Another unpopular(?) opinion - "nonconsensual" tickling

[mch5]

Because of my extreme disability, the main sources of my enjoyment of this fetish are Cyberspace and Media.
I buy videos, which are hard to find, because of my kind of unique desires, and also I visit Chaturbate for the hope to stumble upon some tickling, or even better, finding a couple who are willing to "experiment".
[Yes, I know, it's sad, blablabla... but it's my life and I will use whatever I can to live them]

The thing is [mostly in Chaturbate] that most of the time, when the "experiment/torture" ends, they say "thank you it was funny"... which just kills it for me.
Yes, I am into the "nonconsensual" tickling, at least for the appearance.
It doesn't mean I want to kidnap an unwilling lee and torture her, even if I could, that is not my desire. but since in our world it is mostly a game/acting [and I don't mind if it's a fake as long as it fulfills my desires], why not going a bit farther and show the "resentment"?

It's an unpopular opinion because I have read here many posts&comments of people need their lee to want/enjoy it. I guess what I am looking for is a level of "suffering" that almost only exists on in bdsm videos.
And I did got to see this... extreme suffer-laughter (yet Laughter undoubtedly) , though it is very rare, in a few videos [mostly nonEnglish speaking].

Does anyone get it? Do I make sense?
I would appreciate your thoughts and/or advices.

 

[WickedTouch]

Yes, this makes sense to me. Fantasy and reality are very different things. People kill other people all day in video games, eat popcorn while they watch others get brutally tortured or eaten by zombies on the big screen, and read stories about great wars involving elves and wizards all the time. 99.99% of those people don't want that as their reality. It stimulates a deeper part of them, sometimes intellectual, but often something deeper and more primal that's hard to explain–but is a big part of what makes us human. There are just as many who won't like those things but have their own unexplainable quirks. In fantasy, I enjoy a lot of themes and ideas around tickling that I want nothing to do with in reality. Even when it comes to intensity and extreme tickling, which I love, I go out of my way to make sure the lee is safe and getting what they want out of it. But I can easily enjoy certain fictional non-consensual content. Some of it rubs me the wrong way, so I avoid it, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

There's a lot more that like this than you'd think. I feel this is a guilt bias playing out, where those that like this sort of thing struggle with these kinds of feelings at some level, and so are less likely to bring it up in community, while those that don't carry that guilt or apprehension post more often and freely leading to the impression that liking this is super rare. It may be that it's more rare than not, but I've come across it a lot in private talks with ticklephiles. I don't think it's normal, but I do think it's okay.

Hope that helps!

 

[mch5]

Yes, this makes sense to me. Fantasy and reality are very different things. People kill other people all day in video games, eat popcorn while they watch others get brutally tortured or eaten by zombies on the big screen, and read stories about great wars involving elves and wizards all the time. 99.99% of those people don't want that as their reality. ........................................................................................
I don't think it's normal, but I do think it's okay.
Hope that helps!

Thank you very much, I appreciate your thoughts.

Do you have any suggestions for where I can find more people like... me?

 

[WickedTouch]

Thank you very much, I appreciate your thoughts.

Do you have any suggestions for where I can find more people like... me?

You're welcome 🙂. They are found just about in every major tickling community online–TMF, reddit, discord servers, Tumblr, etc. I guess it depends upon what you want to accomplish when connecting with them–everyone wants something different. If you're just wanting to chat about the topic, I'm sure there's at least a few on each of those platforms. Do you frequent the TMF chat much? I feel like I've ran into a few in there. The thing is, I've never really looked for people into this. They just seem to occasionally show up as I'm talking with different people. Just interact with different individuals and hopefully you'll run into them too. One piece of advice if you post on other platforms is to continue to lead with the disclaimer that this is just fantasy and not reality. Otherwise, people may misinterpret it and you'll get off to a bad start. Other than that, just share what you're into, what you're looking for, and hope for the best. Good luck!

 

[brotherted]

Fortunately, I think this community has evolved beyond the heavy non-con police era, with the emergence of "cnc," as well as a generally more sophisticated take on levels or degrees of gray area within the non-con context.

There was an phase of most extreme #MeToo era when the virtue signaling aspect became larger than ordinary common sense. Meaning if I was dating a new person, had already made out with them a dozen times after several dates, and then in a laughing, fun moment poked them in the sides for one second, there'd be someone here to decry that story as a deplorable non-con sexual assault, since no explicit verbal approval was given in advance of that instant.

