I tickled my aunts feet - Now I want more

[LargerWorld2577]

First off, I'm not a sociopath, whatever you may think. I don't break into people's houses and tickle them in their sleep. As far as you know, I haven't tickled any stranger. All I've admitted to is that I support the tickling of strangers, but I advocate choosing your target carefully, meaning don't go up and tickle just anybody.

I’m going to prove that you are somewhat of a sociopath. Here are some signs of a sociopath, according to this website (http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html), which has gotten a lot of its information from the book, The Sociopath Next Door, written by Harvard psychologist Martha Stout.


“Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.”

DontAskJusTckle has never clearly admitted to tickling strangers, but he has said he supports it and would not feel ashamed if he did so. Tickling a stranger without permission would definitely qualify as irrational and/or extremely risky behavior.

“Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.”

“If or when I tickled a stranger, I'd be neither proud nor ashamed of it. I'd do it because I wanted to and because I deemed the situation called for it”. --DontAskJusTckle

In his own words, he would do it “because he wanted to” (“pursuit of an action that serves one’s own self interest”).

“Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.”

“Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.”

DontAskJusTckle is never wrong. It’s always Phineas or Rhiannon or I who are wrong for simply advocating the basic respect of people’s personal space, especially in the case of tickling strangers. Like he said, “I'd be neither proud nor ashamed of it. I'd do it because I wanted to”. No guilt, no shame, no sense of right and wrong as far as violating people’s personal space.

Here are some examples of him defending his “web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity”:

“While in others, increases the motivation to get out in public in hopes of being touched again” --DontAskJusTckle

“Don't know what to say about that. I don't see how a tickle represents a threat to safety. Regardless, concern for personal safety and the safety of others is a good thing” --DontAskJusTckle

“Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there” --DontAskJusTckle

It builds character by teaching them that not everything goes according to plan or happens the way they expect it to. It teaches them to adapt and recover quickly. To expect the unexpected. --DontAskJusTckle

Just resign to the fact that sometimes you get elbowed on a crowded train, and on rare occasion you might get a quick, friendly poke in the ribs from a stranger. --DontAskJusTckle


Here are some other passages from the website:

“Sociopaths are masters at weaving elaborate fictional explanations to justify their actions. When caught red-handed, they respond with anger and threats, then weave new fabrications to explain away whatever they were caught doing."

Similarly, I was able to point out that he said he “supported” tickling strangers but not necessarily “engaged” in tickling strangers. I speculated saying “support” was perhaps an ambiguous way to say it without admitting it. I have a feeling he does or has, but I don’t know for sure. Nevertheless, if he doesn’t do it, it would have been very easy to say “No, I don’t do that” instead of “I’d rather not say at the moment”. It is clear that he has been caught somehow and is very unwilling to discuss this issue directly. When challenged to admit to it and just own it, replies with, “Perhaps we can, and simply choose not to”.

“Sociopaths are masters are presenting themselves as heroes with high morals and philosophy, yet underneath it they are the true criminal minds in society who steal, undermine, deceive, and often incite emotional chaos among entire communities. They are masters at turning one group of people against another group while proclaiming themselves to be the one true savior. Wherever they go, they create strife, argument and hatred, yet they utterly fail to see their own role in creating it. They are delusional at so many levels that their brains defy logical reasoning.

You cannot reason with a sociopath. Attempting to do so only wastes your time and annoys the sociopath.”

Not all of that applies, but he has definitely “incited emotional chaos among an entire community” (this thread) with his absurd defenses of violating people’s personal space and an argumentative and provocative attitude, daring to call out those who just want people to respect other people’s boundaries (as holier-than-thou, pushing their opinions, etc.) when, rather, the attitude of “I'd do it because I wanted to” is much more deserving of being called out. Accuses people of comparing rape and pedophilia to nonconsensual tickling when no one has done such a thing (high “morals and philosophy”).
(I would think someone against rape and pedophilia would also be against touching strangers.)


