• 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

The Misadventures of a Brat- (F/F E-NOVEL!)

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I haven't violated any of the rules here, but if an admin thinks I have, than they can take this thread down. Considering it's still up might tell you something.

It tells me that it's father's day lol
 
I can tell you, point of fact, that if you haven't received a message from one of the moderators, then they simply haven't gotten to it. While your story might have characters of age, the characters on this cover are distinctly giving the vibe of being minors, especially the ler. It doesn't have anything to do with the pajamas or the color palette either; dimensionally, they are quite small, and the manner of illustrated features gives them a pre-teen appearance. They are too fully formed limb and appendage wise to be noted as chibi, and they lack the distinct sizing with the eyes.
 
I can't wait to buy this guy's products. Not because they contain possibly-unethical art, but, rather, simply because his sales manner is just so charming.
 
One reason why I love self publishing books, is because it gives me a chance to create characters you might not see in these kinds of novels. I've seen quite a few tickling pieces before. Normally they are tall, have giant breasts. I want to create characters you wouldn't normally see. For instance I created a character who actually has a prosthetic leg! Even with that book I didn't make it some sick, weird thing either. She had a prosthetic leg, but that wasn't who she was as a character. So that's why I created a short character. That's why most of my mains don't have giant breasts. Also a lot of my characters are pretty short as well.

I'm not saying I'm the only one who does this, but it's something I enjoy doing. I don't write fetish novels featuring minors. I didn't even advertise my horror novel 'Daddy's Chicken Barn' here because the mains are minors. That's how mindful I like to be.

a_little_tickle_in_summer__f_f_e_novel__by_mrtenacious01_d9bn73a-fullview.jpg
 
I know im late to the "party" but there is an EXTREMELY HIGH and very surprising level of animosity in this thread. A lot of you are easily triggered and need to calm down. And those of you reporting the thread also need to calm down. Author has obviously been doing this for a while. Pretty sure he's not suddenly going to start drawing and writing child porn. His intention just doesn't match up with how we view it, honest mistake.

I will say though, I agree with what one commenter stated back on page 1. While artist claims this is "chibi" is doesnt really look like chili artwork to me. The chili artwork I am familiar with, the chili's have big heads and tiny bodies. I think in order for this pic to have been a more successful "chibi" pic, author should have made heads bigger and bodies smaller.

I, myself, on first glance thought this was two children tickling each other and thought to myself "the author can't be serious" but then read the disclaimer and was like "oh ok".
 
I know im late to the "party" but there is an EXTREMELY HIGH and very surprising level of animosity in this thread. A lot of you are easily triggered and need to calm down. And those of you reporting the thread also need to calm down. Author has obviously been doing this for a while. Pretty sure he's not suddenly going to start drawing and writing child porn. His intention just doesn't match up with how we view it, honest mistake.

I will say though, I agree with what one commenter stated back on page 1. While artist claims this is "chibi" is doesnt really look like chili artwork to me. The chili artwork I am familiar with, the chili's have big heads and tiny bodies. I think in order for this pic to have been a more successful "chibi" pic, author should have made heads bigger and bodies smaller.

I, myself, on first glance thought this was two children tickling each other and thought to myself "the author can't be serious" but then read the disclaimer and was like "oh ok".

I agree with the part in bold defo.

Pretty sure he's had other threads removed for this kinda thing.

imo i think it's weird some people are so chill about posting kids on here. I mean, sorry, not kids, just things that look like kids. wink wink
 
this whole thing is a goddamn trainwreck and I am enjoying every second of it
 
Well now. We have not had one of these in a while.

So I'll take a bit of time to post about why this thread is still here.

The TMF has a standing no minors in media rule that covers Photos, Artwork, Clips, and Stories. It boils down to no work that contains tickling and a minor character is valid to post here. Pretty clear, no?

It's a simple rule in conception, and it is amazingly easy to enforce in Photos and Clips. Videos and pictures with minors have a very short life span here they get reported and zapped. It's not hard to find out that actress 'X' was only 17 when a photo was taken, or she stared in some movie. Easy as pie to kill these.

But then comes Artwork, and it's brother Stories. Realms of pure creation featuring characters that don't exist in the real world and are subjectively 'fluid' with the application of time by a poster.

A great case of this was the cast of the Harry Potter books. But for that afterward chapter the characters are minors for the entirety of the series. So any work of fiction that is set in the Potter-verse during the events of the books is forbidden, as it stars minors. BUT if the characters are drawn from the time period of the last chapter, then it's cool to use them. But of course the writer would need to portray them as the adults they were in that chapter and make it clear the characters were from that period.

Wow that got convoluted fast. And thats over a book.

