A topic all about sex

[solescratcher99]

It seems like quite a few people on these forums have major hang up regarding sex (even though won't say this and will probably disguise this issue as being another concern. In other words, they'll sublimate).

So, I'm wondering... why all the hostility about sex? Specifically, why all the hostility about whether or not someone views this or that or you personally in a sexual manner?

Before you answer, can you guys please take the following into consideration?

Amnesiac had an amazing little post about this here http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?t=157055&page=6 but I'm going to repost it here because it deserves consideration.

This thread might very well need killing, and who better to do it than ME! (If it works, this will rack up my 5th thread I've killed in the last 2 weeks WOO-HOO!)

A man wiser than me once said:
YOU CAN MASTURBATE TO ANYTHING WITH THE RIGHT IMAGINATION.

My own exhaustive experiments have proven this to be true. DO NOT DISPUTE ME ON THIS...you don't want me to break out the proof that made this the 3rd Law of Sexual Dynamics.

Don't believe me? Case in point: http://www.cracked.com/article_17149...-fetishes.html

Anything can be interpreted in a sexual context with the right set of eyes, imagination, and association so it's LUDICROUS to assume that there is an ironclad asexual medium...the closest you can get is the original "intent" of the author. And "intent" is hardly a consideration for a pedophile who's favorite newspaper section is the JC Penney summer children's clothing flyer; the photographer probably didn't have that goal in mind, yet it was taken out of his hands regardless.

So intent and execution are the only things we as consumers can consider when determining the merit of a production...because there's an indeterminate number of potential sexual associations with the content, we can't control it and should strike that consideration from our criteria. Yes, it's a bit disparaging, but then again, the only thing we have to contend with is the idiocy of the people who don't know that.

ANOTHER perspective to contemplate is this: why, out of all these back-and-forths, have the assumptions been negative? Whether an offensive or defensive statement by AnnieHall, Wolf, Bella, etc. is the entire tone of the discussion based on the negative association with sexual material? It's a fairly Western/Abrahamic perspective to have and not very objective. I know that when it comes to opinion or value systems nothing ever is, but an intellectual or academic discussion should at least TRY to be.

Maybe it's just me but I never understood this negative attitude people have towards sex without some traumatic experience to provide them with evidence. We seem to reflexively accept it as immoral, degrading, dirty, filthy and exploitative and we're fixed on this. Yes we all define porn differently, but the practices in which it's been executed have changed over time: people with more open minds have experimented and taken new steps with the materials in question and produced products that are both familiar (similar intent and agendas) and radically different (execution and audience). There never used to be such a thing as "couples porn" or "glamour porn" and when they were first attempted, people probably assumed there was no audience opurpose to it because neither fit the definition or standard of what porn was...now audiences have come to accept intent and execution as part and parcel of the field.

Now, you can DOWNPLAY how important those considerations are to you, but you can't negate their existence because of your own obliviousness. That's the idiocy and ignorance that often prevents people from even pursuing an interest or experimentation in multiple fields...they don't want to endure the abusive attitudinal judgments from the reservoirs of morons we have to cohabitate with who don't know or care about the considerations.

So if meritorious material has the potential to be sexually appealing with the right applications (and exploited as such) than exploitive material has the potential to be meritorious with the right applications as well. That's the beauty of mathematics: if a transformation exists, than so does its inverse. And that's why we have to consider the limitations of our own perceptions and opinions and examine the objective evaluations of the material in question.


...but if you're talking about what this topic is about, which is "how would you react if you recognised somebody in a fetish video?" then that reaction is entirely subjective to the person telling it. The mistake would be to assume that that person's subjective answer is the universal reality.

I personally would understand that the person in the video is more than just the content of the video, and while I'd be a total geek and ask all sorts of geek questions when the time was right, after I got it out of my system I'd be able to realign myself and incorporate that part of them into their entire character. But then again I went to film school and was taught this which might make it harder for others to separate the person vs. the character.

It seems a little strange to work backwards from "sex is okay" to "this wasn't meant for sexual purposes and if someone uses it for sexual purposes its morally objectionable."

