Are Tickling Videos Considered As Pornography?

[JimmyBoy]

This is something I've been thinking about...

Pornography is defined as sexually explicit pictures, video, writing, and other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal in the viewer.

Notice that there is no mention of having nudity.

So if you are watching a video (or some sort of material) with two or more people tickling each other is that considered to be pornography; whether or not the people in the video are nude?

What would you say?

 

[Redmage]

Well, that kind of depends on whether or not it's intended to cause arousal - according to the definition you're using.

So a video of a man tickling his wife in the family room while the kids cheer from the sidelines - probably not porn. A video of a cute model in short shorts and tube top, secured to the bed with leather cuffs while being tickled by another cute model, and sold with a big "Over 18 only" label -- probably porn.

Here's a rough but simple rule of thumb: Would you be embarrassed if your mother caught you watching a certain video? If so then there's a pretty decent chance that it's porn. Likewise would it make you uncomfortable if anyone involved in what you're watching was 10 years old, instead of legal age? If so then it's almost certainly porn, and some part of you knows it.

 

[DownUnder]

There recently was a debate about this - some producers was asking that question - and I have pondered that myself.

Say the TMF, which is clearly an adult-oriented website. If I make material with a model with the intention of posting them here, she should be made aware of that. Problem is, the moment they hear "adult-oriented", they think porn. Which begs the question of whether a less-value-laden term can be used to describe tickling material.

Sorry I don't have an answer, but I doubt you will get a consensus either.

 

[scorpionldr]

" Are Tickling Videos Considered As Pornography?"
honestly man? who GIVES a fuck? you live one time man. so what, you bait to tickling, i bait to tickling and blowjobs, another guy likes running his cock through toes. the one thing in common is cumming. and we wouldn't do it if it didn't feel good. and thats what life's all about.

go with it man.
peace,
Scorpionldr

 

[Sandrock74]

I say it is not porn if your going by the letter of the law. I made a couple of points to back up my stance the last time this was brought up but I'm too lazy to look everything up.

 

[ViperGTS]

In some case yes, in some cases no.

If it gets you off, it could be considered porn.

If you like watching them for fun, then I guess not.

 

[maniactickler]

If theres no nudity or sexual acts, then no, its not porn.

 

[poopies]

Here's what "The Law" has to say:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/pornography

In a nut-shell, if the video was produced with the intention of causing sexual arousal, and lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, then it is considered porn.

So in the case of most tickling videos, yes, it would be considered porn.

 

[BorisandNatasha]

That depends on whom you ask.
Some consider it porn others don't when in reality, it is not really pornographic unless it has sexual overtones and perhaps nudity but there is a gray area too. Nudity could be art too and not pornography.
Bottom line, unless there are sexual interludes or sex acts mixed in with the tickling, tickling is just tickling and nothing more.

Boris

 

[JimmyBoy]

This is an interesting topic of discussion. Not all "porn" or erotic material have nudity and sex scenes.

For example, let's take a foot fetish video. Let's say the video consists of a man and a woman who are fully clothed except for the woman's bare feet. In the video the man is licking, kissing, massaging, worshiping the feet... etc.

Though the video has no sex or nudity it is made with the intent on causing sexual arousal within the viewer. No is it considered porn? Yes.

When it comes to tickling, tickling videos that are made with the intent to cause arousal within the viewers can be porn. It doesn't matter if there is nudity or sex in the video.

Are we in agreement here?

 

[tcklft]

Here's what "The Law" has to say:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/pornography

In a nut-shell, if the video was produced with the intention of causing sexual arousal, and lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, then it is considered porn.

So in the case of most tickling videos, yes, it would be considered porn.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Redmage]

Here's what "The Law" has to say:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/pornography

In a nut-shell, if the video was produced with the intention of causing sexual arousal, and lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, then it is considered porn.

So in the case of most tickling videos, yes, it would be considered porn.

Better read that definition again. What you're describing is the legal test for obscenity, not pornography. Pornography is simply material that was produced with the intention of inducing sexual arousal. Obscene material is porn that is "patently offensive" AND "lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It can therefore be ruled to be illegal.

In other words, all obscene material must be pornographic, but not all pornographic material is obscene.

Tickling material that is produced to be erotic is porn. However it's probably not obscene.

I've always found the "mother and child" test to be easier to apply in the field, though.

 

[chicago]

Honestly, I'd say it depends on the intent in making the video.

If it's a scene from a movie that happens to have tickling in it, it's not porn, because the intent wasn't to arouse the audience.

However, I'd say, apart from the mainstream videos here, whether the people are clothed, naked, bound, or not, the intent of nearly all other clips is to arouse and thus, I consider them porn.

Some might find this offensive, but just my opinion.

 

[poopies]

Better read that definition again. What you're describing is the legal test for obscenity, not pornography. Pornography is simply material that was produced with the intention of inducing sexual arousal. Obscene material is porn that is "patently offensive" AND "lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." It can therefore be ruled to be illegal.

In other words, all obscene material must be pornographic, but not all pornographic material is obscene.

Tickling material that is produced to be erotic is porn. However it's probably not obscene.

I've always found the "mother and child" test to be easier to apply in the field, though.

Yeah you're right... but there are some people that would consider any pornographic material obscene. Being raised by parents who thought that way, and who forced me to attend an ultra-conservative church, I sometimes find myself thinking like them, even though I don't want to.

I agree the "mother and child" test is probably the best mechanism... but what do people that are into incest use?

 

[Sandrock74]

Being raised by parents who thought that way, and who forced me to attend an ultra-conservative church, I sometimes find myself thinking like them, even though I don't want to.

This from a person named "poopies"! 🙂

 

[ZenTickling]

Honestly, I'd say it depends on the intent in making the video.

If it's a scene from a movie that happens to have tickling in it, it's not porn, because the intent wasn't to arouse the audience.

However, I'd say, apart from the mainstream videos here, whether the people are clothed, naked, bound, or not, the intent of nearly all other clips is to arouse and thus, I consider them porn.

I created a thread about this a while back..

Just the other day I watched the movie Taking Lives with Angelina Jolie. There was a scene in which she was having sex, and there was some nudity. What was the purpose of that scene? Surely directors can develop characters and relationships without showing sex explicitly, so why do they? I think their intent is to sexually arouse the audience, which would fit the definition of pornography under your explanation. Doesn't sound right to me.

 

[chicago]

I created a thread about this a while back..

Just the other day I watched the movie Taking Lives with Angelina Jolie. There was a scene in which she was having sex, and there was some nudity. What was the purpose of that scene? Surely directors can develop characters and relationships without showing sex explicitly, so why do they? I think their intent is to sexually arouse the audience, which would fit the definition of pornography under your explanation. Doesn't sound right to me.

I'd knew you'd pipe in sooner or later. Obviously, that movie isn't porn and neither of us knows the intent of the director with that scene, so maybe he meant to arouse and maybe he meant it to be part of the story.

 

[McNoodle]

My interpretation of porn is something different that what is seen in tickling videos. Not saying I am right but that's my view of it.