No.9560
Just thought I'd start a discussion. I noticed that CAB pulled all his art off of the TMF. The mods posted a message that it was over "editorial" disagreements. I find that a little odd as CAB's stuff never seem to stray into areas that would bring him into disagreements over his content. What do some of you think? Have you had issues posting content to either TMF or the Theatre and run afoul of mods. And I'm not talking about posting pirated content or content such as under age oriented drawings, which obviously the site owners don't want for fear of bringing down heat on the site as a whole.
No.9561
It was because of underage art.
No.9563
>>9561
So, someone posted some art involving minors, the mods let it stand and older artists are jumping ship in protest?
No.9564
>>9561
Really? I've never seen him do underage art. That's surprising.
I know a lot of people have issues with underage art being censored. While I have no interest in underage art, my personal opinion is that depicting minors in sexual situations in drawings is relatively harmless (and I don't want to get into the debate of how it harms the moral fabric of society) I understand why forums just don't want to deal with the stuff. It opens them to legal issues since the depiction of minors in sexual situation in drawings is legally considered the same as a photograph of a real minor in a sexual situation.
There have certainly been examples of this. The most recent that I can recall is the manga collector who had some books imported from Japan. They contained several scenes of underage sexual situations and he was looking at 15 years in prison. He ended up agreeing to a deal that got him 6 months. Still, who wants to deal with that?
I would think that artists who want to depict underage art would at least understand that the current climate is not friendly to that and it's not fair to ask forums to be the social activists on their behalf. Not everyone is Neil Gaiman and is going to speak out about the censorship of art and how the labeling any art as obscene is a slippery slope.
No.9565
>>9563
No, apparently CABis the one taht left the TMF and requested that all his art be taken down, which the TMF did.
No.9566
>>9563
No
>>9564
It has more to do with the fact that there has been a concrete rule in place for a very long time that has been enforced on other artists and just now was enforced on CAB. It's clear Myriads thinks the whole thing is shit but the mod team didn't want to allow the double standard of "you can't post that stuff, but CAB can because he's a TMF treasure!"
No.9567
I exchanged e-mails with a a tickling producer and I asked him why he didn't have any 18-19 yo models. All his models were in their twenties and up. He said that he didn't want to take a chance that he ended up with an underage model with a fake ID, so his policy was to hire models that were clearly old enough not to be mistaken for underage.
No.9568
>>9566
>>9566
Sounds fair. The rule has to apply to everyone or then you're cherry picking and making exceptions or assigning privileged status, which is not fair.
No.9586
>>9564
> It opens them to legal issues since the depiction of minors in sexual situation in drawings is legally considered the same as a photograph of a real minor in a sexual situation.
>There have certainly been examples of this. The most recent that I can recall is the manga collector who had some books imported from Japan. They contained several scenes of underage sexual situations and he was looking at 15 years in prison. He ended up agreeing to a deal that got him 6 months. Still, who wants to deal with that?
The oft-overlooked reason that the guy who was importing the manga got in trouble was because he imported it through USPS(the federal government operated postal service for those unaware). The federal judge overturned the law criminalising possession of underage art and the only charge they were able to slap him with was mailing obscene material. If he'd used UPS or Fedex any other non govt carrier he would have been fine. The law that criminalised it was passed in 2003 by some Bush administration moralfags because there was a Supreme Court decision earlier(Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) that made fictional depictions protected under freedom of speech.
Like I said before the law that criminalised it was overturned by a federal judge, so it's legal in the US now. If for whatever reason it became criminal again and someone was indicted on charges related to it, they could take it to the federal courts and would probably get the same decision as in the case I mentioned before.
Gelbooru and Danbooru which are both US based(check their whois info if you don't believe me) host a fuckton of loli, this site has several boards dedicated to loli and by its own admission, "In the interest of free speech, only content that directly violates the DMCA or other US laws is deleted."
The only reason TMF is so vehemently against it is because the admins(and users) are like these weirdo 40-year old middle America christian people who live in flyover states and can't make sense of a law by reading it.
Tickletheater as I recall is somewhat more accepting of underage fictional content.
No.9587
>>9586
>The only reason TMF is so vehemently against it is because the admins(and users) are like these weirdo 40-year old middle America christian people who live in flyover states and can't make sense of a law by reading it.
To be honest I never thought it had anything to do with law and more those in power on the TMF trying to enforce their tastes on everyone.
No.9588
>>9587
That too.
Also, it still stands that nobody has ever been convicted in the US on possession/distribution of loli alone without real CP involved as well.
