-
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:
My anime tickling collection
- Status
TicklishBeauty
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 204
- Points
- 0
nice pix!
Goku_hentai
Registered User
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 3
- Points
- 0
wow, nice
on group 105, I LOVE the 4th pic. Whatever it is with the suction cups things attaching to the armpits and tickling her. Would be nice to have a translation and/or if there is any more to that, or a story behind it. But anyway, thanks for these pics!
featheryoctopi2
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 176
- Points
- 0
WHOA!!! Thanks a bunch Iowa! What I would do to be able to read these. And on the underage topic, like anyone interested in this thread in the first place has any right to say what is politically correct. On that note who still believes what the government tells them anyway. Area 51, Watergate, 9-11, no, our government had nothing to do with any of these (hint of sarcasm). Whatever, I'll take a stand when they actually give us some solid ground to stand on. Anyway, GREAT THREAD MAN, KEEP ON COLLECTING!!!!!
Not again. Bad enough the child porn is still here.
That was way out of line, as is too much in this thread.
That has nothing to do with "political correctness." Much of it is excellent, too much of it is child porn.
"Artwork" depicting under-developed little girls, some in school uniforms,
some not, private school uniforms
on flat, straight little pre-pubescent bodies, etc.
with any little girl hair, like bows, pigtails, kiddie shoes,
big underwear, no "boobs" or curves, especially ----
being tickled, in some places here sexually (!!) ---
in too many, especially towards the beginning --
This is a sexual fetish site and feet are included ---
is child pornography. Doesn't take a genious to spot that.
And there's still a lot of it here. I just randomly picked ---- lot 24 ---- and there was a schoolgirl depicted tied up, distressed, in bondage with her feet being tickled. Disgusting.
At least if she could pass for a college student, for God's sake ---
And that's not even the sexual big-underwear-tickling I saw still remains towards the beginning.
As a matter of fact, by all means DO bring a printout of this entire thread
to your local police station and ask their opinion.
I'm sure they'll find you and this thread very interesting. Especially the portraits of under-developed little girls in sexual bondage.
I understand anime looks younger --- and that could be just fine
IF they look like they might at LEAST be 18 - 25.
I think that should be young enough, unless that's too old for some here.
*
That was way out of line, as is too much in this thread.
That has nothing to do with "political correctness." Much of it is excellent, too much of it is child porn.
"Artwork" depicting under-developed little girls, some in school uniforms,
some not, private school uniforms
on flat, straight little pre-pubescent bodies, etc.
with any little girl hair, like bows, pigtails, kiddie shoes,
big underwear, no "boobs" or curves, especially ----
being tickled, in some places here sexually (!!) ---
in too many, especially towards the beginning --
This is a sexual fetish site and feet are included ---
is child pornography. Doesn't take a genious to spot that.
And there's still a lot of it here. I just randomly picked ---- lot 24 ---- and there was a schoolgirl depicted tied up, distressed, in bondage with her feet being tickled. Disgusting.
At least if she could pass for a college student, for God's sake ---
And that's not even the sexual big-underwear-tickling I saw still remains towards the beginning.
As a matter of fact, by all means DO bring a printout of this entire thread
to your local police station and ask their opinion.
I'm sure they'll find you and this thread very interesting. Especially the portraits of under-developed little girls in sexual bondage.
I understand anime looks younger --- and that could be just fine
IF they look like they might at LEAST be 18 - 25.
I think that should be young enough, unless that's too old for some here.
*
Last edited:
cloudgazer2k
Verified
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Messages
- 4,669
- Points
- 38
Babbles, it's best to report a thread than flame.
Cloudgazer, I'm sure you mean well, but you could just as easily have PM'ed me.
I'm hardly flaming. I'm understating. Some of the content here goes way beyond violating this site's guidelines.
The statement I replied to was not only incorrect and inappropriate,
but this thread was already "moderated."
And what is unquestionably child pornography
still remains.
