Ever been tempted to tickle a distraught woman in order to "cheer her up?"

[DontAskJusTckle]

Just so you know, at no point did I ask whether anybody thought it was a good idea, nor did I invite a critique of the social skills of anybody doing this.

And so the question to you is, if you haven't ever been on either end of the scenario I described, what are you even doing in this thread, Rhiannon?

The same as all the other girls who said how they would react if anybody tickled them while they were TRULY distressed

Well that's certainly not accurate. You've done more than just speculate on your reactions to a hypothetical scenario. You've gone as far as to judge and label anybody doing something like this as "socially awkward," the irony of which is not lost on me.

Now I ask you again, are you looking for reactions to being tickled while truly distressed or slightly upset?

Neither. I'm not looking for reactions. Never was. I'm looking to see if anybody has ever tickled a distraught woman in order to cheer her up, or if anybody has been tempted to do it. For those that have done it, I'm interested in knowing to what degree they were successful. I gave examples of distressing scenarios, but I didn't specify the degree of distress. I left it wide open so as to garner more responses.

So feel free to share your experiences Rhiannon. If by chance you don't have any, I invite you to peruse the other wonderful threads on the forum. Auf Wiedersehen.

 

[Bohemianne]

Ah, I think one can try it on someone who laments over a dead (toe nail). 😀

 

[coldneck]

I've done it, and it usually works.
Especially if she's grumpy, bitchy or a little down on her luck.

To most people that aren't fetish freaks, tickling is a form of affection, and it's usually just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I've done it, and it usually works.
Especially if she's grumpy, bitchy or a little down on her luck.

To most people that aren't fetish freaks, tickling is a form of affection, and it's usually just what the doctor ordered.

What if she stabs you in the throat? Is that what the doctor ordered? Your throat spewing out blood for violating the non-aggression principle. Would your death would be justified?

 

[WorkInProgress]

This is an interesting rule, DAJT, though you are not the first person to suggest its existence. If Poster A posts a post referring to Action X, asking if anybody has ever tried Action X and if Action X has gotten good or bad results, Poster B had better not bring in any irrelevant dimensions like whether Action X is desirable or acceptable, or else Poster B is doing something that starts with a T and ends with rolling. The funny thing is, the last person who posted something along these lines (we'll call him poster B) inspired Poster C (whose name starts with an L, has a few more letters, and ends with tine) to say that Poster B was "under the bridge waiting for the Three Billygoats Gruff."

No real point here, but when I have a few glasses of red wine in me, I enjoy ironic coincidences. But do carry on.

 

[rhiannon]

I gave examples of distressing scenarios, but I didn't specify the degree of distress.

Actually you were specifically asking for situations where tickling was inappropriate!

I just thought it might be interesting to step outside of the box a little and think up one of the worst possible moments to tickle somebody

But...o well! 🙂

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

This is an interesting rule, DAJT, though you are not the first person to suggest its existence. If Poster A posts a post referring to Action X, asking if anybody has ever tried Action X and if Action X has gotten good or bad results, Poster B had better not bring in any irrelevant dimensions like whether Action X is desirable or acceptable, or else Poster B is doing something that starts with a T and ends with rolling. The funny thing is, the last person who posted something along these lines (we'll call him poster B) inspired Poster C (whose name starts with an L, has a few more letters, and ends with tine) to say that Poster B was "under the bridge waiting for the Three Billygoats Gruff."

No real point here, but when I have a few glasses of red wine in me, I enjoy ironic coincidences. But do carry on.

Your unreal point is well taken, my friend. My descriptions of Poster B doing something that starts with T and ends with rolling do seem harsh on the surface and suggest a rather Nazish approach to the forum rules.

But what if Poster B had a history of derailing threads from their original topic, and instead making them all bout the right and wrong of any tickling scenario? What if, hypothetically speaking, my seemingly harsh description wasn't simply based on this thread, but rather on Poster B's well established pattern of perusing the forum for threads like this in order to insert his moral platitudes?

....It's WRONG to tickle strangers!....It's WRONG to engage in tickling with somebody who doesn't know your fetish!....It's CREEPY to post an ad looking for a ticklish volunteer for a science experiment!....Tickling is CHEATING!...​

...and on and on it goes.

There's a dichotomy in the tickling community's approach to morals. If somebody were to come along and start preaching about the evils of pornography, premarital sex, same sex, foot fetish, bondage, tickling, etc., we'd be collectively inviting that individual to take his morals and judgments and shove them up his ass.

