BDSM folks and tickling - they DO go together! :)

[BellaRisa]

Thank you for re-posting that Lindy, that was an amazing weekend for Boom and myself

Frankly, I was part of the the overall alternative adult community for *years* before being presented with the odd notion that BDSM and tickling are seperate, rather than tickling simply being a part of a huge BDSM spectrum. Not all BDSM is about power exchange other than giving a bit of personal power over to the Top; much is just plain fun, and that's where tickling falls. It really is that simple. I met BDSM enthusiasts, told them I enjoyed tickling, and they tickled me or let me tickle them at BDSM events. Then I met the same people at tk gatherings like NEST or my own, and they tickled me or let me tickle them there. The clothing was a little different (for me, not the guys, they still wore dark jeans and t-shirts 😛 ), but the play was exactly the same, the cuffs or rope were the same...the only differences were the sounds in the background. And not by as much as you'd think 😉.

Not too long ago, my best friend and I were bound to tables in the same room; I was being tickled, she was indulging in some mild electricity play. She's the type that laughs her head off when the adrenaline flows, so the two of us were just plain hysterical, lol. The thing is, if you'd been blindfolded you'd never have known which of us was engaged in tickling and which was participating in BDSM. There simply is no big seperation between the two unless you create it in your mind because being right is that important to you 😎

 

[Redmage]

For me, I'm quite happy to leave BDSM and tickling as the seperate distinct interests that they are. It's cool to be interested in one, the other, or even both, but neither BDSM nor tickling require interest or participation in the other.

I don't believe anyone in either camp has ever claimed that combining them is a requirement, except insofar as BDSM is an umbrella concept that includes a great many kinks - including tickling. That's simply a conceptual "combination," sort of like saying that music includes hip-hop.

There are lots of kinky people who like a wide range of things but don't include tickling in their repertoires. Conversely there are many people for whom tickling is their only kink. People who like Bach often don't care for Snoop Dog, and vice-versa, and I don't doubt that many Bach fans would try to deny the Snoop's work is really music.

There MAY be certain benefits for ticklephiles who are willing to explore BDSM conceptually - not that they ever have to try spanking (for example), but they may find that many of the customs and ways of thinking in the larger BDSM community may improve their tickling experiences. Each person needs to decide for himself or herself whether any of those benefits would be worth the mental rearrangement needed to access them. There's no rule that says either group needs to embrace the other.

 

[ViperGTS]

BDSM and tickling are indeed married, as far as I am concerned. There's just something about telling a delicious sub to not move an inch, then tickling the hell out of her, that gets me all fired up.

 

[Oddjob0226]

My personal comfort zone.... well, I kind of like the two activities separate. However, I'm well aware that my personal comfort zone shouldn’t necessarily be public policy or anything.

If only.

On the other gloved hand, having one’s comfort zones creatively compromised by a well-versed individual, or being on a team with nothing better to do but dominate the immoblized citizens of this country…. you know, life is full of adventures and tradeoffs. Tickling with some face slapping, tickling and mild smothering, tickling one sole and drawing a candle across the other sole at the same time… really, tickling combined with any other kind of perverted activity sounds highly entertaining. Some people are “vanilla” while the fetish folks like a little spice. But I think those swirled soft-served cones have their place, too.

 

[drew70]

I hope you'll invite some of these "countless others" to participate in this thread, especially if they have something more to say than, "Contrary to the personal experiences posted here that clearly indicate the opposite, BDSM and tickling have nothing to do with each other." 🙄

I see I hit a nerve. My apologies, as that was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to suggest that those with a foot in both worlds don't have genuinely good experiences. I personally regard BDSM as a subset; One of the many scenarios in which tickling can and does occur.

No one is saying that having overlapping interests in tickling and BDSM is required. The point is that opening one's mind to exploring outside of a narrowly-defined interest may give one an opportunity to experience something else he or she may enjoy. I was the beneficiary of such open-mindedness on the part of BDSM-ers last weekend, as I described in my original post.

No offense, but it seems like you are a little condescending to those of us who decline the exploration of BDSM. Your choice of words suggests we're not "open-minded" unless we do so; that focusing our energies on tickling alone is "narrow." I guess that having a lot of experience in judging people's preferences has enabled me to readily identify it more clearly in others.

As for whether or not acknowledging the relationship between tickling and other forms of BDSM is necessary or desirable, it seems to me that the only people who would benefit from denying such a relationship are those who don't want their "fun, happy, innocent" interest "tainted" with something "perverted."

Say rather that they are happy with their kink as it stands and feel no need or desire to mix it with other interests. Surely they are within their rights to make such a decision without being labeled as narrow or close-minded, don't you think? One can spend a lifetime exploring the different ways and means of tickling without even broaching on BDSM. In my opinion, the choice should be up to each one individually, rather than this rallying cry to bridge the two worlds.

