Origins of tickle fetish

I'm reading David Deida's "The way of the superior man" a spiritual guide to mastering the challenges of women, work and sexual desire. While reading I noted some things that could be related to the tickle fetish.

In Chapt 35 "You (men/masculine) are always looking for freedom. He describes the masculine(women can be masculine too but most men) as always looking for freedom. The void.

"the essential masculine ecstasy is in the moment of release from constraint. This could occur when facing death and living through it, succeeding in (and thus being released from ) your purpose, and in competition(which is the ritual threat of death). The masculine is always seeking release from constraint into freedom. The feminine often doesn't understand these masculine ways and needs" Deida 126

Huh? I never thought about it that way!?! So what does that mean? He explains numerous examples of how our masculine loves freedom. His first example is male orgasm, there is a build up of tension, fantasizing about your woman and what you want to do to her ...the longer the build up the better the resulting orgasm....and ahhh. Freedom of that tension. No more desire. You or your guy just is. Doesn't want to talk/cuddle ect he just wants to revel in his freedom.

Next example is sports. Usually it's an offense trying to overcome a defense to get to freedom. Extreme excitement is a result. Think kick off returner once he breaks a few tackles to get into the open field. The more broken tackles the better he and everyone who is watching at home gets.

I'm getting to the tickle part soon..

In chapt 36 he begins the chapt by asking "When was the last time you really ravaged your woman?" "That is, when was the last time you really took her savagely, lovingly with inhibition whatsoever?" He then goes on to say that most men do not do this, yet they have a deep desire to. They suppress this desire for numerous reasons: insecurities, fear, social conditioning( i'm sure you can come up with more, these are/were mine). As a result this desire to ravage his woman is buried deep within the psyche disconnected with the heart.

The difference between rape and ravishment is love.

The desire to ravage goes along with the masculine desire for freedom above. "the desire to ravish is the desire to break through a woman's resistances to open her heart and body to ecstatic loving. Not being fully in touch with this part of our masculine makes us try to realize it in different ways...

Tickling can be loving....but anyone ever tickle someone that hated it. Here the masculine is trying to open up the ticklee's body to physical touch to elicit laughter and joy. He is dominant and the lee surrenders herself to him. Not without a play fight/wrestling match but eventually she gives up to his tickling and just takes it. This is the moment of ecstasy for the tickler...the getting past her defenses and having his way.

Any thoughts on my theory? Basically it's far more psychological than physical. I'll talk about why ticklee's love tickling in a bit based on Deida.

GQ

Cool.

GQguy said:

Basically it's far more psychological than physical.

Click to expand...

Very nice, intelligent post. And the above quote is true. They are tied into one another though. Quite deeply I believe.

The difference between rape and ravishment is love.

Click to expand...

I call bullshit.

CrystalLight said:

I call bullshit.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Why?

I like your theory/potential explanation. It's something I've never considered, before, and I've been baffled for a LONG time as to where this friggin' fetish came from. I find the "ravish" theory very plausible. Self-restraint is also a common theme, when I think about how one tries to initiate physical acts of love, which can often be met with discouraging apprehension: "Stop, your face hurts! I don't feel like it. My head hurts. etc." When the woman's got control of the love-making pretty much all the time, having the control once in a while can be quite a release!

GQguy said:

Basically it's far more psychological than physical. I'll talk about why ticklee's love tickling in a bit based on Deida.

GQ

Click to expand...

Oh...please hurry!

I like what you've written here so far, very interesting theories...I think they're quite accurate.

GQguy said:

Interesting. Why?

Click to expand...

It's hard for me to explain, but I'll try.

Although ravishment is an action that can be easily perceived as causing the woman to feel cared for and "loved", the element of rape can carry that same feeling. You have a man who "has to have you" in any way possible and is willing to over step societal boundaries to express these feelings. Although the words are different, many of the actions involved are similar. Women like to feel cared for and desired. I personally think also that rape [[within consensual bounds]] is a more masculine version of ravishment.

GQguy said:

The difference between rape and ravishment is love.

The desire to ravage goes along with the masculine desire for freedom above. "the desire to ravish is the desire to break through a woman's resistances to open her heart and body to ecstatic loving. Not being fully in touch with this part of our masculine makes us try to realize it in different ways...

