underage tickling

[MistressValerie1]

LOL, Oriy; I wish that we could set it to scroll across the top of the forum 😀

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

There is soooo much red tape here its not even funny. Lol.

One big problem is that everyone's views on tickling, especially here are different. Remember, most people in the rest of the world wouldnt think tickling any different than we would think a bottle of sun tan lotion. I'm sure there is some fetish site for sun tan lotion out there that woudl have a discussion very similar to this "is it right to put sun tan lotion on kids" because they wouldnt be able to differentiate sun tan lotion from sex, which seems to be alot of people's problem here. Now in my mind, if you dont put sun tan lotion on a kid, he could get sun burned and it could be bad for him. Maybe in a non tickle phillie parents mind, its a good thing to tickle their kids because they like it? will have a closer phsyical trusting bond? need to show love/ affection in a playful friendly way? How many parents tickle their kids in fun? MILLIONS. How many grandparents? You think its sexual to them? What about siblings, friends, tickling eachother in fun?

Thats the bottom line here, to the rest of the world tickling isnt sexual, therefore based on a vast minorities sexual views on a topic it cant be proclaimed WRONG to the rest of the world. In that sense, no, there is absolutly nothing wrong with playful fun underage tickling, in fact to most of the world its not something that would require a second thought as underage. It would be as weird to them as saying underage elephant riding. i mean they have those rides at some faires and all, what if someone got off on that? would it make it wrong for the rest of the world? no.

The question is whats right for here, and in that case rules are rules and so they cant be argued. When you bring sexuality into something that is to most people an every day thing then yes it can get messy and you never know who is lying and saying they dont get off on something they actually do, but then again, how is that different from the rest of tehw orld and the rest of life? I mean, people can be getting off anywhere at anytime on things we never would have though possible and things we have fun with. The fact is for alot of the world KIDS ESPECIALLY tickling is a GREAT thing. I mean, in my experience, sometimes the love for tickling is outgrown, but there are almost NO KIDS unless gone through unwanted tickle torture that hate tickling. Why ruin the fun for them because a few people have hang ups on it? Makes no sense to me.

Hence what our private child tickling forum is about - first and foremost, about spreading loving, caring tickles amongst the little kiddies who enjoy tickling so much.
I won't lie - most of us do also get off on it; but as people in this world can get their rocks off to pretty much any damn scenario you might care to mention (or even ones you wouldn't care to mention) - such as putting suntan lotion on someone else 🙂 for instance - that really becomes kinda irrelevant, doesn't it?

 

[MistressValerie1]

I won't lie - most of us do also get off on it; but as people in this world can get their rocks off to pretty much any damn scenario you might care to mention (or even ones you wouldn't care to mention) - such as putting suntan lotion on someone else 🙂 for instance - that really becomes kinda irrelevant, doesn't it?

I appreciate your honesty, and I also thank you for keeping that material away from the TT.

 

[MacD]

This is not a parenting or child development forum. It is an adult fetish forum, and as such is not an appropriate place for sharing images of children.

I agree. I simply tried to clear one thing that might be the problematic part between the "pros and cons" members here.
And I wanted to remember there are nonsexual tickle fans among us, a few only but they exist.
Which of course might not really belong into this kind of thread, you are pretty right about that.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

And I wanted to remember there are nonsexual tickle fans among us, a few only but they exist.

I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you. To say " a few only" is very presumptious (and almost condescending in a way, though not intentional of course), especially if you're basing it off of anything said here, in which case its an assumption.

I don't necessarily like that while non-sexual tickle fans are in the minority (a fact), they're assumed to be so in the minority that they're considered non-existant (a falsehood) and are treated like some kind of special cases when they do speak.

I would wager they are far more numerous (especially if you add in the folks without a fetish that like tickling anyway) than they are being given credit for. That they do not come out in droves doesn't mean they're not there. They just has less reason to post in the face of almost exclusively sexual conversation on an almost exclusively sexual website. When they do say something, they look like a minority because usually only a few are claiming to be such people.

