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

[cabalist]

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.

Since I don't know the age of the girls, nor did see what was done in the clips, I don't know whether or not it was illegal, nor am I sure how you're so sure it was. However, if what many, if not most, people believed was "inappropriate" was illegal, this forum itself might well be illegal. In fact, what people may believe is "inappropriate" simply doesn't necessarily qualify as illegal.

Either way, I have little doubt that the site's decision in removing the material "in question" was ultimately a business decision far more than it was a moral one. Unless someone can convince me that people with business interests care more about morals than about business against all the overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise (Not singling out Clips4Sale here, but simply as a general observation). In fact, if "morality" had been their primary motivation in removing it, we likely never would have heard about this, as Clips4Sale might likely have screened the material before allowing it to appear at their site in the first place. That's just a "common sense" observation.

 

[ShadowTklr]

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

The clip store in question has been removed, Jen.

 

[ShadowTklr]

I am also late in arriving in this thread, so I'm wondering; were these girls unclothed, bound, or placed in provocative scenarios. Was this the issue with the clip store?

 

[drew70]

I clicked on the link when the thread was first posted. I saw a girl who looked about 10 or 11, clothed, but tied with her arms outstreached, tickled with big fuzzy pink things. I wasn't offended by this, but then I scrolled down and nearly hurled when I saw the same girl with what looked like a translucent plastic penis stuffed in her mouth. I reflexively closed the window at that point.

While I found the latter picture revolting to the extreme, I felt no desire to castrate or inflict physical abuse of any kind on the photographer. I just knew it was nothing I wanted to see.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Since I don't know the age of the girls, nor did see what was done in the clips, I don't know whether or not it was illegal, nor am I sure how you're so sure it was. However, if what many, if not most, people believed was "inappropriate" was illegal, this forum itself might well be illegal. In fact, what people may believe is "inappropriate" simply doesn't necessarily qualify as illegal.

Either way, I have little doubt that the site's decision in removing the material "in question" was ultimately a business decision far more than it was a moral one. Unless someone can convince me that people with business interests care more about morals than about business against all the overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise (Not singling out Clips4Sale here, but simply as a general observation). In fact, if "morality" had been their primary motivation in removing it, we likely never would have heard about this, as Clips4Sale might likely have screened the material before allowing it to appear at their site in the first place. That's just a "common sense" observation.

after reading this post a few times, i had to think a bit what you were saying. now, in case you missed the whole thread, what was happening was few little underaged girls were being tickled. yes, they were clothed. i did not see any bondage involved (and i don't think the same girl was being to what you described, Drew, but i digress). however, these videos were being sold for the purpose of sexual gratification, as one of the titles was the third most sold clip among others that involved penetration, bukkake, etc. doing such is illegal, immoral, and C4S did the right thing.

 

[Headsnap]

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.

No, that doesn't qualify as a charge of animal abuse because by the letter of the law animals have no rights. If you can find people stupid enough to pay you for pictures of "naked dogs" you can freely portray such pictures in whatever erotic context you feel like and distribute them however you wish, presuming you own the rights to do so, without fear of prosecution, because a dog is not a human being. If, however, you take a picture of yourself having sex with the dog it can be used against you in a prosecution, as you will then have abused the dog. I'm not 100% of the legality of distributing such images, but I think it's a fair assumption to say it is "DO NOT DO!" or words to that effect.

Your rationale here seems to be that because our sexual fetish is seen as deviant by some in the mainstream we have no right to complain about anyone else's sexual preferences. When the day comes that my fetish involves the debasement and exploitation of unwilling, unwitting and undeveloped children (or indeed the debasement and exploitation of anyone at all) then I will doff my cap to that argument, but until then I will oppose it for the ill-considered tripe that it is.

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.

You "suspect" that to be the case; I know it is very often not. If you'd like to discuss and debate the finer points of the Western criminal justice system and the trial by jury model with me I'd be more than happy to do so and at great length, but I honestly don't think a thread in which people are expressing their disgust about what is, in the mind of any rational person, illicit sexualisation of clearly underage children is the place for it. It is tangental and barely relevant to the actual discussion.

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).

