OPINION POLL: Underage content

[wendynpeter]

18 year olds are hardly adults.

There's a distinction to be made between who are adults legally and who are adults with respect to the average level of emotional maturity. I don't think you mean to deny the former, but with regard to the latter, I agree 100%.

 

[Capnmad]

Okay. This is getting interesting, so I'll jump in. What the heck.

I think that the problem here that's upsetting so many people is clear. From a practical standpoint its easy - underage tickling = site getting shutdown (therefore) bad. Simple, logical, clear.

I agree that that may be the popular line of thought, but it's hardly a problem. It's preservation of what is a good place to socialize and safely share in fantasies with fellow adults at or above the legal age of consent, and hopefully by extension, at or above what is a proper mental age of consent (which is why such legal barriers are put in place to begin with -- to set the lowest acceptable chronological standard by which most if not all should be ready and mature enough to handle a new set of experiences, with all the responsibilities and consequences thereof).

But trying to apply the same simple logic to the morality question of including underage material we find ourselves in an inescapable sink hole of logical complexity. We "know" that underage material is wrong... but why. Well some people may have other reasons but the clearest logic based concept is this, people who are underage are not able to make adult choices and theretofore are being exploited. Exploiting people is wrong because there is harm. Therefore underage content = wrong. All simple so far BUT we have a problem. Rape, is exploitive. Non-consensual tickle torture is exploitive, all these acts do harm and in reality we consider them wrong, but in fantasy we consider them acceptable.

I agree that genuine exploitation is wrong, and fantasy enacted between two consenting adults is acceptable.

Then why should this same fantasy is not reality argument apply to children. Well again, our gut tells us so.

You miss the point. I'm not here to prosecute "thought-crimes", nor do I believe, is anyone else (however reprehensible we may regard some thoughts as being). The fact of the matter is that social sites like the TMF that permit sexually oriented or fetish material and offer a place to discuss it and fantasies about it among adults, enable them to better act on these fantasies, and even encourage it. There are countless threads here on tickle technique, how to approach someone, how to "convert" someone, etc. In fact, this site is designed partly with the goal in mind to help people connect with other people of similar interests, as are other sites I've visited like this. The wider goal of most patrons to these sites is not strictly fantasy -- it is engagement. And while I believe it is possible for a small minority of people to live on fantasy alone -- whatever their bent -- I do not believe it to be likely nor possible for most of the population to subsist on fantasy indefinitely.

Studies are largely unclear as to the real effects of exposure to pornography, and whether it can be cathartic and thereby reduce desire to act, or if it instead inflames desire and increases the likelihood of real-life re-enactment, but I defer to the fact that at base, we are partly products of social modeling, and children shown depictions of violent acts are more likely to engage in them and find them acceptable. While as adults, our brains are less plastic, our neurons perhaps less motile, and our judgement and experience are more likely to rein in what may be impulsive behavior, we are still subject to the influences of what we see and hear, and can be swayed powerfully in that manner. Hence, encouragement of activity that is at its base wrong (because it involves genuine exploitation of those totally incapable of maturely offering consent) through the allowance of what is essentially promotional material (anything that links children to sex), is not advisable.

Now let's say you allow material depicting children or cartoon characters beneath the age of consent being tickled in a strictly playful manner. Sounds innocent enough. I'm sure there are clips of such material all over the web. But consider your context: This is a website of tickle enthusiasts and fetishists. And among the fetishists, there is a connection between tickling and sexual arousal. So, posting depictions of children in tickling scenarios here gives most folks the willies not just on a knee-jerk reactionary level, but because it begins a slippery slope: Just what is sexual? Entertaining this slope can lead to great compromises of common decency and even legality. To avoid this new can of worms, therefore, and preserve what we as a community feel is a common good, the line is drawn where it is. No child-oriented material, no way, no how.

Then again our gut often tells us lies, lies like its ok to punch someone in the face because they talked to our girlfriend or some peoples guts tell them it is ok to fly planes into the office building of people who don't agree with their religious dogma, or whatever so our guts may not be trusted. In logic isn't this hypocrisy? One kind of morally reprehensible fantasy is ok, as long as it is not the kind that I find moral reprehensible. Of course it is, it is obvious hypocrisy.

There's a big problem with this section of your argument. You're comparing morally reprehensible fantasies/ideas/preferences with morally reprehensible acts. 9/11 wasn't someone preferring mint chocolate-chip ice cream over rocky road. It was a criminal act to the Nth degree. You need to keep your argument either strictly to fantasy or action to make your point, because it's absolutist in nature (you're solely defending the right to fantasize, it would appear) -- you defend kiddie porn and/or its relatives on the premise of being strict fantasy, but then you try to challenge your opposition by bringing up reprehensible actions. It's a totally unfair comparison. I don't have a problem with some yahoo fantasizing all day about blowing up buildings, so long as he never actually does it or contributes to others doing so. And I dare say, you'd be surprised at the number of people I've wanted to punch in the face in my lifetime, but I haven't, because I'm a gentleman, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people up in arms against me for either my very human drives, or my reserve that keeps them in check.

Bottom line, this is the real world and it cannot be adequately addressed with absolutist arguments. Fantasy, for the vast majority of people, doesn't end in fantasy. It matures into action of some form. For tickle fetishists, rape fetishists or whathaveyou, there are complimentary adult partners that can be found who are capable of participating in the acting out of said fantasies and giving consent of some form in the arrangement. To act on pedophilic fantasies by its nature requires one party to be incapable of exercising mature judgement and consent, hence making exploitation a mandatory element of the arrangement. We agreed earlier that exploitation is wrong. Do you not agree now that those things that encourage and promote genuine exploitation but offer no other outlet than exploitation (given the reality that by far, most will not stop at simple fantasy) are also wrong?

Trust me when I say it causes me just as much mental aggravation as it does you, because I too "know" it is wrong. Still, I thought I would throw this little argument out there so that others who care about logic in things rather than just simplistic emotionality, can have their brains as tied up in knots as I did. I of course welcome counter arguments.

Good. Now you have one. And it's good to have another philosopher/Devil's Advocate aboard, however much they may be a pain in the ass to some. 🙂 Welcome!