Here are a few more definitions from this site (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html) that I think perfectly define a nonconsensual tickler of strangers. I couldn’t find a credible source but they seem consistent with the other site.

• Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

• Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

(As DontAskJusTckle said, “ticklish people need to be tickled”…even if that means violating a stranger’s personal space, because his ends justify the means. “Pick your targets carefully, and your location as well”. --DontAskJusTckle)

• Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

(Insignificant matters: debates about the difference between opinions and facts, people “forcing” their opinions, people “comparing” nonconsensual to rape and pedophilia

Unmoved by people’s personal stories about being touched inappropriately (ironic, isn’t it?) and would rather pick them apart and call them B.S.; does not seem to care or be upset by the fact that people DO put up with unwanted touching in real life and that it can be upsetting)

• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

I’m sure that would cause a lot of people, especially women, concern for their safety, a feeling of embarrassment and shame, and concern for going out in public in the future and being touched by a stranger again, and how to avoid it.--Me

That's one speculation, but again, I think it's grossly exaggerated. --DontAskJusTckle

• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

(Certainly goes from being reasonable to hostile or obnoxious, then goes back to being “reasonable” again (“small expressions of approval”), that keeps anyone trying to have a rational discussion with him in an “addictive cycle”. Has the impulsive nature to respond to a lot of thoughtful things from others with quick and unthoughtful or rude comments. Has no desire to rationally discuss this and never recognizes the personal boundaries of strangers or considers the impact of touching a stranger and how that stranger might feel.)



I think it’s safe to say that anyone who supports and/or engages in the tickling of complete strangers is sociopathic on some level.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Larger - there are many, I would hope most, who agree with your point of view.
Those who advocate their fun at the expense of others express a philosophy that should not be condoned or accepted.

Yes, I agree. That philosophy should never stand unchallenged, and that's all I'm doing is calling it out because it deserves to be called out.

 

[C.A.B.]

i hope the containment field holds on this troll thread

 

[TicklesXXX]

Yes, I agree. That philosophy should never stand unchallenged, and that's all I'm doing is calling it out because it deserves to be called out.

Why not?
You seem to have this "reasonable" morality, that, ironically, you can not explain. Therefore, it is hard to believe it is reasonable.

 

[coldneck]

It is always helpful to tell someone who felt abused what they should have done to avoid it. Why don't you try that with a couple of abuse or rape victims? I'm sure they will really be grateful for so much thoughtful advice!

I, for one, am really growing tired of you comparing uninvited tickling to rape.
It's a slap in the face to real rape victims.
If you were ever raped IRL, you wouldn't even dare go there.

You have no idea what you're talking about, so just stop with the idiotic comparisons.
You're just going for a knee-jerk reaction, and it's getting old and tiresome, not to mention downright insensitive.

 

[coldneck]

And as the only difference is what they have in their minds, it is unfair to forbid them to do those actions that everyone else can do. It is wrong to forbid someone to hug just because he feels aroused doing it, if everyone else can hug. It is wrong to forbid someone to tickle because he feels sexual excitation from it, if everyone else can tickle.

The only difference between the OP tickling and a joker nephew tickling, is what they have in their minds. But their actions are the same, and affect the same way to the people. So it is unfair to forbid the tickling fetishist to do what a joker can do. It is actually senseless, and repressive.

I really like this post, as he sums up the opinion of many here quite succinctly:
"It's OK to tickle, as long as it doesn't turn you on."

Which is pretty much the entire point of the TMF Forum:
People discussing tickling (usually in a sexual content) and how they deal with it day to day.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why we are all here?!

I guess a few members want to draw lines in the sand and dictate what's acceptable and what isn't.
And that's unfortunate in an open, supposedly free-thinking discussion forum.

I'm here to tell you that we all draw our own lines ... so live with it.

