nonconsensual ticklee's

[The Last Laugh]

Did you actually read this thread's title?

Yes, it's "nonconsensual ticklee's". It's not "discussion automatically assuming that the allegedly non-con videos are genuine". There's no reason why we can't debate different aspects of the general topic. You might disagree with some arguments, but it doesn't mean they're not relevant.

And I apologize if I appear as though I'm upset with you, personally, that's not the case --- as I did note, I greatly appreciate the fact you commented that
non-consensual tickling, or the appearance/advertisement of it,
is clearly wrong.

Fair enough. Thank you.

In person, yes, I agree.
Online, unfortunately, as I also mentioned,
though you quoted me out of context,
bold print or CAPITAL letters will highlight a particularly significant statement.

I disagree. There is such a thing as Internet etiquette. And one of the conventions is that writing in caps is rude. I understand it's not your intention, but you can't expect other people not to be at least somewhat offended by it.

I don't see how my pointing out that you're doing the Internet equivalent of shouting is quoting you out of context. It's not even quoting.

 

[Babbles]

I deleted the comment, I have no idea why. Nothing about the making, marketing or search for real noncon is excusable.

 

[The Last Laugh]

That's incorrect.
"Non-consensual" has one distinct meaning.

So in a discussion about non-consensual videos, it's not possible to discuss various aspects of the issue, like the possibility that a video might not be non-con, or that a person might not believe it's non-con? There's only one possible aspect that can possibly be discussed? Either share your opinion or it's off-topic, is that's it? I'm sorry, but that's not a debate at all. It doesn't make any sense. You're just trying to control the thread and to impose your opinions.

You know what, I'm so appalled by that nonsense that I'm not only not bothering to read the rest of your pointless post, I'm also bailing out of the thread. I've said all I had to say, anyway. It's obvious you're not interested in a reasonable, logical conversation that covers issues other than those *you* think are relevant, as if you were alone on this forum and in charge of it. Good day to you, my good sir. I'm sure you're glad to see me leaving. Enjoy it.

Oh, and good luck with the yelling. Whether you accept it or not, you do lose credibility when you yell, including on an online forum.

 

[Babbles]

You may not like bold caps but that doesn't affect the truth of the statement.

Claiming otherwise just makes you appear illogical.

 

[BigJim]

Kind of entertaining really, in the same way that having a tour of Bedlam was entertaining.

 

[1golfer]

Congratulations...

...I really have to hand it to the video producers. I honestly didn't believe there could be so many suckers out there...but the producers know differently...there apparently are. Whether it's RealTickling, or Tickling Paradise...or the guy who did Miranda and those other shitty videos and sold the rights to Tickling Paradise...they're right. As long as they stick with their story and let the nimrods do the arguing for them...there will always be a market, and there will always be believers.

Amazing...but true enough.

 

[Libertine]

Fake.

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if someone else made this observation already. Non-Con is a fake for reasons.

One, no-one would would be stupid enough to film themselves committing a crime, and then happily sell the incriminating evidence to anyone who wants to have a look.

And two, while the 'victim' was supposedly sobbing her eyes out, said eyes were not tearing, nor at any point was her eye makeup smeared or her mascara running. Or her nose, for that matter.

Additionally, the model must sign a release to get paid. On all the shoots I've done or been involved with, this is done after the filming ends.

I'm surprised none of the women, especially, has pointed any of this out- and they're supposed to be the observant and intuitive half (O.K. Ms. Dworkin, R.I.P., 51%) of the population.

Kind of entertaining really, in the same way that having a tour of Bedlam was entertaining.

A tour of Bedlam? These days they call it watching Reality Television, my dear James.

 

[BigJim]

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if someone else made this observation already. Non-Con is a fake for two reasons. One, no-one would film themselves committing a crime. And two, while the actress was supposedly sobbing her eyes out, said eyes were not tearing, nor at any point was her eye makeup smeared or her mascara running. Or her nose, for that matter.

I'm surprised none of the women, especially, has pointed any of this out- and they're supposed to be the observant and intuitive half (O.K. Ms. Dworkin, R.I.P., 51%) of the population.

I dunno man, the one in the PV version seemed to be a bit smeared, if I remember?

The TC one, she didn't appear to be wearing much in the way of makeup anyway and she only let out one tear, as remarked by Priscilla at the end of scene three. I'd also say that given the scenario (non-kayfabe) of that one, the chances of it being considered a "crime" by the lee were exponentially smaller, if she did shriek,
"This is fucking against the law! This is not fair, you're my friend!" during scene two.


Besides, there's sobbing and sobbing. Sobbing for breath and screaming doesn't necessarily entail tearing, especially as said bird was rather confused by events already. You may be entirely right of course, in fact I'd very much like you to be. I'm just being Devil's Advocate.

A tour of Bedlam? These days they call it watching Reality Television, my dear James.

Or politics. Given the antics of Hillary Clinton lately, I'd compare it to that.