And Viper -- Good thread!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm perilously sleep-deprived, and only hoping the above makes one lick of sense. I already see how much I've overused italicization... That can't be a good sign... Oh well, too late now. 'Night! 🙂

 

[GodlessTickler]

Capnmad

Ok to reply.... I think you offer some interesting points... but I do think you misread certain parts of my argument, or misunderstood them, or equally possibly I must confess I was just unclear, so let me both respond and clarify in turn.

I agree that that may be the popular line of thought, but it's hardly a problem.

Now we are in complete agreement on this issue. My point was to make a divisive line... one that say Ok, there is no point (in my mind) arguing about the merits of the actual practical thing of posting underage content. It's dangerous, it is a huge risk, and as I interpret the laws of the land it is illegal. I was merely trying to make the point that I don't believe I can remotely defend the ACT of putting this kind of material on a moderated board... so I was attempting to dissuade people from using practical arguments (at least in response to me) by conceding the point on the outset.

The fact of the matter is that social sites like the TMF that permit sexually oriented or fetish material and offer a place to discuss it and fantasies about it among adults, enable them to better act on these fantasies, and even encourage it.

I think this is only partially true. The comparison I was trying to draw was not between the consensual adult ideas of this board, but the fantasies that are widely accepted, including but not limited too kidnapping, torture and rape. This is a major part of this website... the sharing of these materials IS a major part of the purpose of the website. But I pray that it is not the intention of the moderators or website owners to encourage, support or in any other way facilitate these actions. My point is, we allow, even praise purely fictitious depictions of unquestionably morally reprehensible action for our own gratification... just not this one kind. You make a really good point, but unless I am failing to see it, you are not defining a DIFERENCE, and if it is in essence the same then there are two LOGICAL options 1) All exploitive pornography, as well as quite possibly all non-moral media depictions should be censored. (2) It is ok as long as it is fantasy. If you can not draw a clear line of difference, then I still fail to understand how you make distinction. Everyone is making great points, but most are ignoring that that is the fundamental question of the logic based argument. (to simplify if I can speak in pure philosopher language this is the argument to consistency. If you apply a premise as a fundamental premise, then it must apply equally to all things, else it is a special case premise and those are usually logically suspect)

There's a big problem with this section of your argument.

On rereading I agree actually. If you read all my posts I apologized for the terrible analogies. But you entirely miss the point of the analogies here. I am not likening pornography to 9/11 I am saying something that if you are a philosopher takes no explanation, the "well everybody KNOWS" argument is NOT LOGICAL VALID. It is not now, nor since the time of Plato has it ever been logical valid. I used bad examples to make this point because I was trying at that time to avoid throwing around formal fallacies since I assume everyone who is in this discussion and may have VERY viable opinions has taken a philosophy class or would know what the formal fallacies are or what they mean. The examples were bad, but you took them to be aimed at entirely the wrong thing, I hope this clears that up.

I am sure there are parts of your argument I didn't fully address if you think any of them are important and I ignored them, please point them out to me and I will respond directly.

Because of the morally inflammatory nature of this discussion let me point out one thing that usually I feel I shouldn't mention, I am not asserting a stance... this is to say I am not and have not (if you look at my posts) clearly stated an answer to the question, I am merely posing a logic based question... can you get around the argument EITHER fantasy is ok OR it is not. My problem isn't with the people who believe one or the other (though I might disagree with them) my issue is with people who want to have it both ways. I am not asserting a stance because my opinion like many others I feel to be fundamentally perhaps a bit illogical... I am engaging in the debate to try and find some sort of logical resolution. We can all be illogical at times, but logic is none the less the best way to have a discussion on these matters and attempt to find resolution to internal conflict. I feel it is far better to discus and try to resolve something with yourself than to just be happy being hypocritical.

 

[wendynpeter]

I am merely posing a logic based question... can you get around the argument EITHER fantasy is ok OR it is not. My problem isn't with the people who believe one or the other (though I might disagree with them) my issue is with people who want to have it both ways... I feel it is far better to discus and try to resolve something with yourself than to just be happy being hypocritical.

OK. Go to a site with a dictionary of philosphy and look up "False Dichotomy," or the "Black-and-White fallacy."

It is not the case that fantasy is either OK or it's not. The truth is that some fantasy is OK, and other fantasy is a sign of serious problems.

For example, fantasizing about being spanked by that co-worker you secretly have the hots for is, short of some other complicating factor, OK. Fantasizing about kidnapping her and raping and torturing her to death because she rejected you is not OK, in the sense that it's a sign that all's not well upstairs.

Likewise, fantasizing that you're having sex with an adult is OK, but fantasizing that you're having sex with a child is not, because it's a sign that there's something wrong upstairs.

Now, in the above two scenarios, no one has to know about these fantasies but the person having them. Perhaps the person can't help having inappropriate fantasies. But at least no other person is facilitating them.

Any individual's problem with inappropriate fantasies/desires is at one point their business/problem alone, and whether or not they choose to persue help in dealing with inappropriate fantasies/desires is also. But the moment they include other people, that changes. It becomes a public issue. Likewise with facilitating the inappropriate fantasies of others. That's just not OK, for a multitude of reasons.

No doubt someone will say "What counts as inappropriate?" And I agree that unless you have a clear definition, there's lots of grey area and room for disagreement. My definition is NOT "If the fantasy hurts non-consensual parties," because by definition a fantasy that remains inside one's head does not physically involve any other parties. Rather, my definition is "A fantasy is inappropriate if, were it played out in real life, it would harm legally nonconsensual participants." Further facilitating a fantasy is inappropriate if the fantasy, were it played out in real life, would harm legally nonconsensual participants.

 

[Capnmad]

Now we are in complete agreement on this issue. My point was to make a divisive line... one that say Ok, there is no point (in my mind) arguing about the merits of the actual practical thing of posting underage content. It's dangerous, it is a huge risk, and as I interpret the laws of the land it is illegal. I was merely trying to make the point that I don't believe I can remotely defend the ACT of putting this kind of material on a moderated board... so I was attempting to dissuade people from using practical arguments (at least in response to me) by conceding the point on the outset

Cool.

