The non-consensual crap

[rhiannon]

It's totally amazing how some people are so allergic to someone having some morals.

 

[BigJim]

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!.

Depends on the tickling too. Some tickling clips have ler'ing that is quite merciful, at least it appears to be. There is one tickler who I've often critiscised for being boring, but personal testimony from two ladies here contradicted appearances.

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..

Depends on the conditions under which the footage was shot. If someone appears in the background of a shot on the news, they have no control over their image. Similarly, a photograph was taken of an Englannd fan at a football match, and a sports company released a range of t-shirts with his image on (chosen because of his massive smiling fizzog and face-painted flag of St. George). He had no legal power to stop the shirts being printed, nor was he entitled to any money.

?? What are you talking about?

Sorry, I had you confused with someone else.

 

[rhiannon]

Similarly, a photograph was taken of an Englannd fan at a football match, and a sports company released a range of t-shirts with his image on

Seriously? Couldn't do that here!

 

[TickleNightmare]

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.

I get plenty of "play" so I guess you're not right about that one. But I agree with you that you need to trust each other!

 

[BigJim]

I get plenty of "play" so I guess you're not right about that one. But I agree with you that you need to trust each other!

Well, the only answer to it is that you must be exceptionally charismatic and/or handsome. If only we were all so lucky.

 

[rhiannon]

Or female.

 

[BigJim]

TN is female?

Well, yeah, that would explain it. Perhaps I should have explained that I meant it from both a male and top point of view.

 

[rhiannon]

I have no clue if he/she is male or female. It was just what crossed my mind! A male top who refuses to use safewords would certainly not make it into my bedroom or wherever I was to be tied.

 

[BigJim]

I have no clue if he/she is male or female. It was just what crossed my mind! A male top who refuses to use safewords would certainly not make it into my bedroom or wherever I was to be tied.

Personally, I've only done safewordless play with two people, both of whom I'd met several times befoore and both of whom I'd known on and offline for some years.

It is incredible fun, generating massive adrenaline in the lee and seriously expanding the realms of headspace.

 

[rhiannon]

I would do it with my ler NOW, but I would not have met him in the first place if he only played without safeword!

 

[brotherted]

Despite the rancor of this conversation, I actually think we're all profound moderates on this question. Even those who post passionately against "non-con" tickling, still seem to not mind if I poke a girl in the sides while I'm on a date, and she squeals, even though such a thing would be 100% non-consensual.

Meanwhile, on the other side, even those who like and defend RenFaire videos, (like me) would generally not support tickling a woman at a Renfaire who was genuinely terrified and seriously screaming to be let go.

So I ask... where do people draw the line in their own ideology? For me, I think non-con is fine, as long as the 'lee doesn't show signs of being truly upset or unhappy. I know some people might debate me on whether I can really tell... but yes, I think I can. So to me, that's the rule: just be respectful of the other person's state of mind, and you don't need a legal agreement to tickle.

So what's your rule? What do the non-con'ers say is over the line? And in what circumstances does the "consensual only" crowd agree that a little non-con is okay?

And don't just list examples -- what's your principle on which they're based?

 

[rhiannon]

And in what circumstances does the "consensual only" crowd agree that a little non-con is okay?

Tickling is a big part of social interaction, of bonding. A playful way to get in physical contact. Nobody would ever ask for permission first! But after the first playful attack, that's the moment where you stop and look at the reaction of the lee. If the contact, the tickling was welcome, the "victim" will most likely either tickle back or provoke more tickling. If not, you will know for sure.

As long as there is no bondage involved, non-con is not a big deal. If the lee has no way to fight back, it should never be non-con.

 

[TickleNightmare]

Haha ur so funny everyone. That's why I like this forum! And actually I agree with u all in a way. You know what, I guess it depends on the specific situation. If you trust someone, you go without a safeword. If you don't know the tickler that much, it is always fair to use safewords. But as brotherted said earlier: Just be respectful of the other person's state of mind, and you don't need a legal agreement to tickle. And by the way: I am male! Charismatic and/or handsome? You bet! :-D lol

 

[tkl-pen]

I recently saw a clip that was advertised as truly nonconsensual - you all know that I love tickle torture clips with tight bondage - but I hated that one. I don't know if it really was nonconsensual but it sure appeared to be and I deleted it real fast!

 

[rhiannon]

And by the way: I am male! Charismatic and/or handsome? You bet!

I want to see a pic!

