OPINION POLL: Underage content

[chicago]

Your moral threshold is children. Another person's moral threshold might be nudity or compromising positions in general. Of course, I'm not advocating underage porn or anything of the like. I would be vehemently against that. But there are those who think this is all bad too. Maybe we should ban it all?

That may be, but we're not talking about morals in general. This thread is about children featured on an adult tickling website.

 

[Excess]

Your moral threshold is children. Another person's moral threshold might be nudity or compromising positions in general. Of course, I'm not advocating underage porn or anything of the like. I would be vehemently against that. But there are those who think this is all bad too. Maybe we should ban it all?

Yeeeeeeeeah......I'd explain to you that putting nudity and/or compromising positions on the same level as pedophilia isn't exactly a comparable thing in this case, but if you lack the moral standards to see that difference then it probably isn't worth trying.

So all I'm gonna say is that there's underage, and then there's pedophilia, and they are not one in the same. However, the best thing to do is to keep underage stuff out of this forum, if not for moral reasons, for legal reasons.

 

[KoocheeKoo]

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?

Excellent points...and I totally agree.

I have a niece who's 12....I don't want her anywhere near TMF until she's at least 18 (nor do I want pics of her or stories about her on this or any tickling-related website). Once she's an adult, it's her decision on which websites she visits. In fact, I've actually mentioned TMF to my baby sister, because like myself....she's mentioned being interested in tickling a couple times in recent months (by her boyfriend); but she's 22....that's much different IMO than 12, 14, or even age 17.

 

[asutickler]

Your moral threshold is children. Another person's moral threshold might be nudity or compromising positions in general. Of course, I'm not advocating underage porn or anything of the like. I would be vehemently against that. But there are those who think this is all bad too. Maybe we should ban it all?

You're saying this like its an all or nothing situation. It isn't. There is a vast world of difference between pornography, even kink pornography, and kiddie porn. Certainly anyone who would want to ban porn in general would want to ban child pornography. However, I would wager that a vast majority of people who are against banning adult porn would still want to ban child pornography. It is a common moral element within our society, much like "don't kill people," or "don't steal stuff."

 

[Goodieluver]

This summed it up nicely.

And now that I read a bit more, I'll comment

Anime that looks childlike is damn disturbing.
Pedophile's dream.
Give it a more mature look or don't post it if it's in a schoolgirl uniform, etc....

Artwork should LOOK 18+ (yes, at the very LEAST).

No blurred lines. Even the vaguest suggestion of (the) misuse/inappropriate depiction/abuse of children/teens under 18 is absolutely unacceptable.

To be depicted in porn, I'd prefer over 21, actually.
If they can go to war at 18 they should be able to buy it,
but I'd be more comfortable knowing anyone in any of these pictures, etc. is a little older at least.

Most of Japanese anime is drawn in that young style, its how they do it. Some gets mistaken for underage because in Japanese culture its taboo to show pubic hair, and other times they are they are just high schoolers and whatnot, even the major movies that come out, you cannot really tell the age unless its stated in back story and they have alot more violence than most movies today(for example see fist of the north star)

As i stated earlier in one form or another, the difference is between fantasy and reality. I dont see the issue of age when it comes to fantasy\cartoons and say its allowable yet naturally the reality of underage girls and boys in photos are wrong for obvious reasons. Should cheerleader and sorority hazing type tickling medias be banned since its apparently the directors' choice to portray the woman as a young girl and unless they have the benefit of a legal warning before it or just throw it in, you cant assume the girls being portrayed are playing characters underage or not(sure there are cheerleaders in college, but there are alot more in HS)

In certain anime grown men and women are transformed by spells into chibi(kids), does that mean despite being "old" they are not considered that cuz of their apperance? Also, should we go another step since we are discussing morality and ban any pix,vids and story that have animals involved in them? There are pix of girls having their feet licked by dogs, goats, etc and pix of anime girls half cat\girl ticklin or being tickled. Now since this is an adult forum, doesnt stuff like that borderline on bestiality since someone is being aroused potentially by the act of an animal?

Once again, its up for the mods to decide, not really any choice of ours, so have at it

 

[ViperGTS]

No, we shouldn't go another steps. We're talking about innocent children being percieved in adult situations, and losing their innocence in a way. Not dogs and cats.

Stay on topic folks, please.

 

[The Sean Man]

I'll make this point again....all we need is one paranoid, knee-jerk parent to see underage content here, alongside all the adult content....and this place is history.

Case closed.

