Consensual vs. Non-consensual. What do you prefer?

[ManInDistress]

Non consensual has always been my thing, the restrains, the begging, the helplessness, and the humiliation are all aspects of tickling for me.

 

[duderino84]

I'm curious: which one do you like more, a girl who you tickle non-consensually or a girl who asks for it? I personally prefer it when a girl WANTS me to tickle her, but that's a lot rarer than tickling a girl without her permission. A lot of people seem to preferthe non-consensual, which I get, in a way.

Very curious about your opinions!

I like tickling women who can't stand it but like letting me tickling them. So whatever gray area that is.

 

[DreamingOfOz]

Consensual non consent xD

 

[Tenebrae]

I don't think any of us really dabble into non-con, except for tickle attacks between friends (which are exceptionally hot sometimes). I have a friend from my student years whom I tickled so harshly I got afraid a couple of times that she would sue me or something

But besides that, I don't think any of us really are potential serial killers. However, like most here, I guess, I find the idea of tickle torture (in the true sense of the word) to be infinitely more arousing than "tickle play".

Consensual non consent xD

This is actually quite a nice way to say it

 

[Origami_Maggots]

I've often thought about having a lady allow me to tickle her, even if she doesn't like it. For instance, let's say a lady is about to be evicted or have her car repossessed, and you make a deal with her to bail her out of the trouble she's in, but she has to suffer through intense tickle torture. While many would say that is taking advantage of a situation, it's not force. If she says no, she's in no worse shape than she is now. If she says yes, and suffers through it, both parties get what they want. It's consensual because she is allowing it, but not consensual because she's suffering. In short, she's agreeing to something she doesn't want. Just what comes to mind when the question is asked.

 

[Tenebrae]

I've often thought about having a lady allow me to tickle her, even if she doesn't like it. For instance, let's say a lady is about to be evicted or have her car repossessed, and you make a deal with her to bail her out of the trouble she's in, but she has to suffer through intense tickle torture. While many would say that is taking advantage of a situation, it's not force. If she says no, she's in no worse shape than she is now. If she says yes, and suffers through it, both parties get what they want. It's consensual because she is allowing it, but not consensual because she's suffering. In short, she's agreeing to something she doesn't want. Just what comes to mind when the question is asked.

Yeah I bet that's what a certain Hollywood producer who tells an actress she can have the part if she give him head thinks. "She can say no, it's consensual! And if she says yes, everyone get what they want."

As for me, if someone ever comes to me or my wife with such a proposition I think I'll nonconsensually go break the bastard in two.

Coercion is great fetish fuel no doubt. There's a 90's flick with Robert Redford about that. But in reality (as it happens alas too often) it's disgusting.

EDIT: I re-read my post. I'm sorry if it came out harsh: I am not accusing you of anything, naturally, and I understand you were talking in a completely hypothetical way. Please take no offense. I do stand by my point though~

 

[Zombie_Girl]

Like stated above, I'm all for role playing "non con" with a willing partner.

 

[savate]

Think the kind of non-consensual people expect to occur in videos never happens, cause if it was really non-consensual and the victim suffers that much, it would be assault. will be tough to avoid jail time with evidence in the form of videos on porn sites now wouldn't it?

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

I've often thought about having a lady allow me to tickle her, even if she doesn't like it. For instance, let's say a lady is about to be evicted or have her car repossessed, and you make a deal with her to bail her out of the trouble she's in, but she has to suffer through intense tickle torture. While many would say that is taking advantage of a situation, it's not force. If she says no, she's in no worse shape than she is now. If she says yes, and suffers through it, both parties get what they want. It's consensual because she is allowing it, but not consensual because she's suffering. In short, she's agreeing to something she doesn't want. Just what comes to mind when the question is asked.

Let me ask you this, does it matter to you if tickling doesn't make her suffer? (Without leaping to the idea that she just hasn't been lerred by YOU before, and that you would surely break her if given the shot.)

Hypothetically, she says "What? I'm ticklish but it's not at all torture to me. I certainly don't want you putting your hands on me, though." Assuming she went through with it, she laughs while being tickled, but shows no signs of distress, never begs/pleads, looks bored in between tickles as opposed to frightened or desperate.

 

[Wolf]

Let me ask you this, does it matter to you if tickling doesn't make her suffer? (Without leaping to the idea that she just hasn't been lerred by YOU before, and that you would surely break her if given the shot.)

