What The Fuck Is Wrong With People???!!!! (clips4sale crosses the line!)

[Empyrium]

Thankfully, I read the responses before chancing a visit to the provided link. At this point, I'm just a bit surprised that someone, who shall remain nameless (cough...cough...babyshambles), had the audacity to try and defend what these people were doing. Sounds like maybe the proper authorities should be taking a look at what's on his hard drive...

 

[dskodj]

I just got this responce back from clips4sale:

---------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:38:22 -0500
From: "Gizmo" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:
Subject: Re: [[Reporting Child Porn On Your Service]]

we have shut this ass down. Thank you very much for bringing this to
our attention.

----------------------------------------------

THANK GOD! I wanna thank the folks who backed me up on this and sent mails, with us pulling together look how fast we got this kiddie porn crap pulled, now thats a community! Happy Holidays everyone 🙂 Now ill go back to my quiet around here self as justice has been served!

 

[Babyshambles]

Thankfully, I read the responses before chancing a visit to the provided link. At this point, I'm just a bit surprised that someone, who shall remain nameless (cough...cough...babyshambles), had the audacity to try and defend what these people were doing. Sounds like maybe the proper authorities should be taking a look at what's on his hard drive...

Hi,

Clearly I can't defend this and I won't. I did not buy the clips, and perhaps the very fact that they don't interest me is why I couldn't understand the furore.

Sorry.

I do stick by my general point, which is that we are hardly in a position to say what is disgusting and what isn't. I've met several people who were very deeply disturbed to learn that I liked tickling. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones etc.

Anything involving minors is wrong - period. But I do wonder what the definition of a minor is. Yes, for all purposes in the world of TMF it's 18 (or 21?) but in some jurisdictions it is as young as 14. People at 16 can legally consent to sex where I live.

For me, watching a hot 17 yr old girl getting tickled is very attractive. Does that make me a paedophile? I hope not. Tickling a hot 17-yr old would have it's advantages for me too. Again, does that make me sick?

And here is another question. If, and I only say if, those girls were actually 18 (or even 54) would the content still be disturbing?

Maybe these should remain as rhetorical questions?

Again, sorry for any offence caused.

 

[dskodj]

Vigilante-ism such as that displayed by you towards this site does nothing to tackle and understand the real issue at hand.

Your kinda right, the real issue at hand is scum like you and those clip makers walk the streets freely. Bye bye now

 

[AphxA]

Look if you cant find whats wrong with the web site or you support what they were doing you must be stuck on planet fail.

 

[asutickler]

Judging by the Clips4sale guy's response, he wasn't too pleased to find this sort of shit floating around on his webspace. Fortunately, he now has the names, credit card numbers, and IP addresses of everyone who bought clips from that site, as well as the name, IP, and bank account information of the revolting individual who put it up.

Hopefully he's already passing this information along to the appropriate authorities.

 

[Fire_Sprite]

Hm.... does clips4sale not review the clips they allow to be sold on their site? Obviously they can't screen them all, but I think just previewing one or two from a certain seller couldn't hurt.

 

[luv2tikl]

I don't agree with what was posted at all, don't get me wrong, but Babyshambles had made SOME great points here, and you guys are blasting him down because you're under the impression that he supports it, even after he stated that he didn't. He was simply giving food for thought, and you guys are making complete asses of yourselves. Sure, some of the things he said were a little outlandish, but others weren't and deserved attention. You're prolly gonna see that I'm somewhat standing up for him and blast me too just because of that, even though I'm about to say that I DON'T SUPPORT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM! I don't agree with him 100%, but I think he had some good points nonetheless and doesn't deserve to be totally excluded just because of the slightest hunch of him supporting this; even if he did like this kind of thing, he has just as much right to post his views here without getting shot down. It's called tolerance, some of you should really learn about it... This seems to be a growing problem in society these days... One person has an opposing view, and that automatically makes them stupid or wrong. Tolerance is the ability to realize that someone thinks differently than yourself, but not judge them just because of that. You don't have to agree with someone, but you should at least give them a chance to speak out.