I think this is only partially true. The comparison I was trying to draw was not between the consensual adult ideas of this board, but the fantasies that are widely accepted, including but not limited too kidnapping, torture and rape. This is a major part of this website... the sharing of these materials IS a major part of the purpose of the website. But I pray that it is not the intention of the moderators or website owners to encourage, support or in any other way facilitate these actions. My point is, we allow, even praise purely fictitious depictions of unquestionably morally reprehensible action for our own gratification... just not this one kind. You make a really good point, but unless I am failing to see it, you are not defining a DIFERENCE, and if it is in essence the same then there are two LOGICAL options 1) All exploitive pornography, as well as quite possibly all non-moral media depictions should be censored. (2) It is ok as long as it is fantasy. If you can not draw a clear line of difference, then I still fail to understand how you make distinction.

I don't want to be here all night, and while I'd begun a lengthy response, I'm forever working on my conciseness, so I'll just make a couple of points for now, wait for your response, and see where we are.

The difference defined is between the reasoning and judgement capacity of a child (and therefore, the ability to reasonably give consent), and that of an adult. They are different, and empirically and demonstrably so. This remains an important consideration whenever you're talking of acts between people.

Your two logical options are problematic again because it's proposed in an either/or of: either all fantasy is fine, or "all exploitive pornography" should be censored. "All exploitive pornography" is not synonymous with fantasy. We agreed that exploitation was wrong and I believe we agreed that lack of consent was the operational definition of exploitation for our purposes here. Both your statements could be true because they really have nothing to do with one another. It's not an either/or situation. Again, you mix the defense of fantasy and try to entangle it with with non-consensual acts, as included in "all exploitive pornography" would be, for instance, publishing of material depicting a woman actually being raped (not being paid as an actor to offer consent via contract to depict a rape scene/fantasy), or publishing material depicting a child actually being molested. "All exploitive pornography" implies acts of a non-consensual nature, not just fantasy. You can't broadbrush this or gloss over these distinctions. There's a difference between fantasy and action.

I'll leave it there for the moment, and let you address this.

 

[wendynpeter]

Speaking of Chibi, every now and them you see a fetish chibi image on this site. Jeff, I'd like to see you disallow that kind of image altogether.

 

[xticklefanx]

Yeah, that may be ok in any normal setting.

But this is a tickling fetish website, complete with banners of naked women being tickled at the top and side-bars of naked laughing camgirls.

Would you want a picture of your "little cousin" being tickled, even playfully, on a site with that type of context, knowing there are probably some 50 year old men jagging off to it?

My little sisters are 16, and in NO WAY would I find it ok to talk about them here. I mentioned them once in the chatroom in a completely normal conversation and more than one member jumped at the opportunity to ask tickling-related questions.

It is disgusting and while it may not be illegal, it is definitely unethical, and why would you want to promote that sort of thing?

oh no no no lol i understand that completely. pictures like that should no way be on here. but i meant like i told a story awhile ago when my 16 year old cousin gave me a quick tickle and that was it, i dont think THATS inapporpiate you know? but i wouldnt post pictures of it or anything.

 

[wendynpeter]

Would you want a picture of your "little cousin" being tickled, even playfully, on a site with that type of context, knowing there are probably some 50 year old men jagging off to it?

I completey agree with the line of rhetorical reasoning here, but I hope the insinuation here isn't that that's somehow worse than if some 20 year old men are jagging off to it...

 

[GodlessTickler]

Ok first thanks.

Ok to both WendynPeter, and capnmad I owe you both thanks for keeping me honest. It wasn't my intention to mislead, and I hope everyone understands that while I do try to think through what I say some things have a stream of consciousness feel to them. So first off I want to go on record and admit I made a mistake in my wording. My fault, no misunderstanding, just completely my bad...

can you get around the argument EITHER fantasy is ok OR it is not.

I said this, and it is wrong... it is as you pointed out a Black-or-White fallacy (got a couple on my shelf thanks). It was not how I meant it, but reading it over I agree that that is what it was. Now what I was trying to do, was to make an argument to consistency, and that is not a black-and-white fallacy. If you have a premise, whatever that premise is, it is fair to say that that premise should be applied universally. If there are exceptions, then they require there own premises and those premises should not be contradictory in nature (I hope that makes sense). The black or white fallacy is only wrong if it is not an either or proposition... what I mean is if you START with the fundamental premise "All fantasy is ok" then you can not latter come in and say "except that one, I don't like that one" I was wrong because I neglected to take into account that no one is starting with that premise. (that's a little rambly I'm sorry)


Now as I address this point wendynpeter and capnmad deserve different responses so I will go in turn.
wendynpeter;
See I THINK, and I could be wrong that I at least respect your logic here. This is to say that we agree about the definition of inappropriate fantasies, and you would say that they are inappropriate wholesale, and that all such material should be banned (It seems that's what you are saying, I apologize greatly if I am misrepresenting your position) is Your premise...

A fantasy is inappropriate if, were it played out in real life, it would harm legally nonconsensual participants."

would in my logical reasoning lead me to believe that it IS an either or proposition for you, you don't want it both ways... you are saying that if the fantasy meets this criteria then its a no. That's completely logically sound as far as it goes. My point is that you should not be able to justify nonconsensual tickle torture fantasy. That is all I am saying. I am not asserting you are right or you are wrong, but your very own statement disallows tickle torture fantasy and really serves to reinforce my point. Some of your other logic that brings you to your conclusion I might question, but I respect the clarity of the conclusion itself.

capnmad
I again apologize for my laziness... I did not mean to make the implication that all fantasy was synonymous with exploitive pornography. I also apologize because I am apparently not being clear about my distinction between fantasy and action so I am going to break it down a bit (I am not talking down to anyone just trying to be clear.)

We agree that exploitation in ACTION is wrong.
We agree that consent is important to the definition of exploitation.
We agree that minors can not consent.
Therefore we agree that anything that requires consent (such as but not limited to sexual activities) including minors is non consensual, therefore it is exploitation and in action it is wrong.
I think up to this point we are LOCK STEP with one another.
It's the next premise where I have problem....
Exploitation in fantasy is either ok or is not.
(is it unfair here to make this an either or question... I mean we don't in the real life scenario we just agree it is wrong... we don't say exploitation of children bad, but grown ups ok, and this is not me confusing action and fantasy again, just asking for the same CONSISTENCY in your judgment of fantasy as action, don't care if its right or its wrong but shouldn't it be right or wrong just as it is in real life I guess there could be a middle ground of SOME exploitation fantasy is ok, but I don't see how you justify that, how you pick and chose from what you have already agreed is morally wrong to make all things that are morally wrong in real life wrong, or none of the things that are morally wrong in real life wrong seems more fair to me)
If exploitation in fantasy is wrong, then it seems to me ALL exploitation in fantasy is wrong, if it is not wrong, then all exploitation in fantasy is ok. And I am just talking about fantasy. I probably still didn't make my point but I am trying.

