screamer said:
Okay, let me go at this from a different angle. When a model is consenting to the tickling, the tickler or tickle media company will still have them sign a legal consent contract. If they didn't they'd have to stop tickling the model every time the model said something like no or stop while being tickled. The tickler/company would make sure to protect themselves incase the model decides that they don't want to be tickled in the middle of the tickling. Hmmm that makes sense. Right? If for some reason a model were to try to legally attack the tickler/company, the tickler/company would produce the legal consent contract the model signed and wouldn't get in any legal trouble if they didn't step outside of what was described in the legal consent contract. Still with me? If a model were to come in for a shoot and sign a legal consent contract without reading it, the legal consent contract would still be valid; regardless if the model read it or not, just like any other legal contract.
...
I don't know much about anglo-saxon law, but here in Italy, when signing a contract, if there are clauses that are to consider as particularly burdensome for one of the parties and this party, agreeing with the clause, puts itself in a position of great disadvantage, this clause has to be signed explicitely and separately, so that it's clear that the weaker party has duly read and understand the clause and has realized the possible drawbacks coming from that. This usually applies to economical matters, but it can indeed also be enforced in cases when physical restrictions and "treatments" are concerned, specially if they could be seen as erotic or sexual.
Since we are here speaking about someone trying to trick someone else in being tied and tickling against their will, by means of hiding some clauses in the contract, that should apply.
But, even if there was no such a law, it comes from the general principles of the law itself, from constitutional rules, from both the theory and the praxis of judging and from jurisprudence, that no one can forsake one of their inalienable and fundamental human rights by means of a juridic agreement and, as a consequence, no one can be entitled to take advantage of that.
I think that the lost of one's own personal freedom and undergoing what could be a very intense physical torture, without knowing how long it could last and having no means to stop or to limit that in any way, or even knowing what would come next, that is something I consider as a prejudice of one's inalienable and fundamental human rights.
If USA law is any different, I can only wish you it will change soon, for your own good.
Sorry if I didn't use the proper terms, I'm not versed in English juridical jargon
🙂
Now, I don't know how the tk videos producers usually handle that, but:
1) most of the tk in most of the videos are fake, so there's no point there;
2) I'm sure the ones who really tickle their models clearly explain to them what is going to happen, that often the apparent torture is exaggerated for the sake of realism, that the models could escape from much of the bondage in those videos if it gets too much, that they agree to be tied and tickled for a certain amount of time and state a series of signals to stop it if they want, that if they let them be restrained by someone, they trust them enough and are willing to, for whatever reason (money, personal inclination, etc.), that probably the producers have no intention to trick their models, because they could have legal problems, but also because, if the model does a "good performance", they can be interested in doing other videos with them and they speak well for them to other models, and so on.
It would be interesting hearing from some actual video producer and someone who knows enough USA law about that.
But, apart from everything I just wrote... what kind of person is one who tricks another one, specially if a friend, in a situation like that? I hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, and that person has no legal consequences from that, no one would buy that video.
![P[a]pi](/data/avatars/m/45/45669.jpg?1704922715){kind=avatar}
