• The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The TMF is sponsored by:

Clips4Sale Banner

The Question of Ethical Tickling

If a guy asks a girl to dance because he'll be sexually aroused by the touching and the body-to-body contact -- and he doesn't disclose that prurient motivation to her -- what you could say about him?
Exactly this:

we're just sighing and rolling our eyes at the concept that getting your thrills off touching someone without them knowing that that element is possibly a part of the interaction
 
If a guy asks a girl to dance because he'll be sexually aroused by the touching and the body-to-body contact -- and he doesn't disclose that prurient motivation to her -- what you could say about him?
Exactly this:

Are you actually pretending to be so socially inept to not be aware that people know physical touch is part of dancing, and that BOTH partners could potentially be enjoying it?
Have you never been dancing? You know, with a person?
 
I think the we all need to answer the simple question that the thread was about. Is it a unethical to tickle a close friend with the cover of playfullness to get a thrill. Technically the answer is yes. I can admit it. Do I think it's a big deal? No. Have I done it? Yes. Will I continue to do it? Yes. We all do things that are technically unethical everyday without thinking about it. NOBODY is living at 100% ethical life.

Now a lot of the examples in the thread dont really work. Is there any other fetish that can be hidden so well with playfullness? I cant think of any. Obviously the one where someone compared it Jared is just absurd.

My wife is a "victim" of this unethical act we are talking about. Before we were even a couple I used to tickle her all the time. I would ask her about her ticklish spots over myspace ( long time ago lol) and get a thrill. At the time she was my best friend. Heres the intresting part. I told her about my fetish BEFORE we became a couple. Here response was pretty much " wow it all makes sense" . No anger or akwardness. Im telling yall its not as big of a deal as some think.

So who cares if its a little unethical. Its just tickling. Nobody is getting hurt. Have fun with life. Its way to short
 
I think the we all need to answer the simple question that the thread was about. Is it a unethical to tickle a close friend with the cover of playfullness to get a thrill. Technically the answer is yes. I can admit it. Do I think it's a big deal? No. Have I done it? Yes. Will I continue to do it? Yes. We all do things that are technically unethical everyday without thinking about it. NOBODY is living at 100% ethical life.

Now a lot of the examples in the thread dont really work. Is there any other fetish that can be hidden so well with playfullness? I cant think of any. Obviously the one where someone compared it Jared is just absurd.

My wife is a "victim" of this unethical act we are talking about. Before we were even a couple I used to tickle her all the time. I would ask her about her ticklish spots over myspace ( long time ago lol) and get a thrill. At the time she was my best friend. Heres the intresting part. I told her about my fetish BEFORE we became a couple. Here response was pretty much " wow it all makes sense" . No anger or akwardness. Im telling yall its not as big of a deal as some think.

So who cares if its a little unethical. Its just tickling. Nobody is getting hurt. Have fun with life. Its way to short

This.
 
This is the standard BS argument the non-consent crowd always tries to make; that you have to have a contract or state your intentions at every moment, which is just another lame attempt to try and make anyone who gives a shit about respecting others as being somehow out of line. No one's asking you to do that. No one's asking you to stop doing anything; we're just sighing and rolling our eyes at the concept that getting your thrills off touching someone without them knowing that that element is possibly a part of the interaction is something you should be congratulated for.

I don't see anywhere in any of my posts that one should be given high fives or anything. And you are obviously backtracking at this point--because if you were simply rolling your eyes like it was no big deal you and others wouldn't be making it such a point to point out how it's unethical. You're the ones being the puritans pointing out the "sins" of others.
 
There are some solidly contrasting views here, and about half of them have nothing to do with the question.



3. The assumption that "it happens all the time every day so it must be ethically fine" is invalid. Apply the line of logic to any other socially controversial behavior and it becomes pretty problematic.

4. The argument that "it wouldn't bother me if it happened to me so it is therefore ethical to do to others" is also extremely concerning. I know four people who do not mind and/or enjoy getting kicked in the genitals, but I assume most men in the thread still feel entitled to complain about it being done to them.

Thanks for the thoughts - I'm not trying to mute the conversation, just figured at 5 pages it was time to chime back in.

There is nothing socially controversial about tickling, so I dunno how you compare it in that regard to "anything else socially controversial." And no one is simply saying "it happens all the time so it's fine." we're saying if both parties are ok with the act itself because of an established friendship or rapport, maybe the motivation behind it isn't nearly as important as both sides being ok with the act for their own reasons.