Again, you'd be surprised just how close our modern justice system is to "lynching". Any objective person who's ever done a turn of jury duty, has been "in the system" in one way or another, or has ever read any case notes from a particularly emotive case will testify to that. I'm not saying that common sense NEVER enters the judiciary process at any stage, but it's a lot less common than most people seem to think. Frighteningly so, in fact.

But again, that's a tale for another time. I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me what it is they find objectionable about people taking rightful umbrage to the distribution of erotic material containing children who are clearly underage in terms more solid than "our fetish is not the norm so we should accept/ tolerate/ be less offended by other things that are also different" since that is quite clearly not a valid argument.

 

[PsymonJerusalem]

Yeah, the problem is, even though it's just the tickling of children, they were EXPLOITING them by putting them on a fetish/porn site and then profiting off of them. Of COURSE it's wrong.

 

[P[a]pi]

I clicked on the link when the thread was first posted. I saw a girl who looked about 10 or 11, clothed, but tied with her arms outstreached, tickled with big fuzzy pink things. I wasn't offended by this, but then I scrolled down and nearly hurled when I saw the same girl with what looked like a translucent plastic penis stuffed in her mouth. I reflexively closed the window at that point.

While I found the latter picture revolting to the extreme, I felt no desire to castrate or inflict physical abuse of any kind on the photographer. I just knew it was nothing I wanted to see.

Damn they used bondage too. Jeez laweez. And the whole sexual shit. Yeah, their ass is grass if any of their "work" gets into authorities hands.

But, just posting a picture of a girl or boy under the age of 18 on clips4sale is enough to go to jail. It doesn't matter what is done to them, if anything.

But, what was done to them will make the creators of the pics/clips stay in prison for a longer time.

 

[duck17_17]

Hope it was worth it when they are some inmates wife, Ive heard prison goes hard for these folks.

 

[cabalist]

No, that doesn't qualify as a charge of animal abuse because by the letter of the law animals have no rights. If you can find people stupid enough to pay you for pictures of "naked dogs" you can freely portray such pictures in whatever erotic context you feel like and distribute them however you wish, presuming you own the rights to do so, without fear of prosecution, because a dog is not a human being. If, however, you take a picture of yourself having sex with the dog it can be sed against you in a prosecution, as you will then have abused the dog. I'm not 100% of the legality of distributing such images, but I think it's a fair assumption to say it is "DO NOT DO!" or words to that effect.

While I don't claim to know the letter of the law in every jurisdiction in the world. I think you're mistaken in your claim that animals "have no rights" (although you seem to contradict yourself on this point in the same paragraph). In fact, I have personal knowledge of people serving jail time for abusing those rights. And it seems reasonable to assume that those legal rights are based on the belief that they have moral rights. In any case, you seem to have missed the point of my analogy. And I certainly don't see the point of yours, since AFAIK no children or dogs had sex in the clips in question.

Your rationale here seems to be that because our sexual fetish is seen as deviant by some in the mainstream we have no right to complain about anyone else's sexual preferences.

I think that would be overstating the case somewhat. Let's just say I see a certain degree of self-righteous hypocrisy suggested.

When the day comes that my fetish involves the debasement and exploitation of unwilling, unwitting and undeveloped children (or indeed the debasement and exploitation of anyone at all) then I will doff my cap to that argument, but until then I will oppose it for the ill-considered tripe that it is.

I won't argue the "unwitting" or "undeveloped" parts, since I don't know about that in this case. As for "exploitation", children are "exploited" the world over every day in one way or another as are we all, generally speaking. However, the claim about "debasement" seems to be a purely subjective judgment in this case and I'm not sure anyone has established that they were "unwilling". You seem to be making some somewhat extreme unproven assumptions there.

You "suspect" that to be the case; I know it is very often not. If you'd like to discuss and debate the finer points of the Western criminal justice system and the trial by jury model with me I'd be more than happy to do so and at great length, but I honestly don't think a thread in which people are expressing their disgust about what is, in the mind of any rational person, illicit sexualisation of clearly underage children is the place for it. It is tangental and barely relevant to the actual discussion.

