? About noncon tickling revenge

[Caligula66]

Personally I'm against non-consentual tickling. Because I've known people who've been traumatized by tickling as a child. (usually it's either a well-meaning relative who tickles a child non-stop believing that they're having fun because they're laughing or a mean older brother using tickling as a form of torture and domination)

However I don't believe you need permission to briefly tickle someone or sneak up on them like "normal" people in "vanilla-land" do, unless you know they're a victim of the situation described above.

But if someone tickles you against your will, don't you have the right to tickle them back for as long as they've tickled you? (unless it was an honest mistake).

Cause as a strict ler, I've been tickled by someone who knew I hated it non-stop for an extended period of time, and I felt I was doing nothing wrong by tickling him back for as long as he tickled me, though I knew he hated it even more than I did.

What do you think?

 

[TicklesXXX]

Revenge is just.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Revenge is sweet, and so are you... 😛

 

[Mane'o]

I think you are both equally juvenile.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I think you are both equally juvenile.

That is because you are so old... 😛

 

[TheCredibleHulk]

Sounds to me like you enjoy tickling other men and are looking for valid justification to do so.

Just sayin.

 

[TickledToDeath]

You were right and just in what you did.

 

[Myriads]

It's hard to define this as truly 'Non-Con'

You have two men, who seem to feel comfortable enough to enter each others personal space and tickle each other. That is a pretty high level of personal comfort with another person. The OP also states that each party was aware of the others dislike of the tickling.

Yet one still does it to the other.

This is called 'Flirting with intent'

At which point contact back is being invited. Thus implying consent.

Consent, which is optimally verbal, has other shadings when placed into a relationship of some history (friendship, dating, etc) that follow non-verbal social rules. Most often the golden rule. That which you do unto others, is consented to be done to you.

Social interaction shouldn't be this hard to work out.

Myriads

 

[Caligula66]

Myriads, the problem with this this "golden rule" of yours I'd that as a ler if I'm tickling a girl and I believe her to be a lee (based on her own account) that doesn't mean I consented to be tickled back, and this is assuming my tickling of her is consensual. And I don't do noncon tickling with the exception I stated in my OP.

 

[SoleMates]

The OP also states that each party was aware of the others dislike of the tickling.

Yet one still does it to the other.

This is called 'Flirting with Intent."

It's also called "Being a dick."

Social interaction shouldn't be this hard to work out.

Actually, your post is precisely why it is.

I was told for years that those girls who were being mean and nasty towards me "probably liked me" even though they obviously didn't and I knew it in my gut. Stuff like this is why people wind up in abusive relationships.

 

[Myriads]

It's also called "Being a dick."

If it's a stranger, or a very casual friend then yes, it is being a dick. But I'm operating on the OP's statement that the two players had some familiarity with each other.

Look at it thusly. These two guys know each other well enough to have discussed the fact that one of them hates being tickled. Yet, we have a circumstance where one of them is basically tickling the crap out of him for an extended period of time. As we are all adults here (18+) this can't really be put off as teenage horseplay, or other high school era hazing stuff.

No we have two adults. Making mindful choices.

An action that involves that much physical contact, taken by two people at this level of social connectivity, outside of a sporting activity, or other activity like dance, is a flirting behavior. It's an action taken to provoke a reply in kind... basically asking for more physical interaction.

That's why I marked it out as a flirting behavior.

Actually, your post is precisely why it is.

I was told for years that those girls who were being mean and nasty towards me "probably liked me" even though they obviously didn't and I knew it in my gut. Stuff like this is why people wind up in abusive relationships.

It seems you were the victim of bad advice. That 'they hit you because they really like you' BS is crap that parents have fed kids to bad ends for years. Sometimes mean people are just mean. And your gut was telling you the truth.

My point is that social interactions are usually pretty transparent. People tend to telegraph their desires and intent. Placed in context and weeded for game players, one can pretty much 'follow ones gut' and have a solid idea what is going on.

