Are tickling pics and videos "porn" even if there's no nudity?

[drew70]

I was showing a friend at work a professional tickling video. It was an F/F video in which both the ler and the lee were clothed in summer wear. There was no nudity, no kissing, no genetalia contact. I myself would not consider this porn. My boss would agree, as he asked me to burn him a copy. 😀

 

[maniactickler]

They are porn free!

 

[Cosmo_ac]

thats a tough one. On one hand, tickling isn't sex. yet on the other hand, the tickling video has only one target, and generally that is to sexually arouse the viewers.

Personally, i would say that tickling videos, while not full blown porn, are probably pretty close. They are fetish video's after all. Perhaps a level or two below softcore porn.

 

[Myriads]

Pornography holds a special legal definition. This definition varies from community to community, thus cuaisng all sorts of issues.

The basic definition is Pornagraphy is defined by 'local standards' as material that holds content that would be deemed immoral and/or depraved by the 'average' member of said community. Some communities add in the 'material designed to exciet or arouse sexualy in ways that the average individual in the community would find immoral or depraved' statement also.

Thus material can get judged on any number of standards. And they can be as loony as any local area can get hepped up about.

Would your tickling video qualify as porn in most places? Nope. But I'm sure if we poked about the nation we could find a few where it would. Most likely on the basis of being f/f and thus 'lesbian' in said areas eyes.

It's a thicket thats nasty to get through. Any video producer here who has been in the business for a good bit will tell you that there are/were states they would not mail thier product into for a chunk of the 90's. And still may not.

Myriads

 

[ShadowTklr]

Pornography holds a special legal definition. This definition varies from community to community, thus cuaisng all sorts of issues.

The basic definition is Pornagraphy is defined by 'local standards' as material that holds content that would be deemed immoral and/or depraved by the 'average' member of said community. Some communities add in the 'material designed to exciet or arouse sexualy in ways that the average individual in the community would find immoral or depraved' statement also.

Thus material can get judged on any number of standards. And they can be as loony as any local area can get hepped up about.

Would your tickling video qualify as porn in most places? Nope. But I'm sure if we poked about the nation we could find a few where it would. Most likely on the basis of being f/f and thus 'lesbian' in said areas eyes.

It's a thicket thats nasty to get through. Any video producer here who has been in the business for a good bit will tell you that there are/were states they would not mail thier product into for a chunk of the 90's. And still may not.

Myriads

What he said...
.
.
.
.

 

[Deadsea7777]

I was showing a friend at work a professional tickling video. It was an F/F video in which both the ler and the lee were clothed in summer wear. There was no nudity, no kissing, no genetalia contact. I myself would not consider this porn. My boss would agree, as he asked me to burn him a copy. 😀

Actually I would think it may, from Wikipedia:

"Pornography (from Greek πόρνη (porni) "prostitute" and γραφή (grafi) "writing") (more informally referred to as porn or porno) is the representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal"

So according to this definition if the goal was sexual arousal in your tickling video, it may match the definition.
Was the goal to sexual arouse males/females buyers?, Would the company that made it have intend to make it for the buyers to be sexually aroused? Could tickling between those two female adults, be consider playfull and no sexual or not?
I would consider it porn, soft porn, if you want, but porn neverthless.
I have nothing against porn, the porn and film industry gave a gross income of 60000 million dollars last year in the USA, more than hollywood. Is a great business.

 

[Iishieboo]

I don't like porn (sex) but I love tickling videos! ^_________________^ Only thing is.. if I watch too many without getting tickled, I go into this weird state and lay on my bed just thinking about being tickled and playing with my toes or something. It's like an overload.

 

[drew70]

Actually I would think it may, from Wikipedia:

"Pornography (from Greek πόρνη (porni) "prostitute" and γραφή (grafi) "writing") (more informally referred to as porn or porno) is the representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal"

So according to this definition if the goal was sexual arousal in your tickling video, it may match the definition.
Was the goal to sexual arouse males/females buyers?, Would the company that made it have intend to make it for the buyers to be sexually aroused? Could tickling between those two female adults, be consider playfull and no sexual or not?
I would consider it porn, soft porn, if you want, but porn neverthless.
I have nothing against porn, the porn and film industry gave a gross income of 60000 million dollars last year in the USA, more than hollywood. Is a great business.

I would think that unless there is nudity or some kind of eroticism going on, it would be difficult to nail the video I described as anything but generic entertainment. How would the video differ from say, a video of a woman giving another woman a pedicure? How would one determine that "well, the pedicure video didn't have the goal to cause arousal, but the tickling video does." Who makes such a determination and by what standards are they made?

 

[Myriads]

Standards vary from area to area.

One item used to judge a piece of media is "Was this material created with the intent of causing sexual arousal?"

Your tickling clip was. It was produced by a professional video company with the intent to sell said item to others for their personal sexual gratification.

This is enough to get it declaired Pornography in some places.

Myriads

 

[isabeau]

although i don't view these tickling pictures and videos as porn...i know that my husband does..

 

[drew70]

Standards vary from area to area.

One item used to judge a piece of media is "Was this material created with the intent of causing sexual arousal?"

Your tickling clip was. It was produced by a professional video company with the intent to sell said item to others for their personal sexual gratification.

This is enough to get it declaired Pornography in some places.

Myriads

Could that be proven, though? Even in those places? You state it as though it were fact, but it seems like you are making an assumption about the intent. For example, I suppose it could be proven that the intent of a video was to gratify sexually it's customer base, if the prover tracked down a promotional advertisement describing it as "hot" or containing slogans like "You'll jiz in your jeans from our tickling queens!"

But what if such a slogan or advertisement simply didn't exist? What if a video producer wanting to avoid the astigma of "porn" just described what happens in the video? Cynthia tickles Charlotte because she catches Charlotte cheating at Canasta? I would think it would be nearly impossible to realistically infer intent from that. Most producers of any products don't state their intent in selling products, and I dare say most of them don't actually harbor any intent beyond getting the product sold.

 

[nowayjose]

I was showing a friend at work a professional tickling video. It was an F/F video in which both the ler and the lee were clothed in summer wear. There was no nudity, no kissing, no genetalia contact. I myself would not consider this porn. My boss would agree, as he asked me to burn him a copy. 😀

I think real porn involves an explicit display of sexual intercourse (or any variety thereof, anal sex, oral sex, masturbation).
In how far tickling videos could be classified as some kind of "soft porn", I can't say. Is flirting in mainstream movies then soft porn already? I think it would be a bit silly.
I think by the same kind of logic, a domina is not necessarily a prostitute (when it doesn't involve sex).