Again, you'd be surprised just how close our modern justice system is to "lynching". Any objective person who's ever done a turn of jury duty, has been "in the system" in one way or another, or has ever read any case notes from a particularly emotive case will testify to that. I'm not saying that common sense NEVER enters the judiciary process at any stage, but it's a lot less common than most people seem to think. Frighteningly so, in fact.

You seem to be making more of the issue than I did. I've had some experience with the legal system and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that what takes place in same is always a paragon of rationality or common sense, in fact, I think I clearly implied otherwise. I merely suggested that it sometimes manifests more common sense than many people do, which I feel is largely why we have legal systems in the first place. Since, as bad as legal judgement can sometimes be, it generally holds more promise of serving justice properly than leaving it informally in the hands of people and their typical irrational emotional responses. Personally, I'd rather live in a world in which most human beings were entirely rational, thus obviating the need for a legal system. But I don't.

But again, that's a tale for another time. I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me what it is they find objectionable about people taking rightful umbrage to the distribution of erotic material containing children who are clearly underage in terms more solid than "our fetish is not the norm so we should accept/ tolerate/ be less offended by other things that are also different" since that is quite clearly not a valid argument.

"Eroticism", like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder. In fact, I'm not objecting to people taking "rightful umbrage" to what they consider "erotic material" containing children. I just find it interesting that they are complaining about it even while apparently feeling that there's something "erotic" about it.

 

[dskodj]

what cracks me up (and sickins me too) is that even after it has been more than proven that this was kiddie porn and kiddie tickle vids all over this store, and they were shut down..there's a few clowns comin on this thread and defending child porn (and trying to make themselves look like they're not). id love to see the hard drives of all the ones STILL defending here after this case has been long closed...and im sure the police would love to see your drives too.

 

[Babyshambles]

what cracks me up (and sickins me too) is that even after it has been more than proven that this was kiddie porn and kiddie tickle vids all over this store, and they were shut down..there's a few clowns comin on this thread and defending child porn (and trying to make themselves look like they're not). id love to see the hard drives of all the ones STILL defending here after this case has been long closed...and im sure the police would love to see your drives too.

Listen, Mr A....

some of us do not feel a need to disguise their latent paedophilia with pseudo-outrage.

Some of us would prefer to look at the world in a more objective fashion. And I'd like to here how it has been more than proven that this was kiddie porn.

Furthermore, and slightly more controversially, even if the girls were 15+ (Japanese girls tend to look very young) does encouraging their peers to mildly tickle them with fluffy things constitute abuse? And does filming it constitute porn? It's pretty nasty in the context and should be taken down - but if I asked a million people to list an example of "kiddie porn", I doubt any of them would mention this obscure example.

I agree that it is abuse because of the context - but only if the girl's are underage - which is probable - but not certainly known.

Over to you ......

This is where you call me a clown and tell me to go home, or similar. Nice contribution.

 

[cabalist]

what cracks me up (and sickins me too) is that even after it has been more than proven that this was kiddie porn and kiddie tickle vids all over this store, and they were shut down..there's a few clowns comin on this thread and defending child porn (and trying to make themselves look like they're not). id love to see the hard drives of all the ones STILL defending here after this case has been long closed...and im sure the police would love to see your drives too.

What cracks me up is the ASSumptions some people seem to make. As for what people may have on their hard drives which you have never seen, I guess I can only suggest not judging others by yourself.

 

[jk666uk]

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.

what he said

 

[Headsnap]

While I don't claim to know the letter of the law in every jurisdiction in the world. I think you're mistaken in your claim that animals "have no rights" (although you seem to contradict yourself on this point in the same paragraph). In fact, I have personal knowledge of people serving jail time for abusing those rights. And it seems reasonable to assume that those legal rights are based on the belief that they have moral rights. In any case, you seem to have missed the point of my analogy. And I certainly don't see the point of yours, since AFAIK no children or dogs had sex in the clips in question.

Allow me to rephrase; animals have the moral right not to have cruelty inflicted upon them. Aside from that they have no rights in the law; a court could not, to the best of my knowledge, find against a person because they had taken a photo of a horse standing in a field and sold it upon Horse-Porn.org that others might masturbate over it's pretty fetlocks.

I understand your confusion though, it was the same sort I felt when you first used the analogy of an animal in a debate about the treatment and status of adolescent human beings.