 

[isabeau]

i'm with buggy...the vote is 56 to 16 or something..who are those sixteen? why don't they post why they think it's ok to show children on an adult forum being tickled or what not? this is very disturbing to me..and as for TT, when they went down that one time, i lost my membership, and never bothered to renew it..it's bad enough that my husband keeps calling this forum a porn site, without adding pedophilia to the distortion..and no amount of talking to him will convince him otherwise, so i've given up on that..

o and i voted no, of course not..this is an adult forum and should remain that way..

 

[MasterTT]

I am going with NO

I really hesitated posting on this thread, or at least from posting some of my thought process because there are a lot of people out there who, when trying to discuss this kind of nature, lose there precious human ability to think logically and discuss issues and adopt the stance that "if your idea differs, in the smallest way from mine... even in one iota, you should be gruesomely murdered and mutilated... and called bad names too you pedophile freak!"

So first why would I say no, two very simple reasons, ONE I personally do not believe that pictures or images of CHILDREN belong on an adult site, period. Can tickling be innocent, sure, but do most people log onto the TMF and TT with there heads full of innocent flowers and daisies just trying to see some nice tickling because a touch of laughter brightens there day? I sincerely doubt it. Adult intentions imply adult subjects it seems that simple. I think the people who made this board would agree that it is about a "tickling fetish" it isn't just the "place for tickling" and if it is about tickling in it's fetish capacity then children don't belong here period.

Second and equally importantly; I may be as big a freedom of expression advocate as you will ever meet... I would argue and fight for people to say and do the most horrible distasteful things because I believe in their right to do so... but this is a private board, and it is the responsibility of the moderators to protect it. In the current political climate, it is such that the IMPLICATION of child pornography, even if it isn't there, will do irreparable damage to the site, and to the fetish. Do we really want to be thought of as the fetish for kiddie porn people, because "hey you can tickle little kids" - no to me it is not worth it. Can tickling be innocent, absolutely. Should youtube and other such sites ban mothers tickling there kids videos because there pornography... no, but do they belong on an adult site, clearly NOT!

Lastly on the side of decent, hope Dave doesn't mind me borrowing a point from one of his posts, since we have discussed the whole issue (as it relates to freedom of expression) but with the plethora of adult material, I wonder why it is so important for some people to see THIS particular 12, 15 or 17 year old girl tickled. Why is it such an essential need that they would ignore the good of the forum. The good of the community, and so forth. This NEED is perhaps what disturbs me the most deeply.

"So MasterTT you seem in lock step agreement with the rabid lynch mom majority who thinks anyone who has a difference of opinion should be hung from the highest tree in cyber land, why worry about posting?" I hope you are asking yourself. Because I felt compelled to say a FEW other things. I'm just not good at going along and keeping the piece. For one let me be clear, I think that child molesters, and child pornographers are terrible exploitive, and abusive people and that the government should deal with them as the criminals they are. But this attitude that if people even think something differently than you... deserve not only your contempt but your wrath is a terrible attitude. It is thought policing, it is the enemy of logic, reason and rational discussion, and in my opinion such a view doesn't belong in the intelligent discussion of adults.

Secondly, 18 is an arbitrary age. It is important for legal purposes, but it is none the less arbitrary. You can not show me logical scientific evidence that a "woman" of 18 years and 1 minute of life, is in any way different than a "girl" with merely 17 years, 11 months 30 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes of life. It IS arbitrary. I think some of those "wretched 16" or so, may be thinking along those lines. I disagree, but more because of social constrictions. Perhaps it would be better if we used a question of biological maturity rather than a random age. I think you are in danger, though the point is legitimate, if you talk about maturity in a psychological sense, because then you are able to garner a unbelievable amount of social control power. Some all powerful person "decides" if you are "mature enough" to do this or that. But there are biological markers, depending on which ones we used some might reduce the age, others would make it latter, but they at least have a sense of legitimacy. But this is logical hair splitting, because I think what the MAJORITY of people are concerned about are pictures of children, as in not the flavor of the week 17 year old girl who is being pushed forward as a Lolita type of sex symbol and has had more sexual encounters in the last year than most of the 40 year old men drooling over her have had in their entire lives... but actual, pre-pubescent children. This is one of the clearest lines biology gave us. If there were no other line, puberty (and I do mean the full development of puberty through to its completion, not the beginning) is a clear and meaningful biological line when it comes to sex.

But as I said before it is just as important to function within the social structure where we live, and for that reason it is just as important to keep ANYTHING, even the 18-1 second girls off the adult boards. Period. Freedom of expression, and even more importantly freedom of thought is a great thing... but the expression part is not appropriate in all times and all places, such as privately run forums.

