Tickling,acceptable or violation ?

[pulsator]

Consent is the key word. Without it you're failing to show respect and are, to be frank, being a bit of a ****. If some says stop, you stop.I'm not saying that tickling is intrinsically harmful, but some people do not like their personal space being encroached on. By all means test the water, but when it comes to it respect people boundaries, getting a sexual thrill from harrassing someone is not cool.

You can't presume to know somebody's intention when they say stop, especially if you do not know them. You can be prosecuted under sexual assault laws for touching e.g women's feet without consnt, there have been a few cases of 'foot fetishist' being convicted for e.g. licking a woman's foot. Don't think that tickling would be any different.

 

[pulsator]

just to clarify:

Sexual assault

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(my bold)

If the touching is sexual, it is assualt. That means any act that the assailant finds sexually arousing. It's in the giving, not the taking, so to speak That would include tickling.

 

[pulsator]

For the purposes of this Part (except section 71), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that-

(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.

(my bold)

From the sexual offences act 2003.

Not sure about the Americans, though i would have thought it to be someting similar.

 

[drew70]

the touching is sexual, it is assualt. That means any act that the assailant finds sexually arousing. It's in the giving, not the taking, so to speak That would include tickling.

I agree with the first sentence, wholeheartedly. But I disagree with the second, and basically laugh out loud at the third. Even assuming it were true, how would a prosecutor prove the defendant found the tickling sexually arousing?

 

[Iggy pop]

Well the law would consider non consensual touching an assault, as of course tickling would be.

Honestly, I do not think the law is that black and white. It also depends how you define "non-consensual". Do you need specific verbal or written consent or is implied consent enough? In many cases I think time, place, and manner would be involved.

 

[toneus79]

Honestly, I do not think the law is that black and white. It also depends how you define "non-consensual". Do you need specific verbal or written consent or is implied consent enough? In many cases I think time, place, and manner would be involved.

No fun, my babe, no fun.

 

[pulsator]

I agree with the first sentence, wholeheartedly. But I disagree with the second, and basically laugh out loud at the third. Even assuming it were true, how would a prosecutor prove the defendant found the tickling sexually arousing?

If you were a habitual offender, and male, it would be pretty easy. Like I said plenty of foot fetishists have been aressted, charged, convicted and jailed for sexual assualt because of their touching of women's feet. It does happen. You only need to prove beyond reasonable doubt a e.g. quick look at a hard drive containing sites like this would give cause. Simple, non?

I'm not saying that you will be caught for innappropriate touching (for that is what we are discussing), but simply that you, in theory, could. Non-consensual touching is wrong, morally and legeally.

 

[pulsator]

As for "even if it were true":

For the purposes of this Part (except section 71), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that-

(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual

Is taken fro The Sexual Offences Act 2003LINK, and it's pretty straightfowardly clear imo.

 

[CaptainQuantum]

I think the original poster was talking about something like this: yesterday at the library I saw 3 girls working on homework with their flip flops off and two of them had their feet up on a small table. Everything in me wanted to casually walk by and give one (or both) of them a quick tickle on their feet.

But I weighed the options...I knew there were security guards downstairs, there were witnesses around (including the other 2 girls) who could have identified me in a lineup, and quite possibly security cameras in the library although I didn't see any.

I've tickled the feet of total strangers before (they weren't happy about it at all) and got away with it where nothing happened to me, but now that I think about it later, I believe if the girls had pressed the issue they could have had me arrested.

So just so everyone is clear, I don't think this applies to a situation where you're at a party and you don't know the person THAT well or something like that because the girl is not likely to go to the trouble of seeking legal action, even if she didn't particularly care for what you did, she'd probably just be annoyed for a minute or 2 and then forget about it. I think where the question of "assault or not assault" comes into play is the kind of situation I described above: COMPLETE stranger tickling her, without so much as a hello or anything.

 

[drew70]

As for "even if it were true":

For the purposes of this Part (except section 71), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that-

(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual

Is taken fro The Sexual Offences Act 2003LINK, and it's pretty straightfowardly clear imo.

Interesting. I went to the link but was unable to find that particular string. You did mention section 71, part of which states,

(2) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider it to be sexual.​

I'm less familiar with UK law than I am with American law, but common sense tells me that in order to determine sexual intent, the prosecution must establish what most people would consider sexual activity in conjunction with the act of touching. For example, if he touches her breast or vagina, most would regard that as a sexual touch. If he touches a foot or an elbow or shoulder, most would not consider that a sexual touch. Of course, if the guy whips out his member and begins mastubating after touching, that would convince a jury.

But say, if a guy at a water park tickles a foot that's mere inches from his face, a one and only occurrance, that would be impossible to establish as a sexual touch, and equally impossible to prosecute, in my opinion.

 

[ViperGTS]

How about this?

Don't touch people you don't know personally.

That will fix alot of problems.

 

[tickledgirl]

Various points:

Cap't Quantum: I'd say you made a few wise decision. Good call!

ViperGTS: Sounds like a very common sense rule.

Legal notes, although IANAL. Just because something doesn't qualify as sexual assault doesn't mean it's not assault. Definitions vary by jurisdiction, but the definition of assault can be pretty broad. This thread is pretty old, but a while back people were claiming there has to be physical harm for it to be assault. No way! There doesn't even have to be contact. (e.g. If I punch at your face but pull back at the last second, that'd still qualify as assault.)

Touching people who don't want to be touched is very likely illegal, and in any case it's creepy. So if you don't want to risk legal sanctions, and don't want to be a creep, don't do it!

