The non-consensual crap

[Jagermeistered]

You would be the "employee", not the employer. Big difference.

You also signed a contract, so you are considered "contract labor".

If you want to break the contract and terminate your employment, you may do so, but don't expect to be paid.

As far as a producer "going to far," you are going to be hard pressed to prove anything and your case probably won't even see a courtroom.

"So you allowed the defendant to restrain you and tickle you for a fetish video?"
"Yes your honor, but not that much. He tickled me too much and he didn't stop when I wanted him to."
"Case dismissed"

Expect to see this in Chuck Sheppard's 'News of the Weird'.

So, if this is the moral/ethical valuations of such producers; they would be better off dead? Snuff tickle-porn. Contract-law is cool, until a persons body is treated like a piece of agriculture.

 

[TicklingTips]

I realise tickling clips haven't been around forever, but now with the sheer number of clip producers out there, and the length of time they've been around, surely if someone was going to be punished for a truly non-consensual clip it would have happened by now? So to me, that means that there must be very, very few, if any, non-consensual clips.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I realise tickling clips haven't been around forever, but now with the sheer number of clip producers out there, and the length of time they've been around, surely if someone was going to be punished for a truly non-consensual clip it would have happened by now? So to me, that means that there must be very, very few, if any, non-consensual clips.

True! Anything more would be sexual assault. And, deserves...

 

[rhiannon]

Right, but my point was, if the only way the producer can know that the model truly needs to stop is the safeword, and she doesn't use it, she can't later decide the producer did stuff to her against her will - especially when the whole point of the shoot is to have her begging for mercy in an authentic fashion. That's not fair to the producer.

Of course. No disagreement there. She has to get a safeword though. I think somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the ler is the one to decide when she's had enough. And that is just not the way it works! In a lee-ler-relationship where both know each other very well, that might work, but not for a clip-shoot where the producer sees the model only every now and then or even for the first time.

I believe that was what I reacted to.

 

[Libertine]

It happens frequently, Jon. People are always getting arrested and prosecuted for internet-film legal transgressions far worse than tickling against consent.

Ok, let me clarify my reply- no 'above-ground' business which has readily available goods for sale in an easy to find online shop is going to risk it. I'm not talking about a bunch of pervos clandestinely sharing encrypted kiddieporn or suchlike.

KT and I have shot for Kink.com which is a pretty heavy duty site, and the amount and level of care they take beforehand to explain everything, check ID, assure the legality of releases and generally look after the 'talent' (the on-set catering was pretty good as well; I've never been served roast duck during a shoot before) is admirable. In other words, they know the law in order that they do not leave themselves open to lawsuits. The company which shot the supposed 'noncon' is well known too, and would not leave itself open to the sort of prosecution which the emerging bunch of wealthy moralists would be delighted to fund on the so-called 'prostitute's behalf.

I'll have to use the Professional Wrestling analogy here- If 'The Masked Sodomite' departed from the script and REALLY bashed 'Big Tom Trailertrash' with an actual chair, his career would be over, and the producers could be sued by the aggrieved Mr. Trailertrash.

 

[BigJim]

Roast duck? Damn, impressive!

Ok, let me clarify my reply- no 'above-ground' business which has readily available goods for sale in an easy to find online shop is going to risk it. I'm not talking about a bunch of pervos clandestinely sharing encrypted kiddieporn or suchlike.

the sort of prosecution which the emerging bunch of wealthy moralists would be delighted to fund on the so-called 'prostitute's behalf.

I'll have to use the Professional Wrestling analogy here- If 'The Masked Sodomite' departed from the script and REALLY bashed 'Big Tom Trailertrash' in the ring with an actual chair, his career would be over, and the producers could be sued by the aggrieved Mr. Trailertrash.

1/ Such stores have been wiped off C4S, including one that was reported here, for kids being tickled in bondage. I guess there must be some incredibly thick producers.

2/ I'm impressed that they'd stoop to helping the prostitute. Some wouldn't.

