-
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:
Renn Faire and Kink
- Thread starter FiddleStorm
- Start date
Like clockwork.
Look at this.
"But wait, what if we-"
"We could totally-"
"This should-"
A lengthy list of contortions designed to "justify" the stocks being kept in renfaires solely so that tickle fetishists can inflict their kink on the unsuspecting public. "Butbutbut if the guy next to me is getting hit with glitter than that would totally let me tickle his girlfriend and no one would be the wiser!"
Nobody is fighting this hard about any other aspect of Renfaire stuff. Wonder why. Could it be because nobody is getting off on juggling or jousting?
Creepy shit.
Meh. Let 'em dream. The chances of pulling it off are astronomically slim, anyway.
To Phineas:
"But wait, what if we-"
"We could totally-"
"This should-"
"Butbutbut if the guy next to me is getting hit with glitter than that would totally let me tickle his girlfriend and no one would be the wiser!"
First of all, who, or at least, when did I myself, even say those words or put it that way?
For you to put words into quotations that someone never said is trolling at it's finest. But with a lot of your posts, many people here have come to expect that from you.
There are several problems with tickling at Renfaires, that have been talked about for decades now. You have a valid point about it being done to unsuspecting people to sell videos of them being wrong.
Personally, I'm neither for nor against the public use of stocks at Faires. In the case of tickling specifically, forced bondage and tickling is not cool. That's the conclusion that I think people were coming to in this discussion (even though it's not what the original poster started the thread for).
Also, I wasn't saying that people SHOULD get tickled in the stocks. If anything, I actually said that people could and SHOULD be doing other things with their companions in the stocks. The focus on feet and tickling wouldn't be fun for everyone.
The reason I decided to chime in on this was in answer to Wolf's hypothetical question, which was "why would anyone who's responsible for running a Faire allow some rando come in and do this? What's the rationale, from a non-fetish perspective?". I made a case for this, because I believe that there COULD in fact something appealing about this from a non fetish perspective. So I defended the idea that it COULD be seen as beneficial by a Faire owner.
Also, I just don't like being told that something is impossible when it isn't. Especially if by itself, it isn't wrong.
The truth is that the fun with stocks CAN be quite innocent. But people can get off to ANYTHING. That's the nature of sexuality. On one hand, there's not much we can do about it except enjoy things the way we want to and try to ignore what other people are doing.
So the question is, is it EVER ok to intentionally seek to sexualize people from a secondhand perspective as long as they don't know about it?
The anonymous nature of the internet DOES often allow people to avoid accountability for ignoring the violation of ethics by watching something at someone else's expense.
There is another discussion to have on the matter that we could be having about the fact that fetishists are the ones primarily enjoying it with unsuspecting people that I was preparing today, and I'll be HAPPY to start a discussion about it. Honestly, my responding to this thread the other day was a half cocked attempt to distract myself, I wasn't focused on covering all of the bases of the morality of "getting off" to things unbeknownst to people.
But IF a fetishist was present somewhere, had no camera and simply saw something they were attracted to happening, either closely or from afar, I'm hoping that you wouldn't seriously call a person who noticed and watched a sexually arousing thing happening in public a "creep".
Even if they are nothing more than passing bystanders at a PUBLIC demonstration?
Because I admit that this site was the last place I thought I would find people hypocritically pointing fingers at basic human nature to feel better about themselves.
Getting handsy is one thing. But if people experiencing internalized sexual excitement in public alone is creepy to you, then I don't think that you'll find much quarter anywhere on Earth but countries that impose strict laws on citizens to avoid any sexual arousal outside of a bedroom with their spouse. I'm not saying that those customs can't serve a purpose to some people. But I personally believe that in a free country, that lifestyle with a lack of freedoms should be reserved for people who CHOOSE to live that way.
Yes, RECORDING someone being tickled in stocks without their permission is disrespectful to someone's privacy and illegal if they agreed in no way to be recorded. And if they DID agree to be recorded, it could still be viewed as inconsiderate to share media of the event online.
The funny thing is that people do this all the time now. Almost all streamed videos, aside from violating copyright laws, violate the agreement models make with studios that their content will only be shared by INDIVIDUALS who purchase a video for personal use. But most people here have viewed their content, unbeknownst to their knowledge. Does that make most people here creeps, or just thieves? Something to think about that I'll save my point for in another discussion.
But there really are few limits to what can be done between people who discuss an idea, come to a mutual understanding and agree to do something.