I understand peoples problems with an either or statement, but in logic dispute the black-and-white fallacy, there is a point to consistency. In fact when I was studying philosophy it was said that the only premise that is completely unacceptable is one that is contradictory to itself or another premise in the argument.

I have to get technical now, because the black-or-white fallacy is specific, such as "It is hot today, or it is cold today" -- that's a fallacy, (and I admit I think I did that) because if we use a definitive measure of hot (say 80 degrees) and a definitive measure of cold (say 50 degrees) it could be in the middle today (70 degrees) and that neither premise it is hot today, or it is cold today would be true. BUT and this is essential it IS acceptable to say "It is hot today OR it is not hot today" and force a choice, because both of those premises can not be true, if we use the same definitive measure of hotness.. say 80 degrees... then it is either hot, or not hot... both can not be true, and both can not be false. In the first, at most one can be true, in the second EXACTLY one is true.

Now how does all this apply, well consent is an either or proposition. People aren't sort of non-consensual (ok semantic police they could be ambivalent but the fact is they either did or didn't give there consent in point of fact) So either said action is consensual or it is non-consensual.
Non consensual actions are bad. (I think everyone's in agreement here)
If a fantasy depicts behavior between two or more people this behavior can be either consensual or it is nonconsensual. (that's fair.)
Fantasy of the nonconsensual variety is EITHER a) permissible or it is b) not.
If A) then ALL nonconsensual material should be permissible, but if B) then none of it should be.
This has been my point from the beginning. I have been repetitive, and I have still probably failed to make my point clear, but I hope you can see I am trying lol. I know my arguments go down hill particularly when I am a bit sleepy.

 

[Headsnap]

I completey agree with the line of rhetorical reasoning here, but I hope the insinuation here isn't that that's somehow worse than if some 20 year old men are jagging off to it...

I think 50 was just an arbitrary age, I doubt there was any inference in it.

With regards to kids being depicted in fetish situations in artwork or stories or whatever, some people around here need to give themselves a serious slap in the face. As a lot of people have already mentioned the TMF is a tickling fetish community with big flashing banner ads of naked women all over the place and a disclamer on the front page that asks you to leave if you're not old enough to look at sexual content because the website is full of it. To try and suggest that ANYTHING tickling related posted here does not have sexual undertones is delusional. If you're annoyed by the "no minors" rule because it means your little boy's 10th birthday celebration thread got locked and people now are unable to see pictures of him opening presents or eating cake, I can understand that. Why you'd post something like that even on the General Discussion part of a fetish website I have no idea, but you get my drift. If you're railing against the "no minors" rule because you want to either post or be able to receive images or stories of clips of children involved in tickling scenarios with adults then you are a paedophile. There's your reality check. You get sexual thrills from tickling, that's undeniable because why else would you be here, so therefore it must logically follow that if you desire to see children involved in the situation which gives you jollies then you are a paedophile. I tend to get a bit rhetorical and opinionated when it comes to stuff like this so if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me, but that's my view on it.

 

[ViperGTS]

I completey agree with the line of rhetorical reasoning here, but I hope the insinuation here isn't that that's somehow worse than if some 20 year old men are jagging off to it...

No, we're just a bunch of geriatrics.

 

[Pat1982]

18 year olds are hardly adults.

That's your opinion, which reflects how America infantilizes MEN and WOMEN. Perhaps we should raise the legal age to do everything to 30. That would include fighting in wars, of course.

 

[Pat1982]

There's a distinction to be made between who are adults legally and who are adults with respect to the average level of emotional maturity. I don't think you mean to deny the former, but with regard to the latter, I agree 100%.

People routinely started families at that age and younger for centuries. ADULTS of 18 are fighting in Iraq right now. They're certainly not children. That's for sure! There's a weird modern trend of being unable to distinguish between children, adolescents and adults. Much of it is borne from hysteria. People apply labels wantonly to things without regard for reality. FE, some seem to react to a 16-year-old marrying her 20-year-old fiancee with the same amount of shock as they do to a 20-year-old attacking a 6-year-old. It's utterly ridiculous. Too many people can't draw important realistic distinctions. They shout MONSTER in both of the above cases as if there's no difference between them. Not saying you're like that btw.

 

[Myriads]

This thread is the emotional/moral side of the other Minor thread that is currently running. I addressed the Hard fact aspects of Why we have a minor rule there. Here I will discuss the other aspects of the issue.

The first point I'm going to make is an unpopular one.

All the people who want to see images of children being tickled are not pedophiles or badly damaged in the noggin'.

People come to our fetish for many different reasons. But there are two main camps of people that both meet here.

The first and larger camp are what I call the Sexual Ticklers. These people like tickling for the basic reason that some aspect of the process causes sexual arousal in them. To them tickling is a sexual act. No questions.

The second smaller group sees tickling as an intimacy act. To this group the activity is viewed as producing a connection between people that involves intimacy and closeness. To them, it's a form of human touch that people naturally experience, and it builds connections on the emotional level. It's not a sexual thing, it's an emotional one. It's akin to hugging and such in the hierarchy of their intimacy responses. We'll call this group the Nonsexual ticklers.

This second group sees a parent tickling a child and sees family intimacy and communication being built. Something sweet and innocent. The Sexual ticklers see the same act and can see a form of sexual molestation in progress.

These two viewpoints come to conflict here in the community in many ways. Both sides have a totally different take on how tickling is important to their lives. They bump into each other, and misunderstand each other. There is friction.

The Nonsexual ticklers don't see how the material they wish to share causes issues for the sexual ticklers. The sexual ticklers don't see why the violent repulsion they feel to the nonsexual ticklers material is not shared by all.

I'm not making blanket statements here about either side. But making general points about the behaviors I've seen of each side. Do not take these descriptions as black and white things. People on both sides can and do see aspects of of the other.

Morally, both of these sides viewpoints are perfectly fine. In their own contexts they both function and work. No one is harmed.

But when they are moved into the context of this forum problems arise.

