Another unpopular(?) opinion - "nonconsensual" tickling

[brotherted]

What might turn you on isn't at issue. No one can predict that.

Well tickling might turn any of us on, and might not, depending on the circumstances. So by this standard, it doesn't apply.
Thanks for the clarification.

Your private thoughts and private feelings are nobody's business. We should be judged by our actions.
There cannot be thought police morality.

 

[Seamus_B]

Well tickling might turn any of us on, and might not, depending on the circumstances. So by this standard, it doesn't apply.
Thanks for the clarification.

Your private thoughts and private feelings are nobody's business. We should be judged by our actions.
There cannot be thought police morality.

Oh, absolutely; our thoughts are the only privacy we have left these days; all I'm talking about are actions.

 

[brotherted]

Oh, absolutely; our thoughts are the only privacy we have left these days; all I'm talking about are actions.

But you're calling for personal disclosures based on whether certain private thoughts/feelings exist.

No. Behavior rules should never be based on what may or not be privately felt.
By your standard, a gay guy in the closet should have to disclose to everyone that the gym locker room might turn him on.

On the contrary, private thoughts/feelings can be kept 100% private, if people so choose, and their private thoughts should never have to compel any disclosures, ever.

 

[Seamus_B]

But you're calling for personal disclosures based on whether certain private thoughts/feelings exist.

No. Behavior rules should never be based on what may or not be privately felt.
By your standard, a gay guy in the closet should have to disclose to everyone that the gym locker room might turn him on.

On the contrary, private thoughts/feelings can be kept 100% private, if people so choose, and their private thoughts should never have to compel any disclosures, ever.

No, I'm not calling for behavior rules. It's just my opinion; based on my own boundaries. My boundaries are not yours, and it's clear we have different perspectives. We just don't agree, and I don't think that makes you a bad person. I think I've just had far too much experience with this "community" (online and off) with those who were.
Pax Vobisucm.

 

[brotherted]

No, I'm not calling for behavior rules. It's just my opinion; based on my own boundaries. My boundaries are not yours, and it's clear we have different perspectives. We just don't agree, and I don't think that makes you a bad person. I think I've just had far too much experience with this "community" (online and off) with those who were.
Pax Vobisucm.

Fair enough.
When you write, "My boundaries are not yours, and it's clear we have different perspectives," who could disagree with that?
If we're only talking about rules for our own actions that we wouldn't moralize to others, I'm sure I probably have some of those to which you wouldn't subscribe.
My original reason for posting here was about those who do moralize to others on this issue.
This was a nice resolution. Thanks.

 

[Seamus_B]

Fair enough.
When you write, "My boundaries are not yours, and it's clear we have different perspectives," who could disagree with that?
If we're only talking about rules for our own actions that we wouldn't moralize to others, I'm sure I probably have some of those to which you wouldn't subscribe.
My original reason for posting here was about those who do moralize to others on this issue.
This was a nice resolution. Thanks.

Anytime. I tend to swing wide when I hold forth, sometimes, but in truth, considering my own history, I would be a hypocrite of the first order to judge someone else over grey areas.

 

[P[a]pi]

About when to disclose. I would say it's best to disclose when the other person doesn't know, and especially if you are actively trying to make it happen.

You get poked, you poke back. You don't disclose cus they started it and it's over lol.

Dancing, netflix and chill, etc. You don't disclose cus vanilla people know what those things mean.

The example I gave, you offer a foot massage to a non-partner with the plan of tickling them, or you just really like feet. You should disclose, or obviously just don't do that. Don't be shady.

I guess my point was, in my opinion, being shady is a type or similar to non-con. For example, there's a thread right now where a guy is asking how he can look at and get his hands on his gf's mom's feet. He hasn't disclosed to gf, let alone the mom. It's just shady, and the community should say so.

There's another thread where women are talking about how they need/want a buddy system for sessions, aka they think men have an issue with consent. Some men do. So the default position being "all non-con is bad" is a fine and safe position. And eyebrows will always raise (especially of women) at any other position. Understandably so in my opinion (see referenced threads above).

 

[dahoochman]

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.

I get it that not everyone will have the same boundaries as me. What I despise is those that will try to force their boundaries on me. As I said, unless illegal or involving a minor - get lost.

 

[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).

My issue is the part in bold (which in retrospect, I wish I highlighted in my initial response instead of copying your who quote). NC is not on a continuum. There isn't gray area when it comes to non con (not to be confused with CNC which is fine). I'm going to use "you" metaphorically in the next part of this response. Tickling someone you're dating without knowing whether they're okay with it doesn't necessarily breach the consent. However, if you get the "no" and upon checking in, the "no" is confirmed, then any tickling beyond that is not okay. Also, if they confirmed the "no" you did in fact breach their consent on the first attempt.

I have no problem with people clarifying whether the person being tickle was okay with it in any situation that I post about. I'd like to think the community is mindful.

 

[brotherted]

Tickling someone you're dating without knowing whether they're okay with it doesn't necessarily breach the consent.

