Nickelodeon feet and tickling Scandal

[himynameisbrak]

Does anyone else have memories of Amanda Bynes being tickled years ago on All That? She was obviously a minor at the time, but I have vague memories of being a kid and seeing her being tickled in a sketch on that show. I know Dan Schneider was a writer or the creator or something like that for All That...

 

[Wolf]

I hate when ass hats like this tarnish two fetishes that have nothing to do with him being a sick pervert, but will unfortunately be linked with him because he happens to have both feet and tickle fetishes!
How horribly fucking unfortunate for the rest of us!

Nothing to do with it? His two fetishes (that we know of) were his mechanism for perving on young girls.

 

[FeatherEndeavor]

Nothing to do with it? His two fetishes (that we know of) were his mechanism for perving on young girls.

I think what he meant was that those 2 fetishes have nothing to do with him being a pedophile. Many people on here have both of those fetishes but for adults only. Yes those were his mechanism for going after young girls but only because he happened to be a pedophile with fetishes. Now, because of him, people who hadn't heard of tickle fetishes up to this point might think it's connected to pedophilia somehow. I've known people who have jumped to conclusions and made strange associations like that.

 

[ElFewja]

The content of this person's skeeviness is mostly unrelated to the individuals he preyed upon. I say that because it's certainly easier to hide a foot or tickling fetish than it is to hide that one is groping other parts of the body, or worse, having full on sex. I'm not saying people didn't know they were being taken advantage of, it absolutely seems like they did.

It sucks that it happened, it sucks for these people, and parts of hollywood suck. I think these people, those that abuse their authority, are everywhere, though.

And it sucks, and it will give a negative connotation or mindset to the feet and tickling fetishes by associating them with pedophilia, which I already think can be done with tickling, and that sucks.

On the other hand it's decent to know the name of the person that helped cement my own personal fetishes.

 

[Wolf]

It doesn't matter whether Schneider's primary motivation is pedophilia or his fetishes; he's not representative of anyone but himself.

 

[tickltulz]

Pretty damned creepy. And they say he's made like 20 hit kids shows? I've only seen a smattering when I watch my niece and nephew and admit I've never seen what they're talking about during those few glimpses as I walk in or out of a room. I know the stuff is so mindless and stupid I wonder how it's such a hit with kids.

I don't know what's worse- all the foot innuendoes on underage girls, or all the creepy photos of him holding and squeezing them. And do the parents really go along with this? Either this is just some more Hollywood smear tactics and National Enquirer nonsense, or people's silence is being bought by Networks.

 

[ElFewja]

I agree with you that an individual should be representative only of him or herself, and that that is how I try to view people, but that's not how a lot of people do. An example within this thread is people saying such things like "Hollywood sucks." As much as it sucks, one person's deeds have an effect on how other people view anyone that appears associated with that person. I can think of a lot of examples of how the way one person is viewed effects how another is viewed (good cop/bad cop, how hollywood is suddenly crumbling and kicking out a bunch of actors that have allegations against them, the people that were kneeling during the national anthem, republicans, democrats, any group really) That initial impression bears a lot on how one views the remaining cast, it starts to shed light on more problems, or people are wrongly accused of certain actions or thought processes (a form of projecting).

How one views another is a fairly complex thing, and for those with no connection to anyone with either of those fetishes, I can easily see how one might monstrify the rest of the crowd.

The truth of the matter is one always represents those around him/her as well. This guy might not be associated with us directly (or maybe he is), and the impact may not be direct or obvious, but I'm certain it will have one.

I do absolutely agree though that the method should not be the key objective here, but rather the target.

 

[Wolf]

I understand the anxiety that people might feel, worrying about being lumped in with someone so skeevy, but I just don't share it. Anyone with any level of sexual intelligence already knows about fetishes, and that most are harmless.

 

[Alliekat]

I understand the anxiety that people might feel, worrying about being lumped in with someone so skeevy, but I just don't share it. Anyone with any level of sexual intelligence already knows about fetishes, and that most are harmless.

Once again...well said

 

[ElFewja]

I wouldn't refer to what I've described as anxiety. To me it's a pretty logical train of thought that leads to it (skeevy person did x, therefore x is a creepy thing because it has been used in a creepy way, but the root of this is a misunderstanding of the source). We also had the Tickled documentary recently, which is also more about one person than the community at all.

I do want to say though, from an objective stand point, I agree with you. That's how it should be, and I think that's how most informed people will view it. I just think there's a very easy chance for this case to be (intentionally?) misinterpreted, misunderstood or skewed. I also fully believe that there are those that won't understand it, and there are also those that just don't like feet and or tickling at all.

