanded release, would money make it all better? If I produced a release form that you had to sign to be let go, would you sign it? How would you feel about me afterwards?

I'm rather weary of hearing that it's not really a crime, especially compared to what else is going on in the world. Of COURSE there are worse things you can do, that is such a lame argument that my colon clenches every time I hear it. The insidious "it could be worse" mantra is what keeps many abused people from seeking help, it's a mentality that gets drummed to death in this society. The desire for anything noncon isn't about the kink-it's about power, taking it from someone because they won't give it to you freely.

On the male/female thing: I have a different attitude about this, having known abused males in my life. No one takes an abused male seriously, surely he should have been strong enough to overcome the female(s). I'm here to tell you that's not always the case, and the victim's gender should make no difference.

I've noticed something: the ones who feel that it's fine to tickle anyone they please, under whatever circumstance lends the opportunity, also tend to be the ones who lament that they'll never find a good woman and there just aren't any girls into tickling out there. Fellas, we're out here, I promise you. And we're avoiding you for a reason. I hope that you'll put two and two together eventually

Bella

 

[Neutron]

bella...

Well said young lady. You rock.


It's not how breaths you take in life, it's how many times life leaves you breathless that counts.


Tron

 

[Novus]

The morality of non-consensual tickling

We seem to be getting boxed into a lawyer driven politically correct mentality where you cannot even kiss someone without their prior writen consent. The fact is that non-consensual tickling happens all the time and there is nothing immoral about it. The morality of this issue only becomes confused when other immoral activities are done in addition to the non-consensual tickling. It is important to make the distiction of what exactly is immoral about non-consensual videos. We should all know that kidnapping is immoral no matter what. The use of a prostitute for any activity is immoral. The tickling itself whether it is consensual or non-consensual is perfectly moral and ethical. In reality most of the tickling done outside of the community is of the non-consensual type. This kind of tickling has nothing to do with kidnapping strangers or prostitutes and no one is ever placed in mortal fear for their lives. The morality of this type of tickling is that it is done between freinds and lovers. No matter how unwilling they are to the tickling or no matter how much they hate it they know they will not be harmed. They also know they will not have their basic human dignity violated.

It is understandable that no video of this nature has ever been made. Obviously the ticklee cannot be informed of the video taping beforehand otherwise it becomes a consensual video. If this most intimate form of tickling is taped without their knowledge then it is a violation of their trust and human dignity and hence immoral. So by my moral compass as far as I can tell all non-consensual videos are immoral and I would never buy them nor watch them. The only signs of moral non-consensual tickling that exist are few mainstream pictures scattered across the web and the few non-consensual tickling tales that exist in the non-fiction stories section. So before I end my rant I must say that if you want to see non-consensual tickling you will have to experiance it yourself with someone you deeply trust.

 

[Pluma]

Has anyone seen the Spanish film Tesis?
The protagonist, a journalist student, is researching the snuff film scene for her thesis. Then, while browsing through the usual staged stuff she comes across the real thing. She rushes home. You can sense her inner struggle. She puts the tape in the VCR, mutes the TV and covers her eyes with her hands. Then she peeks…

 

[Iggy pop]

Re: The morality of non-consensual tickling

The fact is that non-consensual tickling happens all the time and there is nothing immoral about it. The morality of this issue only becomes confused when other immoral activities are done in addition to the non-consensual tickling.

I agree. For the most part there is nothing wrong with non-consensual tickling. It goes on in life all the time. However, most people don't tie somebody and tickle them. I think the morality and immorality depends on the ticklee. I don't think you need a lawyer and and contract before you can tickle someone. However, you should not go too far and beyond someone's limits. Have consideration for the person being tickled and no when to stop.

It is understandable that no video of this nature has ever been made..

There are some who claim that videos of this nature have been made. Personally I don't believe it and I already argured that fact in another thread.

 

[Iggy pop]

Has anyone seen the Spanish film Tesis?
The protagonist, a journalist student, is researching the snuff film scene for her thesis. Then, while browsing through the usual staged stuff she comes across the real thing. She rushes home. You can sense her inner struggle. She puts the tape in the VCR, mutes the TV and covers her eyes with her hands. Then she peeks…

Interesting idea. It brings up the question if someone made a real non-consensual video, and posted it on the web. How many people do you think would download it? I think most people would even the poeple that speak out against non consensual videos. I think the curoisity would be very hard to resist.

 

[46and2]

No one takes an abused male seriously, surely he should have been strong enough to overcome the female(s). I'm here to tell you that's not always the case, and the victim's gender should make no difference.

I have to give you an amen on that one!!

One thing that I feel needs to be adressed is the potential danger that the lee is put in. What if you were non-consensually tickling somone to the point of hysteria who has a heart condition,recent internal injuries, or asthma? You never know a persons ailments just by looking at them. Also the terror inflicted unto the individual is enough to cause some serious trama I'm sure. You've also at the same time completely ruined tickling for that individual, and any willingness they might have had to partake in it as a form of affection or sensuality. I know alot of tickling in everyday life is non-consensual, but I for one stop the moment I find out the person hates it. Just like you would stop wrestling the moment you find out that the other person doesn't like to play fight. Just my thoughts.....