Otherwise, it appears to me that the average ticklephile would benefit a lot from accessing the wealth of knowledge and experience that's already out there in the BDSM community. If they did, we wouldn't have so many people confused about how to tie toes without cutting off circulation, or thinking that tickling in suspension bondage would be a fun thing to try on a lark. If you look at the handful of TMF posters who contribute most helpfully on these and other related topics, they are overwhelmingly people who participate actively in both tickling and BDSM.

I'm not convinced that's true. I've seen both good and bad ideas from both camps. A little common sense goes a long way. Believe it or not, many of us long time tickling enthusiests have gotten along quite well without the workshops on toe-tying or flogging. Not that those workshops are bad things by any means, I'm just saying that we tickling purists do a pretty good job of achieving our goals safely, without the BDSM instruction manuals.

Without precedents from the BDSM world, ticklers would need to reinvent the wheel about how to create intense ticking experiences while staying safe and happy. Now that notions of consent are highly valued here, and safewords are common practice in the tickling world, what's the point in pretending that these concepts didn't come from BDSM? It's dumb to go about our tickling lives ignoring all the past, present, and future benefit we can derive from allowing some crossover.

Sorry, Lindy. If you're asking us to believe that notions of consent as well as concepts of immobilization through restraint originated in BDSM, you are asking quite a bit indeed. It's simply not true. I've seen countless old movies in which both good guys and bad guys are captured and *gasp* restrained with rope. 😱 A couple of them included interrogation with tickling.

Tickling does not require a dungeon, nor does it require bondage. I recently saw a clip in which two women in close proximity each had one wrist restrained high over their head and proceeded to tickle each other with their free hands. So it's a fact that tickling can even be enjoyed with neither participant in ascendence over the other; in other words, with neither being dom nor sub.

It's sad that you refuse to acknowledge that tickling has it's own history and legacy, completely divergent from that of BDSM, but that is of course, your choice. I wish you well in your search for fulfillment. 🙂

 

[Redmage]

I see I hit a nerve. My apologies, as that was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to suggest that those with a foot in both worlds don't have genuinely good experiences. I personally regard BDSM as a subset; One of the many scenarios in which tickling can and does occur.

I think that sort of defines the divide, actually. You see, I consider tickling a subset: one of the many scenarios in which BDSM occurs.

It seems to me that the divide here is based on definitions, and in part on misconceptions about BDSM. Definitionally, when I see someone saying that BDSM and tickling cannot/should not be combined, they are usually treating BDSM as a set of practices, and saying that those practices cannot/should not be combined with tickling. On the other hand, I regard BDSM mainly as a set of concepts and philosophical approaches that can inform a wide variety of practices. I see tickling as one of those practices.

No offense, but it seems like you are a little condescending to those of us who decline the exploration of BDSM. Your choice of words suggests we're not "open-minded" unless we do so; that focusing our energies on tickling alone is "narrow." I guess that having a lot of experience in judging people's preferences has enabled me to readily identify it more clearly in others.

From my own perspective I see the problem not as one of preferences, but rather as one of declarative statements. I think everyone is entitled to their preferences, and no one should ever have to venture where they aren't comfortable going (at least, not in their sex lives). But I may have to take issue with a declarative statement that contradicts or condemns my own experiences.

To bring that rather airy paragraph down into the context of this discussion, I don't have any problem at all with someone who says "I don't want to combine BDSM and tickling." I might disagree with the speaker conceptually, since personally I think that's like refusing to combine art and painting, but I'm not going to say that the speaker's preferences are wrong. However if someone says they can't be combined, then I'll have to take issue with that because as Mark Twain would say, "Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it done!" Likewise saying that they should not be combined - in any sense that implies a moral imperative, that the combination is wrong - is likely to get my back up.

But a simple statement of preference? No, I don't have a problem with that. It's like someone saying they don't like sushi - all I can do is offer my condolences; I can't condemn them.

Believe it or not, many of us long time tickling enthusiests have gotten along quite well without the workshops on toe-tying or flogging. Not that those workshops are bad things by any means, I'm just saying that we tickling purists do a pretty good job of achieving our goals safely, without the BDSM instruction manuals.

I think that where ticklephiles might benefit from exposure to BDSM is not so much in flogging, toe-tying, or any other technical practice. Sure, if a ticklephile really likes bondage and wants to do it better, then his or her local BDSM community is one of the best places to start. But more generally I think ticklephiles can benefit from the general philosophical ideas and ways of doing things that inform all BDSM practices.

I'm talking about things like scene negotiation, energy work in scene, kink ethics, ways of finding kinky partners, living with and accepting one's kink, and so on. These are things that can enhance any kink, and they're skills that one can really improve through working with the BDSM community. One of the biggest conceptual stumbling blocks that I've seen in these discussions is the idea that BDSM fans are trying to somehow convert ticklephiles to other kinks, and that has never been the point at all. It's more that we see certain things that all kinks have in common, and we think that we could help in those areas. It's not "Come do what I do," it's "I can help you do what you already like to do better."

