Should any underage material be allowed on the Theater?

[Cybertickler]

This topic irks me just a little, so I'm posting a poll.

Some people say that no tickling content depicting characters under the age of 18 should be allowed at all. Others thing cartoony art is ok, since it's not 'lifelike.'

What do you think? VOTE OR DIE.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Post my message to the topic this was spawned from, I will, albeit reworded.

Current US law only forbids graphic and/or graphic photorealistic depictions of fictional minors. I am of the opinion that if something is not illegal, prohibiting it is none of our business. If someone likes something and you do not, don't view it is my personal belief. I see the banning of anything that is not directly harmful to a person (Hence, real child pornography needs to stay banned, as it harms the child) as a start on the proverbial slippery slope leading to the banning of whatever a vocal minority sees fit, quite possibly leading to banning of what we enjoy, the various tickling media featuring only bona fide adults. Silly, nay, impossible one might say, but then consensual bondage and related activities between adults has been banned before. We're not that far removed; all it takes is a moral crusader and an agenda. Should fictional minors of the sort discussed here become illegal under US law, we will, of course, immediately follow suit and ban them. However, I will not be on the side happy with that.

EDIT: Also, I removed the poll option "I'm a pedophile. Yes." as it was only inciteful and did nothing to further discussion either for or against your question.

EDIT2: I don't know why I missed this before, but this should not be in Tickling Art. It should be in Tickling Discussion, where it now is.

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

I vote yes, for all the reasons that HDS just stated. Of course, it is arguable that I am previously biased in that direction anyway (see my comic, or not if you don't wish to...)

 

[Hahathna]

I'm of the same mind as HDS on this issue.

Child pornography is morally reprehensible, and anyone involved in it is the lowest form of scum and should be thrown in jail forever. With that said, I don't believe that doing an illustration depicting a character from Naruto (as an example) being tickled (just tickled... nothing more, nothing graphic, nothing sexual... just being tickled on the feet or sides or underarms, etc.) constitutes child pornography because the character is under the age of 18.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[asutickler1]

Absolutely not. Wether or not a person manages to tap dance around the issue of legality by using cartoon characters is, to me, irrelevant. I find it highly disturbing that there are so many in this community (both here and on the TMF) who apparently have some deep desire to watch children engage in an activity that they find sexually arousing. Rather than allowing them to satisfy their quasi-pedophilic desires by posting and viewing images and videos of "non-real" children, we should be encouraging them to seek out help in coping with and eliminating their compulsion to view sexual or fetish material that involves children.

Eventually, some pedophile is going to be busted with cartoon images from this site stored on his or her computer... And then the real shitstorm is going to start.

 

[tickle_fan031]

I think they should be posted, afterall it's a harmless cartoon/anime....if it's shown on television,why not here?Besides some aspects of it are from programmes that we have grown up with-doesn't mean to say we've grown out of them.Plus not everyone sees tickling as a sexual thing,it can be playful too.I think that's the important factor here,artwork that contains minors is usually drawn in the playful context-therefore I think it is acceptable.

 

[TKLVR181]

I'm all about keeping the law--no child porn. I totally agree with that.

But, at the same time, there's what Helen was talking about--the playful stuff, which is all of the 'child' stuff I've ever seen any of the artists do here. Take Nessie for example--she's famous for her 'chibi' works, and we all love 'em. Nothing mean-spirited or sexual about them, just kawaiiness! ^___^

Anyway, my two cents.

~K

 

[Betchass1]

Absolutely not. Wether or not a person manages to tap dance around the issue of legality by using cartoon characters is, to me, irrelevant. I find it highly disturbing that there are so many in this community (both here and on the TMF) who apparently have some deep desire to watch children engage in an activity that they find sexually arousing. Rather than allowing them to satisfy their quasi-pedophilic desires by posting and viewing images and videos of "non-real" children, we should be encouraging them to seek out help in coping with and eliminating their compulsion to view sexual or fetish material that involves children.

Ditto for all fetishists.

Eventually, some pedophile is going to be busted with cartoon images from this site stored on his or her computer... And then the real shitstorm is going to start.

