So...Ethics in the Mainstream Clips Section?

Well, this is gonna get me yelled at in my first few weeks, but still. It seems an important question.

Some of you may have seen the discussions in the Mainstream and Renfaire chats about selling youtube rips and uploading renfaire videos to pornhub, but this seems to expose a more basic point- is it ethical to take people's personal videos and upload them as porn? Because I'm starting to get more and more creeped out by it the more I think about it.

Now, movies and tv scenes are probably fine, public arena enough to use as will. Maybe those clickbait tickle challenges too, it kind of depends on the details.
But I'm talking about videos of parties, or of families, or of friends hanging out, or other mundane things. Personal moments. The Paige's Tickle Machine sparked the whole discussion about selling it, but it seems there's a second discussion about the ethics of uploading a video a man took of himself, playing with seemingly his wife and daughters, to a fetish site for people to wank to without his or their permission.

Because make no mistake, this is a sexual forum, and this is being shared as pornography. I can see 3 links to porn on my screen right now, and we have a no underage rule. There's no deniability that this is for sexual reasons, and in the same way it would be incredibly awful to share stranger's underwear pics without their knowledge or permission, it seems equally bad, in this context, to share videos of people tickling each other in the same way. And while they're not the majority they were, there are still a lot of them.

Just, like, imagine you have a video of you and a partner giving each other a balloon. It's cute, it's sweet, and you probably don't think of it afterwards. Then you find in on a site of balloon fetishists, who are jerking off over it and posting sexual comments about it. Even though you probably don't find balloons sexual, it's still creepy right? Still violating? We get upset about people taking down their videos because of traffic from a fetish community but then again, wouldn't you take down a video of you horsing about with your friends when you found most of your visitors were jerking off to it?

Same principle here. I realize this is something that's on the site enough to get three subforums, but the more I think about, the more it becomes clearly really creepy. I don't know what to do about this. But I think we need to bring it up.

hopefulscrambl said:

Well, this is gonna get me yelled at in my first few weeks, but still. It seems an important question.

Some of you may have seen the discussions in the Mainstream and Renfaire chats about selling youtube rips and uploading renfaire videos to pornhub, but this seems to expose a more basic point- is it ethical to take people's personal videos and upload them as porn? Because I'm starting to get more and more creeped out by it the more I think about it.

Now, movies and tv scenes are probably fine, public arena enough to use as will. Maybe those clickbait tickle challenges too, it kind of depends on the details.
But I'm talking about videos of parties, or of families, or of friends hanging out, or other mundane things. Personal moments. The Paige's Tickle Machine sparked the whole discussion about selling it, but it seems there's a second discussion about the ethics of uploading a video a man took of him playing with seemingly his wife and daughters to a fetish site for people to wank to without his or their permission.

Because make no mistake, this is a sexual forum, and this is being shared as pornography. I can see 3 links to porn on my screen right now, and we have a no underage rule. There's no deniability that this is for sexual reasons, and in the same way it would be incredibly awful to share stranger's underwear pics without their knowledge or permission, it seems equally bad, in this context, to share videos of people tickling each other in the same way. And while they're not the majority they were, there are still a lot of them.

Just, like, imagine you have a video of you and a partner giving each other a balloon. It's cute, it's sweet, and you probably don't think of it afterwards. Then you find in on a site of balloon fetishists, who are jerking off over it and posting sexual comments about it. Even though you probably don't find balloons sexual, it's still creepy right? Still violating? We get upset about people taking down their videos because of traffic from a fetish community but then again, wouldn't you take down a video of you horsing about with your friends when you found most of your visitors were jerking off to it?

Same principle here. I realize this is something that's on the site enough to get three subforums, but the more I think about, the more it becomes clearly really creepy. I don't know what to do about this. But I think we need to bring it up.

Click to expand...

You are honestly asking the right questions. I'm thinking there should probably be some discussion and maybe some further protocol on here going forward.

Thinking about it a bit more, I think the issue may just be making sure mainstream clips are actually mainstream.

A tv show is mainstream. A movie is mainstream. A youtube channel with a 100,000+ subscribers is mainstream. Uploading them is fine.

