Paraphelia

[tklr5150]

A friend in an abnormal psych class mentioned to me that tickling came up in their discussion of paraphelia. Apparently it's listed as a common fetish in the DSM4 (the psychology handbook). We talked for a bit about what causes paraphelic tendencies and whether or not they constitute disorders. We came to an understanding that, left unchecked, a paraphelia can become a disorder if it takes over a part of the person's psyche to the point of usurping their ability to live a healthy life without indulging it.

She also mentioned how 90% of paraphelics are male, and how it usually develops in men who had their masculinity challenged or threatened at an early age, as a way to reassert that masculinity through control (voyuerism, s&m, exhibitionism are all classic examples of this at work). Again, this does not necessarily imply that paraphelia is psychologically unhealthy, just deviant. Speaking for myself, I can support this idea. I had a very weak male role model growing up, which seems to fit with the development of paraphelia. I have other ideas about why tickling, but that's another matter.

I'm curious to here some thoughts on this.

 

[dvnc]

The return of the paraphilia thread! Excellent to see it return, too. There's at least two like it in TMF history. Sorta makes you wish there was an archive to all this great data, or a way to store such things as this for "our" public.

The key to remembering that psychological aspect is remembering the inability to function WITHOUT the special focus. Some ticklephiles are unable to sexually function without the involvement of tickling, while for others, it's a thrill IN ADDITION to other means of sexual excitement. Some of "us" have no sexual focus. They just find tickling fascinating.

If you can't deal, sexually, without tickling, then it's a paraphilia. If you can, then you're just sexually deviant, in that you deviate from the "norm". *gasp*

Of course, by the original definition, back in the middle of the decade, it was deviant to focus on the satisfaction of a woman's sexual experience, ESPECIALLY where climax was concerned.

I'll take deviant, thanks.

Paraphilia is a tough deal, though, as one NEEDS one of us, of the proper focus, to autoerotic solutions.

It's defined in the DSM-IV, as you mentioned, which is available at most larger book stores, as well as the public library. There's also several studies of sexual deviancy and sexual paraphilia to date, which can be found in the Psychology section of most of the same libraries and book stores. It's worth reading, for us. Helps to know what's common for you.

dvnc

 

[TickledToDeath]

Hmmmmmmm, what constitutes a "healthy life" and who are the ones who are qualified to judge what is and or is NOT "normal"?

TTD

 

[dvnc]

Who? The psych board that approves shrinks countrywide, via the DSM-IV tome that EVERY shrink, whether Psychologist or Psychiatrist, uses to understand the boundaries of their field. Again, the book's available in PUBLIC BOOKSTORES and PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Ain't like I need t'fabricate this stuff, homie. It exists whether or not I mention it.

It's USEFUL to know what's said about this interest, either because it applies, or because it doesn't. If it applies, someone understands, and can delineate what's there and what's needed. If not, then it ain't you, and you know that there's folks here that DO have such a focus.

Find the book, and criticize it for what's in it. If you question, seek to know, dig? You host, brother, just like me. The data is more significant for hosts than for anyone attending. You get a perspective on those that are similar to you, but not like you.

Always dig watchin' you stir it up, brother,

dvnc

 

[guitman69]

She also mentioned how 90% of paraphelics are male, and how it usually develops in men who had their masculinity challenged or threatened at an early age, as a way to reassert that masculinity through control (voyuerism, s&m, exhibitionism are all classic examples of this at work).

Well, this could explain a 'ler, but what about us male 'lees?

 

[TicklingDuo]

Tickling is definately a paraphilia for me. Is it on a healthy level? I like to think so...though there were times when it probably crossed the line into an obsession that disrupted things. I think this can be true of so called "normal" sexuality as well. It's a matter of where the control lies...in us or in the behaviour. As for where this started in my case...I have no idea. Though it was used against me in some abusive situations growing up, I loved it long before that. So....I guess I was born with it!

Ann

 

[tklr5150]

Sorry for rehashing it, I don't remember seeing anything about it in the past and I thought it was interesting when she mentioned it.

Excellent points there DVNC - psych major much? It's good to know I'm a perfectly healthy deviant, nothing more.

Regarding guitman's point about the assertiveness aspect for male lee's, I'm not sure about that either myself, though I suspect someone with more psychological training could hypothesize. Off hand I might guess it is somewhat akin to receiving pleasure by way of oral sex for example - a passive act of absorbing stimulation that nevertheless holds some control, at that moment, over the mroe active party. Again, that's an uneducated idea, I'm sure there are people better equipped to answer than me.

 

[dvnc]

ROFL! Ex-psych major, actually. Got to the part where I was told I couldn't choke child molesters, so I became a music major.

Yer a health deviant, alright, brother, and in the best place for our deviancy.

dvnc
redundant soundin', ain't it?

 

[U.N.Owen]

I've never bought the whole paraphilia thing myself. Yes, there are people who are sexually deviant, but people who have particular tastes and interests, like tickling, aren't among them -- at least, not necessarily. EVERY person has a particular slant on their own sexuality, with particular practices and parts that turn them on.