Contextual morality is a phrase you don't see much. But it comes down to the concept that the moral right or wrongness of a idea can change based upon the venue the idea is expressed in. Ideas are like water, and take the shape of the environment they are poured into.

Here on the TMF, a sexual forum in the eyes of the average individual, images involving tickling minors are contextually immoral. Why? The context of the entire TMF is seen as sexual when involving tickling. So any material placed here, regardless of how innocent and morally defensible in its own right, becomes immoral when placed here. The forums context trumps the materials intrinsic qualities.

We have chosen to censor material of this nature to preserve the forum. It's a loss of some for a keeping of the rest. Again see the other thread for this side of things.

That rule is there because there are a small number of true predators that are pedophiles in all populations. We act to make sure that those few do not get positive experiences from the TFM, and have no reason to be here.

Well that was nice and wordy.

Other little facts: We are not stupid. We know that minors can and do view the forum. Some register and manage to be here for some time before 18 because they don't provide any indicators of their age. Thanks to the webs design we have no way to know a persons age. And as we are an open site that uses the 'honor' system, we fully realize that we get underage users. We just cannot know which of them are such. Any members who are IDed as minors by various ways (most often they tell someone who reports them) is banned ASAP. Three such bannings have been made in the last week.

Regarding Fantasy

If you are trying to say there are moral and immoral fantasies then you are implying that the idea of a 'thoughtcrime' exists. That's a difficult path to go down. I wouldn't want to argue it.

If you are saying that writing and sharing those fantasies are the issue then you are arguing that there is something of the natures of an 'ideacrime'. This is another area that is left blank by the law. Here on the TMF we have made a choice to make some ideas expression not allowed. Our reasons as the other post discusses are simple.

The morality of such ideas can be endlessly debated.

Good discussion folks.

Myriads

 

[chicago]

People routinely started families at that age and younger for centuries.

And how often do they work out? Especially these days?

ADULTS of 18 are fighting in Iraq right now. They're certainly not children. That's for sure!

Kids of 18 are fighting in Iraq. Some are probably not emotionally ready for that kind of thing.

FE, some seem to react to a 16-year-old marrying her 20-year-old fiancee with the same amount of shock as they do to a 20-year-old attacking a 6-year-old.

Yeah, but a 40 year old marrying a 30 year old gets congratulated. Why? Because it depends on what part of life that person is in. That 16 year old is still in high school, a sophomore in high school. He or She is still two years away from graduating and from being legally able to make a lot of decisions (such as dating/having sex with whoever he/she wants). The 20 year old has been out of school for two years. Sure, it can happen that a 20 year old falls in love with a 16 year old, but it is understandable that people can see it as odd because a 16 year old is a lot more influential and naive than a 20 year old. This stops being a problem in older couples because it is assumed that after you reach a certain age you begin to think for yourself, make better choices, etc. No one's going to see anything wrong with a 24 year old dating a 28 year old, but in terms of the 16 and 20 year old, some people might see a problem.

 

[GodlessTickler]

One must have respect and take care when having debate with the Tzar ::smile:: , so I shall word this carefully and keep it brief. First of all I hope you note my praise in the other thread, I agree with you (I am 100 percent behind censoring the material on the tmf) I simply have one question. This statement ....

That rule is there because there are a small number of true predators that are pedophiles in all populations. We act to make sure that those few do not get positive experiences from the TFM, and have no reason to be here.

Is it strictly a numbers issue (more in favor less opposed) why if this were the reason, that it wouldn't apply to the simply sadistic predator (not talking about the good hearted sadist here) who gets positive experience from tickle torture stories? Certainly among any population, though the huge majority of us enjoy our tickle torture fantasy responsibly, there are these true sadist who mean harm. Or is it perhaps that this IN CONJUNCTION with other things makes it a rule. The whole point of my debate here is that it seems to me to be a double standard... a practically reasonable double standard (I actually can't image the tmf continuing to exist in the way we know it any other way) but a double standard none the less. Thanks for your time.

 

[Capnmad]

Unfortunately, this only boils down to intellectual masturbation...

capnmad
I again apologize for my laziness... I did not mean to make the implication that all fantasy was synonymous with exploitive pornography. I also apologize because I am apparently not being clear about my distinction between fantasy and action so I am going to break it down a bit (I am not talking down to anyone just trying to be clear.)

We agree that exploitation in ACTION is wrong.
We agree that consent is important to the definition of exploitation.
We agree that minors can not consent.
Therefore we agree that anything that requires consent (such as but not limited to sexual activities) including minors is non consensual, therefore it is exploitation and in action it is wrong.
I think up to this point we are LOCK STEP with one another.

Huzzah!

It's the next premise where I have problem....
Exploitation in fantasy is either ok or is not.
(is it unfair here to make this an either or question... I mean we don't in the real life scenario we just agree it is wrong... we don't say exploitation of children bad, but grown ups ok, and this is not me confusing action and fantasy again, just asking for the same CONSISTENCY in your judgment of fantasy as action, don't care if its right or its wrong but shouldn't it be right or wrong just as it is in real life I guess there could be a middle ground of SOME exploitation fantasy is ok, but I don't see how you justify that, how you pick and chose from what you have already agreed is morally wrong to make all things that are morally wrong in real life wrong, or none of the things that are morally wrong in real life wrong seems more fair to me)
If exploitation in fantasy is wrong, then it seems to me ALL exploitation in fantasy is wrong, if it is not wrong, then all exploitation in fantasy is ok. And I am just talking about fantasy. I probably still didn't make my point but I am trying.

No -- I think you are making your point, though in a way that's a touch unwieldy wherever what we're discussing unintentionally connects with action.

Now how does all this apply, well consent is an either or proposition. People aren't sort of non-consensual (ok semantic police they could be ambivalent but the fact is they either did or didn't give there consent in point of fact) So either said action is consensual or it is non-consensual.
Non consensual actions are bad. (I think everyone's in agreement here)
If a fantasy depicts behavior between two or more people this behavior can be either consensual or it is nonconsensual. (that's fair.)

To come to some variety of accord here, allow me to suggest some alteration, because there is another unintentional connection with action that your argument allows for, mostly because "material" isn't the immaterial ether of thought, and requires physical action to exist. You wrote:

Fantasy of the nonconsensual variety is EITHER a) permissible or it is b) not.

