-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The TMF is sponsored by:
The non-consensual crap
- Thread starter laziva
- Start date
So if you're totally losing it on the outside, how can there be judgement when it is too much an when it isn't? Although from the clips I have seen from Skelyrata there is never intense tickling for a long time - tickle torture is alternated with soft touches. So I guess if the person stays in hysterics during the soft touches, it might be time to stop.
Still I believe a safeword is...safer.
Still I believe a safeword is...safer.
And what if a Group of people you have no fucking clue who they are come up and start a gang tickle on ya cause they are trying to get there jollies out of it?
I live in a getto and I wish everytime a bunch of strangers are coming at me was to gang tickled me.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,231
- Points
- 48
inb4 "Dur hur MORALS POLICE MORALS POLICE go be a Pilgrim u prude!"
Although;
Some producer in a similar thread mentioned a contract is void if the model is put under duress, which constant tickle torture would count as. If you get off on it, great. But most of these models do it for money and not for a sexual thrill and that makes a difference between your attitude on the matter and theirs.
Although;
Some producer in a similar thread mentioned a contract is void if the model is put under duress, which constant tickle torture would count as. If you get off on it, great. But most of these models do it for money and not for a sexual thrill and that makes a difference between your attitude on the matter and theirs.
I agree ,..have her read it ,agree to it,..sign it ,..then give a copy to her 6'4 240 lbs boyfriend to hang on to as the video is being made.Which would be truly stupid of the producer since there is a signed contract that proves what she agreed to and what she didn't agree to!
Attachments
You never Look UP, do you...
This is just proof you don't read. I suspect you're referring to me since you're using the standard innaccurate term borrowed & misused so (yawn) often by others of the same petty mindset.
Though you actually do make some sense. (After the totally unnecessary idiotic comment).
So there's hope.
At least you're not INVENTING quotes here.
I didn't appreciate your inserting your self-portrait and claiming I posted it in the pedophile thread
http://www.ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=2689547&postcount=34
There's a whole thread on THAT topic, and you're the worst offender I've seen, that's saying a lot. I wouldn't recommend making that a common practice.
But then again, you didn't bother reading as far as the top of the page here.
"Dur-hur" indeed.
Like I said, you & yours are unnecessarily nasty, a pity you had to mar a perfectly good post with an immature comment as it is.
TRY to be a freakin' Grown Up & not to muck up *this thread with more of the same, K? Thnx.
This is just proof you don't read. I suspect you're referring to me since you're using the standard innaccurate term borrowed & misused so (yawn) often by others of the same petty mindset.
Though you actually do make some sense. (After the totally unnecessary idiotic comment).
So there's hope.
At least you're not INVENTING quotes here.
I didn't appreciate your inserting your self-portrait and claiming I posted it in the pedophile thread http://www.ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=2689547&postcount=34
There's a whole thread on THAT topic, and you're the worst offender I've seen, that's saying a lot. I wouldn't recommend making that a common practice.
But then again, you didn't bother reading as far as the top of the page here.
"Dur-hur" indeed.
Like I said, you & yours are unnecessarily nasty, a pity you had to mar a perfectly good post with an immature comment as it is.
TRY to be a freakin' Grown Up & not to muck up *this thread with more of the same, K? Thnx.
Comfort Eagle
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 10,231
- Points
- 48
This is just proof you don't read. I suspect you're referring to me since you're using the standard innaccurate term borrowed & misused so (yawn) often by others of the same petty mindset.
Though you actually do make some sense. There's hope.
At least you're not INVENTING quotes here.
http://www.ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=2689547&postcount=34
There's a whole thread on THAT topic, and you're the worst offender I've seen, that's saying a lot. I wouldn't recommend making that a common practice.
But then again, you didn't bother reading as far as the top of the page here.
"Dur-hur" indeed.
Like I said, you & yours are unnecessarily nasty, a pity you had to mar a perfectly good post with an immature comment as it is.
TRY to be a freakin' Grown Up & not to muck up *this thread with more of the same, K? Thnx.
it's what I do.
Bows+Arrows
TMF Novice
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2009
- Messages
- 58
- Points
- 0
Oh my god, stop comparing tickling to rape, ever. In any situation under any circumstances.
Can we get back on subject
I think that consent should be asked and given at the entrance but I just don't think it is a true tickle torture session if there is a safeword.
Maybe I am just the only girl with this kink.
