Does having a tickle fetish obligate us to restrict our vanilla platonic tickling?

[drew70]

Scenario #1
John has a hot girlfriend named Mary who is very outgoing and mischievous. John's friend and room mate Jim has a tickle fetish that neither John nor Mary know about. Jim is specifically into F/M tickling and has every F/M video from TJ Productions, Silver Cherry, Tickle Abuse, Tickle Chicks, Tickle Torture, and not to mention hours of F/M footage from He-Whom-We-Do-Not-Mention.

Mary spends a lot of time at John and Jim's place and one day discovers Jim's ticklishness. She tackles him to the floor, sits on him and tickles him for several minutes until he can barely breathe. Now Mary doesn't have a tickle fetish, she's just very playful and mischievous. She's delighted at her discovery because though she loves John, he's just not ticklish.

After that, Mary now launches similar tickle attacks on Jim on a regular basis. John thinks it's hilarious and encourages her. Jim doesn't let on that he loves Mary's tickling as it excites him tremendously. He just eats it right up.

Questions: Is Jim within his rights to let the tickling continue, or is he obliged to try and put a stop to it? Should he tell John and/or Mary that the tickling excites him sexually? What would you do in Jim's place?

 

[StevePerry4Ever]

Whoa, that sounds like a tickling soap opera.

 

[kucheeku]

The question is almost moot

"Mary now launches similar tickle attacks on Jim on a regular basis. John thinks it's hilarious and encourages her. Jim doesn't let on that he loves Mary's tickling as it excites him tremendously. He just eats it right up."

Sorry, but if she doesn't realize at this point that Jim is into being tickled, she's as dumb as a brick. These are the things you should pick up on right away when you are dating. Otherwise, you can set yourself up for surprises that are actually unpleasant later on.

 

[Elphaba]

Let me get this straight;
Mary is going out with John but tickles Jim?

Personally if I was Jim (being a man would be a shock!) I would try and discourage Mary because she's going out with his friend and to me, it feel like I was somehow cheating on John with her because she's getting me excited. I wouldn't tell Mary and John it excited me; I'd just ask them to stop. They don't need to know why. And maybe they've already guessed.
However if John did know, I don't think he'd be too happy Mary tickling Jim when it turns him on.


Thats my own personal view. As me, a happy female, I wouldn't like my boyfriends friends tickling me as it would kinda excite me, in a weird wrong way. It would feel wrong. Likewise if family members tickle me. It feels weird.

 

[baldadonis]

As I see hit, Jim has three choices.

(1) Do nothing and continue getting tickled and not disclose his fetish to either party.
(2) Disclose his fetish to both parties or at least Mary.
(3) Not disclose his fetish, but ask Mary to stop tickling him for whatever reason he wants to give her (its inappropriate, makes him uncomfortable, etc...)

If Jim is comfortable enough to disclose this fetish to John and Mary, then more power to him. I personally don't think its our obligation to ever be forced to reveal this information to vanillas. Its personal and private to each person.

For me personally, if I'm getting tickled by a friend's girlfriend, that is merely going to be fun and playful tickling and nothing that would get me excited. I wouldn't feel a need to disclose anything in that situation and would let it continue if everyone else was fine. If Jim really can't control his excitement though, and he does not wish to disclose his fetish, than I think its his obligation to tell Mary to please stop tickling him (much as he not really want that to happen). This situation seems to balance privacy issues with ethical ones, and if the two cannot be separated, I think option 3 may be the correct one.

 

[Eternal Tomboy]

Excellent question!!

Perhaps I'm about to show my devilish streak, but there is no way in hell I would open up my mouth if I were in Jim's place. In fact, I've been a "Jim" on WAY too many occasions to count. That was how 75% of my tickle encounters happened - being tickled by guys I wasn't in a relationship with at the time.

But unlike Jim, I don't necessarily "get off" on tickling when it comes to being tickled by platonic friends (or friends of boyfriends, etc), but I do derive a "high" from it, and it would certainly not be much of a stretch to say it was very pleasurable for me.

But why in the WORLD would I say something to jeopardize (or complicate) what is being seen as a playful tickle fight among friends? Does every foot fetishist have an obligation to tell every person they give a foot massage to how much they love feet? I don't see why they would - unless they are going to try and pursue something sexual afterwards... which in "Jim's" case would be a big no-no. But the question didn't say that he was going to actually try anything with Mary, just that her tickling excited him.

