Question about studio “TICKLE innocent ticklish gf” on C4S

[Jezebel Lee]

For starters it's because he says "What it's not even porn idk what everyone is talking about, anyone can jerk off to anything..." Which is the exact same shti David D'mato said for years.

The man has a banner ad on TicklingMediaForum dot come. A website where people post, sell, and talk about sexualized tickling. How did that end up on there if "I didn't even know people beat off to this I just wanted to make horror films..."?

I can’t help but roll my eyes whenever tickle fetish producers pull the “it’s not porn” card. If it’s not porn, then why else would these “experiments” only involve young, conventionally attractive women aged 18 and over?

 

[BBAC]

I can’t help but roll my eyes whenever tickle fetish producers pull the “it’s not porn” card. If it’s not porn, then why else would these “experiments” only involve young, conventionally attractive women aged 18 and over?

Additionally, why would they promote it here...an adult website lol

 

[Jezebel Lee]

Additionally, why would they promote it here...an adult website lol

Lmao yes, and sell the videos on Clips4Sale, a site where people buy videos for the sole purpose of jerking off. If those videos aren’t porn, then I’m the Queen of Sheba.

 

[kingmaker]

I think mostly the accusation are that the girls are not consenting or aware of what they were doing, but you have now a ton of video interviews with the same girls.

Frankly we dont care about how he qualifies or markets his videos, what matters is the models awareness and the ethics, and since the reddit post is dead, we still have no proof of any wrong doing here.

Dodgy and stupid Marketing for sure, but that's not a crime as it was directed to us

I can’t help but roll my eyes whenever tickle fetish producers pull the “it’s not porn” card. If it’s not porn, then why else would these “experiments” only involve young, conventionally attractive women aged 18 and over?

That's same for modeling or hostess work, there are so much wrong things with the mainstream porn industry that it's understandable to want to keep distances with it.

Yeah same goals, but not same things, or methods. Calling it porn without any nuance only increases the shame for models and it hurts the industry very bad.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

Yeah same goals, but not same things, or methods. Calling it porn without any nuance only increases the shame for models and it hurts the industry very bad.

It is literally advertised and sold on pornographic websites what the fuck is the matter with you.

Yeah not giving his high art proper credit is what's gonna "hurt the industry", not lying to young, non-English speaking women about intending to sell videos of them doing a thing he may or may not have explained beforehand on whack-off websites.

 

[BBAC]

To be honest the whole vibe of the interviews are weird. From the pseudo Bob Dylan songs before them and everything. But I also suspect that a lot of this was just to drum up publicity for the site.

Its like when the Tickle Therapy guy once argued that what he does isn't porn. Like sure bud, you totally aren't here to sell videos to fetishists.

 

[kingmaker]

It is literally advertised and sold on pornographic websites what the fuck is the matter with you.

Yeah not giving his high art proper credit is what's gonna "hurt the industry", not lying to young, non-English speaking women about intending to sell videos of them doing a thing he may or may not have explained beforehand on whack-off websites.

Fetish clips are sold where they can be, if you could just open an account to your bank with normal payment rates a lot of producers would not go on mainstream or hardcore fetish platforms being advertised between 2 gang bangs.

I know a lot of producers that do not deny the sexual thing of their content, but do not want to call it porn.
Yes it is sold at the same places, yes people will get sexual pleasure out of it, but you can argue that what is done is not as extreme as regular porn. (at least for most of the productions)

I know a lot of people want to put everything in the same basket, but there is at least a difference in degree. (This is why governements, even in your country, rate media as PG, G, etc ... There are graduations, and definitions )

And of course, this does not mean tickle fetish should be shown to people under age or that you can just say to model that it's "Science". This is not Ok.

Now if you want to call it soft porn, fetish, adult, or whatever, I don't care, but we all have eyes and can recognize a difference between a clip from The Last Laugh and one from Kink.com (if it still exists)

not lying to young, non-English speaking women about intending to sell videos of them doing a thing he may or may not have explained beforehand on whack-off websites.