Yet we tolerate the kind of preaching and pulpit-pounding that I italicized above. It has reached a point in which an innocent thread asking about the best way to entice a girl to tickle someone gets laden with moral judgments of "deception" and making the guy feel like a total loser simply because he reached out for advice.

That's why my patience for certain individuals is in somewhat short supply.

 

[coldneck]

What if she stabs you in the throat? Is that what the doctor ordered? Your throat spewing out blood for violating the non-aggression principle. Would your death would be justified?

Don't be ridiculous ... I always wear chain mail throat armor and a chrome plated cod piece before engaging in battle.

But if I were to perish valiantly in combat, I shall meet ye on the Elysian Fields.

 

[SoleMates]

I really shouldn't be feeding the troll here, but hey. I'm bored.

....It's WRONG to tickle strangers!​

Yes, it is. Who says so? Those very same strangers. Unfortunately, people here like to try and turn this place into an echo chamber that drowns out those dissenting opinions. Irony much?

....It's WRONG to engage in tickling with somebody who doesn't know your fetish!

Misrepresentation of the position, your honor. It's only wrong if you trick them into it because that removes their ability to consent. And speaking of...

....It's CREEPY to post an ad looking for a ticklish volunteer for a science experiment!

Yes it's creepy, because it's not a science experiment, it's some loser looking to jerk off with someone he tricked into gratifying him. Again.

What do all of these scenarios have in common?

If you guessed "consent", you're on to something.

....Tickling is CHEATING!...

​

Again, no. The vast majority of people in that thread said it was only cheating if it violated the couple's agreed-upon boundaries, which is what cheating is.

There's a dichotomy in the tickling community's approach to morals. If somebody were to come along and start preaching about the evils of pornography, premarital sex, same sex, foot fetish, bondage, tickling, etc., we'd be collectively inviting that individual to take his morals and judgments and shove them up his ass.

Yet we tolerate the kind of preaching and pulpit-pounding that I italicized above. It has reached a point in which an innocent thread asking about the best way to entice a girl to tickle someone gets laden with moral judgments of "deception" and making the guy feel like a total loser simply because he reached out for advice.

Nope, sorry, this is bullshit. The reason why the two scenarios aren't even in the same ballpark is because foot fetishes, bondage, etc. isn't inherently bad... as long as both parties are on board with what's going on. The only time morality comes into the picture is when someone forces/tricks someone else into doing something, and unless that 'preaching' is about people tricking folks into premarital sex, it ain't the same thing.

Now, on the other hand, all of the stuff the "moral majority" complains about here has to do with how the acts are perpetrated, not the acts themselves. People don't condemn the man with the foot fetish for getting turned on by feet. They condemn him for sneaking into sorority houses and stealing shoes. Saying "I thought we were here to talk about tickling!" is a misdirection, because having a tickle fetish doesn't require you to post fake science ads any more than having a foot fetish inherently requires you to steal shoes.

And anyone who comes here with a request like that knows it's not "innocent". And if they do, it's better to tell them it's not lest they wind up on ABC's "News of the Weird" or something. Better they hear it from us than law enforcement.

But hey, since you know the community so well, you should have known this thread would get the pulpit-pounders all riled up, and yet you posted it anyway... what does that smell like to you, boys and girls? Hmmm, does it end in "rolling"?

You're better at it than most, I'll give you that... but your ability to forget stuff that's been explained to you dozens of times over gives you away, because you're either an idiot or doing it on purpose, and you don't come across as an idiot.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

SoleMates, you pretty much said everything I was going to say, and I agree 100%. From the false equating of activities between consenting adults and things like touching an unsuspecting stranger or tricking people into giving you a thrill, it’s just blatant twisting of logic. It’s not an either-or kind of thing; either you have a fetish and are free to experience it, even at the expense of a complete stranger who might not be into it, or you are against fetishes and are self-righteous. There’s somewhere in the middle where you can experience what you want to experience as long as you’re not negatively affecting other people.

 

[coldneck]

SoleMates, you pretty much said everything I was going to say, and I agree 100%. From the false equating of activities between consenting adults and things like touching an unsuspecting stranger or tricking people into giving you a thrill, it’s just blatant twisting of logic. It’s not an either-or kind of thing; either you have a fetish and are free to experience it, even at the expense of a complete stranger who might not be into it, or you are against fetishes and are self-righteous. There’s somewhere in the middle where you can experience what you want to experience as long as you’re not negatively affecting other people.

*groan*
These "I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself" responses are a complete waste of space.