Now, when a BDSM kinkster makes an offer like that, it seems to arouse a couple of common reactions in many ticklephiles. The first is "What, you think you're better than us?" But no, that's not what we're saying at all. I think that we're more numerous, not better. And that, I think, is indisputable - the mere fact that BDSM clubs can sustain themselves and hold large weekly events shows that. Numbers offer a real advantage - it means that the BDSM community has a lot more minds working and interacting to refine ideas and practices. It's not moral superiority; it's just massive parallel processing, you see? It means that that community offers the benefit of enormous collective experience.

The second common reaction is "What could you teach me? I don't want to do any of the things you do." And that's the concept/practice divide I mentioned at the beginning. There are certain issues that are common to all kinks, and that's where BDSM excels most of all, because that's where our parallel processing is greatest: in the areas where all of us overlap. It has never been about needing to do what I do. It has always been about the commonalities that underlie all kinks.

Some time ago I recommended two books to you: The Topping Book and The Bottoming Book. I recommend them again. They're specifically about these underlying concepts that I'm talking about. They don't describe how to be a better sadist or a better masochist, but rather how to get better at being kinky, whatever your kink.

If you're asking us to believe that notions of consent as well as concepts of immobilization through restraint originated in BDSM, you are asking quite a bit indeed. It's simply not true.

Hm, no, I wouldn't ask anyone to believe that. At least not in the way you seem to mean. I know for a fact that "BDSM," as a philosophical framework, goes back only about 100 years. The practices that that framework brings together are much older than that. However, that said, the process of formalizing ideas like consent, of refining safety practices, and treating the whole thing as a cohesive set of ideas and skills probably can be traced to the evolution of the BDSM community. I'm old enough that I can remember when these ideas began making their way into the tickling community as the community itself began to coalesce through the internet (beginning back in the newsgroup days).

I think that that is another area in which sheer numbers gave the BDSM community a leg up. Tickling fans had a much harder time coming together with one another in the days before the internet became a going concern. Not that it was easy for BDSM kinksters, but it was easier simply because there are so many of us: we aren't as widely scattered. That means that the BDSM community is older than the tickling scene, and I vividly remember watching the tickling community discovering and absorbing ideas that the people I knew had developed some time before.

None of this means that tickling fans must adopt any specific BDSM practice. But tickling deals with many of the same issues that other kinks do, so there's a body of cross-kink experience that's available to anyone who wishes to tap into it.

 

[BellaRisa]

I think that sort of defines the divide, actually. You see, I consider tickling a subset: one of the many scenarios in which BDSM occurs...It seems to me that the divide here is based on definitions, and in part on misconceptions about BDSM. Definitionally, when I see someone saying that BDSM and tickling cannot/should not be combined, they are usually treating BDSM as a set of practices, and saying that those practices cannot/should not be combined with tickling. On the other hand, I regard BDSM mainly as a set of concepts and philosophical approaches that can inform a wide variety of practices. I see tickling as one of those practices.

Thank you Redmage, I only cut your post for length 🙂

I strongly agree with the notion that tickling is one of that variety of practices. This is why I'm genuinely surprised when some folks still claim that when they get tied down and tickled it's not BDSM. Honestly, how is it not? What difference does it make whether it happens at BlackRose or at NEST? In my mind for a decade now, tickling has been a limb on an incredibly large tree that includes many, many parts. To me, saying that tickling is seperate is like saying that your limb isn't part of the tree because it has a different function than other limbs (spanking, foot play, etc). The roots may be in a different location from the leaves and have very little to do with each other, but they're still part of the same tree. Tickling purists, spanking purists, every kind of fetish purist has a group within their kink that wants to be oh so seperate and removed from BDSMmers, "they don't do that stuff"; meanwhile each group of purists has nearly the exact same issues that Redmage and others have touched on: finding play partners and like-minded individuals, safeword debates, knowing your partner's body and meeting their needs, interest in varied role plays and toys, techniques, etc. There's a reason that tickling classes are being included in more and more BDSM event workshop schedules: because...wait for it... tickling is part of BDSM. When you're tied down to a table at NEST being tickled you can tell yourself you're not participating in the B (Bondage) part of BDSM if it makes you happy to do so, but even you know better 😉

 

[drew70]

Redmage, I just want to say that your last post makes a world of sense to me. You're an excellent communicator and there's a lot to what you say.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that tickling and BDSM should never be combined. There are many who enjoy both, and I say bravo, keep enjoying. I also acknowledge that there is some overlap between the two interests. Some aspects of tickling involve BDSM. Some aspects of BDSM involve tickling.

I concur with what you say about the struggling emergence of the tickling community. I too remember the days when one could only find sporadic tickling material loosely scattered among Bondage and Foot magazines. I don't doubt that the BDSM community, being larger and older, has more experience at community administration and management, but can't that be said about a lot of communities built on special interests? You take any well established community, be they gun enthusiests, swingers, sci-fi efficianados, or even the gay community. These communities all emerged, grew, and flourished without the benefit of the BDSM community to help them. I'm convinced that the tickling community can as well.

