Sorry to nitpick, but holding back information is not dishonesty. He's only being dishonest if she asks him about it and he denies it. There's no dishonesty in some healthy selectivity about what you reveal, even to your SO.
Apples and oranges. This is a common misconception among people in this forum. Tickling is not sex. Even for people with a tickle fetish, it isn't sex. You can't apply the same social astigmatisms to tickling just because a small handful of people get a thrill from it.
Since we are picking nits I'll clarify. By saying ''dishonest' I mean the following; Being dishonest is not lying. It's a lighter shade of that act, thus my use of the word dishonest, and not lie. Dishonestly is misdirection, omission, or allowing false assumptions to stand. I chose the word
because of it's specific meaning. It was the exact right tool for the specific job that needed doing here.
Introduction of dishonestly into a sexual interaction cheats both partners, as one is being deprived of the knowledge they might use to provide a better experience to their partner and in turn form a closer connection to them with, and the other is acting on motives that they are hiding, and in turn this makes it much harder for them to find full enjoyment in the actions. It also seeds the poison for future problems when the dishonesty is dispelled, or when true lies are used to maintain it. It's a tiny bit of mold on a relationship that can spread.
That is what I meant.
In reply to the second paragraph, your outlook is just as easily classed as the myopia that non-sexual ticklers hold regarding all tickling activities. It's one of the basic divisions in this community and one of the roots of some of the troubles we have.
For those new to this topic I'll recap.
There are two basic groups of tickling fans.
I'll call them Playful ticklers, and Sexual ticklers.
Playful tickers see tickling as a basic fun activity that builds social connectivity, and provides a positive feeling of release and play. At most it's foreplay, and not a sexual act in and of itself.
Sexual ticklers are aroused by tickling on the sexual level. It's a direct stimuli response equation that turns them on. Whenever they encounter ticking, their first response is sexual, and not chosen. They can of course stop that response with thought, and deal with situations as needed properly, but that is an effort that requires a mindful moment.
The problem that the community often faces is that both of these groups have no understanding of the others outlook and how set it is, and what it causes for its holder.
The sexual ticklers see the playfulls talking about tickling their kids, and blood relatives and get a horrified incest/child porn gut response. The playfulls fail to get that for the sexuals there is always that arousal aspect connected to the act first every time that cannot be passed by easily. They end up confusing and disgusting each other and fight.
Morning Lorie is coming from the playful side of the equation. My advice comes from the sexual, and take note that I qualified my advice at the end of my post with that very fact to prevent a misunderstanding exactly like Mornings from happening.
For sexual ticklers the tickle/fuck interchange is 100% on target. Why? Because for the sexual ticklers tickling IS a sex act. And bears all the weight and meaning that other sex acts have.
Here let me make a translation into the 'standard' sexual lexicon.
In a base sexuality, a male seeing a nude female is considered a sexualized action. Nudity is linked to male arousal. So situations where a male views a nude female take on sexual elements.
So our society develops traditions that take this into account.
A man has a 16 year old daughter. She's taking a shower. Is it proper for dad to walk into the bathroom and have a chat with her? To enter her bedroom while she is changing? For most people the answer is a gut based no. And that answer is based on an understanding of how that viewing is a sexual activity for the 'average' psychology, and thus crosses lines of appropriate father/daughter interaction.
Same deal with tickling, and sexual ticklers. The act is directly connected to their sexuality. It cannot be easily separated from it. So a comparison where a sex act is flipped in for tickling works.
This DOES NOT hold for playfulls.
Nor does it hold for someone with no connection to tickling at all (lets call them vanillas) But one thing Vanilla's DO understand is this; when they encounter a sexual (tickler or some other fetish) they tend to get on the gut level that the act is sexual for their partner. And they quickly place their partners actions in that sexual context. ALL their partners actions (Hey! You tickled my mom... a lot! HEY! you were always tickling my girlfriends when they visited. HEY!!!!! you tickled my little sister!) and make conclusions based on that.
Are women disgusted by a foot fetishist in general? Nope.
But tell them that guy working in the shoe store is a foot fetishist and see how fast the disgust-o-meter pops into the red. This is an example of how Vanilla's look at sexual fetish. The dishonesty inherent in getting ones jollies from unaware subjects sets off the disgust response. All based on how sexuality is understood (or misunderstood)
The OP made it pretty clear in his post that he gets off on tickling in a sexual way. So I felt comfortable classing him as a sexual tickler, and using the tickle/fuck tool to show an easy way to get a quick read on how a vanilla might well view his actions. I'll stand by it.
If he's a playful tickler then he has no problem. But I don't think he's of that group like Morning Lorrie is.
Myriads