A pedophile is someone sexually aroused by prepubescent children (NOT teenagers- look it up); that is not the same as someone who actually collects child pornography or molests children. You can't make it illegal to have a desire! I've been fascinated with bondage for at least half my life, and I've never tied someone up.
Speaking of teenagers, is it the government's job to tell a teenager who he/she may have sex with? It is not illegal for two 16-year-olds to have sex. When I was 16, I would have given anything to be with certain 20-somethings I knew.

However, I also prefer that underage cartoons not be allowed here. People under 18 aren't allowed to visit the site; and I have a hard time believing that "it isn't sexual" for an adult especially interested in underage-themed tickling cartoons. If you just like children in an innocent way, why go to a *fetish* site?

 

[Betchass1]

Incidentally, this poll reminded me of something I read once on bedroombondage.com. Lorelei was saying that it is illegal in the US to show bondage with penetration in a photo. But, in drawings, it is okay. Interesting huh?
I'm curious whether the law would forbid showing a tied-up man penetrating an unrestrained woman... I am guessing not (law can be pretty sexist) but who knows?

 

[asutickler1]

A pedophile is someone sexually aroused by prepubescent children (NOT teenagers- look it up); that is not the same as someone who actually collects child pornography or molests children. You can't make it illegal to have a desire!

You are correct in that you can't make it illegal to have a desire: This is what keeps groups like NAMBLA from being rounded up en masse and tossed into prison. Certain desires, however, are illegal (not to mention grossly immoral) to act upon. This is one of them. Personally, I don't think it is helpful to provide a supply of jerk-off material and moral support to people who want to see minors in sexual or fetish-related situations. In fact, doing so might actually encourage them to act out their desires.

People under 18 aren't allowed to visit the site; and I have a hard time believing that "it isn't sexual" for an adult especially interested in underage-themed tickling cartoons. If you just like children in an innocent way, why go to a *fetish* site?

I completely agree.

 

[liv4feet1]

If the story or pic involves ONLY tickling with no implication of arousal, implied or otherwise, why not?

How the reader sees it is nobodys business other than thier own.

IMHO

Liv4feet

 

[His Divine Shadow]

AI find it highly disturbing that there are so many in this community (both here and on the TMF) who apparently have some deep desire to watch children engage in an activity that they find sexually arousing. Rather than allowing them to satisfy their quasi-pedophilic desires by posting and viewing images and videos of "non-real" children, we should be encouraging them to seek out help in coping with and eliminating their compulsion to view sexual or fetish material that involves children.

My trouble with this view is that you assume all viewers of tickling material (And, specifically, the material in question here) are doing to be aroused or are aroused by it. Not all do. See below.

However, I also prefer that underage cartoons not be allowed here. People under 18 aren't allowed to visit the site; and I have a hard time believing that "it isn't sexual" for an adult especially interested in underage-themed tickling cartoons. If you just like children in an innocent way, why go to a *fetish* site?

People have a hard time believing things they do believe themselves. People once had a hard time believing the world was more or less spherical. That did not make it any less so. People once had a hard time believing HIV/AIDS was a virus, thinking it a plague sent by some deity to punish homosexuals. This belief did not change the truth. Peoples across the ancient world once found it hard to believe any of Christianity's precepts or beliefs; today, over a billion people believe. You find tickling to be sexual, I assume. Just because you do does not mean everyone does. The question of tickling being sexual has been asked time and time again in the past. Always there is a mix of responses, with many or most saying it is but with a sizable minority saying it is not. I once thought I found it sexual. Today, I know I do not. Just because you (or any other) may be aroused by ticking does not mean all are. To punish those who do not see it as sexual by removing something they simply enjoy viewing because a portion of the community finds all tickling to be sexual and is uncomfortable with it is unacceptable to me, personally. Following this line, we should ban any and all depictions of children in media because somewhere along the line some pedophile will be aroused by viewing it.

I am a firm subscriber in "to each his/her own." If someone wishes to view or create a drawing of a fictitious minor in a non-graphic and non-photorealistic manner, why should anyone care? If that is not your preference, you do not have to view it. Perhaps you find it weird. Well, I imagine many people would find our own tickling fetish strange and abhorrent. Does that make them right? No. If no one is harmed by something, what reason can their be to ban it? Some speak of it being food for pedophiles and the like. I cannot say for sure that it is or isn't. All I know is that we should not and, indeed, cannot let a fear of that cause our banning of something that does no harm to anyone. We cannot become prisoners of our own fears. Material of this nature has been allowed around since the TickleTheater was created with no ill effects. Suddenly, and with no apparent catalyst that I can see, some fear what once did them no harm. This worries and saddens me. Were there an event to bring this on I might understand.