Someone's living room, or bedroom or garden is not mainstream. That's private, analogous to home videos before the internet. Sure, it's on the internet, but that's a legal thing. Morally and ethically, it's private, and uploading it is creepy.

I think we have to make sure it is tickling media, not just anything with tickling in. I think the question is "is this youtube video more like a TV show scene, or a home video"? If the former, go ahead! If the latter, maybe leave that house party clip where it is.

hopefulscrambl said:

Thinking about it a bit more, I think the issue may just be making sure mainstream clips are actually mainstream.

A tv show is mainstream. A movie is mainstream. A youtube channel with a 100,000+ subscribers is mainstream. Uploading them is fine.

Someone's living room, or bedroom or garden is not mainstream. That's private, analogous to home videos before the internet. Sure, it's on the internet, but that's a legal thing. Morally and ethically, it's private, and uploading it is creepy.

I think we have to make sure it is tickling media, not just anything with tickling in. I think the question is "is this youtube video more like a TV show scene, or a home video"? If the former, go ahead! If the latter, maybe leave that house party clip where it is.

Click to expand...

And I think, for me in particular, while it is admirable to go after someone this forum may think has done something wrong, we should also look at WHAT gets put up here and is deemed ok, and thats where I feel your concerns come into play. Everyone was quick to condemn someone for selling clips on his own website, but someone else is also collecting these same clips? including those personal clips you take issue with? a TV show is one thing, but someones video of their friend getting a pedicure was not particularly meant for us.

Thanks for such an interesting post. And it's true that this topic, unfortunately, triggers some people into nastiness, but perhaps this time it'll stay civil.

So I don't mean to go into a rabbit hole here, but if an artist paints a painting of a nude woman, and I buy it and jerk off to it, do you think that's just as wrong as your balloon example -- because in both cases viewers are reacting to the content in a way the content creator didn't intend? Seems to me, no content creator has the right to control or police how viewers react to their content.

On other hand, if the real problem is where it's posted -- that they find it on a porn site -- that distinction collapses pretty quickly in the modern age. So what if instead of pornhub it stays on YouTube, but then the world's most famous balloon fetishist Tweets the YouTube link to his 50 million followers, saying "Hey fellow balloon fetishists -- Go jerk off right now to this YouTube clip URL." Would that be different for you morally? After all, it would be a separate person exercising their free speech rights to say they think an otherwise innocent video clip is sexy. In the end, does it really matter morally which server is sending me the 1's and 0's?

There are also issues of copyright ("some guy posted my video without permission"), and privacy ("I thought that video was just between us, and you make it public"), but I'm guessing you're not writing about those.

Bottom line for me is that if I made say... a comedy video wearing a monster costume (okay...which is something I actually once did), and let's say a group of gay, furry costume fetishists decided it was the sexiest thing they'd ever seen. I really don't think I have a moral argument to prevent them from jerking off to it, even though that was not my intent when making it. Just my two cents.

Well, this is gonna get me yelled at in my first few weeks, but still. It seems an important question.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the TMF. We've had this discussion before, but since the general consensus of this lovely community is generally "fuck you!", nothing ever comes of it.

My personal thoughts on the matter are thus;

It doesn't matter what it is. If it goes up on YouTube, it's public. Copyright doesn't enter into it; I'm pretty sure YT's terms of service spell out quite clearly that you forfeit any copyright claims to anything you put on their servers, but my memory may be hazy. They change their damn TOS every other week these days. You also can't stop people from jerking off to it or spreading it to forums like this once that happens. Jeff and the crew are pretty good about removing links to minors' content, but contrary to popular belief, they're only human. It'd be a good idea if the tickle creeps kept to themselves and didn't harass the people in those videos as taste and decorum dictates that they didn't consent to be subjected to creepery, and anyone with half a brain knows the difference. I'm pretty sure, though, that most tickle creeps possess a brainage amount somewhere less than 50%.

That said, once these videos go up on PornHub or any site like it, the uploader has crossed a line - not just morally, but legally. At least, in the US. To whit, any video displayed on these sites requires all people appearing on camera to have had their ages verified and certain paperwork collected complying with 18USC2257, which is a legal code that spells out what information must be kept on file documenting the performers in adult videos.