No, the stocks aren't inherently a peep show. But once again defending the HYPOTHETICAL scenario of pitching this idea to a Faire owner, IF some adults decided to set up some stocks and invite people to get into them to take photos, or for money or a prize, knowing they would be recorded to have videos sold, IF ALL PARTIES AGREE, and if it drew a crowd, I don't see why that idea would be hard to pitch to a Faire owner or how THAT could possibly hurt anyone. I've only seen promos of it, but that is what the studio "Stimulating Feet" says they're doing.
I don't think that anybody here is trying to perpetuate the existing system of exploiting people. They're trying to CHANGE it in a way that people here might ethically enjoy it. If there is something cool that could come out of this, if it doesn't happen here with discussion, then it very well COULD happen again with somebody taking advantage of people. So we SHOULD be able to talk about it in a civil manner to see if maybe it can be done.
"But wait, what if we-"
"We could totally-"
"This should-"
"Butbutbut if the guy next to me is getting hit with glitter than that would totally let me tickle his girlfriend and no one would be the wiser!"
First of all, who, or at least, when did I myself, even say those words or put it that way?
For you to put words into quotations that someone never said is trolling at it's finest. But with a lot of your posts, many people here have come to expect that from you.
There are several problems with tickling at Renfaires, that have been talked about for decades now. You have a valid point about it being done to unsuspecting people to sell videos of them being wrong.
Personally, I'm neither for nor against the public use of stocks at Faires. In the case of tickling specifically, forced bondage and tickling is not cool. That's the conclusion that I think people were coming to in this discussion (even though it's not what the original poster started the thread for).
Also, I wasn't saying that people SHOULD get tickled in the stocks. If anything, I actually said that people could and SHOULD be doing other things with their companions in the stocks. The focus on feet and tickling wouldn't be fun for everyone.
The reason I decided to chime in on this was in answer to Wolf's hypothetical question, which was "why would anyone who's responsible for running a Faire allow some rando come in and do this? What's the rationale, from a non-fetish perspective?". I made a case for this, because I believe that there COULD in fact something appealing about this from a non fetish perspective. So I defended the idea that it COULD be seen as beneficial by a Faire owner.
Also, I just don't like being told that something is impossible when it isn't. Especially if by itself, it isn't wrong.
The truth is that the fun with stocks CAN be quite innocent. But people can get off to ANYTHING. That's the nature of sexuality. On one hand, there's not much we can do about it except enjoy things the way we want to and try to ignore what other people are doing.
So the question is, is it EVER ok to intentionally seek to sexualize people from a secondhand perspective as long as they don't know about it?
The anonymous nature of the internet DOES often allow people to avoid accountability for ignoring the violation of ethics by watching something at someone else's expense.
There is another discussion to have on the matter that we could be having about the fact that fetishists are the ones primarily enjoying it with unsuspecting people that I was preparing today, and I'll be HAPPY to start a discussion about it. Honestly, my responding to this thread the other day was a half cocked attempt to distract myself, I wasn't focused on covering all of the bases of the morality of "getting off" to things unbeknownst to people.
But IF a fetishist was present somewhere, had no camera and simply saw something they were attracted to happening, either closely or from afar, I'm hoping that you wouldn't seriously call a person who noticed and watched a sexually arousing thing happening in public a "creep".
Even if they are nothing more than passing bystanders at a PUBLIC demonstration?
Because I admit that this site was the last place I thought I would find people hypocritically pointing fingers at basic human nature to feel better about themselves.
Getting handsy is one thing. But if people experiencing internalized sexual excitement in public alone is creepy to you, then I don't think that you'll find much quarter anywhere on Earth but countries that impose strict laws on citizens to avoid any sexual arousal outside of a bedroom with their spouse. I'm not saying that those customs can't serve a purpose to some people. But I personally believe that in a free country, that lifestyle with a lack of freedoms should be reserved for people who CHOOSE to live that way.
Yes, RECORDING someone being tickled in stocks without their permission is disrespectful to someone's privacy and illegal if they agreed in no way to be recorded. And if they DID agree to be recorded, it could still be viewed as inconsiderate to share media of the event online.
The funny thing is that people do this all the time now. Almost all streamed videos, aside from violating copyright laws, violate the agreement models make with studios that their content will only be shared by INDIVIDUALS who purchase a video for personal use. But most people here have viewed their content, unbeknownst to their knowledge. Does that make most people here creeps, or just thieves? Something to think about that I'll save my point for in another discussion.