I think that would be overstating the case somewhat. Let's just say I see a certain degree of self-righteous hypocrisy suggested.

As far as I can tell I wasn't overstating anything; your opening argument was, to my eyes, simply a more eloquent phrasing of the old "people in glass houses.." nonsense that has been trundled out by every paedophile apologist since time immemorial.

I won't argue the "unwitting" or "undeveloped" parts, since I don't know about that in this case. As for "exploitation", children are "exploited" the world over every day in one way or another as are we all, generally speaking. However, the claim about "debasement" seems to be a purely subjective judgment in this case and I'm not sure anyone has established that they were "unwilling". You seem to be making some somewhat extreme unproven assumptions there.

If they're below the age of consent then they're legally unable to be willing participants in any sexual or erotic activity. That's why it's called the age of consent; any consent to sexual activity given by someone under the set age cannot be considered "consent" in terms of the law, and that's why anyone engaging in such acts with kids is charged with statutory rape regardless of whether the child consented or not.

In terms of common sense the same holds true. Unless you accept that a child is able to understand in adult terms what they're being asked to acquiesce to when making these sorts of clips then you can't truly consider them willing participants. I mean yeah, if you ask a kid to take part in this stuff they can say "Yes", but do they have any concept of what saying "yes" will mean? Are they able to understand, in the same way that an adult can, that people will be masturbating whilst looking at the images being made of them? In my mind the answer is no on both counts. On any count you'd care to name, to be honest.

I'm willing to concede that the word debasement is a personal opinion, but what else is one to call the practise of performing what, in this context certainly, is an erotic act upon a bound child?

As far as everyone being exploited, yeah in one way or another everyone is exploited the world over day in day out, but not necessarily for the erotic amusement or sexual gratification of others.

You seem to be making more of the issue than I did. I've had some experience with the legal system and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that what takes place in same is always a paragon of rationality or common sense, in fact, I think I clearly implied otherwise. I merely suggested that it sometimes manifests more common sense than many people do, which I feel is largely why we have legal systems in the first place. Since, as bad as legal judgement can sometimes be, it generally holds more promise of serving justice properly than leaving it informally in the hands of people and their typical irrational emotional responses. Personally, I'd rather live in a world in which most human beings were entirely rational, thus obviating the need for a legal system. But I don't.

Can't argue with that.

"Eroticism", like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Well... no, not really. To suggest eroticism and what people find erotic is not an individual thing is a bit silly, we're on a fetish messageboard after all, but I don't think it's so much in the eye of the beholder as it is in the mind of the person viewing it. I can sit and watch a pretty girl hoovering the floor without so much as a twinge of longing, yet I'm sure somewhere on the internet there is a Hoovering Media Forum where people drool over clips of such activities taking place. And before you ask yes, I would consider a picture of a child doing the hoovering to be exploitative and abusive if it were taken and distributed for the sexual gratification of other people.

In fact, I'm not objecting to people taking "rightful umbrage" to what they consider "erotic material" containing children. I just find it interesting that they are complaining about it even while apparently feeling that there's something "erotic" about it.

I don't necessarily think anyone finds it "erotic" in the way that you seem to be trying to suggest; I think, given the eyes through which we're viewing this material are they eyes of a person who finds tickling to be a sexual activity, that people are recognising in a way that non-fetishists can't that an erotic act is being performed upon this child. As I said before a non-fetish type person (or even a "fetishist" who doesn't consider tickling more than an act of intimacy) viewing that stuff might find it disturbing because it contains a clearly prepubescent child being tickled whilst tied up, and while they'd find that bizarre and worrying in the extreme it'd more likely be because the child is tied up and the clip is being touted alongside reams of pornographic advertising. A fetishist sees the child being tickled and finds it disturbing because they recognise the child is likely being tickled in order to satisfy a sexual fetish.

Hope that makes sense, if not let me know. I'm here all week.

 

[cabalist]

Allow me to rephrase; animals have the moral right not to have cruelty inflicted upon them. Aside from that they have no rights in the law; a court could not, to the best of my knowledge, find against a person because they had taken a photo of a horse standing in a field and sold it upon Horse-Porn.org that others might masturbate over it's pretty fetlocks.