No.9589
>>9587
>To be honest I never thought it had anything to do with law and more those in power on the TMF trying to enforce their tastes on everyone.
What is actually wrong with this? It's their site and they clearly created and maintain it out of hobby, you can't expect every site to be a bastion of free speech like 8ch
No.9590
>>9561
Do you have it? I have a feeling where it was one of those instances where it's an 'underaged' character but he drew it as an adult anyway.
No.9591
File: 1442931820943.png (796.81 KB, 1000x773, 1000:773, c_a_b_ified_classics___the….png)
>>9590
This one could be put on the margins, I imagine. But he had a pretty explicit Kim Possible image, has had Judy Jetson in a piece (she's 16), he's used multiple Disney Princesses and Hanna Barbara characters, as well as Josie and the Pussycats.
But the thing is, TMF has pretty much ALWAYS been zero tolerance, and really quick to curtail any art that potentially has someone underage. The difference here is that you have an admin going out of his way to say this time he believes the mod team was wrong, and he's doing that because of a personal conflict of interest.
>>9589
Because apparently stuff? Site's been around for a long time. Fucking loli and underage content desirers have this weird thing about their tastes being accepted when shit is a slippery slope to pedo shit, and they don't get it.
>>9568
Kinda my thought too. He also apparently threw a public bitchfit about it, which kinda fits, which makes myriads defense of him even weirder.
No.9592
>>9591
TMF has a very open and bizarre relationship when it comes to an "elder" getting mad at them. They have weird quasi-respect for Kujman and Drew70 too, both guys who have gone far out of their ways to shit on all of the (Drew70 once ran a blog that was nothing but entries where he would attack most of the mods, admins and "big name" members personally) and the way they kept it nice and politically correct always struck me as weird. IIRC they didn't even really bother actually banning him.
No.9593
>>9591
Myriads is the girl mod, right? I don't think I've gone to the TMF for a few years.
>>9592
Niche character trait that few have + Wierdos in real life + community that relates to them = A group of people too afraid to lose any "friends" by acting rationally.
No.9594
>>9591
Was it just the size of the bunny that made it appear underage or is this some existing character?
No.9596
>>9593
>Myriads is the girl mod, right?
You might be thinking of Mairead, that's Chicago/TicklishGiggle/Annie Hall. I don't think she's a mod anymore.
No.9602
>>9596
Yeah, that's the one. I remember her being pretty cool at least.
No.9604
>>9586
Actually, that is only partly true. Only parts of that law were overturned and it was because of that, that the manga guy was charged with a lesser crime. Currently, the legality of drawings depicting minors in sexual situations is in a grey area and while some cases have been dropped, there have been a number of cases where people were successfully prosecuted for having cartoon child porn. While their lawyers may appeal and may even be successful, I think the TMF's stance is more what the above anon suggested…who wants to take the chance and go through the potential legal threat than it being about the TMF run by a bunch of fundy christians from the midwest.
No.9605
>>9588
Again, not true. You can wiki it if you like. There are cases where it was judged on cartoon porn alone. Some get tossed out and others don't. This is that grey area.
No.9607
>>9592
Yeah, the mods can be weird. I've clashed, privately, with one or two and been threatened with banning and other kinds of faux power trips. I don't particularly like Jeff. My personal experience with him is that he is a control freak with a "my way or the highway attitude". Not very nice. I remember seeing a rant from DRew70 on the Tickle Theatre after he was banned. By the end, he was making all kinds of disparaging comments about Jeff's sexual interests and stalkery attitude, but I don't know anything about them and never heard about them until his rant.
No.9609
>>9607
He was Magic Touch video, right? He wasn't ever Skylreta tier but he always struck me as someone who could get his kicks off a… "controlled" environment. The "clique" shit I think gets thrown around too much, but he seems like he gets kind of a thrill being able to pick and chose BFFs from all the kinky young girls that sign up on the board.
No.9610
In my opinion, most internet forums are not really as open and inclusive as they claim. Much like the real world, there are groups and cliques that are fairly insular. Bottom line, if you don't fit in, it's hard to have fun.
No.9611
>>9609
I think Jeff is the person who started the TMF or at least help set it up. I think when you sit in a position of "power" for so long, you get very comfortable with it and start running things the way you want, which isn't always fair or impartial when you are supposed to be a moderator.
No.9612
>>9611
Yeah as far as I know he's the only 'big' boss around, but he was MagiT too right? I might be wrong but I think that was him.
To his credit, Ivy Tickles Her Mother is close to god tier. Would've been flawless if he could keep the fucking camera still.
http://www.4shared.com/video/9j9-xzrr/ivy_tickles_her_mother_2.html?cau2=dow-lim&ua=WINDOWS&locale=en
No.9613
>>9593
> I don't think I've gone to the TMF for a few years.
