• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

Real 100% No bullshit Non Consensual Tickling Video!!!

It won't surprise anyone that I think that this sucks pretty bad if is the truth!

Let me ask you this - how could you be sure she wouldn't sue you when you recorded that crap?
 
This girl is in need of money...you told her it would be bondage, but ended up tickling her without consent.

She assured you that she wouldn't file a lawsuit afterwards. Keep this in mind...SHE IS IN NEED OF MONEY. Probably more then you paid her to be involved with that video.

Unless you got that in writing...there is no way I would believe she wouldn't. This is the major issue with true Non Consensual videos...Your doing it WITHOUT consent which could lead to a courtroom no matter WHAT they said to you.
 
Uhm...Yeah....

You know that thread, where the OP asked, "Why aren't there more women on the Forum?"...
:idunno:
 
Looking forward to it. Please post. Don't let these negative nancies ruin it for everybody else.
 
Wow....you're a negative nancy if you respect other people's boundaries! You know, people who actually support something like this should be tied down themselves and then have something done to them that they don't like! Just to show them how it feels!
 
ah, marketing ;)

I think P.T. Barnum said it best.
 
I don't see a point in arguing with someone whose sig points out that they are biased against larger people, he, and others like him (and I'm assuming it's a him from the joke), are not going to change their views on this matter, which is a shame really, because they are everything that is wrong with this fetish.
That's right, advocates of non consensual tickling, you are a disgrace.

That's casting kind of a wide net. Not all of those who find the idea or the fantasy of non-con are like that. The undeniably brilliant C.A.B. is a case in point. A huge part of his art is non-consensual. But it's fantasy.
 
I wasn't aware that having a conscious made me a negative nancy :eek:. Definitely will keep that in mind.

Anyway, if the video is actually non-con.. then yeah, sorry. It's not even about tickling. It's about basic respect for other human beings. The nicest way I can put is that you're a dick, sir.
 
That's casting kind of a wide net. Not all of those who find the idea or the fantasy of non-con are like that. The undeniably brilliant C.A.B. is a case in point. A huge part of his art is non-consensual. But it's fantasy.

Thank you, Sir. I always advise to keep fantasy between your ears. Its pretty obvious to most that when a person is accosted against their will, it is, without question, outright assault. So play safe and sane and consensual.

On another note, if one wanted to market a video or upcoming videos with a big controversial splash to create buzz, one can claim all the non-con they want. Then, with a wink and a smile, and arm-in-arm with the 'fully consensual models', laugh all the way to the bank.

Like I said, folks. P. T. Barnum said it best. ;)
 
no room for real life non-consensual

I think there is a need for a loud and unified voice from those of us who count ourselves as part of the tickling community and share on sites like this that real life non-consensual tickling (or anything) has no place here (or anywhere).
 
Thank you, Sir. I always advise to keep fantasy between your ears. Its pretty obvious to most that when a person is accosted against their will, it is, without question, outright assault. So play safe and sane and consensual.

On another note, if one wanted to market a video or upcoming videos with a big controversial splash to create buzz, one can claim all the non-con they want. Then, with a wink and a smile, and arm-in-arm with the 'fully consensual models', laugh all the way to the bank.

Like I said, folks. P. T. Barnum said it best. ;)
Kinda like those old scary movies where the theatre made people sign a release, in case of "Death from Fright?"
 
Kinda like those old scary movies where the theatre made people sign a release, in case of "Death from Fright?"
<---- Bingo! GIVE that man a Kewpie Doll!
 
Wow....you're a negative nancy if you respect other people's boundaries! You know, people who actually support something like this should be tied down themselves and then have something done to them that they don't like! Just to show them how it feels!
I could care less, I'll get him to send me the video via PM if it bothers you so much.
 
I agree that this particular instance may be a case of marketing hype but i think it remains unacceptable to support anything presented as true nonconsensual. We embrace, enjoy, accept and support films with violence, torture, bloodshed, killing and all sorts of mayhem because there are legal and social and cultural and ethical boundaries that are not crossed and we all - the creators and the audiences know all is not real. Exclude here of course actual documentary footage or photos of, say, war or the increasingly prevalent videos that catch people committing violence and crime in real life (and in those latter cases the documentary evidence is often used to prosecute them to the full extent that law allows). So I think it important that there is a line in the sand drawn that does not condone nor support nor even lets it pass silently, any effort that insists it is true and real nonconsensual. I enjoy the art and creativity of people like C.A.B. and have spent many a dollor on the stories and pictures and magazines and videos that depict tickling, including fiction of nonconsensual, but all with the explicit understanding that all were works of fiction and consensual. Are there videos made where the lee agrees to be tied and tickled no matter what? Yes, but there was a point of consent, adult consent. And the argument that all this no consent is hogwash because "look at all the nonconsensual tickling that adults to to kids or to each other in horseplay" or the many youtube videos you can find of someone being ganged up on and tickled and all of this is nonconsensual and no difference. There are distinct differences of both intent and degree and our legal and social systems are full of noting both in defining what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Hence we have differing laws and penalties that distinguish between child neglect and child abuse, between unpremeditated murder and premeditated murder.
Tickling by its nature often includes bondage and restraint and pushing limits but true nonconsensual crosses a line.
I will not support in any way anything produced by someone who insists it shows true nonconsensual tickling of someone by sloughing it off with a wink and a nod that "they didn't really mean it" just as i won't in any way condone or support (even by watching at no cost) a supposedly "true" snuff film though i will gladly pay my money and thoroughly enjoy the coming summer movies with no end of depictions of killing and damage to people.
Tickling is wonderful and for so many of us an essential part of our life but true nonconsensual is no laughing matter.
Don't support or condone non-consensual.
 