So back to the studio talk

- Is this weird ? Hell Yeah
- Do the model appear to be testifying under Threat ? Highly unlikely to have these many
- Do we have proof he lied to these girls ? Not at all, but I could be missing something
- Where is the single accusator gone with his claims ? We dont know
- Is there any legal procedure ongoing ? I don't think so but I would like to know more

Everything looks suspicious for sure, but a lot of this is because of their marketing angle of "Real tickling torture to innocent girls" that is, purely fake.

It is good to see that the tickling community wants things done ethically, really.
But proof is proof, and with the interviews he released I'm sorry to say that he has more proofs in his favor.
I'm not going to say it's baseless, but not far. Of course if someone brings me additional proof, I will 180 on these words, and I think TMF is on the same position

 

[Jezebel Lee]

The way I see it, porn is a spectrum in the same way that sex work is a spectrum. For example, I don’t get aroused by my own work, and my stuff is generally non-explicit and non-nude, but it still falls under the category of sex work and I do call myself a sex worker. I completely understand why people want to distance themselves from the adult industry, but we can’t go around lying to normies; informed consent is key. The answer is to try and de-stigmatise it as a society, not trick people into doing it.

 

[brotherted]

The way I see it, porn is a spectrum in the same way that sex work is a spectrum. For example, I don’t get aroused by my own work, and my stuff is generally non-explicit and non-nude, but it still falls under the category of sex work and I do call myself a sex worker. I completely understand why people want to distance themselves from the adult industry, but we can’t go around lying to normies; informed consent is key. The answer is to try and de-stigmatise it as a society, not trick people into doing it.

Thank you. This was my reaction too.

I'm puzzled by the kinds of posts on here along the lines of distinguishing, "Was it porn? Or was it not porn? -- Such and such video totally was porn!" Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously backed off trying to define porn in Jacobellis v. Ohio. It's as if many here believe there are one set of laws for "porn," and another set of laws for not-porn. No. What is porn not only remains subjective -- it has no meaning legally.

Now it's correct there are movie ratings agencies, with which theater chains cooperate, but even these agencies disagree in countless examples, from Caligula (1979) to 50 Shades of Grey (2015). Take 50 Shades for example. The American MPAA rated the less-restrictive R, which means 17 and up can see it themselves, and children 16 and younger are allowed if with a parent or guardian. That's the same rating as the very tame The King's Speech. Meanwhile, the British BBFC gave 50 Shades its porn-level "18 Certificate," meaning no under 18 allowed at all, period.

Online, of course, there are no theater chains to agree to work with ratings agencies. So which of our content is porn? Public renfaire videos? A tied-down lee in a dungeon, but no nudity? Nudity, but no vibrator? Vibrator, but no nudity? Argue all you want about wherever you want to draw this imaginary line, but it doesn't actually matter because there's no agreed-on definition of the word.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I think mostly the accusation are that the girls are not consenting or aware of what they were doing, but you have now a ton of video interviews with the same girls.

Frankly we dont care about how he qualifies or markets his videos, what matters is the models awareness and the ethics, and since the reddit post is dead, we still have no proof of any wrong doing here.

Dodgy and stupid Marketing for sure, but that's not a crime as it was directed to us



That's same for modeling or hostess work, there are so much wrong things with the mainstream porn industry that it's understandable to want to keep distances with it.

Yeah same goals, but not same things, or methods. Calling it porn without any nuance only increases the shame for models and it hurts the industry very bad.

if you don't want to look at evidence AS evidence, that is, yes, there is none whatsoever. I mean, the guy works for the Italian Embassy AND does casting for private productions. That's minimally a conflict of interest, since his job should be the embassy job. In fact, does he have diplomatic immunity? Again, people in Ecuador HAVE indeed noticed what's been going on with their young hot women & this embassy employee. They ARE talking on their social media about the evidence.

