nonconsensual ticklee's [Archive] - The Tickling Media Forum

BigJim

02-21-2008, 01:52 AM

but instead, "I'm sorry you were put through that,
WHY DON'T YOU SUE THE CRAP OUTTA THE SCHMUCK that assaulted you
since it's ON TAPE as well???"

Had that been me, I'd have brought the damn studio down on that woman's head.

This "Priscilla" babe belongs in jail, along with anyone who buys this crap KNOWING it's REALLY nonconsensual.
Or even just THINKING it is -- You buy it, with no disclaimers, you're financing assault.

There are , to date, two videos that have claimed to be non-kayfabe non-con: Without Consent by Realtickling and Non-Consensual Tickle by Paradise Vision/Tickling Paradise.

The first was a girl tickled by a friend, someone she knew well. If you or I or a random photogprapher who had hired her as a model had done that to her, she probably would have done. Her friend doing it to her... I imagine she'd have been less willing. Certainly unlike the second one she wasn't traumatised or afraid during the experience, although being particularly ticklish, she did "suffer", if you know what I mean. From what I gather from Toni (assuming it was truly her that answered the email) the incident did lead to their friendship failing though.

The second video was entirely different in atmosphere, and unlikely to lead to a police complaint for a much sadder reason. If the plot wasn't kayfabe, then the girl was a prostitute duped into bondage for a sexy video with two of PV's stooges playing a couple. Once she was tied up, the tickling started. This video (which I've seen but don't own) was actually quite awful to watch, because unlike the TC lee, the lee appeared truly afraid for her wellbeing. Being a prostitute however, she would quite possibly have assumed (as many do - albeit very wrongly) that the police wouldn't have helped her, or would even have arrested her, because of her occupation.

BellaRisa

02-21-2008, 03:08 PM

I think interviewing nonconsensual videos ticklee's would be great (realtickling;)):D

I'm curious about what you'd want to know from such a 'lee. How much of an asshole the 'ler was, how she'll never trust him or her again, how they took care of their wounds after she got loose and beat the hell out of them...? Or are you looking for the ridiculous, air-headed girlie response of how torturous it was and how she was soooo ticklish and just couldn't stand it, that kind of thing?

The Last Laugh

02-21-2008, 05:40 PM

This "Priscilla" babe belongs in jail, along with anyone who buys this crap KNOWING it's REALLY nonconsensual.

Because you believe it's truly non-consensual? Come on...

BigJim

02-22-2008, 02:21 AM

Because you believe it's truly non-consensual? Come on...

There is the school of thought that asks just how blonde can one girl be...

The Last Laugh

02-22-2008, 02:44 AM

There is the school of thought that asks just how blonde can one girl be...

So you're saying she was genuinely very upset about it, didn't see it coming at all, didn't want any part of it, but was dumb enough to allow them to tie her, untie her, then tie her again in a variety of different positions? Wouldn't she have tried to get away in between scenes or something?

Besides which, I seriously doubt that the Realtickling people were stupid enough to pull such a risky stunt, something that's technically illegal and that could have gotten them into serious trouble. It's simply not worth it.

See, I'm among the people who don't believe that it's a real non-con video. I can accept that she might not have been thrilled about the shoot, but otherwise she was a willing participant who knew what it was about from the start. The "non-consensual" aspect of the video is just part of the plot.

Now, I may be wrong, but if that's the case, what RT did and what Toni allowed them to do doesn't make any sense to me at all.

BigJim

02-22-2008, 03:29 AM

So you're saying she was genuinely very upset about it, didn't see it coming at all, didn't want any part of it, but was dumb enough to allow them to tie her, untie her, then tie her again in a variety of different positions? Wouldn't she have tried to get away in between scenes or something?

Besides which, I seriously doubt that the Realtickling people were stupid enough to pull such a risky stunt, something that's technically illegal and that could have gotten them into serious trouble. It's simply not worth it.

See, I'm among the people who don't believe that it's a real non-con video. I can accept that she might not have been thrilled about the shoot, but otherwise she was a willing participant who knew what it was about from the start. The "non-consensual" aspect of the video is just part of the plot.

Now, I may be wrong, but if that's the case, what RT did and what Toni allowed them to do doesn't make any sense to me at all.

No, I was actually agreeing with you.

But to discuss it from the Devil's Advocate, "non-kayfabe" POV...

Realtickling wasn't in on the shoot as I've always understood it. The idea was entirely Priscilla's. Brian and Kathy were not (legally) in the picture at all. The video was filmed by Priscilla's boyfriend, Jason. From what I gather she sold the video to TC after Toni signed a release.

As Priscilla is bi (call that an obervational guess on my part) I'd guess she found it quite easy to "network". She let know Toni know about Femfeet (as they were called then) before and suggested the photo shoot. As they were friends, the chances of getting in legal trouble were very slim, not least because that video wasn't even in the same category as PV's.

PV's first non-con vid also looked realistic to me. There is evidence that it was staged, but like RT's effort, the "acting" looked very realistic. Not something that happenes very often, if ever, in tickling videos.

