Almost non-consensual

[Operator]

I know from reading other posts that non-consensual tickling is a touchy subject here in the forum. That sparked a question based on my own experiences.

For those who enjoy the fantasy of non-consensual tickling, is someone forced to endure tickling because of losing a bet or owing the tickler something even though they hate it as good?

I mean, technically they consent to being tickled or tied up or what have you, but beyond that initial consent you have for all intents and purposes a non-consenting ticklee.

Thoughts, from either the lee or ler community?

 

[rhiannon]

Just turn it around and imagine something is done to you that you don't like. How good is that?

I think only people who have absolutely no conscience and sympathy for others could enjoy that.

 

[Operator]

See... a reply like that is why it took me a few days to post this thread- posts that go anywhere involving non-consent at any level get tossed right into the fire. I have both conscience and sympathy for my victims whether it involves tickling or other kinks, and I find your reaction offensive. Let me follow it up:

1) Everyone who makes their 'lee beg because they have had enough and then pushes them a little further has no conscience or sympathy?

2) If tickling is a manifestation of the s/m kink for some, then being forced to submit, while a hated sensation, may be an extreme turn on for the 'lee (it has been for the instances I have experienced which led to the thread), so does them submitting to something they hate knowing the end result mean they at some level consent?

All the same, Rhiannon, i appreciate your input. I have had a lot of things I don't enjoy having done to me carried out (just so you know that I do have perspective on both sides) and while I hated the experience, the end result was valuable to me and so I don't regret it- even perhaps enjoy the memory though the experience itself was unpleasant.

Other times, expecting to hate something, I have found that I actually enjoyed it immensely.

 

[BrightEyes1082]

Operator,

I get what you're saying. I am in a D/s relationship, so when I accepted
the collar, I consented to submitting to whatever she puts me through.
I've always loved tickling (hence being on a tickling forum) but it was
always a more sensual act for me, with a partner. When you take that
part of it out of the equation, and add the sadistic streak, I find it to be
complete torture and often have difficulty enduring it. But in the end, I
still love being forced to endure things I don't particularly want to endure.
I feel exhilarated afterward, even if I feel like I'm dying during it. Does that
make sense? I like to call it "consensual non-consent."

 

[rhiannon]

Everyone who makes their 'lee beg because they have had enough and then pushes them a little further has no conscience or sympathy?

Everyone who doesn't respect the safeword should not play. Only the lee decides when they had enough. It is different if the lee says in advance that they want it taken a little further.

If tickling is a manifestation of the s/m kink for some, then being forced to submit, while a hated sensation, may be an extreme turn on for the 'lee (it has been for the instances I have experienced which led to the thread), so does them submitting to something they hate knowing the end result mean they at some level consent?

There are people who like the 'suffer'-sensation of tickling, I am one of them. But it is still liking, not hating. People who seriously hate it will not enjoy it.

Of course, if someone willingly submits to something they hate, the ler has consent! But is it really enjoyable to do something the other person hates? If you care for the person?

I have had a lot of things I don't enjoy having done to me carried out (just so you know that I do have perspective on both sides) and while I hated the experience, the end result was valuable to me and so I don't regret it- even perhaps enjoy the memory though the experience itself was unpleasant.

Good for you. For others it leads to a trauma!

Other times, expecting to hate something, I have found that I actually enjoyed it immensely.

That's different. You can't say you hate something before you tried it. But I thought we are talking about people who already know they hate something.

 

[firegod86]

Well this is because non con to me means they do not consent to the tickling in the least.
Your idea is more akin to maybe half non con. Because she would be fighting with herself against it and not you.
True noncon is simply not right under any circumstances because it's being done against her will so even if she enjoyed it in the end. Does not make it right that it was done.
Personally even if i give a playful tickle and the girl protests loudly it bothers me.
But if she enjoys it to some extent and agrees to play the role as it is as it may be realish. then have fun and imagine to your heart's content.

 

[Operator]

Intriguing

Thank you for your thought-out input, BrightEyes. To your first response, it is that "consensual non-consent" that I was trying to pose the question about- if that was close enough to true non-consent for the more sadistic and less sensual ticklers to get their desired result from, or if it was still different.

Rhiannon, as to your replies to my points, while I disagree with some of your answers, I am glad to hear them and add them to my philosophical approach to the fetish. Thank you.