In a way, its sort of a insult to everyone here because, after all, that's exactly what a "fetish" is! Its taking something out of its original context and seeing it in a sexual way. No one thinks of feet or tickling as being a sexual end in themselves until its brought up. Then, those people are called "perverts", "creeps", "weirdos" and "morally corrupt" by those who assume the original context is the authority of taste and morality.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying personally feeling uncomfortable with a certain sexual act is wrong either. But, when someone passes off their personal discomfort as being some universal measuring stick for appropriate behavior, then it becomes a rhetorical technique to chastise and denigrate someone's social character.

 

[rhiannon]

I personally am here because tickling is sexual for me. If I was simply liking it, it wouldn't be interesting enough for me to join a forum about it.

I also like reading, but I for sure won't join a books forum because of it.

 

[prestidigits]

I agree totally with Rhiannon, who is a remarkably sexy woman. Tickling turns me on sexually. It doesn't have to do anything for anybody else. But I enjoy the company of all y'all who feel like I do!

I especially appreciate the encouragement of our gallant ladies!

😀

 

[ViperGTS]

As rhiannon said (that sexy girl), tickling is VERy sexual for me. There can be tickling without sex, but there cannot be sex without tickling. It's an indisputable fact of my life.

(edit) comment about rhiannon removed due to their sexually explicit nature

 

[prestidigits]

Viper, I like the way you think!

 

[solescratcher99]

Yes, sex is sexy.

 

[ticklebunny 2]

While I enjoy being on the forum and meeting new friends and reading great posts and reading great interesting threads. I also must admit that yes tickling can be casual and lighthearted for me-it can be a lot of fun but tickling also can and it is a big turn on for me in a sensual and in also a very strong sexual sense. So tickling also can be very erotic and very sexy for me as well. Yes depending on the threads and posts sometimes what I find and what I read can be very much a turn on...love reading hot sexy tickle and sensual descriptions can't help it, total turn on. So I also must say I find tickling can be very sexy indeed.

 

[Amnesiac]

Expounding...

I'll expound a little. Because I don't have a negative attitude towards sex (negative SUSPICIONS from time to time), my opinion doesn't merit much but I have a theory.

I theorize that negative sexual attitudes (outside of abuse) are the result of religious utilitarianism, particular to Abrahamic philosophy (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Consider the design of an Abrahamic culture:
1. A nomadic, tribal patriarchy in an arid climate of scarcity where resources are shared and daily life is painful and laborious; a Spartan lifestyle where pain creates endurance.
2. The community survives by working exhaustively on established purpose so individual divergence weakens efficiency; strength is in numbers, and conformity ensures standardized goal-driven effort.
3. Dangerous, hardscrabble existence leads to short lifespan, so reproduction is vital and family determines inheritance; sexual practices are strictly regulated and family becomes civic duty.
4. Purpose/function emanates from philosophy that unifies all aspects of life and emanates from central authority; religion is sympathetic to #1-4 and purpose is extension of religion, and authority is absolute.
5. Community is extension of Godhead, so religion governs society, and society routinely maintains community conformity; society intervenes in individual life and divergence becomes treason.
6. Treason weakens 1-4, and weakness becomes a threat and threats are eliminated to protect community; non-conformists are killed or exiled.

With a structure like that, it's easy to understand why everything would have to have a purpose and all those purposes would be related to God's will. The culture survives because of practices; those practices are seen as commands of the God; the God is therefore the protector of the community. God determines function, and function serves God. To deny function and refute philosophy sanctifying function is to defy and betray community, which serves God, thus defying and betraying God. So this is a Divine exercise in "a place for everything and everything in its place." God and utility become synonymous, if not mysterious. And to defy or refuse the community is to defy and betray God, and that makes you a danger/enemy of the community, and therefore a danger/enemy of God.

My theory of homosexuality is a good example: I theorize that homosexuality is so aberrant in God's eyes because it's not productive. It's a fairly New Testament view of the matter, being that it categorizes pleasure as sinful because it distracts from worship or holiness (Judaism's attitude on sexual pleasure is only negative in the context of adultery), but it matches the analysis of Onan: Onan wasn't punished for masturbating (in fact he didn't masturbate at all), he was punished for "pulling out" and not impregnating his brother's wife as custom and God commanded. Virtually all of the laws of the Bible have a utilitarian merit...they are "productive" and a common Judaic (and lately some Christian) interpretation is that sexual pleasure is reward for procreation. So God seems focused on ultra-utilitarianism and if homosexuals copulate, they don't reproduce, they just orgasm...so THEY get something out of it, but God and the community don't. And in the oldest and strictest forms of Abrahamic religion...the individual is assimilated into the community because the community serves God.