Compare both of them to PV's second one. It contained acting just as shit as most tickling videos that bother to have a plot and the model subsequently appeared in several more scenarios of theirs. Add to this that the scenario as presented made the likliehood of getting away with it far less likely, had it been real.

You may be right Francois, I couldn't say for certain and I'm not a mind-reader. I do know that Toni's and the hooker's acting was exceptional by tickling video standards.

Toni getting away between scenes: Yeah, perhaps she would have done. As presented in the video, it seemed like Priscilla ended both the first two scenes as if it was wind, reel and print.

Heck, perhaps the Tickler in Black/White/Purple/Heliotrope/Mauve will step in here. The video is now nine years old and out of license. There's be nothing to lose from admitting it was kayfabe. Heck x 2, maybe someone who knows her has emailed her and she's reading this limey schmucko's merde and is laughing up her sleeve at me right now. How can the dumbfuck be so gullible?

I'm not saying I definately believe it was real, I'm just saying it looked a better job by far than a lot of videos in the realism department. I'm open to your point of view.

Babbles

02-22-2008, 03:41 AM

Because you believe it's truly non-consensual? Come on...

If it's packaged as non-con, and bought with that assumption --
the intent is to support assault & torture.

And to enjoy it with that understanding, more disturbingly.

I've said elsewhere repeatedly THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH FANTASIES of course, I DO empathize there,
but there's never an excuse for imposing this, obviously --

If it *isn't really non-consenting, but acting, it's *HIGHLY irresponsible, PROMOTING ABUSE.
There NEEDS to be a disclaimer on this sort of material if it's legitimately & ethically done,
even if it's in small print somewhere, or in some indirect code so as not to totally blow the miserable fantasy.

As it is there's enough reason assume it's real, even if it's "only" the last segment in which a woman who's repeatedly tied up is *truly tortured, when her "friends" figure they'll take advantage,

or if a prostitute was truly abused, she was either not aware she was being taped,
and/or not aware she was facing something she'd find unbearable,
and/OR didn't feel she could complain to the police, but cut her losses.

This issue has come up before, with the other video by "Paradise Vision," and apparently there's some really nasty stuff from another company I won't mention so as not to promote them (though I'm sure I don't need to) who has supposedly taken advantage of third-world women.

And I have come across posted clips which looked too convincing, I really felt sorry for the victim.

The creation, promotion or purchase of this sort of garbage is inexcusable.

As it's been said so often here, the abused usually can't enjoy tickling again. How many guys here have dated women who've been abused like that ---
If this model is one of them, if she was actually abused, it's just another sad "casualty" of some idiot's insensitivity.

The Last Laugh

02-22-2008, 04:38 AM

Obviously you chose to take one of my sentences out of context.
I stand by it regardless -- IF IT'S PACKAGED AS NON-CON, AND YOU'RE BUYING IT AS SUCH, THE INTENT IS TO SUPPORT ASSAULT AND A FORM OF TORTURE.

Yes, but what if a customer doesn't believe it's non-con, and thus is not "buying it as such"? From his point of view, he's not supporting assault or torture at all, since he thinks it's just part of a scripted plot. I'll grant you, however, that advertising a video as genuinely non-con is a bad idea.

By the way, there's no need to shout.

The Last Laugh

02-22-2008, 05:05 AM

No, I was actually agreeing with you.

Oh, sorry about that. My bad.

Realtickling wasn't in on the shoot as I've always understood it. The idea was entirely Priscilla's. Brian and Kathy were not (legally) in the picture at all. The video was filmed by Priscilla's boyfriend, Jason. From what I gather she sold the video to TC after Toni signed a release.

Interesting. I admit I wasn't aware of that part of the story. I still don't think it was a good idea to advertise it as non-con, though.

As Priscilla is bi (call that an obervational guess on my part)

Well, I don't know it for a fact, but she did seem to enjoy her work a lot.

As they were friends, the chances of getting in legal trouble were very slim, not least because that video wasn't even in the same category as PV's.

True. Friends do get pissed at each other sometimes, and they usually don't get each other in legal trouble over it. But I don't know why Toni was ok with the video being distributed, and why Femfeet though it was a good idea to buy it and sell it. It still seems too risky to me.

PV's first non-con vid also looked realistic to me. There is evidence that it was staged, but like RT's effort, the "acting" looked very realistic.

I'm skeptical about the video as well. It seems to me that the PV people knew better than to do something so stupid and potentially dangerous. If it were for real, the "hooker" could very well have reported them to the police and potentially made a lot more money by suing them than by signing the release after the shoot. I'm pretty sure the PV people realized that.

That being said, I agree that the acting (if that's what it is) is very convincing, and rather disturbing. Toni doesn't seem nearly as upset or angry as the "hooker", though. But then again, since she's Priscilla's friend (was?), she has less reason to be scared.

Toni getting away between scenes: Yeah, perhaps she would have done. As presented in the video, it seemed like Priscilla ended both the first two scenes as if it was wind, reel and print.

