Being sexually excited by seeing minors tickled - is it wrong?

[mclaren01]

Ok, first things first, what I'm saying here is not my personal opinion, but I think it is worth exploring both sides of the argument.

The 'Youtube childporn' thread stirred a few thoughts in my mind about this. There, the argument was that people who watch kids tickled and find it sexually exciting are complete and utter sickos and need locking up. The comments I read (apologies, it's a big thread and I haven't had chance to read a lot of it, so I'll take this opportunity to apologise if this has been covered in that thread to any extent) were basically a variation on the theme that these people were essentially paedophiles. Is that a fair statement?

Is there a case to argue that the excitement from watching kids tickled doesn't neccesarily come from the kids but from the tickling? Think about it, people find cartoons of tickling quite sexually exciting, but don't want to have sex with the characters, it's the principle of tickling (often, minor things such as tickling positions/ticklish situations) that turns people on. I'm not defending anyone, but is it wrong to be sexually turned on by this stuff (a man cannot control his sexual urges, only when he acts on them negatively does it become wrong).

I could stretch this to a more general (and grossly controversial) case that paedophilia itself is not wrong until a man acts on his sexual feelings (if he watches child porn then is he doing any harm? Of course it seems grossly wrong and I am not saying I agree with it AT ALL, but is it not only when he acts on his sexual urges that he becomes wrong? Should a man really be vilified for what he finds sexually attractive?

I welcome contrasting opinions on this and DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO THINK I AGREE WITH WATCHING CHILD TICKLING/PORN/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

I await being shot down.

John

 

[Aragon]

I will put my opinion about someone being sexually excited about a minor like this. Either wait for the kid to be of age and graduated from high school, or get help.

If it is a specific minor, figure out why. I am not good at guaging age, which is why I always ask.

If it is all minors, you have a problem.

 

[KoocheeKoo]

I have a conscience and know right from wrong......I also have 13, 4, and 2 year old nieces. If I see a 30, 25, or 20 year old woman being tickled, it turns me on.....if I see 14, 11, 8, or 4 year old girls being tickled, it doesn't. Maybe being an uncle (who loves and wants to keep his nieces safe from harm) makes a difference, but I wouldn't want anyone leering at, fantasizing, or God forbid "jacking off" to pics of my nieces that age, so there's NO WAY on earth I'd allow myself to do the same (or even think about it).

Last summer while waiting for July 4th fireworks to begin at an area park, I witnessed two girls who appeared to be 11 or 12 years of age having a full fledged tickle fight.....which went on for 20-30 minutes. I thought it was cute, but nothing sexual or deviant ever entered my mind. I can assure you if they had been college coeds, it would have been a turn on......but I know better; my conscience tells me it's wrong to fantasize or become turned on by girls that young (under 18).

 

[mclaren01]

Good post KoocheeKoo.

Arago - ''if it is all minors, you have a problem'' - I hope you weren't aiming that personally at me and were talking generally. Sorry if I've mis-interpreted, I just don't want people believing these are my views.

 

[badreligion]

bottom line ... if your an adult and you get off on seeing anything sexual done to kids , tickling or anything else .. your a sick fuck and you should die

 

[Aragon]

I think anyone who has the thoughts are wrong and need some sort of help. If you don't have the thoughts, good.

Now, I have a friend, who was a well adjusted person who met a girl who he thought was of age and started talking with her. Turned out she was 17. They waited, as he was 20. They have been married over 10 yrs. That is fine.

 

[jj82277]

its all abotu heart motive. the concept of minor is biologically fluid. there are 14 year olds who look 24 and 24 year olds who look 14. so if someone DIDN'T know the age of the person but it was a developed mature female then i don't think there is anything WRONG with that person, it is just biology.

now, if the person KNOWS that the female is under age and still watches in then there is a problem with that persons volutional decision making.

now, obviously if you ARE 16 yourself and see a 14 year old tickled, that is one thing, but there SHOULD be no minors on this borad.

but for the most part i understand that the host site for vidclips SHOULD remove amterial they know is of minors.

 

[-Hari-]

defends slightly on age too, when i was 16 i was still attracted to girls around late 14-my age and above, and tickling them certainly didn't seem wrong then, had i been 40 then yeah.. I tend to find it ok as long as they're in my age limit, at 22 now, i don't really find girl younger than 18 attractive, they're just too small and undeveloped.. That said there are exeptions, but i'd never do anything with them, it's worrying how old these youngsters can look these days, you have to be so careful, i guess you've got keep your morals about you and be cautious.