I guess what I disagree with are things I'm not so much hearing from you, but from a couple of the others. Things like tickling is simply a branch off of the tree of BDSM, etc. I can see how it would seem that way to those who take great pride in their experience in both communities, but I think their flaw is that they believe we all like tickling for the same reasons they do. That tickling is all about control, dominance, submission, etc. While I'm sure this is true for some, perhaps even many; there are many other reasons people in the community are into it.

For example, one of my favorite tickling scenarios is when a woman scratches my back very softly, and then very slowly begins to edge outward toward more ticklish areas. Now, at what point does this soft tickle become BDSM?

That's my point. Tickling isn't necessarily about bondage, contol, torture, or submission. There are many of us who enjoy tickling but simply have no interest in BDSM. Clearly there are some who have a hard time wrapping their brains around this concept, but it's true, nonetheless.

Bottom line, if you enjoy both tickling and BDSM, it's cool and acceptable. If you enjoy one, but not the other, well that ought to be just as cool and just as acceptable.

 

[Strider]

To me, at least, tickling has fallen under the wider rubric of BDSM since I started being able to form opinions on these things.

 

[LindyHopper]

Thank you to Redmage and Bella for your long view and insights on this thread. 🙂 I don't have experience in the BDSM community dating back decades - I'm definitely an outsider looking in, and I really feel more like a BDSM anthropologist* than an actual practitioner. Still, I'm really enjoying opportunities to learn how tickling and various aspects of BDSM relate for me.

As for you drew, as long as you're no longer criticizing people who "vainly try to marry the two together," and condemning such choices as not "necessary, or even desirable," then there's no need for us to argue. 😉

If you're asking us to believe that notions of consent as well as concepts of immobilization through restraint originated in BDSM, you are asking quite a bit indeed.

I never said BDSM invented immobilization - don't think I don't see you making sh*t up in some lame attempt to score points in an argument. 🙄 However, the notion of formalizing consent, as well using safewords, was widespread in the BDSM world before the tickling community even existed. Our use of the specific word "safeword" indicates that the concept was borrowed from them.

It's sad that you refuse to acknowledge that tickling has it's own history and legacy, completely divergent from that of BDSM, but that is of course, your choice. I wish you well in your search for fulfillment. 🙂

What's with this patronizing tone? I'd never have expected such a thing from drew the new! 😛 [/sarcasm]

The United States has its own history and legacy as well - no one would deny that. You can spend a lifetime studying U.S. history without ever making reference to the rest of the world. But many events would make a lot more sense if you put them into the context of world history. You could pretend that England had no role in shaping our origins and our path, but why would any but the most blindfolded jingoist do such a thing?


Anyway... without making comment on anyone else's choices to explore or not to, I can list off some ways that attending this BDSM convention was eye-opening for me. Let's see...

There's a lot more going on in the club than just tying people up and hitting them. Some of the more creative scenes I saw included a game of human ping pong, and an elaborate marionette setup. Sure, there was paddling involved in the one, and bondage in the other, but those seemed almost secondary to the more creative elements.

Some of this stuff I'm not even sure how to classify. BDSM? Maybe, but certainly not prototypically. What would you call a setup where you put someone, garbed all in white, in floaty-looking suspension bondage (think "Nirvana album cover"), hang them maybe 20 feet off the floor, and tap them with dramatically-swinging light sabers? I think the word I'm looking for is "dork-tastic." 😀

There are many interesting ways to add depth to a scene. Music, literature, spirituality, and more can alter the way a scene feels. We were treated to a workshop by a genuine theater geek about how to assemble the key elements of a mad scientist, pirate, interrogation, or other fantasy scene. This particular club even has a mast!

Many (most?) kinky people don't roll with the whole D/s thing. One of the presenters was struggling getting a local foot party off the ground, and when I described the situation to my foot-party-organizer-friend, he commented that emphasizing the Domme/sub dynamic would fail to resonate with the majority of foot fetishists. Based on my experience, I'd have to agree, and this applies to tickling folks as well...

... which does not mean that such people need reject the notion of BDSM as a whole, just because there's an element in it that doesn't appeal to them. You don't have to apply the whole package, nor deny that the one element you use (say, bondage), is somehow not part of BDSM.

I think some of the "I have no interest in BDSM" attitude comes from an overly-narrow conception of what that means. You don't have to be into spanking, or "torture," or submission to find something resonant and useful there.


* Hey - and speaking of my learning about this stuff... what is the "leather community?" Are BDSM, LGBT, poly, and sexual openness just assumed to go together? It's kind of reminding me of the Democratic Party: a diverse bunch of different groups with widely different histories and concerns, mainly united through being marginalized from the mainstream. Sorry, little tangent, just curious.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

LindyHopper: * Hey - and speaking of my learning about this stuff... what is the "leather community?" Are BDSM, LGBT, poly, and sexual openness just assumed to go together? It's kind of reminding me of the Democratic Party: a diverse bunch of different groups with widely different histories and concerns, mainly united through being marginalized from the mainstream. Sorry, little tangent, just curious.

