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.