I understand your confusion though, it was the same sort I felt when you first used the analogy of an animal in a debate about the treatment and status of adolescent human beings.

Uh...right. But as both are living beings with feelings and legal rights, I thought you would understand the analogy. But obviously I was wrong.

As far as I can tell I wasn't overstating anything; your opening argument was, to my eyes, simply a more eloquent phrasing of the old "people in glass houses.." nonsense that has been trundled out by every paedophile apologist since time immemorial.

Nope. You're still misinterpreting it. And as I certainly don't recall making any arguments in favor of pedophilia here, I'm not sure of the relevance of this statement.

If they're below the age of consent then they're legally unable to be willing participants in any sexual or erotic activity.

Um...what sexual or erotic activity? From the descriptions I've read here, it didn't sound sexual or erotic to me...did it to you?

That's why it's called the age of consent; any consent to sexual activity given by someone under the set age cannot be considered "consent" in terms of the law, and that's why anyone engaging in such acts with kids is charged with statutory rape regardless of whether the child consented or not.

I think we all know what "age of consent" means.

In terms of common sense the same holds true. Unless you accept that a child is able to understand in adult terms what they're being asked to acquiesce to when making these sorts of clips then you can't truly consider them willing participants. I mean yeah, if you ask a kid to take part in this stuff they can say "Yes", but do they have any concept of what saying "yes" will mean? Are they able to understand, in the same way that an adult can, that people will be masturbating whilst looking at the images being made of them? In my mind the answer is no on both counts. On any count you'd care to name, to be honest.

Children are allowed to "consent" to certain activities. Whether that applies to what took place in the case under discussion here it seems to me is a question which hasn't been answered definitively in a legal sense AFAIK. Certainly I doubt anyone who's spoken on the issue here is qualified to make that judgment in this case, despite what they may think, if only by virtue of the lack of complete information available to any of us here. But the fact that the store/material was "pulled" by the website is only "definitive" in terms of those in charge of the site cautiously covering their own asses as it were, not in a definitive legal or moral sense.

I'm willing to concede that the word debasement is a personal opinion, but what else is one to call the practise of performing what, in this context certainly, is an erotic act upon a bound child?

If I felt that tickling with consent was immoral (and it hasn't been definitively established that they weren't legally entitled to consent to innocent tickling -- it might seem merely an unqualified assumption that that might be the case, bearing in mind that the law on this might vary from one part of the world to another regardless of any particular individual's personal feelings about it), then I would consider virtually everything in this forum as immoral, regardless of any questions about age. And again, as with your feeling that it's "debasement", the claim that it is "erotic" also seems to be a matter of your subjective judgment, which suggests a circular argument -- or at least the heaping of subjective judgment upon subjective judgment.

As far as everyone being exploited, yeah in one way or another everyone is exploited the world over day in day out, but not necessarily for the erotic amusement or sexual gratification of others.



Can't argue with that.



Well... no, not really. To suggest eroticism and what people find erotic is not an individual thing is a bit silly, we're on a fetish messageboard after all, but I don't think it's so much in the eye of the beholder as it is in the mind of the person viewing it.

DUH...that's exactly what "in the eye of the beholder" means -- in the mind of the person viewing it.

I can sit and watch a pretty girl hoovering the floor without so much as a twinge of longing, yet I'm sure somewhere on the internet there is a Hoovering Media Forum where people drool over clips of such activities taking place. And before you ask yes, I would consider a picture of a child doing the hoovering to be exploitative and abusive if it were taken and distributed for the sexual gratification of other people.

Sorry, but I don't know what "hoovering" is. Am I perhaps too naively nonperverted? 😉

I don't necessarily think anyone finds it "erotic" in the way that you seem to be trying to suggest; I think, given the eyes through which we're viewing this material are they eyes of a person who finds tickling to be a sexual activity, that people are recognising in a way that non-fetishists can't that an erotic act is being performed upon this child. As I said before a non-fetish type person (or even a "fetishist" who doesn't consider tickling more than an act of intimacy) viewing that stuff might find it disturbing because it contains a clearly prepubescent child being tickled whilst tied up, and while they'd find that bizarre and worrying in the extreme it'd more likely be because the child is tied up and the clip is being touted alongside reams of pornographic advertising. A fetishist sees the child being tickled and finds it disturbing because they recognise the child is likely being tickled in order to satisfy a sexual fetish.