I think it would be better if people didn't make distinctions between the two....'classes' of tickling fans, as it calls unnecessary attention to what seperates the two to a point of judgement, and unnecessary arguments can spring from that. While worthwhile conversations, such as this one, are an upside to it, it is only because of the maturity of the people to keep it civil, not because the topic itself is.

 

[Journia]

I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you. To say " a few only" is very presumptious, especially if you're basing it off of anything said here, in which case its an assumption.

I don't necessarily like that while non-sexual tickle fans are in the minority (a fact), they're assumed to be so in the minority that they're considered non-existant (a falsehood) and are treated like some kind of special cases when they do speak.

I would wager they are far more numerous (especially if you add in the folks without a fetish that like tickling anyway) than they are being given credit for. That they do not come out in droves doesn't mean they're not there. They just has less reason to post in the face of almost exclusively sexual conversation on an almost exclusively sexual website. When they do say something, they look like a minority because usually only a few are claiming to be such people.

I think it would be better if people didn't make distinctions between the two....'classes' of tickling fans, as it calls unnecessary attention to what seperates the two to a point of judgement, and unnecessary arguments can spring from that.

Wise words from a wise vamp.

 

[MacD]

Oh.... something to correct for me.

Please note, all of you:
This never was intended to be condescending in any way since I am one of those.
Me too I wish the other silent members would come out a bit more. (hey this was an appeal!!!)

No I do not intend to seperate anything, just see there are other opinions that may be just as "normal" or crazy as the own one. Isn't each one of us something individual? Many of us are their own group.

But I see, I should post more carefully in the future!

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Oh.... something to correct for me.

Please note, all of you:
This never was intended to be condescending in any way since I am one of those.
Me too I wish the other silent members would come out a bit more. (hey this was an appeal!!!)

No I do not intend to seperate anything, just see there are other opinions that may be just as "normal" or crazy as the own one. Isn't each one of us something individual? Many of us are their own group.

But I see, I should post more carefully in the future!

And please note I wasn't accusing you of anything, so defending yourself here was unnecessary. The only problem was in the way you said it, not that you said it at all. 🙂

 

[smiggles]

This thread got started because of a discussion about some rare vintage kids-related cartoons that depicted underage tickling...and it wasn't playful fun tickle games between an adult and a child. It was about tickle torture scenes in kids cartoons. It's interesting how far off in multiple corners from the original subject this thread has gotten. The mods are always very dutiful and alert when it comes to deleting and banning the actual attempted postings of inappropriate underage stuff about tickling, sexual or not .... and rightly so. None of it belongs here in an adult-only forum. (I honestly seriously DOUBT that there are any "nearly-18" teenagers, male or female, who are here on TT seeking to get their own thrills to fulfill their own secret tickle fetishes...taking part in any of this) So all of that being so, I wonder how it is that the video clips in question, from TAMNT, are still being allowed and approved when posted, when so much other underage material is obviously not. It must be because animated cartoons video clips are simply FICTION! None of it is REAL! It's all a made up fantasy on the part of the artist who drew the cartoons in the first place.

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

Exactly. Posting cartoon clips of kids getting tickled is entirely different from posting clips of REAL children being tickled, because of the possible exploitation of the children involved in such videos (regardless of whether or not they were exploited, rules have to be uniform for a reason after all).

This is perfectly understandable and right, and that is why although I am quite willing to commission videos of children being tickled, I would not post them here, as it is clearly against the rules. I go to forums where they are appreciated, and I post those videos there instead. It's all a matter of giving the right material to the right audience, and real-life kiddie tickling is not the right material for this audience.