I mean, the way I like it, when I go to a tickling, or any other bondage related session, I like to be tied up, with no way I can escape, and just let the Dom do with me whatever he wants. No safeword. If there are any rules we set them up at the door, but I think rules and safeword just kills the mood. I like to fill the fear inside me of not knowing what is going to happen. And the more I laugh, scream, struggle, sweat, even cry, or pee, the more satisfied I finish.
Ok, so I know it sounds sick! I guess I acumulate so many emotions that at the time of a session I want to let it all out.
I think that consent should be asked and given at the entrance but I just don't think it is a true tickle torture session if there is a safeword.
Maybe I am just the only girl with this kink.
I mean, the way I like it, when I go to a tickling, or any other bondage related session, I like to be tied up, with no way I can escape, and just let the Dom do with me whatever he wants. No safeword. If there are any rules we set them up at the door, but I think rules and safeword just kills the mood. I like to fill the fear inside me of not knowing what is going to happen. And the more I laugh, scream, struggle, sweat, even cry, or pee, the more satisfied I finish.
Ok, so I know it sounds sick! I guess I acumulate so many emotions that at the time of a session I want to let it all out.
The non-con subject can be split up quite a bit.
I think it is fair to say that 99.999999999999999% of tickling done in the world is non-consensual. Most people do it in fun, or occasionally as bullying, because it's a safe way of making someone lose a bit of self-control. One friend talks smart to another, the second friend tickles them until they hoot, they walk off feeling smug at a revenge well served, no-one is too upset about it. Happens every day.
I have seen two tickling videos that were allegedly non-consensual. (Whether they were or not provoked a debate that lasted on the boards here for about five years.)
The first was Without Consent by Realtickling shot around 1998 I think, which featured Priscilla James inviting a friend, Toni Summers, over for a fetish photo shoot. After slipping Toni into a hog-tie, Priscilla beamingly told her friend that she'd been thinking about tickling her all week (despite having a boyfriend, bi-ness oozes almost visibly off of Priscilla James) and then stripped off her trainers and socks and gave her the tickling session of a lifetime. It goes without saying that the following only counts if this was actually non-con and not staged. Whether it WAS staged or not is, as I said above, a matter of debate.
Was it illegal? Certainly. Going by the standards of British law (which isn't totally dissimilar to American law), Priscilla James committed false imprisonment, assault and sexual assault (she used oral tickling on Toni's bare feet). She drove Toni nuts and constantly ignored the pleas for the tickling to stop until they had twenty five minutes of footage.
Now being friends, Toni never ever felt threatened or in danger, and she at no time feared for her safety. She was in the latter third of the shoot though, significantly in distress from the "torture".
Despite that, she still signed a model release for the video to be sold. Either the whole thing was kayfabe, or she thought once it was over, "Well, I might as well get a few hundred dollars for my trouble. I was going to be on their website anyway in the photos."
The second video I saw was Non-Consensual Tickle, by Paradise Vision/Tickling Paradise. Again, I write the following from the Devil's Advocate position that this was genuine and not a scripted plotline. Many people believe the latter.
Tickling Paradise hired a prostitute that they knew to be very ticklish, having researched the local working girls some with a male staff member who offered foot massages. They chose one and hired for for the night, the idea being that a couple wanted to make a video of the man having fun with "bondage and oral".
Once she was tightly secured, the tickling began and after about three minutes of laughing and gently protesting, became very ugly. The girl became very distressed (if this was scripted, then she is without doubt that rarest of all things in tickling and porn videos, a talented and totally believable actress) and starting crying hard. It was also apparent that she was envisioning being left murdered in a ditch somewhere after they'd had their fun.
The tickling was kept up on her without a break (although someone of the kayfabe proponents pointed out several things in the production qualities which they said was indicative of a cut in filming) for about half an hour, by which time she'd been gagged so her screams for help to the neighbours couldn't be heard. Her face was streaked with ruined mascara and makeup from the very real crying she'd been doing and she begging and gulping not to end up under someone's patio when they ungagged her.
If it wasn't kayfabe, then she didn't know these two actually worked for a proper video company of course, she just thought they were a couple who got off on abusing the ticklish and vulnerable. She wouldn't have known they needed her alive and signing a release form to make the video retailable.
Then of course, you have renfaire videos, no longer in open sale from either party who ever produced them. I'm not entirely sure what to classify these as, as there are some elements of non-con about them, but any strong protest on behalf of a lee being yanked out of the faire crowd and put into the stocks would probably be met with the workers abandoning the plan and going after another target.
