Is tickling pornography?

[DontAskJusTckle]

I would say it depends on the intent with which the material was filmed; if it was filmed with the intent to be sold on clips4sale as jack-off material, then it is pornography, if it was people fooling around putting it up on youtube, then no.

The problem with this idea is that most producers of porn don't care if anybody masturbates to it. They only care how much money it's making.

Let's say a couple of girls get drunk amd film themselves getting naked and sucking on each other's mammalian protuberances. Then let's say one of them decides to embarrass the other by posting said clip to Youtube or Daily Motion.

By your definition this wouldn't be porn, because it was neither produced nor distributed with the intent to sexually stimulate. Yet we both know it would be porn, regardless of the intent.

When you attempt to define something like pornography (at least for legal purposes) it's a doomed venture to hinge the definition on the intent of it's creator. It's like saying a bomb is only a bomb if it's creator intends to blow something up with it.

I absolutely believe that any form of produced tickling videos are pornography, whether clothed or not, and whether anything sexual happens or not.

Pornography is not a matter of belief or opinion. There is criteria by which to determine whether or not media is pornographic. If it meets that criteria, it's porn. If it does not meet the criteria, it's not porn, regardless of what you believe.

Any videos designed for the purpose of sexual gratification are pornography.

Really?

Let's look at some definitions, shall we?

<hr />Dictionary.com

por·nog·ra·phy [pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Show IPA
noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.
Origin:
1840–50; < Greek pornográph ( os ) writing about harlots ( porno-, combining form of pórne harlot + -graphos -graph) + -y3
<hr />Webster.com

por·nog·ra·phy
noun
movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement
<hr />Wikipedia.com

Pornography (often abbreviated as "porn" or "porno" in informal usage) (Greek: p???e?a, porneia, fornication) is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal. Pornography may use a variety of media, including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games. The term applies to the depiction of the act rather than the act itself, and so does not include live exhibitions like sex shows and striptease.<hr />​

It's true that intent is mildly woven into two of the three definitions. But what's present in all three is the depection of nudity or outright sexual activity. It's built into the world itself. The greek word porneia means fornication. In plainer terms, sex.

So in order for something to be porn, it MUST by definition include nudity or material of a sexual nature.

I've yet to see a tickling video that wasn't made for this purpose.

Excuse me, but exactly how do you know for what purpose a video is made? Moreover, what does it even matter? The law is going to judge it for it's content. If it's got sex in it, it's porn. If everybody's clothed and there is no contact with private areas, it's not porn, no matter how much you want to label it so.

It really doesn't matter if there's nudity or not, the defining factor is the intent of the producer: was it made primarily so that people could masturbate to it? Then yes, it's pornography.

Actually, the defining factor is the presence of nudity or sexual activity. None of the definitions I found mentioned anything about masturbation.

I saw some videos a while ago that featured young beautiful women getting tickled. Usually, they weren't tied, and they were always clothed. It was very clear that these videos, which focused on young, virginal-looking girls being tickled half to death, were for the purposes of masturbation. If these girls convinced themselves of anything otherwise, I feel sorry for them. It's porn. Period.

Well I have good news for you, Cammie. Those girls were not engaging in nudity or sexual activity, so their consciences are clean. If there's no sex or nudity, there's no porn. Period.

If you're masturbating to it and the person who produced the video knew you would masturbate to it, it's porn.

Now you're being ridiculous.

What if the producer thought I would masturbate to it but I declined to? Is it still porn?

What if the producer thought it wasn't quite sexy enough for anybody to masturbate to it, but lo and behold, Jack whips out his member and starts beating it like it owes him money? Is it still porn?

How does a producer know for certain that anybody will masturbate to his product? As long as it sells, does he even care??

You judge a media by its CONTENT! Is the content pornographic in nature? Does it show nudity or depict sexual activity? Then it's porn! If it's two pretty girls tickling each other fully clothed, then it's not.

Imagine this scene:

"Hey Dad. I found this old unmarked DVD in the attic. I popped it in the machine and it showed two incredibly hot lesbians sucking on each other's mammalian protuberances! Can I keep it, Dad?"

"Well I don't know, son. It might be pornography."

"I'm pretty sure it's porn, Dad. I mean they show EVERYTHING!"