3/ Has happened. The Steiner Brothers, when they were tagged up, would sometimes break kayfabe and beat the shit out of jobbers when they were being refused releases. At least, according to Bret Hart's autobiography, that was a tactic of theirs. Vince wouldn't release them to go back to WCW, so they started roughing jobbers up until he did. And The Acolytes were more or less the official messengers of the WWF that lowbie tag teams were out of favour, by beating the shit out of them in their last matches. I don't think any of these poor, abused fuckers ever successfully sued either their assaulters or Vince. I know people like Chad Austin sued and won, but in defence of my point, he was paralysed from the neck down.

 

[brotherted]

Perhaps Inventing Sub-Category Would Help Clarify Things

I just think it would be obvious, and it would be awful. The victim would be causing themselves pain in their struggle to free themselves, they'd be screaming themselves hoarse for help, they'd be crying. It would be the total opposite of "Help! Stop! hahaha!" It would basically hurt your soul to watch it. imo.

Just to broaden the discussion a bit... a husband or boyfriend can tie up a wife or girlfriend ostensibly for sex, then tickle her without consent. Just because she doesn't like it or might want it to stop doesn't mean she's afraid for her life or completely terrified. The majority of the Renfaire videos are another example of this. Maybe we need a name for this particular category -- something that would imply, "no consent, no fear."

On another note, I'm not into the Paradise Vision stuff, which seems to be the most cited here. In the "is it really non-con?" debate, I've always been much more curious about the Tickle Slaves series, and for example the one with "Jessica" seems pretty damn convincing to me. It can be found online easily.

 

[rhiannon]

If you want to break the contract and terminate your employment, you may do so, but don't expect to be paid.

I never said I would expect to be paid. If the model bails out of producing the clip halfway and no usable material was filmed, she shouldn't be paid. But it is not up to the producer to tell her she has to do it all the way to the end. If she wants it to stop, it has to stop.

 

[rhiannon]

Just to broaden the discussion a bit... a husband or boyfriend can tie up a wife or girlfriend ostensibly for sex, then tickle her without consent. Just because she doesn't like it or might want it to stop doesn't mean she's afraid for her life or completely terrified. The majority of the Renfaire videos are another example of this. Maybe we need a name for this particular category -- something that would imply, "no consent, no fear."

Yeah, and for sure no more bondage ever! By the way, if your boyfriend does something to you that you clearly don't want after he tied you down - you are still afraid! Believe me, I went through that shit.

 

[voided9]

All I make sure of is that the person agrees to be tickled - after that, they're screwed. Unless they honestly can't handle it, then that's what the safeword is for, but they can't use it just because it tickles too much - the safeword is for if they can't breathe or are in pain.

 

[The Last Laugh]

I never said I would expect to be paid. If the model bails out of producing the clip halfway and no usable material was filmed, she shouldn't be paid.

Good luck convincing the model of this. I don't think all models would be nearly as understanding as you would be.

 

[brotherted]

Yeah, and for sure no more bondage ever! By the way, if your boyfriend does something to you that you clearly don't want after he tied you down - you are still afraid! Believe me, I went through that shit.

Well, how about we agree that while it's possible for a 'lee to be fearful in that situation as you've pointed out, i.e. non-con with a loved one, significant other or good friend, it's certainly not necessarily the case. In other words, what about videos where the 'lee is truly playfully saying, "Damn you, I'll get you back for this" in a playful way, she obviously isn't in fearful distress, and yet you can also tell she truly didn't consent to the tickling and isn't acting? (By the way, let's not forget this comes closest to the "art imitating life" scenario -- it's the closest thing to every time I tickle my girlfriend in real life!)

Shouldn't we have a name for those videos? When you say "non-con" people tend to assume you mean the terrified, afraid-she's-about-to-be-hatched-murdered videos. By contrast, my "No Consent, No Fear" (NCNF) genre deserves to be distinguished from those. There is a space here for video producers to explore.

 

[rhiannon]

Good luck convincing the model of this. I don't think all models would be nearly as understanding as you would be.

