Also consider, around here, “non-consensual” is also more of a figure of speech. It doesn’t have to be taken literally and I think, generally, isn’t. Most of these videos represent ‘adult fantasy’ even if the action is real.
The second video I saw was Non-Consensual Tickle, by Paradise Vision/Tickling Paradise. Again, I write the following from the Devil's Advocate position that this was genuine and not a scripted plotline. Many people believe the latter.
The ‘prostitute’ from the Paradise Vision video was also in one of their earlier “audition” videos, with different color hair and a different name. I DO believe the extent of the tickling was real, but she knew tickling was going to occur because she auditioned for them with Gabrielle (the one who tickled her in Non-Consensual and also used a different name). Plus, the changes in the video’s white balance implies that the camera was shut off from time to time. So I don’t belie the plotline at all - just the results. She may not have agreed to the extent that she got tickled (or, maybe she did….for a little extra $$) so there could have been trickery involved.
But trickery happens now and then, I‘m convinced. Producers hiring vanilla, non-fetish folks, for example, then denying them even the knowledge of a safe word to keep their reactions real and intense ( How would they know about a safe word? They aren‘t involved in perverted stuff! Or, they barely speak English! It‘s a lie-by-omission.)
Then of course, you have renfaire videos, no longer in open sale from either party who ever produced them. I'm not entirely sure what to classify these as, as there are some elements of non-con about them, but any strong protest on behalf of a lee being yanked out of the faire crowd and put into the stocks would probably be met with the workers abandoning the plan and going after another target.
I own one of Marco’s Renfair videos…… there’s a bit where a woman WILL NOT get into the stocks. As her friend/family member lifts her up off the ground to put her in the stocks by physical force the renfair guys tell him “no”. Thus, no restraint, no tickling, occurs. With them, maybe “no” didn’t mean “no”, but a “firm no” certainly meant “no”.
But if there was a lawsuit involved with a renfair video the tickled subject probably would wouldn’t win for being tickled. They would win for the video being sold for profit. There is a story here on the TMF (circa 2005) where a bank employee continually tickled another employee despite her pleas for him not to do it. She eventually sued. She lost. But there was no video being sold for profit in terms of the situation.