And one of this guy's Ecuadorian models ends up in Italy after 'winning' the Most-Videos-Sold-That-Are-Not-Porn contest that she never even knew she was in? And she has to go with a "chaperone" or two from the fetish company? *Who may have diplomatic immunity.* Would an American woman already tricked by such a man accept leaving the entire continent with these factors in place?


Pizza restaurants don't have to put on their flyers "We are not involved with child trafficking." I've worked for and with video production companies. The real ones NEVER have to subhead their websites with "We do not make fetish or pornography videos."

Jane O'Brian Media did that. This guy is doing that on 2 different websites. There was even a man in NYC who tried pulling this same thing as a "casting agent" on the TMF about 10-15 years ago (except the damn fool explained his plan here on the TMF to everyone; "women who want to get singing, dancing or acting jobs will go out on the jobs that we as agents give them, which will include ticking videos, blah blah blah... He got called out so badly by everyone he just disappeared.)

None of those companies were honest and legitimate towards the talent they hired, or in some cases, their customers.

We've seen it before. Young, naive people who believe there is money, or a career path, get scammed by someone with money & position, and are eventually threatened, or paid off, to keep making material. And then if they do quit - as seen in the Tickled documentary. As seen in this new website link - the person in charge follows up with the threats & harassment, or payoffs, simply because that person does indeed have money and a position of power.

What we're seeing here is a fraudulent spin on top of fraud committed previously. And since this is international, & involves local woman and an embassy, I can see another movie coming out years later from all of this.

 

[kingmaker]

But so far all we're hearing are descriptions of things they've allegedly seen, which to me sound less like reality and more like an episode of Law and Order to be completely frank. I suspect someone saw the fetish site about science, became confused and alarmed, and started making up new elements to convince other people to believe the scenario that they think they've figured out.

And that seems still true

Give us links about ecuadorians, give us proof he works in an embassy and has diplomatic immunity, show us the contract ?

The justifications to make him guilty involve so many assumptions that it starts to look very unlikely.
If you are right the guy is a criminal mastermind that wasted his talent to make 500 $ of sales of tickle videos lol

But maybe it's covered up by the TMF because they benefit from the ad space ...

 

[Comfort Eagle]

If you are right the guy is a criminal mastermind that wasted his talent to make 500 $ of sales of tickle videos lol

Did anyone say it took a fucking "mastermind" to lie about the nature of whackoff videos, smartass?

How did his ads "just so happen" to land on a sexual tickling fetish website if that's totally not what he's doing? Did someone put those there on his behalf? Quit trying to "banter", you're terrible at it. Address what I've said.

 

[kingmaker]

I was not answering to you.

What I am trying to say is that the models seem to be aware of this. No matter what he say that his videos are or are not, the models know, and it's not a matter of english speaking : The contract are made in their language

 

[Oddjob0226]

And that seems still true

Give us links about ecuadorians, give us proof he works in an embassy and has diplomatic immunity, show us the contract ?

The justifications to make him guilty involve so many assumptions that it starts to look very unlikely.
If you are right the guy is a criminal mastermind that wasted his talent to make 500 $ of sales of tickle videos lol

But maybe it's covered up by the TMF because they benefit from the ad space ...

Did you miss my posts with links, or just ignore them?

And if you have a legitimate interest in this - like I did - what's keep you from doing your own further research? I didn't try ti "anil anyone; I just wanted to see what was closer to the facts.


Then there are the previous posts from Biddlybong, which brought this to everyone's attention in the first place. Some of them are now mysteriously missing, but others are still up. And my experience as how real production companies - including fetish companies - work, and how the bad ones have worked and got caught.

There is a truckload of, at minimum, evidence of questionable dealings. No one is stopping you from looking into any of it yourself.

 

[kingmaker]

The links are mostly dead now and nothing new came up since that could be incriminating.

