Feet in a circle

What's New?


Visit MTJ Publications for a great selection of tickling comics and stories!

New from MTJ

Parker #7

Click here

Amateur Clips

Amateur Clips Click the image to visit!

Forced tickling


The largest clips store online

Honor Roll

Thank you to all of our Patrons!
Thank you all!

Tkle 26
Tickle Labs
The Tickle Room
The Bandito
Oekaki Tickles
MTJ Publishing
Justin Sane
Doctor D

Become a TMF Supporter

Explore the TMF

Link Us!

Link your site to the TMF. Info here

Live Camgirls!

Live Camgirls

Streaming Videos

Pic of the Week

Pic of the Week

Trivia Winner:


Blog Comments

    Myraids, very interesting and well-done, but I feel that the explanation of a deviant arousal cue lacks a very important factor, one that is particularly strong in our kink but universal across all human sexuality: our socialization with others, particularly peers and those closest to us, such as caregivers; and media/cultural materials that give a view of various types of social interaction... Especially in early childhood, when language develops, and imaginative play, and cooperative play and learning, and (for most in our culture by at least age 5, but often as early as 2 or 3, routine enviornmental exposure to peers of both genders in an environment which Foster's social communication, learning and bonds between peer groups....school, kindergarten is mandatory by 5-6 in most states; many attend preschool younger; with more parents working full time than ever often daycare/nursery since infacy, even. While this can be included in "enviornmental", I felt that the idea of a biological arousal coupled with a random cue, often visual, missed the complexity of how social interaction may affect the development of fetishes. Maybe John had a biological arousal cue paired with an inappropriate enviornmental cue, he was being mocked by peers, and the pairing birthed a humiliation kink. Or maybe John had often been ignored by the particular peers in question, who were more well-liked socially among the class, or were the best runners or could throw a baseball furthest or were doted on by teachers for various reasons, John felt a bit of a mix of admiration and envy for these peers, suddenly they are all paying him attention...even if it's negative attention. Or maybe John thrives on negative attention. At home his parents never pay much mind to him unless he acts out. He begins acting out in school too to gain attention from peers or teachers, the winning of this attention, although often negative, has already been set into his developing personality as positive, since otherwise he only has known neglect and has adapted to socialize through poor behavior instead of good. Then the biological arousal... Or, maybe not. Maybe it happens later at home instead, where he is simply remembering how he became the focus of these peers' attention, and despite it being negative, has been conditioned already, socially, to feel pleased by their negative attention, to view it as a reward...and then the arousal biologically. Did this create an eventual deviant sexual interest in being humiliated, simply because it was what he was randomly experiencing or thinking of at the time?? Or, did John's feelings socially of admiration and wish to be noticed by these peers, or his history of familial neglect and subsequent learning that getting yelled at or name called is a social reward, plant the seed instead? Or was it both? This could be debated quite a lot. Perhaps even if John experienced the biological arousal while receiving a rare moment of praise, positive attention....the "negative behavior gets me a reward of attention" would already be so hardwired socially that the praise aligning with the moment of biological arousal would not change the course of his sexual development, rather it would be one off moment in a pileup of moments John has stored of feeling rewarded by negative attention, and would therefore not even register with him sexually or affect his eventual preference in the slightest. Or maybe it would, but the praise-giver had blond hair or wore stockings, that be happened to be noticing, and the blond hair or stockings, not the positive attention, paired with the biological arousal would become a factor in his future sexuality. Or it could get ever more complex based on a number of socially conditioned feelings: let's say John has a predisposition to bisexuality, and in adulthood will desire sexual interaction with both men and women.
    But.... the moment of biological arousal, is paired with being mocked, by exclusively male peers. . While his parents both neglect him at home, his father will be more quick to react and vicious in his response to John's acting out than his mother. Since women are often the nurturers in our culture, let's say one female teacher, or even a female peer, noticed how John's behavior seems to be a cry for normalcy in his social functioning, that he is capable of positive behavior but has been so deprived of positive attention that he enjoys negative attention now simply because he has learned it is easier to gain. The teacher or sympathetic female peer, becomes remarkably different in her level of patience and response to his negative behavior... Giving praise at the slightest sign of anything positive he does, overlooking purposeful negative behavior instead of reaction g in the way he is used to. Then he experiences a moment of biological arousal simultaneous to praise from her. As he grows older he finds more ease in receiving sympathetic and kind responses from females than males in general than hostility and put-downs. Or maybe culturally, he notices stories more frequently of the patient, kind and physically attractive female who overcomes the tortured past of a boy just like himself and discovers the "good guy" beneath the dysfunction. It is now possible that John could develop an interesting split in his eventual sexual interests as a bisexual, based on social interaction and gender. The biological arousal, plus mocking by male peers, plus more overall lifelong experiences of ease in gaining negative attention from males and feeling pleased and rewarded by it, may mean that when John feels sexual desire for another male, he wishes to be humiliated, called names, physically beat up or otherwise receive negative attention from his male partner. Nothing turns him on more than a guy who calls him awful mean names or hits him or belittles him.... But a male who is interested in him sexually, and behaves in a loving and kind manner, he finds that an utter turn off, and rejects these potential partners in favor of ones who will satisfy his humiliation kink. But
    ... When he sexually desires a woman ... It's because she reminds him of the kindness of that first nurturing teacher or female peer, or cute love interest of the dysfunctional movie character he identifies with who loves him in spite of it all, he has his first crushes on women reminiscent of this. With women, he *only* wants positive attention and unconditional love.... Maybe even to the point that the slightest criticism from a female lover could result in abnormally angry, hurt or resentful feelings, or total loss of sexual interest in her. The idea of being called names and hit by women, he finds utterly disgusting; men who wish to be humiliated by women, their desires are unfathomable to him. Yet with men, humiliation is all he craves. Social interaction and societal norms and random biological arousal comes together in such a complex way as to give him a humiliation kink that is only specific to his sexual interest in other men, with a sexual aversion to men who behave towards him with loving or affectionate or kind interaction. And yet... a deep aversion to humiliation from women he sexually desires, and sexual preference to women who fawn over him and give him nothing but praise and love.