So in a literary sense...you could consider sexual pleasure as a form of Thought Crime.

Since the Christian-converted Holy Roman Empire (and later Byzantium) took over the influence of Europe--aka Western Civilization--and St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas established the foundation of Christian moral philosophy for the empire, their notions of pleasure and sex permeated every facet of instruction emanating from church scholars and enforcers. It got diluted over the centuries, but the basic prejudices remain, and in some cases are being rediscovered by the Revivalist movements throughout Western and Middle Eastern civilization. These messages and values get transmitted by parents and various media, which, traditionally fall in line with Abrahamic interventionist philosophy of reinforcing cultural values...which are Abrahamic in origin.

So think back to where you learned and developed your sexual morals: where did they come from? What was the source of these morals affiliated with? And by how many degrees were they removed from religious inspiration?

This theory is controversial because it's empirical: it takes into account patterns of behavior across all of human history throughout the world, not from the central mythology of a culture. Well, all cultures tend to see things from their own centralized point and when you suggest that the prophetic and sacred mythical history of your culture is a complex assortment of cause-and-effect scenarios, you upend someone's entire foundation of reality...and the results are never pretty.

That's my theory.

 

[chicago]

My definition of porn is something that is created (writing, video, audio? art, etc) with the intent of arousing the audience. This can happen even if the people involved are fully clothed, not bound, etc. If I feel the media was made with an intent to arouse the people reading or watching, I will call it porn.

However, I do not attach negative connotations to the word porn. Porn is a necessary thing in our society. I write porn. I read it. Hell, sometimes I watch it too. Though, I don't like watching clips with people I know in them. Kinda weirds me out in a creepy way. Like accidentally hearing your parents having sex or something. Weird, I know.

That said, I see porn different than some here because I would never want to physically be in a video and if I were to see someone outside of this community who I was close to, in a video, I think I would be saddened by it only because I am cynical and pessimistic about things. I would be afraid of it inhibiting them from getting a job in the future if it were to come up. I would be concerned about possible harassment from certain people who may have seen it, whether they be a fetishist or not. I would be worried that they would regret it in the future and there would be no way for them to take it back.

As for sex, sex is great. The idea of it used to scare me, but that's because I was too young. I never believed that virginity was something to cherish, though it wasn't something to throw away before you were mentally and emotionally ready. I don't think it's realistic to wait until after marriage to have sex. I don't even think it's realistic to wait until you're in love to have sex. The guy I gave my virginity to turned out to be possibly the worst asshole I will ever call a boyfriend. But at the time, I thought he was cute and I knew we both cared about each other. Mentally and emotionally, I was mature enough to know what I was doing and know that if the next day he left me, it wouldn't be the end of the world. The experience was a good one, albeit a bit painful. If I could go back in time, I would try to pick someone a little less endowed to have sex with first, but at any rate, I don't regret it.

I'm still young and I'm enjoying my youth and my sexuality. Experimenting and experiencing all kinds of different stuff is pretty fun.

There's my .02

 

[rhiannon]

As rhiannon said (that sexy girl), tickling is VERy sexual for me. There can be tickling without sex, but there cannot be sex without tickling. It's an indisputable fact of my life.

To me it's the other way around....I can definitely have sex without tickling, but tickling can never be not sexual. 🙂 If someone I would not consider having sex with tickles me, I feel harrassed and get aggressive immediately.

 

[DerekSynKlaire]

I personally have no sexual hangups - granted I'm a profession where I know people beat off to what I do. 😉 Surprisingly enough, I have a model friend that does fetish as well and absolutely hates the idea of people masturbating to her videos - she thinks it's yucky. Personally, I find the idea of someone jerking off to me not only hot, but empowering. I'm glad that I have something that people like. 🙂

Fortunately in my lifestyle and profession I've been allowed to explore most of my kinks (there are a few that I won't do outside of the bedroom and that's where they'll stay lol).

 

[Amnesiac]

If someone I would not consider having sex with tickles me, I feel harrassed and get aggressive immediately. rhiannon

Well then if we ever meet I'll be sure to ask "Do you find me physically attractive?" before I attack you.

 

[rhiannon]

Well then if we ever meet I'll be sure to ask "Do you find me physically attractive?" before I attack you.