 

[rhiannon]

I, for one, am really growing tired of you comparing uninvited tickling to rape

At that point, I wasn't even talking about tickling. But it's okay that you don't thoroughly read my posts, I certainly don't do it with yours.

 

[Gitana]

I, for one, am really growing tired of you comparing uninvited tickling to rape.
It's a slap in the face to real rape victims.
If you were ever raped IRL, you wouldn't even dare go there.

You have no idea what you're talking about, so just stop with the idiotic comparisons.
You're just going for a knee-jerk reaction, and it's getting old and tiresome, not to mention downright insensitive.

I agree that comparing tickling to rape is completely nonsensical and offensive. "Tickling. It's like rape only you're forced to laugh" is a popular meme going around social media lately and I find that absolutely disgusting. But Rhiannon wasn't comparing the two, she was referring to the fact that someone told her that she should've acted differently in order to avoid having the old man press his erection against her as a young girl who didn't even understand what that type of thing was. "Real rape victims" would also be extremely sensitive to the victim blaming that is going on here. Which is how some of you have responded to Rhiannon's traumatic experience. And that's not okay.

 

[KaBand]

This is one hell of a story! Why not use this approach with girls you date? Nothing wrong with that.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

I’m going to prove that you are somewhat of a sociopath. Here are some signs of a sociopath, according to this website (http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html), which has gotten a lot of its information from the book, The Sociopath Next Door, written by Harvard psychologist Martha Stout.

Sorry, Dr. Phil. It takes more than a few snippets from a medical paper to diagnose true sociopathology. The only thing you're going to prove is the extent of your rage against somebody who refuses to accept your forced moral codes.

“Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.”

DontAskJusTckle has never clearly admitted to tickling strangers, but he has said he supports it and would not feel ashamed if he did so. Tickling a stranger without permission would definitely qualify as irrational and/or extremely risky behavior.

LOL. You are the first person to ever accuse me of spontaneity. I'm as predictable as the day is long, pal. Not only that, but I always go out of my way to play it safe. I've not had a car accident in over 30 years, because I'm careful and I don't want anybody to get hurt, myself included.

Strike one.

“Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.”

“If or when I tickled a stranger, I'd be neither proud nor ashamed of it. I'd do it because I wanted to and because I deemed the situation called for it”. --DontAskJusTckle

In his own words, he would do it “because he wanted to” (“pursuit of an action that serves one’s own self interest”).

In 1985, I once hit a dog that ran out in the road. I got out, and for a moment I was frozen at the sight of the dog lying there in the road, panting, knowing I was the one who'd done this to him. I took him to the vet, and he ultimately recovered, but I still to this day feel guilty at having hit him. And that's certainly not the only thing. I'm all too familiar with the sting of shame.

But giving a cute girl at a bar a friendly poke in the armpit? No reason to feel guilty over that. As for "pursuit of an action that serves one's own self interest," you do that every time you eat a meal or see a doctor.

Strike two.

“Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.”

“Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.”

LOL. What proof have you shown that I was wrong? We're not even arguing facts and figures, it's simply a conflict between what you think is not okay versus what I think is okay. And since you can't argue your point with logic and reason, you resort to what basically amounts to name-calling. "You SOCIOPATH, you!"

You don't see me apologize because this is a discussion forum, and it's pretty easy to avoid doing things that warrant a subsequent apology.

DontAskJusTckle is never wrong.

While flattering, it's simply not true. I'm wrong as often as the next guy. That is, unless that next guy happens to be you. I'd have a pretty tough time keeping up with the sheer volume of wrongness in this post of yours, let alone the whole thread.

It’s always Phineas or Rhiannon or I who are wrong for simply advocating the basic respect of people’s personal space, especially in the case of tickling strangers.

No, that's not why you're wrong. You're wrong for entirely different reasons altogether, chief of which would be the notion that you have any authority by which to delcare what is morally or socially right and wrong.

Like he said, “I'd be neither proud nor ashamed of it. I'd do it because I wanted to”. No guilt, no shame, no sense of right and wrong as far as violating people’s personal space.