I go, but I don't interact. I just visit for content. Never felt the place was particularly inviting.
No.9614
>>9612
Yeah, that's him. He certainly made some videos I liked, but like the above anon, he rubs me the wrong way. Maybe that's unfair, but some people put out a skeevy vibe.
No.9621
>>9604
>Currently, the legality of drawings depicting minors in sexual situations is in a grey area and while some cases have been dropped, there have been a number of cases where people were successfully prosecuted for having cartoon child porn.
Can you link me to a case where someone was prosecuted for drawn/fictional material ALONE? This is untrue as far as I know, and is tripe spread by fearmongers to scare idiots.
No.9622
>>9621
Here is the wiki. Scroll to American policy and you'll see about a half dozen cases listed and you can explore more indepth links to find that many were based solely on art. I'm not saying that the law is clearly defined, simply that people have been pursued and successfully prosecuted. It's not rampant, but you can't say that it doesn't happen. This is because the legality is grey and leaves the door open to at least the attempt at prosecution. It can also be argued that some of these cases are successfully prosecuted not on the merits of the legality, but on defendants copping a plea deal for fear of a perceived harsher sentence. If they actually fought it through the court system, then the outcome might be different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States
No.9623
>>9622
Yeah, all of those cases involved real CP as well except the one we mentioned(Handley), in which the charge was reduced to obscenity and parts of the law overturned making fictional depictions legal as of today.
The article conveniently fails to mention that in the Missouri case, the guy also received real CP and the Simpsons comics were part of a plea deal.
Source with actual court docs linked:https://reason.com/blog/2013/01/31/missouri-man-gets-three-years-for-posses
The 2011 Maine case is the only other one after Handley that involved only fictional material, and according to the Wiki article: "Much unlike previous cases (and likely due to the results of the Handley ruling), the charges were quickly dismissed under Maine law and dropped under federal law."
At worst you could be slapped with obscenity related charges(far less severe than CP charges), and even then it's unlikely unless you're both creating and distributing the material yourself or mailing it through the federal postal service like Handley. As far as I know no one has ever been charged for distributing obscene material alone, especially through the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Anti-indecency_and_anti-obscenity_provisions
No.9625
>>9623
I think, in the end, this is enough to deter most forums from allowing drawings depicting minors. Most people are not up for a fight and the emotional, physical and financial toll it brings, regardless of whether or not you win.
No.9629
>>9625
No, that's not the case. If you operate a site where users can upload material, you can't be held liable for it unless you get a warning regarding it(which isn't even an issue with drawn material, see Gelbooru, 8chan, and Danbooru like >>9586
mentioned) and still refuse to take it down.
The TMF people are just being prude moralfaggots as they've been known to(as if a sexual fetish forum is really the place for judginess over harmless drawn material), it isn't an issue of legality.
No.9630
>>9629
You sound like a guy rationalizing that it's okay to jack off in your car as you watch tickle fights on the playground.
No.9631
>>9630
You mean it's not? :3
No.9634
>>9629
You may have a valid argument, but you remind me of pedestrians that I see blindly traversing the cross walk because they have "the right of way." Legally, that may be the case, but that isn't going to stop the 1.5 ton car from plowing right over them. Moral of the analogy, always be careful and don't expect that just because the law is on your side that you won't get targeted by aggressive law enforcement or overzealous prosecutors.
A final cautionary example of this is the well known story of the comic book store owner from Oklahoma that was targeted in 1996 for selling a comic that depicted a nude child character in sexually explicit situations. The store owner fought the charges and came out with a plea deal that had no jail time and a $1500 fine. But what did it cost him? He lost his savings, his house, his wife divorced him because of the stress and depression and he closed his store. Even when you win…you lose.
No.9635
>>9591
>Fucking loli and underage content desirers have this weird thing about their tastes being accepted when shit is a slippery slope to pedo shit, and they don't get it.
There are a lot of things that could be viewed as slippery slopes.
I'm no expert and have no real gauge of how everyone with the particular interest would act, but I've the feeling a lot of people who partake in tickling involving lolis would put their foot down if it came to realistic pictures or actual photos of kids being tickled.
No.9644
>>9635
This.
By this logic violent movies and games shouldn't be allowed because it could lead to violence in real life, but people only say this about loli because HERF DERF THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
No.9664
>>9594
CAB normally takes directly from the characters design so it's obvious which characters he's using and the only pink bow wearing rabbit in Disney's Robin Hood is very much a child. Also, Maid Marian is supposed to be around 16 or so in the film.