 

[biddlybong]

Hello TMF,

Stefano is threatening to bring legal charges against me so I have removed everything directly accusing him of anything. He has sent a private investigator after me who has made threats against the safety of me and my girlfriend in Ecuador in order to discover my identity. (https://ibb.co/MPrsHXw) (https://ibb.co/8PHy1NJ)

When she applied to participate in the “stress test” she was told it was for a scientific study of her adrenaline, they told her they work with a team of psychologists, she thought the test would be measured and overseen by medical professionals. They told her they would try to scare her with bugs and record her reaction. The idea of a safe word was never mentioned, a safe word would imply something sexual/BDSM related, the contract simply stated “once the test has begun it cannot be stopped”.
She was not told about tickledr.com - they told her the video was for thesciencetv.com. She did not expect to be treated in a cruel and sadistic way.

I think it’s great that Stefano has come out to address what I said as I spent a lot of time trying to discover his identity and gather evidence to show what he’s doing, many people didn’t believe it, they thought it was a publicity stunt, but he has shown with the interviews that these girls did not really know exactly what they signed up for but believes it’s all perfectly fine because they don’t mind - what if one does?

He is saying the videos are not sexual, they’re not porn, they are not fetish videos.
I wonder what a European court would think? Is that level of cruel and sadistic treatment what one would expect during a scientific study?

When you take into account the old posts made by Stefano, talking about “organising incredible stories to convince these girls next door who hates to be tickled to be tied down and tickled merciless” (https://ibb.co/jRWypbC) and all the old video descriptions saying “We told her it’s for scientific research, and she believes that!” (https://ibb.co/zQwHyFB) Or “She really thinks it’s a scientific test!” (https://ibb.co/zx17WRd) It certainly seems to support the idea that there’s some dishonesty happening.

It’s also interesting to note that “This is a real clinical trial with real medical staff” (https://ibb.co/ccy19pG) wording has been removed from the site. Now they’re just “experimental videos” or “horror videos”.

I wonder if these videos are truly for science and if it turns out they’re not, would any consent given remain valid?

I’d like to share a comment written by TMF user Veglife back in 2020 which I think sums up the situation nicely … (https://ibb.co/G5sts63)

 

[brotherted]

Hello TMF,

Stefano is threatening to bring legal charges against me so I have removed everything directly accusing him of anything. He has sent a private investigator after me who has made threats against the safety of me and my girlfriend in Ecuador in order to discover my identity.

I continue to be surprised at the level of acrimony on this site. When I'm interested in a particular post, I'm curious about why people think what they think, rather than angry about what they think.

To wit, I have to ask: Did you, biddlybong, come to this web page because of your girlfriend's experience in the unexpected tickling video? It would seem quite the coincidence if you were already a ticklephile visiting this site, and then either your girlfriend or someone who'd later become your girlfriend just happens to be one of the people tricked by a tickling video producer.

Or is there something I'm not getting here? Is my question clear? What are the odds that a girl responding to an ad for a medical/psychology experiment which unexpectedly turns into non-con tickling video just so happens to be dating a TicklingForum member?

 

[kingmaker]

For what I know :

- I have been contacted by him because he wants to be on GT
- I have told him no because of the problems
- Then we talked quite a lot

- I told him that if he could clarify his practices with the public and do things more clearly/ethically with models he would be allowed on GT

 

[Comfort Eagle]

- I have been contacted by him because he wants to be on GT

But why would he wish to join a tickle fetish website if he is in fact simply making "horror videos", and not making "tickle fetish porn"...

 

[BBAC]

He's probably reading this going "I hope they don't beat off to my strictly scientific research"

 

[Jezebel Lee]

Tbh, I’m starting to wonder if having English as a second language is where the definition of porn becomes burry. In my head, porn = some form of media (especially live-action videos) that are made with the intention of the viewer jerking off. If we really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe (at best) he thinks porn = naked people having sex on camera, and that anything that doesn’t involve sex isn’t porn, even if people wank to it?

While it’s true there’s no sex or even nudity in the videos (at least not that I’m aware of), the fact remains that these videos follow all the same patterns that tickle fetish videos usually do, are sold through fetish porn sites, promoted on an adult website, and are being wanked to. Maybe he doesn’t want to use the word “porn”, but I’d be very surprised if he didn’t know he’s creating wank material.