"Well son, I used to think that way too, but I read on the TMF that it doesn't matter what the content is. It's only porn if it was created for the purpose of masturbation. You've no idea who the producer is?"

"Sorry, Dad. I played it all the way through maybe ten or twenty times and I didn't see any credits."

"Well son, I guess we can't consider it porn, seeing as how we can't establish the purpose for which it was created."

"Then I can keep it?!"

"You bet, son."

"Wow, you're the best Dad ever!"

"Thanks, son. Now let's get that homework done. We want to make sure you pass all your classes so you can start Middle School next year."​

 

[Teal]

Stuff

Actually, two of the definitions you yourself cited explicitly state that for something to be pornography it has to have been produced or distributed with the intent to sexually arouse the viewer (Webster: "...in order to cause sexual excitement" Wikipedia: "...for the purpose of sexual arousal") Your one other definition doesn't even mention nudity or sex specifically (dictionary.com) So I'm not sure how that supports your argument.

The intent of the producer and/or distributor can almost always be reasonably inferred. In your hypothetical example, the two women, by the act of performing a sexual act on film (an audience) without any mentioned non-sexual purpose, almost certainly have the intent of sexually arousing the viewers of said film. On the other hand, there are many visual depictions of nudity and/or sex that are clearly not pornography. For example, only a very disturbed individual would consider the movie Requiem for a Dream pornography, yet it depicts sex acts nonetheless.

 

[Coda]

Because most of the content here is intended to cause erotic feelings and a lot of it is explicitly sexual, yes, I think of it as pornography. I'm not sure whether my use of the word aligns with everyone's, but if it doesn't, I'm happy to take the extra moment to explain it or ask how others use the word.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Actually, two of the definitions you yourself cited explicitly state that for something to be pornography it has to have been produced or distributed with the intent to sexually arouse the viewer (Webster: "...in order to cause sexual excitement" Wikipedia: "...for the purpose of sexual arousal")

Yes, and if you look you'll see that I acknowledged that in my last post. You know, when I said, "It's true that intent is mildly woven into two of the three definitions."

Your one other definition doesn't even mention nudity or sex specifically (dictionary.com) So I'm not sure how that supports your argument.

True. But neither does it mention intent or purpose, so unfortunately it doesn't support yours, either. It does mention "obscene" material. Sure, you can grasp at straws and insist that doesn't refer to sex or nudity, but the bottom line is that the dictionary.com definition appropriately defines pornography by its content, not by the intent of the producer. That's how it supports my argument. Then there's the word "pornography" itself which comes from the greek word porniea, which means fornication.

The intent of the producer and/or distributor can almost always be reasonably inferred.

Unless it's stated or made obvious, your "inference" is nothing but presumption and speculation.

In your hypothetical example, the two women, by the act of performing a sexual act on film (an audience) without any mentioned non-sexual purpose, almost certainly have the intent of sexually arousing the viewers of said film.

On what basis would you prove this? You can't possibly know the intent, even if this were a real scenario and not a hypothetical one.

On the other hand, there are many visual depictions of nudity and/or sex that are clearly not pornography. For example, only a very disturbed individual would consider the movie Requiem for a Dream pornography, yet it depicts sex acts nonetheless.

Yet if the producer announced that it was his intent to sexually stimulate people, that movie would be pornography according to Webster's definition.

My argument is that pornography must have sexual content in order to be pornography. You have stated that it doesn't matter if there is sex or nudity, that only the intent of the producer is the deciding factor of whether media qualifies as porn. The dictionary definitions support my argument while simultaneously refuting yours.

 

[helplessandhappy]

Let's say a couple of girls get drunk amd film themselves getting naked and sucking on each other's mammalian protuberances. Then let's say one of them decides to embarrass the other by posting said clip to Youtube or Daily Motion.

I wouldn't consider that porn. I would consider it a private video that was stolen and posted against someone's will.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Dontask-- Can I respectfully ask you not to call me Cammie? That isn't and never was my name. It was a username I made up off the top of my head years ago so I could join and ask a question. It means nothing to me, which is why i changed it.

That's unfortunate. I think Cammie is a much prettier name than helplessandhappy and it suits you far better in my opinion. I don't believe for a minute that anybody is helpless so don't ask me to call you that. But I'll agree not to call you Cammie if you'll agree to call me DAJT.