Last edited:
IowaTicklephile
TMF Regular
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 190
- Points
- 0
I'm done
A late-comer to this thread, so I haven't seen any of the pictures in question, but to Babbles:
Your argument was sound, and you gave him a viable "checklist" of what to rule out, but your tone comes across as arrogant, confrontational, and above all, rude. Your quip about someone "worried they'll lose their child pornography" (or something to that effect) was an unnecessary personal attack, and it lost you a lot of support, including my own.
If you want to speak out against something, do so with a calm and logical argument, and try to avoid caps, bold lettering, and flaming.
Your argument was sound, and you gave him a viable "checklist" of what to rule out, but your tone comes across as arrogant, confrontational, and above all, rude. Your quip about someone "worried they'll lose their child pornography" (or something to that effect) was an unnecessary personal attack, and it lost you a lot of support, including my own.
If you want to speak out against something, do so with a calm and logical argument, and try to avoid caps, bold lettering, and flaming.
ticklish_mom
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 131
- Points
- 0
Why not just remove this thread? There is obviously nothing to see here.
Thank you Vexis for a truly productive post at this point.
Really? Nice of you to chime in now with a judgemental tone, quoting me out of context.
If people are defending what is clearly a depiction of a child in a distressing and sexual situation
they are defending child porn, and I damn well had every right to be not only angry about it, since it remained and multiplied,
but about those who were annoyed I was ruining their fun.
Because they were getting off on images of children tied up and tickled in a sexual context, in a fetish forum ----
and some of the more sexual pictures involved the obviously pre-pubescent in large underpants,
with a focus there in particular.
I'm sickened just writing this. And that imagery was scored into my head in more than bold print.
Like I also said, most of the images were excellent --- too many were clearcut "jail bait".
Those who defended the images I described and were annoyed at the idea there may be SOME censorship -- were again annoyed that I protesting the presence of such images.
Therefore they were asking for the child pornography to remain for their viewing pleasure.
That's not an exaggeration.
And FINALLY, a statement calling out that disturbing tendency was quite "necessary" thank you.
Sorry if I didn't sugarcoat that well enough for you. I doubt law enforcement would have.
And I have also said, here and/or elsewhere, I use CAPS and bold to either emphasize and/or break up longer posts into more easily digestible segments when the posts are longer....
often whether or not I'm justifiably incensed.
Aside from the fact you overlooked several "calm and logical" responses with did not have "caps, bold lettering and" what YOU consider "flaming,"
(-- did you even bother looking at the posts on this very page?
No, you ignored them since they weren't convenient, and you wanted to cause trouble...)
if there ever was a reason to be pissed off it would be with images of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY which are ignored, allowed to remain, added, and celebrated.
I was more and more upset by the acceptance of child porn here --- that was justified, and yes it needed to be said.
Your comments, out of context, are not.
If you were following your own supposedly lofty advice you'd have sent a PM.
"(Flaming) arrogance" is your coming well after the fact -- without even seeing what I was referring to ---
and having the audacity to insinuate your interpretation of my writing style
and your support are of utmost importance.
That probably would've been a good idea some time ago.
Really? Nice of you to chime in now with a judgemental tone, quoting me out of context.
If people are defending what is clearly a depiction of a child in a distressing and sexual situation
they are defending child porn, and I damn well had every right to be not only angry about it, since it remained and multiplied,
but about those who were annoyed I was ruining their fun.
Because they were getting off on images of children tied up and tickled in a sexual context, in a fetish forum ----
and some of the more sexual pictures involved the obviously pre-pubescent in large underpants,
with a focus there in particular.
I'm sickened just writing this. And that imagery was scored into my head in more than bold print. Like I also said, most of the images were excellent --- too many were clearcut "jail bait".
Those who defended the images I described and were annoyed at the idea there may be SOME censorship -- were again annoyed that I protesting the presence of such images.
Therefore they were asking for the child pornography to remain for their viewing pleasure.
That's not an exaggeration.
And FINALLY, a statement calling out that disturbing tendency was quite "necessary" thank you.