Now, I am not a lawyer, and the code itself spells out "sexually explicit" videos. Tickling clips where the participants are of legal age and fully clothed can be argued to not be sexually explicit, and that's a position that many here take. "It's not porn, it's just tickling!", they say as they upload their videos to PornHub. On the other hand, an argument could be made for intent; these videos are intended to be shared with an audience for sexual purposes, so once they go up on PornHub the uploader must comply with 18USC2257, if only because PornHub's TOS requires it. If they don't, PornHub can remove them, and if the government gets wind and decides that the second condition applies, whoops! That's a felony.

So in short, things are murky for social media sites in terms of consent. But porn sites? All legit porn sites are very, very clear about what must be done for clips to be hosted on them, and if you don't have your paperwork in order, those clips are in violation of that. Unless you have a signed model release, valid identification, and 2257 paperwork, you're violating the "model"'s consent at best and the law at worst. Don't fucking do it.

brotherted said:

Thanks for such an interesting post. And it's true that this topic, unfortunately, triggers some people into nastiness, but perhaps this time it'll stay civil.

So I don't mean to go into a rabbit hole here, but if an artist paints a painting of a nude woman, and I buy it and jerk off to it, do you think that's just as wrong as your balloon example -- because in both cases viewers are reacting to the content in a way the content creator didn't intend? Seems to me, no content creator has the right to control or police how viewers react to their content.

On other hand, if the real problem is where it's posted -- that they find it on a porn site -- that distinction collapses pretty quickly in the modern age. So what if instead of pornhub it stays on YouTube, but then the world's most famous balloon fetishist Tweets the YouTube link to his 50 million followers, saying "Hey fellow balloon fetishists -- Go jerk off right now to this YouTube clip URL." Would that be different for you morally? After all, it would be a separate person exercising their free speech rights to say they think an otherwise innocent video clip is sexy. In the end, does it really matter morally which server is sending me the 1's and 0's?

There are also issues of copyright ("some guy posted my video without permission"), and privacy ("I thought that video was just between us, and you make it public"), but I'm guess you're not writing about those.

Bottom line for me is that if I made say... a comedy video wearing a monster costume (okay...which is something I actually once did), and let's say a group of gay, furry costume fetishists decided it was the sexiest thing they'd ever seen, I really don't think I have a moral argument to prevent them from jerking off to it, even though that was not my intent when making it. Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the original poster, but for me, my issue is going after a someone on this forum for creating their own site and selling the content (thats a fucked up thing to do. I agree that it is), and THEN curating and collecting that content within this forum for everyone to look at whenever they please. Im not necessarily even talking about the mainstream stuff like tv shows and movies (that stuff was created with the thought that there is an audience) Im talking about the non mainstream stuff that isnt meant to be anything more than innocent. If we are going to police the content on this forum and how it gets distributed then there should probably be a talk about WHAT gets thrown around on this site for everyone to look at. There is honestly a responsibility to this stuff.

brotherted said:

Thanks for such an interesting post. And it's true that this topic, unfortunately, triggers some people into nastiness, but perhaps this time it'll stay civil.

So I don't mean to go into a rabbit hole here, but if an artist paints a painting of a nude woman, and I buy it and jerk off to it, do you think that's just as wrong as your balloon example -- because in both cases viewers are reacting to the content in a way the content creator didn't intend? Seems to me, no content creator has the right to control or police how viewers react to their content.

Click to expand...

Like I said, there's mainstream and there's personal.

Your painting of a naked lady is fine- like you say, a content creator can't stop people using their thing as they wish. Your photo of your naked girlfriend is different. I'd say (to take the original example) Paige, of Paige's Tickling Machine, isn't a content creator. He's uploading personal videos.

I think that's the difference. Your comedy video of a monster constume, the furries can have. Your video of you at a party in a monster costume, less so. The line is a little grey, and some things could be either, but there are things clearly on either side.

hopefulscrambl said:

Like I said, there's mainstream and there's personal.