It's just that if she truly were an unwilling participant, the people making the video would have had to do the position changes by force, which seems too extreme to me. I have a hard time believing they did it that way. I may be wrong, but I assume Toni was ok with it. Maybe a tad relunctant because she was very ticklish, I don't know, but I don't think it was done against her will. But that's just my opinon.

I'm not saying I definately believe it was real, I'm just saying it looked a better job by far than a lot of videos in the realism department.

You'll get no argument from me on that one. Even though I don't quite believe it's real, I can understand why some people are so upset about it. It's pretty convincing stuff.

BigJim

02-22-2008, 10:51 AM

Oh, sorry about that. My bad.

Apology accepted, although I will require $50 by way of an apology. American, not Canadian. :p

Interesting. I admit I wasn't aware of that part of the story. I still don't think it was a good idea to advertise it as non-con, though.

I always imagined she went to Brian and said “I’ve sooooo got this cool idea!” and he backed away going “Fine in principle, but I’m not getting involved until afterward!” Entirely understandable.

Well, I don't know it for a fact, but she did seem to enjoy her work a lot.

Enjoy? Heh heh heh. :devil: That glaze that comes over her eyes when she’s licking between some poor victim’s toes or kneading a hip-bone? That’s the sort of horny trance 45 year olds get when they see the eighteen year old friend of their daughter naked in the shower by accident. On the face of a fat, bald git in his 40’s it would look repulsive (at 29 years old I’m already two out of three  ), but on her face it looked bloody sexy.

True. Friends do get pissed at each other sometimes, and they usually don't get each other in legal trouble over it. But I don't know why Toni was ok with the video being distributed, and why Femfeet though it was a good idea to buy it and sell it. It still seems too risky to me.

Probably something to do with the money she was offered at the time. What was the going rate at the time, $300 or $400 US? Most twenty one year olds would have accepted that if they were broad-minded enough to do a bondage shoot in the first place and what they were getting paid for was already in the past.

I'm skeptical about the video as well. It seems to me that the PV people knew better than to do something so stupid and potentially dangerous. If it were for real, the "hooker" could very well have reported them to the police and potentially made a lot more money by suing them than by signing the release after the shoot. I'm pretty sure the PV people realized that.

Quite possibly, although I doubt she was the brightest bulb in the box.

That being said, I agree that the acting (if that's what it is) is very convincing, and rather disturbing. Toni doesn't seem nearly as upset or angry as the "hooker", though. But then again, since she's Priscilla's friend (was?), she has less reason to be scared.

Aye. The reason the prostitute seemed scared was because she was genuinely scared for what was going to happen afterward too. She may well have been thinking (if it was real) that they were happy enough to do this against her will, why not throw a little rape or murder in for afters?

Yeah, my reaction to seeing the PV one was livid fury. The TC one, although posed as noncom, was more funny than traumatic. Toni only got actually angry briefly in the second scene. In the first she was alternately just laughing and desperate, depending on whether her feet or ribs were getting tickled, and in the third she was just howling.

It's just that if she truly were an unwilling participant, the people making the video would have had to do the position changes by force, which seems too extreme to me. I have a hard time believing they did it that way. I may be wrong, but I assume Toni was ok with it. Maybe a tad reluctant because she was very ticklish, I don't know, but I don't think it was done against her will. But that's just my opinon.

But the way TC’s video was done, I thought it was quite obvious that after the first and second scenes Priscilla hugged her, said “well we’ve done it now, isn’t that cool? Let’s finish the photo shoot we started.” The thing being that Toni was gullible enough to fall for that line twice.

You'll get no argument from me on that one. Even though I don't quite believe it's real, I can understand why some people are so upset about it. It's pretty convincing stuff.

Both of them were. I’ve seen clips of PV’s second effort and it didn’t look even remotely convincing.

The Last Laugh

02-22-2008, 08:46 PM

Apology accepted, although I will require $50 by way of an apology. American, not Canadian. :p

Hahaha! You sure you want USD? The USD and the CAD are worth more or less the same these days. In fact, for a very short while not long ago, the CAD was worth 1.10 USD before going down again. To think it was only worth 0.62 USD just a few years ago... Good times for a Canadian producer who mostly received USD payments. Now I make so much less on each sale. Sigh....

Enjoy? Heh heh heh. :devil: That glaze that comes over her eyes when she’s licking between some poor victim’s toes or kneading a hip-bone?

Oh yeah.... That's what made her such an awesome tickler.

Probably something to do with the money she was offered at the time. What was the going rate at the time, $300 or $400 US? Most twenty one year olds would have accepted that if they were broad-minded enough to do a bondage shoot in the first place and what they were getting paid for was already in the past.

I guess so. If the shoot was indeed Priscilla's idea, I can see how it wasn't all that risky for FemFeet. Still not sure it was a good idea, though. But it's a nice fantasy, I have to admit.

Quite possibly, although I doubt she was the brightest bulb in the box.

Ouch.

The TC one, although posed as noncom, was more funny than traumatic. Toni only got actually angry briefly in the second scene.