There are many instances where physical contact has the potential to excite, even among friends. I've had a few back massages from guy friends that bordered on orgasmic, but I certainly didn't verbalize that during the massage. But anyone with half a clue can tell how their touch is effecting another person. So my guess is that "Mary", unless she is totally naive about male anatomy, knows how much "Jim" enjoys being tickled by her. And even if he doesn't show any OBVIOUS signs of excitement, I'm sure he's doing a wonderful job of egging her on - another clue as to how much he enjoys the tickling.

So Mary's happy, John seems happy (and secure), and god knows Jim is happier than a pig in poop - so why fuss with somethin' that ain't broke? I'm going straight to hell, aren't I?

This question reminded me of a boyfriend I had back in college who not only allowed his guy friends to tickle me on a regular basis (I'm talking playful tickle fights/ wrestling matches - not bondage), he would also often tell them the best spots to attack to get me laughing hysterically. And do you know what that did for me? It didn't make me want to cheat on him with the guys who were tickling me - it made me want to jump in bed with my boyfriend the first chance I got. His confidence, both in our relationship and in himself, was a HUGE turn on for me... and I don't think I'm alone on this one.

Maggie

 

[xSamanthax]

I don't think that Jim has any obligation to reveal what turns him on to anyone. If he is uncomfortable with the situation (whatever the reason may be), then he certainly owes it to himself to address that in some way. But I don't see an inherent obligation to reveal a sexual turn on.

There is nothing wrong with getting turned on, even if the person turning you on doesn't know it. It happens every single day - even to vanilla people, lol. Seems like a lot of people carry around a sense of shame about getting turned on, which is...a shame.

I mean...we have a lot of feet people here. Are they obligated to approach every woman who is dangling a shoe off her well turned foot and explain that she is exciting him? Nah. They just enjoy it =)

 

[xSamanthax]

Maggie,

I'll join you in hell. It is where all the cool people will be anyway.

 

[baldadonis]

I mean...we have a lot of feet people here. Are they obligated to approach every woman who is dangling a shoe off her well turned foot and explain that she is exciting him? Nah. They just enjoy it =)

I agree with you to an extent but that's oversimplifying a bit. There's a difference between being tickled by a friend's girlfriend, and some random girl dangling a shoe absentmindedly, not even for your benefit.

I do agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with Jim getting turned on by tickling. The problem is the specific situation on being turned on by his friend's girlfriend. This then gets into deeper issues about what are appropriate boundaries in a relationship as well as between someone in and someone not in a relationship. In any event, I absolutely agree Jim has no obligation to reveal personal information if he absolutely doesn't want to do it for himself.

 

[KrazieDog]

You know, if she enjoys it and her own boyfriend encourages it, what's the harm. If you aren't getting your jollies off right there and are enjoying if for what it is, just tickling, I don't see the problem. If this other guy really is a friend and you don't try to put the moves on her and everyone is happy, then so be it. If you're getting a raging boner right there or he's having confusing feelings ("I may like her") then it's time to put a stop to it out of respect for your buddy.

I mean, if your are an ass man or leg man, and the same girl is always around, you may be just as excited seeing her everywhere you all go together. You aren't going to ask her to wear more clothing. Enjoy the relationship you all share mutually and respect the boundaries.

Like Daisy, I've been in that situation and the girl loved tickling, not just me, but everybody, and her boyfriend (my friend) laughed and encouraged her. Exciting? Yes. Sexually? Not particularly. She was gorgeous and an all round cool girl, but still, my bud's girl. No harm no foul.

 

[penny lane]

Let me get this straight;
Mary is going out with John but tickles Jim?

Personally if I was Jim (being a man would be a shock!) I would try and discourage Mary because she's going out with his friend and to me, it feel like I was somehow cheating on John with her because she's getting me excited. I wouldn't tell Mary and John it excited me; I'd just ask them to stop. They don't need to know why. And maybe they've already guessed.
However if John did know, I don't think he'd be too happy Mary tickling Jim when it turns him on.


Thats my own personal view. As me, a happy female, I wouldn't like my boyfriends friends tickling me as it would kinda excite me, in a weird wrong way. It would feel wrong. Likewise if family members tickle me. It feels weird.