 

[drew70]

IANAL = If Anyone Notices, Always Lie?

Assault as defined has to make some kind of violent threat or intent. The only type of touching that is assault is sexual assault, of which tickling a stranger might or might not qualify as an example, depending on the situation.

If you want to play it safe all the time, then do as suggested and never tickle anybody. But life is too short to play it safe 100% of the time. Sometimes you might find yourself in a situation that lends itself to the playful tickle of a stranger. These situations are few and far between, so use your best judgement. You never know, you might make somebody's day.

 

[BellaRisa]

So if you don't want to risk legal sanctions, and don't want to be a creep, don't do it!

What disturbs me is how many don't care one bit how creepy and unwanted their behavior is as long as they can get that tickle in, it's all about them .

I have a theory. I get the impression that the 'do unto others' rule that most parents work hard to teach our children applies in a way we never intended here, because random touchers would love some strange woman to tickle them. Far from being annoyed or feeling like an object, they'd run straight here to tell about it and feel like studs, and be congratulated by their peers. And for justification they cling to the notion that somewhere out there is a woman who would love this as much as they would, so the umpteen ladies who would want to spork them for it are just overreacting I think that eventually intelligence will prevail, and the fact that women don't feel the same about our personal space and our bodies as men will finally be understood. But it will take time, conversations like this, and the occasional spork

Bella

 

[Sunjob]

Don't touch anybody you don't personally know is the best way to be assured you're never going to get arrested. Whilst I might disagree with it, it's simply the only sure way you can go about life without being in trouble.

Unless you're attractive, then they'll not be that bothered if you give them a quick tickle. Just kidding

 

[pulsator]

Interesting. I went to the link but was unable to find that particular string. You did mention section 71, part of which states,

(2) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider it to be sexual.​

Section 71 refers to Sexual activity in a public lavatory and is nothing to do with sexual assault The relevant info is this:

3 Sexual assault

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

78 "Sexual"

For the purposes of this Part (except section 71), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that-

(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.

My bold. Section 78 simply defines the word sexual (apart from 71 i.e. toilets).

I'm less familiar with UK law than I am with American law, but common sense tells me that in order to determine sexual intent, the prosecution must establish what most people would consider sexual activity in conjunction with the act of touching. For example, if he touches her breast or vagina, most would regard that as a sexual touch. If he touches a foot or an elbow or shoulder, most would not consider that a sexual touch. Of course, if the guy whips out his member and begins mastubating after touching, that would convince a jury.

But say, if a guy at a water park tickles a foot that's mere inches from his face, a one and only occurrance, that would be impossible to establish as a sexual touch, and equally impossible to prosecute, in my opinion.

Agreed a one off would be impossible to prove. But habitual offendeing and a hard drive containing sites like this would be enough to convict.

Non-consensual touching is morally and legally wrong.

 

[toneus79]

........... or alternatively go ahead ands tickle oke3: whoever and whenever you feel like it, or perceive an opportunity is there. THEN LEARN THE HARD WAY

 

[tickledgirl]

What disturbs me is how many don't care one bit how creepy and unwanted their behavior is as long as they can get that tickle in, it's all about them .

I have a theory. I get the impression that the 'do unto others' rule that most parents work hard to teach our children applies in a way we never intended here, because random touchers would love some strange woman to tickle them. Far from being annoyed or feeling like an object, they'd run straight here to tell about it and feel like studs, and be congratulated by their peers. And for justification they cling to the notion that somewhere out there is a woman who would love this as much as they would, so the umpteen ladies who would want to spork them for it are just overreacting I think that eventually intelligence will prevail, and the fact that women don't feel the same about our personal space and our bodies as men will finally be understood. But it will take time, conversations like this, and the occasional spork

Bella

Great point, Bella. And I love the idea of carrying a spork!

But let throw out some Devil's advocacy: This forum has plenty of stories about non-consensual tickling, and in many of them the victim sooner or later really enjoys being tickled. (Full disclosure: I'm an avid consumer of such stories! ) Couldn't one argue that those contribute to the problem too?

 

[lk70]

Great point, Bella. And I love the idea of carrying a spork!

But let throw out some Devil's advocacy: This forum has plenty of stories about non-consensual tickling, and in many of them the victim sooner or later really enjoys being tickled. (Full disclosure: I'm an avid consumer of such stories! ) Couldn't one argue that those contribute to the problem too?

Ah, the ''no" means "yes" defense. Old as the hills. Combine the female rape fantasy with the male tendency to take what they want regardless of consequence and see where you end up?

 

[SlaverTickler]

If you're gonna freak out because you got tickled, you need to grow up.

How wouldd you feel if someone tickled Irish Girl, lets say on a bus or on the Subway, when she was in a position that she couldn't get away. Are you telling me that if she was upset about having some stranger put her hands on her on the bus that you would tell her to grow up?

 

[SlaverTickler]

But let throw out some Devil's advocacy: This forum has plenty of stories about non-consensual tickling, and in many of them the victim sooner or later really enjoys being tickled. (Full disclosure: I'm an avid consumer of such stories! ) Couldn't one argue that those contribute to the problem too?

I don't think so, simply beacuse any adult with 2 brain cells knows that it's just a story, and nobody really want to be pulled into a tan van driven to a sicluded place and tickled until they've pissed themselves into dehidrasion.

 

[tickledgirl]

I don't think so, simply beacuse any adult with 2 brain cells knows that it's just a story, and nobody really want to be pulled into a tan van driven to a sicluded place and tickled until they've pissed themselves into dehidrasion.

Well put.