Indeed. That's exactly how I thought it looked like. She didn't seem to be enjoying herself, but otherwise it didn't seem like such a big deal. Just an intense experience, but otherwise nothing overly traumatic. Still, if it truly was non-con, it was a rather nasty thing to do, especially for a commercial video.

In the first she was alternately just laughing and desperate, depending on whether her feet or ribs were getting tickled, and in the third she was just howling.

I wish all my models were such good ticklees (not in a non-con context, though). I'm always amazed at how many seriously ticklish models some producers manage to find. My own models are usually decent enough when it comes to tickling potential, but to be honest, very few are of the same caliber of those I see in many clips from other producers. My personal experience is that people in general aren't all that ticklish, certainly not as much as the content of the tickling forums would lead you to believe. Especially not on the feet. But some other producers seem to have much more positive experiences, having a lot of success finding excellent ticklees. I wonder how they do it. Do they go through a very strict selection process, only accepting a small percentage of candidates? Are they just a lot better at creating an environment that favors ticklishness in the models (what often happens with me is that the models are genuinely very ticklish, but react differently during a shoot because the circumstances are so different from a typical tickle attack in everyday life)? What am I doing wrong? Thing, is, I wish I could be more selective when it comes to practical ticklishness (that is, the reactions in front of the camera during a shoot), but I really don't get many candidates, so I typically have to hire most of the candidates that are decently ticklish, or else I'd run out of material very quickly. It's quite frustrating.

But the way TC’s video was done, I thought it was quite obvious that after the first and second scenes Priscilla hugged her, said “well we’ve done it now, isn’t that cool? Let’s finish the photo shoot we started.” The thing being that Toni was gullible enough to fall for that line twice.

It's pretty sad if she was indeed that gullible, but I suppose it's a possibility. But I still think she was more or less willing at some point of the shoot, at least. Calling it non-con is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Babbles

02-22-2008, 09:22 PM

Yes, but what if a customer doesn't believe it's non-con, and thus is not "buying it as such"? From his point of view, he's not supporting assault or torture at all, since he thinks it's just part of a scripted plot. I'll grant you, however, that advertising a video as genuinely non-con is a bad idea.

By the way, there's no need to shout.

That's precisely why I always include the qualification -- "if."
IF the buyer is POSITIVE it's not real, that's another story.

The fact that this stuff SELLS AS NON-CONSENSUAL material at all
whether it is or not --- and it appears some if not all could actually be ---
is highly disturbing,

Peoples' attentions spans are notoriously short --- If they only pick up a few sentences, let them see the bold print & just get the jist if they want it.

I'm glad you agree that at the very least, even packaging and promoting a valid video as "non-consensual" is wrong.

And thank you for at least commenting that "it was a rather nasty thing to do" if so.

Redmage

02-22-2008, 09:29 PM

There are , to date, two videos that have claimed to be non-kayfabe non-con: Without Consent by Realtickling and Non-Consensual Tickle by Paradise Vision/Tickling Paradise.

The first was a girl tickled by a friend, someone she knew well. If you or I or a random photogprapher who had hired her as a model had done that to her, she probably would have done. Her friend doing it to her... I imagine she'd have been less willing. Certainly unlike the second one she wasn't traumatised or afraid during the experience, although being particularly ticklish, she did "suffer", if you know what I mean. From what I gather from Toni (assuming it was truly her that answered the email) the incident did lead to their friendship failing though.Personally I think that one was as fake as any of them. The reason is the premise. We're supposed to believe that Toni let Priscilla tie her not once, but three times in the space of a day, when each time she was nonconsensually tickled to tears.

Once I'd believe. Twice might happen. But three times in one day? I can tell from watching the video that Toni is smart enough to remember to breathe, so I can't believe she's stupid enough to do something like that.

The Last Laugh

02-22-2008, 09:41 PM

THIS THREAD was a nice pleasant chat about getting the Inside Scoop on someone's misery, which was NOT assumed to be faked, and it's just peachy that some people can treat someone else's apparent torture as amusement to be further examined and expanded upon.

Why do you say "which was NOT assumed to be faked"? Is that mentioned in the thread's title or something? Is it a rule I'm not aware of? Why can't someone make a hypothetical argument from the point of view of a customer who doesn't believe that it's genuine? Actually, it's not really hypothetical at all. I personally don't believe that it's genuine, so chances are pretty good that some people who bought a supposedly non-con video thought as I do. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure other customers did believe it was real, and that's a problem. I also believe that advertising a video as non-con is wrong. I don't understand why you're upset at me and acting like I support non-con videos.

AND that is why I feel the need to "SHOUT.

No, there's never any need to shout. It accomplishes nothing. When you do, you lose your credibility.

Babbles

02-22-2008, 09:52 PM

Just a bit of an over-reaction...

The Last Laugh

02-22-2008, 10:35 PM

Did you actually read this thread's title? :shock:

Yes, it's "nonconsensual ticklee's". It's not "discussion automatically assuming that the allegedly non-con videos are genuine". There's no reason why we can't debate different aspects of the general topic. You might disagree with some arguments, but it doesn't mean they're not relevant.