the leather community revolves mostly around wearing leather accouterments, and is seemingly focused on the gay male spectrum of BDSM, even though there are lesbians and straight BDSM folk who also participate in that sect of the lifestyle. i have also seen, due to my involvement as of late, that several poly groups also partake of the lifestyle, but this is far from the norm (as normal as poly can get, at least). if i remember correctly, some of our own TMF'ers are part of their own poly groups, and can probably shed more light on the subject than i can.

everything else you mentioned, Lindy, can/does/will go together like glue and paper, but only those truly ignorant (not saying you or any one else that has posted so far) would make such generalizations. it's like saying all gay males have AIDS, or all lesbian women look like guys with really broad chests.
(again, not slamming/flaming anyone, just mking a point. i tend to ramble...)

as for me...i went down the path of BDSM as i grew older because it interested me, and i found people who had been involved in it for a long time to share their wisdom with me (Redmage, here is where i praise you 😀). it seemed...natural to me to explore such an intriguing and creative part of the more unusual aspects of sex and sexuality. tickling gave way to bondage, bondage gave way to me discovering i was a switch, and i went from there. tickling was my gateway, and i'm glad to be a part of such an unusual hobby.

 

[BellaRisa]

It's sad that you refuse to acknowledge that tickling has it's own history and legacy, completely divergent from that of BDSM, but that is of course, your choice. I wish you well in your search for fulfillment.

What's with this patronizing tone? I'd never have expected such a thing from drew the new! [/sarcasm]
The United States has its own history and legacy as well - no one would deny that. You can spend a lifetime studying U.S. history without ever making reference to the rest of the world. But many events would make a lot more sense if you put them into the context of world history. You could pretend that England had no role in shaping our origins and our path, but why would any but the most blindfolded jingoist do such a thing?

Thank you Lindy. *Every* aspect of BDSM has it's own rich history and background; bondage for instance has everything from Shibari to Hojojutsu and goes back forever. Spanking definitely has it's own pedigree and backstory, an entire week with the folks from Shadow Lane or Crimson Moon wouldn't be enough for you to be filled in. Their individual evolutions in no way take from their connections and shared history with the rest of BDSM of which they are both parts, like tickling; its sad when that's blindly denied...😉

 

[Redmage]

Hey - and speaking of my learning about this stuff... what is the "leather community?" Are BDSM, LGBT, poly, and sexual openness just assumed to go together? It's kind of reminding me of the Democratic Party: a diverse bunch of different groups with widely different histories and concerns, mainly united through being marginalized from the mainstream. Sorry, little tangent, just curious.

Leather is a specific subset of BDSM. It's not exactly a fetish in itself, but more a particular philosophical approach. It is often more thoughtful than regular BDSM: Leather tends to place more emphasis on symbolism, ethics, integrity, and building a worldview around principles common to BDSM. Not that BDSM on the whole ignores these things, but overall BDSM is focused mainly on sexual and play aspects, whereas that's only one part of leather.

Historically leather arose after WWII, when gay soldiers found themselves mustered out of the military and philosophically adrift. Some of them came together and formed motorcycle clubs, which gave them some of the sense of comradeship and some of the structured rules that they had found in the military. Of course since these weren't military groups they quickly evolved in social and sexual directions, and the gay leather movement was born. That symbolic structure appealed to hets as well when the two groups came together in the burgeoning BDSM community of the late 60s and early 70s. So many leatherfolk today are straight or bisexual, but you can still see their roots in the sorts of gear they favor: vests, chaps, denim, boots, and old-fashioned motorcycle caps.

BDSM is not synonymous with LGBT or poly. It is arguably synonymous with sexual openness, or at least sexual tolerance. BDSM encompasses such a wide variety of kinks that tolerance has to be a core value or it would fly apart. In fact that's part of the social purpose of the old "Safe Sane Consensual" standard and the more modern "Risk-Aware Consensual Kink."

No one likes every kink. Everyone has their "squick zone," aspects of kink that just make them uncomfortable. So SSC/RACK evolved in large part as a means of saying when a kink is fundamentally OK even when you can't understand why anyone would do that. It's a mechanism of tolerance, to say "Well, I don't like it myself, but it's SSC, so all right." It heads off a lot of arguments, and it has made tolerance of other peoples' kinks fundamental to how BDSM works.

LGBT issues are NOT synonymous with kink, as non-kinky gays and lesbians will be at pains to tell you. However the core value of tolerance does make it easier for gay and straight kinksters to get along, and being part of a misunderstood minority gives kinky people more empathy with gays who face discrimination.

The same is true of polyamory - many poly-folk are not kinky. Many kinksters are not poly. However sexual tolerance has allowed kinky folk to see poly at work much more often than most non-kinky people ever do. So if misconceptions about poly are all that is keeping someone from exploring it, that person is much more likely to have his misconceptions dispelled if he's kinky. This leads to very widespread acceptance and practice of polyamory in the BDSM community.

 

[drew70]

Thank you to Redmage and Bella for your long view and insights on this thread. 🙂 I don't have experience in the BDSM community dating back decades - I'm definitely an outsider looking in, and I really feel more like a BDSM anthropologist* than an actual practitioner. Still, I'm really enjoying opportunities to learn how tickling and various aspects of BDSM relate for me.