But if you're at all empathetic, i.e. not autistic, most of us at least now understand non-con as a continuum, from completely harmless to truly unacceptable. And while there will always be some gray area examples on which fair-minded people will disagree, these days most of us will now accept that in some circumstances, non-con is totally fine, (or better than fine).

 

[Soles_Scream]

Fortunately, I think this community has evolved beyond the heavy non-con police era, with the emergence of "cnc," as well as a generally more sophisticated take on levels or degrees of gray area within the non-con context.

There was an phase of most extreme #MeToo era when the virtue signaling aspect became larger than ordinary common sense. Meaning if I was dating a new person, had already made out with them a dozen times after several dates, and then in a laughing, fun moment poked them in the sides for one second, there'd be someone here to decry that story as a deplorable non-con sexual assault, since no explicit verbal approval was given in advance of that instant.

But if you're at all empathetic, i.e. not autistic, most of us at least now understand non-con as a continuum, from completely harmless to truly unacceptable. And while there will always be some gray area examples on which fair-minded people will disagree, these days most of us will now accept that in some circumstances, non-con is totally fine, (or better than fine).

Non-con in real life is non-consensual meaning, not okay. It shouldn't happen. Fantasy content and cnc is perfectly fine, but there are no circumstances in real life where it's totally fine. In fact, that's what lands folks in jail or costs them their jobs or lands them on an offender list. Don't touch people who don't want to be touched.

 

[brotherted]

Non-con in real life is non-consensual meaning, not okay. It shouldn't happen. Fantasy content and cnc is perfectly fine, but there are no circumstances in real life where it's totally fine. In fact, that's what lands folks in jail or costs them their jobs or lands them on an offender list. Don't touch people who don't want to be touched.

Respectfully, I gave a specific example. Can you address it? I wrote:

If I was dating a new person, had already made out with them a dozen times after several dates, and then in a laughing, fun moment poked them in the sides for one second, there'd be someone here to decry that story as a deplorable non-con sexual assault, since no explicit verbal approval was given in advance of that instant.

 

[Seamus_B]

Respectfully, I gave a specific example. Can you address it? I wrote:
If I was dating a new person, had already made out with them a dozen times after several dates, and then in a laughing, fun moment poked them in the sides for one second, there'd be someone here to decry that story as a deplorable non-con sexual assault, since no explicit verbal approval was given in advance of that instant.

No, there wouldn't.

 

[primetime]

Respectfully, I gave a specific example. Can you address it? I wrote:

I know exactly what you are referencing to. Yeah, there was this moral police group here that if you go out with a woman a jillion times, had sex, she loved you, but if you tickled her out of nowhere, like a playful "out of nowhere" tickle attack, you would be castigated, called a creep and should be arrested for sexual assault BECAUSE the lady did not explicitly give her consent. They literally took out context from every situation, and unless you had a deep meaning conversation with her, signed some release forms, and had a step by step lesson, you would be labeled "creep" and scorned.

This is not an exaggeration. This was the norm on this forum for a while, and it was annoying as hell. There IS a difference between true non-con tickling, and the kind of "non-consensual" tickling where both parties actually had fun with it, because it was spontaneous between two people who like each other.

We all know that true, non-consensual tickling is not terrible in reality. Fantasy wise, you will have thoughts and as long as you can separate fantasy from reality, then it is all good.

 

[brotherted]

I know exactly what you are referencing to. Yeah, there was this moral police group here that if you go out with a woman a jillion times, had sex, she loved you, but if you tickled her out of nowhere, like a playful "out of nowhere" tickle attack, you would be castigated, called a creep and should be arrested for sexual assault BECAUSE the lady did not explicitly give her consent. They literally took out context from every situation, and unless you had a deep meaning conversation with her, signed some release forms, and had a step by step lesson, you would be labeled "creep" and scorned.

This is not an exaggeration. This was the norm on this forum for a while, and it was annoying as hell. There IS a difference between true non-con tickling, and the kind of "non-consensual" tickling where both parties actually had fun with it, because it was spontaneous between two people who like each other.

We all know that true, non-consensual tickling is not terrible in reality. Fantasy wise, you will have thoughts and as long as you can separate fantasy from reality, then it is all good.

Thank you.

And the next step of this is for people to admit that it's not just one completely, totally, utterly harmless version of non-con described here -- and then everything else that's horribly deplorable and despicable. No. It's a continuum, a spectrum, an infinite gray area of varying degrees, where one story could be 5% inappropriate, another 30% inappropriate and another 82.7% inappropriate -- and we could all disagree about how problematic each particular example is, but admit that many of the real life examples don't fit an over-simplified binary yes/no.

