I think there are some interesting things being assumed to be connected to sex here, when one needn't make such assumptions:
Iggy Pop said:
First, why do you need to balance the sexes? If this is a non-sexual thing then why does it matter if the sexes are balanced or not? What if you have a room full of guys, will you continue with the "tickle" therapy? Somehow I do not think so.
sabaki said:
(For instance, at my school there was a rule in BD club (heh, just noticed it has the same initials as bondage/discipline) that if someone you've never danced with asks you to dance, you may not refuse them. So everyone gets a chance with every partner, and no one feels rejected. I wonder if a tickling club is sufficiently removed from sexuality that you'd be able to have a similar rule without causing an uproar. My guess just based on TMF members is "no.")
Iggy: Balancing the sexes is good for a number of reasons, chief among them, comfort. No one likes to feel outnumbered (well, maybe if this
were a sexual thing, some folks would
welcome that idea, but...) -- in a social scenario, you want to have people with whom you're more likely to share ideas, feelings and concerns. Psychological comfort is key. If a club were to allow a member of a particular sex, it would likely benefit the psychological well-being of said member if there were more members of that sex so as to prevent them from feeling outnumbered in thoughts, feelings, experiences and such that are more typical of one sex than another -- a sort of additional feeling of assurance of safety via empathy, and the feeling of strength and security in numbers.
Pragmatically, it's a good thing. Imagine that ballroom dance club with only one girl... Or no girls. I mean, sure, the guys could dance with other guys, right? Hey, it's non-sexual, so they'd be equally at ease to have Dan dance with Bob, right? They'd be tangoing all night long, I'm sure...
🙄 It's far enough removed from sex for
that to be just peachy, isn't it?
Really, it's not so much about the
activity being sexual as it is the degree to which one is comfortable with their own sexuality.
That's what limits people,
not the activity. The activity is not intrinsically sexual, and need not become so for the club's purposes. Two men could tango beautifully, I'm sure, but ultimately, there are going to be some people uncomfortable with that because of the limited level of comfort they have with their own sexuality, or the beliefs they adhere to that tell them that this or that is wrong, or at least wrong for them, or whatnot (and they’re entitled to such feelings and beliefs as well). For this reason, however, it's again a matter of comfort to engage the opposite sex, and to do so in relatively even numbers, lest you wear poor Sally out on the dance floor.
I was a member of an honors "fraternity". I put "fraternity" in quotes only as it accepts members of both sexes, so you don't misunderstand. Accepting both sexes was a matter of policy. The sex balance they sought as a chapter was
not policy, but preference, out of an interest in "fairness" (also in quotes as it might be debated whether seeking to fill a vague notion of some quota might override the meritorious qualities of certain candidates, and thus be less "fair" in a sense), and to keep a good mix. Nothing sexual about it -- they just liked to keep it pretty evenly balanced -- though because of the typical pattern of academic excellence across sex at the time, we tended to have a slight bias for female candidates however hard we worked to be balanced.
But anyway, let's not assume that an effort to keep things balanced according to sex is motivated out of sexual desire or some connection thereto. That seems a bit silly and presumptuous. There are many other far better reasons to do so that shouldn’t be overlooked.
sabaki: While I understand why that rule for the ballroom dance club was put in place, regardless of the organization, I find such a rule repulsive and abhorrent. Consensuality and freedom of choice are very important things. Indeed, they are sacred, IMHO. It might be argued that those joining the club acquiesced to the rule upon entering, and so in that sense, it is technically consensual, having been agreed upon before. But imagine the unpleasantness some poor girl might have to tolerate if some brute had made unwelcome advances or inappropriate remarks toward her before, and then said brute joins the club, and by policy, she must dance with him at least once. While there are times and places to accept circumstance and offer consent to certain unknowns (usually you’re giving consent
to people you know and trust -- not giving consent to
accept people you
don’t know and trust), I don't like this rule, as it implies giving consent to too wide an unknown variable. It would be something I would not have and would strongly recommend against in any Tickle Club. That said, I don't think that concern actually has anything to do with sexuality, but freedom of choice.
Iggy Pop said:
I do not think you are going find a lot of people(in particular women) that want to be touched on thier bodies by a bunch of strangers. I just do not see people who do not have the tickling fetish already buying into this.