But there really are few limits to what can be done between people who discuss an idea, come to a mutual understanding and agree to do something.
No, the stocks aren't inherently a peep show. But once again defending the HYPOTHETICAL scenario of pitching this idea to a Faire owner, IF some adults decided to set up some stocks and invite people to get into them to take photos, or for money or a prize, knowing they would be recorded to have videos sold, IF ALL PARTIES AGREE, and if it drew a crowd, I don't see why that idea would be hard to pitch to a Faire owner or how THAT could possibly hurt anyone. I've only seen promos of it, but that is what the studio "Stimulating Feet" says they're doing.
I don't think that anybody here is trying to perpetuate the existing system of exploiting people. They're trying to CHANGE it in a way that people here might ethically enjoy it. If there is something cool that could come out of this, if it doesn't happen here with discussion, then it very well COULD happen again with somebody taking advantage of people. So we SHOULD be able to talk about it in a civil manner to see if maybe it can be done.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
tl;dr literally the only way it works is, again, a bunch of people setting up an explicitly fetish-centric fair, and either kicking out normies, or making them sign some kind of waiver. Non-graphic sexual content or not, people are going to react poorly to eventually realizing they were exposed to, or even participated in, foot fetish shit.
It comes up directly in the Yahoo Group controversy with THE LEGEND;
An individual who initially 0might not have though twice about their daughter being involved suddenly becomes quite alarmed upon realizing the men involved are concealing their rods. The long and short of it is, unless you want problems, normies can't be involved. Not without a heads up beforehand. Sorry.
It comes up directly in the Yahoo Group controversy with THE LEGEND;
An individual who initially 0might not have though twice about their daughter being involved suddenly becomes quite alarmed upon realizing the men involved are concealing their rods. The long and short of it is, unless you want problems, normies can't be involved. Not without a heads up beforehand. Sorry.
Yeah...Never understood the obsession with people wanting to involve unwitting normies in their fetish, and in public, no less. It just seems like so much work.
I'm sorry the post is long for some people. But honestly, if somebody ignores or admits that they didn't even read a response but still passes judgement and make accusations about me or what my intentions are, you're literally putting your head in the sand.
Your opinion of the truth is clearly not based on an attempt to perceive anything happening outside of you. It's all based on what you want to see or say about something or someone. Once again, trolling.
You accuse people of spreading perversion, but some of you spread a culture here of baseless claims and criticism.
What happened? Are you all so afraid of arguments that you refuse to acknowledge the other side of a conversation, and just jump on whatever ignorant bandwagon makes you feel better?
If the moral fiber of this community is compromised by anything, certainly a collective habit of people refusing to think critically and instead only see what they want is not helping.
Your opinion of the truth is clearly not based on an attempt to perceive anything happening outside of you. It's all based on what you want to see or say about something or someone. Once again, trolling.
You accuse people of spreading perversion, but some of you spread a culture here of baseless claims and criticism.
What happened? Are you all so afraid of arguments that you refuse to acknowledge the other side of a conversation, and just jump on whatever ignorant bandwagon makes you feel better?
If the moral fiber of this community is compromised by anything, certainly a collective habit of people refusing to think critically and instead only see what they want is not helping.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
I genuinely don't understand why you're upset.
I just gave you an actual response to the points you made.
Do you intend to acknowledge that or not?
I don't understand why you think you're being sandbagged "because morality", there's a process to get something like this going.
I'm not sure what responses you want.
Is this supposed to be a fantasy scenario and you're upset with people nitpicking what's just supposed to be a fun rhetorical?
I just gave you an actual response to the points you made.
Do you intend to acknowledge that or not?
I don't understand why you think you're being sandbagged "because morality", there's a process to get something like this going.
I'm not sure what responses you want.
Is this supposed to be a fantasy scenario and you're upset with people nitpicking what's just supposed to be a fun rhetorical?
At the risk of sounding neurotic, I'm going to try to explain myself.
Comfort Eagle:
If you say "tl dr" (which of course means "too long, didn't read"), then it implies that you didn't read my points from my second post.
So based on that statement, in theory your response did not consider those points.
And since nothing you said specifically referenced my second post, and you say you didn't read it, I treated the situation like your words were honest.
Thusly, I concluded that what you said was NOT based on everything I said, because you admitted that you didn't read it all.
But for that, I'm not upset. Nobody has to read my posts.
I'm simply responding to the apparent habit of people's coming to conclusions about people OR their ideas either without hearing them or ignoring them. Which is almost ALL that we have to go by in judging things on this site.