I've only seen one, although I have seen a few clips from others, and I've never seen what I would class as distress of any kind from the person being tickled. I've seen varying degrees of embarrassment and sometimes a world-weary acceptance of "must be a good sport in public". Something which I'm sure the workers of tickling stocks must take into account when they start out. A bit of psychology there.
Now once the "victims" are in those renfaire stocks, they don't get released before their turn ends under any circumstances, unless they turn out not to be ticklish, in which case (in the case of the Italian renfaires - I've never seen an example of the American equivalent) no matter how much they cry uncle and beg for it to stop. It has to be said the tickling in Italian renfaire videos that I've seen is quite gentle and not at all as evil as a lot of mainstream tickling videos. For some bizarre reason they did use electric toothbrushes though, which is kind of plotline breaking.
Now what one might consider questionable, if one actually realises it (I didn't for some years, believe it or not) is that none of those people in the renfaires knew that were being videoed for the purposes of the footage to be sold as wanking material to tickling fetishists, via contacts made on a web-site that dealt almost solely in tickle fetishism. Certainly they wouldn't have been invited to sign a model release.
Now there is, to my knowledge, some grey area in the legalities of this, never mind the other questions you might ask. If someone is retailing such vids as a business, then you have definite grounds for having your arse sued to Timbuktu and back again. I think there is a possibility however, that someone passing out private copies for which they only charge a nominal amount they could argue was to cover expenses, was legal, due to the public and normally non-sexual nature of the footage involved.
For example: a doctor who carries out his duties whilst getting off on touching a lady's breasts and genitals is committing sexual assault. A foot fetishist who gets a job in a shoe shop and gets off on touching women's feet all day isn't, because are not normally considered sexual. (This is with British law.)
Now you can look at those four examples of non-consensual tickling and they all have different degrees of morality or immorality in them.
1/ Every day people tickle their friends or relative to pieces to make some sort fo point. They never ask beforehand if they can do it, and the victim rarely feels that they actually are a victim. A laugh is had by all, life carries on.
2/ A pre-meditated tickle video shot on someone who hated being tickled and was begging constantly for it to stop, but never felt in any danger and didn't get distressed until quite near the end. Felt okay enough about it to sign a release form. The person always expected to be doing some fetish work for the company and turned up that day expecting to be working a fetish shoot, although, not quite as "hands on" as it turned out to be.
3/ A pre-meditated tickle video inflicted on a vulnerable person who got extremely distressed from the tickling and who felt that they were quite possibly in real danger of being bumped off to "hide the evidence", one the couple had had their fun. Never in any knowledge that the people doing the tickling were working for a tickling video company until afterwards, which would have increased the mental anguish, if the video was not kayfabe.
4/ A pre-meditated tickle video inflicted on several scores of people in broad daylight, in a crowded area under the guise of being a mock-medieval jokey display, then sold without their knowledge to people who find it erotic and use it for what Yaqi would call, "masturbatory purposes", possibly by exploiting knowledge of the finer points of law, not always with the ticklee being over eighteen (going by visual appearance - not necessarily an issue in Italy anyway, where the age of consent is fourteen) this being the intent all along by the people creating the scenario and filming it.
All four of these are quite different from one another and raise questions of morality in different areas.
What do you guys think of these examples? Do you agree that although all four are non-con of one sort of another that they are different, or do you lump everything in together?
I think it is fair to say that 99.999999999999999% of tickling done in the world is non-consensual. Most people do it in fun, or occasionally as bullying, because it's a safe way of making someone lose a bit of self-control. One friend talks smart to another, the second friend tickles them until they hoot, they walk off feeling smug at a revenge well served, no-one is too upset about it. Happens every day.
I have seen two tickling videos that were allegedly non-consensual. (Whether they were or not provoked a debate that lasted on the boards here for about five years.)
The first was Without Consent by Realtickling shot around 1998 I think, which featured Priscilla James inviting a friend, Toni Summers, over for a fetish photo shoot. After slipping Toni into a hog-tie, Priscilla beamingly told her friend that she'd been thinking about tickling her all week (despite having a boyfriend, bi-ness oozes almost visibly off of Priscilla James) and then stripped off her trainers and socks and gave her the tickling session of a lifetime. It goes without saying that the following only counts if this was actually non-con and not staged. Whether it WAS staged or not is, as I said above, a matter of debate.