But "Tickling someone you're dating without knowing whether they're okay with it" is literally non-con. In that sentence you have explicitly codified the very continuum that elsewhere you rejected. Did that first tickle the person you're dating last 1 second? Or did it last 10 minutes? The range of that possible answer exactly represents a continuum.

And yes, I do agree that these other human queues matter a lot -- that's 100% what I believe. How did they respond? Did they say "stop," and if so, say stop in a way that a non-austistic person would understand as serious rather than playful? Or, did they react in a way with a smile, and a lean in that implies, "I dare you to do it again!" without the 'lee ever literally saying a word? It's fair and intuitive human interpretation that matters, not a rule about whether someone ever said specific words.

That "lean in" example I just gave is a very realistic situation where you could quite literally never get a single word of consent, and yet it'd be 100% fine. I don't understand how anyone would argue otherwise.

 

[Seamus_B]

I get it that not everyone will have the same boundaries as me. What I despise is those that will try to force their boundaries on me. As I said, unless illegal or involving a minor - get lost.

Not being confrontational, just looking for clarification - How can someone force their boundaries on you?

 

[dahoochman]

Not being confrontational, just looking for clarification - How can someone force their boundaries on you?

 

[dahoochman]

By force I mean in terms of their reply.

 

[Soles_Scream]

But "Tickling someone you're dating without knowing whether they're okay with it" is literally non-con. In that sentence you have explicitly codified the very continuum that elsewhere you rejected. Did that first tickle the person you're dating last 1 second? Or did it last 10 minutes? The range of that possible answer exactly represents a continuum.

And yes, I do agree that these other human queues matter a lot -- that's 100% what I believe. How did they respond? Did they say "stop," and if so, say stop in a way that a non-austistic person would understand as serious rather than playful? Or, did they react in a way with a smile, and a lean in that implies, "I dare you to do it again!" without the 'lee ever literally saying a word? It's fair and intuitive human interpretation that matters, not a rule about whether someone ever said specific words.

That "lean in" example I just gave is a very realistic situation where you could quite literally never get a single word of consent, and yet it'd be 100% fine. I don't understand how anyone would argue otherwise.

Let me put it this way, I don't tickle people out of the blue, period. It's non-con if the person did not want it to happen. That's why I said it can depend. If you don't know, don't proceed. Period.

 

[Deleted member 296373]

This makes so much sense

 

[stockingfeetrbest]

I didn't even read all the posts because it irritated me. It's a sad fucking world we live in if you can't tickle your girlfriend without her "permission". That isn't how fucking tickling works. This forum is turning into a " don't ever indulge in your fetish because you are a fucking creep". I thought this place was labeled as "friendly". No wonder I spent the majority of the last 25 years on here as a lurker.

And to the OP, I am pretty sure Scarlett Sin had some non consensual tickle videos or at least that is how they were "advertised".

Would you be mad if your girlfriend slipped her hand up under your shirt and starting scratching your back? "I didn't give you permission to touch me!" She would probably break up with you. Once you have kissed a girl or been intimate with her you can do whatever you want within reason. She will tell you if she doesn't like it. I went on some dates with a lady recently and pounced on the back of her legs while she was laying on her stomach on the bed after sex. I tickled her feet for 5 min and she couldn't have cared less.

You COULD go the option of hiring someone who does tickle sessions or even hiring an escort. Pretty sure it is not illegal to hire an escort as long as you aren't paying her for sex. I would think tickling would be laughed out of a courtroom and in my own past I have hired many an escort and never had an issue. Depending on where you live there MIGHT be a lady who does tickle sessions in your area. I was lucky enough to find one. Ask in the personals.

 

[brotherted]

Let me put it this way, I don't tickle people out of the blue, period. It's non-con if the person did not want it to happen. That's why I said it can depend. If you don't know, don't proceed. Period.

But you've presented a new definition of "non-con." Your definition, as you say, is "If the person did not want it to happen," rather than the actual definition, "the person did not give consent." Wanting something to happen and giving consent for something to happen are obviously different.

Wanting or not wanting something isn't tangible or verifiable. Someone's wants can change day-to-day or minute-to-minute. People can also retroactively revise what they think they wanted, or didn't want, based on subsequent events. There can also be a part of you that wants something, and a part of you that doesn't, but based on what happens later, one of those emotions feels clearer later. Whereas giving consent is a communication between people, not one's own thoughts.

I think the conflation of these two ideas actually unpins most of the hostile discourse around the "non-con" topic. One of the most simple forms of ethical disagreement is when people apply different definitions of terms or phrases, without realizing it.

 

[Seamus_B]

I didn't even read all the posts because it irritated me. It's a sad fucking world we live in if you can't tickle your girlfriend without her "permission".

No one here thinks that. Physical intimacy within the generally accepted boundaries (you know, like your partner being conscious) is an accepted part of a romantic relationship. No one here can possibly think anyone is a creep solely for liking tickling; but how some people go about satisfying that desire, and the superhuman leaps of logic they use to justify their actions, can indeed be freakin' creepy.