Sorry if I didn't sugarcoat that well enough for you. I doubt law enforcement would have.
And I have also said, here and/or elsewhere, I use CAPS and bold to either emphasize and/or break up longer posts into more easily digestible segments when the posts are longer....
often whether or not I'm justifiably incensed.
Aside from the fact you overlooked several "calm and logical" responses with did not have "caps, bold lettering and" what YOU consider "flaming,"
(-- did you even bother looking at the posts on this very page?
No, you ignored them since they weren't convenient, and you wanted to cause trouble...)
if there ever was a reason to be pissed off it would be with images of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY which are ignored, allowed to remain, added, and celebrated.
I was more and more upset by the acceptance of child porn here --- that was justified, and yes it needed to be said.
Your comments, out of context, are not.
If you were following your own supposedly lofty advice you'd have sent a PM.
"(Flaming) arrogance" is your coming well after the fact -- without even seeing what I was referring to ---
and having the audacity to insinuate your interpretation of my writing style
and your support are of utmost importance.
That probably would've been a good idea some time ago.
Last edited:
If people are defending what is clearly a depiction of a child in a distressing and sexual situation
they are defending child porn, and I damn well had every right to be not only angry about it, since it remained and multiplied,
but about those who were annoyed I was ruining their fun.
Yet again, you keep missing the point that I tried to make when you called me out, so erroneously I might add, for saying that I was 'upset that I was getting my child porn taken down'. That had absolutely nothing to do with it. I had absolutely 0 problem with you wanting to see some of the less clean pictures taken off, what I took issue with, was the self-righteous, preachy tone that makes me not come onto this board too often..cause it seems many of the boards on this site are filled with people like this. If you had handled this properly...letting a mod know and just PM'ing the guy with a small thing saying 'Hey be a little more careful next time' I would not be near as annoyed with you than I am right now. You dregged up a rule that has been beaten to death only because you felt it was your obligation to be the morality police and to completely put anyone...ANYONE that even remotely disagreed with you, regardless of what they said, into the category of a pedophile.
The reason why I took offense to your comments in this thread in the first place was because I felt that the methods that you were using were much akin to a political pundit than a concerned member of the board...and when you fired back with such UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS I was so pissed that I almost wanted to put you on my ignore list...and I haven't done that to ANYONE except in the political forum. I don't have a problem with you wanting to run a cleaner board...next time...try being a bit nicer to folks...you'll be surprised how many people would actually LISTEN to you instead of just dismissing your heavy handed talking.
I don't recall getting a PM from you either...
Another one who should take his own advice. You could have PMed me as well.
"UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS" ???? You have GOT to be kidding.
And then you question my reaction ---- HOW many times do under-developed bodies tickled through their LARGE FRILLY underwear have to appear
---- before you have a problem with a thread?
As I said --- this thread had ALREADY been moderated,
polite protests had ALREADY been posted,
and there was still way too much which was OBVIOUSLY child porn remaining. And then ADDED....
And I was attacked for protesting (!!) And you WONDER why I'd be angry about that ---
If you were so concerned about my supposedly unwarranted TONE in a thread laced with pictures of little girls in bondage being sexually tickled
=!!=
then YES YOU DO have your priorities badly screwed up.
And YES IT WOULD look exactly like you're defending child porn if you were defending the content of this thread as it was.
When I see SO MANY pictures like those I'm sick of describing I'm HARDLY
"dredging up a rule that's been beaten to death" ----
that is not "morality police". Hello??? Protesting BLATANT child porn is overdone when it's ignored and allowed to snowball???
No images of children --- esp. in sexual situations ---- is a rule that can be "dredged up & beaten to death" in your estimation???
With regard to a fetish thread with so many grossly inappropriate images of flat little girls with pigtails in bondage being tortured??
Yes --- you defend that, YOU have the problem.
MEN WHO SUPPORT ABUSE IN ANY FORM are the reason why SO MANY WOMEN do not frequent this forum, or don't come out...