Then we get artwork. When we are 'lucky' we get a character that has a history and timeline. Kim Possible is a great example. Folks may not know it, but the character actuality has an official cannon that describes when her stories take place. About 80% of them put her in high school, and a minor. But the other 20% have her in college AND in official material she is said to be 18 years old in that period. So when I find a Kim artwork on forum, I need to decide what pert of her history it is depicting, and make a call. I've had to learn way more about Kim and a ton of other animated characters over the years as a result of this. It's WAY SUPER COMPLICATED. But its what we do. And by the way Scrappy Doo is always a minor. Don't post tickling stuff with the pup in it.

Then we have artwork where there are no age descriptors. All we have is the work and how it looks. We on the moderation staff have a 'ruler' we use for these cases. If we look at the work and we feel it depicts kids, then it is kids and it dies. Even if we have the slightest feeling it could be Kids it dies.

All in all we spend a lot of time figuring out the ages of imaginary beings.

And that gets us to this thread.

It got reported. A lot.

So we came to look. Clicked on the picture and "Whoah, kids ahoy!" was the impression I got.

But I also read the text. These are original characters and the author makes a clear statement that they are of age. Their look is based in style, not intent.

Okay.

So the post stays. It's legit. Later the author even posts a segment of the work where the character is shown to be well over 18, and simply tiny.

Do I like the artwork? Nope. I feel that most adults that look at it will think 'minors'. It failed the sniff test for me, but survives based on the actual cannon of the series as defined by its creator.

I'd personally advise the author to change his cover art. To make the issue as clear as possible that these are not minors. Why? Because this art is a dog whistle to folks that ARE looking for minor content. And I don't think he particularly wants that market place. He's damaging his brand and reputation in a subtle way with this works art, especially after the response this thread has pointed out.

I've always strived to allow the greatest range of creative works to live here on the forum in art and writing. At the same time I have balanced that by censoring out the meaningful dog whistles, clear attempts to end run our rules, and out and out violations. (Bet most of you don't remember the guy that serial posted art work of people tickling babies circa 2007) At the same time I find myself having to make ridiculous decisions about if such-and-such a cartoon character is an adult or minor. And sometimes have to be Solomon when the character has a cannon that includes periods of both. (Disney Characters I'm looking at you. Most of the Princesses have cannon where they are adults, even if it's direct to DVD stuff) The urge to delete everything and be done with it rides high some days.

We appreciate all the members who care about the forum and its well being to report material to us. We cannot look at everything ourselves. There is too much. So we rely on you guys to call our attention to problems. Or things that MIGHT be problems. We do come look, and we do make judgements. Sometimes we discuss them for a bit too, so it takes time. But sometimes like in this thread we make the call that it's legal. We may not like it, but we don't randomly kill shit because we don't like it.

We are always listening to how our members feel about content here. It's why the minor run exists in the first place. You all made it clear back around 2002 or so that you wanted very firm rules about such content and we responded. And we crafted something that is not subjective as possible. One size did not fit all, so we have what I described above.

I'm not going to make this a policy debate. I'm just speaking so you can see how we do this. It's good for us to do that every few years. As I said at the top, it's been a while.

So there you go. What the deal with this thread is and a whole lot more.

If you want to debate the topic open a thread in Tickling Discussion and I'll happily continue the chat there. Clear up questions, answer why is it like this and so on.

Myriads
 
Well now. We have not had one of these in a while.

So I'll take a bit of time to post about why this thread is still here.

The TMF has a standing no minors in media rule that covers Photos, Artwork, Clips, and Stories. It boils down to no work that contains tickling and a minor character is valid to post here. Pretty clear, no?

It's a simple rule in conception, and it is amazingly easy to enforce in Photos and Clips. Videos and pictures with minors have a very short life span here they get reported and zapped. It's not hard to find out that actress 'X' was only 17 when a photo was taken, or she stared in some movie. Easy as pie to kill these.

But then comes Artwork, and it's brother Stories. Realms of pure creation featuring characters that don't exist in the real world and are subjectively 'fluid' with the application of time by a poster.

A great case of this was the cast of the Harry Potter books. But for that afterward chapter the characters are minors for the entirety of the series. So any work of fiction that is set in the Potter-verse during the events of the books is forbidden, as it stars minors. BUT if the characters are drawn from the time period of the last chapter, then it's cool to use them. But of course the writer would need to portray them as the adults they were in that chapter and make it clear the characters were from that period.

Wow that got convoluted fast. And thats over a book.