Your painting of a naked lady is fine- like you say, a content creator can't stop people using their thing as they wish. Your photo of your naked girlfriend is different. I'd say (to take the original example) Paige, of Paige's Tickling Machine, isn't a content creator. He's uploading personal videos.

I think that's the difference. Your comedy video of a monster constume, the furries can have. Your video of you at a party in a monster costume, less so. The line is a little grey, and some things could be either, but there are things clearly on either side.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your distinction between private and public, as well as ownership versus copyright violations.

I don't know about the Paige example. When you write "he's uploading personal videos," how is he getting the personal videos?

What I do know about are the Renfaire videos, (which might be what you mean by gray area). If someone volunteers to be participate in a demonstration at a public fair, with dozens to hundreds of complete strangers walking around who could also easily watch the proceedings exactly as they're captured on video, I don't believe there's a plausible expectation of privacy. That's the legal standard by which I don't need permission to photograph people in Times Square (back before all of NYC was sequestered). So if your real issue is private versus public, or copyright, I don't see how either apply to the Renfaire videos. But I'd be interested in your response.

Complaints I've heard in the past from the Renfaire video opponents, by contrast, is that it's okay to post them on YouTube, just not Pornhub. Video platform-related shame is a very different issue than privacy or copyright, but it's something to which you referred in your original balloon example.

I never got into these Ren Faire clips-----but it really comes down to the legal standard of "expectation of privacy," which for me also applies to the ethical level, i.e., if you agree to be put in stocks as part of a public spectacle that is re-enactment, with a crowd of people around you, you should not have any expectation of privacy. However, these "upskirt" camera creeps, and others in our community who film barefoot women in public who are not part of any public event -- just sitting on a park bench or lying on grass -- without their knowledge or consent, that's unethical without the person's knowledge.

hopefulscrambl said:

Like I said, there's mainstream and there's personal.

Your painting of a naked lady is fine- like you say, a content creator can't stop people using their thing as they wish. Your photo of your naked girlfriend is different. I'd say (to take the original example) Paige, of Paige's Tickling Machine, isn't a content creator. He's uploading personal videos.

I think that's the difference. Your comedy video of a monster constume, the furries can have. Your video of you at a party in a monster costume, less so. The line is a little grey, and some things could be either, but there are things clearly on either side.

Click to expand...

Long discussions regarding ethics are something I usually enjoy but my thoughts are essentially aligned with yours. I think it's good that you are asking these questions and I feel like you are not alone regarding your feelings. Thank you for your courage in starting this discussion. It may not change minds but it will get people thinking, which is a start.

"Integrity has no need of rules." - Albert Camus

This is a valid concern and discussion. To just add something that I haven't seen brought up yet...

Another wrinkle to consider is when some of these people DO find out about the nature of some of their viewers and decide to cater to it. One of the more famous examples is Robyn (sp?) who, with her boyfriend, posted upwards of 30 or 40 videos of him restraining her in various creative ways and tickling her silly. That content seemed specifically aimed at US, and they were clearly having a lot of fun doing it, going so far as to open a new channel for that content specifically. Another recent example is... I forget the name of their channel, but the enormously buff bearded fellow and his gorgeous blonde girlfriend. They've also decided to make, for lack of a better term, amateur videos aimed specifically at people like us to view. I'm not defending one way or another, but just pointing out that some of these people WERE okay with what happened and just ran with it.

Now to address the larger issue here, I see what the TC is saying. I think the only real SOLUTION (and it would be unpopular) would be to just make a distinction between "mainstream" (scenes from movies, TV shows, unexpected tickling from porn films, or YouTube clips SPECIFICALLY when it's clear that the creators know the nature of the content) and "candid" ("vanilla" people uploading videos for fun that find their way here) and then simply not allow sharing here of the latter. In addition to the issues that were brought up in the original post, let's not forget the other issues that this type of "content" has created...