Was it illegal? Certainly. Going by the standards of British law (which isn't totally dissimilar to American law), Priscilla James committed false imprisonment, assault and sexual assault (she used oral tickling on Toni's bare feet). She drove Toni nuts and constantly ignored the pleas for the tickling to stop until they had twenty five minutes of footage.
Now being friends, Toni never ever felt threatened or in danger, and she at no time feared for her safety. She was in the latter third of the shoot though, significantly in distress from the "torture".
Despite that, she still signed a model release for the video to be sold. Either the whole thing was kayfabe, or she thought once it was over, "Well, I might as well get a few hundred dollars for my trouble. I was going to be on their website anyway in the photos."
The second video I saw was Non-Consensual Tickle, by Paradise Vision/Tickling Paradise. Again, I write the following from the Devil's Advocate position that this was genuine and not a scripted plotline. Many people believe the latter.
Tickling Paradise hired a prostitute that they knew to be very ticklish, having researched the local working girls some with a male staff member who offered foot massages. They chose one and hired for for the night, the idea being that a couple wanted to make a video of the man having fun with "bondage and oral".
Once she was tightly secured, the tickling began and after about three minutes of laughing and gently protesting, became very ugly. The girl became very distressed (if this was scripted, then she is without doubt that rarest of all things in tickling and porn videos, a talented and totally believable actress) and starting crying hard. It was also apparent that she was envisioning being left murdered in a ditch somewhere after they'd had their fun.
The tickling was kept up on her without a break (although someone of the kayfabe proponents pointed out several things in the production qualities which they said was indicative of a cut in filming) for about half an hour, by which time she'd been gagged so her screams for help to the neighbours couldn't be heard. Her face was streaked with ruined mascara and makeup from the very real crying she'd been doing and she begging and gulping not to end up under someone's patio when they ungagged her.
If it wasn't kayfabe, then she didn't know these two actually worked for a proper video company of course, she just thought they were a couple who got off on abusing the ticklish and vulnerable. She wouldn't have known they needed her alive and signing a release form to make the video retailable.
Then of course, you have renfaire videos, no longer in open sale from either party who ever produced them. I'm not entirely sure what to classify these as, as there are some elements of non-con about them, but any strong protest on behalf of a lee being yanked out of the faire crowd and put into the stocks would probably be met with the workers abandoning the plan and going after another target.
I've only seen one, although I have seen a few clips from others, and I've never seen what I would class as distress of any kind from the person being tickled. I've seen varying degrees of embarrassment and sometimes a world-weary acceptance of "must be a good sport in public". Something which I'm sure the workers of tickling stocks must take into account when they start out. A bit of psychology there.
Now once the "victims" are in those renfaire stocks, they don't get released before their turn ends under any circumstances, unless they turn out not to be ticklish, in which case (in the case of the Italian renfaires - I've never seen an example of the American equivalent) no matter how much they cry uncle and beg for it to stop. It has to be said the tickling in Italian renfaire videos that I've seen is quite gentle and not at all as evil as a lot of mainstream tickling videos. For some bizarre reason they did use electric toothbrushes though, which is kind of plotline breaking.
Now what one might consider questionable, if one actually realises it (I didn't for some years, believe it or not) is that none of those people in the renfaires knew that were being videoed for the purposes of the footage to be sold as wanking material to tickling fetishists, via contacts made on a web-site that dealt almost solely in tickle fetishism. Certainly they wouldn't have been invited to sign a model release.
Now there is, to my knowledge, some grey area in the legalities of this, never mind the other questions you might ask. If someone is retailing such vids as a business, then you have definite grounds for having your arse sued to Timbuktu and back again. I think there is a possibility however, that someone passing out private copies for which they only charge a nominal amount they could argue was to cover expenses, was legal, due to the public and normally non-sexual nature of the footage involved.
For example: a doctor who carries out his duties whilst getting off on touching a lady's breasts and genitals is committing sexual assault. A foot fetishist who gets a job in a shoe shop and gets off on touching women's feet all day isn't, because are not normally considered sexual. (This is with British law.)
Now you can look at those four examples of non-consensual tickling and they all have different degrees of morality or immorality in them.
1/ Every day people tickle their friends or relative to pieces to make some sort fo point. They never ask beforehand if they can do it, and the victim rarely feels that they actually are a victim. A laugh is had by all, life carries on.