Fine. While my gut tells me that certain fantasies are repulsive, it is mostly because I know that in the messy real world, as opposed to the clean confines of logic, people engaging in such fantasies are likely to engage in action for the purposes of meeting those fantasies, and unlike others, acting on pedophilic fantasies do not allow for consent to occur, and makes true exploitation an integral part. But, since you want to keep this to strict logic (not reality) and we're talking STRICTLY about fantasy and NOT action (keeping action out of it entirely), I will go with option A, for, as I said in an earlier post, I'm not here to prosecute "thought-crimes". Imagine all day about blowing up buildings, punching people in the face, raping women, molesting children, non-consensually tickle-torturing people -- so long as you never actually DO it. It's that old Wiccan premise: So long as "it harm none, do what you will." (However, in yet another example of the messiness of the world, even if these things are kept in fantasy, and the person never consciously acts upon them, his/her interactions with people will be affected by his/her thoughts in some way, and will often give off a very weird vibe at the least... Thought and deed are not entirely separable in the real world, but for the purposes of argument here, we'll pretend they are.)

You further wrote:

If A) then ALL nonconsensual material should be permissible, but if B) then none of it should be.

Houston, we have a problem. ...again. "ALL nonconsensual material" still encapulates photography and motion picture and allows for nonconsensual acts against people for some of it to even exist. So, let us specify instead "ALL material depicting nonconsensual acts that doesn't involve the actual exploitation of a person or persons in its production should be permissible."

Now, that again I could agree with on a strictly logical level, however repugnant said material may appear to me personally. And indeed, I've seen perfectly legal material that has actively exploited no one yet is extraordinarily repulsive to me, but everyone has their own bent, and who am I to judge?

But that logic has little to no bearing on the messy real world, because we've arduously swept away the possibility of action just to make the case, which is blatantly unrealistic and more than borderline absurd.

On a pragmatic, real world level, all of this is garbage, mostly pointless save for intellectual masturbation, and this argument only matters one lick to you, I'm afraid, because people in the real world will be more likely to take action if they see certain fantasies permitted, condoned, encouraged and promoted, whether in cartoony depictions, realistic ones or whathaveyou. Those fantasies that involve the engagement of minors will inevitably lead to and encourage actions that engage minors, and so, these materials cannot and should not be permitted to have a venue here, or frankly, elsewhere. That is where the immorality of the matter lies, not to mention trouble with the law.

Still, it's been good discussing it with you.

 

[Myriads]

Is it strictly a numbers issue (more in favor less opposed) why if this were the reason, that it wouldn't apply to the simply sadistic predator (not talking about the good hearted sadist here) who gets positive experience from tickle torture stories? Certainly among any population, though the huge majority of us enjoy our tickle torture fantasy responsibly, there are these true sadist who mean harm. Or is it perhaps that this IN CONJUNCTION with other things makes it a rule. The whole point of my debate here is that it seems to me to be a double standard... a practically reasonable double standard (I actually can't image the tmf continuing to exist in the way we know it any other way) but a double standard none the less. Thanks for your time.


Double standards (a loaded term when used in a discussion context) are present in almost all rules. They should be more correctly called unequal standards. The very creation of a rule places additional weight on a topic or issue. Unless a balancing rule is created on other topics you get a unballance. All rule based structure hold such unbalanced standards.

But we'll stick with the 'Double Standard' term for simplicity.

The TMF's no minor rules is set up, at it's core to protect the TMF from the possibility of a legal backlash arising from a real world incident that could be tied back to material here.

In my eyes the nightmare scenario is a person that molests a child, who when taken into custody, and their computer is examined, is found to have minor oriented tickling material linked here. Lesser scenarios touch on situations like the experience with the mother that I discussed in the post above. A parent or law body getting in touch with us because something here sent people to harrass and or trouble people there.

These in my eyes are very plausable things that can (and have) happen. They need to be guarded against. And I've taken steps with my rules to pre-load the forum in preperation for our defense if such things come at us. The no minors rules and the strong enforcement of it is something that can be pointed at to any legal body (or upset parent) that has an issue. It shows we act in good faith to limit this material. It's a protection that has real value, and has show that value. In short I judged the cost of the censorship was worth this protection. That was the trade I made.

On the other hand, I've yet to find one news report of a person who has been kidnapped and sadistically tickle tortured. No news of a crazed tickler breaking into homes and binding families and having their fun before vanishing into the night.

Because of this, I see no reason to take steps to censor the forum of material relating to this. It's simply not a real world issue that poses a threat to us. The cost of protecting us from this non-threat is too high for the value we would receive. So yes there is a Double standard on what I choose to censor. I choose to limit it to things that pose realistic threats to the forum. The ghosts of non-threats are free to roam and make their pathetic boo sounds scaring no one.

That help explain it?

And a side note.

One must have respect and take care when having debate with the Tzar ::smile:: , so I shall word this carefully

No you don't. Unless I am speaking as the Admin, enforcing the rules, I am simply another member here stating a point. That I am admin should afford me no special respect or care.

Myriads

 

[GodlessTickler]

Super quick

Capnmad, and Myriads mostly in the same breath...
I hope everyone understands, that ALL I was talking about is the logical issue I think capnmad summed it up VERY WELL after correcting my wording and excluding pictures or video (something I meant to exclude but wasn't clear enough) when he said this.

Now, that again I could agree with on a strictly logical level, however repugnant said material may appear to me personally. And indeed, I've seen perfectly legal material that has actively exploited no one yet is extraordinarily repulsive to me, but everyone has their own bent, and who am I to judge?

But that logic has little to no bearing on the messy real world, because we've arduously swept away the possibility of action just to make the case, which is blatantly unrealistic and more than borderline absurd.