Hypothetically, she says "What? I'm ticklish but it's not at all torture to me. I certainly don't want you putting your hands on me, though." Assuming she went through with it, she laughs while being tickled, but shows no signs of distress, never begs/pleads, looks bored in between tickles as opposed to frightened or desperate.

The idea of intentionally causing genuine discomfort seems counterintuitive to the whole process.

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

The idea of intentionally causing genuine discomfort seems counterintuitive to the whole process.

What process?

 

[Wolf]

What process?

Tickling. I see it as a pleasurable activity.

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

Tickling. I see it as a pleasurable activity.

That's why I was asking whether Maggot's pleasure is contingent upon the lee's suffering. The scenario put forth hinted as such, but I was just wondering. That is, would Maggot 'help' get the woman out of trouble with this "I tickle you" proposal if she doesn't find the tickling, itself, at all torturous?

 

[Wolf]

That's why I was asking whether Maggot's pleasure is contingent upon the lee's suffering. The scenario put forth hinted as such, but I was just wondering. That is, would Maggot 'help' get the woman out of trouble with this "I tickle you" proposal if she doesn't find the tickling, itself, at all torturous?

If by 'proposal', you mean 'blackmail someone into providing him with sexual gratification'...dunno. I guess that's up to him.

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

If by 'proposal', you mean 'blackmail someone into providing him with sexual gratification'...dunno. I guess that's up to him.

Sure. In the scenario, I take it that he is like the repo man, and he is going to pay what she owes monetarily if she endures tickling. Or, more likely, that he has the power to just rip up the order, wipe it from the books, sweep it under the rug.

But I was asking whether it would matter, to Maggot, if she didn't find tickling torturous.

 

[Rectangle]

A funny little thought-experiment I play every time I see one of these "consensual vs. non-consensual" threads, I like to mentally replace literally any other activity with "tickling", and see how it sounds.
It makes for entire minutes of fun, you guys should try it.

"Do you guys like non-consensual spanking?"
"How many people like non-consensual sex?"
"Anybody here really like the idea of going on a non-consensual date?"
"Hey guys! What are your thoughts on non-consensual naps?"
"When you guys eat spaghetti, do you prefer it to be consensual or non-consensual?"
"Have you guys ever let someone crash at your house against their will?

 

[Sodahead]

Consensual. To me it's all about having fun!

 

[matt62]

I've often thought about having a lady allow me to tickle her, even if she doesn't like it. For instance, let's say a lady is about to be evicted or have her car repossessed, and you make a deal with her to bail her out of the trouble she's in, but she has to suffer through intense tickle torture. While many would say that is taking advantage of a situation, it's not force. If she says no, she's in no worse shape than she is now. If she says yes, and suffers through it, both parties get what they want. It's consensual because she is allowing it, but not consensual because she's suffering. In short, she's agreeing to something she doesn't want. Just what comes to mind when the question is asked.

Consent has to involve freedom from coercion. The pressure she is under from her circumstances is what provides the element of coercion here. Therefore this is NOT consent, even if she utters the words "go ahead", because it isn't truly free.

 

[Origami_Maggots]

Yeah I bet that's what a certain Hollywood producer who tells an actress she can have the part if she give him head thinks. "She can say no, it's consensual! And if she says yes, everyone get what they want."

As for me, if someone ever comes to me or my wife with such a proposition I think I'll nonconsensually go break the bastard in two.

Coercion is great fetish fuel no doubt. There's a 90's flick with Robert Redford about that. But in reality (as it happens alas too often) it's disgusting.

EDIT: I re-read my post. I'm sorry if it came out harsh: I am not accusing you of anything, naturally, and I understand you were talking in a completely hypothetical way. Please take no offense. I do stand by my point though~

I see your point. I did originally take this as an attack, but you explained that, so all is well.

I think where the confusion here is the difference between what fantasies someone my have and the reality of them being carried out. I haven't read the entire thread. I did assume we were talking strictly about fantasy. This possibly made an ass out of me, not you. So let's say this thread is about fantasy.