 

[tickleuhard]

Non-Con

I'm writing to respond to BigJim's post of 2/21.
I do own a copy of the non-con video from Tickling Paradise entitled "Non-Consenual Tickle".
Although it is fairly good piece of tickling cinematography, I do have to say that I believe it is scripted and that the -lee was a stooge. I say this because at one point in the video it is quite clear that the -ler is giving her a hand signal when she begins to protest too much to the tickling of her stockinged sole. There are other moments in the film when the authenticity of the non-con part is put into question, but I think that is the most obvious.
Like I said, it is a fine tickling vid, but it is most definitley, at least in my opinion, no a true non-con piece.
I haven't had the pleasure, aside from a few clips, to view the one from TC Video...unfortunately.

TUH

 

[Travalion]

I agree with most of what Last Laugh was saying, all of it. Babbles though, well to be honest just skipped those posts, for the same reason last laugh said.

 

[Hawaiian Prince]

does the realtickling video still exist? I'd love to see what all the hype is about?

 

[BigJim]

does the realtickling video still exist? I'd love to see what all the hype is about?

A lot of material that TC did in those days (1998-2000) appears to have only had a three year license on it. As a result it's no longer up for sale. Your only hope would be finding it for sale as a second hand copy or something.

 

[Babbles]

Just the fact this crap is successfully marketed as assault is a huge problem.

A thank you to Libertine for the rather comforting insights and to Big Jim for expressing the hope that the former is correct in thinking this is all fake.

It's beyond incredibly disappointing that this stuff has ever been made available without exit interviews and fine print stating that
---no non-consentual assault/crime was committed here.
Otherwise it is totally irresponsible & promotes abuse
instead of a very realistic (but responsible) fantasy.

I may "fly off the handle" w/re to the appearance of abuse but there are worse reasons to get angry. I don't have the stomach to watch every such video, I've only come across a couple,
and I'm hoping I was too incensed to catch the nuances many here have said do mark those as good fakes.

To those of you who buy this material *hoping to see REAL torture, or worse, produce it,
well,

may you only find equally inconsiderate criminal mates, 😡
victims who refuse to let you get away with gross mistreatment,
and/or do the other two-thirds? of humanity a huge favor
and remain celibate.

I'm still amazed at the number of guys on this site who cheer when a woman is (or appears to be) really abused
and then wonder why they're still single.

 

[Mystery2009]

I really don't get it.

Had that been me, I'd have brought the damn studio down on that woman's head.

This "Priscilla" babe belongs in jail, along with anyone who buys this crap KNOWING it's REALLY nonconsensual.
Or even just THINKING it is -- You buy it, with no disclaimers, you're financing assault.

Assault on tape. [/B] It's criminal for a reason, folks.
And you buggers WONDER why people think fetishists are scumbags.

If there's a *possibility this was really non-con, and you bought it thinking that,

then some of you are.

Well I have seen a clip of this video, and considering Miss Summer is bound in different positions in each scene I would have to assume that this isn't truely Non-Con. Plus she would have had to sighn a release form for TC/Real Tickling to be allowed to use the footage.

 

[1golfer]

All you non-con lovers and debators....

...just go to youtube, type in tickling and you'll see plenty of non-con tickling. That TC and Paradise junk was as fake as Pamela Anderson's breasts.

 

[BigJim]

Well I have seen a clip of this video, and considering Miss Summer is bound in different positions in each scene I would have to assume that this isn't truely Non-Con. Plus she would have had to sighn a release form for TC/Real Tickling to be allowed to use the footage.

She did, as did the girl in the first PV version. I remember the true/kayfabe story of them being talked about at the time.

 

[BigJim]

...just go to youtube, type in tickling and you'll see plenty of non-con tickling. That TC and Paradise junk was as fake as Pamela Anderson's breasts.

Damn Golfer, you still alive dude? 😀

 

[Adam]

Tickling Paradise's NC video is a fake. No doubt about it. The young lady that appears in it also appears in their audition films, which you have to be a paying member of the site to see. I was at one time, but not these days. In any case, she was using a different name and had a different hair color, but you could tell. No doubt about it.

 

[ElFewja]

Although it does make considerably more sense, under those circumstances Adam, for the video to have been faked, there mere fact that she posed in an audition does not mean that every tickling session thereafter was therefore consensual.

It does make it significantly more likely, especially if she was under a different name, but does not guarantee it.

I don't agree with myself, but it's a valid point. I could, for example, invite a girl over for a shoot, after which she decides she's too ticklish for a real scene. But then, you know, I decide I must have her, and then tie her up throw her on the bed and rub marjoram all over her body and watch it melt in the setting suns rays for hours while she... sits there and politely asks me to let her go. The point is, etc.

Anyway, supposing you are right, if my proposed situation were true there would be no reason to lie about it. What you have described conflicts with the video's description, and since non-consent is such a big no-no, I imagine that it be fake.

But then I am tired, and am just ending this post.

Etc.

 

[BigJim]

Tickling Paradise's NC video is a fake. No doubt about it. The young lady that appears in it also appears in their audition films, which you have to be a paying member of the site to see. I was at one time, but not these days. In any case, she was using a different name and had a different hair color, but you could tell. No doubt about it.

They made two, which one are you referring to?