You seem quite intent on arguing that these videos are not porn. If you have some negative attachment to the word "porn," so be it. You can call these videos whatever you're comfortable with. But I guarantee, if you were to show these fetish videos to most average people, they would consider them porn.

First of all, let's be clear about what I'm arguing. There are a lot of "fetish" videos depicting a naked or topless girl strapped to a table and getting tickled. Often she is also vibrated. Those are not the video's I'm claiming to be porn free. (Please, nobody start singing.)

The tickling videos to which I refer involved fully clothed participants. There are tons of them out there, from Tickle Abuse, Tickle Torture, and many other producers of tickling media. In fact, I've seen more G-rated tickling videos than any other kind. There is no vibrating or anything sexual going on. Just a normal person tickling another normal person. There's nothing that in away suggests sex. These kinds of videos are by definition NOT pornography, because not only is the intent unclear, but there is no nudity or anything sexually explicit.

I even have an example of this. Years ago I worked in a sports bar and we had big cable TV's all around as most sports bars do. Well, there was no game on that night so my boss had Howard Stern on (when he still had his E show). It was one where they had this tickle fetish guy on there and he had this girl tied down and was demonstrating to the guys how to tickle her. A group of women who were eating at the bar complained to the boss and asked him to change the channel. Their reason? They didn't want to be "forced to watch fetish porn." My boss quickly apologized, said he didn't realize what was happening on the show and changed it.

So, some women saw tickling on the Howard Stern show and somehow "deduced" that it was fetish related? That's your example? Anybody's who's ever watched 10 minutes of the Howard Stern show knows he's all about porn stars, strippers, and the like. Sorry h², but that's just not much of an example.

Here's a better one. It's a tickling video from a producer of tickling videos. I got it on Clips For Sale and found it under the Tickling category. It's called "Tickle Revenge At the Office." The plot involves an angered female manager who tickle-punishes one of her male subordinates for behaving unprofessionally. Yes, the irony is nearly blinding. Anyway, Here is a screen cap...



As you can see, there is no nudity, no contact with private areas. There is nothing sexually explicit about this video. It's simply a woman tickling a man. I've played this video and others like it on computers at my place of work where others could see it. People raised an eyebrow here and there, but by and large, nobody said anything about it.

And do you know why, h²? Because it isn't porn, that's why!

Funny how you quoted the definition when it says it pretty clearly.

What's even funnier is how I acknowleged that not only when I first posted it, but again in my following post after Teal also felt inclined to point that out to me. What you and he seem determined to overlook as that the definition also specifies that there must be nudity or sexually explicit material in order to qualify as porn. The video from which I posted the screen cap is a tickling video, but there is no nudity nor sexually explicit material, and therefore the video cannot be considered as porn.

If you don't think these tickling videos are "sexual subject matter" then perhaps I'm on the wrong forum, lol.

You lost me totally. What does my opinion of a few videos have to do with whether or not the TMF is right for you??

I wouldn't consider that porn. I would consider it a private video that was stolen and posted against someone's will.

And how does somebody who happens to browse to that video by chance know that hidden information? Aren't they going to regard it as a pornographic clip, based on its...say it with me....CONTENT?

 

[AlexisDay11]

I think a lot of it is, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[helplessandhappy]

Call them whatever you want, dude. If you're passionate about them not being porn, that's your perspective. I don't see the point of debating semantics. It's pretty clear what these videos are for.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Call them whatever you want, dude. If you're passionate about them not being porn, that's your perspective. I don't see the point of debating semantics. It's pretty clear what these videos are for.

Whether or not a clip qualifies as porn has nothing to do with me, my passion, or whatever I want.

It's about criteria. If it meets the criteria for pornography, it's porn. If it doesn't, it's something else. Some tickling videos definitely fall into the category of porn. Others come nowhere near it. Pretty easy math there.

 

[JazzBouchard]

Always thought that tickling vids were not situable for minors, but just that. Adult content if you like, but not necessary porn. Unless, of course, there's nudity, like other have said.

 

[SoleMates]

I think that ultimately the only opinion that matters on whether tickling (videos) is porn is that of the hosting service you're using to distribute your material. If they think it's porn, and their terms of service forbids porn, they'll yank it.

 

[rhiannon]

Unless, of course, there's nudity, like other have said.

Why does nudity make it porn?