 

[Sunriseticklee]

Re: The morality of non-consensual tickling

The fact is that non-consensual tickling happens all the time and there is nothing immoral about it. The tickling itself whether it is consensual or non-consensual is perfectly moral and ethical. In reality most of the tickling done outside of the community is of the non-consensual type. This kind of tickling has nothing to do with kidnapping strangers or prostitutes and no one is ever placed in mortal fear for their lives. The morality of this type of tickling is that it is done between freinds and lovers. No matter how unwilling they are to the tickling or no matter how much they hate it they know they will not be harmed. They also know they will not have their basic human dignity violated.

(Although I am quoting you, this message is directed toward just 2 of your comments, and to also answer the question of the thread. Meaning: I'm not bashing you are saying you mean or do all the things that will be mentioned.)

Hmm..... Yes, I do remember being tickled nonconsensually.... It was when I was a kid way before kids learned about comfort zones and ... "Hey! That's my personal space!" Could I have gotten in trouble for tickling Johnny until he peepeed? Or putting grass in Sarah's mouth while tickling her? YES I could have if the parents wanted to press charges. YES I could have been in serious trouble.

But hopefully we are ALL grown up now, and since we are NO LONGER minors, we have to answer more to our Moral Responsibilities; we have to answer to the law.

The law, when used correctly, is supposed to work 2 ways. It protects and it "punishes/ corrects". You best believe that if someone straps me down and tickles me without my permission, I am going to do all that is possible to introduce that person(s) to the law that punishes!

Do I feel that nonconsensual tickling is immoral? I believe that doing anything to someone that causes them physical and or mental pain/ discomfort, or heartache (without their permission) is IMMORAL. YES I DO! (Sometimes it’s immoral and illegal with their permission) I feel like you can screw with your own life if you want to, but don't bring ME into it. (Translation) With me, you'd better ask and be sure I said YES and meant it. And whereas not everyone is a crass roughneck like I am, asking permission is the safest way!

Nonconsensual tickling between lovers and friends, ok? Hmmm.... Nothing wrong with it? Well... That's up for you to decide depending on the closeness and the relationship built between the people involved. NO not everyone I consider a friend is a tickle buddy. In fact, there are some friends that I would rather NOT tickle me. Would it piss me off if they did it anyway? YES.... Would I stop being their friend? Possibly. Would I press charges? If I had to? YES! Maybe after I knock them out, they will learn their lesson.

And technically, I don't know if I can comment on the "lover" category, but there are times when people just don't want to play and when you are pushing someone into something they do not want to do, who knows what types of problems you may get into. A person's body doesn't automatically become the other person's property for free reign whenever and however just because they are "lovers".

I have only seen one video that claimed to be noncon. It was at a small gathering and needless to say, I was pretty upset. The guys, being the inquisitive type, rewound the video and watched the entire thing again. I watched them dissect the video and prove how fake it was. Did I feel a bit better that it wasn't real? No lie? Yes. Do I want to see a video like this again? NEVER in LIFE! I have a HUGE problem with abusive people and I don't care if it is tickling, rape, HELL blowing unwanted cigarette smoke in my face, physically forcing someone to go through, or do something against their will is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! IMO!!!

People don't mind being politically correct when it protects their interest and views, but let it work the other way and remove what you think is fun and great and then all of a sudden... "People are being too optically correct! This is too political!" How about a little empathy? Put yourself in that person's shoes!

I like what Toneus said:

u macho guys out there, who assume that 'She must be enjoying it'. Try to imagine yourself incarcerated in one of your State prisons, being non consensually Tickled, by some 300 pound hairy arsed con, with a walrus moustache. Would you enjoy that? who knows perhaps one day you might find out.

It’s not JUST TICKLING. Always remember that unless you are tickling yourself, there is another person involved. And when there is another person involved, it’s not just ANYTHING. You need to always consider the feelings and the condition of the other person involved. Anything else is disrespectful, cruel, and yes, it could very well be immoral and or criminal.

Live, Laugh and TICKLE
Sunriseticklee

 

[Novus]

Counter point to Sunriseticklee

What you described is so mechanical and unnatural that I would be afraid to even look at you without your permission.

Do not misunderstand the morality of non-consensual tickling. The only moral non-consensual tickling is done between friends and lovers. By friends and lovers I mean that they should be able to read eachothers emotions and signs well enough so that the tickling is never overdone to the point where anyone would feel violated. There is a difference between telling them to stop tickling you because you are ticklish and don't like it and telling them to stop tickling you because you feel violated. This distiction is very important in determining what exactly is immoral. Is it the tickling or is the violation that is immoral. One can be made to feel violated in many ways, even looking at someone the wrong way can make some people upset. Does this mean that mere looking is immoral? No, it is the violation that is moral. Non-consensual tickling is not immoral. Just because the sightest amount of non-consensual tickling upsets you and makes you feel violated that does not mean everyone feels that way. I too was tickled non-consensually as a child and I hated it but I did not feel violated and I would not feel violated if it happened to me today. In fact I would prefere to be tickled that way because I don't think I could deal with the awkwardness of consensual tickling rituals.

Just my two cents.