 

[ChosenofMystra]

This is what i'm up against. People who are willing to shoot and castrate people who may be working within the guidelines of the law and morality - and who haven't even seen the evidence.

Not many people are going to contradict Mr Angry who started this post - nobody wants to be seen to be defending child abuse. But in this instance, I see little evidence to support any actual transgression.

You're a joke guy, know that?

As for the perverts who shot the clips, well, I think they should be shot and castrated like my buddy here suggested.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

truth be told, i also think Babyshambles raises a few interesting questions and food for thought and makes a few good points.

 

[alchemy]

You know, it's shit like this that gives fetishists like us a bad name. It's fucking hard enough to deal with the bullshit we ALREADY have to without some sick fuck adding fuel to the fire. I hope they find the sick fuck that put that shit up and beat the living shit out of him. Fuck him and everybody that looks like him!!!

😡

 

[StuGatz9]

I didn't click on the link for the vid for sale but I can guess that it was a bit offensive to many people and if it involved tickling young children then I guess I can agree with the general sentiment expressed in this thread.

However, I find almost equally offensive those members who chose to express their opinions with such vulgarity.

Makes me wonder if those people are the ones to whom the paraphrase "methinks the tickle fetishists doth protest too much" can be applied.

Just a little food for thought.

 

[Headsnap]

I do stick by my general point, which is that we are hardly in a position to say what is disgusting and what isn't. I've met several people who were very deeply disturbed to learn that I liked tickling. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones etc.

I accept the whole devil's advocate thing but this isn't even a point. What you're saying here is that because some people look at you sideways when you tell them you like tickling, that means you (and by extension, we) are in the same bracket as people whose paraphilia involves the non-consensual abuse and degredation of children. Yeah, sure, some people find a sexual interest in tickling strange; it's outside the norm, that's not up for debate, but to say it's comparable in any way to paedophilia (or vorephilia, or rape/ torture fantasies, or any of the other oddball paraphilias I've seen people trying to justify in various places by comparing them to my own) is at best a glib assessment, and at worst ignorant (one suspects wilfully so in many cases).

Anything involving minors is wrong - period. But I do wonder what the definition of a minor is. Yes, for all purposes in the world of TMF it's 18 (or 21?) but in some jurisdictions it is as young as 14. People at 16 can legally consent to sex where I live.

If you're talking about Britain then yeah, 16 year olds can consent to sex, but they can't legally consent to being in a porno of any kind until they're 18.

Of all the stupid rules and concilliatory hugbox bullshit that abounds within the TMF one of the few things I can't complain about is limiting the age for participants in material to 18+. I honestly can't understand why people find issue with it; it's hardly an arbitrary decision after all. An 18+ age limit is a good average in terms of covering yourself from a legal standpoint, and it also tends to be the age at which people have developed a semblance of mental acuity regarding their selves and their sexuality as well as having reached physical maturity. Obviously there are exceptions, we're all individuals after all, but you can't take everything into account. So yeah, 18's as good a number as any and far better than most.

For me, watching a hot 17 yr old girl getting tickled is very attractive. Does that make me a paedophile? I hope not. Tickling a hot 17-yr old would have it's advantages for me too. Again, does that make me sick?

This would be a fine analogy to use if the only objection to the site in question was a legal one, however the fact is that people don't find paedophilia objectionable just because Constable J. Arsemongler says it is objectionable; they find it objectionable because it involves the performing and depiction of sexual acts upon children, people who have not reached physical maturity and whose understanding of the world is such that any consent they give cannot truly be consent in any rational sense of the word. You said it yourself; "Anything involving minors is wrong - period.". Why do you think that? Is it because it's written in some book somewhere, or is it because you find the very notion of sexualising a child viscerally repugnant? Yeah, that's how everyone else feels about it too, regardless of laws or whatever.

And here is another question. If, and I only say if, those girls were actually 18 (or even 54) would the content still be disturbing?