 

[Wolf]

I wouldn't refer to what I've described as anxiety. To me it's a pretty logical train of thought that leads to it (skeevy person did x, therefore x is a creepy thing because it has been used in a creepy way, but the root of this is a misunderstanding of the source). We also had the Tickled documentary recently, which is also more about one person than the community at all.

Oh, I didn't think you had any anxiety. I was speaking in terms of the people who are worried about being associated with this creep, when all they have to do is not be creepy (not saying they are, of course. I'm saying that's how to avoid it). There wasn't any huge backlash against the tickling community because of the documentary, because the documentary showed it was a harmless thing that D'Amato had perverted into something awful. Now, he's just a vague memory to most people, if they remember him at all.

I do want to say though, from an objective stand point, I agree with you. That's how it should be, and I think that's how most informed people will view it. I just think there's a very easy chance for this case to be (intentionally?) misinterpreted, misunderstood or skewed. I also fully believe that there are those that won't understand it, and there are also those that just don't like feet and or tickling at all.

Sure, but why would those people know about such intimate interests, anyway?

There's a way to avoid all this hypothetical judgment, for those who are genuinely worried about it.
Don't discuss your fetish until you know you're dealing with someone who's open-minded about sexuality; or, at the very least, your sexuality.
And show you're open-minded about theirs.

 

[Tenebrae]

I have nothing to say about the Nickelodeon thing. I don't know the damn guy and to me Nickelodeon was first and foremost a toy brand. I wasn't even aware they did shows. However this quote caught my eye:

And show you're open-minded about theirs.

Bravo Wolf! There is much, much wisdom in those words. Freedom is not just there to protect your interest and your sexuality. It's also for those sexualities which you might find repulsive. A lot of people should keep that in mind.

It works for ideas and beliefs too by the way. There are many people I whose ideology I find abhorrent. Does not mean that I want to throw them in jail. Or to see them lose their job or whatever. Hell I am even friends with some 😛

Another thing to take from this quote is that you can't go around treating people like shit and expect respect in return. Being nice won't always be paid in return, but it's worth a try. At least in my book.

 

[Wolf]

I have nothing to say about the Nickelodeon thing. I don't know the damn guy and to me Nickelodeon was first and foremost a toy brand. I wasn't even aware they did shows. However this quote caught my eye:



Bravo Wolf! There is much, much wisdom in those words. Freedom is not just there to protect your interest and your sexuality. It's also for those sexualities which you might find repulsive. A lot of people should keep that in mind.

It works for ideas and beliefs too by the way. There are a lot of people I whose ideology I find abhorrent. Does not mean that I want to throw them in jail. Or to see them lose their job or whatever. Hell I am even friends with some 😛
Another thing to take from this quote is that you can't go around treating people like shit and expect respect in return. Being nice won't always be paid in return, but it's worth a try. At least in my book.

That was one sentence from a larger statement. Taken out of context, it loses its meaning.
Did you have something to add that was relevant to the topic?

 

[Tenebrae]

That was one sentence from a larger statement. Taken out of context, it loses its meaning.
Did you have something to add that was relevant to the topic?

I singled this one out because I think there's much to be taken from it. I don't think I strayed from the hypothetical judgment part though, but feel free to disagree.

To the topic of Nickelodeon, I have nothing to add (as I said in my post 😛). I did not even know they produced shows. If you mean to the topic of being judgmental to one's fetish and the more general theme of bigotry, I've said my piece 😉

 

[csonka]

I agree, VERY creepy. Unfortunately for these young actors and actresses, being on a show of such popularity is a dream come true. Something many dream of but never attain. All the money, the glitz and glamour that comes with the popularity. To live the life of a Hollywood star/starlet at such a young age is a fantasy so few get to experience. I guess they feel the rewards outweigh the "situations" they are put in. Many times they are afraid no one will believe them and it will jeopardize their career if they were to say something. They chose to accept it, look the other way or take payoffs to keep the money and notoriety going. Now a days it seems like more and more of these creeps are being outed as the victims are not as afraid to come forward knowing others will follow. Lock these disgusting pigs up in general population!!

 

[Moss]

I have nothing to say about the Nickelodeon thing. I don't know the damn guy and to me Nickelodeon was first and foremost a toy brand. I wasn't even aware they did shows. However this quote caught my eye:



Bravo Wolf! There is much, much wisdom in those words. Freedom is not just there to protect your interest and your sexuality. It's also for those sexualities which you might find repulsive. A lot of people should keep that in mind.

It works for ideas and beliefs too by the way. There are many people I whose ideology I find abhorrent. Does not mean that I want to throw them in jail. Or to see them lose their job or whatever. Hell I am even friends with some 😛

Another thing to take from this quote is that you can't go around treating people like shit and expect respect in return. Being nice won't always be paid in return, but it's worth a try. At least in my book.