My only gripe with your input is that you responded without reading my WHOLE idea.
However, the MORAL dilemma with this is that many people do this INTENTIONALLY to discredit and slander people on this site.
I admit, in this case, that you didn't spread slander. But with all due respect, baseless or otherwise uninformed statements have become a culture online, and one person doing it out of disinterest, feeds the trolls that do it out of malice. And then, one troll feeds another so that a discussion or argument no longer is that, but rather just a group effort to support each other in targeting people.
Maybe I can't put you in same boat this time as people attacking each other's character. But ignoring the whole picture is related to the problem of speaking in a manner that is self serving to the ego.
And I'll put this bluntly. In a past discussion with you, you reprimanded me and overreacted, basically suggesting that I was a hypocrite for supporting the possibility of you or anybody being able to make a movie about anything, including a cinematic portrayal of tickling. I've been a fan of James Rolfe for 17 years now, and despite how busy he is, he's responded to my emails sometimes. You're clearly a fan of his too, and Doug Howard. But you still basically crapped on the very hope that they give independent film makers fans of cinema of achieving their dreams simply out of spite for me DISAGREEING with the limitations you set for YOURSELF. I never appreciated the fact that you didn't see fit to retract what you said about that and admit that I now have a hard time accepting your responses as being good willed. I'm sorry if was wrong for feeling that way, but burned bridges don't always successfully get rebuilt by one person.
Anyway, back to my comment.
People are flippantly ignoring what people say and just maintaining baseless claims, not only in this discussion, but many of them.
If I'm being completely honest, it's not what you said here that really upset me. It's what other (specifically 2) people say in OTHER discussions, where other members are out of the loop. Because their claims and criticism that were challenged, disproven or they gave up on in one thread, they maintain the same claims in a WHOLE other thread to continue baselessly shaming a (this) topic.
I CAN'T SURELY AFFIRM that those couple of other people's comments are (still) directed/talking about me, because if it was, it's brought up in such a passive manner that you I assume the context refers to the same topic and the same "group".
So I used a general way of saying that uninformed statements, malicious or not, aren't helping the site.
I don't want to spend all of my time here feeling like I'm beefing with certain members, but I want to make the point that nobody can spread virtuosity if they're spreading undeserved shame at the same time.
For what it's worth, in response to your comment on this Forum Comfort Eagle, I somewhat disagree that having the stocks at the Faire HAS to result in the area being FULL of visibly aroused men spectating. Sure, there's always one of these people, everywhere. It all depends on whether or not the current culture of people can be trusted to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. The idea of stocks becoming peep shows for tickling fetishists are about as likely as shoe stores and nail salons becoming a gathering place for people with foot fetishes, which, from what I've seen, they're not any more so than anyplace else.
Comfort Eagle:
If you say "tl dr" (which of course means "too long, didn't read"), then it implies that you didn't read my points from my second post.
So based on that statement, in theory your response did not consider those points.
And since nothing you said specifically referenced my second post, and you say you didn't read it, I treated the situation like your words were honest.
Thusly, I concluded that what you said was NOT based on everything I said, because you admitted that you didn't read it all.
But for that, I'm not upset. Nobody has to read my posts.
I'm simply responding to the apparent habit of people's coming to conclusions about people OR their ideas either without hearing them or ignoring them. Which is almost ALL that we have to go by in judging things on this site.
My only gripe with your input is that you responded without reading my WHOLE idea.
However, the MORAL dilemma with this is that many people do this INTENTIONALLY to discredit and slander people on this site.
I admit, in this case, that you didn't spread slander. But with all due respect, baseless or otherwise uninformed statements have become a culture online, and one person doing it out of disinterest, feeds the trolls that do it out of malice. And then, one troll feeds another so that a discussion or argument no longer is that, but rather just a group effort to support each other in targeting people.
Maybe I can't put you in same boat this time as people attacking each other's character. But ignoring the whole picture is related to the problem of speaking in a manner that is self serving to the ego.
And I'll put this bluntly. In a past discussion with you, you reprimanded me and overreacted, basically suggesting that I was a hypocrite for supporting the possibility of you or anybody being able to make a movie about anything, including a cinematic portrayal of tickling. I've been a fan of James Rolfe for 17 years now, and despite how busy he is, he's responded to my emails sometimes. You're clearly a fan of his too, and Doug Howard. But you still basically crapped on the very hope that they give independent film makers fans of cinema of achieving their dreams simply out of spite for me DISAGREEING with the limitations you set for YOURSELF. I never appreciated the fact that you didn't see fit to retract what you said about that and admit that I now have a hard time accepting your responses as being good willed. I'm sorry if was wrong for feeling that way, but burned bridges don't always successfully get rebuilt by one person.
