some new controversy here

[taragohn]

Just a weird situation which I ask opinions about.

We always seem to assume that underaged girls are the tickLEES when we talk of underaged material.

What if someone posted a pic or story which involved underaged tickLERS torturing an adult for their wicked pleasures?

 

[sgtfrantz]

well if by wicked pleasures u mean sexual pleasures, then yes, that's pretty fucked up

 

[morgandee]

guilty conscience alert

 

[Kalamos]

Just a weird situation which I ask opinions about.
We always seem to assume that underaged girls are the tickLEES when we talk of underaged material.
What if someone posted a pic or story which involved underaged tickLERS torturing an adult for their wicked pleasures?

It's too risky.
Forum is being hosted by an American server.
It goes by American laws.
By American laws sexual activities between minors and adults are to be frowned upon.

I find it odd they can drive a car.
They find it odd we can have sex.

Let us not dwell too much on this matter.

 

[drizzay01]

Kalamos: Heh, I swear I am not trying to hunt you down just to argue. I just happened to read this post as well. So you think minors should be allowed to...well.."make porn"?

 

[Kalamos]

Kalamos: Heh, I swear I am not trying to hunt you down just to argue. I just happened to read this post as well. So you think minors should be allowed to...well.."make porn"?

I think that some minors are way more mature than some adults.
BUT... we have to draw a line that will work for most.
That line is 18 or 21.
And it works for me.

...

Your question is fascinating yet inaccurate.
We are not speaking of porn.
We are speaking of minor tickling adults.

The original poster left matters such as "how", "why", "to what extent" rather fuzzy.
I cannot give a straight answer when the original question itself is not clear.

 

[Currahee1974]

i agree with Kalamos..though forget 18...i sway more towards 21...

if that underager was my sister, or even a friend, yes, i have friends that are underage....and coach them in softball...if anyone approached them for anything of getting a pleasure of their own, then they best pray to Jesus Christ Almighty I never see them around, because I swear on everything Holy, I'd kill them, if not kill. at least put the boots to them

 

[taragohn]

Okay
To make it more clear then

Yes I meant sexual pleasures. I personally only have the fantasy would NOT put it to practise ever. So mabye yes Goofy you would call me sick, but rest assured I would never put it to practise.

But now the question has arised, what if it is not sexual, just friendly play and somehow you just get a little aroused none the less. Is that person then immidialtly wrong and sick or... ?

I agree with Kalamos here as well. There must be a line drawn when it comes to age and sexual materials. But what I do not understand is why the American law does so much to protect children from sexual content and in my eyes to little to prevent children from other serious treaths. And it is not just with porn, Americans freak out when a bare breast is shown on TV but they alow 16 year olds to get a drivers licence and guns are available for citizens. I think those form a bigger danger to children than sexual material.

 

[indivision]

Some minors are more mature than others, but for the sake of convienience we draw the line somewhere. And while I would never get involved in anything remotely sexual with a minor, I think it's kind of amusing that the person can be 17 and its considered repulsive and sick, but yet if they're 18 it's all well and good.

 

[Kalamos]

Besides, I'm not sure about *whose* wicked pleasure.
The kid's or the adult's?

 

[DarthGrinn]

nothin that hasn't already been said...

...
I think those form a bigger danger to children than sexual material.

Here's my personal take on the topic:

There can never be too much protection for children against sexual acts. Sure, adults can be negligent in other areas; but that doesn't in any way lessen the significance of protecting the innocence/well being of a child from the trauma of being raped/molested.

Such protection also includes protecting them from media exposure, and outlawing any media that exploits children. Saying "what if the adult doesn't get off on it, but the kid does" is not a valid argument. Either way, a kid is involved when they shouldn't be.

Another personal stance:

Yes, some children mature faster than others. Again, this is not a valid reason to allow them to be exposed to sex earlier. A "well developed" and "emotionally mature" 12 year old is still a 12 year old; even if he or she had a "hard life" an has very well matured sexual organs...

Tickling is known to be sexual; therefore it's a sexual act, period. It may not be sexual all the time, it may not be sexual to everybody... but it can be. This is called "playing it safe". We are looking after the well-being of people (children) who can't necessarily take care of themselves and who's haven't the experience to judge or to reason for themselves, so we have to take their interests at heart.

So IMO, underage tickling; even if the kid is the ler and the adult lee "may not be getting off on it" (a big "ya right!") is a no-no because in the end of the day: One is taking advantage of kids...