Yep, like I said. And the fact that you keep quoting me saying it does not in the slightest bit diminish the earnest truth of those comments. I do have a sense of right and wrong. The fact that it differs from yours in a way that offends you doesn't make me a sociopath.

Here are some examples of him defending his “web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity”:

Whoa, back up a second there. "Web of lies?" To what "lies" are you referring? If I'm defending anything, it's my good name from your vindictive, vicious, and vitriolic venom.

Hot damn, I just love alliteration! Don't you?

“Sociopaths are masters at weaving elaborate fictional explanations to justify their actions. When caught red-handed, they respond with anger and threats, then weave new fabrications to explain away whatever they were caught doing."

Say, just out of random curiosity, do you suppose that fabrications of childhood trauma would fall into this category?"

Similarly, I was able to point out that he said he “supported” tickling strangers but not necessarily “engaged” in tickling strangers.

Yes, that was quite a feat, copying and pasting my words into your post. I imagine that when you actually learn to use the forum's quote feature, you'll be positively adequate!

“Sociopaths are masters are presenting themselves as heroes with high morals and philosophy, yet underneath it they are the true criminal minds in society who steal, undermine, deceive, and often incite emotional chaos among entire communities.”

I'm surprised you even had the nerve to include this part, as it describes you way more than it describes me. After all, I'm not the one to force my "high morals and philosophy" with regards to tickling strangers on you or anybody else. I'm not the one who takes a perfectly good thread on the topic of how to coerce one's girlfriend into letting one tickle her and troll it up with a lot of moralistic preaching.

Accuses people of comparing rape and pedophilia to non-consensual tickling when no one has done such a thing (high “morals and philosophy”).

"...when no one has done such a thing..." Is anybody besides me chuckling at the irony of the parenthetical sentence that follows this laughable denial?

(I would think someone against rape and pedophilia would also be against touching strangers.)

But lest anybody think that's the only example...

I think people who bend over backwards to circumvent consent and tell women they don't have a right to decide who touches them are pretty much rapists who lack the guts to go through with what's really on their minds.

It is always helpful to tell someone who felt abused what they should have done to avoid it. Why don't you try that with a couple of abuse or rape victims?

As for pedophilia, there was that wild story from Rhiannon about the old man who supposedly hugged her when she was 14 and got a boner, as an example of the "damage" that can happen when you "use" somebody for sexual pleasure without their consent. She's smart enough not to come out and say "noncon = pedophilia" but rather makes the subtle inference by making sure to specify her young age at the time of the "incident" she uses as an example.

Here are a few more definitions from this site (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html) that I think perfectly define a non-consensual tickler of strangers. I couldn’t find a credible source but they seem consistent with the other site.

There's probably a reason you couldn't find a credible source. Half of these vague descriptions apply to everybody at some point in time or another. And if not everybody, at least to large demographics of absolutely normal un-sociopathic people. Allow me to demonstrate.

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.

Again, eating, drinking, taking medicine, exercising, working for a salary, etc...these are all self-serving behaviors that are seen as permissible. By this ludicrous definition, everybody is a sociopath. I don't give a shit what this blogger thinks, there is no shame in looking out for number one, and doing so doesn't mandate a disregard for the consideration and rights of others.

And most of us non-conners DO recognize the rights of others. We just happen to disagree on one or two points on the list. Again, this doesn't make any of us sociopathic.

They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

This could be said of nearly any professional sports competitor. They're charming and eloquent when being interviewed by Pam Oliver, but on the field they become hostile, domineering, and see their opponents as (dare I say it?) targets. And if they can they will humiliate their opponents with a crushing defeat, all for the self-serving goal of winning the game.

