Isn't it odd that one of the most famous tickling scenes in cartoons involves two kids, yet it was not considered child pornography. But you can't write a story involving children under 18 years of age, thank about that. And if it were allowed would you read a story or write on in that matter pretaining to that senario?
-
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
- Status
Camel26
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 3,391
- Points
- 0
Yes, a lot of the mainstream scenes involve minors...but that's just it...they are mainstream...it's "safe" when it's a parent tickling a child on tv or a couple of kids having a tickle fight...it gets less vanilla when it's a few adults...and even less vanilla when those two adults are tickling eachother because it turns them on...
Once that sexual element is involved, well, I think it goes without saying that it changes everything...the idea of adding any sexual connotation to something involving children disgusts me to my core...so no, I wouldn't be watching any scenes or reading stories involving kids that were specifically geared to get someone off...not my cup of tea...leave the kids out of such things...for everyone's sake...
Once that sexual element is involved, well, I think it goes without saying that it changes everything...the idea of adding any sexual connotation to something involving children disgusts me to my core...so no, I wouldn't be watching any scenes or reading stories involving kids that were specifically geared to get someone off...not my cup of tea...leave the kids out of such things...for everyone's sake...
a1532b
3rd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,559
- Points
- 0
*puts on a flak jacket since a large war is about to erupt*
This subject is so touchy. Everytime a topic like this comes up I know it's going to be a full out war of morality. This area is filled with such charged emotions that everyone is going to take a side. I am not for child pornography, not in a long shot. I do think that people on both sides of the issue are far too concrete in their definitions of maturity though. There are people that will say "even if you are 17 years and 364 days old, it is still child pornography" along with those that claim there is nothing wrong with children being tickled. There are many more people that will side with the former though. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, if any. It is late and I have had too much tequila to even make a point. That is just my two cents on the issue for the moment...
This subject is so touchy. Everytime a topic like this comes up I know it's going to be a full out war of morality. This area is filled with such charged emotions that everyone is going to take a side. I am not for child pornography, not in a long shot. I do think that people on both sides of the issue are far too concrete in their definitions of maturity though. There are people that will say "even if you are 17 years and 364 days old, it is still child pornography" along with those that claim there is nothing wrong with children being tickled. There are many more people that will side with the former though. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, if any. It is late and I have had too much tequila to even make a point. That is just my two cents on the issue for the moment...
HOLLYWOOD
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Messages
- 3,341
- Points
- 0
the hollywood brother do not know what the answer is. if the child is not even a teenager then it is wrong to have a sexual overtone to the tickle action. however a question could be made for 16 and 17 where the person is almost a adult. now the hollywood brother is not saying he is for or against tickling with someone almost 18 but the hollywood brother can understand why it is a grey area
Dude'sonfire
TMF Expert
- Joined
- May 9, 2004
- Messages
- 374
- Points
- 0
I think as long as your not *actually* sexually abusing a person not of physical maturity, or endorsing a product (e.g. a video of the above happening) that involves the abuse of such a party, then you're not doing anything wrong.
I mean I get turned on by the idea of a woman being tortured; I'll admit it right now. I've written stories that involve it, and I get somewhat aroused when it happens it a movie. But I would never do it.
I think the fact that I can get fictional material on the subject helps me moderate the desire, so that it doesn't affect me emotionally in other ways. I think by illegalising all fiction that has to do with people's dark desires, you just push the problem into the extremes.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy with people who can't control such desires. But we all have them in one form or another. To involve a child in sexual activity is no worse than torturing someone, it's just more of a taboo, and as such extreme and often irrational perspectives are taken on any story that people find arousing involving children. This does not do anything to help the fundamental problem of it happening in the real world.
I wouldn't personally read a story containing this material as it wouldn't do anything for me anyway, but I wouldn't say it was completely wrong to do so.
I mean I get turned on by the idea of a woman being tortured; I'll admit it right now. I've written stories that involve it, and I get somewhat aroused when it happens it a movie. But I would never do it.
I think the fact that I can get fictional material on the subject helps me moderate the desire, so that it doesn't affect me emotionally in other ways. I think by illegalising all fiction that has to do with people's dark desires, you just push the problem into the extremes.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy with people who can't control such desires. But we all have them in one form or another. To involve a child in sexual activity is no worse than torturing someone, it's just more of a taboo, and as such extreme and often irrational perspectives are taken on any story that people find arousing involving children. This does not do anything to help the fundamental problem of it happening in the real world.