Click to expand...

CrystalLight said:

I call bullshit.

Click to expand...

GQguy said:

Interesting. Why?

Click to expand...

Ugh... There's a VERY FINE line distinguishing rape and ravishment. I don't know if I'd sum it up with love, because a man may be acting out of love, but if the woman doesn't want it, it's rape. It reminds me of all the women who have rape fantasies. It's too much of a gray area to play with safely. One can never truly know if the woman they're "ravishing" really means yes when she says "no". I find it amusing to watch Hollywood portray these scenarios, too. Guy and girl argue and fight, guy begins to "ravish" woman who resists, kicks, punches guy, and then begins to moan and accept it, really "wanting" it in the end.

Flatfoot said:

Ugh... There's a VERY FINE line distinguishing rape and ravishment. I don't know if I'd sum it up with love, because a man may be acting out of love, but if the woman doesn't want it, it's rape. It reminds me of all the women who have rape fantasies. It's too much of a gray area to play with safely. One can never truly know if the woman they're "ravishing" really means yes when she says "no". I find it amusing to watch Hollywood portray these scenarios, too. Guy and girl argue and fight, guy begins to "ravish" woman who resists, kicks, punches guy, and then begins to moan and accept it, really "wanting" it in the end.

Click to expand...

It's really all about knowing your partner, absolutely. This scenario wouldn't even be close to appropriate in a circumstance of two strangers. -- I personally don't really think that "love" always has much to do with either side of those terms also. Sometimes it's more about expressing the idea of love, instead of the actual act of it.

CrystalLight said:

It's hard for me to explain, but I'll try.

Although ravishment is an action that can be easily perceived as causing the woman to feel cared for and "loved", the element of rape can carry that same feeling. You have a man who "has to have you" in any way possible and is willing to over step societal boundaries to express these feelings. Although the words are different, many of the actions involved are similar. Women like to feel cared for and desired. I personally think also that rape [[within consensual bounds]] is a more masculine version of ravishment.

Click to expand...

Rape is exactly the same as ravishment save for the "love" or heart connection. Think of the hallway sex scene in the movie "unfaithful" with Diane Lane. He savagely takes her not to assert dominance, but because he loves her. Rapist only care about dominance...it has nothing to do with sexual gratification. With ravishment both people become closer. Ravishment is not even about sexual gratification either. If the guy gets his jollies off too soon it's no fun. It's the connection. She submits willingly and he has her.

GQguy said:

Rape is exactly the same as ravishment save for the "love" or heart connection. Think of the hallway sex scene in the movie "unfaithful" with Diane Lane. He savagely takes her not to assert dominance, but because he loves her. Rapist only care about dominance...it has nothing to do with sexual gratification. With ravishment both people become closer. Ravishment is not even about sexual gratification either. If the guy gets his jollies off too soon it's no fun. It's the connection. She submits willingly and he has her.

Click to expand...

People are judged by the results of their actions, regardless of intent. Even if a man and woman love each other, and he savagely has his way with her, it doesn't guarantee she's gonna feel the same way in the end if she wasn't in the mood. Sometimes, no means no. Some women may enjoy the scenario and/or have rape/ravish fantasies, and like Jo said, it's all about trust, but I wouldn't risk it.

Also, I guess this isn't really important, but Unfaithful was a HILARIOUS (maybe disturbing is more appropriate...) movie. Woman bored with dry, emotionless relationship to Richard Gere cheats with French guy. Richard Gere murders French guy with a snow globe, family is briefly questioned by cops, and everything goes back to normal. What's the moral to THAT story???

From dictionary;

Rape, violation, assault, ravishment:
the crime of forcing a woman to submit to sexual intercourse against her will.

Entrancement, ravishment:
a feeling of delight at being filled with wonder and enchantment.

I suppose the woman involved should have the last word to settle what the advances of the male really were in a particular case, because a rapist will always said that he just wanted to give the woman "a feeling of delight at being filled with wonder and enchantment"

Flatfoot said:

People are judged by the results of their actions, regardless of intent. Even if a man and woman love each other, and he savagely has his way with her, it doesn't guarantee she's gonna feel the same way in the end if she wasn't in the mood. Sometimes, no means no. Some women may enjoy the scenario and/or have rape/ravish fantasies, and like Jo said, it's all about trust, but I wouldn't risk it.

