Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
Lines: 15
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: cdevillon@aol.comNOSPAM (Jami)
Newsgroups: alt.multimedia.tk
Date: 28 Apr 2004 14:56:36 GMT
References: <99d529ed.0404280450.17580b48@posting.google.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Nonconsentual tickle video
Message-ID: <20040428105636.15479.00000474@mb-m05.aol.com>
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.multimedia.tk:1909
>If it was pure non-con (where the ticklee didn't consent) then don't
>you think FP would be out of business w/pending litigation?
But it was *tickling* - even torturous, non-con tickling would be laughed out
of court. People hear the word tickling and they think it's all good clean fun,
even non-con tickling. It's, in a way, like when my nephew was molested -
because the guy (his mom's boyfriend) was bathing him at the time (my nephew
was 3 years old) the bastard got away with it, the mom refused to report it
because of that. (And she was sleeping with the bastard.) So even if there was
a tape where the woman was screaming and pleading the courts would've said
"It's just tickling, lady, you weren't raped or touched in a sexual manner. Get
over yourself." And tossed the case out.
~Jami~
"For 30 years my patients have walked out on me, and I couldn't be more proud."
Dr. Allan Elfant, Podiatrist
|
|