It's kind of like defining if someone was inappropriate at a dinner party when commenting about another guest. Well... it would depend on a virtually infinite number of factors: What exactly was said, how long did it go on, what was the tone, what's your relationship to them, how did they take it, how did you respond to their response, etc. And after all that, there'd still be a level of how right or wrong it was.

Non-con is like that. There is 0% inappropriate. There is 100% inappropriate. And everything in-between. To argue otherwise is to not live in reality.

 

[SoleMates]

yeah nah, I'm calling bullshit. Nobody here has ever actually whipped up a "moral panic" over non-consensual tickling between two people who were dating/fucking. That's complete fiction.

And if you have "proof" otherwise? Put up or shut up. Let's see some links.

 

[brotherted]

yeah nah, I'm calling bullshit. Nobody here has ever actually whipped up a "moral panic" over non-consensual tickling between two people who were dating/fucking. That's complete fiction.

And if you have "proof" otherwise? Put up or shut up. Let's see some links.

That's because they don't put it quite that way.

What they say are things like: "All non-con is disgusting. If someone hasn't explicitly given consent, it's a crime."

Then someone like me comes along and says, "It depends on the situation," and then they'll say, "Bullshit. There's no situation where it's okay to touch someone who hasn't consented to it."

When the truth is, there actually are situations where it's 100% okay, as explicitly described above.

 

[Seamus_B]

yeah nah, I'm calling bullshit. Nobody here has ever actually whipped up a "moral panic" over non-consensual tickling between two people who were dating/fucking. That's complete fiction.

And if you have "proof" otherwise? Put up or shut up. Let's see some links.

Don't hold your breath - These fanatasies of persecution are most likely due to the responses some posters get when they share their creepier ideas about indulging their fetish on unsuspecting people ("Here's a fun idea...." ) where there's no reasonable expectation it could happen.

 

[P[a]pi]

Consent is not just about agreeing to actions. If I go to a barber and he cuts my hair, I consented. If I know my barber will be rock hard while cutting my hair, and later he's gona jack off thinking about me, then maybe I don't want him to cut my hair.

A lot of guys operate this way with their tickling fetish. They want to tickle whoever, however while not sharing what it means to them. If a guy wants to do this in a relationship, I wouldn't recommend it, but I think it's some what tolerable. But if a guy wants to tickle his friends, co-workers, etc, and especially if he makes it happen, offering a foot massage, etc, then he is participating in a type of non-con in my opinion.

The people he is engaging with don't have all the info. They don't know exactly what is going on. They are being tricked. Is it as bad as kidnapping someone and tickling them to death, nope. Should they still do it, nope. I understand the argument that non-con is on a sliding scale, but 100% is not the only wrong non-con.

Example of okay non-con. Some one pokes you, so you poke them back. There could maybe be others.

 

[Seamus_B]

Consent is not just about agreeing to actions. If I go to a barber and he cuts my hair, I consented. If I know my barber will be rock hard while cutting my hair, and later he's gona jack off thinking about me, then maybe I don't want him to cut my hair.

A lot of guys operate this way with their tickling fetish. They want to tickle whoever, however while not sharing what it means to them. If a guy wants to do this in a relationship, I wouldn't recommend it, but I think it's some what tolerable. But if a guy wants to tickle his friends, co-workers, etc, and especially if he makes it happen, offering a foot massage, etc, then he is participating in a type of non-con in my opinion.

The people he is engaging with don't have all the info. They don't know exactly what is going on. They are being tricked. Is it as bad as kidnapping someone and tickling them to death, nope. Should they still do it, nope. I understand the argument that non-con is on a sliding scale, but 100% is not the only wrong non-con.

Example of okay non-con. Some one pokes you, so you poke them back. There could maybe be others.

Now, I'd see that as implied consent, as they intiated the physical contact; it's all about context.

 

[brotherted]

They want to tickle whoever, however while not sharing what it means to them.

I appreciate the more nuanced take than some have offered here, but I'm curious about this part.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this standard seems to say, "If a thing we do together turns me on, and it's going to make me want to jerk off later, you have a right to know that it's turning me on."

So would this apply to everything else that might turn you on? Swing dancing with a woman, where your bodies will inevitably touch? Inviting a girl to hang out with you at a pool in her bathing suit? Watching women in a beach volleyball tournament competing in bikinis?