Well yeah, I'd find it disturbing because I don't want to see some crusty old woman on my computer screen in any capacity let alone being tickled, that shit's just not on, but that'd be a matter of personal taste. There would be no ambiguity regarding the adulthood of a 54 year old, so any complaints would be purely subjective.

 

[Babyshambles]

I didn't click on the link for the vid for sale but I can guess that it was a bit offensive to many people and if it involved tickling young children then I guess I can agree with the general sentiment expressed in this thread.

However, I find almost equally offensive those members who chose to express their opinions with such vulgarity.

Makes me wonder if those people are the ones to whom the paraphrase "methinks the tickle fetishists doth protest too much" can be applied.

Just a little food for thought.

I'm not sure if they're are protesting too much because they actually like it? For me the girls looked at least 15 at the very least. Now for me, tickling a clothed 15 yr old would be hot. That is to my shame, perhaps, but tickling a clothed 15 yr old would not constitute abuse. How does one define child abuse?

If I was to download a clip of a young girl walking across a road holding her mother's hand - would that be child abuse? Almost certainly not. But what if by some mis-fortune I found that to be incredibly hot - would it then be child abuse because of it's impact on me? I would say not.

What then constitutes child abuse in the world of the fetish, where anything and everything - no matter how innocent and innocuous (or not) - can be sexual.

My answer would have to be the impact on the person in question. Did those girl's feel abused? To which I would say, probably yes. If they were under legal age (which seems almost certain) then they were almost certainly exploited and should they ever find out that the clips were on the internet would probably feel abused.

But, what if they were under age and they consented to the activity. What if they had even approached the vendor and requested that they be filmed. In whatever circumstances th vendor has a responsibiliy to the law and he went against that - knowingly - hence the disclaimer.

In my opinion whether or not abuse transpires comes down to how the other person interpreted the action. If a non tickling fetishist tickled a young girl (perhaps a moher tickling her daughter) that would not be abuse. Is there any real difference if the tickling fetishist tickles that young girl in the same way?

To the girl - no.

But this is a dangerous arguement. How can one know whether the person will take an action that is yet to be performed as abusive? And even if that person consents to the activity, don't we fetishits have a responsibility to draw the line at tickling younger members of society. Maybe.

What about the supposed duality of the tickling fetish - where one can tickle both innocently and for sexual gratification. I have read people describing that they can tickle a relative or minor in a playful way, and tickle a lover in a sexual way. I don't believe that this duality really exists for the true fetishist, except within their mind, but it's interesting.

With application to the circumstances of the thread, in my mind it is abuse if they were minors. Even if they were 17 yrs 364 days old at point of filming. The law is firm and should apply.

But what if the law had not been broken? The website said that the clips were legitimate as they didn't involve any sexual act or any form of nudity. Is that true? Perhaps. But their close juxtaposition with sexual clips makes that an irrelevant distinction to me.

But I come back to this. What is in an age, and what is the significance of consent where minors are concerned - especially when the "abuse" in question would not be considered as such by most people.

If I tickle a 15 yr old and she consents and she does not take it sexually, and I do not give any indication that I am doing it for a sexual reason - is that abuse? Only, in my mind I would say.

Tickling is unusual in that it is also a sexual activity. There is this duality between sexual and non-sexual tickling - which I would argue does not exist for the tickling fetishist. Infact I would make it a criterion for assessing whether one has a tickling fetish at all.

Having a conversation without replies is not much fun. I'd like to have a serious conversation on this.

And also the nature of a society that condemns on hearsay. Mr Angry, who in my opinion has already given me reason to doubt his soundness of mind, says it;s abuse and immediately people are ready to castrate and imprison the creators of the material, without even looking at it. I could understand their sentiments if they were to add the caveat - "...if proven to be true"

One more thing, I am not going to say that I am not a paedophile, because it should be blatantly obvious. No, I do not want to have sex with minors. No, I do not want to abuse minors. No I do not want to exploit minors. But actually I don't want to abuse or expliut adults either.

But what is a minor - and what is abuse. Black and white parts are easy - but can somebody help us understand the grey.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

It's down now, so I guess whatever someone did worked.