    While males are somewhat more sexually driven by visual cues than women, sexuality is part of social interaction and bonding, and our socialization also greatly affects our future sexual deviancies or preferences.
    Updated 08-04-2019 at 01:15 AM by siamese dream
    That makes sense. Really interesting. Thanks for writing this.
    Good question Annie.

    And a complicated one worthy of its own article.

    But here is a short form answer. Dominance and submission are 'meta' level traits. They are applied across an entire personality, and inform behaviors on that level. A dominate person lives their life in dominate ways, etc.

    It's thought that the sexual development process is strong enough to carve out 'excepted' space in the psychology from that over arching factor. So cues that cross the meta level Dom/sub outlook can become paraphilia and drive sexual behavior. In short, the drive and processes for procreation over power the meta level personality trait.

    Another theory is that Dominance and submission, while core personality traits, function in an uneven way across different psychological states, in that they have points of strong and weak expression. A psychology might compensate for a Life of type 'A' drive with a submissive sexual profile.

    Lastly, another school of thought involves the fact that paraphilia psychology is often functionally independent from greater personality aspects. For example, a sadist might identify as a heterosexual, and only have interest in fucking the opposite gender, but when it comes to servicing their sadistic paraphilia they might be psychologically bi or homosexual, in that they derive pleasure from their paraphilia independent of the gender of the subject they act on. Hurting a male is the same as hurting a female, both arouse and it's about the act not the subject.

    So the paraphilia psychology can express a total different set of personality controlling aspects then the meta psychology.

    No one is quite sure what exactly is correct on this one yet.

    This was a great read. Really fascinating and well written.

    I just have a question. You mentioned how a person could have a kind of predisposition to being submissive or dominant, but a lot of people have a very natural and genuine dominant personality in "normal" life and quite the opposite when it comes to their sexuality. What accounts for this? Is it that one's environment tends to shape one's personality - someone wants to be the CEO of a company they will probably learn to have a assertive characteristics, for instance. Or is it genetic too?
    Best blog post ever!

    Seriously, thank you so much for posting this. It's put a lot of things into perspective lately...