Seems to me if the rule is that I have to disclose to the other people involved anything I do that might turn me on, lots of people in lots of other settings will have to start making these disclosures all the time. I've known women who've been turned on by slow dancing with a guy they like or want to date. They must disclose that too? This standard doesn't make any sense to me.

Or is tickling the one activity that requires a potential private sexual response must be disclosed?

 

[Seamus_B]

I appreciate the more nuanced take than some have offered here, but I'm curious about this part.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this standard seems to say, "If a thing we do together turns me on, and it's going to make me want to jerk off later, you have a right to know that it's turning me on."

So would this apply to everything else that might turn you on? Swing dancing with a woman, where your bodies will inevitably touch? Inviting a girl to hang out with you at a pool in her bathing suit? Watching women in a beach volleyball tournament competing in bikinis?

Seems to me if the rule is that I have to disclose to the other people involved anything I do that might turn me on, lots of people in lots of other settings will have to start making these disclosures all the time. I've known women who've been turned on by slow dancing with a guy they like or want to date. They must disclose that too? This standard doesn't make any sense to me.

Or is tickling the one activity that requires a potential private sexual response must be disclosed?

I have never known a woman who hung out with me at the pool who didn't have a reasonable expectation it was turning me (and whoever else was around) on. - The other two instances, you're talking about things people could participate in with strangers. That's not the context of what's being discussed.

 

[dahoochman]

I will make this comment in general terms instead of this specific context: yes, there are the “consent police” on this site that like to think they have the moral high ground on any topic related to consent - whether it’s a non-con post or story or description, or even posting a pic. I posted a pic of my wife’s feet - let me repeat that - my WIFES feet - that she had posed for, and got attacked. “Do you have her consent?” And “sure it’s your wife” were common replies. Sorry but - those people need to get over themselves. I get it, there are some people out there that do creepy things. But what everyone needs to understand is that to the other 99.5% of the people in this world that do not share our fetish - we are ALL creepy. Or weirdos. Or perverts. That’s why I find it so infuriating when someone in our group attacks someone else in our group. This should be an inclusive community. Unless someone is condoning something illegal or something involving a minor. End of rant.

 

[brotherted]

I have never known a woman who hung out with me at the pool who didn't have a reasonable expectation it was turning me (and whoever else was around) on. - The other two instances, you're talking about things people could participate in with strangers. That's not the context of what's being discussed.

So I think you're saying I don't need to disclose something might turn me on if they're a stranger, but I do need to disclose it if I know them?

First, that seems an odd distinction. But be that as it may... how about the swing dancing a first date? Would first date fit the "no disclosure, stranger" rule, or the "yes disclosure, you know them" rule? Or how about on the second date? Third? When does it switch over?

And all of this, of course, treats being "turned on" as if it's some sort of binary yes or no, when the reality is that too is an infinite continuum -- where you can be just a little bit turned on, or kind of more turned on, or enormously turned on, based on all kinds of factors. When do the disclosure rules kick in? Women riding on the back of my motorcycle snuggled behind me has turned me on before. But other times, with other women, it hasn't at all. Must I warn them all?

In general (as I'm sure you can tell), I believe if someone else has a completely private reaction to me about which I have no awareness, I don't feel they're under any obligation to tell me. They can choose to tell me of course, but they don't owe me revelations that are private to them, nor I, them.

 

[Seamus_B]

And all of this, of course, treats being "turned on" as if it's some sort of binary yes or no, when the reality is that too is an infinite continuum -- where you can be just a little bit turned on, or kind of more turned on, or enormously turned on, based on all kinds of factors. When do the disclosure rules kick in?

Easy. When you make physical contact with them under an "innocent" pretense, where there's no reasonable expectation otherwise; it's a matter of respect and bodily autonomy.
Simple enough?

 

[brotherted]

Easy. When you make physical contact with them under an "innocent" pretense, where there's no reasonable expectation otherwise; it's a matter of respect and bodily autonomy.
Simple enough?

So your standard is physical contact under an innocent pretense, which could obviously mean swing dancing. (And yes, for most women swing dancing with strangers is simply fun, and not experienced as sexual.) Or riding behind me on my motorcycle to get somewhere.

I've taken a number of yoga classes were they "partner" people up -- and I get paired with someone else whom I touch in that context. There are countless web sites about it.

These examples should require me to disclose that I might get turned on, since they involve touching under an innocent pretense? In fairness to you, I don't think you actually believe the things you're writing. I think you're trying to be an ethical person, which is a noble instinct, but you've got this one wrong. Neither of us has to tell people what turns us on. We should be judged on what we do -- not what we privately think or privately feel.