 

[Bohemianne]

Usually, tickling websites contain a waring, that you are going to view "adult", or "sexually explicit" content. What do you think, are tickling sites the same as the ordinary porn stuff? If not, where do you think is the difference? If yes, then why? Can tickling stuff influence the mental growing-up of non-adults? In which way?

Not everything in the contributed or published Tickling Art in this forum is porn. The "adult" warning only serves to consolidate the wider scope of contents produced by various artists/publishers. There are really works/themes that are consistently non-pronish and purely intended for fun tickling only. I could give specific examples, but I think that would be unnecessary.

 

[porcelaindoll2]

My attitude is if you personally use tickle videos to masturbate then to you it is porn. If it makes you wet or your penis hard then you obviously found it sexy and I'd still call it porn. If a person can just watch it for fun and not masturbate or get aroused then to that person it probably isn't porn. I think it all comes down to how you view it and feel about it.(I've been drinking, cokes with vanilla vodka , so I hope I make sense)

 

[C.A.B.]

Personal pornography is whatever titillates your libido.

 

[chicago]

I'd say if you have to be 18 to buy it, that's a clue right there.

 

[JazzBouchard]

Why does nudity make it porn?

Well, at least makes it not situable or minors. But the thing is involving nudity on a tickle vid makes it more universal of the public. So I think it's probably a commercial strategy. Tickling is not porn; If i'm allowed to correct me.

 

[sophilos]

The basis of pornography is titillation, a highly subjective phenomenon. Some of us are sexually aroused by depictions that include no nudity at all. Nudity or no, there is a powerful sexual appeal in the depiction of situations in which power is reversed from the conventional and/or monopolized by one person or highly cohesive group.

The most obvious example, of course, is BDSM, especially of a naked male by a leather-clad female.

But consider CFNM, Clothed Female Naked Male. Depending on the scenario, the male might not even be touched, yet the whole aim of every second of the file is to titillate viewers of a specific taste.

Oddly, CFNM might be considered more refined, more pure, than BDSM in that the power reversal is enough for some observers, while consumers of BDSM usually need to see force exercised directly, by physical contact.

So no, the intent of the producer does not matter until and unless somebody is willing to pay for a piece of their work. You're nobody 'til somebody loves your work.

 

[AdmiralBeatty]

It's Porn

 

[tcklft]

If it's meant to get me hot 'n' bothered, it's porn.

 

[CaptainValiant]

bottom line: to our fetish wired brains it's no different than typical porn. don't say it is. you'll start sounding like the Johns who call themselves producers.

 

[TicklesXXX]

The intent of the producer and/or distributor can almost always be reasonably inferred. In your hypothetical example, the two women, by the act of performing a sexual act on film (an audience) without any mentioned non-sexual purpose, almost certainly have the intent of sexually arousing the viewers of said film. On the other hand, there are many visual depictions of nudity and/or sex that are clearly not pornography. For example, only a very disturbed individual would consider the movie Requiem for a Dream pornography, yet it depicts sex acts nonetheless.

It is very very very naive to believe that there is not intention to arouse the viewer when a sexual act is showed in a picture or in a paint or in any kind of artwork, and eve in dressing code: most women today (specially younger ones) feel forced to use clothes that make them feel "pretty", clothes that usually causes sexual excitation in many men, like tiny skirts and short pants, or some kind of shirts; and many of them are dishonest or unconscious when they say that they do not dress like they do to attract the people, but they actually do, even if they do not think it.

Yet if we took your idea, we should force the women to use long plain dresses that do not let men look any part or shape of their bodies, so they can not get sexually aroused, because other dressing would be pornographic.

But, as I said before, it is naive to think that something is pornography just because it is sexually exciting. Also, you ignore the possibility to make erotic things that are not pornographic.

Pornography is more related with explicitly showing a sexual act, with genitalia and anything that could be seen, rather than just exciting sexually. Pornography is something that leave very few things to the imagination.

 

[rhiannon]

Pornography is something that leave very few things to the imagination

Like your sig pics?

 

[dad1]

If there's sex or nudity, then it's pornography. If it's tickling between fully clothed people, then no.

 

[chicago]

If there's sex or nudity, then it's pornography. If it's tickling between fully clothed people, then no.

lol even when it's advertised on here and sold on clips4sale?