And I apologize if I appear as though I'm upset with you, personally, that's not the case --- as I did note, I greatly appreciate the fact you commented that
non-consensual tickling, or the appearance/advertisement of it,
is clearly wrong.

Fair enough. Thank you.

In person, yes, I agree.
Online, unfortunately, as I also mentioned,
though you quoted me out of context,
bold print or CAPITAL letters will highlight a particularly significant statement.

I disagree. There is such a thing as Internet etiquette. And one of the conventions is that writing in caps is rude. I understand it's not your intention, but you can't expect other people not to be at least somewhat offended by it.

I don't see how my pointing out that you're doing the Internet equivalent of shouting is quoting you out of context. It's not even quoting.

Babbles

02-23-2008, 12:35 AM

Too much caffeine.

The Last Laugh

02-23-2008, 01:48 AM

That's incorrect.
"Non-consensual" has one distinct meaning. :illogical

So in a discussion about non-consensual videos, it's not possible to discuss various aspects of the issue, like the possibility that a video might not be non-con, or that a person might not believe it's non-con? There's only one possible aspect that can possibly be discussed? Either share your opinion or it's off-topic, is that's it? I'm sorry, but that's not a debate at all. It doesn't make any sense. You're just trying to control the thread and to impose your opinions.

You know what, I'm so appalled by that nonsense that I'm not only not bothering to read the rest of your pointless post, I'm also bailing out of the thread. I've said all I had to say, anyway. It's obvious you're not interested in a reasonable, logical conversation that covers issues other than those *you* think are relevant, as if you were alone on this forum and in charge of it. Good day to you, my good sir. I'm sure you're glad to see me leaving. Enjoy it.

Oh, and good luck with the yelling. Whether you accept it or not, you do lose credibility when you yell, including on an online forum.

Babbles

02-23-2008, 02:51 AM

Needed a bit too much editing, sorry...

BigJim

02-23-2008, 05:54 PM

Kind of entertaining really, in the same way that having a tour of Bedlam was entertaining.

1golfer

02-24-2008, 01:41 PM

...I really have to hand it to the video producers. I honestly didn't believe there could be so many suckers out there...but the producers know differently...there apparently are. Whether it's RealTickling, or Tickling Paradise...or the guy who did Miranda and those other shitty videos and sold the rights to Tickling Paradise...they're right. As long as they stick with their story and let the nimrods do the arguing for them...there will always be a market, and there will always be believers.

Amazing...but true enough.

Libertine

02-25-2008, 08:03 PM

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if someone else made this observation already. Non-Con is a fake for reasons.

One, no-one would would be stupid enough to film themselves committing a crime, and then happily sell the incriminating evidence to anyone who wants to have a look.

And two, while the 'victim' was supposedly sobbing her eyes out, said eyes were not tearing, nor at any point was her eye makeup smeared or her mascara running. Or her nose, for that matter.

Additionally, the model must sign a release to get paid. On all the shoots I've done or been involved with, this is done after the filming ends.

I'm surprised none of the women, especially, has pointed any of this out- and they're supposed to be the observant and intuitive half (O.K. Ms. Dworkin, R.I.P., 51%) of the population.

Kind of entertaining really, in the same way that having a tour of Bedlam was entertaining.

A tour of Bedlam? These days they call it watching Reality Television, my dear James.

BigJim

02-26-2008, 11:17 AM

I've only skimmed this thread, so forgive me if someone else made this observation already. Non-Con is a fake for two reasons. One, no-one would film themselves committing a crime. And two, while the actress was supposedly sobbing her eyes out, said eyes were not tearing, nor at any point was her eye makeup smeared or her mascara running. Or her nose, for that matter.

I'm surprised none of the women, especially, has pointed any of this out- and they're supposed to be the observant and intuitive half (O.K. Ms. Dworkin, R.I.P., 51%) of the population.

I dunno man, the one in the PV version seemed to be a bit smeared, if I remember?

The TC one, she didn't appear to be wearing much in the way of makeup anyway and she only let out one tear, as remarked by Priscilla at the end of scene three. I'd also say that given the scenario (non-kayfabe) of that one, the chances of it being considered a "crime" by the lee were exponentially smaller, if she did shriek,
"This is fucking against the law! This is not fair, you're my friend!" during scene two.

Besides, there's sobbing and sobbing. Sobbing for breath and screaming doesn't necessarily entail tearing, especially as said bird was rather confused by events already. You may be entirely right of course, in fact I'd very much like you to be. I'm just being Devil's Advocate.

A tour of Bedlam? These days they call it watching Reality Television, my dear James.

Or politics. Given the antics of Hillary Clinton lately, I'd compare it to that. :dogpile:

tickleuhard

03-14-2008, 08:02 PM

I'm writing to respond to BigJim's post of 2/21.
I do own a copy of the non-con video from Tickling Paradise entitled "Non-Consenual Tickle".
Although it is fairly good piece of tickling cinematography, I do have to say that I believe it is scripted and that the -lee was a stooge. I say this because at one point in the video it is quite clear that the -ler is giving her a hand signal when she begins to protest too much to the tickling of her stockinged sole. There are other moments in the film when the authenticity of the non-con part is put into question, but I think that is the most obvious.
Like I said, it is a fine tickling vid, but it is most definitley, at least in my opinion, no a true non-con piece.
I haven't had the pleasure, aside from a few clips, to view the one from TC Video...unfortunately.