I wouldn't personally read a story containing this material as it wouldn't do anything for me anyway, but I wouldn't say it was completely wrong to do so.
Last edited:
I think u mean Captain Psychopath... lol.... idk about the underage thing, because 40+ year old fanasizes about teenagers is complicated to say the least. But in the end, cartoons are meant for kids, tickling meant to stimulate the childs' understanding of torture/dominance/good-ole-fashion-fun... whatever the animator/writer intended it to be. Come on, people, be mature for once. Lets handle our different tastes together.
Camel26
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 3,391
- Points
- 0
If you're into kids, that's your thing...whatever...stay away from mine, and we won't have a problem...
Go hang out with the folks at NAMBLA if you want some "material" to help minimize your desires in the public arena...whatever helps keep you away from real children...
*note: Not aimed at any particular person...just saying it as a general statement*
Go hang out with the folks at NAMBLA if you want some "material" to help minimize your desires in the public arena...whatever helps keep you away from real children...
*note: Not aimed at any particular person...just saying it as a general statement*
Tickle Country
Guest
- Joined
- May 13, 2004
- Messages
- 402
- Points
- 0
Was that really necessary? Gross?
Chino-san1
Registered User
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 27
- Points
- 0
Well the kids are tied up. But remember if we're talking about the Teenage Mutant Ninja turtle clip then remember. Those 2 clips aren't regarded to much. A lot more people focus on the April O'Neil clip. I don't get turned on by kids. But I think this discussion doesn't and will not have a winning side. Because if someone says child pronography was displayed in that clip then someone can counteract that with it's only a cartoon. XD (I'm just trying to be reasonable!)
moondog83uk1
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
Context.
I think a lot of this comes down to context. Yeah, most cartoon tickling is between two kids, but there's the rub. It's a cartoon - generally they ARE for kids. I guess people don't make these things with tickling fetishists in mind, if you get me 🙂 It's just a kids thing, that's all.
What we have to remember is that tickling doesn't mean the same to most people as it does to us. It's harmless, innocent, inconsequential. Monkeys, especially chimps, tickle each other frequently - it's a social thing for them, and for humans alike. It's an interraction, backed up by the "you can't tickle yourself" thingy. But for most of us here it's a turn on.
For me, so long as you aren't tickling kids and getting sexual gratification from it, then that's okay. Parents tickle their kids plenty, it's okay. But I agree with Camel about underage tickling for sexual gratification or satisfaction. It just doesn't sit well with me. I'd not hesitate to take a baseball bat to anyone who tickled a kid I know for sexual satisfaction. I'm sorry, but it's how I feel.
This is a really awkward argument, because there are so many facets to it, such as how young is too young (USA age of consent=18, UK=16), in which context kids tickling kids is produced (or a grown up tickling a kid, or whatever), and also whether it's wrong or not. So far as I'm concerned, underage tickling of a sexual nature is wrong. As in most cases, so long as nobody is being hurt, harmed or damaged (potentially or otherwise, mentally or physically) then I'm generally okay. But I respect the law on age of consent, and 18 means 18 - not 17 years and 364 days old.
Sorry for the rant guys, but I'm very much against taking advantage of people, especially if it's kids or rape or whatever. It's the same thing with my tickling - I wouldn't DREAM of tickling a girl if she didn't like it, or if she had enough and asked that I stopped. It's about respect, I think. Obviously this is going to be very controversial...
Thanks.
Moondog 😉
I think a lot of this comes down to context. Yeah, most cartoon tickling is between two kids, but there's the rub. It's a cartoon - generally they ARE for kids. I guess people don't make these things with tickling fetishists in mind, if you get me 🙂 It's just a kids thing, that's all.
What we have to remember is that tickling doesn't mean the same to most people as it does to us. It's harmless, innocent, inconsequential. Monkeys, especially chimps, tickle each other frequently - it's a social thing for them, and for humans alike. It's an interraction, backed up by the "you can't tickle yourself" thingy. But for most of us here it's a turn on.