That bad, huh?

 

[Babyshambles]

Hi, Just a quick response because I'm about to dash to the gym. Been eating too much chocolate and gummy bears...and bacon, and chicken, and chips and basically anything edible (and some things that are not)

But,


"I accept the whole devil's advocate thing but this isn't even a point. What you're saying here is that because some people look at you sideways when you tell them you like tickling, that means you (and by extension, we) are in the same bracket as people whose paraphilia involves the non-consensual abuse and degredation of children. Yeah, sure, some people find a sexual interest in tickling strange; it's outside the norm, that's not up for debate, but to say it's comparable in any way to paedophilia (or vorephilia, or rape/ torture fantasies, or any of the other oddball paraphilias I've seen people trying to justify in various places by comparing them to my own) is at best a glib assessment, and at worst ignorant (one suspects wilfully so in many cases)." headsnap, see post above

Remember that the site in question showed allegedly underage girls being tickled. You admit it yourself that tickling as a sexual activity is outside the norm and unusual. Is tickling therefore abuse? In this context yes? But if that clip were on a non-sexual website would it still constitute abuse (if girls were under age yadda yadda yadda)

And if filming the tickle-torture of a girl at 17 yrs, 364 days and 59 minutes is abuse, why does it cease to be abuse in the next minute when she turns 18? In reality it doesn't - or does it. From te point of view of being in te business of making fetish clips it does, but outside of the niceties of the law it makes no difference. I would say abuse could extend to 19 and 20 yr olds, whilst no applying to 15 yr olds. That is controversial, but worth considering.

I've GTG, but can hopefully continue this later. Thanks for all your input.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Hi, Just a quick response because I'm about to dash to the gym. Been eating too much chocolate and gummy bears...and bacon, and chicken, and chips and basically anything edible (and some things that are not)

But,


"I accept the whole devil's advocate thing but this isn't even a point. What you're saying here is that because some people look at you sideways when you tell them you like tickling, that means you (and by extension, we) are in the same bracket as people whose paraphilia involves the non-consensual abuse and degredation of children. Yeah, sure, some people find a sexual interest in tickling strange; it's outside the norm, that's not up for debate, but to say it's comparable in any way to paedophilia (or vorephilia, or rape/ torture fantasies, or any of the other oddball paraphilias I've seen people trying to justify in various places by comparing them to my own) is at best a glib assessment, and at worst ignorant (one suspects wilfully so in many cases)." headsnap, see post above

Remember that the site in question showed allegedly underage girls being tickled. You admit it yourself that tickling as a sexual activity is outside the norm and unusual. Is tickling therefore abuse? In this context yes? But if that clip were on a non-sexual website would it still constitute abuse (if girls were under age yadda yadda yadda)

And if filming the tickle-torture of a girl at 17 yrs, 364 days and 59 minutes is abuse, why does it cease to be abuse in the next minute when she turns 18? In reality it doesn't - or does it. From te point of view of being in te business of making fetish clips it does, but outside of the niceties of the law it makes no difference. I would say abuse could extend to 19 and 20 yr olds, whilst no applying to 15 yr olds. That is controversial, but worth considering.

I've GTG, but can hopefully continue this later. Thanks for all your input.

no, id does not constitute as "abuse", but it is still illegal. same rule applies if you're 17 years old and 1 day away from your 18th birthday and want to buy a pack of smokes. the law is the law, and there isn't any 2 ways about it.

as for your admittance to finding tickling a 15 year old CHILD is hot, get help. seriously. i don't really care if you said "clothed", it's still sick.

furthermore, those kids were being filmed by a known porn company. i don't know, nor will i claim to know, Japan's laws concerning minors and needing parental permission to photograph or film them. however, i do know that if the parents had known what else they had filmed prior to all that, there would have been issues.

would we be as upset if 18 year old people were involved in the tickling, considering the other activities portrayed on previous videos? not nearly as much. the fact that children were lumped in with out and out porn was offensive, wrong, and against the law.