*Sigh* Apologies for repeating myself again. liv4feet expressed my entire argument far more succinctly:

How the reader sees it is nobodys business other than thier own.

 

[Tickle4444]

I actually have a problem with the word 'fetish', but this is really the only community I can go to where I can indulge in my feet tickling interest without being flamed. I mean, if I was to go to a Michael J Fox message board - and talk about tickling his feet there, I would most likely be flamed for it. There might be other MJF fans who would love to tickle him (on his feet or elsewhere) - but most would probably consider it to be 'weird', 'silly', or 'bizarre' - and wouldn't tolerate that kind of discussion on the board. So that's that! There really should be a community for those with a non-sexual tickling interest.

 

[asutickler1]

My trouble with this view is that you assume all viewers of tickling material (And, specifically, the material in question here) are doing to be aroused or are aroused by it.

Then perhaps you could explain why some people seem to possess a specific, nearly compulsive desire to view tickling material involving minors? If there is no element of arousal to it, then why are they so concerned with the ages (or, to be more exact, the apparent physical ages, in a visual medium) of the participants? If they simply enjoy the act of tickling without any underlying sexual interest, I would think that the ages of the participants would be irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if only SOME of those who desire tickling images of minors do so for sexual reasons, isn't that enough? Why turn the Tickle Theater into a haven for child-predators?

 

[Betchass1]

You are correct in that you can't make it illegal to have a desire: This is what keeps groups like NAMBLA from being rounded up en masse and tossed into prison. Certain desires, however, are illegal (not to mention grossly immoral) to act upon. This is one of them. Personally, I don't think it is helpful to provide a supply of jerk-off material and moral support to people who want to see minors in sexual or fetish-related situations. In fact, doing so might actually encourage them to act out their desires.

Just for the sake of argument, though, would you not apply this to people with rape fantasies? How about non-consensual tickling fantasies? Surely tying someone up against their will and tickling them is also illegal and grossly immoral? I believe the term is "sexual assault". But there are sites all over the internet for them to jerk off and get moral support (what was the name of that site?). Is that better than a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old?

 

[Betchass1]

Why turn the Tickle Theater into a haven for child-predators?

Is it not already a haven for adult-predators? I am reminded of some vids and flame threads I won't mention to keep this short.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Then perhaps you could explain why some people seem to possess a specific, nearly compulsive desire to view tickling material involving minors? If there is no element of arousal to it, then why are they so concerned with the ages (or, to be more exact, the apparent physical ages, in a visual medium) of the participants? If they simply enjoy the act of tickling without any underlying sexual interest, I would think that the ages of the participants would be irrelevant.

I haven't noticed any compulsive desire of that nature. Perhaps I wasn't looking for it and thus missed it. I admit I do not notice everything. However, were that to exist, I can offer one explanation: fans. In other words, perhaps these people are simply fans of a particular underage fictional character or characters and thus seek out material pertaining to them. Assuming they act on sexual impulse is unfair to them. Fans of various bands are rabid often in their pursuit of merchandise relating to their favorite band, but no one says they have a sexual impulse to do so. Fans of, say, a Marvel or DC comics character or characters may seek out art related to them, statues of them, or comics featuring them. Do we automatically equate fandom with sexual attraction? You might respond "but it's tickling." That again brings us back to the point that tickling is not sexual for all people. Perhaps these fans seek out tickling pictures of their favorite character(s) as they compliment their tickling inclination as well. There may well be no sexual inclinations there.

If they simply enjoy the act of tickling without any underlying sexual interest, I would think that the ages of the participants would be irrelevant.

Precisely! They enjoy the act with no underlying sexual interest and they also like a certain character. In this case, he or she may be a fictional underage character. The age is, as you said, irrelevant. Just as there are fans of adult characters, there are fans of non-adults.

Furthermore, even if only SOME of those who desire tickling images of minors do so for sexual reasons, isn't that enough? Why turn the Tickle Theater into a haven for child-predators?