The fact that the OP has placed his situation in the context of 'Revenge' is a snapshot of where his read on the motivation of the other player is. He's not looking at the persons meta-behavior (flirting) but at the tickling interaction as a isolated interactive behavior that is not connected to anything more. It needs context. Once it has some one can then see it for what it is.

Myriads

 

[Myriads]

Myriads, the problem with this this "golden rule" of yours I'd that as a ler if I'm tickling a girl and I believe her to be a lee (based on her own account) that doesn't mean I consented to be tickled back, and this is assuming my tickling of her is consensual. And I don't do noncon tickling with the exception I stated in my OP.

Okay, you are in a situation with a woman where, by your above description, the relationship has moved to a place where you are looking at it sexually (acting on your fetish within it) and you are both comfortable with physical interaction in the context of your relationship.

You are acting on 'the belief that she is a lee. And thus desires to be tickled (or would enjoy being tickled) by you. And the two of you will take on traditional Ler/lee rolls in the relationship.

BUT you don't KNOW how she views the relationship, or if she IS a pure lee. She might be operating under a different viewpoint.

In that context, all you have done is introduce a flirting behavior into the relationship, and it is not unreasonable that she may, or will flirt back with you at the exact same reciprocal level of intersection, tickling you back. Operating under the assumption that you are inviting that form of play. An equal response to your flirting action.

That is how this social version of the golden rule plays off in dynamic interactions. And how 'permissions' are assumed (often incorrectly) due to miscommunicated positions.

Myriads

 

[Caligula66]

Okay, you are in a situation with a woman where, by your above description, the relationship has moved to a place where you are looking at it sexually (acting on your fetish within it) and you are both comfortable with physical interaction in the context of your relationship.

You are acting on 'the belief that she is a lee. And thus desires to be tickled (or would enjoy being tickled) by you. And the two of you will take on traditional Ler/lee rolls in the relationship.

BUT you don't KNOW how she views the relationship, or if she IS a pure lee. She might be operating under a different viewpoint.

In that context, all you have done is introduce a flirting behavior into the relationship, and it is not unreasonable that she may, or will flirt back with you at the exact same reciprocal level of intersection, tickling you back. Operating under the assumption that you are inviting that form of play. An equal response to your flirting action.

That is how this social version of the golden rule plays off in dynamic interactions. And how 'permissions' are assumed (often incorrectly) due to miscommunicated positions.

Myriads

Myriads, did you read what I said, I'm operating under the belief that she's a lee based on her own account. That means I believe her to be a lee because she told me she is!
If she's "operating on a different viewpoint" then she lied to me.

As for your "flirting with intent", how is his noncon tickling of me flirting?
Perhaps SoleMates is right and he's being a dick, by tickling him back I'm just being a dick back thus revenge.

 

[Myriads]

Myriads, did you read what I said, I'm operating under the belief that she's a lee based on her own account. That means I believe her to be a lee because she told me she is!
If she's "operating on a different viewpoint" then she lied to me.

As for your "flirting with intent", how is his noncon tickling of me flirting?
Perhaps SoleMates is right and he's being a dick, by tickling him back I'm just being a dick back thus revenge.

I'll give you the 'by her own account' I read that as you interpreting that she was a lee from things she had done/said in other venues. If it's within the context of your interaction and she knows your fetish, then it's flirting behavior on her own side. and your call of things is on mark.

Flirting covers verbal and physical actions taken by one to engage another in broadening a relationship. It's basically a form of adult 'play' that may or may not lead to grater interaction levels.

When done with intent, I mean that person A is doing something to provoke a mirrored behavior in person B. With intent on creating/driving relationship dynamics into a more intimate level.

You have an adult male crossing physical social lines, crossing a direct line drawn by your own statements.

Why would a person cross these social barriers?

Well yes they could be a dick. If they are an adult and doing this form of dickery then they are best disposed of in ones life.

Or they are attempting to alter the relationship dynamic with you. That is flirting.

It all comes down to his intent. And I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not an ass, as you'd probably not kept a friend who was an ass about, nor put yourself in situations with them.

Myriads