You mean if she decides after three minutes that she wants it to stop, meaning she basically didn't deliver, you would still have to pay her? That doesn't sound fair to me! Isn't there something like a minimum that has to be done?

In other words, what about videos where the 'lee is truly playfully saying, "Damn you, I'll get you back for this" in a playful way, she obviously isn't in fearful distress, and yet you can also tell she truly didn't consent to the tickling and isn't acting? (By the way, let's not forget this comes closest to the "art imitating life" scenario -- it's the closest thing to every time I tickle my girlfriend in real life!)

Are you talking about scenarios in which the model agreed to being tied and then have whatever done to them?

And tickling someone in real life usually doesn't involve bondage - which means the lee can fight back if they don't want to be tickled. 🙂 Completely different scenario. 🙂

 

[brotherted]

Are you talking about scenarios in which the model agreed to being tied and then have whatever done to them?

And tickling someone in real life usually doesn't involve bondage - which means the lee can fight back if they don't want to be tickled. 🙂 Completely different scenario. 🙂

I'm talking about scenarios where the girlfriend, wife or model agrees to be tied up for a different scenario (generally sex, but could be bondage video too), then gets ticked without warning -- but obviously isn't scared for her life, or terrified. That could be either because she knows & trusts the other person or people in the room, or simply because of her disposition.

The point is there's a huge & obvious difference between non-con where a 'lee is terrified, and non-con where the 'lee isn't even remotely worried about her safety. Those two scenarios tend to get blended together in these discussions, but they really have nothing in common, in the sense of how they feel to a viewer (or to the 'lee).

Examples of this "Non-Con, No Fear" include most of the Renfaire videos, the Insex or HardTied videos where tickling aspect is introduced without warning, and my bedroom. 🙂

 

[The Last Laugh]

You mean if she decides after three minutes that she wants it to stop, meaning she basically didn't deliver, you would still have to pay her? That doesn't sound fair to me! Isn't there something like a minimum that has to be done?

I was under the impression that you meant that she decides to quit halfway through a shoot, like a fair deal of footage has already been shot. But I now see that you actually meant a few minutes into the first scene. So I guess it would indeed be a little unfair to have to pay her a salary.

Still, you'd be surprised at how clueless and non-understanding some candidates can be. I've had a number of candidates come over, go through some tests, show that they have very little tickling potential, and still be upset with me when I tell them that a shoot isn't possible after all. As if the simple fact of showing up is enough to justify them being paid.

Now, I always offer a small compensation for the candidates' time and trouble when they come for a shoot that unfortunately can't take place because they're not ticklish enough. But a few expected the full salary, or at least part of it, despite the fact that I always try my best to be very clear about what I need and that there's always a chance they might not be as sensitive/reactive enough for a video (quite frankly, that happens at least 50% of the time, if not more). I can understand that they're not into tickling themselves, so they might not have a good idea what being very ticklish is actually like (some think the occasional giggle makes them qualified) or what customers expect in this highly competitive market. But it's still very frustrating when a candidate doesn't accept my judgement when it comes to her performance and potential for a shoot.

 

[The Last Laugh]

Examples of this "Non-Con, No Fear" include most of the Renfaire videos

Which should never be sold as tickling fetish videos, since the ticklees are just ordinary people who obviously don't give their permission for the footage to be sold that way, or sold at all for that matter. If the ticklees are willing, knowing participants, like members of a Renfaire troupe who are aware of the tickling video thing, then it's alright. But then it's not a "non-con, no fear" situation, as you say.

 

[Wildtime]

Last year, I came across a C4S store called "Surprise Tickling", whose entire premise was to gang tickle women auditioning for roles in adult films. The script would be women were interviewed, asked if they were ticklish, and then tackled, forcibly tickled and stripped naked. It was advertised as non-consensual, but I have my doubts. Had there been any complaints by their victims, given that there was a fair number of clips in that store, there would be a lot of evidence to use against the store owners.

C4S removed "Surprise Tickling" after a couple of months. More likely than not it was because they began selling other people's clips as their own.