For me, so long as you aren't tickling kids and getting sexual gratification from it, then that's okay. Parents tickle their kids plenty, it's okay. But I agree with Camel about underage tickling for sexual gratification or satisfaction. It just doesn't sit well with me. I'd not hesitate to take a baseball bat to anyone who tickled a kid I know for sexual satisfaction. I'm sorry, but it's how I feel.
This is a really awkward argument, because there are so many facets to it, such as how young is too young (USA age of consent=18, UK=16), in which context kids tickling kids is produced (or a grown up tickling a kid, or whatever), and also whether it's wrong or not. So far as I'm concerned, underage tickling of a sexual nature is wrong. As in most cases, so long as nobody is being hurt, harmed or damaged (potentially or otherwise, mentally or physically) then I'm generally okay. But I respect the law on age of consent, and 18 means 18 - not 17 years and 364 days old.
Sorry for the rant guys, but I'm very much against taking advantage of people, especially if it's kids or rape or whatever. It's the same thing with my tickling - I wouldn't DREAM of tickling a girl if she didn't like it, or if she had enough and asked that I stopped. It's about respect, I think. Obviously this is going to be very controversial...
Thanks.
Moondog 😉
Last edited:
I remember the cartoon clip being talked about here and if I recall, it showed a bully-type of grown adult male mob boss tickle torturing the two pre-puberty children ... both of them bound and tied to chairs while the other mob men looked on. In fact, the depiction in the scene is that both a young girl AND a young boy are being feather tickled on their bare feet because the mean-spirited mob boss wants information from them ... more or less the basic premise of why to torture somebody.
I'm middle-aged so I can remember these types of dark scenerios being shown in kid's serial cartoons back in the 70's, in the "mainstream" that everyone keeps talking about, and all I can say is that attitudes have really changed since then about the fantasy nature of story-telling when these amusing cartoons were made for kids to watch. Something that was going on back then that nobody aparrently thought was wrong was putting that level of fear or fright in a young child's mind while entertaining them with a ficticous cartoon. The threat of a "villian" person who was "out to getcha" was always part of the exciting allure for us kids (especially me, when I was like from 9 years old) to sit in front of the TV and watch them on Saturday mornings.
When you think about it, all of the adult-child scenerios shown in those vintage cartoons did have a fairly harmless and non-threatening aspect to them. For hundreds of years, tickle torture has always been seen as a way of throwing someone into an unbearable state of mixed pleasurable delight and agony ... especially when the 'lee is vulnerably ticklish. To use it for interogation of a "prisoner" and compelling them to "talk" is not a surprise to anyone. It's not brutal, it's not deathly painful, and it's probably one of the most common ways that women were tortured (I'm just guessing here) because it was seen as being almost humane and less grusome ... compared to other methods of physical punishment or torture in centuries past. Men were not often times offered the same amount of mercy at the hands of a skilled dungeon master.
Getting back to the vintage 70's cartoon of the underage kids being tickle tortured ... a few interesting observations. One, there is no nudity as part of the scene. It's just bare feet being restrained and tickled BRIEFLY by the villian with a single feather. Two, it puts into the threatening scope of the story that BOTH a young girl AND a young boy are being held "prisoner" by the villian and subjected to the interogation and foot tickling. Three, based on the artist's cartooning it appears that the age of the two kids is obviously pre-puberty, perhaps in the range of 11 to 13 years of age. I believe that has a lot to do with the philosophy of the times ... the fact that young kids can be playfully teased and tickled by someone else, on their bare feet, and it won't affect them sexually in any sort of way. I'm not saying that I believe this for myself ... I'm just saying that back then it was show to kids in this way.
Nowadays, many of us all have our own unique fetishes about our tickling preferences. I myself prefer to see the women ticklees completely nude and strapped down/bound hands and feet to the bed or torture rack. Young women in their early 20's can have such a youthful fresh look about them that many of them still can seem to be "underage" .... so yeah, I guess that I get turned on and excited seeing legal-age women, cartoon or not, as the helpless victim who is about to be subjected to a lengthy session of full-body and sensual tickle torture with both hands, fingers, .... and FEATHERS!!! To me, it's so hot. I've tickled many of my gf's this way and it does get them so wet and horny near the end ... when they're begging me to stop.