And chibi/lita stuff is a no-no (again, IMO) because it goes against the principal. Hey, we are all consenting adults here, and we can have our fun… Let the kids remain kids until they are legally old enough to be consenting adults.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Very well said, RTL 🙂

 

[cpr1815]

Tickling is known to be sexual; therefore it's a sexual act, period. It may not be sexual all the time, it may not be sexual to everybody... but it can be. This is called "playing it safe". We are looking after the well-being of people (children) who can't necessarily take care of themselves and who's haven't the experience to judge or to reason for themselves, so we have to take their interests at heart.

So IMO, underage tickling; even if the kid is the ler and the adult lee "may not be getting off on it" (a big "ya right!") is a no-no because in the end of the day: One is taking advantage of kids....

Very well put. Any seemingly minor act, if any form of sexuality is put on it (even if "normal" people wouldn't see it as wrong on face value), it's wrong. Most of us here see tickling as sexual to some degree, so involving a minor into a sexual fetish is just wrong.

 

[Kalamos]

I'm a bit fed up with threads regarding minors, pervs and various degrees of sickness.
I need a bit of vacation from these "what I think he thinks she should think" matters.
I'll be around somewhere...

😉

 

[taragohn]

RTL:

There is a difference between sexual acts and rape/molastation.
To much protection is not always good. Sure you have to protect them from wrong influences. But if you keep on hammering down that sex is for adults and that they should not look at stuff like that they will only get more interested and than start to experiment themselves with far more serious dangers then when you educate them properly. Furthermore when you draw a line it is the same with alcohol. Once they reach the "proper" age they will go all out and do far more damage to themselves then when you educate them on an earlier age.

"So IMO, underage tickling; even if the kid is the ler and the adult lee "may not be getting off on it" (a big "ya right!") is a no-no because in the end of the day: One is taking advantage of kids..."

A big yeah right? so evey dad that gets tickled by his kids is a pervert and is getting off on his own kids?


"And chibi/lita stuff is a no-no (again, IMO) because it goes against the principal. Hey, we are all consenting adults here, and we can have our fun… Let the kids remain kids until they are legally old enough to be consenting adults."

So when they are legally old they immidialty act like adults?

Tickling is NOT know to the majority of people to be sexual. Take a look at the poll asking people if they are open about their tickling fetish and the majority says no. So this community is not that well known. So stating that it is known is not correct.

As for playing it save. People should be more openminded towards sex and sexual education. Sex is not a disease that will only harm children. Make them aware of the dangers and they will be much more alert. his way you will protect them from unwanted sexual acts because then they will know what happens. Keep them ignorant for as long as 18 years and they will be in far worse situastion when the reach the so-called legal age

 

[DarthGrinn]

Taragohn, I don't do well with blow-for-blow posts; I find that more often one tends to take arguments out of context, and lose perspective of the thread as a whole.

I was raised a very sheltered and moderated life; being the first born child, my parents were extra sensitive, and sought to protect me from everything they considered harmful.

Now I'm 23; I am not a raging alcoholic, nor am I a sex-crazed maniac. I don't even smoke, and I'm celibate. My parents are not the very least controlling, now that I'm an adult they trust that I will follow their teachings, and watch out for myself. I do just that.

So everything you say about boundaries/limits and how it could have adverse effects on the growth of a child is moot as far as I'm concerned; and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

My skepticism regarding adults being tickled by children was referring specifically to your OP; and I share ahcharge's sentiments, word for word 🙂

So when are children legally old enough for sex? That's what the Law is for; check the area you live in and find out. I'm not a Lawyer so I can't discuss this in any more detail.

Regarding the sexuality of tickling; as I understand it, you don't have to tickle a child to molest him/her. Simply groping is enough.

Let me put it in another way:

I don't consider spanking to be sexual at all; and I wouldn't accuse a mother that spanks her child to be a pervert. Now imagine that a person gets off on spanking children; or being spanked by children. Can this person use the "spanking is generally not sexy" argument to justify his or her acts?

Lets not lose sight of this thread; I'm not arguing against sex education. I'm arguing specifically against your OP:

Just a weird situation which I ask opinions about.

We always seem to assume that underaged girls are the tickLEES when we talk of underaged material.

What if someone posted a pic or story which involved underaged tickLERS torturing an adult for their wicked pleasures?

You already used the terms "underage", "torture" and "wicked pleasures" all in the same sentence; I don't think you can wave that all away in the name of "sexual education" lol

 

[MistressValerie1]

What if someone posted a pic or story which involved underaged tickLERS torturing an adult for their wicked pleasures?

The story or pic would be deleted and the user would be warned or possibly banned.

Any kind of adult/minor tickling relationship is frowned upon here whether it is a minor tickling an adult or an adult tickling a minor.

http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?t=2124

Please do not post any images depicting underage lee's or ler's in this section. We are an adult site afterall, and we do not allow that kind of stuff here.

http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?t=2612

 

[morgandee]

why are people trying to look for other peoples' opinions anyway

if you have to ask other people about that kind of shit then perhaps you should just shelter yourself for the rest of your life because obviously you will never learn to think for yourself

 

[taragohn]

The fact that I asked has nothing to do with me not thinking for myself. I have my own thoughts thank you very much. Just curious to know what other felt. So don't make that sort of remarks, please I take that as being very offensive. (Because if you have read some of my posts here you would see that I have a mind of my own)

RTL: Never had the intention to get personal just got a little bit carried away there. My sincere appologies.

To be honest I wrote the initial post just a little to loosly. Of course I respect your words and respect your opinion. It is just that when I read things I do not agree with I tend to get carried away and respond impulsively, I was never looking for an argument.

I just like to react to other peoples posts. Sorry just can't resist.

"So everything you say about boundaries/limits and how it could have adverse effects on the growth of a child is moot as far as I'm concerned; and I'm sure I'm not alone on this."

This is not an argument to say that it does not happen the other way around.

As for your last remark. DU'H I may be sick but I am not stupid 😉

Now I will try to refrain from getting into as you call it "blow-for-blow posts". Altough, I like to have this sort of discussions here. That is one of the reasons I started this tread.

As for the other reason, thanks Val for answering short and to the point. Better leave those pics on my hard drive then.

(JUST KIDDING)

 

[DarthGrinn]

Taragohn,

I have nothing against discussion and debates, that's what forums are for. And as long as the topic sticks to the OP then it's all well and good 🙂

There's no need to apologize. Regarding my remark about "blow for blow", I meant that I wouldn't dissect your posts, to counter-point each paragraph. You can feel free to do so if you choose. I just didn't want you to feel that I'm doing it out of laziness.

(perhaps the moderators would consider creating a "heated discussion" sub-forum for such issues? that way people can vent etc in one area and not clutter up the "lighter" parts of the forums)

******

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, children do need to be educated and protected. Both go hand in hand; and when done correctly, can result in the blossoming of some very productive adults.

We all have our dark lil secrets; and pedophilia (not accusing you of anything, just being general) is real, and some even say "natural". That doesn't make it justified, or right... and all it means is that parents should do their jobs. Period.

Why I don't like the whole liberal outlook on parenting, is because it puts a child at risk.

Now you argue that it could cause a child to rebel as soon as they get a chance; but I say that providing the parent does their job, it won't happen.

For example: My parents didn't just say "no booze for you! Come back in 20 years!" (hehe, The Soup Nazi). They explained all the ramifications of alcohol, alcoholism, and how it can ruin one's health, social life etc. Sure they explained that one can be a responsible drinker; but in the end of the day, they educated me, and I came to my own conclusion that Alcohol was something I did not want to get involved with. When I hit 21, it still wasn't something I was interested in.

Had I decided then to drink; thanks to their parenting, it would be an educated decision that I made, as an adult. They did their job, and I exercised my own prerogative.

I could imagine how curious I would have been, had their parenting been limited to "NO!", without the educating and nurturing; it's not the recklessness that's the problem, but rather the ignorance that is a result of lack of parenting. Y'see my point?

In the end of the day, time will allow things to happen at their own natural pace; and parents must work together alongside society's laws to protect their children, and make sure they make it to their legal adulthood in-tact.

It's true that, thanks to technology and the over-all accessibility of everything, children are seeing more and more at a younger age. I personally new a guy who had a lil brother (about the age of 9) whom he told me he caught watching porn on his computer... Kid's these days eh?

So if I meet a lil girl that knows more about porn than I do, and knows the Kamasutra cover to cover, does that give me the right to indulge in her desires... even if she's the one coming on and askin' for it? Hey, she's mature enough to appreciate the Kamastura right? And she seems mentally/emotionally mature...

...she's still 9 years old tho...

Where's her parents?

And what is she doing on my doorstep? Or better yet; how the heck did I even get into their back yard?

(the above is totally fictional to illustrate my point)

Get my drift?

Society is failing to raise their children property, and protect them, that's all. It's a complicated situation; and won't get any better if we decide "oh let them experience the delights of tickling, for erm... educational purposes" (just teasin' ya man, I got yer point)

So why not let the kids go crazy and have sex before adulthood?

…Why not let them get to adulthood first? At least they would be guaranteed 21 years of clean/wholesome life before they screw themselves up anyways eh?