If that's what interests you, I think you should explore it. It's refreshing to actually see you acknowledging a need for for better understanding of something. I too confess a similar need and I'm taking steps to meet it. 🙂

As for you drew, as long as you're no longer criticizing people who "vainly try to marry the two together," and condemning such choices as not "necessary, or even desirable," then there's no need for us to argue. 😉

Ah, you misunderstood. When I said "Vainly try to marry the two together" I was not referring to people desiring to explore both tickling and BDSM. What I was referring to is the movement mostly by those into both BDSM and Tickling to unite the two communities into one. To officially or unofficially establish the Tickling Community as a subordinate to the BDSM community. This is what I consider to be vain, unnecessary, and undesirable, although I hardly think such terms imply condemnation. Say rather that I'm dubious than actively hostile. 😉

I never said BDSM invented immobilization - don't think I don't see you making sh*t up in some lame attempt to score points in an argument. 🙄

Hey come on, now. No need for hostility. No, you didn't say that exactly, but it has been implied by others and even by you when you said

"Without precedents from the BDSM world, ticklers would need to reinvent the wheel about how to create intense ticking experiences while staying safe."​

During 'intense tickling experiences,' safety is achieved first and foremost by keeping the ticklee immoble, fixed, free from the risk of falling or injury due to involuntary reactions. In other words...restrained. Your words seem to suggest that without consulting BDSM precedents, the Tickling community would experience difficulty in achieving this level of safety. I just don't agree that it takes BDSM's rocket science to figure it out.

However, the notion of formalizing consent, as well using safewords, was widespread in the BDSM world before the tickling community even existed. Our use of the specific word "safeword" indicates that the concept was borrowed from them.

No, it doesn't. All it means is that we simply came to the same obvious, easily-reached solutions that they did. There's no copyright on the concept of safety, Lindy. We didn't borrow anything.

What's with this patronizing tone? I'd never have expected such a thing from drew the new! 😛 [/sarcasm]

Au contraire, Lindy, I think I've radically altered my attitudes toward a lot of things and a lot of people. The old drew would have summarily dismissed you as an amoral hedonist with no concern for anything beyond your next orgasm. The new drew sees you as an extremely bright and compassionate young lady, full of potential, if lacking somewhat in humility.

The United States has its own history and legacy as well - no one would deny that. You can spend a lifetime studying U.S. history without ever making reference to the rest of the world. But many events would make a lot more sense if you put them into the context of world history. You could pretend that England had no role in shaping our origins and our path, but why would any but the most blindfolded jingoist do such a thing?

It's a well-documented historic fact that the US started out as a British colony. Indeed to deny such incontrovertible evidence would be a simple case of blind denial.

Tickling on the other hand did not start as a colony, offshoot, or branch of BDSM. For most of us, it started out as innocent childhood play between friends and relatives. It started with scenes from television shows like The Flinstones, Popeye, The Three Stooges, and Mr. Ed., none of which have any connection with BDSM. Most of us were tickling or being tickled before we even knew what sex was, much less BDSM.

Finally, lets recap the things on which we can all hopefully agree.

1) If you're already into tickling and are curious about or interested in BDSM, then I would recommend talking to some of the TMF experts on it, such as Redmage, Strider, and/or Myriads.

2) A lot of folks are into more than one thing, and that's okay. For some, tickling is a big part of their BDSM experiences. For others, tickling is wrapped and intertwined with their foot fetish.

3) We all need to be tolerant of those with different interests as well as those that don't share our interests no matter how much we want them to.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Leather is a specific subset of BDSM. It's not exactly a fetish in itself, but more a particular philosophical approach. It is often more thoughtful than regular BDSM: Leather tends to place more emphasis on symbolism, ethics, integrity, and building a worldview around principles common to BDSM. Not that BDSM on the whole ignores these things, but overall BDSM is focused mainly on sexual and play aspects, whereas that's only one part of leather.

Historically leather arose after WWII, when gay soldiers found themselves mustered out of the military and philosophically adrift. Some of them came together and formed motorcycle clubs, which gave them some of the sense of comradeship and some of the structured rules that they had found in the military. Of course since these weren't military groups they quickly evolved in social and sexual directions, and the gay leather movement was born. That symbolic structure appealed to hets as well when the two groups came together in the burgeoning BDSM community of the late 60s and early 70s. So many leatherfolk today are straight or bisexual, but you can still see their roots in the sorts of gear they favor: vests, chaps, denim, boots, and old-fashioned motorcycle caps.

BDSM is not synonymous with LGBT or poly. It is arguably synonymous with sexual openness, or at least sexual tolerance. BDSM encompasses such a wide variety of kinks that tolerance has to be a core value or it would fly apart. In fact that's part of the social purpose of the old "Safe Sane Consensual" standard and the more modern "Risk-Aware Consensual Kink."