 

[StrikerN57]

Since a minor is technically someone under the age of 18, I feel that it's wrong it's you're decently older than that person, e.i you're 30 or something, and the person you're watching is 16, or even if you're 17 but the person's 8 or something. Not so much if it's a 16 year old and a 19 year old, cuz there's not that much of a difference (in most cases anyway). Like you said, I think the thing is, it's not so much being excited by the person, as it is being excited by the act.
Also, you mentioned "is a man watching child porn actually doing any harm? it's when he acts on those urges that it's wrong." I agree, but only to a point; he's doing no direct harm, and really, it directly effects no one but himself, because he's the only one who knows. However, I personally think that child porn in general is wrong. Regular porn is one thing because those people are adults and can decide on their own whether or not they want to do that. Child porn, on the other hand; even if the child says they want to do that, they're neither mentally nor emotionally developed or quallified to make that choice. Hell, I'm 19 and I don't even think I'd be quallified to make that choice. Regardless of whether someone watching that acts on those urges, they're still perpetuating that system of degrading those children and using them for their own personal enjoyment. Why anyone would do that to a child, I do not understand, and I hope I never will.

Bottom line: If you see some kids tickling each other and you get turned on, you need to stop and ask yourself "Am I turned on by the tickling or the kids?" If it's the kids, then you need to get your conscience in gear, and get some mental, emotional, and moral help. If you don't then SERIOUSLY, JUST KEEP YOUR THOUGHTS TO YOURSELF.

 

[dskodj]

bottom line ... if your an adult and you get off on seeing anything sexual done to kids , tickling or anything else .. your a sick fuck and you should die

what he said

 

[Ticklshchic03]

You can't help what turns you on but that person needs to realize that they are an adult and to never take advantage of children for their own gain.


So I don't think they are sick freaks unless they can't control it. Normal human beings have self control their actions.

I also agree with what someone else said about a 19 and a 16yo being waaay different than a 40yo and a 13yo.

 

[LD_Tickler]

bottom line ... if your an adult and you get off on seeing anything sexual done to kids , tickling or anything else .. your a sick fuck and you should die

Alright this kind of attitude pisses me off. Before I explain why, let me be clear: I'm not a pedophile, children do not turn me on in any context, and I don't support the child pornography industry.

Some people have bizarre tastes, it's not their choice. If I could, I'd get rid of my tickling fetish. I'm sure most people who get off watching kids say the same thing. Regardless, a person is to be condemned based on his or her actions, not his or her tastes or thoughts.

I'm actually going to repeat that.

a person is to be condemned based on his or her actions, not his or her tastes or thoughts.

So if pedophile X fantasizes about children, fine, let him. As long as he doesn't DO anything to harm or exploit a child, he's fine in my books. I don't give a shit what turns you on, only what you do. So, if you have a guy who likes watching minors, but doesn't harm or exploit children, he's just fucking dandy by me.

This covers watching child porn as well. By doing that, you feed the industry. That is an action with real life ramifications, so that could be condemned. But the mere fact of finding it arousing? Not immoral.

Take me for example. My tastes are pretty fucking dark. I'm into nonconsentual, sexual, tickling and bondage. That's a stone's throw away from torture and rape. Have I, or will I ever, torture or rape anyone? No. Thus, I'm not a sick fuck who should die.

Thoughts cannot be immoral, only actions. Knee jerk reactions like the one I quoted aren't constructive in understanding problems like child porn.

 

[Oddball]

There are a lot of factors and the like of how this can or can't be wrong. As people were talking about, age can be a difference. Like a 16 year old getting aroused from another 16 year old. Minors will be minors.

And we can get onto where is the line drawn? Like a 19 year old getting aroused with a 17 year old, is the 19 year old a pedophile, or still just in the mindset of being a minor?

But since I'm going to the assumtion we are talking about the child porn, ergo 21+year olds going after 17-year olds continuesly, then there is a problem.

And it isn't an easy thing to fix.. pedophiles are just wired wrong. They truly can't stop themselves unless they get serious help, and I'm talking about shock therapy kind of help.

 

[StrikerN57]

Thoughts cannot be immoral, only actions. Knee jerk reactions like the one I quoted aren't constructive in understanding problems like child porn.

That's the first time I've ever heard that take on the subject. That's an extremely open minded opinion. But I agree: the key to undertsanding anything if to keep an open mind and avoid oversimplifying things like that. But I suppose if you're adamant about something, you're adamant about something.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Being sexually aroused by seeing anything being done to a minor is extremely unhealthy.

Transfer that energy into being aroused by of-age adults.

Or Counceling.

No. I'm not referring to you in specific, OP. Just a General statement.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Ew. I don't know what else to say really. Just...gross.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Being sexually aroused by seeing anything being done to a minor is extremely unhealthy.

Transfer that energy into being aroused by of-age adults.

You talk as if these people have a choice. They don't. I get off watching videos of hot girls being, for all intents and purposes, tortured. If it were possible to just "will" that arousal onto some other more conventional sight, I would.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

You talk as if these people have a choice. They don't. I get off watching videos of hot girls being, for all intents and purposes, tortured. If it were possible to just "will" that arousal onto some other more conventional sight, I would.

Everybody has a choice. I'm not saying snap your fingers and boom it's changed/transfered.

I see you clipped my segment about Counceling. That is another viable way to get help.