No.9666
>>9630
>jacking off to IRL children
>jacking off to lines on a page
No.9667
>>9666
>using paper money to buy goods and services
>using your credit card to transfer binary from one account into another
It doesn't matter what it is, it matters what it represents.
Note: I have no horse in this race
No.9668
>>9666
Just cuz you want to justify your kid diddling desires don't mean I particularly give a shit. They'll take care of you in jail.
No.9672
It IS possible for two people look at the same thing and see two different things. One guy looks at that CAB drawing from a handful of posts back and sees underage pedo shit. The other guy sees….a drawing.
I also have no horse in this race.
No.9731
>>9672
>>9667
My horse is busy.
No.9738
File: 1443340450321.jpg (65.75 KB, 800x532, 200:133, I don't have a reaction pi….jpg)
>>9667
>>9667
>It doesn't matter what it is, it matters what it represents.
Except, you know, digital currency is by every definition still legal currency, while lines on a page don't have human rights which are being violated.
By that logic, murdering someone in a videogame is the same as murdering someone irl because of 'what it represents'.
No.9748
Are there any other forums besides TMF and Theatre that aren't censorship-happy?
No.10016
>>9667
>>9667
What >>9738 said. You're retarded, I hope you're trolling.
No.10017
>>9748
if you mean 'doesn't have an under 18 image rule' or 'doesn't flip it's shit over drawings', pretty much no, unless you hit up places that cater to the pedo/boarderline pedo groups, like TTA/TTC.
Aside from that, tumblr, Gelbooru, etc. don't seem to care about such things.
No.10021
>>9738
You'd be right if you weren't wrong.
The difference is you don't play a violent videogame because you have urges to be violent. The violence of the game serves the mechanics, and the mechanics are what's fun. When someone jerks it to art of an underage kid, they're not jerking it to the artstyle. They're doing it because they get off to kids being tickled.
Nice strawman though.
>>10016
:^(
No.10022
>>10021
You're missing the point
you've totally taken the human element out of the situation, wherein nobody is being harmed or exploited, and therefor can't be compared to the real thing. Fiction is not real.
No.10023
>>10021
>you don't play a violent videogame because you have urges to be violent
I disagree, violence is a very primal human urge and games are a great outlet for it in today's society where it's unacceptable IRL.
No.10032
>>10023
I think the poster meant that the player isn't going to enact the violence in the game IRL This the tired argument advocates use when they want to restrict and or ban video games. I agree, games can be an outlet, much like horror movies are a controlled way to let us experience being scared.
No.10033
>>10023
Depends on the game really. They can used for many means. For example I don't think playing civ plays for the same reason someone plays Destiny.
No.10038
>>10021
When I jerkoff to twomario's drawings, I'm doing so because I find his artstyle hot. The fact that many of his drawings involve underage characters isn't on my mind.
Nice generalization, though.
No.10039
>>10038
>>10038
>The fact that many of his drawings involve underage characters isn't on my mind.
>
>>10038
Really? I'm not calling you a liar, but isn't the content as whole what is turning you on? Or are you saying tickling in general turns you on and you don't care who is being tickled or what age they are.
No.10040
>>10039
General tickling fetish mixed with a general foot fetish. I like how he constructs feet and presents it as a form of tickle torture. The scenario is generally of third or fourth importance, unless it's something guro/vore-ish, in which case it's point number one…for me to switch tabs.
No.10041
>>10040
Ok, I'll buy it. I know there will be folks that can't see that, but I can certainly believe that a person can be turned on by the general fetish without targeting a specific part of it. Me personally? I'm very specific about who, what, where, ect.
No.10046
>>10038
Have to agree that art style can play a part. Will also chime in and say that if I find a character that is underage attractive, it's not their age but primarily their cuteness backed up by their personality and possibly something they wear (Usually footwear) that is the main attraction.
No.10048
>>10017
Guess I'll have to use Kusubooru and Exhentai then.
>>10033
Civ isn't a war game though. It's an empire building game that sometimes involves war.
No.11569
God. This community sucks so much fucking ass.
No.11572
Did any of this have to do with the picture of Princess Tiana from the Frog Prince? I feel that that was a large part of it.
No.11577
No.11593
I know this is technically off topic but does anyone else find it funny that all the ladies in CAB's Mr. Fetish comics are reskinned versions of Erin Ensurance?
No.11594
>>11593
Yes, but that's also more or less the only thing I like about them.
No.11605
>>11593
You're forgetting that they all have Kim Possible's hair too!