Dare

[oneyoudontknow]

I have a dare or just information for you that may help lees that dont have lers but could make their dog into one. If you were to soak a pair of socks, nylons, or your barefeet in bacon grease, you could get your dog to lick your feet to death. Combine this with self bondage and you could have quite a night. I unfortunately do not have a dog so this is out of the question for me. So tell me what you think.

 

[minerva]

I love dogs and I love to be tickled, but for me those two have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Bizkit]

Well......it's been a long time since I was tickled,I'll tell you that.As much as I would enjoy to be tickled,that scenario is just not very appealing to me.

 

[chicago]

I'm into people, not animals.

 

[SamuelKhan]

No doggie style...

Bondage is no fun without a partner to begin with. If you have a dog involved in any way shape or form, you are truly a pervert.

Just saying.

 

[method11236]

Bacon socks!!!

HAHAA!!

 

[slap'n'ticklee]

Nope

Not for me and besides the point its an animal; dogs normally have bad breath

 

[omnifeller]

Lol, I've always wondered if dog-owner/tickle-lover people do that. I say, if you've got a dog, and you're having trouble finding a tickle-partner, why not?

 

[Wolf]

Why not?

Lol, I've always wondered if dog-owner/tickle-lover people do that. I say, if you've got a dog, and you're having trouble finding a tickle-partner, why not?

Because most of us can find a partner within our own species, I guess. That's why not.

 

[GuldenVleugel]

Tickling is considered erotic to most of us. Dog's drool isn't.

 

[Banshee]

Just Plain Sick

Next thing you know he'll be advocating asking young girl train passengers about their feet.

I for the life of me can not understand why anyone would let a dog do this!

 

[oneyoudontknow]

Ok what i said sounded creepy. So ill explain. I dont own a dog, nor would i even do this to begin with, and i have seen tickle clips that did in fact use dogs, but i was just trying to help people find a way to tickle themselves but wish to remain in the closet about it, and this would be a simple solution

 

[LindyHopper]

Bondage is no fun without a partner to begin with. If you have a dog involved in any way shape or form, you are truly a pervert.

Next thing you know he'll be advocating asking young girl train passengers about their feet.

I for the life of me can not understand why anyone would let a dog do this!

There is a world of difference between engaging in activities that violate the comfort of an innocent, possibly underage, human bystander, and activities that you personally find yucky. If you can't make this distinction, you've got no right to be calling anyone else a pervert for mentioning an unconventional sexual activity that harms no one.

 

[Wolf]

P.E.T.A. is on line one.....

There is a world of difference between engaging in activities that violate the comfort of an innocent, possibly underage, human bystander, and activities that you personally find yucky. If you can't make this distinction, you've got no right to be calling anyone else a pervert for mentioning an unconventional sexual activity that harms no one.

So, using another creature (whether you deem it sentient or not) for sexual pleasure, consent not being a consideration, is okay? Remind me never to ask you to dog-sit at my house.
I'm no animal rights nut. I love steak. Eating animals may be wrong. It's also delicious. But c'mon, using an animal for your sexual pleasure is ok? Really?
So, by that logic, you can go around fondling brain-dead coma patients, right? Since no one gets hurt? (I know, it's a leap. But not a huge one. If lack of sentience takes away the consent issue...there you are.)
I try not to judge, really, but isn't this taking the "as long as I get off on it, it can't be wrong" philosophy a bit too far?
As far as I'm concerned, do what you want with consenting adults and inanimate objects (and any combination thereof). Leave the puppies, kitties, and gerbils alone. They can't say "no". That's just uncool. I realize there's a contradiction with my expressed opinion, and my not being a vegetarian. I can live with that.

 

[Banshee]

Any Type

Any type of sexual activity with an animal is ILLEGAL, it doesn't matter whether I find it sick or not.

 

[P[a]pi]

Nah man.

What you do is, you fill your bath tub up with bacon grease and jump in it. Then you tie yourself to a table or bed butt-naked and let your dogs and cats lick you all over.

Do it lonely lees!

BACON SOCKS!!! haha :laughing my ass off:

 

[Wolf]

With all this bacon grease being poured around...

Nah man.

What you do is, you fill your bath tub up with bacon grease and jump in it. Then you tie yourself to a table or bed butt-naked and let your dogs and cats lick you all over.

Do it lonely lees!

BACON SOCKS!!! haha :laughing my ass off:

...is anyone else starting to think of Homer Simpson?

 

[LindyHopper]

So, using another creature (whether you deem it sentient or not) for sexual pleasure, consent not being a consideration, is okay?

If you put bacon grease on your hands, and had a dog lick it off, would that be wrong? I believe your average dog would gladly do so, voluntarily, and with enthusiasm. And I doubt the dog would care whether you put the bacon grease on your hands or on your feet, nor would the dog care if you found it sexually arousing or not.

We're not talking about holding down and fucking a helpless bunny up the ass here. I believe that the hypothetical dog in this situation is consenting to participate.