 

[Babyshambles]

IMO,

If those girls were under age then it is entirely wrong and inproper and should not be allowed to happen. I have even said that I would consider it abuse.

Re: finding a hot, beautiful girl being tickled very hot being sick. If she looks 19 and acts 25 but on paper is 15. What is in a number? If you can even admit that yourself that it is not abuse, then how is it sick?

I'd postulate that you think it is sick, because you won't countenance it being anything other than sick. Society hates child molesters and rightly so. Believe me my blood boils and I want to kill. But I cherish civilisation and so we sometimes have to forego those basic insticts and act properly. The comments Re: castration and support of vigilante-ism are non-constructive, animal comments that do not address the real issue and do not prevent further examples of abuse. If anything that type of non-progressive reactionary behviour will make the situation worse.

But that is my opinion

no, id does not constitute as "abuse", but it is still illegal. same rule applies if you're 17 years old and 1 day away from your 18th birthday and want to buy a pack of smokes. the law is the law, and there isn't any 2 ways about it.

as for your admittance to finding tickling a 15 year old CHILD is hot, get help. seriously. i don't really care if you said "clothed", it's still sick.

furthermore, those kids were being filmed by a known porn company. i don't know, nor will i claim to know, Japan's laws concerning minors and needing parental permission to photograph or film them. however, i do know that if the parents had known what else they had filmed prior to all that, there would have been issues.

would we be as upset if 18 year old people were involved in the tickling, considering the other activities portrayed on previous videos? not nearly as much. the fact that children were lumped in with out and out porn was offensive, wrong, and against the law.

 

[cabalist]

Oh, come on -- all of us with an interest in this sick tickling fetish are disgusting perverts (at least according to one apparently serious blog post I read recently). So, let he who is without sin....

😉

 

[Headsnap]

Remember that the site in question showed allegedly underage girls being tickled. You admit it yourself that tickling as a sexual activity is outside the norm and unusual. Is tickling therefore abuse? In this context yes? But if that clip were on a non-sexual website would it still constitute abuse (if girls were under age yadda yadda yadda)

Of course not. You're answering your own question with your comment about contexts; if the images are taken and distributed for the sexual gratification of the film-maker and others then it's abusive behaviour. It has to be; you're talking about sexualising a child, how can that not be abusive?

Likewise, were a parent to make a video of them walking across the road holding their child's hand and post it to a personal family website or something that's not abusive. If someone gets hold of the images and distributes them for the sexual gratification of themselves and others who find such activities arousing, that constitutes abuse. Dunno if it's enshrined in law but I'd certainly consider some fuckpig masturbating over any image of my kids "abusive"; though perhaps it would be more exploitative in that context.

And if filming the tickle-torture of a girl at 17 yrs, 364 days and 59 minutes is abuse, why does it cease to be abuse in the next minute when she turns 18? In reality it doesn't - or does it. From te point of view of being in te business of making fetish clips it does, but outside of the niceties of the law it makes no difference. I would say abuse could extend to 19 and 20 yr olds, whilst no applying to 15 yr olds. That is controversial, but worth considering.

If you're asking me for my personal opinion on whether the age of consent being set in stone is a good thing then I'll agree that, in terms of common sense, it's pretty daft, but when you're legislating stuff lines HAVE to be drawn and drawn definitively. Common sense dictates that a woman will be no more physically or mentally mature in the sixty seconds after the minute she turns 18 than she was in the sixty seconds before it, but the age of consent is 18 years. Common sense dictates that a driver is going to be no more drunk from the 0.4th milligram of alcohol in his blood than he is from the 0.3rd, but the limit is 0.3mg (well alright those are arbitrary figures; I have no idea what the actual limit is but you get the idea ^_^). As sad as it is to say a criminal justice system based upon common sense would be almost totally unfeasible; every trial would last for months, if not longer, and conviction rates for any case not based upon the most irrefutable and damning of evidence would be negligible, which, whilst having it's advantages, would be unfair. So yeah, in terms of common sense there's a grey area, but in terms of legislation there isn't.