The "tickle challenge" thing has resulted in a LOT of videos of children doing it with their parents or each other, probably totally unaware of what they're opening themselves up to. Other completely NON tickle related videos of attractive girls and their friends comment sections are filled with "tie her up and tickle her feet lol!" and other nonsense that puts a black eye on the whole community. I could even make an argument that the "ticklish celebrities" section has created a lot of issues with AMA's, Twitter, and other social media that they use to interact with fans. There was a specific user (I won't say who, but we all know who I'm talking about) who used to spam celebrity Twitter accounts and use a "deceased relative" as a way to get them to answer.

I'm rambling at this point, and I guess I don't even really know what my point is, other than I think this is a discussion that is worth having.

I'll just note that some content creators on Youtube *know* it is a fetish, and take advantage of that for views and $$$. Nowdays, most Youtube tickle vids out there do have 100,000+ views. Most "personal" or "candid" videos are from a bygone era, one before Youtube monetization.

That said, this is a good discussion to have. I do like the suggestion of refraining to post Youtube videos of people having fun with their friends and family, that were never intended for mass public consumption. Videos that are geared towards monetization, however, should be fair game.

*edit* Wow, just realized I said the exact same thing as the guy above me. Oh well, I'll leave my post up in agreement.

rally said:

Now to address the larger issue here, I see what the TC is saying. I think the only real SOLUTION (and it would be unpopular) would be to just make a distinction between "mainstream" (scenes from movies, TV shows, unexpected tickling from porn films, or YouTube clips SPECIFICALLY when it's clear that the creators know the nature of the content) and "candid" ("vanilla" people uploading videos for fun that find their way here) and then simply not allow sharing here of the latter. In addition to the issues that were brought up in the original post, let's not forget the other issues that this type of "content" has created...

The "tickle challenge" thing has resulted in a LOT of videos of children doing it with their parents or each other, probably totally unaware of what they're opening themselves up to.

Click to expand...

Good post. Two quick things.
I think your distinction between mainstream and candid makes a lot of sense. I just wouldn't agree that either "unexpected tickling from porn films" or YouTube clips "when it's clear that the creators know the nature of the content" belongs in your list of mainstream. Mainstream to me would mean movies, tv and maybe something like a celebrity's IG video that accidentally discusses our subject.

More important, while I have the reputation of being a laissez-faire, free speech, First Amendment purist, (still respecting copyrights), where I draw the line is with children. And I've heard that counter-arguments that allowing pedo's a virtual experience reduces the chance they'll create a real victim -- but I don't buy that.

So I say if a grown woman volunteers at a public Renfaire, she doesn't get to police me from watching what total strangers at the Renfaire saw. But as soon as there's a child involved, I support zero tolerance.

rally said:

Another wrinkle to consider is when some of these people DO find out about the nature of some of their viewers and decide to cater to it.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Ultimately the crux of the issue is one of consent. If a YouTuber decides to start playing to fetishes, knowing full well that that's what's going on, that's perfectly fine.

The issue with the Renfaires is more nuanced than people are really acknowledging. It's pretty obvious that the bulk of the faire setpieces that are getting filmed and shared here are organized by fetishists who are flying under the radar with a pretense of "historical accuracy", because stocks were a thing that existed and there may or may not have been tickling so it's totally fine to just grab random girls out of the crowd (and it's always barely legal, cute young things) and "volunteer" them to get filmed in an elaborate bondage setup (no, toe ties are not "historically accurate") where they get touched by random strangers using social pressure to get them to "play along" and film it without their knowledge to be posted on fetish sites. I'm pretty sure if these women knew that that was the real intent of the actors involved they wouldn't be quite so keen on it. The fact that at least one of the guys involved in the original batch of them (Marco from Canelli) got kicked out of the faire once he got caught should tell you something.

Unfortunately, at this point you start delving into thought-policing and debates on nebulous things like morality and empathy, which vary from person to person (and is lacking in a great many people, especially in this community), so there's really nothing you can do about it other than spread awareness that these zany schemes exist and let people make their own decisions. I would even expand it to the video clip industry, as we have a few producers who bend over backwards to swear up and down that no no no they're totally not making porn, it's just a fun silly thing that erhm ah peoplearegoingtomasturbateover and would you just sign the release so I can put it on Pornhub?

Oh, and regarding TV and movie clips - you're not allowed to sell them. Period.