 

[BigJim]

I recently saw a clip that was advertised as truly nonconsensual - you all know that I love tickle torture clips with tight bondage - but I hated that one. I don't know if it really was nonconsensual but it sure appeared to be and I deleted it real fast!

Would this have been a Tickling Paradise clip with an alleged prostitute?

 

[tkl-pen]

Would this have been a Tickling Paradise clip with an alleged prostitute?

I think so! There was a second clip, too, with a small, pretty and feminine Asian real estate agent that was supposedly nonconsensual. It was a nice movie, though, and clearly not nonconsensual. I sure didn't like the first one with the prostitute, though.

 

[BigJim]

I think so! There was a second clip, too, with a small, pretty and feminine Asian real estate agent that was supposedly nonconsensual. It was a nice movie, though, and clearly not nonconsensual. I sure didn't like the first one with the prostitute, though.

I've seen the whole video of that, it was the least pretty sight I've ever seen on celluloid.

With the possible exception of the Osmond family.




The second one was again pretty well acted, but I couldn't doubt it's genuine non-con-ness any more if I tried.

 

[brotherted]

I'm about as skeptical and vigilant against fake reactions and bad acting as anyone here.

But consider this video:

***Removed Copyright Material***

Do you guys consider this an example faking non-consent? Not me... I watched her reactions pretty carefully... I tend to believe it's real.

 

[CrystalLight]

Oy w/the thread necro'ing. Especially on this topic.

Look : You can't tell if it's 'genuine' or not until you have the broad under your hands.

And even them, some broads might fake it t'make it. Who knows.

You know how you know how into it the broad is?

By how wet her panties get during.

Again : Somethin' ya won't be able t'know 'till ya gotta 'lee o'yer own t'torment.


Let's not let this thread get too retarded or i'ma close it down. This is a good 'debate' topic, but also easily troll-able.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

It seems like the real problem with non con is the elevated risk of said victim peeing/farting/puking on you as sort of a nuclear option.

 

[brotherted]

Oy w/the thread necro'ing. Especially on this topic.

Let's not let this thread get too retarded or i'ma close it down. This is a good 'debate' topic, but also easily troll-able.

To clarify... I wasn't asking to rehash all the previous non-con debates. Rather, I was interested in whether people thought that video looked truly non-con. (There are many things in life that we don't know for sure, about which we have opinions, hunches & instincts.)

Thanks!
-- BT

 

[BigJim]

The 192 in the URL visible in that clip is the Clips4Sale store of Paradise Vision, the producers of two other "non con" tickling videos.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Also consider, around here, “non-consensual” is also more of a figure of speech. It doesn’t have to be taken literally and I think, generally, isn’t. Most of these videos represent ‘adult fantasy’ even if the action is real.

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.

The ‘prostitute’ from the Paradise Vision video was also in one of their earlier “audition” videos, with different color hair and a different name. I DO believe the extent of the tickling was real, but she knew tickling was going to occur because she auditioned for them with Gabrielle (the one who tickled her in Non-Consensual and also used a different name). Plus, the changes in the video’s white balance implies that the camera was shut off from time to time. So I don’t belie the plotline at all - just the results. She may not have agreed to the extent that she got tickled (or, maybe she did….for a little extra $$) so there could have been trickery involved.

But trickery happens now and then, I‘m convinced. Producers hiring vanilla, non-fetish folks, for example, then denying them even the knowledge of a safe word to keep their reactions real and intense ( How would they know about a safe word? They aren‘t involved in perverted stuff! Or, they barely speak English! It‘s a lie-by-omission.)

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 own one of Marco’s Renfair videos…… there’s a bit where a woman WILL NOT get into the stocks. As her friend/family member lifts her up off the ground to put her in the stocks by physical force the renfair guys tell him “no”. Thus, no restraint, no tickling, occurs. With them, maybe “no” didn’t mean “no”, but a “firm no” certainly meant “no”.

But if there was a lawsuit involved with a renfair video the tickled subject probably would wouldn’t win for being tickled. They would win for the video being sold for profit. There is a story here on the TMF (circa 2005) where a bank employee continually tickled another employee despite her pleas for him not to do it. She eventually sued. She lost. But there was no video being sold for profit in terms of the situation.

 

[-Hari-]

To those it applies to, if you want to refer to a clip within discussion please ensure it isn't a copyright violation, if you are unsure then look for a watermark, if it has one then the chances are it carries a copyright and its better to be safe than sorry as they say

Just post free preview clips and stuff you own the rights to. Or of course post links to places you can buy the clip you wish to show, let people purchase it for themselves

Hari