Anyway, back to my comment.
People are flippantly ignoring what people say and just maintaining baseless claims, not only in this discussion, but many of them.
If I'm being completely honest, it's not what you said here that really upset me. It's what other (specifically 2) people say in OTHER discussions, where other members are out of the loop. Because their claims and criticism that were challenged, disproven or they gave up on in one thread, they maintain the same claims in a WHOLE other thread to continue baselessly shaming a (this) topic.
I CAN'T SURELY AFFIRM that those couple of other people's comments are (still) directed/talking about me, because if it was, it's brought up in such a passive manner that you I assume the context refers to the same topic and the same "group".
So I used a general way of saying that uninformed statements, malicious or not, aren't helping the site.
I don't want to spend all of my time here feeling like I'm beefing with certain members, but I want to make the point that nobody can spread virtuosity if they're spreading undeserved shame at the same time.
For what it's worth, in response to your comment on this Forum Comfort Eagle, I somewhat disagree that having the stocks at the Faire HAS to result in the area being FULL of visibly aroused men spectating. Sure, there's always one of these people, everywhere. It all depends on whether or not the current culture of people can be trusted to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. The idea of stocks becoming peep shows for tickling fetishists are about as likely as shoe stores and nail salons becoming a gathering place for people with foot fetishes, which, from what I've seen, they're not any more so than anyplace else.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,217
- Points
- 48
Homeboy you are on a fetish forum. Everything is obviously going to be interpreted through the eyes of a fetishist. You yourself say as much;
So that begs the question; who exactly would be pitching it to the owners? Presumably "one of us", though perhaps not. Fun fact, a lot of these places do still have public access "novelty" ankle stocks, though as already pointed out, ones far less restrictive than what a kinkster would like. Presumably to the disappointment of many here, they're for the most part stand-alone photo ops. If normie non-fetishists just happened to wanna tickle each other in them, they're free to do so. Your point then goes to "Well, maybe a normie would like tickling if it were presented to them!". So now the idea is someone should pitch the idea of stocks to faire owners, and probably people will get tickled in them, which will probably lead to tickling shows...
I am trying (and clearly) failing to communicate this point without causing you personal offense, but I'm not sure how many more ways to go about it. What your idea is amounts to "People should be gently encouraged to put on tickle shows in public, there's no way everyone who stands around watching it would be popping wood...". Just negating the fact that the entire way to get such an attraction from start to finish would need to involve people who know full well the less innocent intricates of stocks tickling to "just happen" to leave everything they need laying around.
I'm late responding to this, so if nobody replies, that's cool.
I specifically suggested NOT solely setting up tickle shows.
I admit that leaving a feather would encourage its use, so that would in fact be manipulating people for fetish purposes.
And in hindsight, unlike a nightclub, people don't go to Faires to be sexualized.
So although the idea of allowing random people to tickle each other could be pitched, it shouldn't be set up by fetishists.
The only way I imagine that a fetishist CAN enjoy witnessing tickling in public is if it happens at random by a consenting party.
Even egging a friend on to tickle somebody is probably not right.
And even if we had nothing to do with it, if some people were sitting around stocks all day watching people fool around with their families and friends taking photos, that alone would make some people uncomfortable.
But having one or two people waiting, not in line but just around the stocks for an indefinite amount of time for somebody to get tickled or pick up that feather, MIGHT be good cause for someone to call security to ask what they're doing at the Faire just standing around.
Between involving regular people doing this to each other or talking to willing volunteers to be tickled (and recorded), the latter is the only acceptable choice.
My OCD/ADHD just didn't want me to let anyone say that this coincidence/ a public spectacle of tickling COULDN'T happen, even by being set up by people who didn't realize what they were doing.
But I shouldn't have suggested that it's okay for fetishists to essentially set up stocks. UNLESS you legitimately can just find it fun, it would be better to let the stocks remain as a prop. That or just get willing volunteers who know that you're setting it up because it's kinky, not involve random people.
BOTH could draw attention for a Faire owner. Although it would essentially be turning a Faire into a fetish convention, it's up to management what they allow. It's their Faire. In a family friendly environment, this probably just wouldn't happen. But if they were okay with it, I guess THEN the OP of this thread could find people into kink there.