And so it's goodnight from me....and it's goodnight from me. Goodnight. 🙂

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

So all of that being so, I wonder how it is that the video clips in question, from TAMNT, are still being allowed and approved when posted, when so much other underage material is obviously not. It must be because animated cartoons video clips are simply FICTION! None of it is REAL! It's all a made up fantasy on the part of the artist who drew the cartoons in the first place.

The clips itself, and others like it, were not created with torture of the fetish variety in mind. At least, we cannot assume they are. When fetishists, however, get their hands on this material, it takes on a different nature and something which was not a fetish release or creation, is meant to be in the eyes of the people witnessing it. While it is possible that non-fetishists, fans, and even some of the creators may have questioned whether creating such scenes were lewd in the first place, I'm sure that, at the time of creation and airing, they did not seem to think that it would become controversial or was.

So, it is the fetishists, and non the creators, who have deemed and made the material as either innappropriate or lewd. It was not originally under the merits of the creation (if any). It was merely a plot device that was no more than several seconds long. It was not meant to be fixated on and consumed in the manner in which it has been by the fetish and tickling communities.

To put it another way, the clips are corrupted by the minds of the fetishists, because they always see more to something. Even if someone is smiling where hands are near them, alot of threads have popped up once in a while asking "is this tickling?" and then people going on about how they wish it was when it wasn't, and then going so far as to edit the screen captures to make it tickling.

The whole point to this is it's what the fetishists make it to be, not what it is by it's nature, in this example.

A community like TT, TMF, etc, has liability issues to be concerned with, not because of anything the authorities would have done for simply posessing the clip, but because of WHERE it has been posted and for what purposes and in what moral conscience.

It is up to the owners of these sites, and their staff to decide what is a liability and what is not.

When they decide its not and the clip stays, this doesn't mean they are in error, necessarily. It means enough people either don't see it as sexual and so don't create controversy around it, or the staff themselves don't. They didn't create the clip, the community did not create the clip, we have to assume a a panel of fetishists created the scene of the clip, and we have to assume it was meant for general public consumption, which it obviously was as a syndicated cartoon show.

In cases where the staff does not want it, its either because they feel that enough people don't want it either, or because, in their community this type of material is a liability.

Whats interesting about this situation is what the owners make of it. They can either treat it as if they were not fetishists themselves and didn't put the clip in that kind of context and risk the authorities possibly misunderstanding and taking action, or, they can deny the clip access, which underlines the fact that to many, it has sexual undertones and they're drawing attention to that and so are even more likely to get in trouble with the authorities. They increase their chances of people being upset and people reporting them by either hyping the clips, or treating them in a partial way.

The latter is actually more ironic, since it would be in the owner's interest to downplay a clip and represent it as it was and is in reality, not as it has become for random people on a single website.

There is a difference between posting this clip here and on youtube, for example. And those of you that can understand and see the difference can understand my point.

 

[MistressValerie1]

From the staff perspective, we consider that cartoons and drawings do not trigger any federal law regarding age of the performers, because there are no performers. The only possible problem with art would be if it were so indecent as to be legally obscene, which is why we delete explicit "lolicon"-type images and similar material. A mainstream cartoon, on the other hand, would never be found "obscene" and therefore carries less risk for us. I am not sure of the situation with cartoons at the TMF but I had the impression they recently forbade underage cartoon characters, a step that we have not yet taken here.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

From the staff perspective, we consider that cartoons and drawings do not trigger any federal law regarding age of the performers, because there are no performers. The only possible problem with art would be if it were so indecent as to be legally obscene, which is why we delete explicit "lolicon"-type images and similar material. A mainstream cartoon, on the other hand, would never be found "obscene" and therefore carries less risk for us. I am not sure of the situation with cartoons at the TMF but I had the impression they recently forbade underage cartoon characters, a step that we have not yet taken here.

Exactly. Its actually the attitude the fetishists take, one way or the other, that aqquires a risk (or not) in having the material, not the material itself, as it is mainstream and wasn't created with an accompanied risk in future distribution. The risk is soley created when the clip finds itself in a place where something sexually inticing will be made of it. Its the attention generated because of it that something is made of it, not merely its presense.