TUH

Travalion

03-15-2008, 02:15 AM

I agree with most of what Last Laugh was saying, all of it. Babbles though, well to be honest just skipped those posts, for the same reason last laugh said.

Hawaiian Prince

03-21-2008, 11:08 AM

does the realtickling video still exist? I'd love to see what all the hype is about?

BigJim

03-21-2008, 12:01 PM

does the realtickling video still exist? I'd love to see what all the hype is about?

A lot of material that TC did in those days (1998-2000) appears to have only had a three year license on it. As a result it's no longer up for sale. Your only hope would be finding it for sale as a second hand copy or something.

Babbles

03-21-2008, 03:20 PM

A thank you to Libertine for the rather comforting insights and to Big Jim for expressing the hope that the former is correct in thinking this is all fake.

It's beyond incredibly disappointing that this stuff has ever been made available without exit interviews and fine print stating that
---no non-consentual assault/crime was committed here.
Otherwise it is totally irresponsible & promotes abuse
instead of a very realistic (but responsible) fantasy.

I may "fly off the handle" w/re to the appearance of abuse but there are worse reasons to get angry. I don't have the stomach to watch every such video, I've only come across a couple,
and I'm hoping I was too incensed to catch the nuances many here have said do mark those as good fakes.

To those of you who buy this material *hoping to see REAL torture, or worse, produce it,
well,

may you only find equally inconsiderate criminal mates, :mad:
victims who refuse to let you get away with gross mistreatment,
and/or do the other two-thirds? of humanity a huge favor
and remain celibate.

I'm still amazed at the number of guys on this site who cheer when a woman is (or appears to be) really abused
and then wonder why they're still single. :shock:

Mystery2009

10-03-2009, 05:49 PM

I really don't get it.

Had that been me, I'd have brought the damn studio down on that woman's head.

This "Priscilla" babe belongs in jail, along with anyone who buys this crap KNOWING it's REALLY nonconsensual.
Or even just THINKING it is -- You buy it, with no disclaimers, you're financing assault.

Assault on tape. [/B] It's criminal for a reason, folks.
And you buggers WONDER why people think fetishists are scumbags.

If there's a *possibility this was really non-con, and you bought it thinking that,

then some of you are. :Grrr:

Well I have seen a clip of this video, and considering Miss Summer is bound in different positions in each scene I would have to assume that this isn't truely Non-Con. Plus she would have had to sighn a release form for TC/Real Tickling to be allowed to use the footage.

1golfer

10-05-2009, 04:13 PM

...just go to youtube, type in tickling and you'll see plenty of non-con tickling. That TC and Paradise junk was as fake as Pamela Anderson's breasts.

BigJim

10-07-2009, 04:20 AM

Well I have seen a clip of this video, and considering Miss Summer is bound in different positions in each scene I would have to assume that this isn't truely Non-Con. Plus she would have had to sighn a release form for TC/Real Tickling to be allowed to use the footage.

She did, as did the girl in the first PV version. I remember the true/kayfabe story of them being talked about at the time.

BigJim

10-07-2009, 04:34 AM

...just go to youtube, type in tickling and you'll see plenty of non-con tickling. That TC and Paradise junk was as fake as Pamela Anderson's breasts.

Damn Golfer, you still alive dude? :D

Adam

10-11-2009, 08:22 PM

ElFewja

10-11-2009, 09:42 PM

Although it does make considerably more sense, under those circumstances Adam, for the video to have been faked, there mere fact that she posed in an audition does not mean that every tickling session thereafter was therefore consensual.

It does make it significantly more likely, especially if she was under a different name, but does not guarantee it.

I don't agree with myself, but it's a valid point. I could, for example, invite a girl over for a shoot, after which she decides she's too ticklish for a real scene. But then, you know, I decide I must have her, and then tie her up throw her on the bed and rub marjoram all over her body and watch it melt in the setting suns rays for hours while she... sits there and politely asks me to let her go. The point is, etc.

Anyway, supposing you are right, if my proposed situation were true there would be no reason to lie about it. What you have described conflicts with the video's description, and since non-consent is such a big no-no, I imagine that it be fake.

But then I am tired, and am just ending this post.

Etc.

BigJim

10-12-2009, 08:44 AM

Tickling Paradise's NC video is a fake. No doubt about it. The young lady that appears in it also appears in their audition films, which you have to be a paying member of the site to see. I was at one time, but not these days. In any case, she was using a different name and had a different hair color, but you could tell. No doubt about it.

They made two, which one are you referring to?

The first was a "prostitute" who was spreadeagled on a bed, the second was a "real-estate agent" who was tickled in stocks and on a frame.

