Tickled Aftermath

[Katrine Freggiaro]

Tickledis a 2016 New Zealand documentary about "competitive endurance tickling" and videos featuring it, and the practices of those producing the videos. It is directed by David Farrier and Dylan Reeve. The film explores possible legal and ethical issues with certain individuals making the videos, and has itself been the subject of legal challenges. A follow-up special, The Tickle King, aired on HBO in February 2017.[2][3]

David Farrier, a New Zealand television reporter whose beat focuses on "quirky and odd stories",[4] encounters online videos depicting "competitive endurance tickling", an activity in which young athletic men are restrained and tickled by each other. He begins to research it for a story and requests an interview with the videos' producer, Jane O'Brien Media. The company responds with a volatile email, refusing to "associate with a homosexual journalist",[5] although Farrier is actually bisexual.[6] Farrier, bewildered at the hostile response, partners with television producer Dylan Reeve to dig deeper into the mysterious producers.[5]

After their initial blog posts about the story go viral, Farrier and Reeve receive legal threats from Jane O'Brien Media, who send Kevin Clarke and two other representatives to New Zealand to meet with them. Although their interactions are superficially cordial, the Jane O'Brien Media representatives bully the investigators to drop the project. Farrier and Reeve respond by following the representatives to Los Angeles to an apparent video recording location, but are turned away at the door.

Researching the phenomenon further, Farrier and Reeve uncover information about a person known as "Terri DiSisto" (alias "Terri Tickle"), who pioneered recruiting and distributing tickling videos online in the 1990s. They interview independent tickling-video producer Richard Ivey, whose operations are comparatively low-key, and also acknowledge a homoerotic aspect. Former participants in Jane O'Brien Media's videos describe coercive and manipulative treatment by the producers, such as defamation campaigns against them, exposing their personal information, and contacting associates to discredit them as homosexual or as sexual deviants, all in retaliation for speaking out against the company. A local recruiter in Muskegon, Michigan, describes "audition" videos he helped make that were published by O'Brien Media without the participants' consent.

Farrier and Reeve discover documents on a defunct tickling video web site that link Jane O'Brien Media to David D'Amato, the former school administrator behind the "Terri Tickle" alias. From two journalists who had investigated Terri DiSisto years earlier, they learn that D'Amato served a six-month prison sentence for disabling computer systems at two different universities in retaliation against an 18-year-old male student who attempted to terminate an online relationship, which began when the young man was 17.[7][8] They determine that D'Amato now lives on a substantial inheritance from his father, a successful lawyer.[9] After considerable effort to locate D'Amato, they confront him on the street, and he responds with additional legal threats. Before returning to New Zealand, Farrier contacts D'Amato's stepmother for comment. She implicitly confirms her stepson's "tickling" past, and Farrier informs her that he believes D'Amato is still involved in it. The last thing she says is that she is "afraid" of D'Amato.

Under the working title Tickle King: The Hunt for the Truth in Competitive Tickling, Farrier and Reeve raised NZ$29,570 for the film on Kickstarter in June 2014, intended primarily to cover the costs of the crew traveling to the United States for a week.[4] The project also received funding from the New Zealand Film Commission.[10]

The film was screened in January 2016 at the Sundance Film Festival, after which Magnolia Pictures picked up its distribution rights and HBO picked up its U.S. TV rights.[10] In March 2016, it was presented as part of the True/False Film Festival.

Tickled received critical acclaim. On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of 120 critics' reviews of the film are positive, with an average rating of 7.6/10; the site's "critics consensus" reads: "Tickled uses an investigation into a silly-seeming subculture as the launching point for thought-provoking insights into online bullying and the destructive abilities of the internet."[11] On Metacritic, the film has a score of 76 out of 100 based on reviews from 28 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[12]

D'Amato attended the 18 June 2016 screening of the film at the Nuart Theater in Los Angeles, and confronted Dylan Reeve, saying, "You need to lawyer up. You need to get criminal counsel." Clarke argued with Reeve during a public question-and-answer session after the film, saying, "The film is a piece of garbage full of lies. Release the audio tapes that show you're lying. And if you don't release it, it's the same as admitting you're lying."[22]