Also, I guess this isn't really important, but Unfaithful was a HILARIOUS (maybe disturbing is more appropriate...) movie. Woman bored with dry, emotionless relationship to Richard Gere cheats with French guy. Richard Gere murders French guy with a snow globe, family is briefly questioned by cops, and everything goes back to normal. What's the moral to THAT story???

Click to expand...

The main point I was trying to make is that the tickling fetish and the desire to dominate a ticklee is misplaced energy. The masculine part of men likes to dominate. The productive way to dominate to to ravishy your woman lovingly. The destructive way is to rape. Tickling is just another way to ravish(consensual tickling) or rape(non consensual). By fully understanding that the masculine enjoys domination and that it is ok to lovingly ravish your woman(most secretly desire it) this can allow us to take this part of our nature and do good.

Analyzing myself I feel that tickling might have been a way for me to exercise my desire to dominate without sex being involved because at a sub conscious level I felt that sex was wrong for whatever reason(my tickle fetish was in full bloom with my virginity intact). Understanding why I dig tickling allows me to connect that with sex for the mutual benefit of my partner and myself. As opposed to holding down my partner and tickling her (they always hate that) I can hold her down and ravish her romantically yet savagely (something every girl i've dated has wanted) and get the same high that I would get from tickling her while giving her a high of her own.

Everyone wins because I acknowledged that i'm not a sweet lover but a passionate, rough domineering and loving lover. My theory is that every tickler out there..... while a tickling machine....is secretly a sex machine waiting to be unleashed.

GQ

Flatfoot said:

Ugh... There's a VERY FINE line distinguishing rape and ravishment. I don't know if I'd sum it up with love, because a man may be acting out of love, but if the woman doesn't want it, it's rape. It reminds me of all the women who have rape fantasies. It's too much of a gray area to play with safely. One can never truly know if the woman they're "ravishing" really means yes when she says "no". I find it amusing to watch Hollywood portray these scenarios, too. Guy and girl argue and fight, guy begins to "ravish" woman who resists, kicks, punches guy, and then begins to moan and accept it, really "wanting" it in the end.

Click to expand...

Not always:





Oh wait. You said Hollywood.

Let me sum this up....you think people who have a tickling fetish use tickling although they actually want sex? I say they first want tickling and THEN sex.

interesting piece of writing

rhiannon said:

Let me sum this up....you think people who have a tickling fetish use tickling although they actually want sex? I say they first want tickling and THEN sex.

Click to expand...

Yes. This. Not all the time but yes, mostly this.

rhiannon said:

Let me sum this up....you think people who have a tickling fetish use tickling although they actually want sex? I say they first want tickling and THEN sex.

Click to expand...

Ehh. More or less. I think tickling is done as a safer more tame and innocent replacement for the more wild savage uninhibited sex we really want deep down inside. I'd dare even say that tickling as children is practice for the sexual dominant submissive roles we'll play as adults. We as tickle fetishist simply clung on to this way of expressing our inner desires for what ever reason. Uninhibited totally dom/sub sex is not an easy or safe thing to engage in. "what will she think? what will he think? i'm not like that, i'm innocent" might be a few of the inner thoughts that manifest our desires in our tickle fetish.

Think about it objectively. Tickling while awesome as a lee or ler is fun and gives you a mental "high". Imagine having sex that also gave you that high of tickling but also an amazing orgasm. Most of the women I date HATE being tickled. Yet they tolerate it because it brings out the dominant side of me. They like being held down, tied up and held close with my hands rubbing all over their bodies with little they can do about it. They would rather I did all of the stuff that goes with tickling minus the tickling part and adding sex. Realizing that I too love sex and love to dominate allows me to unleash the inner sex beast within. Instead of tickling her mercilessly I ravish her savagely. Sounds like the fantasy of every woman i've dated and now it's mine. We both end the encounter with amazing orgasms seeing as we both have fulfilled our deepest sexual desires.

This is just a theory. But it's already improved my quality of life. Hopefully it also helps someone else out! It might even save a relationship or two. Women LOVE a man that can give them the sex they want. They'll never leave.