I have to agree with everything you said. I know many will say it's not cheating, but it feels like it is cheating. I don't know...maybe I'm too uptight about these sort of issues.

 

[drew70]

Sorry, but if she doesn't realize at this point that Jim is into being tickled, she's as dumb as a brick. These are the things you should pick up on right away when you are dating. Otherwise, you can set yourself up for surprises that are actually unpleasant later on.

Actually, in the real life situation on which this scenario is based, Mary is quite intelligent and perceptive, but Jim is careful to give no outward indications of his thrill, so that he doesn't blow a good thing. Besides, we're talking about somebody laughing hysterically, not moaning with pleasure.

So Mary's happy, John seems happy (and secure), and god knows Jim is happier than a pig in poop - so why fuss with somethin' that ain't broke?

My sentiments exactly. I posed this scenario because I think it's one to which many of us can relate. I've been in Jim's shoes more times than I can count, and I made the decision to just enjoy it and let it happen. In my cases it never affected my relationship with "John and Mary" or their relationship with each other.

But we're all different here, with different moral landscapes and values, so for the most part, there's really no right or wrong answer, just a comparison of personal values.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Well... Everyone's satisfied in some way or another, and there is no drama or argument's..So ..

Let sleeping dog's (or Lee's) Lay.

 

[Capnmad]

Scenario #1
John has a hot girlfriend named Mary who is very outgoing and mischievous. John's friend and room mate Jim has a tickle fetish that neither John nor Mary know about. Jim is specifically into F/M tickling and has every F/M video from TJ Productions, Silver Cherry, Tickle Abuse, Tickle Chicks, Tickle Torture, and not to mention hours of F/M footage from He-Whom-We-Do-Not-Mention.

Mary spends a lot of time at John and Jim's place and one day discovers Jim's ticklishness. She tackles him to the floor, sits on him and tickles him for several minutes until he can barely breathe. Now Mary doesn't have a tickle fetish, she's just very playful and mischievous. She's delighted at her discovery because though she loves John, he's just not ticklish.

After that, Mary now launches similar tickle attacks on Jim on a regular basis. John thinks it's hilarious and encourages her. Jim doesn't let on that he loves Mary's tickling as it excites him tremendously. He just eats it right up.

Questions: Is Jim within his rights to let the tickling continue, or is he obliged to try and put a stop to it? Should he tell John and/or Mary that the tickling excites him sexually? What would you do in Jim's place?

Excellent question, Drew! I love moral debates... 🙂

It's an "to each his own" sort of thing, but as for myself, were I in Jim's place and being tickled excited me sexually, at some point, I'd feel an obligation to draw a line to stop the play, or alternatively, inform Mary. Given the relationship dynamic, I would definitely opt for drawing a line to stop play after a certain threshold is crossed (for me, tickling is context specific -- I apply that mindset to Jim's attraction to being tickled and assume that at some level he can process it as "play" as opposed to it always being sexual in nature). When it starts crossing the line, I'd feel a moral responsibility to stop the play or to keep the person informed. Again, in this scenario, I'd definitely opt for the former.

 

[terorizer]

Questions: Is Jim within his rights to let the tickling continue, or is he obliged to try and put a stop to it? Should he tell John and/or Mary that the tickling excites him sexually? What would you do in Jim's place?

To me, the sexual excitement in and of itself is not an issue. Being into F/M tickling, I would imagine that Jim gets some measure of sexual excitement from the mere idea of a woman tickling a man. To fetishize the F/M tickling dynamic makes it no different from any other object of desire. If a red dress was the fetish and turned Jim on, why should he feel compelled to disclose this?

I say the real question is: Does this tickling cause Mary to become the object of Jim's sexual desire? If the answer is no, then I say no harm no foul. Mary isn't getting off from it and neither is John. Many many people here are able to experience tickling and the arousal it brings, WITHOUT the TICKLER becoming the object of their arousal.

If however, the answer to that question is "yes", THEN I think Jim is obligated to try and put an end to the ticklings, because NO good can come out of this. Now, in effect, Jim is just lusting after his friend's girlfriend - and while he wouldn't be the first guy to do this - I would say it's reprehensible to willingly and knowingly put himself IN that position and continue the pathology.

If I were in Jim's place, I would put an end to it if I were beginning to desire Mary. If it was JUST the tickling I desired, I probably would let it be.

