a hypothetical question about non-consensual tickling.

[SadCuzNotTcklsh]

I guess this is the ultimate "What If" proposal.

What if you were able to kidnap, capture, or given the opportunity to tickle torture someone 100% non-consensually and against their will to your heart's content, and be able to get away with it scot free and zero consequences? Would you actually do it?

I'm just wondering how many of us have that dark side in us.

 

[brannyle1981]

I've often thought about that concept of tickling without consent to my heart's content and get away with it with no consequences especially if it was someone I didn't particularly care for. I think I'd do it if it was someone not to my liking just to see them squirm and beg for mercy from which they'd receive very little.

 

[Wolf]

No. All of the modifiers involved suck the fun right out of it.

 

[Myriads]

Your question really is not about tickling, but morality.

Would you do 'X' if there was no repercussions from doing it? Where 'X' is an act that would have multiple levels of repercussions in normal circumstances.

So the moral question you pose is "Is how you act defined by the desire to avoid the punishments that your society will level against you for how you act?" Or put another way "Is your morality internally or externally enforced?"

It's a good question to ask oneself, and illuminating.

Myriads

 

[SadCuzNotTcklsh]

Your question really is not about tickling, but morality.

Would you do 'X' if there was no repercussions from doing it? Where 'X' is an act that would have multiple levels of repercussions in normal circumstances.

So the moral question you pose is "Is how you act defined by the desire to avoid the punishments that your society will level against you for how you act?" Or put another way "Is your morality internally or externally enforced?"

It's a good question to ask oneself, and illuminating.

Myriads

Good observation Myriads!

But since we all love tickling here, let's keep it just about tickling

 

[Wolf]

If you asked a vanilla person, "What if you were able to kidnap, capture, or given the opportunity to have sex with someone 100% non-consensually and against their will to your heart's content, and be able to get away with it scot free and zero consequences? Would you actually do it?"

What sort of response would you expect?

 

[rafael]

Exactly! "Is your morality internally or externally enforced?" That is the question. I have not ever been faced with non-consensual tickle scenario proposed here, but several years ago I faced a similar moral question. I was married at the time, but found my self very attracted to a co-worker. This was unusual for me as I don't tend to have a wandering eye and I'm a very loyal person. I had never cheated on anyone or even considered it. I still loved my wife, but something about this girl affected me. The usual excuses existed in that my wife and I had been together about 7 years, we'd fallen into a rut, etc. And I was arrogant enough to believe that I'd get away with it. I had no fear of getting caught or facing any repercussions. In other words, like the scenario above, I believed there would be no consequences. This girl was clearly into me as well. She had admitted as such to others. And there was an obvious chemistry and/or sexual tension there. In the end, I did not cheat. My reason for abstaining was that even if there were no consequences and this girl moved to the other side of the planet and nobody else found out, I would always know. I would have to change my personal definition or identity to include the word "cheater". That wasn't something I was willing to do. So in the scenario above I would similarly not want to change my personal definition to include "kidnapper".

 

[brotherted]

Many of you didn't read the question correctly, seems to me, which included doing it to my "heart's content."

That would therefore include my ability to do it for 5-10 seconds and see their reaction -- then if they were reacting with genuine terror and fear, I'd stop. But if their freak out was just laughing or jerking-related and not those other things, I'd keep going. Non-con doesn't have to mean the 'lee is screaming rape for an hour, and is terrified. After all, someone gets poked in the sides in practically every junior high school every day -- that's non-con too.

Has everyone on this board asked for permission in advance every time they've ever tickled someone their whole lives? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet every single person reading these words has tickled someone non-consensually in their lifetimes, including those who rail about it as immoral. The non-con discussions on this site have become far too PC. What could be immoral is not caring how the other person reacts once you tickle them.

 

[Hemmen]

Many of you didn't read the question correctly, seems to me, which included doing it to my "heart's content."

That would therefore include my ability to do it for 5-10 seconds and see their reaction -- then if they were reacting with genuine terror and fear, I'd stop. But if their freak out was just laughing or jerking-related and not those other things, I'd keep going. Non-con doesn't have to mean the 'lee is screaming rape for an hour, and is terrified. After all, someone gets poked in the sides in practically every junior high school every day -- that's non-con too.

Has everyone on this board asked for permission in advance every time they've ever tickled someone their whole lives? Of course not. I'd be willing to bet every single person reading these words has tickled someone non-consensually in their lifetimes, including those who rail about it as immoral. The non-con discussions on this site have become far too PC. What could be immoral is not caring how the other person reacts once you tickle them.