If one assumes that everything sold at Clip4Sale is all and entirely for sexual gratification and that purpose only, then I suppose so. I guess I'd have to admit that, personally, enjoying watching clips simply for humor and "general entertainment" as well, even as a tickling fetishist (although apparently not to as "obsessive" a degree as some here), since I find far from all tickling clips erotic in any way, I was perhaps naively unaware that those shopping at Clips4Sale have no other interests in life, or in other people, than sexual ones. But then, I don't claim to be a mind reader either. At least not enough to feel as "outraged" over the issue as some here might seem to be. But then, I've been accused of being anti-fanatical before -- if never before of being a pedophile. 😉

Edit: If tickling an "immobilized" child for the possible erotic enjoyment of others is immoral, then this very forum does currently contain a number of examples of "immoral material", despite the official rules here, although I assume that judgments have to be made in cases which may seem less than clear-cut. Truthfully, I don't know one way or another whether anyone frequenting this forum finds them erotic, although I do know at least one person who likely would, even though she doesn't frequent this forum AFAIK (and she's certainly no "pedophile", although barely more than a child herself). If I was as fanatical as some here apparently are, I might get just as "excited" over these examples as some have here. But as I'd rather not offer fuel for their um -- what did you call it? Oh, yes, "rightful umbrage" -- I'll refrain from specifically pointing them out.

 

[TickledToDeath]

I am not even going to look. I will take the word of the masses here!

 

[djhalo07]

I am not even going to look. I will take the word of the masses here!

I will also take the word of the masses... however it should be good to note the disclaimer on clips4sale before even going into the site. EVERYTHING behind the "enter" link is of an adult nature and therefore if they are below the age of 18, then they should not be on a site like that... period. I have read most of the arguments here, and for the most part, I can see points on both sides, BUT, I have to agree with those that believe it is wrong. Because of the descriptions I have seen from people I do not believe I need to see any kind of evidence, the accounts of my "peers" here is enough to tell me to stay away. Sounds like a trap for those people who end up estranging themselves from society and needing serious psychiatric help.

 

[cabalist]

I am not even going to look. I will take the word of the masses here!

I didn't bother checking it out before it was apparently removed either. But judging from what I've read about it here, I don't think we missed anything nearly as exciting as some here seemed to find it.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

cabalist, you mentioned that there are images/stories/clips of children restrained and being tickled presented on this forum. i implore you to give links to them so that they may be shut down by our moderators, if they do indeed exist. i, for one, am one of those that keeps an eye out for such material and, instead of letting it just sit there, bring it to the mods' attention.

what i saw on the C4S page has been described by other posters who saw it: young, immature girls being tickled, with the activity being filmed, and placed on a porn site. though i did not see any use of restraints, some of the areas being tickled were inappropriate, and it turned my stomach.

there are many others on this forum, like me, who have an active part in removing pedophiles from the internet and keeping related material off the web.

what i saw, and what several others saw, was the exploitation of children. end of story.

 

[U.N.Owen]

It sounds like these clips came from the same Japanese company I tried to warn people about in the video reviews section months ago. (That thread seems to have been deleted, though I don't know why.)

I'll repeat what I said there: the company that made these kiddie vids also seemed to put out adult tickling DVDs. People buying vids from ANY company should be very sure the same company isn't also turning out underage material. NOTHING sold by companies like that should be bought.

 

[gig1965]

I am quite surprised .......

....that no one has blamed it on Bush....yet.

 

[alchemy]

Did that actually come flying out of your piehole?!

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.