As far as your interests go, they are legal. As far as being sexually aroused by minors..not so legal. That is if it is acted on..which it isn't. And I get that.

But I suppose I mean morally and ethically.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

You talk as if these people have a choice. They don't. I get off watching videos of hot girls being, for all intents and purposes, tortured. If it were possible to just "will" that arousal onto some other more conventional sight, I would.

Huh. I totally forgot about that aspect. For whatever reason we're all wired a certain way. I've always wondered if I found kids hot if I would be able to get help on my own.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Everybody has a choice. I'm not saying snap your fingers and boom it's changed/transfered.

I see you clipped my segment about Counceling. That is another viable way to get help.

As far as your interests go, they are legal. As far as being sexually aroused by minors..not so legal. That is if it is acted on..which it isn't. And I get that.

But I suppose I mean morally and ethically.

Sorry, I only clipped your post to make it clear which part I was responding to.

Anyway, being aroused by minors is legal - just as legal as being aroused by tickling. There is no law dictating how you feel, just how you act. If I were to act on my fantasies, they'd be just as illegal as pedohilic action.

As for counselling... counselling to change your sexuality? I seriously doubt that's possible. Pedophilia is a fetish, just like tickling. You say there is a choice. There is no choice. When did you choose to be into tickling? No amount of counselling will remove my tickling fetish, just like no amount of counselling will remove a foot fetish, or a smoking fetish, or pedophilia. It's not a mental instability, it's just an incredibly unfortunate sexual deviance.

You only need counselling if you can't control your behaviour - you can't counsel away your sexuality.

You've heard those stories about religious-run camps to "cure" homosexual people? How they have a great success rate, how their graduates miraculously become straight, marry somebody of the opposite sex, and all too often commit suicide?

There really is no choice. We've developed. We don't have the technology to willingly alter our sexualities.

 

[The_New_One]

LD made the best point in this thread if you ask me. I always wanted to be "normal" just like anyone else, being turned on by breasts, sex and so on. While I find these things quite attractive sometimes, they are not as arousing as tickling, bondage and feet for me. If I COULD change that fact, I definately would.

I doubt there is any way to change your sexuality. Maybe being caught while jacking off to a tickling video by a family member, but I dont want to try.

Long story short: Pedophiles dont have our luck to have a fetish so harmless. They didnt choose to be like that, so I guess they deserve our compassion and kind words to prevent actual crimes to happen instead of calling them "sick fucks" and wanting them "to die", which could even drive them to acts like that. Thats almost as condemnable and life-despiteous as a raping.

 

[Artoo]

Good post, LD, I'm of the opinion that Paedophiles are as likely to molest kids as we are to tickle torture non consensually.
Well, they are probably slightly more likely, as at least many have an outlet with which out tickling desires can be met.

But anyway, yeah. We should judge people on their actions, not on their sexuality. Paedophiles just happened to be at the back of the queue when sexuality was being given out...

 

[Coda]

There is obviously a line between having sexual impulses and acting on them, and I think it's clear you were asking about the former, mclaren01.

The former is totally morally unobjectionable. I don't believe it is any less moral to entertain the thought of having sex with a child, as it is criminal to entertain the thought of murdering an adult that one is extremely frustrated with. I don't think that thoughts of any kind (from the most glorious to the most bizarre) should ever be discouraged. It would be a true shame for us-- the only species with built-in mental software capable of simulating real-life circumstances without harming anyone-- not to exploit it because of fear of vilification. Sensibly, modern laws are made to dictate what should not be done (as opposed to what should not be thought).

Becoming aware of the causes of any psychological phenomenon makes it easier to control. For example, people become much better able to control their amazement at a psychic reading once they're aware of the (rather unimpressive) tricks used by psychics to create the illusion of genuine ability, and learning in turn about the trickability of people. I've heard of almost no serious research done on sexual fetishes or attraction to children, but I currently believe that access to such knowledge (if it were properly investigated and published) might be a good starting point for people actually wanting to change their sexual dispositions.

I understand and support the legal protection of minors from involvement in sexual activities of any kind, but I'm really puzzled at the way so many of us seem to have bought completely into the area below the precise 18-year benchmark as something as immoral as it is illegal. Surely some 17-year-olds are as personally mature as other 19-year-olds, and some 19-year-olds are as unprepared for sexual consent as some 17-year-olds. If I were a minor myself, would those commenters who defautly flaunt the word "sick" tell me that I was "sick" for being attracted to another minor?

 

[-Hari-]

last year when i was 21, i was going out with a girl who i met at work who was 17, i felt she was abit young but she was more mentaly and physically mature than the 20 year old i had been with a few months before, and at this stage in my life..altho that relationship is over now, it was easily the most relaxed and easy relationship i've had, 50/50 give and take and we got on great, i don't regret it for a second and now we're really good friends, i tell her everything and we help eachother out in life alot, now, am i a sick fuck?

 

[Artoo]

Out of curiosity, what's the age of consent in the US? It's 16 over here...