So, who exactly gets to call themselves "normal"? Those who lie back and think of England? The people who wrote DSM4 doubtless do things themselves in their bedrooms that they would publicly brand 'deviant' in others -- frankly, anyone who doesn't engage at ALL in fantasy and sexual play has a pretty stale sex life.

So, as I say, the whole paraphilia, deviant sexuality thing just strikes me as an analytical waste of time. Tickling is just one of thousands of preferences, which are matters of TASTE, not normality.

 

[Strelnikov]

DVNC, I thought I'd see you here eventually.

I've never had occasion to read DSM4 - not my field. I do know that it's a consensus document, and therefore changeable with the political (or shall I say, politically correct) winds. For example,

***READ MY ENTIRE POST BEFORE YOU POST A KNEE-JERK REPLY!!***
***I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FLAME WAR!!***

some years back, homosexuality was considered a serious mental illness, and was described as such in the literature. The psych establishment no longer considers it so. I'm not going to get too torqued up over their opinion of my tickle kink. If we ever achieve mainstream acceptance, the psych establishment will fall into line and then we'll be cool too.

Strelnikov

 

[ktickler]

I like this topic...

It just amuses me too see history from a ten foot point of view and realize that societies evolve to include "abnormal" things into their "normal" list just because they finally understand it a little better.

Just think of the view of the world about women (they could not vote for a long time), black people (they could not get an education until very recently), homosexuality (was considered a disease and is still a touchy subject), and other topics.

Whether people agree or not to the current view of the world is not really important. What is important is that people respect other people's beliefs and stands.

Tickling is usually seen as something harmless. Hence, you do not spend too much time studying it in psychology. You usually spend more time in more touchy subjects like fetishes with inanimate objects or animals, pedophelia, masochism, among others, because they actually have a clear relationship with physical and mental harm.

I think we can all agree that tickling is a deviance and is mostly healthy. When it gets comabined with obsessive behavior, then it becomes more complicated.

As long as it does not control your life, you should be OK.

Bye,

Knight Tickler

 

[tklr5150]

Those damned doctors can't keep up with me, though. As soon as they think they've broadened the definition of "normal" wide enough to contain me and my many loose screws, I devise whole new levels of messed-up-in-the-noggin and send them scrambling for their notebooks! They'll never declare me sane, by any standard! Never I say! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :

 

[areenactor]

paraphelia

ok, i read this, and stopped myself from replying. i took some time, and have come back to it. so here goes;
i have worked with psychiatrists, i received an A in psych.nursing back in nursing school (god knows how). all i can say is that the nuttiest people i've ever run across is psychiatrists! tickling used to be just a fetish, or a deviancy depending on the individuals need. in law tickling is chargable as "devient sexual assualt". with law things are looked at from the perspective of "what a reasonable person thinks". i dought thats how shrinks come to their opinions! like all dr.'s their think of them selves as god, and are pendantic as hell.
i had a strong male role model, and a strong female role model as a child. as my parents said my dad was the ships capt., and my mom was the ships xo. i knew i had a thing for tickling as early as age 4. i dought anything happened to threaten my manhood before that tender age! but ok, maybe i'm an exception to the rule.
how about those of us who don't need, or want, to tie up our ticklees? how does that fit the lable?
how about those of us, rare as we are, that have ticklish genitalia? just "normal" love making causes us to laugh. so how do the shrinks label us?
as someone else asked, that's their explanation of ticklers, what about us who enjoy being the ticklee? i know that one aspect is laziness. it's great to be able to just lay there and be tickle pleased!
i still think the term tickphile is more apt. there are people who are anglo-philes (they love everything british) etc. so why can't we just be lovers of everything tickling? ticklphiles?
steve

 

[MistressMia]

ANGLO-PHILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll be sure to keep them away from my Hubby!!!

We just love labels don't we? Well, maybe not all of us...

Strel and Ktickler hit it right on the noggen as far as my own sentiments go. I'm sure that as soon as tickling as a "fetish" is understood more, then it'll find it's way out of the psych-handbook.

Just my .02 cents.

 

[dvnc]

Heck, Strel, y'know I love a lively debate wit' you, 'specially if Q's in the mix, but I agree wit' ya. Weird, huh?

Homosexuality WAS on the outside, lookin' in, not so long ago. Our interest, as it reaches a level of commonality, will pervade much more. Heck, bdsm is still categorically within the realm of a psychological misfire, only now there's a lot of IFs when making such a judgement.

Someday it'll come down to folks looking at what harm a behavior causes, and going forward from there. Homosexuality has no harmful results in any physical or psychological manner that don't occur to heterosexuals, and it got free of such a judgement. I know too many folks that are homosexual, or were raised in such a family pairing, and are well-adjusted folks, without threat or harm caused to anyone.

The DSM-IV is still just a guide, and it's old, and will remain behind the times until such time as things don't change so rapidly. Folks forget that, 50 years ago, this community was non-existant, the gay community and the BDSM community were both underground, and folks stayed married until hell froze over. Lots of 'em didn't eat meat on Fridays, too. Times are changin' quickly these days. It'll land again. It's common pattern for this species. Hope we land on somethin' kinder, this time.

dvnc