Um, are you actually sitting there trying to compare verbal vulgarity to kiddie porn?!
Anyway, what you refer to as vulgarity, I call strong language. Something as sick and offensive as this calls for strong language in protest.
Let me put it another way...
We are adults. We use adult language. Fuck, Shit, and such are just words. They can't hurt us. They can't cause the downfall of society. They wont cause you to go to hell or any other nonsense. They're just fucking words. They're just collections of sounds. Do you realize how primitive it is to believe that a series of sounds, when placed together in a specific way, is evil or bad? Not only that, the entire idea of what is vulgar in any specific society is always in flux depending upon how the society happens to be structured at the time. Therefore, the entire idea/complaint is absurd.
And furthermore, if the idea of child porn doesn't call for the use of strong language, I don't know what does.
I ALSO don't fucking appreciate your statement about people protesting too much. How the flying fuck can you possibly overreact to kiddie porn?! What, are you actually sitting over there thinking "Oh, he's using cuss words, he must be hiding something." People on this forum (well, most of them anyway) are outraged by this and rightfully so. As I said, sick fucks like that give fetishists a bad name and just make things harder on all of us...and passive aggressive bullshit isn't doing anything to help.

 

[KoocheeKoo]

dskodj, thanks for bring awareness to that disgusting site and helping shut it down.

My kudos to you! 🙂

 

[Headsnap]

Uh...right. But as both are living beings with feelings and legal rights, I thought you would understand the analogy. But obviously I was wrong.

Obviously you were, though given the fact you are comparing an adolescent human being to a dog I think I can be forgiven for missing the similarities.

Nope. You're still misinterpreting it. And as I certainly don't recall making any arguments in favor of pedophilia here, I'm not sure of the relevance of this statement.

The relevance is that I'm not sure what you're railing against. You disapprove of paedophilia yet you're criticising people who do likewise? You don't seem to be taking issue with the language they're using

Um...what sexual or erotic activity? From the descriptions I've read here, it didn't sound sexual or erotic to me...did it to you?

Not "erotic" in the sense that I'd masturbate to it or find it arousing in the slightest, but I recognise that the man tickling the child was not doing it as some innocent gesture of intimacy; if that were the case how do you explain the bondage or the phallus in her mouth? I find your level of density to be quite astonishing, and I do hope it is density (or, more likely, a desire to shoulder-barge the consensus) rather than an actual acceptance of such things as "the norm". I mean, you're on the Tickling Media Forum you don't think tying up a child and tickling them is an act of fetishistic eroticism? How about tying the child up, shoving a translucent penis in her mouth and tickling her? Or what about videoing it and then selling it on a website surrounded by other porn links with a disclaimer stating that it contains a child?

I think we all know what "age of consent" means.

Children are allowed to "consent" to certain activities. Whether that applies to what took place in the case under discussion here it seems to me is a question which hasn't been answered definitively in a legal sense AFAIK.

Well yeah it has; I explained it earlier, at least as it applies to us in Britain. A person can legally be considered to consent to taking part in sexual or erotic activity once they reach the age of 16, meaning that any erotic activity that takes place within the confines of one's home with a person of 16 is legal so long as they are willing participants (that means bondage, tickling, spanking and whatever else, not just penetrative sex). They cannot consent to taking part in pornographic material until they reach the age of 18, and thus making a film of anyone under the age of 18 is illegal, and if you were looking to prosecute this person it would not be difficult to prove that the tickling taking place was being done in an erotic context even if it wasn't being sold on a site surrounded by pornographic adverts and containing the disclaimer that it did (which, ironically enough, would probably be more useful in convicting the producer of the material than it is in discharging him of legal responsibility).

There's your legal definition. For a moral definition the child in the clips was quite obviously nowhere near the age of 18, nowhere near the age of 16 even, and was quite obviously prepubescent, yet she was quite obviously taking part in a fetish video. Is that something you find acceptable? Obviously not, because you've said several times that you do not support paedophilia.

Certainly I doubt anyone who's spoken on the issue here is qualified to make that judgment in this case, despite what they may think, if only by virtue of the lack of complete information available to any of us here. But the fact that the store/material was "pulled" by the website is only "definitive" in terms of those in charge of the site cautiously covering their own asses as it were, not in a definitive legal or moral sense.

Are you calling into question people's ability to recognise a prepubescent child when they see one? That's a fair charge I suppose, I mean she could have been a gymnast or be a 20 year old suffering from some sort of genetic disorder or something, but in my mind I'm satisfied that the greater likelihood is that the "model" clips was underage. I will concede that there is a lack of concrete information to confirm anyone's suspicions, but the fact he had put a disclaimer on the clips stating that the model was underage means that conjecturing she WAS underage is logical enough.