Another large demographic this wide-sweeping definition would apply to are those who run for office. They alternate between charming and hostile. (If you think about it, virtually everybody has their moods, where their charming and civil for a time and then a bad mood hits and your less tolerant and quicker to snap.) They see their opponent as a target to defeat. Some go to greater lengths than others, but it's the nature of the game, and by no means suggests that either are sociopathic.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

This is also applicable to large demographics. Women, African Americans, gay Americans, just about any minority group is "guilty" of this. They've all had to fight for the RIGHTS to which they are ENTITLED. You yourself have spoken of the rights of others "not to be touched."

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities.

Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

This applies to anybody in marketing or advertising. They look at people as TARGET audiences, and they look at them as OPPORTUNITIES for commerce. And they take no shame or remorse in doing so. Nor should they, in my opinion.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.[/I]

My only response to this is, Who gets to decide what matters are insignificant?...or what constitutes a "normal" person? How much warmth, joy, and love do you really expect to see on a ticking forum?

(Insignificant matters: debates about the difference between opinions and facts, people “forcing” their opinions, people “comparing” non-consensual to rape and pedophilia.

So the "difference between opinions and facts" is "insignificant." is it? That certainly explains a lot of your posturing, indignance, and outrage.

Unmoved by people’s personal stories about being touched inappropriately (ironic, isn’t it?) and would rather pick them apart and call them B.S.

I never said Rhiannion's story was BS. I said I personally "don't believe a word of it." I acknowledge it may very well in fact be true, but in order for me to believe it, I'd have to at the very least hear the old man's side of the story.

And since I don't believe it, how can you expect me to be "moved" by it?

does not seem to care or be upset by the fact that people DO put up with unwanted touching in real life and that it can be upsetting

People in this economy are starving, dying, victims of actual rape (not noncon tickling, but REAL rape), muggings, theft, venereal disease, domestic violence....the list goes on and on. So forgive me if I don't cry a river over somebody being gently and non-sexually touched without physical harm by a stranger.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

The "pain of their victims?" What pain. I have to laugh at this melodrama. It's reminiscent of an old TV show I used to watch called Lost In Space, in which Dr. Smith was constantly wailing, "Oh the pain!...The pain!...The pain!..."

Are you by any chance a writer of soap operas in the real world?

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others

"Rage and abuse?" Really?? We're talking about a quick cootchy cootchy to a girl hanging her bare feet out of a parked car window as you walk by. Believe it or not, that doesn't require delusions of all-powerful grandeur.

(Certainly goes from being reasonable to hostile or obnoxious, then goes back to being “reasonable” again (“small expressions of approval”), that keeps anyone trying to have a rational discussion with him in an “addictive cycle”.

"An addictive cycle?" God, this just keeps getting better. So that makes me...what? An enabler as well as a sociopath?

Has the impulsive nature to respond to a lot of thoughtful things from others with quick and unthoughtful or rude comments.

Hardly a clicical appraisal there, Dr. Phil. "Thoughtful," "unthoughtful," or "rude" are all psychologically unquantifiable subjectives that can change on a whim.

Has no desire to rationally discuss this

I think I'm in a considerably better position than you to assess my own desires. I assure you, a rational discussion was my sole intention here. It is you sir, who has chosen to deteriorate the discussion into personal attacks with accusations of sociopathology.

and never recognizes the personal boundaries of strangers or considers the impact of touching a stranger and how that stranger might feel.)

I'll take BROKEN RECORDS for $100, Alex!

I think it’s safe to say that anyone who supports and/or engages in the tickling of complete strangers is sociopathic on some level.

Given that you consider the difference between facts and opinions to be insignificant, I think it's safe to say that you feel ANYTHING you say is safe. To say, that is. Safely. Yeah.

Seriously dude, this whole Trial of DAJT was largely (pun definitely intended) based on vague innuendo, gross exaggeration, melodrama, and at times, outright fiction. Don't get me wrong. I'm not angered by it. On the contrary, I'm somewhat flattered at being the center of this whimsical farce of a courtroom hearing. It showed a lot of imagination and original thinking, which are things that tend to impress me.