Women who want to be touched on their bodies by strangers... Yes, that
would be unusual. But you’re missing something. Please don’t neglect the social aspect of such a group. Unless said group was founded by a couple or couples or some tight-knit friends who were already into this activity, it’s rather unlikely that there would be any tickling at all at the first meeting or even the first few as people got to know each other and got comfortable. It would be very bad to play down the social aspect. It’s key, again, for comfort, that the participants should know each other and be at ease. There should be no “strangers” tickling people in a Tickle Club. That way lies trouble.
Iggy Pop said:
I agree with Sabaki, tickling is already a mainstream activity. What this seems like is somebody taking a fetish and trying to disguise as some type of new age technique.
sabaki said:
On the other hand, you say this would be purely for fun and health. I have doubts you can achieve that, especially with horny co-ed college students as members in an activity that involves so much touching, and frankly I do not understand why you would want to achieve that. But for the moment I'll grant that your club manages to be totally non-sexual as advertised, and think about your goal for this club with the question in mind, "Is this a good goal?" My gut opinion is that it isn't, but I'll think it over.
Definitely, the “horny co-ed college student” variable would be a challenge to be overcome -- again, one would hope, through closely monitoring and managing membership to weed out loose cannons. But consider NEST for a moment... This is a gathering, admittedly geared toward tickle fetishists and/or enthusiasts, but welcomes the merely curious, and (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), manages to keep from devolving into some demonic, blood-drinking orgy (other NEST attendees are welcome to correct me if I’m wrong in any of my assumptions
🙂 ). A number of attendees are college age. Now, what the attendees do in the unstructured time is up to them -- as it should be -- but the structured, organization-sanctioned activities during that weekend keep a safe distance from sex. Indeed, I propose that it is this divorce of tickling from sex that is part of what has allowed the event to become as popular, wide and welcoming to newbies as it is.
Does the fact that it welcomes newbies and the merely curious to an event at which fetishists attend make it inappropriate, somehow? Are they covertly trying to seduce the youth, and pull them into sexual activities? I mean, they never mention anything sexual... Even in
the owner's own description, it’s all about “friends” and “feeling accepted”, “feeling normal”, “Happiness”, and he even says explicitly that “It’s not about hooking up”. I actually happen to believe him on
all of that.
Now, granted, he lays it on a bit thick with questionably seductive, messianic language for
my taste:
“I'll be there for you. I'll tell you about how I felt and I'll take away your doubt. I promise. I know what it's like. I'll remind you what's important.” ...just a
little presumptuous (lol!
😀 ). But those who responded generally seem to like that sort of thing, and to each their own, you know? And hey, every aspiring cult needs it’s charismatic, self-proclaimed Savior, right?
😉 It’s not necessarily a bad thing -- I just personally don’t need anyone to follow, and I think I know well enough for myself what’s important... But oh, those evil, evil NEST people...
🙄 C’mon! Are you going to diss NEST? It’s a
social event with tickling as the backdrop. I think it’s a good thing in theory, and I think it
can be in practice.
Really, the only significant differences between it and what I propose for a college campus are as follows:
1. Size.
2. The emphasis in the club on the health benefits -- endorphins, cardio-vascular health and whatnot -- offered in addition to the focus on the social nature and benefits.
3. The fact that NEST engages in bondage activities while Tickle Clubs would be advised not to (for the most part), in order to draw a more conservative boundary between tickling and anything that could be construed as sexually related, and a vigorous effort overall to maintain that distance.
4. NEST, by drawing its audience from here, is mostly preaching to the choir. Tickle Clubs would try to reach out more to the mainstream.
There may be others, but I can’t think of them immediately. Maybe later.
Sabaki, you’ve questioned whether the goal would be a good thing to pursue. Allow me to, for a moment, ask why would it
not be a good goal to pursue?
sabaki said:
I think this is the opposite of what I'd like to see happen.
And that's okay, too. But consider that seeing it as something to
do rather than as something that
just happens aren't choices mutually exclusive within a person's lifestyle. If you worry about the loss of spontaneity to the gain of structure, consider that acceptance of it as a valid activity in and of itself will put it on the minds of people more often, and likely increase the popularity of spontaneous tickling episodes. If your concern or what you'd like to see happen is something else, however, please clarify.
lol
This is a good start! I'll try to address them chronologically.