The assumption here is that sexual predators are now congregating at the TickleTheater because we allow fictional minors to be depicted in specifically non-graphic and non-sexual ways. I see no evidence that this is occurring. Now, it is certainly possible, as anything is, but I do not like legislating, to use the word, out of fear rather than substance. I promise you this: if I were to ever see evidence that we were attracting predators due to our policy of allowing fictional minors to be depicted I personally would change the rules in a second. I refuse to allow the Theater to become a haven for such. In turn, I refuse to change the rules without evidence that it is becoming one. Operating on fear is no way to act or live. There will always be a few peculiar characters who request things repeatedly like you say, but we usually can see their activities and ban them. Active requesting of underage material (Other than that allowed, as we are discussing), results in a warning and then an expulsion (Or instant expulsion, if the violation is severe or is is self-evident that we have a pedophile).

Government (And forum) is best that governs least. As the Dao De Ching said, governing a country is like cooking a small fish; you spoil it with too much poking.

 

[Tickle4444]

I think you've pretty much hit it right on! I think many know by now how I feel about Michael J Fox - and wanting to tickle his feet. 🙂

 

[Betchass1]

People have a hard time believing things they do believe themselves. People once had a hard time believing the world was more or less spherical. That did not make it any less so. People once had a hard time believing HIV/AIDS was a virus, thinking it a plague sent by some deity to punish homosexuals. This belief did not change the truth. Peoples across the ancient world once found it hard to believe any of Christianity's precepts or beliefs; today, over a billion people believe. You find tickling to be sexual, I assume. Just because you do does not mean everyone does. The question of tickling being sexual has been asked time and time again in the past. Always there is a mix of responses, with many or most saying it is but with a sizable minority saying it is not. I once thought I found it sexual. Today, I know I do not. Just because you (or any other) may be aroused by ticking does not mean all are. To punish those who do not see it as sexual by removing something they simply enjoy viewing because a portion of the community finds all tickling to be sexual and is uncomfortable with it is unacceptable to me, personally. Following this line, we should ban any and all depictions of children in media because somewhere along the line some pedophile will be aroused by viewing it.

I am a firm subscriber in "to each his/her own." If someone wishes to view or create a drawing of a fictitious minor in a non-graphic and non-photorealistic manner, why should anyone care? If that is not your preference, you do not have to view it. Perhaps you find it weird. Well, I imagine many people would find our own tickling fetish strange and abhorrent. Does that make them right? No. If no one is harmed by something, what reason can their be to ban it? Some speak of it being food for pedophiles and the like. I cannot say for sure that it is or isn't. All I know is that we should not and, indeed, cannot let a fear of that cause our banning of something that does no harm to anyone. We cannot become prisoners of our own fears. Material of this nature has been allowed around since the TickleTheater was created with no ill effects. Suddenly, and with no apparent catalyst that I can see, some fear what once did them no harm. This worries and saddens me. Were there an event to bring this on I might understand.

Very, very well said. I was thinking, even as I was typing, that whether I can believe someone's motivations are one thing or another is more just an observation than a justification for telling someone what they can or can't do. I agree that is a slippery slope.

 

[footamateur]

Ju7st few toughts; this discussion is always the same, and people on one side don't change their mind and agree wsith the others on the opposite idea; so sometimes it seems useless to talk about somethign like that, since everybody will continue to have his own idea and teh only thing that has importance is the one that the mod decide to leave on teh forum.

I would say that this is an adult forum, so if the owners and mods doesn't approve child pics of tickling is their right....their house, their rules so if somebody want to ahve a child tickling board is possible to make one by yourself...that's called freedom.

Child porn is one thing, tickling is another. Pedophiles have sexual intents, tickling is nothing that can be called child porn.

I know, you are starting to burn in your chair because you say that i'm wrong and youa re right....a fetish is a declaration of sexual and explicit arousment given by an object (the object of the passion, from which the feticist take pleasure, taht can be also an action adn not necessarily a phisical object) or from watching something....so basically everything can eb considered illegal, adn now i will explain why:

1) tickling feticist: became excited watching a child tickled = banned

2) foot feticist: became excited watching feet (or doing whatever else) = banned if is related to children's feet

3) all teh other feticists that doesn't fit in this categories: people that are aroused when tehy see the child's hair or the shoes, or the dirty socks, or watching girls that lick lollipops, or that love to see girls in stockings, people that love to see lingerie on girls, people that love to see girls playing on the grass (i can go over and over for hours, since there are so many fetishes that is impossible to make a list) = everything normal

The explanation of what i wrote is easy: if i see a child tickled and i ahve no tickling fetishes i can post it on a site (with the authorization fo teh parents, like the modelling sites that are infesting internet) and sell subscriptions and vids because is totally innocent and there is nothing that can be used to demonstrate that is child pornl; but if i'm a tickling feticist the things changed....because i take pleasure from the vision of something innocent and absolutely non related to p-orn and i start to make it dirty, so i've become an illegal human being that use child to satisfy his animal and sexual instincts.