 

[rhiannon]

I know what you mean.....there are a lot of non-con fantasies online, and having someone consenting to being tickled although they hate it is really the closest you can get to that fantasy.

Honestly though....I believe most people would not like the reality of it. There are a lot of women who have rape fantasies, but would they enjoy it in reality? I doubt it!

You need a certain kind of personality to enjoy making people suffer - and in my opinion, not a nice kind of personality.

 

[maniactickler]

Safewords are for wimps! long live non consensual!

 

[LD_Tickler]

I wholly and almost exclusively enjoy non-consensual tickling fantasies. Losing a bet or owing a favour are both fantasy premises that appeal to me.

 

[QueenMari]

I say a deals and deal and a bets a bet.You give consent by agreeing to the deal or bet

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think only people who have absolutely no conscience and sympathy for others could enjoy that.

Ah, just rub it in, please.

 

[LD_Tickler]

I say a deals and deal and a bets a bet.You give consent by agreeing to the deal or bet

Right, but the discussion has two levels.

One level is that nonconsensual tickling in reality is bad because a person didn't give consent, and you have no right to inflict something upon them. On this level, you're right, you've made a contract. A deals a deal.

But the other reason which real nonconsensual tickling might be wrong is not whether or not you have the right to do it. It's the matter of causing human suffering. Whether or not you are acting according to your rights within the deal, you're still causing suffering which you could easily choose not to do. That's the other issue that "a deal's a deal" doesn't address.

Which is why, as somebody who likes non-con fantasies, I can still get off on the idea of the victim losing a bet or owing a favour.

 

[Operator]

Wow- I am glad that there is some heavy discussion on both sides of this issue. I have had a lot of excellent tickling experiences that began with a bet that the 'lee never expected to lose, and while being tied up they make the last minute protest- "oh god, I haaaate being tickled..."

I have always enjoyed these scenarios, not necessarily more than truly consensual play but certainly in a different way. Non-con is an alluring fantasy on some level and not unlike the mock-rape fantasies mentioned by Rhiannon, but due to some grain of humanity within me this type of scenario is as close as I come to exploring it in real life.

Thank you to everyone on both sides of the issue for your input.

 

[QueenMari]

Right, but the discussion has two levels.

One level is that nonconsensual tickling in reality is bad because a person didn't give consent, and you have no right to inflict something upon them. On this level, you're right, you've made a contract. A deals a deal.

But the other reason which real nonconsensual tickling might be wrong is not whether or not you have the right to do it. It's the matter of causing human suffering. Whether or not you are acting according to your rights within the deal, you're still causing suffering which you could easily choose not to do. That's the other issue that "a deal's a deal" doesn't address.

Which is why, as somebody who likes non-con fantasies, I can still get off on the idea of the victim losing a bet or owing a favour.

I'm confused here.I mean if you just walk up to somebody and start tickling them and they say stop and you continue then,yes,you would be wrong but if you had a prior bet with them which they agreed to then,a deals a deal.
Now the flip side here is if you agreed to a two hour tickling if they loose say a game of Checkers but you see they can't handle it then,yes you need to stop.You're not trying to hurt someone it was just a fun game.

 

[LD_Tickler]

I'm confused here.I mean if you just walk up to somebody and start tickling them and they say stop and you continue then,yes,you would be wrong but if you had a prior bet with them which they agreed to then,a deals a deal.
Now the flip side here is if you agreed to a two hour tickling if they loose say a game of Checkers but you see they can't handle it then,yes you need to stop.You're not trying to hurt someone it was just a fun game.

What don't you understand? You seem to have it down.

The idea is that there are two ways that somebody could object to non-con tickling. The first being that a person doesn't have a right to do something to another against his/her will. The second is that a person shouldn't make another person suffer.

"A deal's a deal" may solve the first objection, but not the second.

 

[DanishTickling]

I know you have to be really careful with what you say about this subject if you don't want to be verbally attacked by some people.

but I admit that non-con tickling is a huge turn on for me! and by that I'm not saying I would do it in real life, but I can't refuse that I find the thought of it very sexy.