    They are not getting a spot free record. We will ban much faster and with less debate if we see a second chance ID start to act poorly. There is a lot less leeway. But we are not going to be looking for any excuse to whack 'em either.

    Banning is always a last resort in my eyes. Sometimes there is no other option, and we need to take action. But mostly I think situations can be guided to better outcomes in most cases.
    Believe it or not, I can understand the way you're looking at this. However, do you really think it's ok to give someone who's already been banned the same considerations as you would to others? I'm sure there are many of us, myself included, who have said things that come close to crossing the line, my earlier post in the WTF thread for example. But we are ALL afforded a certain amount of leeway because everybody gets riled sometimes and most of us just needs a friendly reminder. Others who persist get the hammer.

    BUT, if a user has already been banned for such offenses and comes back under a different name, why should they get those same "friendly reminders" when their own past history has proven that they will not stop? It's basically like you're allowing these banned members a new membership with a spot-free record. That right there is what I think many take exception to.

    I think I worded this all the way I wanted, though I'm not above making mistakes. You can always contact me if you want further discussion or need clarification to my ramblings.
    I was just reading a book that a father wrote for young girls about life, and it had quite a bit to say about the power we have over whether we let bullies hurt us. A lot of this post rang in a similar chime
    Brilliant post, as usual.
    It's nice to know how you decide things so we can at least try to understand. Thanks for posting this.

    And I'll say this, which I'm sure many will agree, you admins/mods have a very difficult job. Thank you for putting up with us.
    I'm with you on this. There seems to be two, big, different schools of thought about personal expression. Some feel that having a "verbal filter" to alter what one says is actually dishonest, or holding back, if you will. These people feel that raw, honest expression is "true" expression. In many cases, this is true, but like a diamond in the rough, it can often use polishing and shaping to make it REALLY pop! I know about honest, truthful writing, but I understand the importance of courteous communication, and I agree with you that people should take some time to think about what they're about to say before the word vomit flows forth. Raw communication may be honest, but unrefined word choice results in miscommunication, sometimes to the point that the original message is lost to someone taking offense. Then the truth becomes twisted, because it was not refined.

    Part of me wants to say that people are in such a rush to speak to get their point across, that they forget that others have to be able to comprehend their point to "get" it (the one-upping, referenced by Angel77.). Of course, I take a methodical approach to just about everything in life, and I'm learning everyday how short life is, and I worry I'm getting lost in the fray thinking about doing things the right way, while others are acting, making things happen, for good or nil. I guess it all goes back to balance-- in this case, balance of thought versus action.
    Great blog! I've been a member for years but haven't really been all that active,well, posting-wise, until pretty recently. But yep, over the years I've witnessed a lot of "stuff," some bad but mostly good as I really believe the majority of the people here are good people. As for the recent drama that I have seen, I do have a tendency to ignore a lot of it, esp. if it has nothing to do with the original issue at hand. I do see points of view from all angles and it would be nice if some folks could open up to the fact that not everyone is going to agree. Hell, we're human beings (well, most of us anyways lol). But it's how the disagreement posts seem to be said only to "one up" the last one or to try and hurt someone.....something I've just never been for. I really do believe that the TMF is what you make of it and if someone really irks you or bugs you that much, ignore them. There's far more important (and fun) things happening around the TMF.

    Anyhoo, have a great day and thanks for posting that!
    How would you want to be treated if you were where they are?

    Easy. I wouldn't put myself in such a position of blatant ignorance as some of the ones I've seen. Not only out of basic morals, but common sense.

    A mild POS BOS. But not righteously so. -- I disagree with much of this, but get the desire to want to be "peace-giving".
    Overdue for an update....don't make me ghost write this thing, buddy. Find us an hour this month,ok?


    I think you have an excellent way of explaining things to me in a way that I understand. Thank you for that.

    Well said, brother! Hope you keep sharing your insights. I'll be looking in to see.
    That was well said, Myriads. It's something everyone should read.
    Very well said, Myriads.

    I hope you're going to continue writing these...
    Updated 07-07-2009 at 11:06 AM by dvnc
    You're ridiculously awesome
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast