Admiral Trouser said:Ok, my thoughts:
I beleive that some people are becoming confused between what can be best described as main-stream tickling and the tickling that can be mostly found here, upon these forums. To those who say that mothers/fathers tickling there kids is proof that tickling can be playfull, may I point out that most people are referring to the fetish that is tickling ,and not the everyday "mainstream" act. There is, I feel, a subtle difference.
Foe people who are not fetetistic about tickling, it is purely non-sexual 99% of the time. For people who do consider it a fetish, I beleive that for the majority of the time it is sexual. Thats why its our fetish...we get a kick out of doing it that transcends the simpler gratification of a "playfull" tickle.
hehe.
I do agree with you that within the context of this post, sometimes there can be a fine line between our understanding vs the mainstream understanding of tickling, (in and of itself anyway). I say this because I believe the "t-phile" definition/understanding of tickling actually encompasses the mainstream definition/understanding, although the mainstream does NOT encompass ours.
I don't fully agree with the statement that tickling is non-sexual 99% of the time for non-tickle folk. I know and have had many a conversation with vanilla friends and that poke in the ribs or grab of the foot isn't always as innocent as one would think. In these cases it functions as a sort of "feeler", whose ultimate goal is more errrm... "intimate" contact. And I know they are vanilla (or at least not into tickling), because they all say the tickling is just to "get in the door". After that, there's no place for it. So I figure you have your parents and child, teasing poke type tickles accounting for 50%, and you have your on date, college dorm "feeler" tickles accounting for 50% of mainstream.