Thanks for the chuckles.

I agree that comparing tickling to rape is completely nonsensical and offensive. "Tickling. It's like rape only you're forced to laugh" is a popular meme going around social media lately and I find that absolutely disgusting. But Rhiannon wasn't comparing the two...

Perhaps not directly. But why are we even talking about rape in a thread about a guy tickling his aunt's foot and getting excited from it? Why do all such discussions of this nature seem to lead to this comparison to rape? It's because people like Rhiannon consistently play the rape card knowing that it's a hot-button issue and likely to stir up strong emotions and spark flame wars, which is exactly what this forum doesn't need. It's trollish behavior at its worst and it needs to stop.

 

[Bothersome]

Shit, man. I thought these kind of back-and-forths were our thing.

 

[cjjericho84]

Bollocks. I think this forum is going OTT with almost every subject, everybody is different like the recent post says 'everybody draws their own line' why can't we just leave it as that???

 

[coldneck]

Bollocks. I think this forum is going OTT with almost every subject, everybody is different like the recent post says 'everybody draws their own line' why can't we just leave it as that???

That was me you are quoting, so I'll give you my answer:

Because some people are so full of themselves, they believe it's their sworn duty to 'draw the line' for everyone, then declare those who step over the border to be morally bankrupt.

 

[coldneck]

At that point, I wasn't even talking about tickling. But it's okay that you don't thoroughly read my posts, I certainly don't do it with yours.

That's complete bullshit.
You've made the analogy more times than I care to recall and it's appalling.
Trying to distance yourself from a thoughtless and insensitive remark doesn't change the fact you're guilty of it.

 

[ArchNemesis]

Please OP, come back and restore sanity to this thread! Tell us how you tickled your aunt's feet again, and she got turned on and gave you a BJ in front of your uncle while he puffed his pipe and nodded approvingly in your general direction. Or that your aunt was weirded out when you started grabbing at her feet while panting heavily like a pit bull in heat. And she probably could have handled that, if you were wearing pants. And right about then your uncle stomped you to mush. Either way, I think what we all need here, is CLOSURE.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Please OP, come back and restore sanity to this thread! Tell us how you tickled your aunt's feet again, and she got turned on and gave you a BJ in front of your uncle while he puffed his pipe and nodded approvingly in your general direction. Or that your aunt was weirded out when you started grabbing at her feet while panting heavily like a pit bull in heat. And she probably could have handled that, if you were wearing pants. And right about then your uncle stomped you to mush. Either way, I think what we all need here, is CLOSURE.

Fucking hilarious!

 

[kis123]

Shit, man. I thought these kind of back-and-forths were our thing.

Actually I don't know whether to feel slighted or relieved that it's not me this time........

Right now I'm taking a mini drama break from P&R in the Tickling Discussion thread. Who knew things could get so controversial over here??

 

[Bothersome]

Actually I don't know whether to feel slighted or relieved that it's not me this time........

Right now I'm taking a mini drama break from P&R in the Tickling Discussion thread. Who knew things could get so controversial over here??

I know, right?

Between this and General Discussion, I might end up hiding in P&R.

 

[rhiannon]

But are you referring to the erection or just the sexual thoughts in his head? I can see the problem with the erection, as that's an accepted social faux pas, but my argument is against the idea that men doing something that gratifies them in thought only without the other party's knowledge is somehow wrong.

If someone simply has sexual thoughts in his head and not an erection, how would I ever know? When I don't know, it can't harm me, therefore it doesn't bother me. I just don't know how many man are able to manage having sexual thoughts without getting an erection. 🙂

Personally, I still think it's still morally wrong if a person touches someone else deliberately to have something to jack off to later - it just feels to me like the person is using the other one then -, but if there is no possibility that the touched person can find out that there was sexuality involved, there usually won't be any bad feelings involved.

If the man asks permission to tickle first, does that change anything?