GQ

i think what crystal is saying (and keep in mind i am not speaking for her but if this is another way to explain it then i agree) is that since the down of mankind there has been sex used for really 3 things. One is reproduction, which can be for love or instead of rape i want to use the word lust.......the second sex is for is pleasure: many of times between a couple it is mutaul and often times love, however also between couples and always with random partners its a lustful desire of power. people have the urge to have sex, and when they do they normally do it in a lustful rage rather than a loving emotion... the last way sex has been used which we dont see anymore due to societies views upon it is for power: during the days of concubines men where encouraged to have many wives to look powerful. this was for a lust of power that just happened to deem sex into it. so realistically by todays standards rape only occurs when there isnt two consenting adults to sex....but what i think the author in your book is getting at is that lust is very much alive and is almost impossible at times to seperate lust from sex even if you love someone

proud2tickle said:

i think what crystal is saying (and keep in mind i am not speaking for her but if this is another way to explain it then i agree) is that since the down of mankind there has been sex used for really 3 things. One is reproduction, which can be for love or instead of rape i want to use the word lust.......the second sex is for is pleasure: many of times between a couple it is mutaul and often times love, however also between couples and always with random partners its a lustful desire of power. people have the urge to have sex, and when they do they normally do it in a lustful rage rather than a loving emotion... the last way sex has been used which we dont see anymore due to societies views upon it is for power: during the days of concubines men where encouraged to have many wives to look powerful. this was for a lust of power that just happened to deem sex into it. so realistically by todays standards rape only occurs when there isnt two consenting adults to sex....but what i think the author in your book is getting at is that lust is very much alive and is almost impossible at times to seperate lust from sex even if you love someone

Click to expand...

This is the misconception in my opinion. Why can't lustful rage be loving? I think we're getting caught up in words and missing the true meaning. Ravish is meant to please both parties when I used it here with one being the dominant and the other the submissive and satisfying the desire to act as sub/dom. Rape is meant to please one person and the other is forced with violence to act as a sub. The dom in a rape is fulfilling their desire to be dominant.

In relating to tickling

Non consensual tickling ---> tickle rape
Consensual tickle torture----> tickle ravishment

GQ

I think tickling is done as a safer more tame and innocent replacement for the more wild savage uninhibited sex we really want deep down inside.

Click to expand...

I think only someone who is into tickling would think that it is safer, more tame and innocent than wild sex. Just about everybody else would think of tickling as torture!

I'd dare even say that tickling as children is practice for the sexual dominant submissive roles we'll play as adults.

Click to expand...

Daring theory, but I doubt it. I was hardly ever tickled as a child because I hated it, and I never tickled anyone. Yet I have always been sexually interested in it - even when I was a child.

Women LOVE a man that can give them the sex they want. They'll never leave.

Click to expand...

They will if the sex is all he has to offer!

i really hoenstly dont think it has anything to do with tickling... i mean and some people claim that one is raped when they have had to much to drink and end up sleeping with someone they wouldnt have in a non sober mood......and tickling forever isnt sexual...

rhiannon said:

I think only someone who is into tickling would think that it is safer, more tame and innocent than wild sex. Just about everybody else would think of tickling as torture!

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I was taught as a kid that sex was for marriage only. That sex causes disease and can kill you. Sex will also result in a child before you're ready and will kill all of your dreams. Sex before marriage is also a sin according to the bible. If a woman enjoys sex she is a slut. If a guy enjoys sex too much he is a player. Sex should be slow and gentle and done while listening to barry white and being careful not to hurt your partner because they're fragile. These are just a few of my sex hang ups growing up. I'm sure there are many others out there! So by burying my desire for sex due to all of these restriction my desire manifested it;s self in tickling. It's innocent. Hell, I could even say I don't watch porn by watching tickling videos. Look how pure I am!Tickling has none of these hang ups. And again this is not a conscious decision...but a sub conscious. Of course this stance alienated many of the women I was with and left me unfulfilled. Perhaps finding a lee on the personals forum would help. But the truth is even if I did i'd still want more! That's what is so liberating about getting this part of me figured out.

rhiannon said:

Daring theory, but I doubt it. I was hardly ever tickled as a child because I hated it, and I never tickled anyone. Yet I have always been sexually interested in it - even when I was a child.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying all tickle fetishist are like this. I'm saying that the general population when experimenting with tickling as a kid while not sexual are learning about what sexual roles they enjoy. Most won't link ticking to sexuality...some will. It's not about the physical aspect of tickling but the mental aspect...so being tickled as a kid has little bearing. It's like knowing that you'd like sex before you ever had it by watching it on tv.

rhiannon said:

They will if the sex is all he has to offer!