I think they read the question just fine. It specifically said "tickle torture" - which is far from doing it for 5-10 seconds or poking someone in the sides.

 

[drew70]

I wouldn't even be tempted. But neither will I judge those who say they would do it. I learned my lesson about moral crusades on the TMF. They never end well.

 

[Bradhadair]

Part of the fun of tickling for me is arousal. It's hot for me and my partner. So, no. Arousal for me requires consent.

 

[tickletherapist]

Since the tickling methods I'm thinking of are anyway healthy and eventually good for the person tickled, I could imagine kidnapping one of those girls who won't come to tickle therapy because of their arrogance and fear of being tickled, though you know they just have to be tickled as a special treatment for such kind of girls and they won't be disappointed
No violence of course.

Also I think many might have this fantasy of being kidnapped and tickled.
It's ok to have a dark side, if it serves your bright side

 

[TKLVR18]

I wouldn't. Non-con sucks all the fun out of it for me--I don't enjoy it if the lee doesn't, at least on some level.

~K

 

[Jerseyguy]

To be completely honest I most certainly would..... Obviously given all those qualifiers. There are well over two dozen gorgeous women in the building where I work and I often wonder which one of them actually has some kind of a kidnap fantasy. That being said, those qualifiers are impossible to guarantee and thus in reality I'll stick to striking up conversations, developing friendships and seeing if there is an opportunity to bring up tickling and or bondage.

 

[brotherted]

I think they read the question just fine. It specifically said "tickle torture" - which is far from doing it for 5-10 seconds or poking someone in the sides.

That doesn't answer my scenario. If you ticked them 5-10 seconds, saw their reaction to be playful or at least not terrorized, then ramped up to what you consider a thorough tickle torture, they still wouldn't have provided formal verbal consent. That would be non-con. It would also exactly fit the description of the OP. And I'd be okay with it. You wouldn't?

Not identical, but similar to me being okay with having sex with a person who hasn't verbalized, "I consent to sex with you right now." Do you require verbal consent for each sexual act you perform, every time you perform it?

After all, if you say 10 seconds is okay, but "torture" is not, where is your line of demarcation between the two? Wouldn't you agree that line should be more determined by the reaction of the person than some arbitrary fixed amount of time?

I believe I can read people well enough to discern when it's truly wrong, verses a sensual and fun power game that could also be the result of the OP scenario. And it's certainly not wrong simply because they haven't provided formal verbal consent.

 

[Pghtkltorture]

My question is: In this hypothetical situation do you think that even the most ticklish person would be ticklish?

 

[Wolf]

My question is: In this hypothetical situation do you think that even the most ticklish person would be ticklish?

Hush, now... you're trying to inject factual information into a fantasy scenario. Next thing you know, you'll be telling people that laughing gas doesn't affect people like it does on cartoons.

 

[brotherted]

My question is: In this hypothetical situation do you think that even the most ticklish person would be ticklish?

You bring up a good question, because I'm sure some people would become unticklish because of the fear and shock of the situation.

But it seems to me, there would be others who might even become more ticklish. These kinds of situations happen in childhood all the time. (It happened to me.) There would be literally millions of examples where children are held down truly against their will, either by other kids or by an adult, and they can't seem to turn off their reactions as they're tickled mercilessly. So some adults would be that way too, wouldn't you think?

 

[mch5]

Its all about reason…

I have this fantasy of tickling evil women as punisment.
So lets say I am like Mission Impossible (got the white hair] who get the job of kidnapping and extracting information from some female criminal.. I would definitly torture her by tickling with the excuse of ”thats my job” and clear conscience!
So yes, if I got a good reason [I know its its ok] and no consequences… why not!

 

[Teal]

No, because I'm not okay with kidnapping and sexual assault? This thread is a good demonstration of why laws exist.

 

[mch5]

Some specialized law enforcements does kidnap as part of their job and by law enforcing.. So if you are part of one of those, its ok??

 

[Rectangle]

No.
That anyone here would worries me.

 

[sman9000]

No. Period.

 

[sman9000]

No.
That anyone here would worries me.

I completely agree with Rectangle (see above)! Non-consensual is not only morally wrong, in my book, it's just downright evil... EVIL

 

[sman9000]

No, because I'm not okay with kidnapping and sexual assault? This thread is a good demonstration of why laws exist.

I totally agree!