Additionally, D'Amato filed a $40 million defamation and slander lawsuit in Nassau County court against his stepmother Dorothy D'Amato, alleging that she made statements in the film with the intention to injure his business, causing mental distress.[23]

On 13 March 2017, at age 55, D'Amato died.[24] The filmmakers posted a statement on their website in which they said they were "incredibly sad" to learn of his passing, and asked that his death be treated with respect.[25]

My company has had a relatively informal, somewhat relaxed working environment in the past, where colleagues generally got along well and we had a decent time together, even while working hard. Unfortunately, that balance has recently been upended in department I work in.

In a more ancient context, we homo sapiens and neandertalus were weaker, slower, inferior in most ways to m0st contemporary predators. The only way they could survive was by working together and helping each other. A human at that time consigned to isolation was going to die if they could not find another group to run with.

I was molested when I was a child. If my coworker touched me without permission, especially when I was in such a vulnerable position, I would have called the police and if they were not fired I would quit on the spot.

I had to train myself to NOT respond violently when watching my 3 year old twin cousins. They lived tickling me. (Fortunately my big problem is elevated startle response, and I have hit people before I could consciously control my reaction. )

Exactly this. If someone started touching my feet while I was vulnerable under a desk, I would have instinctively kicked them, and kicked them really hard. I would also have probably had a weird panic reaction and tried to flee. I absolutely would have cursed her out.

If I consent to the touch, by which I mean I solicit it, not just endure it to get along (like at work where the hair ruffling and shoulder patting tend to happen) I am completely fine. I can hug family members and friends, etc. It is only unwanted touching that reminds me and upsets me.

And somehow I thought in my original read that Monica had been moved to another department after the incident. Upon reread, I see I made that up. If possible, that should be done. As should moving desks. But, still, they are both employed there, and Rachel has to at least treat Monica professionally in the work place.

You may not be the only one, but I think you must be in a small minority. I think you will always be in the minority even as our society is moving to a place where tickling is less acceptable than it used to be. It used to be completely acceptable and considered fun.

So was I and I would find it very distressing to be restrained and touched against my will. I would miss several days of work to get back to a stable place mentally and would seriously not trust this colleague or want to engage with her socially for a long while.

But for people who havent been through that its really difficult for them to understand how big an issue it really is Monica crossed a serious boundary, was unprofessional and poorly thought through. But she likely saw it as a playful thing at the time with no malice intended. I would be far from happy about it but if its the first and only time than firing her is a bit extreme. She has learned a valuable lesson but doesnt deserve to lose her income and potentially her fiscal stability over it. Or to have a toxic work environment. I can totally relate to how Rachel felt at the time but its way too extreme a response

I hate being touched or tickled and I would have been mortified. In fact it probably would have majorly affected my anxiety as well. I would definitely be uncomfortable for a bit around her while some trust boundaries were reassured but as an isolated incident it wouldnt be worth firing someone over. I could see if Rachel was distant and not as friendly with monica as before for a while but openly campaigning to get her fired is pretty extreme.

I think both Rachel and Monica made the mistake of thinking that behavior that might be acceptable in their private lives is ok at work. Monica made a mistake by touching a coworker in a way you might touch a close friend; Rachel responded to that mistake by treating the rest of their coworkers like a social circle that could cut Monica out, not a group of professionals who just need to get on with their jobs.

If Rachel is wrestling with a larger story, she could choose to seek counseling. Instead she is choosing to seek revenge by involving everyone around her. The problem comes in when sometimes revenge is insatiable.

Monica made a really dumb, probably very impulsive choice. She was reprimanded and warned of consequences going forward. I dare day she will *never* do anything like that, to anyone at any workplace ever again. Lesson learned.

I am in an alternative lifestyle where distinguishing between abusive touch and acceptable touch is key because how it LOOKS is in every way indistinguishable and the ONLY demarcation between is the informed consent given ahead of time.

3a8082e126