Don't worry, you would know! 🙂

 

[solescratcher99]

Well then if we ever meet I'll be sure to ask "Do you find me physically attractive?" before I attack you.

And, ironically, that will make it that much more creepy. lol.

If someone I would not consider having sex with tickles me, I feel harrassed and get aggressive immediately.

I apologize beforehand for my blunt comments.

No offense. But, on the internet, you act like you'd be a huge pain in the ass to get along with. No one cares how much pride you take in being an asshole towards people. This is exactly what I started this topic about. You can't possibly say you're cool with sex, then in the next sentence say you'd react so viciously to someone taking the risk in approaching you sexually. That is the very definition of being sexually intolerant. That kind of behavior is exactly what shows people you have issues with sex.

For example, I'm not gay, but if a gay guy approached me sexually, I wouldn't even come close to the reaction you're talking about. I'd say it's flattering and move on but I wouldn't get all huffy about it like what you're implying. That would just be narrow minded bigotry. And, yet, you say you don't have issues with sex? Talk about denial.

Try to frame it anyway you want, its quite obvious to me and anyone else with common sense that's you've got issues with sexuality. Specially, male sexuality.

 

[solescratcher99]

I personally have no sexual hangups - granted I'm a profession where I know people beat off to what I do. 😉 Surprisingly enough, I have a model friend that does fetish as well and absolutely hates the idea of people masturbating to her videos - she thinks it's yucky. Personally, I find the idea of someone jerking off to me not only hot, but empowering. I'm glad that I have something that people like. 🙂

Fortunately in my lifestyle and profession I've been allowed to explore most of my kinks (there are a few that I won't do outside of the bedroom and that's where they'll stay lol).

I would love to have more understanding women like you in the world.

 

[rhiannon]

No offense. But, on the internet, you act like you'd be a huge pain in the ass to get along with. No one cares how much pride you take in being an asshole towards people. This is exactly what I started this topic about. You can't possibly say you're cool with sex, then in the next sentence say you'd react so viciously to someone taking the risk in approaching you sexually. That is the very definition of being sexually intolerant. That kind of behavior is exactly what shows people you have issues with sex.

Uhm....I have a problem with sex because I don't want to have sex with everybody who wants to have sex with me? THAT is really an odd thing to say!

I do not appreciate just being touched without my consent, and I for sure don't appreciate just being touched in a sexual way! And I would think a lot of people are that way!

I am not a huge pain in the ass to get along with. I am a very easygoing person who gets along with everybody really. But I do know what I want and what I don't want! Uninvited touching is something I do NOT want!

 

[c7_assassin]

You mean you won't just let gross strangers put their hands all over your body in a sexual way? You're such a pain in the ass, Rhiannon. 😉

As for me, I'm a little cooler about casual tickling, but it's something I love doing in bed too. Perfect foreplay. 🙂

 

[solescratcher99]

You mean you won't just let gross strangers put their hands all over your body in a sexual way? You're such a pain in the ass, Rhiannon. 😉

There's a straw man argument. lol. No, that's not what was being alluded to at all. She's basically overreacting to a hypothetical scenario, where someone who may or may not have a tickling fetish tickles her. It shows she's very uncomfortable with any ambiguous physical contact and morphs any social touching into a sexual gesture.

Even if it was a sexual or flirting gesture, she still says she would be disgusted with it instead of viewing it objectively: another person wants to be intimate, so they take a risk and make a non-verbal gesture to show attraction. I'm sorry, but that's the way it happens all the time. Making physical contact in order to escalate sexually is the way everyone hooks up. If someone verbalizes their interest and tries to gain some ironclad form of approval, it usually comes off as more weird and creepy than if someone just "goes for it".

"Oh, please let me touch you! I've been such a good boy! I want to touch the pretty parts!"

 

[prestidigits]

To me it's the other way around....I can definitely have sex without tickling, but tickling can never be not sexual. 🙂 If someone I would not consider having sex with tickles me, I feel harrassed and get aggressive immediately.

Hell, I hope you go past aggressive all the way to violent! Take care of yourself!

 

[prestidigits]

I don't think she's overreacting at all! And I have a strong suspicion, with almost all the women out there, if not all, it's not hypothetical.

Everybody has the right to decide what kind of attention they welcome and what kind of attention they shun, and from whom. It's not an "issue", it's not an inhibition. It's basic human dignity. Everyone is entitled to it!

