morality question

[maverick83]

Are the women paid to be in tickling videos, thusly, prostitutes?

I see what you're saying, but legally, I think something like that is the equivalent of porn videos. Considered pornography, not prostitution. The main difference I see is that with pornography, everyone involved in the action is being paid for their participation whereas with prostitution, only one person is. Still, the two things seem close enough. Interesting thought, oddjob.

 

[doseone]

thanks everyone

As I appreciate all the responses, as that was what I was hoping to do, which was a good discussion going. I have and do not intent to actually go to a prostitute for this, it's just something I've always wondered about as far as legality. As if dominatrixes and masters can get away with it, wouldn't you think prostitutes would as well? Anyway it was more just one of those questions that made you go hmm?!?!?

 

[alex]

Get real

Have you ever heard of a prostitute or her client getting arrested for a scene that involved only tickling? To my knowledge, it never happens. If there's no penetration - or at least no promise of penetration in exchange for money - then legally speaking it's just another service, like washing your car. Can anyone provide a real counterexample?

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

No answers here, but I do know that I would just DIE of mortification if a buncha cops burst-in mid-session😱 .

One time, a dear friend and I were right in the middle of an S&M, um, "ritual", when we heard a knock on my door--and it became readily apparent that we hadn't locked the door! I can't tell you how awkward that was. Me starkers, spread-eagle, and gagged, trying to convey my utter bewilderment to her as to who it could be at the door. Turned out to be a close friend of ours who was also into fetish magic, but was sure a close call!

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Re: Get real

Have you ever heard of a prostitute or her client getting arrested for a scene that involved only tickling? To my knowledge, it never happens. If there's no penetration - or at least no promise of penetration in exchange for money - then legally speaking it's just another service, like washing your car. Can anyone provide a real counterexample?

well what you believe, and what you know are 2 vastly different values!

i was a chicago police officer, i know chapter 38, that's the ill. crminal code. i also have discussed with very topic with friends who still are on the job, and with a friend who was a prosecuter for cook county. you are wrong, period. tickling falls under a different heading than sex, but it still is regarded as sexual contact. also under your false ussumptions, oral sex wouldn't be illegal, sheesh!

god think before you post!

steve

 

[Oddjob0226]

Re: Get real

Have you ever heard of a prostitute or her client getting arrested for a scene that involved only tickling?

A great point and probably a good smack in the face with the wet Everlast glove of stark reality. Don't worry about it, just go out & DO it!

But it should be noted that states laws ARE different. In TX, if the police break down your door for some reason - and why would they do that to begin with??? - and someone is tied to the bed being tickled, it is conceivable that as our laws are written, if the police wanted to be jerks the tickler couldbe arrested with assualt or false imprisonment. It would never make it to trial (charges would be dropped), but if the police were bothered enough at breaking down the door and finding nothing significant, they might make an arrest out of spite. But the chances of that happening...... Ha!

Go out there and do some tickling.

 

[BigJim]

You think it's unlikely that such ridiculous charges would be forced onwards? Tell that to the poor git in Iowa who, because of that state's ridiculously religion-inspired laws, was sentenced to 6 years in prison because he had the temerity to make love to his girlfriend outside of wedlock. Under Iowa law that's considered "statutory rape" and even banned the girl from going to see him in prison, because the law considered her a victim. Not only were the cops fucking assholes enough to arrest him, but the DA was asshole enough to charge him, the courts were asshole enough to convict him and the judge was asshole enough to sentence him.


Assholes.

 

[Oddjob0226]

You think it's unlikely that such ridiculous charges would be forced onwards? Tell that to the poor git in Iowa who...