Not to say there aren't men who protest abuses here and women who commit them --- But there's a huge gender gap here. According to all the guys who complain no women will contact them....
I've left due to guys like you who support this sort of material --- but you don't hear me whining about having left.
The presence of those who don't tolerate abuses make this place worthwhile --- the people you consider repressive rather than at least barely decent.
You attacked me for getting annoyed with child porn & its supporters.... and you complain that you left the thread because people like me wouldn't stand for it ---- Like I said, your perspective is far more screwed up than mine.
Another one who should take his own advice. You could have PMed me as well.
"UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS" ???? You have GOT to be kidding.
And then you question my reaction ---- HOW many times do under-developed bodies tickled through their LARGE FRILLY underwear have to appear
---- before you have a problem with a thread?
As I said --- this thread had ALREADY been moderated,
polite protests had ALREADY been posted,
and there was still way too much which was OBVIOUSLY child porn remaining. And then ADDED....
And I was attacked for protesting (!!) And you WONDER why I'd be angry about that ---
If you were so concerned about my supposedly unwarranted TONE in a thread laced with pictures of little girls in bondage being sexually tickled
=!!=
then YES YOU DO have your priorities badly screwed up.
And YES IT WOULD look exactly like you're defending child porn if you were defending the content of this thread as it was.
When I see SO MANY pictures like those I'm sick of describing I'm HARDLY
"dredging up a rule that's been beaten to death" ----
that is not "morality police". Hello??? Protesting BLATANT child porn is overdone when it's ignored and allowed to snowball???
No images of children --- esp. in sexual situations ---- is a rule that can be "dredged up & beaten to death" in your estimation???
With regard to a fetish thread with so many grossly inappropriate images of flat little girls with pigtails in bondage being tortured??
Yes --- you defend that, YOU have the problem.
MEN WHO SUPPORT ABUSE IN ANY FORM are the reason why SO MANY WOMEN do not frequent this forum, or don't come out...
Not to say there aren't men who protest abuses here and women who commit them --- But there's a huge gender gap here. According to all the guys who complain no women will contact them....
I've left due to guys like you who support this sort of material --- but you don't hear me whining about having left.
The presence of those who don't tolerate abuses make this place worthwhile --- the people you consider repressive rather than at least barely decent.
You attacked me for getting annoyed with child porn & its supporters.... and you complain that you left the thread because people like me wouldn't stand for it ---- Like I said, your perspective is far more screwed up than mine.
Myriads
Tzar of the TMF
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,297
- Points
- 38
Go back to page one of this thread.
Back? Good. You may have noted that a mod was in this thread. They cleaned it up, and they were keeping track of it.
So why in the world is there any issues with what is proper here?
It's Manga. An art style where everyone looks 10. Where clothing is used symbolically.
No person but one of my staff should be making any calls about what is 'allowed and not allowed' in a thread here. You can report things, you can send a PM to one of us and ask us to look, but it's not a members place to say X is not allowed when A MOD HAS ALREADY LOOKED AT IT, and cleared it.
We look upon members who hound other members away from posting here very poorly. It's not how we want to see any one treated. Especially someone who was sharing on topic material.
Do this again, and I'll lay down bans for the areas that seem to upset one into acting thusly.
This thread is closed.
Myriads
Back? Good. You may have noted that a mod was in this thread. They cleaned it up, and they were keeping track of it.
So why in the world is there any issues with what is proper here?
It's Manga. An art style where everyone looks 10. Where clothing is used symbolically.
No person but one of my staff should be making any calls about what is 'allowed and not allowed' in a thread here. You can report things, you can send a PM to one of us and ask us to look, but it's not a members place to say X is not allowed when A MOD HAS ALREADY LOOKED AT IT, and cleared it.
We look upon members who hound other members away from posting here very poorly. It's not how we want to see any one treated. Especially someone who was sharing on topic material.
Do this again, and I'll lay down bans for the areas that seem to upset one into acting thusly.
This thread is closed.
Myriads
- Status