Genital kicking is not a normally socially acceptable situation, so that argument falls flat on it's face. Friend's past the age of 12 don't typically go around kicking each other in the nuts just for fun. Friends of all ages do tickle each other though without a second thought.
 
There is nothing socially controversial about tickling, so I dunno how you compare it in that regard to "anything else socially controversial." And no one is simply saying "it happens all the time so it's fine." we're saying if both parties are ok with the act itself because of an established friendship or rapport, maybe the motivation behind it isn't nearly as important as both sides being ok with the act for their own reasons.

Genital kicking is not a normally socially acceptable situation, so that argument falls flat on it's face. Friend's past the age of 12 don't typically go around kicking each other in the nuts just for fun. Friends of all ages do tickle each other though without a second thought.

So, basically, your argument is that getting turned on by tickling someone who doesn't know it's turning you on is okay, because since it's socially acceptable, it's easier to conceal.
That's the key, isn't it? It has nothing to do with how another person feels, what their boundaries are. It's about whether you get called out on it or not.
 
There is such a thing as a hand fetishism (cheirophilia). Should those people stop shaking hands with anyone they could possibly consider attractive in any way?
 
So, basically, your argument is that getting turned on by tickling someone who doesn't know it's turning you on is okay, because since it's socially acceptable, it's easier to conceal.
That's the key, isn't it? It has nothing to do with how another person feels, what their boundaries are. It's about whether you get called out on it or not.

To answer your question bluntly: no, it's not about how another person feels. A person's feelings do not make a neutral action right or wrong. If someone had PTSD from a handshake it doesn't make the handshake wrong. Or the person offering the handshake a jerk. That's a 3rd grade mentality, that is very sad it prevails in adulthood so often.

However, the other person has the right to say "I don't handshake." and that's perfectly fine. No one should push it if they don't. Just like no one should push tickling if the other person doesn't want it. That is consent. That is boundaries. But what you are advocating is different boundaries for the same act based on interpretation. Which is NOT an operational way to live. Because according to you, the same thing for someone without a tickle fetish is totally fine, whereas us fetishist must carry around a disclosure letter--or simply not engage in a commonly acceptable act we want to because we "might have ulterior motives."

I'll give you another example--I'm a pretty high ranking chess player--I hide this fact from people I just meet who I want to play chess with because several time's I've gotten the "nooo I don't wanna play with a pro!" yet they will play with anyone else. By your version of the argument here, I'm violating all kinds of boundaries by keeping this a secret and they are playing chess with me under "false pretenses" yet I somehow don't think you are morally outraged by this. Nor would any sane person on the planet. (And if you are outraged by this, you have some deep-seeded issues for which I suggest therapy.)


Where do you draw the line, man? Can a foot-fetishist never offer a friend a foot massage? Can a hair-brushing fetishist never offer a hairbrush or a comb? Or do you just file these regular normal acts as all wrong for SPECIFIC people because of certain underlying emotions they might have regarding the otherwise perfectly normal act? Because it seems like you condemn some, and not others. And you do so without fully understanding the complex emotions of the person initiating it anyway. Maybe in some cases its sexual, in some cases its sensual, in others its just fun. Maybe it does always give the sexual ping--yet you are putting it on the same level as, and using the same accusatory language as people who are basically sexually harassing people.

And no, I am not ok with that accusation. And I think the mental gymnastics with which you get to it, are downright childish.
 
Are you actually pretending to be so socially inept to not be aware that people know physical touch is part of dancing, and that BOTH partners could potentially be enjoying it?
Have you never been dancing? You know, with a person?

"Actually pretending"? "Socially inept" "Have you never been dancing? You know, with a person"?

Not sure how old you are, but insult shaming and schoolyard put downs may feel empowering and bold to you as you type them, but they don't do much to convince third party readers of your arguments, who are calmly sizing up both sides. Think about whether this tactic works on you, when you're reading a debate -- do insults convince you of the shamer's superior reasoning? More like the opposite probably.

Regarding the substance, you've just introduced a new standard, whether "BOTH partners could potentially be enjoying it," as a pivot away from the entire previous discussion: Whether it's immoral not to disclose that actions are sexually motivated. Your new standard appears to be, something like, "Actually, turns out it IS okay after all not to disclose the sexual motivations for an action, shown by the dancing analogy -- provided this new condition is true -- that both parties could potentially be enjoying it."