2/ A pre-meditated tickle video shot on someone who hated being tickled and was begging constantly for it to stop, but never felt in any danger and didn't get distressed until quite near the end. Felt okay enough about it to sign a release form. The person always expected to be doing some fetish work for the company and turned up that day expecting to be working a fetish shoot, although, not quite as "hands on" as it turned out to be.
3/ A pre-meditated tickle video inflicted on a vulnerable person who got extremely distressed from the tickling and who felt that they were quite possibly in real danger of being bumped off to "hide the evidence", one the couple had had their fun. Never in any knowledge that the people doing the tickling were working for a tickling video company until afterwards, which would have increased the mental anguish, if the video was not kayfabe.
4/ A pre-meditated tickle video inflicted on several scores of people in broad daylight, in a crowded area under the guise of being a mock-medieval jokey display, then sold without their knowledge to people who find it erotic and use it for what Yaqi would call, "masturbatory purposes", possibly by exploiting knowledge of the finer points of law, not always with the ticklee being over eighteen (going by visual appearance - not necessarily an issue in Italy anyway, where the age of consent is fourteen) this being the intent all along by the people creating the scenario and filming it.
All four of these are quite different from one another and raise questions of morality in different areas.
What do you guys think of these examples? Do you agree that although all four are non-con of one sort of another that they are different, or do you lump everything in together?
Example 1: I don't see a moral problem at all there. It's just everyday life and the "victim" is able to fight back.
Example 2: Usually in that case the lee would have a safeword. No biggie.
Example 3: Past immoral. Actually illegal.
Example 4: I personally find it immoral and believe if someone would choose to sue, they would win the case.
Example 2: Usually in that case the lee would have a safeword. No biggie.
Example 3: Past immoral. Actually illegal.
Example 4: I personally find it immoral and believe if someone would choose to sue, they would win the case.
1/ Few people would. Unless one chooses to completely outlaw all tickling that doesn't come with triplicate signed forms and release waivers before the fact.
2/ She didn't. At least, if one believes it wasn't kayfabe she didn't. She begged and pleaded for it to stop so she could go home, but Priss opened up one immense-ass can of tickling whoop-ass on her. Having said that, it was a friend who was doing it to her, so she knew she was safe, which makes it lower down the non-con scale to the Paradise Vision one.
3/ Hell yes.
4/ Depnds what they were litigating for. If they were aware they were being filmed in a public place and, whether it was because they felt constrained to "be a good sport" or not, I don't think (which is a long way from being an informed opinion) thay can do anything about the footage being shared, possibly even publicly. I think it depends on the manner in which it is done. For instance, placing it in the paying area of a tickling fetish website would cross the legal line (such as Marco did when Tickletown displayed the clips). Selling them at a profit would also do it, although I think (and again, that's "think" with a capital "T") that allowing costs to be covered is allowable.
To be honest, I don't know enough about 4 to do anything other than speculate.
TickleNightmare
TMF Novice
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2009
- Messages
- 58
- Points
- 0
Safe words are quite boring. The tickler should always be the only one in charge!
Non-safeword play can be fun, but I think there has to be trust and knowing between ler and lee.
There is no more certain a way to get absoloutely no play at all, than talking on a tickling forum saying you won't allow a safeword. Depends entirely on the confidence level of the lee.
laziva; the Morals Police
laziva, I note your plea to get back on subject. Regarding getting tickled without literally giving consent, I understand your point, as it sounds as though you are talking about non-verbal communication. People communicate without words far more than they do through conversation. A tickler who passes on other girls but jumps you does so because of what the two of you convey to one another, maybe without even realizing it.
Of course, people can misunderstand those signals. So you have an awkward moment or have to tell someone in less-than-polite terms to back off. Welcome to the world.