How would I feel if I knew someone was masturbating to a randomly taken video of me getting tickled in stocks online? I can't imagine. Most people who are recorded being tickled supposedly out of humor but end up on sites like this usually don't know because they don't share our fetish or view these websites.
My immediate assumption about the ones who do find out or hear that they're online for whatever reason is that they're mortified, either by the fame of the video in society or that it can be used to shame them if somebody ever found it. I wouldn't know if being sexualized online is any worse than being sexualized everyday in society, as neither is my circumstance usually. It sounds like one more challenge to be the person you are, not the one people see you as.
That being taken into consideration, one should also consider that there are many news/tv/movie scenes and even home videos recirculated online for sexual reasons that weren't originally intended to be sexual or even remembered. Even though it's an actor's duty to not take their own self image too seriously, they don't do this to be sexualized. But they all are so much that many of them don't wish to search their own name on Google. They're people, but they're not respected like people. Hollywood likes to prop them up to be pin cushions for the public.
The funny thing is, one COULD argue about where the line gets drawn on this. If exposing feet and tickling has become synonymous with sexuality now, can it just not happen in public anymore outside of private settings? Now that fetishes are out of the closet, is tickling now viewed as "inappropriate", or a sexual "distraction" for others? Can it just not happen anymore? I personally think that people can and should be ABLE to separate their sexuality from their public life. The rest comes down to knowing what's in your conscious.
I specifically suggested NOT solely setting up tickle shows.
I admit that leaving a feather would encourage its use, so that would in fact be manipulating people for fetish purposes.
And in hindsight, unlike a nightclub, people don't go to Faires to be sexualized.
So although the idea of allowing random people to tickle each other could be pitched, it shouldn't be set up by fetishists.
The only way I imagine that a fetishist CAN enjoy witnessing tickling in public is if it happens at random by a consenting party.
Even egging a friend on to tickle somebody is probably not right.
And even if we had nothing to do with it, if some people were sitting around stocks all day watching people fool around with their families and friends taking photos, that alone would make some people uncomfortable.
But having one or two people waiting, not in line but just around the stocks for an indefinite amount of time for somebody to get tickled or pick up that feather, MIGHT be good cause for someone to call security to ask what they're doing at the Faire just standing around.
Between involving regular people doing this to each other or talking to willing volunteers to be tickled (and recorded), the latter is the only acceptable choice.
My OCD/ADHD just didn't want me to let anyone say that this coincidence/ a public spectacle of tickling COULDN'T happen, even by being set up by people who didn't realize what they were doing.
But I shouldn't have suggested that it's okay for fetishists to essentially set up stocks. UNLESS you legitimately can just find it fun, it would be better to let the stocks remain as a prop. That or just get willing volunteers who know that you're setting it up because it's kinky, not involve random people.
BOTH could draw attention for a Faire owner. Although it would essentially be turning a Faire into a fetish convention, it's up to management what they allow. It's their Faire. In a family friendly environment, this probably just wouldn't happen. But if they were okay with it, I guess THEN the OP of this thread could find people into kink there.
How would I feel if I knew someone was masturbating to a randomly taken video of me getting tickled in stocks online? I can't imagine. Most people who are recorded being tickled supposedly out of humor but end up on sites like this usually don't know because they don't share our fetish or view these websites.
My immediate assumption about the ones who do find out or hear that they're online for whatever reason is that they're mortified, either by the fame of the video in society or that it can be used to shame them if somebody ever found it. I wouldn't know if being sexualized online is any worse than being sexualized everyday in society, as neither is my circumstance usually. It sounds like one more challenge to be the person you are, not the one people see you as.
That being taken into consideration, one should also consider that there are many news/tv/movie scenes and even home videos recirculated online for sexual reasons that weren't originally intended to be sexual or even remembered. Even though it's an actor's duty to not take their own self image too seriously, they don't do this to be sexualized. But they all are so much that many of them don't wish to search their own name on Google. They're people, but they're not respected like people. Hollywood likes to prop them up to be pin cushions for the public.
The funny thing is, one COULD argue about where the line gets drawn on this. If exposing feet and tickling has become synonymous with sexuality now, can it just not happen in public anymore outside of private settings? Now that fetishes are out of the closet, is tickling now viewed as "inappropriate", or a sexual "distraction" for others? Can it just not happen anymore? I personally think that people can and should be ABLE to separate their sexuality from their public life. The rest comes down to knowing what's in your conscious.