If I felt that tickling with consent was immoral (and it hasn't been definitively established that they weren't legally entitled to consent to innocent tickling

Kids can consent to being tickled, that's not in doubt, but would you consider being tickled while bound "innocent" tickling? Or would that seem immoral to you?

-- it might seem merely an unqualified assumption that that might be the case, bearing in mind that the law on this might vary from one part of the world to another regardless of any particular individual's personal feelings about it), then I would consider virtually everything in this forum as immoral, regardless of any questions about age. And again, as with your feeling that it's "debasement", the claim that it is "erotic" also seems to be a matter of your subjective judgment, which suggests a circular argument -- or at least the heaping of subjective judgment upon subjective judgment.

Yeah, because that'd be a logical leap to make. If tying a child up and tickling them with the child's consent is immoral then so too is tying up a 26 year old woman and tickling her with her consent. Although comparing comparing a child with an adult makes more sense than comparing them with a dog I still don't see how you can compare the consent of an adult to that of a child.

DUH...that's exactly what "in the eye of the beholder" means -- in the mind of the person viewing it.

Not in the same way as beauty though. Beauty is purely subjective; you'd have to work very hard in court to prove that someone is "beautiful", for instance. Proving that something has been done in an erotic context is far simpler.

Sorry, but I don't know what "hoovering" is. Am I perhaps too naively nonperverted? 😉

No, you're just too naively unBritish. Hoovering is vacuuming.

If one assumes that everything sold at Clip4Sale is all and entirely for sexual gratification and that purpose only, then I suppose so. I guess I'd have to admit that, personally, enjoying watching clips simply for humor and "general entertainment" as well, even as a tickling fetishist (although apparently not to as "obsessive" a degree as some here), since I find far from all tickling clips erotic in any way, I was perhaps naively unaware that those shopping at Clips4Sale have no other interests in life, or in other people, than sexual ones. But then, I don't claim to be a mind reader either. At least not enough to feel as "outraged" over the issue as some here might seem to be. But then, I've been accused of being anti-fanatical before -- if never before of being a pedophile. 😉

Well the entire purpose of clips4sale, certainly insofar as I can see (and insofar as their banner ads suggest) is to provide an easy ready-made platform for distributers of porn to sell on their pornography. They provide storage space and a payment system which negates the need to set up one's own. I don't doubt that it COULD be used for other things, in fact there are probably lots of uses for such a thing, but I've yet to find any evidence to suggest that it IS and thus I must logically conjecture that it is not.

I also find it strange that you've been described as an anti-fanatic, because your characterisation of people who purchase pornography seems somewhat polarised to me. Do others consider you an anti-fanatic in the same way that Satan is considered the anit-Christ, or are you usually less acerbic in your attempts to pacify "fanaticism" in relation to fetish videos containing underage kids?

Edit: If tickling an "immobilized" child for the possible erotic enjoyment of others is immoral, then this very forum does currently contain a number of examples of "immoral material", despite the official rules here, although I assume that judgments have to be made in cases which may seem less than clear-cut. Truthfully, I don't know one way or another whether anyone frequenting this forum finds them erotic, although I do know at least one person who likely would, even though she doesn't frequent this forum AFAIK (and she's certainly no "pedophile", although barely more than a child herself). If I was as fanatical as some here apparently are, I might get just as "excited" over these examples as some have here. But as I'd rather not offer fuel for their um -- what did you call it? Oh, yes, "rightful umbrage" -- I'll refrain from specifically pointing them out.

I would urge you to report anything you believe to contain the depiction of minors in fetish activities to the site moderators, because my understanding is the policy is zero tolerance for that sort of thing even when there's ambiguity involved. You can quite happily report such things to the mods without having to do it publicly using the report post feature, which is the little red triangle with the ! in it at the top (or is it the bottom? can't recall) of the post, which should put your fears about stirring up more of this "fanaticism" to rest. I would also caution you not to let this friend of yours download anything onto your hard drive; far be it from me to make any definitive comments about her, but if she finds kids being tied up and tickled erotic then her interests are somewhat at odds with the law and she could well land you in trouble.