That's my two cents... at least for now.

I agree with you in principle, I just hope that you will consider discussion of subjects, rather than throwing around righteous indignation, and branding those who for whatever reason disagree with broad sweeping categorizations. Oddly, those people don't seem interested in defending themselves, and I don't know their thought process (the anime thing for one is completely beyond me) but as so many have pointed out this is an adult board, and we should be able to discuss even the most taboo topics as adults.
Lastly, this rant is obviously not aimed at everyone, if the attitudes I mentioned are yours, then they are yours, if they are not... obviously it was not to you whom I speak.

Mostly, this is a great community full of great people, so enjoy what we do have, because as anyone who can remember the ABMET days can tell you we have a lot!

 

[Feathery]

i'm with buggy...the vote is 56 to 16 or something..who are those sixteen? why don't they post why they think it's ok to show children on an adult forum being tickled or what not? this is very disturbing to me..and as for TT, when they went down that one time, i lost my membership, and never bothered to renew it..it's bad enough that my husband keeps calling this forum a porn site, without adding pedophilia to the distortion..and no amount of talking to him will convince him otherwise, so i've given up on that..

o and i voted no, of course not..this is an adult forum and should remain that way..

I would say that your husband is in the majority in believing that this forum is and should be considered a porn site. I would also venture to say that most folks do not recognize any difference between a porn site and an adult fetish site. Again, let me reiterate, that I am totally against child pornography. But it should also be understood, that there are many out there, especially in places like "Red State" America, that would like to close sites like this down regardless of whether children are depicted or not.

 

[kered]

I would say that your husband is in the majority in believing that this forum is and should be considered a porn site. I would also venture to say that most folks do not recognize any difference between a porn site and an adult fetish site. Again, let me reiterate, that I am totally against child pornography. But it should also be understood, that there are many out there, especially in places like "Red State" America, that would like to close sites like this down regardless of whether children are depicted or not.

And should I take that last sentence to mean that many out there, especially in "Blue State" America, that would like to keep open sites like this regardless of whether children are depicted or not? Quite a statement there, isn't it.

I believe the question was about underage content on an adult fetish site. I don't see any gray area on this. The people that own this site said no kids, so no kids. The owners have the right to decide the content of this site and to protect themselves within the law. To us the site could be shut down. To the owners it could be thousands of dollars for legal fees and/or prison. There are no what ifs or yeah buts in this situation.

You've probably figured out by now that I vote no. I'm done.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Nothing with kids...

What makes you think there has to be overt sexual content for some freak to get off on seeing kids tickling each other. Freaks like that will sit in cars by a park watching kids in a playground and rub one out. No way am I cool with any child content (no content under 18 will be allowed) If Theater feels this way then I am going to dicontinue my membership there as "The Canuck" very soon.

 

[Feathery]

And should I take that last sentence to mean that many out there, especially in "Blue State" America, that would like to keep open sites like this regardless of whether children are depicted or not? Quite a statement there, isn't it.

I think TMF has a better chance of surviving First Amendment laws in general, in more liberal "Blue States" than in the more conservative "Red States".

 

[kered]

I think TMF has a better chance of surviving First Amendment laws in general, in more liberal "Blue States" than in the more conservative "Red States".

That's fine, Feathery. Think what you will and I know you will stick to your beliefs. That's admirable. But when you and I joined this site, we basically agreed to abide by the rules of the owners which are posted on every forum we enter. This thread asks for a simple yes or no answer to the question of underage content in an adult fetish site. It has no mention of politics. If you want to go into hypathetical situations or finger pointing at political ideologies then take it to the Politics and Religion forum. The people that own and run this site have repeatedly stated they want absolutely no underage content. I intend to comply with this simple request.

 

[Bugman]

That's fine, Feathery. Think what you will and I know you will stick to your beliefs. That's admirable. But when you and I joined this site, we basically agreed to abide by the rules of the owners which are posted on every forum we enter. This thread asks for a simple yes or no answer to the question of underage content in an adult fetish site. It has no mention of politics. If you want to go into hypathetical situations or finger pointing at political ideologies then take it to the Politics and Religion forum. The people that own and run this site have repeatedly stated they want absolutely no underage content. I intend to comply with this simple request.

Simple and to the point kered.I plan to get off the TT membership rolls asap myself.

 

[chicago]

I've asked to have my account deleted, but TT does not do that.

So, I've cleared my profile of all information, and areas where an answer was required, I put incorrect info.

I'm now in the process of deleting all my posts, except for the ones on the underage poll thread, which I will leave up for a bit longer. It's a tedious task, but one I'm willing to do as I wish to have as little to do with that site as possible if they're going to allow (and encourage) underage material, no matter how innocent, to be posted.

 

[Feathery]

Is this all just ultimately becoming a rivalry war between TMF and Tickle Theater? I was on the videoclips page here and saw a post for "teen tickling clips".

 

[chicago]

Is this all just ultimately becoming a rivalry war between TMF and Tickle Theater? I was on the videoclips page here and saw a post for "teen tickling clips".

I believe eighTEEN and nineTEEN are legal.

 

[Feathery]

I believe eighTEEN and nineTEEN are legal.

Fine legal points, but what do you think they are trying to advertize?

 

[chicago]

Fine legal points, but what do you think they are trying to advertize?

Of course, and it's shady, but it's legal.

I can understand the appeal of teenaged, high-school aged girls, but I also know the danger in that appeal. The thing is, if they're 18, no matter what they look like or what they're trying to "advertise" it's legal.

What I can't understand or tolerate, are pictures of pre-pubescent children being posted here.

That being said, even if the subject is 17 and 364 days old, it's illegal, and the TMF has had too many problems with this issue as it is to bend the rules now.

 

[Bugman]

I've asked to have my account deleted, but TT does not do that.

So, I've cleared my profile of all information, and areas where an answer was required, I put incorrect info.

I'm now in the process of deleting all my posts, except for the ones on the underage poll thread, which I will leave up for a bit longer. It's a tedious task, but one I'm willing to do as I wish to have as little to do with that site as possible if they're going to allow (and encourage) underage material, no matter how innocent, to be posted.

Thanks for the info.I dont recall ever posting there,but i am sure going to edit my profile.

 

[Bugman]

Is this all just ultimately becoming a rivalry war between TMF and Tickle Theater? I was on the videoclips page here and saw a post for "teen tickling clips".

I have seen posts requesting "teen" clips,and when i opened the threads it was quite clear what they wanted,which involved minors.Almost as soon as i reported them the mods deleated them and the people requesting such things have not been seen again unless they have registered under different names.

Anything involving minors does not belong here or anywhere else IMO.

 

[Feathery]

Of course, and it's shady, but it's legal.

I can understand the appeal of teenaged, high-school aged girls, but I also know the danger in that appeal. The thing is, if they're 18, no matter what they look like or what they're trying to "advertise" it's legal.

What I can't understand or tolerate, are pictures of pre-pubescent children being posted here.

That being said, even if the subject is 17 and 364 days old, it's illegal, and the TMF has had too many problems with this issue as it is to bend the rules now.

Personally, I don't recall ever seeing pictures of pre-pubescent children here, or on Tickle Theater for that matter. I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine suggesting "teen" models in tickling video ads might invite scrutiny by the authorities. By the way is this thread a poll, a policy vote by membership, or will the owners do what they want anyway?

 

[chicago]

Personally, I don't recall ever seeing pictures of pre-pubescent children here, or on Tickle Theater for that matter. I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine suggesting "teen" models in tickling video ads might invite scrutiny by the authorities. By the way is this thread a poll, a policy vote by membership, or will the owners do what they want anyway?

Well, take a look at this. The drawing is supposed to depict a Disney character known as Kim Possible. Looking at the picture, you would think the girl is in her 20's, but the character is actually 10 years old in the cartoon on Disney.

Or this . While this character is not being tickled, it could be argued that the picture has sexual undertones, and a picture like that being posted on an adult forum, is just not appropriate.


And yes, the owners of this site are going to do what they wish, as are the owners of Tickle Theater, however I think the TMF is making the right one, and clearly TT is going to lose members with its choice. However, no matter what the choices of the owners of the sites, it is still important that we discuss it.

 

[Goodieluver]

Personally, I don't recall ever seeing pictures of pre-pubescent children here, or on Tickle Theater for that matter. I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine suggesting "teen" models in tickling video ads might invite scrutiny by the authorities. By the way is this thread a poll, a policy vote by membership, or will the owners do what they want anyway?

Agreed, the only snafu i recall was people posting papaka stuff on here and that became a major complaint and rightfully so, and i wanna say similar was posted on TT but that stuff was removed. So i guess the way all these posts are goin, and thru deductive reasoning. Pedophiles like underage boys\girls, sailor moon portrays high school girls, therefore all sailor moon fans must be pedophiles