Adam

11-03-2009, 05:59 PM

They made two, which one are you referring to?

The first was a "prostitute" who was spreadeagled on a bed, the second was a "real-estate agent" who was tickled in stocks and on a frame.

The "prostitute" video. I should clear up that, I think, at some point, the video did become non-consensual to a degree. The young lady was clearly getting freaked out by the length of time she had to endure the tickling. So, in that sense, you could probably say that it was. But given that she appeared in an audition clip, she knew the business they were in. She got overwhelmed and wanted it to stop, which is understandable.

maniactickler

11-05-2009, 10:56 PM

Ill go to my grave saying the first NC video was real. the real estate agent was definately a fake.

scopab2

11-10-2009, 05:34 PM

I have the audition clip in question. It was on the pay site as described. The only difference is she has dyed her hair for the PV non-con. Excellent lee too, BTW. I would have loved to see her in a more traditional set-up rather than the BS non con episode; would have been hot as hell. I am of course referring to the Prositute Non Con.

ClarkKent76067

11-17-2009, 07:34 AM

Sorry, I feel I have to chime in on this one. I think I've been lurking for too long. :o)
Anyway, Maybe I'm just missing something, but aren't the vast majority of tickling vids non-con, of a sort? I know the purpose of the thread is the true non-con vids, but aren't the "fantasy" vids also, at least in the fantasy of it, non-con? So for Babbles, how is buying a video that says it's non-consensual that much different from a fantasy video, one in which, say, a traffic cop is tickled against her will for pulling you over, or a girlfriend is tickled for cheating. Isn't it non-consensual in the context of the fantasy you've constructed? Aren't you still watching a video that is non-consensual torture and abuse, even if only in fantasy? Or maybe you only like videos from producers like Tickle Challenge, where there's no fantasy at all, and the girls are 100% aware of what's going to happen? Do you not have a problem with the stories I've read on the forum that are very non-con, or is it just the videos?
It just seems a little hypocritical to me to say "it says Non-con on it, so it's criminal and abusive", when most of the videos on the market are staged non-con, simply put in a fantasy setting. Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone tickling someone for extended amounts of time against their will (I think we've all tickled someone for a few seconds against their will at one time or another), but I really think this thread has been blown out of proportion.
IMO, what the original thread wanted wasn't to bring up old nightmares, but maybe give a differing point of view. We've heard from the girls that knew what they were getting into, whether it was for fun, for the money, or whatever. We haven't heard from someone who truly didn't like it and will never do it again, for whatever reason. Personally, I'm not that interested in non-con. If my 'lee isn't open to getting tickled, than it's just not fun for me, either. I admit I originally checked this thread because I was a little curious, and kept reading for the ridiculous flame war. Sorry if I offended anyone, but that's just my two-cents....or maybe it's three-cents by now. Everything is going up, now...Damn economy.....

Babbles

11-18-2009, 12:10 AM

Clark K,

I couldn't say I have a problem with the *fantasy of non-consensual tickling ---
although yes, personally I don't enjoy even fantasies in print or video where the 'lee is miserable either (so you do live up to your screenname! :)) --- but I just quit reading or viewing stories or clips which I know involve extreme torture or anything really unpleasant for the (hopefully fictional) 'lee. Some stories have made me feel a bit sickened...

But if it's limited to fantasy, in print or video,
I can't say "that shouldn't exist" since it's (not real), no one's actually tortured (even if the story is really unpleasant...:shock2: and horrifying or disgusting to me...)
& hopefully that's enough for those who relish unhappiness/agony in their fantasies... Until they find someone with the same interest...

1. However, if they act on it in reality, and grab/torture someone unwilling whether or not they tape it and market it ---
THAT poses the problem, that's assault, obviously.

2. And if they do tape & market that REAL non-con and attempt to profit from it --- it should be used as the basis for a warrant for their arrest (and shipment to a 3rd world prison for a few years...) :mad:

The model should obviously be *completely informed, s/he needs to either know JUST how bad this can get, have already experienced it,
and/or have a safeword if s/he's never been tickle-tortured more than a few seconds or minutes, etc...

3. However -- if the producers of these videos are LABELLING this "non-con" -- even if it ISN'T -- they're being really irresponsible --
That's *promoting real assault & the abuse of wo/men in reality --

That's saying, "this is real non-con, I can profit from it, and I'm getting away with it" :neenerneener: And I don't know that there's really/always some way to tell the difference -- Some claim there are obvious markers, but I'm not about to buy that crap to find out -

(Anyone who buys it-- thinking they're buying real non-con abuse-- is therefore a criminal).

Which is why there should be a (true :ermm: ) disclaimer, if not an exit interview, stating those who participated were fully informed, aware & willing THROUGHOUT the film....
even in really tiny print upside-down & backwards...
so as not to interfere with the fantasy --- but "ensure" it's not assault on tape.

Someone wrote, this is why videos involving animals will state --- hopefully TRUTHFULLY ---- that "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie."