Really? so if i make a site where i show girls that drink milks somebody can say taht i'm doing child porn, because there are people that get horny watching child drinking milk or eating; correct? the principle is the same: if i get horni is illegal, if not, is legal 🙂

Many people on the various industries started to use the knowledge that if they show a girl barefeet (indipendently form the age) you will get millions of foot fetiscists on your products because they want the pics of your girl barefoot; but the girl barefoot itself is not erotic or considered child p0rn.

Same for girls in lingerie, or that eat or smoke or that does whatever other action...there will be a guy that will find it exciting, but that doesn't mean that is illegal 😉

So if we want to say that on this forum the childrens must not be depicted, in images, clips or even fiction art or stories is one thing; you ahve the right to save teh board because tehre are so many hypocrites and "closed" people that they will not consider that the things changes based on the point of view, and not on the action itself.

But if we want to talk in a way that analyze the things, instead of reading what other says or think without connecting the synapses, we could say taht tickling is not child poprn by itself, but it became child porn if these vids or other material are posted on a fetish forum; that's the bottom line 🙂

I'm not pro or against....i don't care at all, but I hate when some arguments became tabu without giving a explanation of teh reasons; ten years ago we would consider weird or immoral many things that we see now, and that we consider "normal"; so i would not be surprised to see in 20 years that people will not consider anymore topics as tabu like we do now 😉

 

[Cybertickler]

Personally, I don't think it is helpful to provide a supply of jerk-off material and moral support to people who want to see minors in sexual or fetish-related situations. In fact, doing so might actually encourage them to act out their desires.

THANK YOU.

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

THANK YOU.

And yet the "no"'s are trailing behind at the moment - is this the sort of poll result you were expecting, ViperGTS19801?

 

[Journia]

Then perhaps you could explain why some people seem to possess a specific, nearly compulsive desire to view tickling material involving minors? If there is no element of arousal to it, then why are they so concerned with the ages (or, to be more exact, the apparent physical ages, in a visual medium) of the participants?
Furthermore, even if only SOME of those who desire tickling images of minors do so for sexual reasons, isn't that enough? Why turn the Tickle Theater into a haven for child-predators?

No one is turning the forum into a haven for sexual predators. You are exaggerating the situation. Simply because a small minority of people desire to see under eighteen years of age characters tickled in a drawing, does not make all those who like to see such things pedophiles. If you think about it, how many minor characters do you see in drawings as opposed to adult characters? It is a very uneven playing field if you ask me. So what do you do when you can't make what you want yourself? Go out and find someone who can do so. It doesn't make them pedophiles, any morethan you are. Unless of course you are, then you should be quiet about it.

If they simply enjoy the act of tickling without any underlying sexual interest, I would think that the ages of the participants would be irrelevant.

I think that was a contradiction of sorts. I just can't explain it. But, one thing is for certain. The thing that you used in your post was, requesting. Okay, it is a request. must you judge a request? The age of a persoin is quite relevant. Because that is the age of the character. Now, please think about that. I am suresomeone out there can understand what I mean right?

 

[asutickler1]

I only had to look about six posts down in the artwork subforum to find something distinctly disturbing:

http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?t=33256


If nobody wants to see pedophilic material on this site, then why on Earth is this sort of thing allowed? Is anyone going to argue that the art in the thread linked above does not depict minors engaging in an overtly sexual activity?

 

[Journia]

As koopacooper said before.
You can view it if you'd like, or you may not. It is simply as someone would see it, nothing more nothing less. Why do you have the urge to nag at this anyway?

I voted no on this subject simply because, this is an adult forum. But, if you would like to find a forum I can direct you to my forum which I built myself. It is just getting off of the ground and needs members anyway. Now, if you want it, just send me a private message and I will reply.