You might as well posted: "I'm SoleMates, and I endorse the above statement by someone who is much more clever, smarter and articulate than me, but I just want to say "I completely endorse what they just said... 100% ... bitches!"

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

I really shouldn't be feeding the troll here, but hey. I'm bored.

No worries, mate. I doubt any troll would find this double helping of half baked bullshit of yours very palatable.

There's a dichotomy in the tickling community's approach to morals. If somebody were to come along and start preaching about the evils of pornography, premarital sex, same sex, foot fetish, bondage, tickling, etc., we'd be collectively inviting that individual to take his morals and judgments and shove them up his ass.

Yet we tolerate the kind of preaching and pulpit-pounding that I italicized above. It has reached a point in which an innocent thread asking about the best way to entice a girl to tickle someone gets laden with moral judgments of "deception" and making the guy feel like a total loser simply because he reached out for advice.

Nope, sorry, this is bullshit. The reason why the two scenarios aren't even in the same ballpark is because foot fetishes, bondage, etc. isn't inherently bad...as long as both parties are on board with what's going on.

That's YOUR opinion, mate. There are plenty of people in the world who believe those things ARE inherently bad. And they would declare it with the same pomp and circumcision as you've done here.

The only time morality comes into the picture is when someone forces/tricks someone else into doing something, and unless that 'preaching' is about people tricking folks into premarital sex, it ain't the same thing.

Hey, guess what. You don't get to decide "the only time morality comes into the picture."

The fact is...whether you preach about the immorality of masturbation or the immorality of going to a pedicurist for an easy tickle...you're still preaching immorality. No matter how much arrogance you carry, you can't just arbitrarily decide what's universally okay, and what's universally bad. Everybody must draw their own lines in the sand. We don't need you to draw them for us.

Now, on the other hand, all of the stuff the "moral majority" complains about here has to do with how the acts are perpetrated, not the acts themselves. People don't condemn the man with the foot fetish for getting turned on by feet. They condemn him for sneaking into sorority houses and stealing shoes.

Well sure, breaking the law is another thing altogether. The TMF's "moral majority" will actually go as far as to condemn the guy who takes pictures of women's feet in public. They most certainly do condemn the act.

Saying "I thought we were here to talk about tickling!" is a misdirection, because having a tickle fetish doesn't require you to post fake science ads any more than having a foot fetish inherently requires you to steal shoes.

Who said it does?

And anyone who comes here with a request like that knows it's not "innocent". And if they do, it's better to tell them it's not lest they wind up on ABC's "News of the Weird" or something. Better they hear it from us than law enforcement.

Sorry to bust your self righteous bubble there, Detective Columbo, but law enforcement isn't going to be interested unless a law is actually broken. Asking how to entice a girl to tickle you isn't going to be very high on their priorities.

But hey, since you know the community so well, you should have known this thread would get the pulpit-pounders all riled up, and yet you posted it anyway... what does that smell like to you, boys and girls? Hmmm, does it end in "rolling"?

Yes, as in rocking and rolling, buddy! That's what I do. I don't let the self-righteous moralists intimidate me. I post my thoughts regardless. The obvious fact that it pisses you off is just a happy coincidence.

You're better at it than most, I'll give you that... but your ability to forget stuff that's been explained to you dozens of times over gives you away, because you're either an idiot or doing it on purpose, and you don't come across as an idiot.

Just fyi, a bullshit explanation given a dozen times is still bullshit. It doesn't gain validity through repetition.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Just showing that I agree with someone and that I support what they just said, Coldneck.

 

[coldneck]

Just showing that I agree with someone and that I support what they just said, Coldneck.

OK, I know what you did.

It's your prerogative as this is a public forum.

But if you don't have anything to *contribute* or *add to the discussion*, what good is an endorsement?

Juss sayin'. No harm, no foul. Carry on.

 

[SpiffyTickler]

OK, I know what you did.

It's your prerogative as this is a public forum.

But if you don't have anything to *contribute* or *add to the discussion*, what good is an endorsement?

Juss sayin'. No harm, no foul. Carry on.

I don't see anything wrong with what LargerWorld did. We don't have +1's or Like's on this forum, so we show support for an opinion by quoting it and essentially saying "I agree with you." Nothing wrong with that.

 

[SpiffyTickler]

It's a special kind of asshole who considers indulging his fetish with a woman who is, and I quote, "crying profusely over some tragedy in her life." There's a word for someone who'd do this: psychopath.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

It's a special kind of asshole who considers indulging his fetish with a woman who is, and I quote, "crying profusely over some tragedy in her life." There's a word for someone who'd do this: psychopath.