Since you mentioned Indecent Proposal, I think it's ok to use a movie as an example of what I mean. Take "The Revenge of the Nerds." In that movie, secretly shot nude pictures were sold and distributed all over campus. Not only illegal, but immoral as well. In the real world, no one would say that was all right. Also, someone fooled a woman into thinking he was someone else so he could have sex with her. In the movie he was better at sex than her boyfriend so she didn't care who she saw when the mask came off. I have a hard time envisioning it playing out like that in the real world. I don't care how much she enjoyed it, once she realized what had happened, things wouldn't have been pleasant. I'm certain in a court of law, the fact that he'd deliberately fooled her would have held up more than how much she'd enjoyed it before she realized that this person wasn't who she'd thought he was. I also believe most people's morality would dictate the same thing. Even so, I've never known anyone who's watched that movie and not rooted for the Lambda Lambda Lambda fraternity. Why is that? First, because everyone has felt picked on and bullied at one point in his or her life, just like the Tri-Lambs. Secondly, the other fraternity picked on the Tri-Lambs for no reason other than senseless snobbery. I also believe that in our revenge fantasies, we may go to the extreme and give the target more than what an outside party believes he or she deserves.

What else may have made this sound worse than it was meant to be was how I went with need as opposed to greed. No matter what the circumstance, in the real world, it's not all right to do what I described. If someone is in bad shape from a job loss or some tragedy that's not her fault, then the fantasy is bad. However, if you find out that this person is about to be homeless and/or car-less because she spent her money on partying or buying expensive stuff she didn't need, you don't feel so sorry for her. Like the abuse from the athletic fraternity, her actions were pointless and she should pay the consequences. However, in the real world, the consequences need to be brought about by the parties involved and not any outside party.

Is what I described all right to do? No. Is it a common fantasy? I think so. That's why The Revenge of the Nerds holds up.

 

[Origami_Maggots]

Let me ask you this, does it matter to you if tickling doesn't make her suffer? (Without leaping to the idea that she just hasn't been lerred by YOU before, and that you would surely break her if given the shot.)

Hypothetically, she says "What? I'm ticklish but it's not at all torture to me. I certainly don't want you putting your hands on me, though." Assuming she went through with it, she laughs while being tickled, but shows no signs of distress, never begs/pleads, looks bored in between tickles as opposed to frightened or desperate.

Not a factor. However, for me anyway, tickling can be a sadism. Part of what I enjoy about it is watching the lady squirm and try to get away. She may be enjoying it, but she's still squirming and trying to get away. Most fantasies I've seen involve this. See my response to Tenebrae.

 

[LaMagra]

Great name lol

 

[Origami_Maggots]

Sure. In the scenario, I take it that he is like the repo man, and he is going to pay what she owes monetarily if she endures tickling. Or, more likely, that he has the power to just rip up the order, wipe it from the books, sweep it under the rug.

But I was asking whether it would matter, to Maggot, if she didn't find tickling torturous.

Nope, I'm not the repo man. I didn't come out and say that, but I did say "bail her out." That's not the same as "forgive the debt." Tenebrae picked up that the assumption here is an outside party saying "I can stop this from happening" as opposed to "Do Action X or I'll do Action Z." While suffer and torture may not be exactly the right words, I still believe a certain amount of sadism is involved. If not, why do so many ticklees have to be tied up?

Again, read my response to Tenebrae.

 

[Wolf]

Nope, I'm not the repo man. I didn't come out and say that, but I did say "bail her out." That's not the same as "forgive the debt." Tenebrae picked up that the assumption here is an outside party saying "I can stop this from happening" as opposed to "Do Action X or I'll do Action Z."

Making someone do something they wouldn't normally do because of their financial situation is taking advantage of an imbalance of power (in this case, financial) in order to satisfy your own needs. You know that there's something she needs, and you can get what you want because she's financially in need. Otherwise, you wouldn't have the opportunity. Happens all the time, there's really no need to sugar coat it, or justify it, or call it something it's not.

 

[GirlMeetsTickle]

Not a factor. However, for me anyway, tickling can be a sadism. Part of what I enjoy about it is watching the lady squirm and try to get away. She may be enjoying it, but she's still squirming and trying to get away. Most fantasies I've seen involve this. See my response to Tenebrae.

Oh..I thought you understood what I meant that she wouldn’t be trying to get away.

 

[Origami_Maggots]

If by 'proposal', you mean 'blackmail someone into providing him with sexual gratification'...dunno. I guess that's up to him.

It's not blackmail. If I'm suggesting a crime, it would be solicitation.