Any type of sexual activity with an animal is ILLEGAL, it doesn't matter whether I find it sick or not.

If I'm not mistaken, "sexual activity" as defined by bestiality laws, has to involve penetration and/or genital contact. I seriously doubt a bestiality charge would stick in this situation.

To me, this is an example of people who have a tickling fetish assuming that everyone else is going to perceive tickling as sexual, too. But my guess is if you ask a dozen people off the street what they'd think of getting a dog to lick your feet, they'd think it was odd, and probably gross, but not an animal rights violation.

 

[RavenMoon]

If you put bacon grease on your hands, and had a dog lick it off, would that be wrong? I believe your average dog would gladly do so, voluntarily, and with enthusiasm. And I doubt the dog would care whether you put the bacon grease on your hands or on your feet, nor would the dog care if you found it sexually arousing or not.

We're not talking about holding down and fucking a helpless bunny up the ass here. I believe that the hypothetical dog in this situation is consenting to participate.



If I'm not mistaken, "sexual activity" as defined by bestiality laws, has to involve penetration and/or genital contact. I seriously doubt a bestiality charge would stick in this situation.

To me, this is an example of people who have a tickling fetish assuming that everyone else is going to perceive tickling as sexual, too. But my guess is if you ask a dozen people off the street what they'd think of getting a dog to lick your feet, they'd think it was odd, and probably gross, but not an animal rights violation.

Very good point. I feel that as long as the animal is not tethered or restrained and not penetrated or sexually touched, then it is not violating the animal. The animal is free to disengage at any time.

While this may not be my cup of tea, I can see how it may be pleasurable to others. And additionally, I can't count how many times I have been sitting on the couch and had my long hair cat tickle the back of my neck with its tail. In fact, my Love had his head upon my lap while a cat lay there as well and I tickled his ear with its tail. Was I violating that cat's rights and engaging in disgusting sexual activity with it? Oh, and the cat must be a deviant as well since it did not miss a beat purring...

 

[Banshee]

So Lindy

Aren't you the one who used the term unusual sexual activity implying of course it meets the legal definition of the term beastiality. Last I checked I wasn't the one saying anything about it being sexual.

If this came to a court of law I'd merely refer the judge to his posting this on a site on which tickling is predominantly sexual and I bet I'd win.

 

[LindyHopper]

Aren't you the one who used the term unusual sexual activity implying of course it meets the legal definition of the term beastiality. Last I checked I wasn't the one saying anything about it being sexual.

The legal definition of bestiality is copulation with an animal. Anything you or I might think or say has no bearing on this definition. The fact that tickling is sexual to us does not make is sexual for the judge, the jury, or the dog. 🙂

If this came to a court of law I'd merely refer the judge to his posting this on a site on which tickling is predominantly sexual and I bet I'd win.

I think that's nonsense. The existence of the TMF does not change the legal definition of "copulation," any more than the existence of sneezing pornography makes sneezing in public obscene. The opinions of fetishists on the edge of mainstream opinion do not define law.

And incidentally, if you'd actually go to the trouble of trying to get someone locked up for getting a dog to lick their feet, you really need to find a less ridiculous outlet for your values and moralizing. 😉

Very good point. I feel that as long as the animal is not tethered or restrained and not penetrated or sexually touched, then it is not violating the animal. The animal is free to disengage at any time.

I really like how people who participate in the BDSM community seem to be much more reasonable and reflective about notions of consent and harm. "Pure" tickling fetishists (not most of them by any means, but a few), can't seem to separate what bothers them from what actually violates the rights of another being. It's sad when people think their hangups should define morality for everyone.

 

[RobAce]

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT!!!!

Rob

 

[RavenMoon]

I really like how people who participate in the BDSM community seem to be much more reasonable and reflective about notions of consent and harm. "Pure" tickling fetishists (not most of them by any means, but a few), can't seem to separate what bothers them from what constitutes an actual violation against another being.

Mainly this comes about because so much of what we do lays in the gray. Contracts between Masters and slaves are meaningless in courts. Negotiations for scenes are upheld only by the honor between participants. In the most basic of forms, as soon as the rope is tied, as soon as a submissive is spanked or flogged, a crime is essentially committed regardless of any consent given. All it takes is one thing going wrong. An outsider calling the cops and them showing up to a submissive welted and tied to a bed. Or playing with the wrong partner and having them cry rape. Now you are screwed.

This is why we think so much about things like consent and trust. This is why we try to be so careful in how we define such things. And this is why we tend to speak out so much, attempting to teach others to think reasonably as well. Attempting to get them to open their minds and not judge, but to be empathetic and learn.

Best wishes to you.

 

[TheTenaciousJ]

Hey guys check this out.


http://ticklingparadise2.com/store/...,x/Tickling VHS/DVD/All Tickling/Witch Trial/

http://ticklingparadise2.com/store/...HS/DVD/All Tickling/Tickled to the Last Lick/


Well I don't like to make people feel uncomfortable. I do want to point out these two videos to help put some things to rest.