Why I think banning MAINSTREAM, under-18 content here is wrong

[Horatio]

OK, I'm kind of pissed off about something completely unrelated to this topic, but I though if I ranted here it might help me. Lord knows I can't do a damn thing about what I'm really upset about.

I understand we live in a litigious, neurotic, conservative society, so I'm not blaming people the poor souls who volunteer their time to make the TMF a great place.

The main reason that law enforcement officials prosecute end-users is, presumably, to reduce demand. We see this in all walks of life; child pornography and other extremely deviant sexual behaviour, illegal drug sales, etc. To reduce demand by arresting and prosecuting the consumers assumes that these consumers can directly impact the supply of the material by not purchasing it.

However, as it relates to MAINSTREAM tickling pictures and video, this truly cannot be the case. For example, a press picture of Ashley Olsen goosing Mary Kate at a Hollywood party when both are 17 would be be released regardless, as it's in the public interest as a whole, not a miniscule segment of the population that we as ticklephile comprise. Would the photographer say, "Ashley, take this feather and tickle her under the chin too, for our tickle fetishsts. We may be able to get 10 more people to go see one of your horrible movies." Of course not.

To take this a step further, what about an old German film where the mother charcater tickles the feet of her two sleeping children? If this is posted to a tickling fetish board, will a director buy the rights to it to make a sequel just for TMFers?

So, these examples may be extreme, but truly, if there is no direct link between the producers and the consumers of the work, there is no way that using the law to reduce the demand will do any good. And, as far as I can tell, there is no law against tickling media; it's strictly a policy decision by those who operate the boards.

One caveat. In my opinion, this only applies to true mainstream material, not to the recent spate of "webshots" material that has sprung up.

Oh, one other thing. I'm arguing this point just to argue it. I don't want to see a 10-year old exploited any more than anyone else.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I agree with your premise to a certain degree, especially when you use the example of 17 year olds in mainstream sightings. But if 17, then maybe 16, and if 16, then maybe 15, and so forth. It's simpler and more straightforward to draw the line at minors and leave it there. After all, there are a million places on the web where that material could be put other than here. With such a broad community base, it's better for the TMF, I think, to remain as it is, adults only for members and content both.

 

[Celsus]

I think your assumption that the purpose of enforcement against the audience for underage material is to reduce demand is unassailable. Moreso, it is of course true that some awful producer of an awful Olsen twins movie is not going to pick up on our forum and encourage further tickling in his mainstream material.

However, if we were to allow mainstream media, a third party not involved in said material could observe a potential audience for fetish material that he or she could then produce. So by reducing the acceptibility for underage tickling, mainstream or not, it contributes to decreasing the amount of enthusiasm about it - enthusiasm which could inspire a child exploiter, or help him find a target audience for such child exploiting material.

Also, another point in favour of blanket banning underage material, is that this community has enough really hazy distinctions. Consensual and non consensual, whether m/m or f/f tickling implies homosexuality, etc. Think of more potential debates that could spring up when if we had to start policing what was bona fide, legitimate "mainstream" or not.

 

[some1somewhere]

I agree with your premise to a certain degree, especially when you use the example of 17 year olds in mainstream sightings. But if 17, then maybe 16, and if 16, then maybe 15, and so forth. It's simpler and more straightforward to draw the line at minors and leave it there. After all, there are a million places on the web where that material could be put other than here. With such a broad community base, it's better for the TMF, I think, to remain as it is, adults only for members and content both.

I have to say that I agree with Jeff here. Although mainstream content really doesn't qualify as bordering on child-porn, as they would have arrested the director for making such, it is best to play it safe and draw a line on what is acceptable in this forum. I would hate to see such a great forum be taken down because of a few people (not saying you are one of them). There is enough content out there, and a lot being produced daily, to provide with us something to watch and "enjoy."

That said, I have been at least watching (off and on), and lurking around since psycho started it a long time ago. When did the ban start? I don't seem to remember the forum having a problem in its first steps? Is this a rare new thing, or a common old thing? I am just wondering about the history of this issue in the forum.

 

[Myriads]

The rule was one of the first serious calls I needed to make in the forums first months after I took over. It's rather old.

Myriads

 

[Horatio]

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. Nobody (in authority) is going to come running over to pull the plug on the TMF if there is under 18 mainstream content here.

The real reason that it's banned is that there are a few people who get upset if there are images or video that include teens, and it's too much of a pain in the ass to deal with them on a one-off basis.

Really, when you think about it, it's silly. I can go rent "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", which is rated G, and watch it with my kids. But, if there is a screenshot posted from the same movie, where a woman is tickling a young boys foot while he's buried in the sand, it's removed. Why? Because it might turn someone on.

What a wacky world we live in.

 

[Newcastle Uni]

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. Nobody (in authority) is going to come running over to pull the plug on the TMF if there is under 18 mainstream content here.