I had only glanced at this topic when you first posted it. Seeing the discussion now was running five pages, I knew the Morals Police had to be on the beat:
The morals police, they post on the T.M.F.,
The morals police, they almost scare me to death,
The morals police, they're coming to upset me, oh no
You know they talk in Greek,
And those comments ain't bright,
And when they fall asleep,
Those big mouths are still open wide, so wide
'Cause they're killing the fun,
They're killing the fun,
Ev'ry single thread they just whine and complain,
Those comments so inane
The morals police, they post on the T.M.F.,
The morals police, they almost bore me to death,
The morals police, they're coming to upset me, oh no
Well, before you touch,
Sign off in triplicate,
Because they don't think much,
And they'll keep talking shit, talk shit, talk shit
'Cause they're waiting to pounce,
They're waiting to pounce,
Ev'ry single thread they just whine and complain,
Those comments so inane
We want to post,
They're like a ghost,
They won't leave us alone
They don't get paid to log off the web,
Or leave us alone
They just destroy,
Kill all the joy,
They won't let us alone
They persecute us,
They're the judge and jury, and no fun
'Cause they're killing the fun,
They're killing the fun,
Ev'ry single thread they just whine and complain,
Those comments so inane
The morals police, they post on the T.M.F.,
The morals police, they almost scare me to death,
The morals police, they're coming to upset me, oh no
laziva, I note your plea to get back on subject. Regarding getting tickled without literally giving consent, I understand your point, as it sounds as though you are talking about non-verbal communication. People communicate without words far more than they do through conversation. A tickler who passes on other girls but jumps you does so because of what the two of you convey to one another, maybe without even realizing it.
Of course, people can misunderstand those signals. So you have an awkward moment or have to tell someone in less-than-polite terms to back off. Welcome to the world.
I had only glanced at this topic when you first posted it. Seeing the discussion now was running five pages, I knew the Morals Police had to be on the beat:
The morals police, they post on the T.M.F.,
The morals police, they almost scare me to death,
The morals police, they're coming to upset me, oh no
You know they talk in Greek,
And those comments ain't bright,
And when they fall asleep,
Those big mouths are still open wide, so wide
'Cause they're killing the fun,
They're killing the fun,
Ev'ry single thread they just whine and complain,
Those comments so inane
The morals police, they post on the T.M.F.,
The morals police, they almost bore me to death,
The morals police, they're coming to upset me, oh no
Well, before you touch,
Sign off in triplicate,
Because they don't think much,
And they'll keep talking shit, talk shit, talk shit
'Cause they're waiting to pounce,
They're waiting to pounce,
Ev'ry single thread they just whine and complain,
Those comments so inane
We want to post,
They're like a ghost,
They won't leave us alone
They don't get paid to log off the web,
Or leave us alone
They just destroy,
Kill all the joy,
They won't let us alone
They persecute us,
They're the judge and jury, and no fun
'Cause they're killing the fun,
They're killing the fun,
Ev'ry single thread they just whine and complain,
Those comments so inane
The morals police, they post on the T.M.F.,
The morals police, they almost scare me to death,
The morals police, they're coming to upset me, oh no
SexyGameDesigns
3rd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,651
- Points
- 38
I like to IMAGINE that some clips are noncons, though the real idea is distasteful. There are a few clips I like where the lee had too much tickling and it showed. I also like some clips where the lee was getting really turned on by the tickling. But the idea of noncons is not for me.
R
R
C.A.B.
3rd Level White Feather
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 9,559
- Points
- 0
LOLZ!
I don't believe it.
But if it was true, I say there should always be a safeword, especially for clips where lee and ler are not familiar with each other. If the lee him/herself says he/she doesn't want t a safeword, that's finde, but it should always be offered, and the ler should still watch out for the well-being of the lee!I don't know how it is in the UK, in Germany you have to have a model release form if you want to sell footage of people, be it film or photo material.
?? What are you talking about?
@Em Es: It was fun when you first posted it. But are you going to post it now whenever someone talks about morality? That will get old pretty damn soon.
Rhiannon
I'll keep my "Morals Police" (for those who don't know, a parody of the 1979 Cheap Trick song "Dream Police") fresh by changing it a little to fit each discussion. The first time I included a verse about Renaissance festivals, as that was the thread topic. This time I changed it to getting a consent form signed in triplicate before you tickle anyone.
I'll keep my "Morals Police" (for those who don't know, a parody of the 1979 Cheap Trick song "Dream Police") fresh by changing it a little to fit each discussion. The first time I included a verse about Renaissance festivals, as that was the thread topic. This time I changed it to getting a consent form signed in triplicate before you tickle anyone.
Now it's the Song Police!
The other reason I'd post "The Morals Police" more than once: We present our comments to a moving parade, not a captive audience, so someone who sees what we wrote today won't necessarily read what we post tomorrow.
The other reason I'd post "The Morals Police" more than once: We present our comments to a moving parade, not a captive audience, so someone who sees what we wrote today won't necessarily read what we post tomorrow.