No one likes every kink. Everyone has their "squick zone," aspects of kink that just make them uncomfortable. So SSC/RACK evolved in large part as a means of saying when a kink is fundamentally OK even when you can't understand why anyone would do that. It's a mechanism of tolerance, to say "Well, I don't like it myself, but it's SSC, so all right." It heads off a lot of arguments, and it has made tolerance of other peoples' kinks fundamental to how BDSM works.

LGBT issues are NOT synonymous with kink, as non-kinky gays and lesbians will be at pains to tell you. However the core value of tolerance does make it easier for gay and straight kinksters to get along, and being part of a misunderstood minority gives kinky people more empathy with gays who face discrimination.

The same is true of polyamory - many poly-folk are not kinky. Many kinksters are not poly. However sexual tolerance has allowed kinky folk to see poly at work much more often than most non-kinky people ever do. So if misconceptions about poly are all that is keeping someone from exploring it, that person is much more likely to have his misconceptions dispelled if he's kinky. This leads to very widespread acceptance and practice of polyamory in the BDSM community.

it's funny how similar our responses were...must have been dipping my quill in the same ink.

STAY OUTTA MY INK!!!

 

[LindyHopper]

Thank you to Redmage and cloudgazer for answering my leather community question. Your answers helped organize a lot of bits and pieces that I've heard, but couldn't quite assemble into a logical whole. 🙂

As for the rest:

When I said "Vainly try to marry the two together" I was not referring to people desiring to explore both tickling and BDSM. What I was referring to is the movement mostly by those into both BDSM and Tickling to unite the two communities into one.

I'm pretty sure there's no such movement (which is why your original statement sounded like a condemnation of individuals). I think I would've gotten the memo. 😉 All I've seen are people who are into both interests, who have their own ways of conceptualizing the relationship, and who encourage others to explore it as well.

During 'intense tickling experiences,' safety is achieved first and foremost by keeping the ticklee immoble, fixed, free from the risk of falling or injury due to involuntary reactions.

Ah. See, I was speaking of psychological safety: how to understand what the 'lee is looking to experience, and how to push them right up to the point of what they can stand, but not past that. You accomplish this with consent and safewords.

All it means is that we simply came to the same obvious, easily-reached solutions that they did. There's no copyright on the concept of safety, Lindy. We didn't borrow anything.

"Safety" is a common-sense concept that should arise in any community that needs it. "Safeword" is a specific term that is more likely to have been borrowed than to have arisen independently multiple times.

We can draw an analogy to biological evolution. The wing of an eagle and the wing of a butterfly have very little in common physiologically - this is evidence that wings arose independently in birds and insects, for the reason that flight is useful. In contrast, the wing of an eagle and the wing of a dove have the same basic bone structure, indicating that these wings came from from a common ancestor.

Only... wait a second. I'm talking to someone who doesn't believe in evolution, aren't I? Phooey. Never mind, forget I said anything, let's just drop it. 😛

Au contraire, Lindy, I think I've radically altered my attitudes toward a lot of things and a lot of people. The old drew would have summarily dismissed you as an amoral hedonist with no concern for anything beyond your next orgasm. (and then the backhanded compliment)

Of course, the new drew still likes the sound of "amoral hedonist," "no concern," and "next orgasm" enough to say them again here, for no particular useful purpose. 🙄 Go ahead, admit it: old habits die hard.

It's a well-documented historic fact that the US started out as a British colony. Indeed to deny such incontrovertible evidence would be a simple case of blind denial.

Tickling on the other hand did not start as a colony, offshoot, or branch of BDSM.

Okay then - France, if you prefer. It had only a minor role in our inception as a country, but once we got our act together and united a scattered bunch of colonies under a single government, we bought a bunch of territory from them that suited our growing needs. We settled and developed this territory, which is now such an integral part of our country that people no longer even think about where it came from. In fact, now that we're a great nation in our own right, the average American would rather not associate themselves with those fruity bastards across the pond. 😉

Better? 😀

3) We all need to be tolerant of those with different interests as well as those that don't share our interests no matter how much we want them to.

Sure. I think we can all agree to keep our collective chocolate out of your peanut butter, as long as you can manage not to raise a fuss every time a Reese's commercial comes on.*

* And I think that's my third excessively far-flung analogy in a single post. I'm going to go lie down now.

 

[Dave2112]

Let me chime in here if I may. I will be honest and add the disclaimer that I have not read all the posts, and I am not respondng to, or arguing with, any particular post, member or viewpoint. Please remember that[i/] if I get quoted later. Just take my post here as a stand-alone viewpoint on the topic presented.

From my own perspective, there is no point seperating tickling from BDSM. Tickling is a part of BDSM. Now, of course, I am not including those who simply have a tickle-thing, don't use bondage or view it as a more light-hearted endeavor. I'm being general and talking about the bondage aspect, the control, all of that.

I responded in another thread and I wound up saying something that fits here. I'm not a "Ler". I'm an Alpha-Male Dominant. I am cross-kinked to the Nth degree. Leaving aside the sterotype of "power tripping" for the moment, I'm pretty much just a reaction junkie and a sensation addict. This isn't a choice, it's the way I'm wired.