I agree with Phineas. Overall, this is a somewhat more complex issue/set of issues than it may appear to be on the surface. Raising awareness and open discussion (I'm very happy with how civil this has been so far ) may be the best option, for now.

brotherted said:

Good post. Two quick things.
I think your distinction between mainstream and candid makes a lot of sense. I just wouldn't agree that either "unexpected tickling from porn films" or YouTube clips "when it's clear that the creators know the nature of the content" belongs in your list of mainstream. Mainstream to me would mean movies, tv and maybe something like a celebrity's IG video that accidentally discusses our subject.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I think my wording was probably off. I was just trying to make a distinction between content that could be found in the wild and would be considered acceptable for sharing (in which case I think YouTubers getting in on it and KNOWING what they're getting into and quick "porn bloopers" would be fair game), and content that would not, such as some friends posting a video that they think is funny where they're goofing off and wind up getting creeped on.

In my opinion and based on what the mainstream section originally was pre-Youtube, I don't even consider Youtube created content as mainstream material. The original term in 2001 when the TMF came online meant tickling related content from TV and film, and to me it still means just that.

But I have to agree, I always found it creepy (and a turn off) when people began posting innocent young teens and family related stuff from Youtube here as "wack off" tickle material. Glad to see others are starting to feel the same. The "of age" ones on Youtube that are obviously hip to the fetish and playing dumb about it creating content is a different story...but that's still not mainstream in my opinion.

You guys are making some interesting points, it's making me rethink the mainstream section. Maybe the division should be like "mainstream" "ticklish celebrities" and "tickling sightings" or something like that, to represent tickling found in the wild that isn't mainstream.

I'm still on the fence about the tickling that gets posted on youtube though, I still think that's fair game. Good looking people post their content on youtube without the intention of being appreciated for their sex appeal, but that doesn't stop viewers from appreciating their sexiness. I see this as basically the same thing.

Super fuzzy line. Even if we decided to make a distinction, would be really tough to enforce.

Jeff brings up a good point in regards to the YouTube thing. Having thought a little about it, I think the only real solution to this is... Maybe create a requirement that the descriptions have to be a little more detailed as to what they're linking to. That way if it's something that someone wants to avoid, they can. No different than marking /F or /M content.

TMF Jeff said:

Maybe the division should be like "mainstream" "ticklish celebrities" and "tickling sightings" or something like that, to represent tickling found in the wild that isn't mainstream.

Click to expand...

Jeff, you just came up with the perfect solution that makes perfect sense Youtube stuff should be posted in a section of its own. Maybe called "Youtube Tickle Sightings" or "Youtube Tickle Finds".

I dunno. It seems to be if you post something on youtube or any public site, you understand what could happen with it and realize people may use it for more sexual means. It's just the way things are. If it's personal there's ways to restrict who sees it right? If you put it out there for the whole world to see, it's no longer private and what happens to it happens.

tk987123 said:

Enjoy it on your own if you must, but don't link to it on a porn site.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, in my opinion, this is the key point right here. I'd be the first to admit that I sometimes enjoy stuff privately that its creators wouldn't want me enjoying in that way. That's on me. However, it's a different type of wrong when you start publicizing that same stuff implicitly as porn. I would support any action on Jeff, etc.,'s part to curtail that kind of unethical publicizing.

ObsessedTickles said:

I dunno. It seems to be if you post something on youtube or any public site, you understand what could happen with it and realize people may use it for more sexual means. It's just the way things are. If it's personal there's ways to restrict who sees it right? If you put it out there for the whole world to see, it's no longer private and what happens to it happens.

Click to expand...

Again for what it's worth, I disagree. This kind of thinking seems like choosing to waffle when we're perfectly capable of making rational distinctions between types of content.

Let's say a woman posts a video of yourself on YouTube dancing, wearing a belly shirt. She considers it a fun, dancing video. It gets a million views.

Then she realizes the same link has been posted on a belly button fetishists' website.

Does she then feel victimized? I don't think so. I think we all have the right to decide what content of ourselves is posted publicly or is kept private. But once we make it public, we don't have the right to police whether a group we consider gross or depraved links to it.