 

[taragohn]

Your alcohol example is just how I see it as well. As you said you were educated by your parents and not just told "NO". Yes you are right in a sense that it is the lack of parenting that is then to blame. I think the same goes for sex education. My point is that when parents go to extreme levels to "protect" their children from sex and sexual material and just say "NO" as you put it children will be the more rebellious and start doing things on their own. Far more dangerous things than watching porn.

The thing you said about the 9 year old brother watching porn. What is so bad about watching porn? It is the fact that everybody says he is "caught watching" as if he was doing a horrible crime. If people would be more open and do not desperatly hold to their idea of when children are adults before educating them children would not be going around secretly searching for sexual material and then get the wrong picture of what it really is. A part of human life. As you said things works out at its natural pace. Well let it then truely go at a natural pace and do not go around and say when we think children are ready for sex education. Not every kid is the same. Some mature earlier some later (heck some people never grow up).

All I am saying is that people should not put to much emphasis on the issue of "legal age" or "adulthood" there is no line here every kid is different. This however does not mean that I think it is alright to just post anything on the net involving children because I hate child ponography. But playfull, harmless stuff involving children will be considered by most of the forum members as not interesting. The one that do find it interesting are not immidiatly pedephiles that have other questionable sexual fantasies involving children. I do also understand that the moderators have no choice in this matter and are forced to act like they do. What I do think is that some people are being overprotective sometimes with keeping stuff away from children. What is adulthood anyway and what make age so all powerfull and decisive?

What I actually want to say is that I feel that some people are overprotective. They focus to much on keeping sexual material away from children instead of explaining what it is. Specially on TV. The lenght that they go trough just to cover-up a bare breast while the bullets are flying everywhere. But anyway this is a whole different topic so I will leave it for another thread.

PS: Laziness? You have written the most extensive replies in this thread yet. (prerogrative? please do not use big words like that they give me a headache 😉 ) I thought you meant that you did not like direct confontations.

 

[DarthGrinn]

Regarding "what's wrong with porn", you answered your own question. Kids, with their lack of knowledge and experience, can easily "get the wrong idea" of what sex (or rather, love-making) actually is about. This is why it is risky to allow children unrestricted access to pornography.

If you've ever watched a porn clip, I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. The majority of the pornographic material out is not exactly the kind of material one would consider "educating"; personally, I would consider it misogynistic, and even fictional in a sense.

Sure there are "educational sex tapes" but those aren't what I'm talking about. The danger here is lil Jonny watching "c*mshot_a$$rape_orgy.exe" and thinking that this is how a woman should be treated.

If a parent is going to selectively expose his or her own children to "educational sex tapes" then that's their choice; the keys here are moderation, and education. Letting a kid go stormin' across the net, downloading every disgusting thing their search engine happens upon is reckless, and can yield an adult that thinks that "lollita_goatseorgy.exe" is normal…

…Lol okay that last example was extreme, but you get my point?

Terms like "playful" and "harmless" are very arbitrary. I can argue that sex is "playful", and even "harmless": after all, there's nothing harmful about giving pleasure to somebody you love dearly, is there? And foreplay is very playful, right? That doesn't mean I should involve kids in it; or let kids watch even…

I don't think censoring a children's media experience is "overprotecting"; but there are those that do. That really isn't a major issue here. What I think we can both agree on is that children should not be actually involved in such acts until they are adults.

And this is why chibi/lita stuff is frowned upon; because it depicts children being involved…

 

[Journia]

It's too risky.
Forum is being hosted by an American server.
It goes by American laws.
By American laws sexual activities between minors and adults are to be frowned upon.

I find it odd they can drive a car.
They find it odd we can have sex.

System Overload

 

[TKLVR181]

There is a difference between sexual acts and rape/molastation.

Says who? I usually keep my dogs out of fights like this, and I probably will try to from this point on, but I'd just like to say---there is?? I'm pretty sure any sexual act is considered molestation when a minor is concerned. Whether the ler or the lee, sub/dom, whatever. And yeah, I do agree that it's a bit silly to consider a 17 year old taboo and an 18 year old a-ok, but it's what it is. 18 is the age of concent for stuff like that in our culture--it's sociology 101. You may not like it, but you're still gonna cause on helluva stink if u depict a 17 year old in anything on here. So let's respect the boundaries society has put up. It's what the kids themselves consider--if a 17 year old sees themselves, or even another 17 year old, depicted here, how're they gonna feel? Disturbed.

I'm assuming nobody here's talking about the under 17 age group.

And just to set the record straight, IMO there's nothing wrong with rolling around with your kid sister on the bed in a ticklefight. I tend to use the rule of no noncon for that one myself. I have three younger siblings and a younger cousin who lives with my mom 😉

~K

 

[Senshi1]

I don't think kids should watch porn because often it has a lot of swear words in it.