Tickling is what you'd call my "primary". It's the primary focus of my techniques of control, punishment...whatever labels you wanna put on it. I don't see tickling as an "off-shoot" or anything like that. I'm gonna be bluntly honest here and speak from personal experience. I've whipped folks, used electro-play, water...all kinds of stuff. I've rarely gotten the intense reactions that I have with tickling. I've been to BDSM gatherings where several folks have "no-tcikling" limits or rules. What does that tell you about the intesity of the experience? It's a tool that far too many "BDSM" people (to blatently use a steretype myself to make a point) overlook.

To seperate the two is akin to saying "spanking isn't BDSM", or "Sensory Deprivation isn't BDSM." More to the point, it's like saying the alternator isn't a part of the car, because it's not directly responsible for making the vehicle move.

Im sure this has been brought up here many of my esteemed friends, but again, I'm just posting blind here...it's not about the actions themselves, it's about the mindset itself. The scene and the personal dynamics. BDSM is not something you can easily put into a nutshell or under an all-encompassing blanket.

Let's say I'm having a session with a Submissive. She's allowed herself to be put into bondage and awaiting whatever it is I'm going to do to her. The dynamic is working, everything's cool. Now, what changes if I whip her or tickle her? If these things are what she's after in the first place? Not the actions, mind you, but the giving-up of any control she has over the situation. She's come into it with no preconceptions of a "scripted scene", she's just going into her submissiveness, her true submissivness, where she's left it to me to provide the sensations, whatever they may be. So, what difference does it make which technique is used?

Tickling is starting to take a more prominent role in what, for the purposes of this thread, you would call "standard BDSM". For instance, I have a session recorded (not one of mine), with a submissive with arms and elbows tied behind her back and knees and ankles tied. She's basically just on the floor that way. The Dominant, after some other stuff, tickles her and finds that it has a serious effect. He utilizes this by starting a session of something I really dig...Whip or Tickle. Starts whipping her ass, and she has to ask to be tickled for that to stop. Then, she has to ask to be spanked for the tickling to stop. Beyond the physical, this has set up a quandry for our hapless lass, as she has to psychologically prepare herself to actually ask for one form of torment or another. She has the power to change the stimulus, but he has the power to deliver it. It's that fine line between a true Dom/Sub dynamic and "Topping from the Bottom". When you can achieve that dynamic, it's magic, and it's true BDSM. Afterward, she's stimulated to orgasm if she asks to be tickled the moment she achieves "magic time". Tell me what part of tickling here is NOT BDSM? Mind you, this session is from a group of folks with a site that is not a tickling site, it's a fairly hardcore BDSM site. The fella I'm talking about is one of the few Doms who even uses tickling, but he does to devastating effect, using it differently for different submissives. By the time this session was over, she's laying there in blatently obvious "subspace", a phenomenon often claimed as a throw-away term, but fully achieved only under the right circumstances. She's had no stimulus for over a minute or two, and she's lying there giggling hysterically in that "hitching" sort of way with a smile on her face and coming down rather nicely. It's a very intense scene that you would not expect from what people might stereotypically regard as "hardcore players."

On a final note, there's another aspect of tickling that easily fits into the realm of BDSM, and in fact may only fit there. I'm talking about using tickling on those for whom tickling isn't exactly "fun" in the...say....NEST sense of the word. Please don't jump on me for being a prick or abusing anyone...I'm talking about play between people completely who are vested in the complete Dom/Sub dynamic. A submissive does not always simply submit to that which she enjoys. That's where you start skirting Topping from the Bottom (TFTB). Example: I have a sub tied down and we're playing. I tickle her and she has an unexpected reaction of not really laughing out of enjoyment, but squirming away because it "bothers" her. It's a good scene and we're both fully into our roles. This fact that the tickling bothers her is something I can use. Not to torture her, per se, but to retain control if it begins to slip or I sense any TFTB, and to push her limits. Not just for me, mind you. Many true submissives are submitting because they want to explore where their limits are and to experience what they feel when their limits are tested or exceeded for however long they can take it. (This is not TFTB.) So, if the situation calls for it and I tickle her that way, watching it really get to her and completely taking control of her reactions, how could possibly say that that's not BDSM just because it's tickling and not whipping or candle wax or something? What i've described above is the very heart of BDSM.

Ok, sorry to ramble guys, but this is a topic that's very important to me. It's kind of a goal of mine, to make tickling far more a part of "standard BDSM" (I hate that descriptive, but I'm making a point). Wrapping up, none of this means that I don't like plain old, "just tickling" scenes. Like I said when I started out, tickling is my primary and it has many facets for me. As much as I can delve into my dark side and find fulfillment, I can just as easliy be a very light-hearted and happy tickler ofr the sake of tickle fun alone. I don't feel that one should ever limit themselves when it comes to expressing their sexuality, their kinks or even their lives for that matter.

Especially not if it's because some set of labels and terms tells you to.

Thanks for listening, my friends, and I hope this made sense. If anyone wishes to explore this topic further or has questions about anything I've said, my PM door is always open!

Dave2112