I think if it needs to be said publicly, yes. I think 99.9% of the tickle fetish and BDSM community does NOT condone, and condemns in the strongest measure, real-life non-consensual assault. In my 30+ years active in both communities, very rarely have I ever suspected a whackadoo condoning it for real. Those folks usually end up having a long lunch with the FBI. Victim pressing charges or no.
 
I think if it needs to be said publicly, yes. I think 99.9% of the tickle fetish and BDSM community does NOT condone, and condemns in the strongest measure, real-life non-consensual assault. In my 30+ years active in both communities, very rarely have I ever suspected a whackadoo condoning it for real. Those folks usually end up having a long lunch with the FBI. Victim pressing charges or no.
Right. I know we're in danger of slipping down another non-con rabbit hole, here; but I'm generally a conformist within my non-conformity, so I'll chime in with a couple of points.

1: I think a lot of us have a great to desire to not want to seem weird, so when someone starts trumpeting things that are totally unacceptable within the general "don't hurt others" aspect of the social contract, it's annoying, and even a bit threatening. It's bad enough feeling like a freak, sometimes; the last thing you want is to get lumped in with these clowns.

2: I think the most vocal advocates of genuine non-consensual behavior get off just as much on playing that role, and shocking the other members, as they do on the non-consensual scenarios.
 
Wow...that says a lot right there.
Let me go ahead and clarify that in no way, shape, or form do I condone the unwanted physical assault of anybody, especially child or female. This is borderline rape, yes? And the consequences of such actions will often warrant jail and prison time. The thread starter pointed out that the girl was pissed off, and he had to pay her to be quiet. Fucked up.
 
The thread starter pointed out that the girl was pissed off, and he had to pay her to be quiet. Fucked up.

So...what are you saying? That it's okay because she wouldn't do anything about it because he payed her? Where does it not become unwanted physical assault? When she agrees to be quiet for money?
 
Right. I know we're in danger of slipping down another non-con rabbit hole, here; but I'm generally a conformist within my non-conformity, so I'll chime in with a couple of points.

1: I think a lot of us have a great to desire to not want to seem weird, so when someone starts trumpeting things that are totally unacceptable within the general "don't hurt others" aspect of the social contract, it's annoying, and even a bit threatening. It's bad enough feeling like a freak, sometimes; the last thing you want is to get lumped in with these clowns.

2: I think the most vocal advocates of genuine non-consensual behavior get off just as much on playing that role, and shocking the other members, as they do on the non-consensual scenarios.

Agreed. Just as ( and forgive me if I'm mistaken,) Paradise Vision promoted their 'non-con' videos some years back, I think our resident sage, the lovely and talented Rhianon, put it best in this paraphrase, "Only a FOOL would actively advertise that he has committed a real-life felony." Which brings us back to Thomas Harris. We forked over our cash in droves to see if Hannibal Lecter would gourmand on the flesh of a census-taker with a nice Chianti... but he didn't, and never will. Because its make-believe.
 
Agreed. Just as ( and forgive me if I'm mistaken,) Paradise Vision promoted their 'non-con' videos some years back, I think our resident sage, the lovely and talented Rhianon, put it best in this paraphrase, "Only a FOOL would actively advertise that he has committed a real-life felony." Which brings us back to Thomas Harris. We forked over our cash in droves to see if Hannibal Lecter would gourmand on the flesh of a census-taker with a nice Chianti... but he didn't, and never will. Because its make-believe.

Although it must be said that Brian Cox was the original Hannibal Lecter, and far better than Sir Anthony. There. Maybe that'll start some conflict. ;)
 
Although it must be said that Brian Cox was the original Hannibal Lecter, and far better than Sir Anthony. There. Maybe that'll start some conflict. ;)
tsk tsk tsk LOL! I fear that would grievously move us way 'off topic' on this silly thread, Wolf. Let's be polite and sit back and watch what others have to say. ;)
 
Door 44 Productions
What's New

3/28/2024
Stop by the TMF Welcome Forum and take a second to say hello!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top