That's where we differ, I suppose. I'm convinced truth IS universal, and doesn't change person to person. If the cube root of 27 is 3 in my world, it's going to be 3 in yours and everybody else's world as well.
Well, when it comes to the square root of 9, the melting point of Iron, and the distance between JFK in NYC, and LAX in LA, via a strait tangent, we can all agree that they will be exactly the same in both our subjective worlds. They are after all measurable constants, based on observable constants we can each verify with proper tools.
But we don't have the same luxury with matters of individual human minds. How an idea functions in my head and yours may be wildly divergent, and have no common ground. Heck what I perceive might be different from you. There is no ruler that either of us can produce that acts as a basis for measure. Without that, there is no way to universalize a statement about a mental viewpoint between individuals.
Once you try to do that you wade into the territory of imposing 'right' and 'wrong' on how a person thinks. "My viewpoint is the correct one, other that differ are misguided individuals who are ignorant of the 'true' facts, or they are flat out wrong." And once you cast people into that sort of structure, the next step is "How do I 'fix' them to conform to the 'right' way of thinking. Not the most productive of historical paths.
How you define "TRUTH" is perfectly fine on matters that a common measurement can be agreed upon. Pure Water boils at 212ºF, 100ºC when at sea level. That is TRUTH.
That Tickling is a non-sexual act between two specifically defined individuals is OPINION. And it's not one that you can universalize. Because you cannot see the black-box processes that each person has operating in them to reach conclusions on the matter. There are no common measurements.
I'm well aware than many here are sexually aroused by tickling, both in actuality and in concept.
But how many really believe it's a sexual activity? I'm thinking not that many. We live in a society in which children and even babies are tickled.
"Hey, what are you doing to that little boy?"
"I'm just tickling him."
"WHAT?? I'M CALLING THE POLICE, YOU CHILD MOLESTER!!"
I've never read about any of us having such a reaction. That's because even the most enthusiastic paraphilliac understands that no matter how excited, aroused, or turned on he gets by it, tickling is not a sexual activity, which is why it's common place among family members and other social situations in which sexual activity is not only rare, but outright disturbing.
I've bolded the first point in the above that I'm speaking to.
In a entire population, your statement is basically correct. MOST of the population has no sexual connotation to tickling. They exist in a framework where tickling is a bonding activity with infants, a flirting behavior with adolescents, and an annoyance in most other circumstances. They have no sexual paraphilia for tickling, and do not perceive or consider it outside the contexts they have been exposed to in their progress thru cultural normalization.
But, and it's a huge but, MOST is not all. A percentage of the population does have a paraphilia for tickling, which by definition means they are sexually aroused by the activity. That small percentage (which populated this forum, but do not compose all its members) does see ticking as a sexual activity. Further they have show a clear ability to understand that most of the tickling they see in the greater population is NOT sexual. It's something that has been expressed in countless post here on the forum in the last 15 years. These folks have also expressed how being exposed to family tickling can often be deeply upsetting and disturbing, due to how they respond to the activity, and the fact that such instances cross the strong incest taboos we have in our culture about family members interacting in ways PERCEIVED sexually. To the paraphiliac it is sexual, and thus it sets these cultural taboo alarms off. They KNOW their family member is not being sexual with them, but they FEEL the sexual response based on how their psychology works, and end up with severe cognitive dissonance.
This is one example of how your TRUTH does not universalize. A segment of the population does see tickling as sexual. And the fact that you don't think they do doesn't change the fact that they do.
Of course no one calls the police on the family member tickling the baby. The majority of the tickling paraphilia possessing population is savvy enough to understand the context they are viewing is non-sexual for the people engaged in it, and can dismiss it. Again, the example is a straw man set up for you to tip over.
I hear what you are saying about the comparison between foot and tickle paraphilias, however I don't believe it is a strawman. You don't need to touch to have intimacy with another woman. All she has to do is show you her breast. Most guys dig breasts the way foot guys dig feet. Consequently, most guys wouldn't want their significant lady to bare her breasts in front of company. Because even though that's an act that involves no touching, it's still considered sexually inappropriate by the majority.