Click to expand...

If a guy truly cares for a woman and he gives her toe curling orgasms every time...she isn't going anywhere. Hell, I dare you to pick a better way to keep your woman around ;O)

I appreciate your comments! Keep em coming! My favorite subject sex and pleasing women!

“While I may use men and masculine/ women and feminine interchangeably they are not. Men have feminine traits and women have masculine. But to be truly feminine that person has to be with their compliment...truly masculine.”

Essentially your theory said: “The “Masculine is Dominant”, “The feminine is Submissive”. Not all women are submissive but the feminine is. Tickling is a form of submission so the masculine likes to be the tickler and the feminine the ticklee. Therefore the man (usually but not always the masculine) is the tickler and the woman (usually the feminine but not always) the ticklee”.

I disagree (peacefully). The feminine is not necessary submissive, in fact is most of the time dominant. However, the feminine is passive.
There is a clear difference between the two,
Submissive
Willing to submit to the action without resistance
Passive
Willing to be the recipient of the action not the origin

No women/man submits to the tickling, they accept to receive the action (tickling) i.e., to be passive. Is consensual, one gives the action (tickler) the other receives the action (ticklee) in mutual agreement. In reality, nobody has “submit” to anything, each part in use of his or her freedom has agree to engage in the activity.

When tickling is related to submission is quite a different business altogether. Darwin has given the theory about the origin of ticking and ticklishness that I think is closed to nail it. It goes more or less like this:
In an hierarchical pack of primates, in which hierarchy is related to brain development, like chimps or humans (at not only odour like ants) tickling is a pacific way to assert authority. A member of the pack to demonstrate it dominance over another member of the pack can kill the other member of the pack or just tickle it. Is like “I could kill you, but instead I going to tickle you”. Tickling leaves you defenceless; a shaking gelatine, and very vulnerable. No, matter your rank in the pack, or if you are male or female, if they tickle you in public you have less authority. The power is in the hand of the tickler, he/she can abuse it at will. Therefore, Darwin suggested that tickling evolved as a pacific way to assert authority, better than to kill. In fact, parents do assert authority by playfully tickling their children. Moreover, children do it between themselves too. And if you try to tickle your boss without his/her permission you will be fired, you do not tickle your superior. Tickling does not recognize authority, if they got you, you will be a giggling mess…not the natural condition for the leader of the pack.

When two adults engage in tickling with sexual intentions (foreplay), being M/F, M/M or F/F, they are not submitting to anything, is consensual, if they agree to play the passive role is because they trust so much the partner as to allow him/her to overpower them. And goes without saying, they enjoy to be tickled, if not they would not allow to be overpowered into hysteric laughter by you or anybody else.

So I do not think tickling as activity is related to the feminine or masculine, tickling is just a form to relate to another human being (M or F) which is totally dependent on context.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

And one side note, by no means to be passive means not to be dominant. The spider is a formidable hunter, and a passive one. She has to wait in the web until a fly is seduced into enter it. She does not take action she receives the action, which is carried by the prey. If the prey never goes to the web, the spider would never hunt anything. But if the fly enter the web, the dominant role is on the spider.

Do not be fooled into think that the women are submissive, they are passive….passive hunters which wait for the man….like a spider wait for the fly.

And the fly says:
-I am dominant, I do all the masculine stuff allowing you to be completely feminine! Without me you will not go far!- I will tickle you to death!

And the spider respond:
-Sure dear…come to my web- I am so ticklish and feminine….

And so the fly goes to tickle the spider to death....who's in control?

The man may be strong but the woman is astute. And the astute dominate the strong which in turn dominates the weak, therefore women dominate the world and if they want and please them they let you to tickle them.