The real reason that it's banned is that there are a few people who get upset if there are images or video that include teens, and it's too much of a pain in the ass to deal with them on a one-off basis.

Really, when you think about it, it's silly. I can go rent "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", which is rated G, and watch it with my kids. But, if there is a screenshot posted from the same movie, where a woman is tickling a young boys foot while he's buried in the sand, it's removed. Why? Because it might turn someone on.

What a wacky world we live in.

Thats a difficult issue you've raised here. Personally, if I were in charge (and inside my head I like to believe I am in charge around here 🙂 ) I would allow MAINSTREAM content that featured minors. If its mainstream then I see no problem. However, one might argue that photos in WEBSHOTS are mainstream. I would exclude these from the forum where minors are involved. I would set the age of a minor to be 18 except under exceptional circumstances.
For example, where you have a 17 year old in the media and the public eye then I would allow images featuring such people. Also someone turning 17 in a few weeks would be allowed, as we all know that person is not going to experience some magical transformation in the remaining few days.

 

[theshire]

I, also, don't have a problem with 'underage' material if it's mainstream. But at the end of the day, it's just too complicated. If it was allowed there would be arguments about what constitutes 'mainstream', what age is too young, etc, etc. So it's easier just to ban it across the board.

You also have to recognise that while a mainstream tickling scene in a TV show or movie is probably directed by a non-fetishist, if it is posted here it can easily be used by fetishists for sexual gratification purposes. I think the TMF, quite rightly, doesn't want to be responsible for that.

 

[The Sean Man]

All it takes is one person to browse through this site, see that there is some sexual content spread throughout, and then notice a picture of an underage child......knee jerk reactions are quick and furious these days, and this place is ripe for a witch-hunt.

 

[BellaRisa]

All it takes is one person to browse through this site, see that there is some sexual content spread throughout, and then notice a picture of an underage child......knee jerk reactions are quick and furious these days, and this place is ripe for a witch-hunt.

Thank you Sean.

Horatio, I understand your annoyance, but when you say "Nobody (in authority) is going to come running over to pull the plug on the TMF if there is under 18 mainstream content here" what I believe you mean is that you don't think it will happen because it seems so absurd. And I agree, except that I've seen it happen more than once. The CWA is a nasty, nasty lil' group.

What people who fuss about this topic fail to understand is that it's ridiculously easy for a site like this to be deemed illegal and removed. Trust me, I've seen MANY yahoo groups and other fetish forums literally disappear overnight because one disgruntled member decided to cause trouble and report something. Those of us who actually run groups, host parties, etc are all too aware of the simplicity of having things swiftly dismantled by those authorities we thought would never notice us or care about us, and we take the necessary precautions to keep things running smoothly. If that means keeping things 18 and over, so be it, that's certainly not a difficult rule to follow.

It's been said in no uncertain terms that tickling and sexuality go together for most of us here. This is a site where nudity, BDSM and other ADULT themes are purposely linked with tickling. That being the case, we should have *nothing* here remotely associated with children. And for the interet, 'children' is defined as under 18. As a parent I have NO problem with that. When sex is knowingly involved with something, minors can't be anywhere near it. Period. That's why I have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a BellaRisa model is over 18, while it wouldn't matter in a mainstream film, its all about intent. And to be very blunt, I have to say that as a mother the LAST thing I need to see on my favorite adult forum is children mixed in with my kink, how creepy is that?? Seeing a mainstream shot at home would just be sweet, seeing it here would be...disturbing. The connotations change. I know I speak for many of us here and I applaud the mods for being sensitive to that.

Bella

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Yeah.

I've posted an occassional mainstream sighting of uttely innocuous tickling (kid/kid, adult/kid) from movies and TV, and they've been immediately pulled. Understandably so. It's just the social climate at play here in the USA at present. As Bella mentions, some prick with hemarroids gets their panties in a wad, and whammo, no mo TMF...

 

[kcantankerous]

I dont have a desire to see under aged kids anyways.

 

[toyou444]

As much as I love the mainstream stuff I agree with Jeff and Myriads. Somethings are just too borderline so you ahve a hard and fast rule and stick to it. Also, the German clip for example, I was able to download it and so I posted it up somehwere else when it was requested of me. There are enough places on the web to find things. I had no problem with the clip, but some might so there it goes. I just posted it where I could control who sees it.

~ toyou

 

[scorpionldr]

here, let me make it REAL SIMPLE

ok, here it is. simple. the youngest age of getting a driver license is 16, right? that's what it is in california if i remember. if they have a drivers license, then they can take the risk to see whatever the hell else they want in life.

 

[Myriads]

An expansion now that I have more time.

There is a concept called 'Creating an environment' that plays a big part here in the choice of a hard and fast no under 18 rule.

As Bella pointed out above, for the majority of people who come to the TMF, tickling is part of their sexuality. It's not true for all, but it is for most. Thus the TMF by use becomes a sexually oriented website. This is a sexual environment.