Okay but a specific individual at a specific network is being discussed here. This isn't about generalities. It's about a creator of numerous kid shows using underage actresses to fulfill his fetish. That's disgusting. He's using his position of power to create a setting where he can see teenage actresses barefoot for his own pleasure. Now you said you weren't even aware Nickelodeon had tv shows. Fair enough, not everyone does. But it's clear by reading even just a few posts in this thread that a guy who created Nickelodeon shows is being discussed. So I really don't get what point you're trying to make. Everyone else on this thread is discussing a specific man that's clearly perverted. What are you discussing? What point are you trying to make? That it's acceptable to use underage kids for your own fetish? You're defending something you apparently don't understand. You can clearly tell that Nickelodeon ISN'T just a toy brand. So what are you even trying to say?

 

[Tenebrae]

Fair enough.

Let me clarify: I am not talking about the case. I was replying to Wolf's comment which said that we should not fear judgment and for good reasons: it's not for the actions of one pervert that we should be judged. And if we want to people to be open towards our fetish, we should try to be open to others' as well, even if we don't have them; or don't like them. I really liked this sentence. There is much wisdom in his words, and I wanted to salute that. If you visit the P&R you'll find out that me and him seldom find ourselves in agreement, so I found it a refreshing change. It is actually the 3rd time this week we agree on something, so this prompted my response. THAT was the point I was trying to make; maybe that wasn't the place, but I thought that opening a new thread titled "I agree with Wolf on this sentence

and I think we all can be inspired by it" wasn't the way to go either. I chose to give him credit for that here, despite the risk of derailing the topic a little.

Apologies for any confusions I might have created.

 

[Wolf]

Sorry about that, everyone. Anyway...

It's really not the fetishes that are the issue here. Hell, is there anyone who doesn't know about Tarentino's foot fetish? No one cares.
People rightfully care about Schneider because of who he was targeting, and how he was doing it. That's what makes it skeevy. Otherwise, it would just be considered a 'quirk'.

 

[OmahaTickler]

If we can learn anything besides the obvious "only between consenting adults" message here, it's that this should make us more easily understand why the gay community is so angry about the Kevin Spacey scandal, when he came out while defending himself against an underage rape-attempt accusation. Just as we don't like getting tarred by a pedo who happens to share our fetishes, they're not thrilled with having their sexual orientation tied to pedophilia.

 

[Wolf]

If we can learn anything besides the obvious "only between consenting adults" message here, it's that this should make us more easily understand why the gay community is so angry about the Kevin Spacey scandal, when he came out while defending himself against an underage rape-attempt accusation. Just as we don't like getting tarred by a pedo who happens to share our fetishes, they're not thrilled with having their sexual orientation tied to pedophilia.

I thought it was more because they were mad that he tried to use "coming out" as an attempt at deflection from his history of preying on young men and boys.

 

[Mrcool]

Its gonna bite Dan in the ads someday. Lets face it he is gonna run outta steam and once Nickelodeon no longer needs him. He won't have a large corporation protecting him.

 

[silverstar]

As others have stated, I don't really buy into the whole "one person ruins it for the rest of us" mentality because it's not the fetish itself that deserves condemnation; it's the one person's actions. Any rational, reasonable person I feel would be able to deduce this. Just as all guys who like sex aren't classified as "rapists" because there's a few animals who go out and force women to have sex with them.

Tickling and feet by and large I feel are still some of the most innocuous fetishes out there, if not the most, with the latter probably being the most common. I don't think many reasonable people as a result of this scandal are going to start associating foot fetish or tickling with pedophilia because they are not concomitant with one another.

 

[OmahaTickler]

I thought it was more because they were mad that he tried to use "coming out" as an attempt at deflection from his history of preying on young men and boys.

Yes, but the point is the implied link between being gay and being a pedophile, suggested through juxtaposition, i.e., coming out at the same time he's defending himself against a pedophilia accusation. The deflection attempt was bad, but fueling the stereotype was much worse.

 

[Moss]

Yes, but the point is the implied link between being gay and being a pedophile, suggested through juxtaposition, i.e., coming out at the same time he's defending himself against a pedophilia accusation. The deflection attempt was bad, but fueling the stereotype was much worse.

No it wasn't. It was because he came out as gay to try and take focus off of the fact he sexually assaulted a 14 year old. That's what all the criticism has been about. Not fuelling a stereotype.

 

[TKFan1]

Regarding Schneider it’s guys like that who give the rest of us a bad rap for liking tickling or ticklish feet