I think more people need to look at this simple fact before they practically blame the cartoon, as if the fault lies in it. As you say, they are not performers. They are not paid in sexual inuendos. They are not real.

 

[MÿTicklingStudios]

I think Vlad has made an important point in his recent posts... its not the actual material that is in question.... but the context and environment in which that material is posted.

An adult fetish community such as this, is, in my opinion is not the appropriate place for such material to be posted.

 

[somebody231]

Although this may sound wacko... I think it ain't that bad. I've never tickled anyone less than 18 years old, but I don't see anything wrong with even a fetishist tickling a for example 16-years old girl (in some countries 16 years is the age you can have sex, so is it THAT bad when you TICKLE them?). I mean think about it this way: Lots of 40 year olds could get a hard-on, when they'd see a 16 year girl for example posing in a swimsuit in some swimming facility. So I don't think that's bad... What's bad is when you actually DO something... And I think the pedo-thingy concerns mainly really young people. I mean a 16 year old girl FOR EXAMPLE can be really beautiful (You're denying that possibility? She can also act sexy, if she wants to... Think about a mean girl who purpousely "seduced" just to get the grown-up in trouble)

The part where I'd say a grown-up would do wrong, is if he actually do anything sexual to her for example. I really wouldn't think a guy of something like 24 of age would be pedophile, if a 16 year girl would ask him to give her a back-rub or foot-rub and he'd agree and then blush in a sexual way... I wouldn't call him a pedo... would you? What if he was a foot-fetishist par say... The line can be set anywhere. It's a matter of opinion how far or close it will be set.

I perfectly understand if some of you might find this opinion an illegal one.
I would never harrass a underage girl sexually. Would not do so. Would not do anything without permission and would not do anything sexual. You get what I mean with sexual. I mean anyone could have a hard-on of tea-cups even...

And like I said... in some countries the line of permission to be in sexual acts is at 16 of age. Like in my country. I do not see anything wrong with it, but I'm not "fishing for 16-year olds"... A girl of any age can be beautiful. There are just morals, which force me NOT to do anything that would be illegal concerning minors. And those morals seperate any one of us from a ped.

Feel free to comment, accuse, defend or whatever... 🙂 Just sharing one's opinion.

 

[nessonite1]

I think Vlad has made an important point in his recent posts... its not the actual material that is in question.... but the context and environment in which that material is posted.

An adult fetish community such as this, is, in my opinion is not the appropriate place for such material to be posted.

"appropriateness" is largely a matter of personal opinion. For now anyway we are leaving it up to members to decide whether underage cartoon materials are something they want to download or not. It doesn't go so far into being glaring "no-no" that we ban it outright. And, so far, the rules as they stand have worked really well. In general we prefer to only add rules or make them stricter only when absolutely necessary. This is partially why we have heard many many times that this site is a relaxed and fun place to be.
This sort of material doesn't pose any threat to the site that we have found and the membership has never tried to abuse their right to post it or tried to bend the rules to get away with borderline naughtiness. The people here are awesome like that. ^^

 

[MacD]

It makes me think...
Oh this shall NOT legalize underage media with real people! And we should NOT help to make those horny that are into kiddie stuff, no matter if real or painted.

But after forbidding anything but grandma/grandpa pics, couldn't the next question be like:
Torture is illegal! No matter which age. Shouldn't then all tickle torture artwork be banned? You said no??? You like to see illegal stuff and maybe even "go off" on it? Isn't that sick?
Or what about tying someone against his will. Or threatening someone to tickle him against his will. Stories with tied up people...

We note not only offenders can make this place less fun and relaxed.
Did you get the point?
What do you think?