Iowa?! Eff that ess! Iowa! I'm talking about Texas. There's an Iowa kind of special chip-on-the-should-attitude they've never been without that we recall. But the stars at night are big and bright deep in the heart of TX..... you see, a few years ago in Dallas the cops busted up a swingers party where the hosts were serving liqour and everyone was having sex with one another other, while donations were being taken at the door. People were even betting on games of pool. Acting on neigbors complaints (ie, no complaints = no police action..... had these people been discreet they never would have attracted attention) the cops came and busted everyone. Several laws were broken. By taking $$ at the door that made the house a private club - but the neiborhood wasn't zoned for private clubs. Serving liquor in a private club w/o a licence is illegal. Betting is illegal. Having sex in a private club is public lewdness. So these folks broke MANY real,legit TX laws.

Yet, charges were ultimately dropped. Never even went to trial, much less any jail time being served. So you probably wouldn't get arrested for juxstaposing prostitution with tickling in Texas; even if you were arrested, jail time isn't much of a reality. And I'm betting there's a lot of pressure to reopen the case in Iowa - people aren't just wanking around letting it go unchallenged. What happenes in Leeds doesn't necessarrily affect what happens in Manchester after all.

 

[asutickler]

You think it's unlikely that such ridiculous charges would be forced onwards? Tell that to the poor git in Iowa who, because of that state's ridiculously religion-inspired laws, was sentenced to 6 years in prison because he had the temerity to make love to his girlfriend outside of wedlock. Under Iowa law that's considered "statutory rape" and even banned the girl from going to see him in prison, because the law considered her a victim. Not only were the cops fucking assholes enough to arrest him, but the DA was asshole enough to charge him, the courts were asshole enough to convict him and the judge was asshole enough to sentence him.


Assholes.

Er, Jim? "Statutory rape" is when a person has carnal relations with a person under the legal age of consent. It has nothing to do with having pre-marital sex. You'll have to pardon me, but I find it difficult to have sympathy for someone who screwed a minor...

 

[BigJim]

Er, Jim? "Statutory rape" is when a person has carnal relations with a person under the legal age of consent. It has nothing to do with having pre-marital sex. You'll have to pardon me, but I find it difficult to have sympathy for someone who screwed a minor...

She wasn't a minor. She was late 20's and he was early 30's. I'm well aware that statutory rape is the term used when someone has sex with someone below the legal age of consent; in this case it also referred to a man having sex with a woman out of wedlock. The law considered him a ravisher without official sanction, or something equally fundemental.

 

[Oddjob0226]

You'll have to pardon me, but I find it difficult to have sympathy for someone who screwed a minor...

There's no 18 year olds having sex with 17 year olds in Arizona?

 

[BigJim]

There's no 18 year old having sex with 17 year olds in Arizona?

Or 14 year olds screwing 13 year olds in New Mexico...


(Yes folks, the law treats everyone as equals.........)

 

[asutickler]

She wasn't a minor. She was late 20's and he was early 30's. I'm well aware that statutory rape is the term used when someone has sex with someone below the legal age of consent; in this case it also referred to a man having sex with a woman out of wedlock. The law considered him a ravisher without official sanction, or something equally fundemental.

Ugh. I hate to sound like the proverbial doubting Thomas, but a conviction for statutory rape in such a situation would seem impossible under normal circumstances. I tried searching for this case on Google, but had no luck. Would it be possible to get a link to a story about the case, or some such? If this really happened (and there were no extraordinary circumstances, such as the girl having a significantly diminished mental capacity, or some such) then it is easily one of the most outrageous laws/verdicts in modern American legal history.

There's no 18 year old having sex with 17 year olds in Arizona?

I see your point, and yes, there probably is. If caught doing so, they may well go to jail (although some states make exceptions for such situations). Would I sympathize with an 18 year old who was sent to jail under such circumstances? Not really. In my opinion, the benefits of the arbitrary use of "18" as an official "age of consent" far outweigh the potential inconveniences to teenage couples who may have to wait a year or so to "legally" have sex. Besides, if one is willing to accept the many benefits of "official" adulthood, one should also be willing to put up with the few minor disadvantages, such as not being able to have carnal relations with those still classified as minors.