The vintage cartoon tickling was always just meant as a way of showing a threatening aspect to the fictional story being told ... but as harmless and non-sexual. The children were never in any real danger and when I was a little girl watching them myself I kind of always knew that ... but at the same time I did have a naughty amount of wicked fear and fright churning through my tummy while I was seeing for the first time what was tickle torture with feathers.
I'm middle-aged so I can remember these types of dark scenerios being shown in kid's serial cartoons back in the 70's, in the "mainstream" that everyone keeps talking about, and all I can say is that attitudes have really changed since then about the fantasy nature of story-telling when these amusing cartoons were made for kids to watch. Something that was going on back then that nobody aparrently thought was wrong was putting that level of fear or fright in a young child's mind while entertaining them with a ficticous cartoon. The threat of a "villian" person who was "out to getcha" was always part of the exciting allure for us kids (especially me, when I was like from 9 years old) to sit in front of the TV and watch them on Saturday mornings.
When you think about it, all of the adult-child scenerios shown in those vintage cartoons did have a fairly harmless and non-threatening aspect to them. For hundreds of years, tickle torture has always been seen as a way of throwing someone into an unbearable state of mixed pleasurable delight and agony ... especially when the 'lee is vulnerably ticklish. To use it for interogation of a "prisoner" and compelling them to "talk" is not a surprise to anyone. It's not brutal, it's not deathly painful, and it's probably one of the most common ways that women were tortured (I'm just guessing here) because it was seen as being almost humane and less grusome ... compared to other methods of physical punishment or torture in centuries past. Men were not often times offered the same amount of mercy at the hands of a skilled dungeon master.
Getting back to the vintage 70's cartoon of the underage kids being tickle tortured ... a few interesting observations. One, there is no nudity as part of the scene. It's just bare feet being restrained and tickled BRIEFLY by the villian with a single feather. Two, it puts into the threatening scope of the story that BOTH a young girl AND a young boy are being held "prisoner" by the villian and subjected to the interogation and foot tickling. Three, based on the artist's cartooning it appears that the age of the two kids is obviously pre-puberty, perhaps in the range of 11 to 13 years of age. I believe that has a lot to do with the philosophy of the times ... the fact that young kids can be playfully teased and tickled by someone else, on their bare feet, and it won't affect them sexually in any sort of way. I'm not saying that I believe this for myself ... I'm just saying that back then it was show to kids in this way.
Nowadays, many of us all have our own unique fetishes about our tickling preferences. I myself prefer to see the women ticklees completely nude and strapped down/bound hands and feet to the bed or torture rack. Young women in their early 20's can have such a youthful fresh look about them that many of them still can seem to be "underage" .... so yeah, I guess that I get turned on and excited seeing legal-age women, cartoon or not, as the helpless victim who is about to be subjected to a lengthy session of full-body and sensual tickle torture with both hands, fingers, .... and FEATHERS!!! To me, it's so hot. I've tickled many of my gf's this way and it does get them so wet and horny near the end ... when they're begging me to stop.
The vintage cartoon tickling was always just meant as a way of showing a threatening aspect to the fictional story being told ... but as harmless and non-sexual. The children were never in any real danger and when I was a little girl watching them myself I kind of always knew that ... but at the same time I did have a naughty amount of wicked fear and fright churning through my tummy while I was seeing for the first time what was tickle torture with feathers.
why are we still talking about this?
"Ticke Theater: online ADULT community" emphasis on "adult". If yer into kid tickling stuff theres probably a site for that, but this says this is adult, in both senses of the word plainly after you type tickletheater into the address bar, so why are we still talking about it?
"Ticke Theater: online ADULT community" emphasis on "adult". If yer into kid tickling stuff theres probably a site for that, but this says this is adult, in both senses of the word plainly after you type tickletheater into the address bar, so why are we still talking about it?
nessonite1
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 9,517
- Points
- 0
Actually, the "adult" bit refers to the membership. You are required to be an adult to legally access the site and the material is intended for adults.
ticklekid1
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2003
- Messages
- 133
- Points
- 0
Uh.....Pure Ownage?nessonite said:
Last edited:
BigNorm
3rd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 7,694
- Points
- 0
tickling is kiddie torture. you won't see a couple kids enduring chinese water drip torture, or someone bashing in ther toes with a hammer. so tickle their soles and there you have it.