 

[Seamus_B]

Okay, so your standard is physical contact under an innocent pretense, which could obviously mean swing dancing. (And yes, for most women swing dancing with strangers is simply fun, and not experienced as sexual.) Or riding behind me on my motorcycle to get somewhere.

I've taken a number of yoga classes were they "partner" people up -- and I get paired with someone else whom I touch in that context. There are countless web sites about it.

These examples should require me to disclose that I might get turned on, since they involve touching under an innocent pretense? In fairness to you, I don't think you actually believe the things you're writing. I think you're trying to be an ethical person, which is a noble instinct, but you've got this one wrong. Neither of us has to tell people what turns us on. We should be judged on what we do -- not what we privately think or privately feel.

You're saying simple physical contact turns you on? I though we were talking about tickling. Or are you just dodging the real issue?
Let me make this simple: If it's going to turn you on, and you don't have that level of relationship with a person (in other words, where it would reasonably be assumed to be okay, because that encompasses huge range of options, including playful or flirtatious tickling) you shouldn't do it.

But that's just me; and, believe me, I learned there's a shit ton of stuff you can do within those boundaries.

 

[Seamus_B]

I will make this comment in general terms instead of this specific context: yes, there are the “consent police” on this site that like to think they have the moral high ground on any topic related to consent - whether it’s a non-con post or story or description, or even posting a pic. I posted a pic of my wife’s feet - let me repeat that - my WIFES feet - that she had posed for, and got attacked. “Do you have her consent?” And “sure it’s your wife” were common replies. Sorry but - those people need to get over themselves. I get it, there are some people out there that do creepy things. But what everyone needs to understand is that to the other 99.5% of the people in this world that do not share our fetish - we are ALL creepy. Or weirdos. Or perverts. That’s why I find it so infuriating when someone in our group attacks someone else in our group. This should be an inclusive community. Unless someone is condoning something illegal or something involving a minor. End of rant.

That's a noble sentiment, but I don't quite share it. Any community is going to have people whose boundaries aren't the same as yours, and if they don't respect yours (or your partner's), and they're pushy, there's no obligation to be inclusive. I wouldn't attack you for posting a pic of your wife's feet, as a guy who's married to an indulgent partner, I'd hope you got her consent, but I wouldn't challenge you about it.

 

[brotherted]

You're saying simple physical contact turns you on? I though we were talking about tickling. Or are you just dodging the real issue?
Let me make this simple: If it's going to turn you on, and you don't have that level of relationship with a person (in other words, where it would reasonably be assumed to be okay, because that encompasses huge range of options, including playful or flirtatious tickling) you shouldn't do it.

But that's just me; and, believe me, I learned there's a shit ton of stuff you can do within those boundaries.

No, I'm saying simple physical contact can, and sometimes has, turned me on. The same statement applies, incidentally, to everyone alive. Nothing about "always."

So, every single time? No. I'm the one who made the point earlier about how none of this is a binary yes/no. No activity always turns me on, including tickling.
I'm not dodging the real issue, I'm showing how the rules you're stating don't make sense, because if they're applied to anything else, they quickly break down.

You write "If it's going to turn you on" -- you mean it would have to turn me on 100% of the time for the disclosure rule to apply? 62% of the time? 33%? 5%?
If dancing with a stranger might turn me on, to use your phrase, I "shouldn't do it"? Maybe you can answer just that.
None of this makes any sense.

Your private thoughts and private feelings are nobody's business. We should be judged by our actions.

 

[Seamus_B]

No, I'm saying simple physical contact can, and sometimes has, turned me on. The same statement applies, incidentally, to everyone alive. Nothing about "always."

Every single time? No. I'm the one who made the point earlier about how none of this is a binary yes/no. No activity always turns me on, including tickling.
I'm not dodging the real issue, I'm showing how the rules you're stating don't make sense, because if your rule were to be applied in real life, it clearly breaks down.

You write "If it's going to turn you on" -- you mean it would have to turn me on 100% of the time for the disclosure rule to apply? 62% of the time? 33%? 5%?
If dancing with a stranger might turn me on, to use your phrase, I "shouldn't do it"? Maybe you can answer just that.
None of this makes any sense.

Oh, no... I can clear that up. What might turn you on isn't at issue. No one can predict that. I'm talking about knowingly indulging a fetish with another person who isn't aware and doesn't have a reasonable assumption that's what it is, and what it could be doing to you. That's all. And you can spin, and parse, and throw out "what ifs" all you like, but I think any rational person can make the right distinctions. It's just that they choose not to.