That may be true, but the kind of asshole who enters a thread like this just to poopoo whatever activity is being discussed isn't special at all, but rather a dime a dozen. There's a word for someone who'd do this: troll.

 

[SpiffyTickler]

That may be true, but the kind of asshole who enters a thread like this just to poopoo whatever activity is being discussed isn't special at all, but rather a dime a dozen. There's a word for someone who'd do this: troll.

Your claims of troll fall flat when you're yelling it from under your bridge.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Your claims of troll fall flat when you're yelling it from under your bridge.

LOL. That's not a bridge, Spiffy. It's the pedestal you built to put yourself above the rest of us. Come back down here to Earth and you'll hear me just fine.

 

[-Hari-]

Ok chums,

A few things to highlight here.

1 - Don't go around telling people how they can and cannot post or whether or not those posts are a waste of space, that's a moderator's job 😉 if someone wants to endorse someone else's opinion then that's fine. If you have a genuine concern with the posting style of a member of this forum then feel free to contact one of us and we will review the posts and make a decision. You can PM us or use the report button that appears under every post (black triangle)

2 - Please remain on topic and discuss the topic, not whether or not peoples opinions are bullshit. Guys, people disagree with you sometimes, it doesn't necessarily make them trolls but again, if there's concerns you don't grab your sword and head into battle, you report the issue.

Now, be nice.

 

[WorkInProgress]

Your unreal point is well taken, my friend. My descriptions of Poster B doing something that starts with T and ends with rolling do seem harsh on the surface and suggest a rather Nazish approach to the forum rules.

But what if Poster B had a history of derailing threads from their original topic, and instead making them all bout the right and wrong of any tickling scenario? What if, hypothetically speaking, my seemingly harsh description wasn't simply based on this thread, but rather on Poster B's well established pattern of perusing the forum for threads like this in order to insert his moral platitudes?

....It's WRONG to tickle strangers!....It's WRONG to engage in tickling with somebody who doesn't know your fetish!....It's CREEPY to post an ad looking for a ticklish volunteer for a science experiment!....Tickling is CHEATING!...​

...and on and on it goes.

There's a dichotomy in the tickling community's approach to morals. If somebody were to come along and start preaching about the evils of pornography, premarital sex, same sex, foot fetish, bondage, tickling, etc., we'd be collectively inviting that individual to take his morals and judgments and shove them up his ass.

Yet we tolerate the kind of preaching and pulpit-pounding that I italicized above. It has reached a point in which an innocent thread asking about the best way to entice a girl to tickle someone gets laden with moral judgments of "deception" and making the guy feel like a total loser simply because he reached out for advice.

That's why my patience for certain individuals is in somewhat short supply.

Forgive the delay (not that I ever imagined you waiting with baited breath for a post from me). I'll just say briefly: I don't see any legitimate comparison between a person who comes to our site and condemns what the fetish community is about, and a person who expresses opinions about how we should behave in the expression of our fetish.

Okay, that's all for now.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Forgive the delay (not that I ever imagined you waiting with baited breath for a post from me). I'll just say briefly: I don't see any legitimate comparison between a person who comes to our site and condemns what the fetish community is about, and a person who expresses opinions about how we should behave in the expression of our fetish.

That's because you're focused on the details and the degree to which you agree or disagree with them. If you look it it objectively, you can easily see that both are preaching morality. Both are trying to impose their ideas of right and wrong on the rest of us.

Evidently you're okay with moralistic preachers at as long as you agree with the morality being preached.

 

[WorkInProgress]

Evidently you're okay with moralistic preachers at as long as you agree with the morality being preached.

Evidently so, because I have also posted plenty of opinions here myself that would fit your definition of moralistic preaching.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Evidently so, because I have also posted plenty of opinions here myself that would fit your definition of moralistic preaching.

Okay, you've piqued my curiosity. How exactly does my definition of moralistic preaching differ from yours?

 

[WorkInProgress]

To me, when Poster A posts about Action X, even if Poster A is merely looking for other people's experiences with performing Action X, or advice on how to get the most enjoyment out of Action X, it's legit for Poster B to post an opinion about the rightness or wrongness of engaging in Action X. I have, for example, expressed the strident view that there should be no tickling whatsoever in a moving vehicle, especially involving the driver, because when you're in a moving vehicle, safety needs to be the priority. And when it comes to when it's all right to tickle someone, I say, if you post about tickling at all, you have to brace yourself for opinions on the ethics of it. I call it expressing an opinion, but you're free to call it preaching.