No, you don't need touch for intimacy. But in the context that you dropped your initial comparison of tickling to feet into, the relation ship you were indicating was A tickling paraphiliac physically tickling a non-partner was equivalent to a foot paraphiliac looking at a non-partners feet.
Given the above you wish to also add the equivalency of a breast paraphiliacs looking at nude breasts to the comparison also. (Breast paraphilia being considered cultural normative for America)
To make your expansion function, you need to replace tickling with a normative physical behavior. Let's keep it simple. A French Kiss. (Again, a physical act that is normative in America as sexual)
So now we have two full comparisons of Touch to Sight interactions. We also need to note that the only judgement being passed here is on the ACTOR. The one who would Tickle, Kiss, look at feet or breasts. The behavior of the ACTED UPON is not significant to the comparative question being explored. They are simply a neutral target for the ACTOR. We are interested in how the ACTOR's partner views the ACTOR's behavior, nothing more.
So now you can look at that view point. And we have to remember that the partner knows and understands the ACTOR's sexual orientation toward the behaviors. (Which means said ACTOR is sexual aroused by Tickling, Viewing Feet, Viewing Breasts, or French Kissing)
What that partner will decide to feel about the ACTOR's behavior will hinge upon what they personally believe, feel are relationship limits, and so forth.
In my original point, my intent was to say, behaviors that involve touching tend to land higher on the hierarchy of 'problems' then viewing behaviors.
If you take this philosophy that whatever a paraphiliac fixates on qualifies as sexual, and apply that philosophy to feet, it would translate to baring feet being synonymous with baring breasts.
Yes. It is to them. Take a wander over to a foot based fetish site. Any and every image of any celebrity females feet is lovingly cataloged and captured, and then looked up and enjoyed by the feet paraphiliacs. Look at the stories they share about women they have observed, "She was so flirting with all the dangling she was doing." "Yay! Flip flop weather is back and we can see feet again!" etc. The feet paraphiliacs are simply lucky to have drawn a paraphilia that is culturally accepted as displayable.
Breast fixation is very heavily an American paraphilia. In Europe and Japan, nude beaches, topless on TV are both common, and not seen as all that big a deal. It's in America where boobs have been sexualized to the point that baring one for 1/20th of a second on TV caused months of hearings and fines and lawsuits for CBS, and debates about breastfeeding have been endless. Cultural sexual norms vary widely, and display of sexual attributes is perfectly fine in some cultures. Feet happen to be A-Okay in ours. Lucky Feet Paraphiliacs.
And if that still doesn't work for you, change the analogy to a foot paraphilliac who doesn't want his girlfriend getting a foot massage because he doesn't want other people touching her feet.
And there are a lot of them. And the ones that have issues with such things, have discussions with their partners about why it's an issue. Because to them it IS and issue, and upsets them.
Not every foot paraphiliac feels thusly, but some do. Again. Nothing is universal in these realms of feeling and psychology. One size does not fit all.
In summary, some here try to set a kind of TMF cultural norm that treats tickling among its members as sexual activity, despite the fact that society's cultural norm is quite to the contrary. And as a "sexual" activity it has the same constraints as real sexual activity, i.e., doing it outside of the relationship is cheating, doing it among family members is "creepy," etc. They love that word creepy because it demonizes both the activity and the perpetrators of it without needing to explain why.
I see no benefits to embracing this unjustifiable philosophy, and so I instead reject it and respectfully encourage others to do likewise.
Actually you are not rejecting the point of view being voiced by many here in the forum, you are rejecting the black and white version o fit that your viewpoint has enforced upon you. Your viewpoint leaves no room for other people to view tickling different then you do. And you judge all based on your viewpoint alone.
Since your view does not universalize, people who hold different views from you bang into the flat wall of that view you present when they try to explain that
They see it differently then you and here is why. And
because they see it differently, it causes them to have different needs and expectations of their relationships.
Tickling being a sexual behavior is NOT normative for our culture. But it IS for a percentage of the population within that culture. And as it is for that percent, they interact with tickling physically, psychologically, emotionally, and sexually, differently from the rest of the normative population. And that in turn causes them to have to operate under rule sets that differ from the cultural norm to comfortable operate WITHIN the normative culture.
People can be different from you with out either of you begin wrong.
Myriads