Then we get artwork. When we are 'lucky' we get a character that has a history and timeline. Kim Possible is a great example. Folks may not know it, but the character actuality has an official cannon that describes when her stories take place. About 80% of them put her in high school, and a minor. But the other 20% have her in college AND in official material she is said to be 18 years old in that period. So when I find a Kim artwork on forum, I need to decide what pert of her history it is depicting, and make a call. I've had to learn way more about Kim and a ton of other animated characters over the years as a result of this. It's WAY SUPER COMPLICATED. But its what we do. And by the way Scrappy Doo is always a minor. Don't post tickling stuff with the pup in it.

Then we have artwork where there are no age descriptors. All we have is the work and how it looks. We on the moderation staff have a 'ruler' we use for these cases. If we look at the work and we feel it depicts kids, then it is kids and it dies. Even if we have the slightest feeling it could be Kids it dies.

All in all we spend a lot of time figuring out the ages of imaginary beings.

And that gets us to this thread.

It got reported. A lot.

So we came to look. Clicked on the picture and "Whoah, kids ahoy!" was the impression I got.

But I also read the text. These are original characters and the author makes a clear statement that they are of age. Their look is based in style, not intent.

Okay.

So the post stays. It's legit. Later the author even posts a segment of the work where the character is shown to be well over 18, and simply tiny.

Do I like the artwork? Nope. I feel that most adults that look at it will think 'minors'. It failed the sniff test for me, but survives based on the actual cannon of the series as defined by its creator.

I'd personally advise the author to change his cover art. To make the issue as clear as possible that these are not minors. Why? Because this art is a dog whistle to folks that ARE looking for minor content. And I don't think he particularly wants that market place. He's damaging his brand and reputation in a subtle way with this works art, especially after the response this thread has pointed out.

I've always strived to allow the greatest range of creative works to live here on the forum in art and writing. At the same time I have balanced that by censoring out the meaningful dog whistles, clear attempts to end run our rules, and out and out violations. (Bet most of you don't remember the guy that serial posted art work of people tickling babies circa 2007) At the same time I find myself having to make ridiculous decisions about if such-and-such a cartoon character is an adult or minor. And sometimes have to be Solomon when the character has a cannon that includes periods of both. (Disney Characters I'm looking at you. Most of the Princesses have cannon where they are adults, even if it's direct to DVD stuff) The urge to delete everything and be done with it rides high some days.

We appreciate all the members who care about the forum and its well being to report material to us. We cannot look at everything ourselves. There is too much. So we rely on you guys to call our attention to problems. Or things that MIGHT be problems. We do come look, and we do make judgements. Sometimes we discuss them for a bit too, so it takes time. But sometimes like in this thread we make the call that it's legal. We may not like it, but we don't randomly kill shit because we don't like it.

We are always listening to how our members feel about content here. It's why the minor run exists in the first place. You all made it clear back around 2002 or so that you wanted very firm rules about such content and we responded. And we crafted something that is not subjective as possible. One size did not fit all, so we have what I described above.

I'm not going to make this a policy debate. I'm just speaking so you can see how we do this. It's good for us to do that every few years. As I said at the top, it's been a while.

So there you go. What the deal with this thread is and a whole lot more.

If you want to debate the topic open a thread in Tickling Discussion and I'll happily continue the chat there. Clear up questions, answer why is it like this and so on.

Myriads

What a fantastically balanced, well-thought and even better-written post :iagree:

It's this kind of mindset that make this place so great :ty:
 
I'll be honest, even as a drawing, this gives me a similar vibe to a guy who produced quite a few tickling videos of "barely legal" models with a *disclaimer* that they are all adults. Later he turned out to be a high profile child molester preying on children as young as 10-11 years old, and as far as I know, currently serving time, ands still, his videos are showing on popular sites.

Jokingly, I might as well say: "In Mars Attacks! every speaker screamed "We come in peace", while the Martians massacred everyone". There goes the disclaimer.

Now I'm not accusing OP of being a pedophile, but that drawing there is about two minors, it can't be put any other way. It's not chibi as it was already discussed, "loli" has always been on the borderline of acceptable things, thankfully mostly falling out of it...

I understand that there are rather child looking adults, but those over there have absolutely nothing adult about them. And even shorter adults will have somewhat adult features, proportions at least. And if not, well... they are your mind's creation, you made them look like children instead of short adults, so there's that.

And while I can imagine a tiny woman being tickled when it's just *written*, after seeing the drawing, I can't get the "two kids tickling each other" image out of my head and every disclaimer and textual explanation after that looks hollow and defensive.

I agree with you, Myriads. The drawing should be changed.
Maybe the story is good, but this drawing doesn't belong there and doesn't belong on this site either.

One more thing, since we are in the "Artworks" thread, which is about images, I really think that we should focus on the drawing and whether if it's appropriate or not, whatever the text may be like.

(in which case I vote "Nay")
 
What's New

3/29/2024
The TMF Gathering forums keep you up to date on where and when folk are meeting up.
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