 

[nessonite1]

So what you are saying is that by drawing a line based on what some people feel is inapporpriate we are opening the door the the masses demanding new and stricter rules based on THEIR preferences, until we're left with nothing but rules and a huge staff constantly running around cleaning the site up?
If so, I quite agree. ^^

 

[foot friendly]

i've been looking for that partickular cartoon does anyone have it for sale?on VHS please contact me heres my e-mail add. [email protected] (underdog right)

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Although this may sound wacko... I think it ain't that bad. I've never tickled anyone less than 18 years old, but I don't see anything wrong with even a fetishist tickling a for example 16-years old girl (in some countries 16 years is the age you can have sex, so is it THAT bad when you TICKLE them?). I mean think about it this way: Lots of 40 year olds could get a hard-on, when they'd see a 16 year girl for example posing in a swimsuit in some swimming facility. So I don't think that's bad... What's bad is when you actually DO something... And I think the pedo-thingy concerns mainly really young people. I mean a 16 year old girl FOR EXAMPLE can be really beautiful (You're denying that possibility? She can also act sexy, if she wants to... Think about a mean girl who purpousely "seduced" just to get the grown-up in trouble)

The part where I'd say a grown-up would do wrong, is if he actually do anything sexual to her for example. I really wouldn't think a guy of something like 24 of age would be pedophile, if a 16 year girl would ask him to give her a back-rub or foot-rub and he'd agree and then blush in a sexual way... I wouldn't call him a pedo... would you? What if he was a foot-fetishist par say... The line can be set anywhere. It's a matter of opinion how far or close it will be set.

I perfectly understand if some of you might find this opinion an illegal one.
I would never harrass a underage girl sexually. Would not do so. Would not do anything without permission and would not do anything sexual. You get what I mean with sexual. I mean anyone could have a hard-on of tea-cups even...

And like I said... in some countries the line of permission to be in sexual acts is at 16 of age. Like in my country. I do not see anything wrong with it, but I'm not "fishing for 16-year olds"... A girl of any age can be beautiful. There are just morals, which force me NOT to do anything that would be illegal concerning minors. And those morals seperate any one of us from a ped.

Feel free to comment, accuse, defend or whatever... 🙂 Just sharing one's opinion.

Your points are well and good and I can see your intentions are truthful, but seeing, realizing, and thinking about the potential risk means it would be better to avoid those kinds of situations in the first place (if an underager asks you for a massage at a public pool, its a situation that should be concerned with better judgement, not entertainment). Afterall, in many cases, its the fantasy itself and merely having it, that leads people to other things and off the straight path. Even if you were tempted by the underager (or you thought you were, as it may be a part of an out of control fantasy you have), thats more a reason to avoid that situation. Anything they do unintentionally or intentionally, either directly or indirectly is a liability to you, and thats better left avoided than entertained.

When you begin to entertain all sorts of fantasies, and you are in areas that help project such a fantasy (a public pool in your example) then psychologically speaking you're creating a barrier between what is proper in your fantasy and what is proper in reality and you, perhaps unknowningly, become more susceptible to outside influence and suggestiveness, which can lead you down paths and roads and thoughts you simply should not have for your own good.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

It makes me think...
Oh this shall NOT legalize underage media with real people! And we should NOT help to make those horny that are into kiddie stuff, no matter if real or painted.

But after forbidding anything but grandma/grandpa pics, couldn't the next question be like:
Torture is illegal! No matter which age. Shouldn't then all tickle torture artwork be banned? You said no??? You like to see illegal stuff and maybe even "go off" on it? Isn't that sick?
Or what about tying someone against his will. Or threatening someone to tickle him against his will. Stories with tied up people...

We note not only offenders can make this place less fun and relaxed.
Did you get the point?
What do you think?

One thing leads to another, eventually. When people realize the faults in one thing, they become more self-conscious and aware and begin to analyze everything and find the faults in those. Site owners are actually the ones who do this more than members because they have a far larger concern than a user does- making sure their website is on the good side of the law.