Nobody asks "Can I tickle you". That is just weird. But if a quick tickle causes a negative reaction, the person shouldn't do it again. That's where normal social interaction becomes wrong if there is repetition.

If the man is attractive and the woman is interested in him sexually, is the mental arousal, or even the erection, acceptable?

If the sexual attraction is mutual, it's a whole different story.

 

[kis123]

I know, right?

Between this and General Discussion, I might end up hiding in P&R.

Amen to that!!!

 

[Wolf]

Actually I don't know whether to feel slighted or relieved that it's not me this time........

Right now I'm taking a mini drama break from P&R in the Tickling Discussion thread. Who knew things could get so controversial over here??

Doggone it, is that what's going on? The trolls are starved for negative attention in P&R, so they're oozing out into the rest of the forum?

 

[kis123]

Doggone it, is that what's going on? The trolls are starved for negative attention in P&R, so they're oozing out into the rest of the forum?

Excuse me?? Are you calling me a troll?? Really? Seriously??

I might be a lot of things, but a troll is NOT one of them!

People think whatever they want and I get the opportunity not to care too much about it........

And I'm not starved for negative attention but if I was you just managed to give it to me-thanks!

Now it really truly is time to go back to P&R.....at least I know what to expect with the game and the players there. Here everybody except a couple of sound minded people have turned this subforum upside down and turned the very thing we all are supposed to share in common to something divisive full of arguments and insults. We all have our POV on politics and general discussion, but I thought everyone was here for their love of tickling and many have managed to turn that into an argument.

..........are you sure I'm not in P&R??..........

May your day be awesome.........

 

[Mitchell]

Wolf, you know I like you, but I have to defend kis here.

kis, I know we havent exactly been seeing eye to eye lately, but, one thing I know definitely is that you are most certainly NOT a troll. You have a history of being very supportive, and, your advice is sincere.

Once again, it seems to me that this thread is way off topic. It seems that, as in other threads, it appears to be about sniping instead of the original issue of the thread, advice or opinions about the guy tickling his aunt's feet.

 

[kis123]

Wolf, you know I like you, but I have to defend kis here.

kis, I know we havent exactly been seeing eye to eye lately, but, one thing I know definitely is that you are most certainly NOT a troll. You have a history of being very supportive, and, your advice is sincere.

Once again, it seems to me that this thread is way off topic. It seems that, as in other threads, it appears to be about sniping instead of the original issue of the thread, advice or opinions about the guy tickling his aunt's feet.

Why thank you Mitchell!

You're right, we aren't exactly on the same page these days but you know if I didn't care I wouldn't waste the time right?

I've long stopped caring about what people think of me....that's why I've lasted in P&R as long as I have.

I took a vacation from P&R to check out this thread and it's just as drama filled and nonsensical as just about everything that takes place in P&R. People take themselves and this place way too seriously.

Behind a keyboard, people are going to be who they are; some of them actually live their cyber life as RL; good for them too. But I ain't losing sleep over being called a troll......I've been called worse, actually by the same poster so no biggie.

I'll let everyone get back to sniping, name calling, and mud slinging.....I'm going back to P&R where it's safe and warm and I know who the players are and what they're about.

Peace

 

[Wolf]

Excuse me?? Are you calling me a troll?? Really? Seriously??

I might be a lot of things, but a troll is NOT one of them!

People think whatever they want and I get the opportunity not to care too much about it........

And I'm not starved for negative attention but if I was you just managed to give it to me-thanks!

Now it really truly is time to go back to P&R.....at least I know what to expect with the game and the players there. Here everybody except a couple of sound minded people have turned this subforum upside down and turned the very thing we all are supposed to share in common to something divisive full of arguments and insults. We all have our POV on politics and general discussion, but I thought everyone was here for their love of tickling and many have managed to turn that into an argument.

..........are you sure I'm not in P&R??..........

May your day be awesome.........

I am terribly sorry. You thought I was calling you a troll?

I was not.