Not only is it a retreat from or concession of the original argument, seems like I hardly need to remind this audience that both parties can "enjoy" a poke in the sides as well -- exactly the reason you say that dancing without potential arousal disclosure is okay. In tickling, just like dancing, some people enjoy it; some people don't.

So not only does your new "whether they enjoy it" logic concede the original "disclosure" argument by abandoning it for a new condition, but even that new standard fails to draw the line you claim between the tickling and dancing examples.
 
Last edited:
I wonder who's mind is gonna be changed by the end of this

I don't argue to change my opposition's mind. I argue the point to let the bystander who reads it see both sides and make their own judgement.
 
Who do you think is reading this at this point? For anything other than bickering and lulz?
 
People lurk and read debates and discustions all the time. Theres nothing wrong with healthy debate. For the most part its stayed in bounds. This debate is more civilized then presidental debates lol.
 
People lurk and read debates and discustions all the time. Theres nothing wrong with healthy debate. For the most part its stayed in bounds. This debate is more civilized then presidental debates lol.

lol what isn't more civilized than presidental debates these days lol (i watch those for the lulz too tbh)
 
Last edited:
"Actually pretending"? "Socially inept" "Have you never been dancing? You know, with a person"?

Not sure how old you are, but insult shaming and schoolyard put downs may feel empowering and bold to you as you type them, but they don't do much to convince third party readers of your arguments, who are calmly sizing up both sides. Think about whether this tactic works on you, when you're reading a debate -- do insults convince you of the shamer's superior reasoning? More like the opposite probably.

Regarding the substance, you've just introduced a new standard, whether "BOTH partners could potentially be enjoying it," as a pivot away from the entire previous discussion: Whether it's immoral not to disclose that actions are sexually motivated. Your new standard appears to be, something like, "Actually, turns out it IS okay after all not to disclose the sexual motivations for an action, shown by the dancing analogy -- provided this new condition is true -- that both parties could potentially be enjoying it."

Not only is it a retreat from or concession of the original argument, seems like I hardly need to remind this audience that both parties can "enjoy" a poke in the sides as well -- exactly the reason you say that dancing without potential arousal disclosure is okay. In tickling, just like dancing, some people enjoy it; some people don't.

So not only does your new "whether they enjoy it" logic concede the original "disclosure" argument by abandoning it for a new condition, but even that new standard fails to draw the line you claim between the tickling and dancing examples.

I was countering the constant (and ridiculous) argument that the "No Consent, No Surrender!" crew likes to make, that somehow respecting another person's boundaries (even though you really really really want to do something and you know you can probably get away with it) is going to lead to a dystopian hellscape of asking permission for every physical contact, and having fill out a five-page notarized document for a one-night stand.

There are plenty of social situations and circumstances where hiding your intentions isn't necessary. But some people find that scary.
 
But whos gonna ask to tickle someone. Thats just silly and akward lol.

Ok Im curious to see if theres some common ground. Can we all agree that any of us tickling a friend for a thrill is technically unethical. Simply cause its hiding behind the idea of it being just playfull when theres a little bit more to it for us.
 
At this point, it's getting circuitous. I've read "whos gonna ask to tickle someone / that's awkward" multiple times for instance.

Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?
 
At this point, it's getting circuitous. I've read "whos gonna ask to tickle someone / that's awkward" multiple times for instance.

Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?

No disrespect but you dont have to keep coming back to the thread if you feel that way
 
But whos gonna ask to tickle someone. Thats just silly and akward lol.
Good thing no one is suggesting that.

Ok Im curious to see if theres some common ground. Can we all agree that any of us tickling a friend for a thrill is technically unethical. Simply cause its hiding behind the idea of it being just playfull when theres a little bit more to it for us.

Absolutely. Look, the point here is that some people get the same thrill from tickling a foot for a second that a "vanilla" person would get from grabbing a tit. The reason another person doesn't realize that's what's happening is that one is action is lot more socially acceptable, and as you've stated, easier to hide behind. The intent is what matters.
 
Door 44 Productions
What's New

3/28/2024
Stop by the TMF Welcome Forum and take a second to say hello!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
NEST 2024
Register here
The world's largest online clip store
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top