Really Non-consensual Tickling ---

[MrMark]

I have to wonder.

Did you pay for these videos and watch them?

 

[FrenzyTickles]

No, Mr. M, Though I see why you're asking,
my point was that these videos are DESCRIBED in GREAT DETAIL as being TRULY Non-Consensual, with disclaimers for the faint of heart. I know that might only be packaging, but the point is, it COULD very well be real.

Looking at it, I can't tell for sure who's faking and who's not --- I've only seen random clips, and can't tell the difference. Those who buy this stuff are also possibly rewarding real torture. No can do.

The point is it's being manufactured, sold & accepted here as real torture.

Even those who insist it "most likely" isn't for legal & monetary reasons
have given no guarantees, and can't comment upon all materials past, present or future. If there is a minimun humane ethic here, the "Golden Rule," the presence of such (supposed or actual) material contradicts that. And I'm understating.

 

[isabeau]

as with politics and religion, you arent going to change anyone's mind. everyone has their own opinion on this subject. i guess it boils down to what you yourself choose to believe. i dont like seeing this thread however turn nasty. people should be able to state their views without rancor. it is what makes the world go round.

isabeau

 

[Myriads]

Howdy again,

Many words led to:
You people (tickling, BDSM, WHOEVER) have either missed or are trying to avoid the clearly stated point --- IF TORTURE IS REALISTICALLY ADVERTISED AS *TRULY* NON-CONSENSUAL IN *ANY SITE *ANYWHERE -- but I saw it here, so here I rant --- IT'S UNACCEPTABLE. ****IF**** IT ISN'T REAL, IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE REALITY.


And you keep missing a significant point.

Company hires woman and makes video. Then they create a Non-Con marketing campaign to sell said video. No Non-Con stuff happened. It's all about manipulation of consumer.

The entire Non-Con issue is a fabrication of the video producer to sell more product to those who like and are aroused by the Non-Con fanatsy (and there are a lot) nothing more.

Models and such do not go into shoots without knowing what will happen, and how much they are geting paid and for what. This is the flesh trade, people are very savy. Call Girls and Hookers tend to be even more careful about such sillyness, and tend to have stonger backup close at hand. No one had anything done to them that they were not aware was coming in these vids. All the sales stuff that says otherwise is just that, sales stuff.

Any video producer which tried to pull a 'Non-Con' shoot like these vids report would be blacklisted on model call boards, call girl check forums, and with local talent so fast your head would swim. They would be unable to get models and talent. I've seen companies get deep sixed because they were overly rude to talent, let alone physcially abused them.

You open a very valid argument in all your posts "Does fanatsy violence induce a greater chance of real violence, and is that a bad thing?" but it's lost in the endless caps and red text. It's also a debate that has been about since mass publication became the norm a few centuries back. Way beyond the scope of the forum to ever settle, though it is amusing to debate.

All I can say to the topic is that the overwhelming majority of us have seen a few thousand acts of violence on TV in our lives and we seem to not be out spreading mayhem on the world.

Focus on some real world facts:

A producer that assulted talent would probably not get a consent/release signed AND would get blacklisted in such a fashion that they would loose access to talent. In other words they would be financialy killed.

Given that an illegal action is admitted to in the ad copy for this material, the 'victim' has more then enough legal legs to stand on should they wish to persue the issue in court. This is regardless of an 'force at the moment' There is video proof of the 'crime' that can be bought! Yet no charges have been made. No legal stuff has happened.

Take a look at the way things ARE, and use that info to work back to the most probable case for what WAS. A model was hired to play thet part of a Non-Con Victim and was paid for it. An ad campaign then sold the illicit fantasy.

This is the porn industry. They are selling you a product that is designed to press your buttons. In your case they pressed the wrong ones.

Myriads

 

[MrMark]

No, Mr. M, Though I see why you're asking,
my point was that these videos are DESCRIBED in GREAT DETAIL as being TRULY Non-Consensual, with disclaimers for the faint of heart. I know that might only be packaging, but the point is, it COULD very well be real.

Looking at it, I can't tell for sure who's faking and who's not --- I've only seen random clips, and can't tell the difference. Those who buy this stuff are also possibly rewarding real torture. No can do.

The point is it's being manufactured, sold & accepted here as real torture.

Even those who insist it "most likely" isn't for legal & monetary reasons
have given no guarantees, and can't comment upon all materials past, present or future. If there is a minimun humane ethic here, the "Golden Rule," the presence of such (supposed or actual) material contradicts that. And I'm understating.

I see. So you're up in arms about what you "think" is happening in these videos although, in reality, you have no idea what they contain. Now I see why this whole arugment has lead nowhere. "I have not seen them but I know for a fact they are wrong and bad." Right.

That answers my question. I can now safely ignore this thread.

Back to tickling....

 

[Redmage]

No, Mr. M, Though I see why you're asking,
my point was that these videos are DESCRIBED in GREAT DETAIL as being TRULY Non-Consensual, with disclaimers for the faint of heart. I know that might only be packaging, but the point is, it COULD very well be real.

Looking at it, I can't tell for sure who's faking and who's not --- I've only seen random clips, and can't tell the difference. Those who buy this stuff are also possibly rewarding real torture. No can do.

The point is it's being manufactured, sold & accepted here as real torture.

No.

In fact, "the point" is just the opposite. FAR from us "accepting it here as real torture," we've been telling you for the last bunchteen messages that we do NOT believe it's real. Then you turn around and tell us that we "must" believe it, and we respond, "Says who?"

Go back and read the thread, FT. The only person here who is arguing that this stuff is real is you. So it takes a certain amount of cheek to come back and say that you're upset with us because WE believe it's real.

Even those who insist it "most likely" isn't for legal & monetary reasons
have given no guarantees, and can't comment upon all materials past, present or future.

All right, this is verging on parody now.

FT, please provide me a GUARANTEE that every erotic video you have ever seen WAS NOT produced by holding the model at gunpoint. While you're at it, extend that guarantee to all such videos in the future.

You can't deny that such a thing is at least remotely possible, so since remote possibility is apparently grounds for moral outrage in your book, I say it's time for you to start practicing what you preach. Either cough up that guarantee, or cease supporting the adult entertainment industry in any way (including participation on this forum). Anything less would be hypocritical.

Until you're willing to start living by your own standards, you won't get very far by asking anyone else to live by them.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Frenzy has a point...

Acording to TC videos, the video "Without Concent" was infact without consent. Acording to the discription Toni (a friend of Pricila James) agreed to do a bondage video, and found herself under attack from Percila. They claim that it took weeks before Toni sined the release, and that it kill her friendship with Ms. James. Mind you this claim looses it bit when you see that Toni is bound a couple of different way in a couple of different rooms.

I've never seen this entire movie, just the advertising clips. I used to be my favorit, but now Frenzy has me rethinking my views. I'd like to read TIB's opinion on this also.

 

[venray]

That isnt even the vid she/he is up in arms about Slaver....Toni is no prostitute(not that the girl in the TP vid was either)

😉

 

[Redmage]

Acording to TC videos, the video "Without Concent" was infact without consent.

Let's rephrase that slightly for the sake of precision: "According to TC videos' ad copy, the video "Without Concent" was in fact without consent."

Trouble is, when you put it that way it doesn't look so impressive. It's not as though a TC rep called a press conference and got up behind the podium to admit their guilt. This is, literally, someone trying to sell you something. You need to apply some discretion to those situations.

Acording to the discription Toni (a friend of Pricila James) agreed to do a bondage video, and found herself under attack from Percila. They claim that it took weeks before Toni sined the release, and that it kill her friendship with Ms. James. Mind you this claim looses it bit when you see that Toni is bound a couple of different way in a couple of different rooms.

Yes, it loses a whole heck of a lot when you realize that Toni was apparently tricked into bondage and tortured against her will, then let Priscilla trick her and torture her again, and then fell for the same trick yet a THIRD time in the space of one afternoon.

Yet Realtickling claimed just as sincerely as TC did that their video was non-consensual.

It's just advertising.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Hay I'm just saying...

So what, the concept is basicaly the same. Toni was tickled against her will. Worst of all is the fact that she was, aperently, told she'd being doing one thing and was betrayed. Does it matter if your pissed over the abuse of one person and some throse in "an there was this other time...". I tell ya Ven, I love a good debate, and your one of the best, but that was just weak.

 

[venray]

LOL there s nothing to debate....TIB wouldnt risk his company by doing something illegal...as Red said....it is all hype and advertising to sell the fantasy...I believe that Myriads explained it all the best..... 😎

 

[Battousai]

So what, the concept is basicaly the same. Toni was tickled against her will. Worst of all is the fact that she was, aperently, told she'd being doing one thing and was betrayed. Does it matter if your pissed over the abuse of one person and some throse in "an there was this other time...". I tell ya Ven, I love a good debate, and your one of the best, but that was just weak.

I think you should listen to RedMage. It's all advertising. Whether or not advertising it as non-con is the real issue I think.

The thing is, the (tickle) torture depicted in most of these videos is real. It's not like the girls are pretending to be ticklish. But it's all consensual.

So the real issue is whether or not it's okay to advertise something as non-consensual. Does that make torture okay? The fact that it's non-consensual is the fantasy part of it, though. We've already been over all that, though.

 

[asutickler]

So the real issue is whether or not it's okay to advertise something as non-consensual. Does that make torture okay? The fact that it's non-consensual is the fantasy part of it, though. We've already been over all that, though.

Not everyone is as savvy as many of the posters in this thread. There are people who see videos that are advertised as non-consensual and actually believe it. They then purchase the videos in the full belief that they are paying for a video of someone being tortured in a truly non-consensual fashion...

It is absolutely disgusting to think that someone would pay to see another person actually tortured against their will, and I find it a bit disturbing that certain companies would cater to and take advantage of this vile attitude, even though their advertising claims of the video being truly non-consensual are in fact false. People who would pay to see another human being tortured (and I don't mean in a fantasy-based film: I mean ACTUALLY tortured) are in dire need of psychological help. The last thing they need is a video designed to appeal to their foul desires.

 

[Battousai]

Not everyone is as savvy as many of the posters in this thread. There are people who see videos that are advertised as non-consensual and actually believe it. They then purchase the videos in the full belief that they are paying for a video of someone being tortured in a truly non-consensual fashion...

It is absolutely disgusting to think that someone would pay to see another person actually tortured against their will, and I find it a bit disturbing that certain companies would cater to and take advantage of this vile attitude, even though their advertising claims of the video being truly non-consensual are in fact false. People who would pay to see another human being tortured (and I don't mean in a fantasy-based film: I mean ACTUALLY tortured) are in dire need of psychological help. The last thing they need is a video designed to appeal to their foul desires.

This discussion just keeps going round and round in circles. I do think you have a point, though. Even though I'm a fan of torture, even non-consensual stuff so long as it's fictional, it probably isn't right to cater to the kind of person that would do it in real life. But then again, friends tickle torture eachother without asking, amoung other things.

 

[Redmage]

So what, the concept is basicaly the same. Toni was tickled against her will. Worst of all is the fact that she was, aperently, told she'd being doing one thing and was betrayed. Does it matter if your pissed over the abuse of one person and some throse in "an there was this other time...". I tell ya Ven, I love a good debate, and your one of the best, but that was just weak.

I agree that the concept is the same, but here's the concept I see:

In one movie, Toni allegedly fell for the same trick three times in a matter of a few hours. Realtickling hyped that to the stars as a "true" non-consent video. But if Toni is smart enough to be allowed out without supervision then that's just not a realistic claim. RT's claims were marketing hype, nothing more.

In another movie "Shannon," allegedly a prostitute, was likewise allegedly tricked and tortured, and TC hyped the movie as a "true" non-consent video.

For some reason we don't seem to be learning from experience here. The economics of making non-consensual porn are prohibitive, to say nothing of the legal risks. I agree the concepts are the same: both movies are faked.