I would not want to pay to promote torture, abuse or senseless killing, but I will see a *fictional movie which may involve that, even if I don't like that scene --- At least I'll know I'm not paying or rewarding torture.

In too many words, hope this helps :smilestar

ViperGTS

11-24-2009, 08:56 PM

A few things - sorry if I am reviving or beating a dea horse here, but -

First of all, this -

What a joke...I don't supposed anyone asked young Toni how she managed to get tied up in several different positions for a non-con video.

- wins the thread.

Secondly, I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong about having the occasional desire to non-consentually tickle someone. It's crossed all of our minds at some point, even if it was only a playful notion, not a malicious one. However, acting on it, of course, is not only morally incorrect, but illegal and fucking retarded, and that someone who would have TRULY done what this producer claims to have done should be arraigned on multiple charges, including but not limited to battery and sexual assault.

Thirdly, This is an OLD debate, as the clip is what, over a decade old now? I had some opinions on this when I first saw it, but I was a kid back then and have had several experiences that change my thoughts about this. I am now a producer of tickling videos as well, and as such, I find it very, very offensive that the producer would actually try to sell this as a true story. As a producer, I have a certain level of baseline respect for my customers, and on the occasion that I do try to implement a storyline or plot to a video, I make a concerted effort to TRY to assume the good people who spend their hard-earned dollars on my products are intelligent enough to want to be sold a story beyond the written description. I find it disgusting on a professional level that this producer, as old as the video and concept may be, even bothered stressing how "real" and "torturous" this was for the model when he doesn't bother ANY thought whatsoever into the consistency of the video itself. I also cannot comprehend how anyone, at any time, bought the story.

Oddjob0226

11-26-2009, 12:30 PM

Threads aren't contests.

If a producer doesn't try to sell something as real then from the fantasy aspect the producer isn't trying very hard and is killing his own product with poor marketing.

I think the Non Con one with Priscilla James is pretty unreal, but apparently Big Jim knows some details about it, including his interaction with the ticklee, and he insists it to be true, or true enough. He's never struck me as a liar or a promotoer of any one video company.

The 1st Non Con video from Paradise Vision, I am convinced the woman kenw what she was getting into. That doesn't mean she wasn't really, truly overwhelmed, either. So, 50-50 on that one.

Cantickles

06-13-2012, 03:42 PM

Does anyone know where I can buy this video? Does anyone have a used copy that I could purchse? IF so please pvt msg me.

BigJim

06-17-2012, 11:12 AM

I think the Non Con one with Priscilla James is pretty unreal, but apparently Big Jim knows some details about it, including his interaction with the ticklee, and he insists it to be true, or true enough. He's never struck me as a liar or a promotoer of any one video company.

The only thing I insist on is that if it is faked, it is one of only two times I have ever seen anything close to good acting from a tickling model. Nothing more. The other was Tickling Paradise's similarly themed effort.

No, I'm not a liar, but I imagine some people consider me to be a gullible dickhead.

My "interaction" with Toni Summers, the lee in RT's "Without Consent", was a single email sent by me to her and a reply received by me from her, circa 2000-02. Those were the days when Realtickling had a member site (which was shut down a long time ago and only had a dozen or fifteen ten to thirty second clips anyway, that looked like a wall made of Lego bricks when set to full screen) and there was an address for most of the models they ever had work for them in their VHS days. (I'm fairly sure it was something like toni.summers@femfeet.com or somesuch - femfeet.com being a URL that RT owned in those days).

Did the actual girls see the actual emails? Did Brian and Kathy answer them themselves, in-character? No idea. They were always presented as genuine contact, but then they would be, wouldn't they? No doubt I would be laughed at for suggesting otherwise. Maybe "Toni Summers" was a totally fake name? A "professional alias"?

Toni's sole email to me basically said that she no longer saw Priscilla as she'd moved out of the city (Los Angeles, I assume?) and wouldn't work with her again anyway, as the experience had really pissed her off. (Although unlike the TP video, she didn't appear afraid at ANY time during it, just desperate and annoyed.)

BigJim

06-17-2012, 11:14 AM

Does anyone know where I can buy this video? Does anyone have a used copy that I could purchse? IF so please pvt msg me.

Ct, I've replied to your PM.

flick

06-20-2012, 04:33 AM

Does anyone know where I can buy this copy of Toni?

Edgar

07-12-2012, 05:58 AM

I think, ultimately, non-con is at least part of the construct of every tickling fantasy that is sexual. Maybe it's the desire to dominate, maybe it the desire to submit (depends if you're ler or lee), maybe it's something intangible, but it's there. It's always there.

Of course, there's a line. I for one even in the (in my own mind) legendary To Have And Have Knot, sure it's a non-consensual story (elaborate, scripted, gun fight at the end, what was I thinking), but it's so packaged and produced that it's no different to an actual movie. Of course if it was actually marketed as 'real' footage of a non-consensual tickle torture session...that to me crosses a line both of trading standards (saying it's what it's not) and setting a moral precedent (suppose some sicko somewhere thinks "well if they can do it...")

Just my two cents.

Edgar
http://www.clips4sale.com/store/15974