 

[BigJim]

Ugh. I hate to sound like the proverbial doubting Thomas, but a conviction for statutory rape in such a situation would seem impossible under normal circumstances. I tried searching for this case on Google, but had no luck. Would it be possible to get a link to a story about the case, or some such? If this really happened (and there were no extraordinary circumstances, such as the girl having a significantly diminished mental capacity, or some such) then it is easily one of the most outrageous laws/verdicts in modern American legal history.

This wasn't a case I researched on the internet, so finding a link to details of it might take me a bit of time. I saw it on a program about miscarriages of justice. The girl was interviewed in the studio (and she certainly seemed to be of normal mind and awareness) and the guy made some comments by telephone from prison. I'll look it up and see if I can find any references on the net. It might be easier for you to look up though, if you find the legal code for Iowa and find if this is still it's legal position. If it isn't, then it will have been changed recently. What actually happened was the police came round over some unrelated matter and the guy answered the door in his shorts. They asked him if he was alone in the house and he replied that his girlfriend was with him, in bed. One of the snot-gobblers then smirked and asked if they were married. He replied no, they weren't. The cop then told him he was breaking the law and arrested him.

I agree that under normal circumstances this wouldn't be possible, but since when has American law ever been normal, reasonable or logical? There are dozens of extremely strange laws (not being allowed to carry an ice-cream cone in your pocket, not baing allowed to walk backwards while eating peanuts during a concert, having to keep pet elephants on a lead, not being allowed to sexually pleasure yourself with a fish unless it's dead, etc...) that hold just as much legal force as the laws against burglary and murder. 99% of the time they are ignored and people act as if they just don't exist. Sadly, there's that 1% where some c**t of a cop or DA is in a shitty mood and decides to take it out on the person in front of them.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I agree that under normal circumstances this wouldn't be possible, but since when has American law ever been normal, reasonable or logical? .... blah blah blah on and on.... Sadly, there's that 1% where some c**t of a cop or DA is in a shitty mood and decides to take it out on the person in front of them.

But doesn't that 1% happen everywhere, from Chad to Quebec? New Caledonia to Mexico? Sealand to Surinam?

U.S law are based on English common law. So similar we are, yet so different.

 

[BigJim]

Interesting point...

U.S law are based on English common law. So similar we are, yet so different.

Based on common law they might be, but enforced under British Maritime law they actually are. There's even penal codes and legal records that confirm this. I listed them somewhere in Part 3.

 

[Ticklish9's]

If the case ever came to trial, I suspect the defense would have an easy time of it.

Propositioning someone to build your deck for money isn't illegal. The same is true of dozens of other services. If you paid your friend 10 dollars to tickle you, that's not prostitution, and I imagine your friend would get a mite upset if you implied that he or she'd suddenly become a prostitute. 😉

So, while it might be a bit dicey at first getting the person to understand that there was no sex involved, and thus covering your base legally, it shouldn't pose a problem in a legal court.

*edit* Just read Areenacters riposte... a good point, and a good prosecuter could make the claim that tickling was "sexual contact".

However, think about this. In trial by jury, I find it unlikely that many people are going to consider tickling "sexual contact". Most of those who DO are people like us, and be honest - are you going to send some poor guy or girl to prison for paying to be tickled?

You'd have to find a hell of a closeminded jury to pull off that conviction, and I doubt any prosecutor worth his or her salt is going to bother taking that sort of case.

 

[Destro]

It clearly depends on what state you live in. Prostitution must be to commit or solicit to commit a sex act for money. The question would be does your state consider tickling as a sex act. If not, it would be legal. If you had ticklish feet, but went to get a pedicure simply because you liked having your feet tickled, would that be prostitution? If you went for a massage because it tickled, would that be prostitution? Obviously the state could make a case if you had your genital area tickled, but it would be much tougher if you were talking about you feet, sides, underarms. So, if you are talking about the general classic ticklish areas, I would say that it would not be illegal.

 

[BigJim]

However, think about this. In trial by jury, I find it unlikely that many people are going to consider tickling "sexual contact". Most of those who DO are people like us, and be honest - are you going to send some poor guy or girl to prison for paying to be tickled?