As far as abuse itself, it can extend to anyone; if I was to film myself and my fully-formed adult homosexual lover making sweet consensual bum-love and then distribute it without his consent, that would be abuse. If I was to film an old woman reading a book in a park and then distribute it for the sexual gratification of others without her consent, that would also be abuse. There have been various convictions over the last few years of men (and, sadly, it seems to be an exclusively male thing) who have done things like posing as charity photographers and snapping women as they stood barefoot in buckets of beans or photographing women's teeth under the pretence of representing some dental magazine, because the images were to be used for the sexual gratification of the man who conned women into posing for them. What exactly they were convicted of I'm not sure, but I'll bet whatever it was had the word "abuse" in it somewhere.

Everything else aside, what a 17 year old girl has got to do with the sexual abuse of prepubescent children is beyond me. Are you saying that you consider there to be so little difference between a 17 year old girl and a 10 year old girl that they can be used interchangeably to make points in an argument? If you're going to start with that I'd disagree vehemently, and also suggest that is a similar rationale than the one used by paedophiles to justify their actions.

 

[cabalist]

Of course not. You're answering your own question with your comment about contexts; if the images are taken and distributed for the sexual gratification of the film-maker and others then it's abusive behaviour. It has to be; you're talking about sexualising a child, how can that not be abusive?

Likewise, were a parent to make a video of them walking across the road holding their child's hand and post it to a personal family website or something that's not abusive. If someone gets hold of the images and distributes them for the sexual gratification of themselves and others who find such activities arousing, that constitutes abuse. Dunno if it's enshrined in law but I'd certainly consider some fuckpig masturbating over any image of my kids "abusive"; though perhaps it would be more exploitative in that context.

While I suspect it might be very "normal" for most parents to feel offended by the idea of someone obtaining sexual gratification from thoughts about their young child, even wihout the knowledge or participation of the child in any way, if some "sick fuck" gets off looking at pictures of, say, a "naked dog", does it follow that this qualifies for a charge of "animal abuse"? I don't claim to know what the law says about this, but while I can understand that anyone might typically feel "appalled" by anything which might appear as a "deviant" sexual preference, this doesn't seem particularly rational to me. But then, there are many laws which seem irrational to me.

So yeah, in terms of common sense there's a grey area, but in terms of legislation there isn't.

However, having said what I did above, I supect that "the law" often displays more "common sense" in an ability to distinguish shades of grey better than many people do. Who was it that said common sense doesn't seem to be particularly common...or words to that effect? Were that not the case, perhaps "lynching" would altogether replace our legal system(s).

 

[Lauren Tyler]

If I may add my opinion please.

What they did is illegal. The act of tickling someone in itself isn't illegal, unless you're doing it to someone who doesn't want you to. However, in a case like this, a lot of people associate fetishism with sexuality. Unfortunately, because of this, underaged girls starring in videos like that could be inappropriate because the girls are starring in a video made for the purpose of sexual gratification. While the girls themselves aren't doing anything sexual, it's still made for that reason, and that's what makes it inappropriate.

 

[RonMexico]

I only read maybe the first few posts in the thread, but by clips4sale taking the site down can we assume the girls in the site were underage (there appeared to be some debate here over whether they looked underage or not and I didn't see the site myself)? Or did clips4sale maybe not know for sure but not want to take the chance?

 

[cloudgazer2k]

I only read maybe the first few posts in the thread, but by clips4sale taking the site down can we assume the girls in the site were underage (there appeared to be some debate here over whether they looked underage or not and I didn't see the site myself)? Or did clips4sale maybe not know for sure but not want to take the chance?

just to understand what the OP was upset about, i looked. the girls that were in the videos (among other videos of bukkake and various penetration shots) could not have been older that 13. whoever it was that received the message from C4S (and thank you for posting that response) probably saw that as well, and made sure the account was killed.

 

[GirlWhoLikes2Laugh]

I clicked on the link and what clips are exactly the problem? Those are a whole lot of them that are listed.