i think stuff like kiddie on kiddie tickling is ok, if, like camel mentioned isn't made for someone to shoot off a few white knuckle children.
someone had an ongoing story detailing the fun things he and his cousin did that was really cute, and i believe that's acceptable. but not adult on kid tickling. believe it or not, i'd rather see Danny Devito naked (shivers) before i'd enjoy adults tickling kids in any media format that is anyway meant for sexual reasons.
i think stuff like kiddie on kiddie tickling is ok, if, like camel mentioned isn't made for someone to shoot off a few white knuckle children.
someone had an ongoing story detailing the fun things he and his cousin did that was really cute, and i believe that's acceptable. but not adult on kid tickling. believe it or not, i'd rather see Danny Devito naked (shivers) before i'd enjoy adults tickling kids in any media format that is anyway meant for sexual reasons.
Betchass1
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 804
- Points
- 0
Camel26 said:
How do you determine whether that sexual element is involved? By the person's intentions?
Many parents don't take their children's rights seriously enough. To hold a child down and tickle him/her, saying it doesn't matter just because they are laughing, is still a form of abuse. If it's wrong to tickle an adult nonconsensually, how is it okay to do it to a child, just because *you* decide it's not sexual? Just because in the mind of the parent doing it it's innocent and harmless doesn't mean it's taken that way. It can be frightening and infuriating, no matter how it's intended.
More accurate would be to say that it's okay for a woman to do it but not a man.
MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
From the Rules:
MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
I agree completely (just my personal opinion).Betchass said:
Last edited:
ok, if i can add my two cents
I agree with several posters saying that it all depends on the context of the scene. With the turtles' scenes, the teens werent tickled on their feet for a sexual reason, but only for drive them crazy enough to give up the jewel (or diamond or whatever, its been years)
another example I thought of is the clip of the children getting their feet tickled for an experiment for bbc uk online. While some may take it in a sexual context, it was originaly created purposely for the experimentation of the nerve endings in bare soles.
It's kinda the same with female bondage and the whole damsel in distress scenario. With TV and movies, it is not really meant to be a sexual situation (again, talking about kids cartoons/series stuff) but there to express danger or trapping (if again, in TMNT, if the Shredder ties up April O Neil, that is the universal sign that she is in danger) If a person becomes fond of that situation, that is totally unpredictable. To be honest, I still dont know what triggered my tickle/foot fetishes, but before I could remember, I loved tying bare feet, watching them flex, and tickling them to make them do moreso. I mean, is a 11yrd tickling the barefeet of a 11yrd girl playfully, to see what make her tick, the same of as 21yrd old doing the same thing, of course it isnt.
In the end, we, as adults, should be able to judge what is morally right and wrong. After all, arent the two kids in the TMNT voiced by people in their 30s? At the same time, this should also draw the line between this stuff and that of the scenario above, which I'm refering to tyflas and pinderloy messing around with 3yr old and such.
I agree with several posters saying that it all depends on the context of the scene. With the turtles' scenes, the teens werent tickled on their feet for a sexual reason, but only for drive them crazy enough to give up the jewel (or diamond or whatever, its been years)
another example I thought of is the clip of the children getting their feet tickled for an experiment for bbc uk online. While some may take it in a sexual context, it was originaly created purposely for the experimentation of the nerve endings in bare soles.
It's kinda the same with female bondage and the whole damsel in distress scenario. With TV and movies, it is not really meant to be a sexual situation (again, talking about kids cartoons/series stuff) but there to express danger or trapping (if again, in TMNT, if the Shredder ties up April O Neil, that is the universal sign that she is in danger) If a person becomes fond of that situation, that is totally unpredictable. To be honest, I still dont know what triggered my tickle/foot fetishes, but before I could remember, I loved tying bare feet, watching them flex, and tickling them to make them do moreso. I mean, is a 11yrd tickling the barefeet of a 11yrd girl playfully, to see what make her tick, the same of as 21yrd old doing the same thing, of course it isnt.
In the end, we, as adults, should be able to judge what is morally right and wrong. After all, arent the two kids in the TMNT voiced by people in their 30s? At the same time, this should also draw the line between this stuff and that of the scenario above, which I'm refering to tyflas and pinderloy messing around with 3yr old and such.
Last edited:
- Status