 

[Coda]

I think everything's fine, because no one's breaking any prior agreements with anyone (the only good definition of "cheating").

This is easier to see when looking at more ridiculous versions of the situation, like...

Jim is seriously turned on by blue pinstriped shirts, and Mary always wears them. Is Jim ethically obligated to try to discourage Mary from wearing blue pinstriped shirts?

Or...

Jim is seriously turned on by exposed earlobes, and Mary never covers her ears. Is Jim ethically obligated to try to discourage Mary from leaving her ears exposed?

If Mary did become aware of Jim's turn-on, brought it up with John, and then they decided that in their relationship, they should agree not to deliberately turn other people on if they can help it, then that becomes a special case which might deserve a different answer.

 

[BlondeWitch]

From a female perspective, I don't think Jim should say a word. I think it would actually make everyone involved more uncomfortable and awkward around each other. It would also make John wonder, since he had this fetish, why Jim allowed to let it continue at all, and whether more was going on than just play. I honestly think it would open up the doors to a lot of jealousy and mistrust between everyone. It would also make Mary feel rather unfaithful when really she is not. I wouldn't say anything. If it does get to be too uncomfortable and feels wrong, then John should come up with another excuse to get her to stop. e.g. "I was abused with tickling and it upsets me" or "I am kind of old fashioned and don't want to cause problems between you and John by playing like that with his girlfriend" (this is NOT the same as saying that he has a fetish and has been ravenously aroused this entire time lol)

 

[chicago]

I feel like everyone involved is having fun and doing what they're doing willingly. John doesn't have a problem that his girlfriend is tickling Jim, he's encouraging it. Jim has fun with it because of the obvious, and Mary loves it too.

What good would it do for Jim to tell them? Most likely, Mary will be creeped out, John will be pissed, and Jim won't get tickled ever again. Not to mention, it may damage his relationship with John and/or Mary.

I honestly don't think Jim is doing anything wrong by keeping it a secret. I mean, there are people with sneezing fetishes and smoking fetishes. Should they tell everyone they see sneezing or smoking that it turns them on in certain situations? No.

 

[Tiger.Lily]

Sorry, but if she doesn't realize at this point that Jim is into being tickled, she's as dumb as a brick. These are the things you should pick up on right away when you are dating. Otherwise, you can set yourself up for surprises that are actually unpleasant later on.

Seriously? I think that's kind of a close-minded, and slightly ignorant statement. I have plenty of friends who have tickled me in the past, and as daisycrazy said, it's not necessarily a turn on, but a definite high. And none of my friends have picked up on it in the least. That doesn't mean that they're "dumb as a brick". A lot of people are just good at stifling the sexual arousal, or, in the very least, hiding it.

 

[chicago]

Seriously? I think that's kind of a close-minded, and slightly ignorant statement. I have plenty of friends who have tickled me in the past, and as daisycrazy said, it's not necessarily a turn on, but a definite high. And none of my friends have picked up on it in the least. That doesn't mean that they're "dumb as a brick". A lot of people are just good at stifling the sexual arousal, or, in the very least, hiding it.

Exactly, tickling is contextual. Not every instance will be a turn on. I don't doubt that Jim is getting turned on during Mary tickling him, but that doesn't make her stupid. There are people that enjoy being tickled without havin a fetish for it. And a lot of vanilla people enjoy it too in a fun, playful way. So Mary may just think that's it.

Anyway, this is a hypothetical situation. Hope every remembers that lol

 

[kucheeku]

Hmmm

"Actually, in the real life situation on which this scenario is based, Mary is quite intelligent and perceptive, but Jim is careful to give no outward indications of his thrill, so that he doesn't blow a good thing. Besides, we're talking about somebody laughing hysterically, not moaning with pleasure."

I've met plenty of people who are very intelligent, as you write, but are not very perceptive when it comes to reading people. I describe them as "book smart, people stupid."

If Jim does not like being tickled at all, he will definitely let her know: that's based on my experience of tickling guys literally hundreds of times over the years (I'm not shy about trying). Every guy who hasn't like it let on, by saying "I don't like being tickled", "I'm too ticklish," etc. I can accurately read when a guy enjoys it, because, in the great majority of those cases, the guy will not fight back very strongly at all (even if he protests). On those few occasions when a guy is so ticklish he becomes immobilized, he's whimpered quite convincingly. 🙂