On a pragmatic, real world level, all of this is garbage, mostly pointless save for intellectual masturbation, and this argument only matters one lick to you, I'm afraid,

I AGREE 100 percent. This is NOT (for me) a discussion about what should be done, it IS if you wish to call it that "intellectual masturbation" I AGREE that it only matters one lick to me... and I never made any points to the contrary (if I implied I did then I apologize) Absurd is a bit of a value loaded term too, but I would agree that a great many philosophical and logical discussions become "absurd" they have no bearing on the world, BUT I think they are valuable, and more over interesting. That's just my opinion. It IS merely a game for me... If you want to know the truth I don't believe a great deal of what I say... if I was writing a thesis of personal idea that would be one thing, but this to me... is more like a chess game. I take the side that I find the most interesting (because it will engage people, make them upset enough to play, or because I like a certain logical point) and I debate from there. It is nothing more to me. Now a lot of people won't like that about me, and that's ok. Maybe I am an intellectually spoiled college guy, maybe I have too much free time, but I enjoy it.

and specifically to Myriads;
I think you made your point as to the why, I just find a bit of logically inconsistency (I agree logical inconsistency is ok, and even a natural part of rule making) I was just trying to point it out. As far as the "I haven't heard of..." argument, I think though it is true, runs the risk of being over specific... We have heard of abusive instances of tickling (people filling for divorce on that basis) breaking into homes to fulfil there foot fetish fantasy's (something on this board) and moreover since tickling CAN be sadistic we have heard of numerous cases of simple sadism. As I said, I have no interest in the pragmatic, because I agree fully on the pragmatic (too many good reasons there) only the logical inconsistency ever interested me in this debate.

The Tzar thing was supposed to be 100 percent a joke. I try not to over respect or disrespect anyone I debate with because to me the only thing that matters are the ideas expressed, and when we are talking logic they are either sound and good and they are not... the best person in the world can propose a completely false argument, while a person sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial for 128 counts of murder could provide a sound one, and I could care less you know. So it was just a joke, sorry if it came across serious.

 

[Mastertank1]

A few months ago

I started a thread against underage posts.
A bunch of people jumped all over me, called me names like prude and bluenose, self-righteous prig, and paranoid fool.
The fact is that if a website gets declared a kiddie pron website by some judge who IS one or more of the above, EVERY registered member of that site (the records would be subpoened) could be placed on a published list of child sexual predators.
That list would NOT distinguish between a person who is a member of a site and another who violently raped and brutally murdered a dozen children. ALL would simply be listed as child sexual predators. Want to get on such a list? No? Then anything that even presents a suggestion of being ubderage has to be kept off of TMF.
I'm a paralegal, and often think in courtroom terms. In a court, the standard most often applied would be this: "Could an average, reasonable person of normal intelligence, and with no special knowledge of the subject matter, feel that these images are of underage children?"
If the answer is yes, that makes it kiddie porn. And THAT throws the chibi stuff right out the window. If a person who has never heard the term would think it was kiddie porn, the law here will treat it as such.

On another point; there is a reason why so much material coming out of Japan looks like kiddie porn to western eyes. A LOT of adult Japanese women LOOK prepubescent to an American or European. It's a very widespread factor in the Japanese gene pool. A lot of the victims in schoolgirl uniforms in Japanese bondage photography are actually women as old as their mid thirties. I been dere and seen dat, folks.

That being said; for purposes of protecting ourselves and the TMF; THAT DOES NOT MATTER! If a person who has no knowledge or familiarity with Japanese cultural norms could reasonably mistake it for Kiddie porn, our laws will treat it as kiddie porn.

Like it or don't, them's the facts. We can't put that stuff up here.
I rewrote one of my stories because the 'ler was under 18 as first written. The 'lee was over 21, but I decided, when someone reminded me of the rules (I was new to TMF at the time) that the fact that I was okay with an underage 'ler tickling a 'lee over 21, that did NOT give me any right to expose the rest of TMF to what a judge who disagreed with me might do. That's why I rewrote the story.

As for TT, I have looked it over, but never signed up. I felt it was a risk I did not want to take.

As to pedophiles. The concensus of the mental health professions is that pedophilia is not curable nor controllable by any means they know of. Having adult friends of both sexes who were victims of molestation as children, I have seen the lifelong harm that pedophiles have done to these people. Few ever fully recover from the experience of molestation, however long they live, and whatever therapy is tried.

I have read the testimony of mental health professionals in molestation cases, including those called by the defense and those called by the prosecution. One thing both sides agree on; access to kiddie porn does not sublimate the urge to molest a living child nor decrease it at all. That is because at it's base the urge to molest children is about power and powerlessness, not about sexual gratification. Sexual gratification is only a convenient, readily understandable way to express the power relationship that is being imposed on the victim by the perp.

That power/powerless thing is also what makes it so endlessly traumatic for the victim, and why many victims become pedophiles themselves as adults; NOT for revenge, but because it's the only way they really know to replace their internal feelings of helplessness with feelings of power and empowerment.

This is why I have long favored extension of the death penalty to include child molesters and serial rapists. As long as they are alive, they will never stop trying to repeat their crimes with new victims. Thay are NOT CAPABLE of stopping, no matter what help they may be given. Some of them know this about themselves, and have asked judges for the death penalty! The fact that these requests are always denied is, in my opinion, tragic.

 

[wendynpeter]

All the people who want to see images of children being tickled are not pedophiles or badly damaged in the noggin'.

True. But people who get sexual satisfaction from it have a serious problem.

People come to our fetish for many different reasons. But there are two main camps of people that both meet here.

The first and larger camp are what I call the Sexual Ticklers. These people like tickling for the basic reason that some aspect of the process causes sexual arousal in them. To them tickling is a sexual act. No questions.

The second smaller group sees tickling as an intimacy act. To this group the activity is viewed as producing a connection between people that involves intimacy and closeness. To them, it's a form of human touch that people naturally experience, and it builds connections on the emotional level. It's not a sexual thing, it's an emotional one. It's akin to hugging and such in the hierarchy of their intimacy responses. We'll call this group the Nonsexual ticklers.

But couching it in terms of intimacy and closeness doesn't create carte blanche. Inimacy and closeness can be inappropriate too. Like when the person you're being intimate and close with is someone else's child.

This second group sees a parent tickling a child and sees family intimacy and communication being built. Something sweet and innocent. The Sexual ticklers see the same act and can see a form of sexual molestation in progress.

Perhaps. But we share the same space. An adult sexual fetish website is not the appropriate place to enjoy family photos.

These two viewpoints come to conflict here in the community in many ways. Both sides have a totally different take on how tickling is important to their lives. They bump into each other, and misunderstand each other. There is friction.

Again, perhaps so. But try to have a website for only people who like to see pictures of kids being tickled. I'm pretty sure the membership would be mostly pedophiles.

The Nonsexual ticklers don't see how the material they wish to share causes issues for the sexual ticklers. The sexual ticklers don't see why the violent repulsion they feel to the nonsexual ticklers material is not shared by all.

