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