You'd have to find a hell of a closeminded jury to pull off that conviction, and I doubt any prosecutor worth his or her salt is going to bother taking that sort of case.

Juries (especially American ones) are capable of some of the most staggering verdicts imaginable. OJ innocent? Louise Woodward guilty? Most of the time 9'er, common sense will be observed by them, but there will always be cases where it isn't. In the case of the Iowa statutory rape for instance, the jury had no legal choice other than to convict. It was the wanker of a cop and the DA with no idea of common sense or discretion that failed the day.

 

[BigJim]

It clearly depends on what state you live in. Prostitution must be to commit or solicit to commit a sex act for money. The question would be does your state consider tickling as a sex act. If not, it would be legal. If you had ticklish feet, but went to get a pedicure simply because you liked having your feet tickled, would that be prostitution? If you went for a massage because it tickled, would that be prostitution? Obviously the state could make a case if you had your genital area tickled, but it would be much tougher if you were talking about you feet, sides, underarms. So, if you are talking about the general classic ticklish areas, I would say that it would not be illegal.

A pedicure, no because it has an everyday use that millions of American women do every year. A massage, no for the same reason. Tickling? Not comparable frankly. If you follow legality to the nth degree, then hiring an escort girl to shake your hand because you found that sexual, would be considered illegal. Highly unlikely that such a case would ever get to court, but that's the legal state of affairs. You paid for physical contact, in a situation not otherwise paid for (such as a pedicure), because you wanted to be turned on by it. Wrong, but true. I agree with Steve all the way.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

A pedicure, no because it has an everyday use that millions of American women do every year. A massage, no for the same reason. Tickling? Not comparable frankly. If you follow legality to the nth degree, then hiring an escort girl to shake your hand because you found that sexual, would be considered illegal. Highly unlikely that such a case would ever get to court, but that's the legal state of affairs. You paid for physical contact, in a situation not otherwise paid for (such as a pedicure), because you wanted to be turned on by it. Wrong, but true. I agree with Steve all the way.

thank you jim, for the public agreement.
i think our both having association with law-enforcement gives us insite that some the others lack.

steve

 

[BigJim]

thank you jim, for the public agreement.
i think our both having association with law-enforcement gives us insite that some the others lack.

steve

It helps with the background info, dunnit mate?

How rare is it though, for two coppers to be in the same place and both agree that prostitution should be legalised? 😉 We're unique in many ways.

 

[Oddjob0226]

To make my views clearer, since I know you all were wondering.....

I don't think it's immoral to pay a woman for tickling, as a 'ler or 'lee. I think it's a bummer situation for they guy having to do the paying, but not not morally wrong.

For those of you into tickling only from a sexual aspect, it might possibly get you arrested, and maybe perchance might get you some jail time depending on your local laws, but it's just not all that likely. If you want to live your life in fear of that, then the terrorists have truly won. And yet, they say this country loves a winner, so I have yet to figure that conundrum.

 

[BigJim]

To make my wiews clearer, since I know you all were wondering.....

I don't think it's immoral to pay a woman for tickling, as a 'ler or 'lee. I think it's a bummer situation for they guy having to do the paying, but not not morally wrong.

For those of you into tickling only from a sexual aspect, it might possibly get you arrested, and maybe perchance might get you some jail time depending on your local laws, but it's just not all that likely. If you want to live your life in fear of that, then the terrorists have truly won. And yet, they say this country loves a winner, so I have yet to figure that conundrum.

I can't speak for anyone else OJ, but I pretty much assumed that that's the stance you had taken from the start. I pretty much agree 100% with what you just wrote.

 

[BigBrownEyes]

That's an interesting question. The correct answer is it depends on how state's law defined prostitution. I'm not certain that propositioning someone for tickling would be considered illegal. Without looking at the statute, I'm guessing that the proposition/money exchange has to be for sex.

What the cops around here would probably do is lie and say the guy asked for sex along with the tickling and they'd try to make it fly that way.

But I'm guessing that just paying for tickling, with no sex involved, is not prostitution.