Not quite. The sexual ticklers don't understand why someone would come to an adult sexual fetish website to post pictures of their kids being tickled. It doesn't seem kosher.

Morally, both of these sides viewpoints are perfectly fine. In their own contexts they both function and work. No one is harmed.

But when they are moved into the context of this forum problems arise.

Exactly.

Contextual morality is a phrase you don't see much. But it comes down to the concept that the moral right or wrongness of a idea can change based upon the venue the idea is expressed in. Ideas are like water, and take the shape of the environment they are poured into.

Here on the TMF, a sexual forum in the eyes of the average individual, images involving tickling minors are contextually immoral. Why? The context of the entire TMF is seen as sexual when involving tickling. So any material placed here, regardless of how innocent and morally defensible in its own right, becomes immoral when placed here. The forums context trumps the materials intrinsic qualities.

Bingo

Regarding Fantasy

If you are trying to say there are moral and immoral fantasies then you are implying that the idea of a 'thoughtcrime' exists. That's a difficult path to go down. I wouldn't want to argue it.

If you are saying that writing and sharing those fantasies are the issue then you are arguing that there is something of the natures of an 'ideacrime'. This is another area that is left blank by the law. Here on the TMF we have made a choice to make some ideas expression not allowed. Our reasons as the other post discusses are simple.

What I was saying has nothing to do with policing thought or ideas. We don't arrest people for crimes they fantasize about. What I was saying is that there are inappropriate fantasies (those that involve harm to innocents), and while it is true that no one is interested in getting inside anyone's head, it is immoral to become an accomplice. So, putting pictures of kids being tickled on a website for adults with tickling fetishes would be immoral. That's not a controversial claim. I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was advocating the policing of thought.

 

[Pat1982]

And how often do they work out? Especially these days?


Kids of 18 are fighting in Iraq. Some are probably not emotionally ready for that kind of thing.




Yeah, but a 40 year old marrying a 30 year old gets congratulated. Why? Because it depends on what part of life that person is in. That 16 year old is still in high school, a sophomore in high school. He or She is still two years away from graduating and from being legally able to make a lot of decisions (such as dating/having sex with whoever he/she wants). The 20 year old has been out of school for two years. Sure, it can happen that a 20 year old falls in love with a 16 year old, but it is understandable that people can see it as odd because a 16 year old is a lot more influential and naive than a 20 year old. This stops being a problem in older couples because it is assumed that after you reach a certain age you begin to think for yourself, make better choices, etc. No one's going to see anything wrong with a 24 year old dating a 28 year old, but in terms of the 16 and 20 year old, some people might see a problem.

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea for 16-year-olds to get married, but it doesn't bother me. My grandmother married my grandfather when she was 16 and he was 20. It was no big whoop. They were married for close to 60 years. It'd probably be a different story if it happened today, but older couples have a high divorce rate now too. One thing that's different now is that adolescence is prolonged to an unnatural length by contemporary American mores. Most people are biological ADULTS by the time they're 18, and they need to be regarded as grownups some time.

 

[Iggy pop]

On the other hand, I've yet to find one news report of a person who has been kidnapped and sadistically tickle tortured. No news of a crazed tickler breaking into homes and binding families and having their fun before vanishing into the night.

Obviously you must have missed that news story about that guy in Florida.

 

[Iggy pop]

I started a thread against underage posts.
A bunch of people jumped all over me, called me names like prude and bluenose, self-righteous prig, and paranoid fool.
The fact is that if a website gets declared a kiddie pron website by some judge who IS one or more of the above, EVERY registered member of that site (the records would be subpoened) could be placed on a published list of child sexual predators.
That list would NOT distinguish between a person who is a member of a site and another who violently raped and brutally murdered a dozen children. ALL would simply be listed as child sexual predators. Want to get on such a list? No? Then anything that even presents a suggestion of being ubderage has to be kept off of TMF.
I'm a paralegal, and often think in courtroom terms. In a court, the standard most often applied would be this: "Could an average, reasonable person of normal intelligence, and with no special knowledge of the subject matter, feel that these images are of underage children?"
If the answer is yes, that makes it kiddie porn. And THAT throws the chibi stuff right out the window. If a person who has never heard the term would think it was kiddie porn, the law here will treat it as such.

I am not sure if I am misunderstanding you, but this is not completely true. To be put on a public sex offender's list you have to be convicted of a sex crime. That means they have to try and convict you. You cannot be place on registered sex offender's list for simply being a member of a website. Now, the authorities could seize the membership list and conduct investigation if they believed this was a child porn site. Yes, they could seize every member's personal computer if they wanted. If they found child porn then they could start arresting members who then could be tried and convicted. Of the otherhand, with 40,000 members such actions would be very expensive and this course of action would not be very likely over a simple story or a drawing which depicted no sexual activity. This is not to say that I support images of children. I do not. However, I do not want people to start getting paranoid.

 

[Tissueboy]

Oh dear.

I'm sorry, ticklishgiggle, but an 18 year old is an adult.

I can only assume that you make that judgment based on what you believe to be the level of maturity of a normal 18 year old - which is a fairly logical way of doing it. But I'm sure you realize that some are much more or less mature than what is perceived to be the average. And I'm sure you realize that because of the way young people, right up to the age of 30 but especially 16-23, are covered in the media, the actual average level of maturity is higher than what is portrayed.

Also, I believe you only feel free to say this because you are older than 18, so you are not calling yourself a child. But I'm guessing you are somewhere around 23, although it's hard to tell.
Remember that many people much older than you and I believe that you only become an adult once you are in your 30s with kids and a mortgage. I'm not exaggerating! I have that said to me all the time! So my point is that 18 year olds would object to your statement because it is easy for you to say that now that you are older and it doesn't affect you, just as you would legitimately object on the same grounds if someone older than you called you a child.
The same logic applies, in my opinion, to you saying that even though you joined the TMF underage, under 18s should not be allowed. It's easy to say now, but when it actually affected you, you clearly disagreed!

And finally, if you truly believe that an 18 year old is a child, why are you still on this site where content containing 18 year olds is allowed, but you are saying you will quit another forum because of content containing children?

But I would like to add that you seem like a nice person, and I may come across as criticizing you personally. That's not my intention at all, but I strongly disagree with your statement and believe your logic is, well, illogical.