The first was a "prostitute" who was spreadeagled on a bed, the second was a "real-estate agent" who was tickled in stocks and on a frame.

 

[Adam]

They made two, which one are you referring to?

The first was a "prostitute" who was spreadeagled on a bed, the second was a "real-estate agent" who was tickled in stocks and on a frame.

The "prostitute" video. I should clear up that, I think, at some point, the video did become non-consensual to a degree. The young lady was clearly getting freaked out by the length of time she had to endure the tickling. So, in that sense, you could probably say that it was. But given that she appeared in an audition clip, she knew the business they were in. She got overwhelmed and wanted it to stop, which is understandable.

 

[maniactickler]

Ill go to my grave saying the first NC video was real. the real estate agent was definately a fake.

 

[scopab2]

What Adam says is quite true

I have the audition clip in question. It was on the pay site as described. The only difference is she has dyed her hair for the PV non-con. Excellent lee too, BTW. I would have loved to see her in a more traditional set-up rather than the BS non con episode; would have been hot as hell. I am of course referring to the Prositute Non Con.

 

[ClarkKent76067]

Sorry, I feel I have to chime in on this one. I think I've been lurking for too long. 😱)
Anyway, Maybe I'm just missing something, but aren't the vast majority of tickling vids non-con, of a sort? I know the purpose of the thread is the true non-con vids, but aren't the "fantasy" vids also, at least in the fantasy of it, non-con? So for Babbles, how is buying a video that says it's non-consensual that much different from a fantasy video, one in which, say, a traffic cop is tickled against her will for pulling you over, or a girlfriend is tickled for cheating. Isn't it non-consensual in the context of the fantasy you've constructed? Aren't you still watching a video that is non-consensual torture and abuse, even if only in fantasy? Or maybe you only like videos from producers like Tickle Challenge, where there's no fantasy at all, and the girls are 100% aware of what's going to happen? Do you not have a problem with the stories I've read on the forum that are very non-con, or is it just the videos?
It just seems a little hypocritical to me to say "it says Non-con on it, so it's criminal and abusive", when most of the videos on the market are staged non-con, simply put in a fantasy setting. Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone tickling someone for extended amounts of time against their will (I think we've all tickled someone for a few seconds against their will at one time or another), but I really think this thread has been blown out of proportion.
IMO, what the original thread wanted wasn't to bring up old nightmares, but maybe give a differing point of view. We've heard from the girls that knew what they were getting into, whether it was for fun, for the money, or whatever. We haven't heard from someone who truly didn't like it and will never do it again, for whatever reason. Personally, I'm not that interested in non-con. If my 'lee isn't open to getting tickled, than it's just not fun for me, either. I admit I originally checked this thread because I was a little curious, and kept reading for the ridiculous flame war. Sorry if I offended anyone, but that's just my two-cents....or maybe it's three-cents by now. Everything is going up, now...Damn economy.....

 

[Babbles]

Well, you did ask... good questions!

Clark K,

I couldn't say I have a problem with the *fantasy of non-consensual tickling ---
although yes, personally I don't enjoy even fantasies in print or video where the 'lee is miserable either (so you do live up to your screenname! 🙂) --- but I just quit reading or viewing stories or clips which I know involve extreme torture or anything really unpleasant for the (hopefully fictional) 'lee. Some stories have made me feel a bit sickened...

But if it's limited to fantasy, in print or video,
I can't say "that shouldn't exist" since it's (not real), no one's actually tortured (even if the story is really unpleasant... and horrifying or disgusting to me...)
& hopefully that's enough for those who relish unhappiness/agony in their fantasies... Until they find someone with the same interest...

1. However, if they act on it in reality, and grab/torture someone unwilling whether or not they tape it and market it ---
THAT poses the problem, that's assault, obviously.

2. And if they do tape & market that REAL non-con and attempt to profit from it --- it should be used as the basis for a warrant for their arrest (and shipment to a 3rd world prison for a few years...) 😡

The model should obviously be *completely informed, s/he needs to either know JUST how bad this can get, have already experienced it,
and/or have a safeword if s/he's never been tickle-tortured more than a few seconds or minutes, etc...

3. However -- if the producers of these videos are LABELLING this "non-con" -- even if it ISN'T -- they're being really irresponsible --
That's *promoting real assault & the abuse of wo/men in reality --

That's saying, "this is real non-con, I can profit from it, and I'm getting away with it" And I don't know that there's really/always some way to tell the difference -- Some claim there are obvious markers, but I'm not about to buy that crap to find out -

(Anyone who buys it-- thinking they're buying real non-con abuse-- is therefore a criminal).

Which is why there should be a (true ) disclaimer, if not an exit interview, stating those who participated were fully informed, aware & willing THROUGHOUT the film....
even in really tiny print upside-down & backwards...
so as not to interfere with the fantasy --- but "ensure" it's not assault on tape.

Someone wrote, this is why videos involving animals will state --- hopefully TRUTHFULLY ---- that "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie."

I would not want to pay to promote torture, abuse or senseless killing, but I will see a *fictional movie which may involve that, even if I don't like that scene --- At least I'll know I'm not paying or rewarding torture.

In too many words, hope this helps