When issues begin to crop up, they are taken care of. Sometimes, in zealousness, members will answer the call and more is sanctioned as it comes to the owner's attention.

The line for an online ADULT tickling community would be underage content. The rest is relatively safe unless it can be proven or implied that the bondage or whatever is unethical, abusive, or in bad taste.

Outside of those kinds of clear cases which impose a liability to an adult website, those kinds of materials are expected from the community by the law even. They know what you dabble in, so they are less inclined to bother unless its brought to their attention that there are continual infractions made against the law and the website is making little or no effort to rectify the situation.

This is no different than underage material. Its all in how its dealt with and what kind of lawful considerations there are.

If people started to cry wolf so as to get the site in trouble, the site is safe regardless of what they report so long as theres nothing awry or amiss there.

In cases where people are trying to reform a site, thats their choice to do that, and their success lies in whether they're able to convince the owners or the rest of the members.

It would be a sad day for fetish communities if they could no longer enjoy their own fetish online (which, for most undoubtedly) is the only way they can enjoy it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think Vlad has made an important point in his recent posts... its not the actual material that is in question.... but the context and environment in which that material is posted.

An adult fetish community such as this, is, in my opinion is not the appropriate place for such material to be posted.

Yes. The material is fine. Its the minds of the fetishists who warp and distort it and take it out of context. We know this is true and not merely opinion, because it was originally, and still is, for all intents and purposes, a mainstream cartoon with a mainstream cartoon scene of tickling. What the mainstream thinks about tickling is not the same as what the fetish communities think about tickling, in most cases.

Its because fetishists always want more than is there that this becomes a problem. They are the liability, as is the nature of site. If this were not true, the clip would be deleted whereever it is found as it would be found lewd by all.

If you were to ask someone in the mainstream about this, they'd probably scratch their head and wonder what you're talking about and why it means so much to you. They don't realize the deeper undertones created in the minds of people who enjoy this stuff, so it doesn't apply to them.

 

[poopies1]

pedophiles? I beg to differ Poop. We are not pedophiles, simply because some of us prefer a different kid of tickling to what you may like, does not make us any more of human beings. As such, you are discriminating poop. You are in essence, what extreme evangel;ical christians are to gays and lesbians.

tickling a son, daughter, sibling, relative, etc., is one thing. tickling random children and joining an adult forum to talk about tickling children with others is another. I call it disturbing. I also call it pedophilia.

by the way, good analogy. i am what evangelical christians are to homosexuals. (actually i have no idea what you're trying to say, are you somehow trying to bash me and evangelical christians at the same time?)

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

tickling a son, daughter, sibling, relative, etc., is one thing. tickling random children and joining an adult forum to talk about tickling children with others is another. I call it disturbing. I also call it pedophilia.

Actually, I don't think theres a difference if its your own family, a stranger, a friend, or whomever. Like I said earlier, if you get a tingling in your pants because of it, or you're doing the tickling to appease the fetish, and you can't honestly say that it happened as a natural impulse or situation, then its premeditated, after a fashion and in a big or small way it is perverse. To do it to your kid, even though they don't know whats going on, is even worse than doing it to a stranger. That may seem ironic, but its not.

If you have to make excuses for why you'd tickle your own kids, then its the same if you tickled anyone else- better to avoid it. You don't want to create something like that between your kids and you don't want to risk getting in trouble with a stranger.

The thing to remember is that tickling doesn't just happen. Its made to happen.

What everyone has to ask themself in all situations is why they are doing this, and if they're in a moral position where its ok. In many instances it is and theres no problem, but since this topic zeros in on underagers specifically, its a different ball game.

We cannot count on an underager to know what they want, and to assume it for them because of their age, or whatever, is, in my mind, a serious trespass against them. Theres no reason to be touching them to begin with. To rationalize it is to exploit them for your own pleasure.

 

[somebody231]

Thanks for the feedback Vlad. I appreciate it 🙂