 

[solescratcher99]

I don't think she's overreacting at all! And I have a strong suspicion, with almost all the women out there, if not all, it's not hypothetical.

Everybody has the right to decide what kind of attention they welcome and what kind of attention they shun, and from whom. It's not an "issue", it's not an inhibition. It's basic human dignity. Everyone is entitled to it!

Uh, this isn't about her (or anyone else) not being comfortable with someone's sexual advances whom they're not interested in. Obviously, everyone has a right to decide whom they're interested in or not. Once again, this is a straw man argument. You're taking what I said to complete extremes in order to seem like you're right.

What I'm talking about is the kind of hostility she's saying she'd have if someone made a sexual advance. I mean, really, is that kind of hostility called for against someone whose simply showing an interest in you? I gave the example of a gay guy hitting on me and how I wouldn't even come close to the reaction she said she'd have.

For example, I'm not gay, but if a gay guy approached me sexually, I wouldn't even come close to the reaction you're talking about. I'd say it's flattering and move on but I wouldn't get all huffy about it like what you're implying.

Also, this isn't about women or men. This about BOTH genders attitudes towards sex. Please read the post more carefully next time.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop trolling on my own post. lol. I just can't stand it when people take something to extremes and overreact to something so benign as a sexual advance. I mean, if you don't have an issue with sex, an advance shouldn't be a big deal unless you have some traumatic experiences with sex.

 

[prestidigits]

Sorry, her body, her person, her rules. I'm with her! It's not an overreaction. The only one who has the right to decide whether her reaction is over the top is she!

 

[rhiannon]

solescratcher, if someone I do not want to touch me (not only tickling, but especially tickling since it is very sexual to me although it might not be to the other person!) touches me, I will tell the person to stop! And I won't do it with a smile, because it is uncalled for! Usually people don't just touch other people just out of the blue! If they do, it's crossing a line, invading private space!

Of course if I am actively flirting with someone - different story! But if I am not and the person just decides to touch me, o yeah, I will get "hostile" about it, as you put it.

Let me tell you an example! I was on a first date with a guy and turned out not to feel comfortable around him. He tickled me. I told him to please stop because I didn't like it. He did it again. And again. In the end I was at the point where I told him to better number his teeth if he tries it again!

It's not like I knock people out when they touch me first time, but I will let them know if I don't want to be touched, and I seriously don't think that it has anything to do with having a problem with sex!

 

[rhiannon]

There's a straw man argument. lol. No, that's not what was being alluded to at all. She's basically overreacting to a hypothetical scenario, where someone who may or may not have a tickling fetish tickles her. It shows she's very uncomfortable with any ambiguous physical contact and morphs any social touching into a sexual gesture.

Even if it was a sexual or flirting gesture, she still says she would be disgusted with it instead of viewing it objectively: another person wants to be intimate, so they take a risk and make a non-verbal gesture to show attraction. I'm sorry, but that's the way it happens all the time. Making physical contact in order to escalate sexually is the way everyone hooks up. If someone verbalizes their interest and tries to gain some ironclad form of approval, it usually comes off as more weird and creepy than if someone just "goes for it".

"Oh, please let me touch you! I've been such a good boy! I want to touch the pretty parts!"

Please get into this more closely....are you saying someone just should be okay with someone suddenly touching them? What do you think an appropriate, "not over the top" reaction would be?

 

[solescratcher99]

Please get into this more closely....are you saying someone just should be okay with someone suddenly touching them? What do you think an appropriate, "not over the top" reaction would be?

If someone goes up to you and grabs your ass, then a good "what the fuck? Don't fucking touch me!" is appropriate to the situation. lol. I thought we had moved beyond this context (because its so obviously a stupid thing to do) and were talking about the following context-------->

If, however, you're hanging out with a guy you know and he puts the moves on you, feeling "harassed" and getting aggressive simply because the feelings aren't mutual is an over the top reaction. Mainly because you're not being harassed nor is the other person's advances any sign of being in immediate danger. A much more appropriate response in this situation would probably be, "I'm sorry but I don't see you that way."

Of course, if the other person gets pissed off and starts verbally chastising you, then they're the one whose being a drama queen.

Let me tell you an example! I was on a first date with a guy and turned out not to feel comfortable around him. He tickled me. I told him to please stop because I didn't like it. He did it again. And again.

Yeah, that's obviously the behavior of a dumbass.