Given that it's a sexual environment, all media that is posted here becomes viewed through that specific filter. Our base context shifts the use context of the images and clips that are posted here. When those images contain minors you can see where this becomes problimatic on many levels.

Is the Chitty Chity Bang Bang clip a bad thing? No it's harmless and playful in it's own context, a family oriented movie. Placed here however, it is now being mounted in a sexual frame. It's being presented to many folks who see tickling as a arousal cue. Defending the 'rightness' of making a minor child the object of that cue is a case that we want no part of. Thus the ban.

Also by making sure there are no minor media images here we send a message for those folks who seek this stuff out: There is nothing here for you. Move along. This too is 'creating an environment'. It's preventive gardening, stopping weeds from gaining ground, and finding a home here.

Myriads

 

[toneus79]

First of all I have got to say this whole topic makes me uneasy, and as people have already pointed out presents a threat to this forum. It is one thing to be open minded, but not to the extent that your brain falls out. Tickling no matter how people want to dress it up as innocent fun etc. is sexual. Therefore if you want to include underage kids in the mix that will set back the Tickling community light years.

To draw an analogy there is nothing remotely sexual about (say) an eight year old girl playing topless on a beach making sandcastles. However if an unrelated grown up starts to show an interest in seeing pictures of such an activity, the non sexual becomes sexual, illegally sexual.

Don't go down this road people (for arguments sake or any other).

 

[snap2914]

Stop this discussion please

Guys this thing has been discussed a thousand times, not only here but in Mousepad foot fetish forum as well. Yes posting a mainstream scene is not illegal in any way. Nobody said it is. But the moderators of these forums, the people who go into all the trouble so you can have your fun, dont want to go throught the extra trouble of explaining it to the authorities just so you can have a little more fun. It's as simple as that.

Lets not forget it's their decision not yours and it dont have to be fair or legal. Also lets not forget that mainstream or not, you are still talking about sexual pleasure from watching an underaged person and this is something that should not even be talked about here.

So stop this discussion once and for all or get your own forum. Enough with it!

 

[Horatio]

I don't think anyone ever actually requested that we allow minor material here - we're just having a discussion. Toneus & Snap, it may be an uncomfortable topic but it is interesting to debate. There are infinite shades of grey.

Fetishes by definition are sexual feelings brought on by traditionally non-sexual items. Think about these as it relates to under-18 imagery.

Should a shoe fetish website ban images of any shoe size smaller than say, an adult 5?

If you have a Coppertone suntan lotion bottle in your home featuring the young girl having her suit pulled down by the dog, are you guilty of possessing child pornography? That's mainstream too.

How about just focusing on tickling images? If there is an obvious minor in the image, although not partaking in the tickling, is it banned?

What about this image, taken from Webshots? The tickler doesn't look 18 to me, but is she even a tickler? She hasn't touched her friends foot (yet).

Again, with the disclaimer.. I'm engaged in discussion, I'm not personally interested in nor advocating any minor content at all.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I think those are all meaningless questions and I really don't know why you even need answers to them. This will be my last post on the subject, which I don't agree is interesting to "debate."

Should a shoe fetish site ban a shoe size? No. Should they ban a 12 year old foot wearing that shoe? Probably.

Is it wrong to have a coppertone bottle with a child on it in your home? No. Is it wrong to post that same picture to a forum devoted to adult arousal? Yes.

Is a picture that has a minor in it somewhere banned? In most cases, yes. Are we going to try and have some kind of detailed list of exceptions describing exactly when it would or would not be ok? No, we're not.

We err on the side of caution because we don't want to have to keep having the conversation that we're having right now. Having to make judgement calls on every case would be a huge pain in the ass. All of us have lives and other interests, and it's simpler to make it black and white. Under 18: bad.

Also I would direct or redirect your attention to Myriads' post above on creating an environment.

 

[Horatio]

I think those are all meaningless questions and I really don't know why you even need answers to them. This will be my last post on the subject, which I don't agree is interesting to "debate."

Jeff, those were really rhetorical questions. I wasn't looking for an answer. I stated more than once that I wasn't asking you to do anything. The title of this category is called "Tickling Discussion", which is what we were all doing.

Based on your defensive stance, I personally won't post anything else on this subject either.

My final opinion is that people should be a little more thick-skinned in general. I started this thread to make people think and have a little intelligent convo.

OK, lets get back to discussing whether feet are more ticklish in nylons or bare.

 

[avi595k1]

I agree with some of the comments. First off, I totally am against any sexual display of minors in any way. Most of my favorite tickling images took place with friends of mine tickling babysitter or friends mom's. While sex had nothing to do with tickling, to very mention of these stories cause people to mistake the action as sexual of the ler, or the lee.

I think there should be a clear section for sexual and non-sexual stories.

Just a thought.