 

[rhiannon]

I'm talking about scenarios where the girlfriend, wife or model agrees to be tied up for a different scenario (generally sex, but could be bondage video too), then gets ticked without warning -- but obviously isn't scared for her life, or terrified.

The problem with that is though that you can not foresee that. So I doubt you could expect longer clips like that. It would be pure luck if you found one.

Which should never be sold as tickling fetish videos, since the ticklees are just ordinary people who obviously don't give their permission for the footage to be sold that way, or sold at all for that matter.

Isn't that what one producer did though?

 

[brotherted]

Which should never be sold as tickling fetish videos, since the ticklees are just ordinary people who obviously don't give their permission for the footage to be sold that way, or sold at all for that matter. If the ticklees are willing, knowing participants, like members of a Renfaire troupe who are aware of the tickling video thing, then it's alright. But then it's not a "non-con, no fear" situation, as you say.

I wasn't aware that Renfaire tickling videos are sold (at least in ten years) -- seems to me they're usually just put up as YouTube videos where the purpose or interpretation is completely left to the eye of the beholder.

But yes... there is a further distinction that you point out -- "non-con, no fear, with a signed release" vs. "non-con, no fear, without a signed release." My belief is that if a producer started making the former, sales would be off the charts.

 

[Phineas]

I think somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the ler is the one to decide when she's had enough. And that is just not the way it works! I believe that was what I reacted to.

I recall the thread in question, and I remember vehemently agreeing with you on that.

 

[bucketman23]

its kind of like people who like doing rape scenarios. I like these kind of things. Sometimes I like to tickle a girls feet and love knowing that their crying and hate it

 

[hlkkln]

Ok, I don't understand the non-consensual crap I have been reading a lot on this forum. I thought that the basis of the tickle torture fetish was to be out of control of the situation. Trusting your partner is one thing, but I love to give absolute power to Skely to do with me whatever he wants, because for me is exciting not to know what he is going to do next, or how far he is going to go. That is what makes tickle torture so adictive for me. I mean If a model do not trust the producer, just walk away before he tie you up, or don't sign the release at the end. Many models abuse the use of the safeword and they don't understand that a safeword is only for emergencies, but when a session is about tickle torture, hello, you are going to be tortured, and what makes this out of this world is the feeling of being totally out of control.

When you use the term "non-consensual" it sounds like the model got raped, or was forced to do something against her will, but this is not the case, because a model was not dragged, kidnapped, druged, held against her will. She gave consent the first step she took into that room and she knew what was going to happened. She knew what she was coming for.

me i think that there should be safewords but in order to deter the model from abusing it there should be some sanctions for each use of safewords... it can be some discount of payement or some extra unpaid time of tickling

 

[bftk2005]

me i think that there should be safewords but in order to deter the model from abusing it there should be some sanctions for each use of safewords... it can be some discount of payement or some extra unpaid time of tickling

Thats a good idea.

 

[rhiannon]

me i think that there should be safewords but in order to deter the model from abusing it there should be some sanctions for each use of safewords... it can be some discount of payement or some extra unpaid time of tickling

You forget that we are not talking about sex play here, we are talking about a work deal. How do you define "abusing" a safeword here? Both model and producer work together to get a product that can be sold. Both have their part of the deal to fulfill. Of course, if the model calls it quits halfway through the shoot, she shouldn't get as much money then if she delivered more material, but extra unpaid time of tickling...nah.

 

[hlkkln]

You forget that we are not talking about sex play here, we are talking about a work deal. How do you define "abusing" a safeword here? Both model and producer work together to get a product that can be sold. Both have their part of the deal to fulfill. Of course, if the model calls it quits halfway through the shoot, she shouldn't get as much money then if she delivered more material, but extra unpaid time of tickling...nah.

that abuse was told by laziva who is a tickling model... i wanted just to create ideas to deter models to use safewords out of emergencies...


and i should add that i wonder what replace safewords in gagged tickling which are my favorites