If they were truly just science experiments to begin with and he didn’t realise tickling was a fetish, then surely the average person’s response to finding out would be “oh my god, I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to” and taking everything down, rather than keeping it up, insisting it’s not porn, and that anyone raising valid concerns is just a hater?

 

[kingmaker]

Porn has no clear definition and it will change according to countries. And when it has, it is pretty outdated and will only apply if there is penetration.

+ yes, culture plays a big role.


There is several shades of grey as well :

- Artistic nudity (this is still respectful)
- Charm/Sexy (Playboy level)
- Fetish (showing stuff that is not explicit to everyone )
- Porn (People having sex)

In latin Europe, you will have a hard time explaining to someone that people tickling each other is porn. They will understand it is sexy for some people, but their brain will not put it in the same category

 

[brotherted]

Tbh, I’m starting to wonder if having English as a second language is where the definition of porn becomes burry. In my head, porn = some form of media (especially live-action videos) that are made with the intention of the viewer jerking off.

It's nothing to do with English proficiency -- even the U.S. Supreme Court admits it can't define the word "pornography."

In the older version of the Howard Stern show, for example, producers would tie women up in what they called the "tickle chair," and tickle them if Howard didn't like their answers to a question. Was that porn, or not? Today, some might say that a clip of that is porn, but the vast majority of Howard's listeners were actually in their cars driving to work -- I don't think the majority of them were masturbating in their cars while stuck in traffic. After all, some people just consider watching someone tickled to be funny. Another example: Many years ago I would masturbate to an exercise show on ESPN. So would the definition of porn have to be based on the percentage of people who watch it to jerk off? Then that's really not a content-based definition.

So to me, while there are some videos we can all agree would have zero other conceivable value other than masturbation fuel, there's also lots of gray area. There is no legal definition of porn in the U.S., and there are no penalties or laws that require something to be "porn" for them to apply. Breach of contract is breach of contract, whether or not someone considers porn to be involved. Unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping is unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping, whether or not someone considers porn to be involved.

 

[Jezebel Lee]

It's nothing to do with English proficiency -- even the U.S. Supreme Court admits it can't define the word "pornography."

In the older version of the Howard Stern show, for example, producers would tie women up in what they called the "tickle chair," and tickle them if Howard didn't like their answers to a question. Was that porn, or not? Today, some might say that a clip of that is porn, but the vast majority of Howard's listeners were actually in their cars driving to work -- I don't think the majority of them were masturbating in their cars while stuck in traffic. After all, some people just consider watching someone tickled to be funny. Another example: Many years ago I would masturbate to an exercise show on ESPN. So would the definition of porn have to be based on the percentage of people who watch it to jerk off? Then that's really not a content-based definition.

So to me, while there are some videos we can all agree would have zero other conceivable value other than masturbation fuel, there's also lots of gray area. There is no legal definition of porn in the U.S., and there are no penalties or laws that require something to be "porn" for them to apply. Breach of contract is breach of contract, whether or not someone considers porn to be involved. Unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping is unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping, whether or not someone considers porn to be involved.

I suppose it’s about intent. There was a girl in the U.K. a few years back who uploaded a video of herself sneezing to YouTube as an art project. This was then found by sneezing fetishists who asked for more and where they can buy the full video. I would say the initial video was not porn in the sense that she didn’t know people would wank to it; she had uploaded it as an art project. After she became aware of the fetish, she then started marketing and selling sneeze videos to these guys in order to pay for her art college. I would say that’s when it became porn.

Definitions aside though, it’s obviously fucked up and gross what he’s (allegedly) done, and him insisting it’s not wank material just comes across as back-pedalling, or at best ignorant.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

One of two things are happening;

1. Some of you are being intentionally disingenuous

or

2. Some of you are among some of the dumbest people I've ever encountered