For those who enjoy the fantasy of non-consensual tickling, is someone forced to endure tickling because of losing a bet or owing the tickler something even though they hate it as good?

it depends on how ticklish the lee is and how much she hates it. most people who's ticklish and hate being tickled wouldn't make such a bet/deal UNLESS they really thought they would win or don't know how ticklish they actually are!

that's why I think it can still be non-con tickling even though the victim agrees to it in the beginning. cause when she finds out how ticklish she is, she'll might regret she agreed to go through it.
therefore the most important thing for me is not whether the victim has agreed to it or not, but how much she suffers during the tickling.

so in answer to your question: if the victim hates it and really want it to stop DURING the tickling, I don't care about the circumstances of how she got into it..

btw I think it's a very interesting discussion you've started here

 

[rhiannon]

I think the main problem in this whole thought process is the following:

Non-con or almost non-con tickling in a story, clip, fantasy is totally different from reality!

In reality, the lee will NOT suddenly become overloaded with sensation, burst into orgasm and find out she actually loves it! Most likely, the lee will call you nasty names, scream or even start to cry at a certain point.

I doubt a whole lot of people would find that very enjoyable.

 

[QueenMari]

What don't you understand? You seem to have it down.

The idea is that there are two ways that somebody could object to non-con tickling. The first being that a person doesn't have a right to do something to another against his/her will. The second is that a person shouldn't make another person suffer.

"A deal's a deal" may solve the first objection, but not the second.

Well,then,yes,you can't hurt somebody or make them feel uncomfortable.Just be a responsible adult with everything.When playing just be gentle.When making deals if you loose take what you have coming and that's that.
Of course as always if you see a person can't handle the tickling stop and everything should be honky dory

 

[TickledToDeath]

If someone makes a bet and the bet is looser gets tickled, that person should know what he/she is getting into and too bad for him/her if he/she regrets it once tied down and the tickling begins.
If the persons hates it that much, then tickling should not have been the bet otherwise, too bad so sad for the looser.
\

 

[LD_Tickler]

If someone makes a bet and the bet is looser gets tickled, that person should know what he/she is getting into and too bad for him/her if he/she regrets it once tied down and the tickling begins.
If the persons hates it that much, then tickling should not have been the bet otherwise, too bad so sad for the looser.
\

right, because nobody is ever allowed to make errors of judgement or over/underestimation, and if they do, they forfeit the right to be treated compassionately. 🙄

 

[TickledToDeath]

right, because nobody is ever allowed to make errors of judgement or over/underestimation, and if they do, they forfeit the right to be treated compassionately. 🙄

Exactly.😈😀

 

[Radiohead 7140]

I don't consider OP's scenario non-con. I think there is TONS of material out there of people being tickled who legitimately do not enjoy it. If you lose a bet, or do it for money, or whatever, you're still consenting to it. It becomes non-con when you don't agree to it in the first place, or make it clear during the process that you genuinely need it to stop.

However, although I voluntarily go to the dentist (and i pay THAT sadist, not the other way around), I would like to officially call that non-consentual tooth-rape

 

[-Hari-]

I know from reading other posts that non-consensual tickling is a touchy subject here in the forum. That sparked a question based on my own experiences.

For those who enjoy the fantasy of non-consensual tickling, is someone forced to endure tickling because of losing a bet or owing the tickler something even though they hate it as good?

I mean, technically they consent to being tickled or tied up or what have you, but beyond that initial consent you have for all intents and purposes a non-consenting ticklee.

Thoughts, from either the lee or ler community?

Its a different fantasy all together.

For me, the thrill of the non-con fantasy is the idea of snatching someone and tickling them beyond theyre limits in a truely evil and sadistic mannor.

What you talk about is something else I like, someone going through something they have tried desperatly to avoid during whatever bet or game they have had going on, and then the "no backing out" part where they realise they have lost the bet and have to do what was set dispite theyre desire not to.

These two are very seporate fantasies.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

I doubt a whole lot of people would find that very enjoyable.

Depends. I'm sure the Sadist and/or 'Ler in the equation will get a real kick out of it. And there are also plenty of women [[and men]] who fantasize about serious non-consensual tickling. I think it's also loosely tied into "rape play" or fantasies of rape involving tickling. There are many people who really get off on being absolutely taken down by surprise and forced to partake in something EVEN IF they don't want it happening at that time. It's a control thing on both ends. The 'lee with the genuine feeling of "loss of control" which is affecting them a lot heavier then in a consensual scene, and the 'Ler with the feeling of having all the control. It's a much different mind frame then while engaged in a pre-planned or known about interaction, even when both parties know each other. And it's a large fantasy for many of us out there, not just in the Tickling community.