I tickled my aunts feet - Now I want more

[Mane'o]

Let's make this clear: the above statement is an opinion, not a fact.
It's another example of people passing off their moral POV as the gospel truth.

There are no laws being broken here.
Tickling is not assault.
No one goes to jail.

no sir, you happen to be wrong here. it varies state by state, but to tickle someone with out their consent can be ciminal in nature, all depends if the victim wants to call the cops. here in illinois unlawfull tickling is charged as a felony, "deviant sexual assualt". and yes i saw cases prosecuted when i was a member of the c.p.d.
one case you are correct, tickling is not assualt, it is under the clasification of "battery". here in illinois assualt is verbal, battery is physical.

To say "tickling w/o permission is wrong" is wrong.
maybe to you, but not to the thinking prudent world. so i say, go ahead, go tickle someone against their will, let's see what happens.

steve

Coldneck and others who share his view live in some fantasy world. Online anyone can say anything. You base your statements in real world life. I'm willing to bet real life for the coldnecks of this world is not one long series of non-con tickling without consequences.

My advice would be to put the coldnecks of this forum on ignore so they can dwell in their fantasies and the rest of us can enjoy adult discussion of our favorite passion. I did so I only glimpse what he throws out when someone quotes him, usually refuting his twisted logic. Makes life here so much more pleasurable.

 

[TicklesXXX]

Thanks for all the advice I appreciate it, however i'm going to stick with my plan. I've thought this through very carefully and i'm going to ease her in gently, test the waters basically and see how she responds, that way I can bail out if I see a negative reaction or notice that shes uncomfortable and we can just brush it under the carpet and forget about the whole thing. So i'm seeing her this weekend with my family, drinks will be flowing which will be the perfect time to mention what happened to her last time we were together and i'm planning on saying something along the lines of "well guess what, you're about to get it again"! And then judging by her reaction i'll either tickle her or leave it and just pretend I was joking. Hopefull all goes well and i'll keep you guys updated.

I insist, do not do it in front of the family, wait until you be alone, or generate a circumstance where you can be alone. If you do it with the presence of others, she could reject you, not because she does not want, but because the people watching and saying things about it.

You're right. Tickling isn't everything. Money is everything, and one of the many things money can get you is women to tickle.

It is so shameful that you actually think that money is everything, and that it is preferable to pay a prostitute and get fun for money, than to get fun for fun, without money, but love or friendship.

Wow, you're willing to risk a lot just for a few mere seconds/minutes of tickling. Is a boner really worth your relationship with your family?

Sometimes it is, when the family is horrible or boring.

I just can't shake that shiver of creepiness and the feeling of nausea that comes with the thought of some poor woman being a victim to this person's intentions. Too bad we can't get in contact with her just to warn the poor woman to lock her doors.

Victim? Poor woman? Your words are creeper than tickling her aunt. He is not going to rape her, or assault her. He is not going to have sex with her. Tickling is not sex. And even if it someone feels excitation from it, that does not count as sex.

And if you make some analogy of this situation with another, this is not uncommon. If an uncle has a nephew that wear tiny clothes and is 18 years old, with a very attractive body, he will, unless he close his eyes, feel aroused by her. It would not be because he is a pervert, but because he is a man, that is naturally attracted to beautiful women. But according to your logic, he is creepy, and we should warn the girl that she will be victim of the sight of her uncle... Which sounds pretty stupid, as she already know that she is being watched, and she likes it, as she is choosing to dress like that.

If you have read Freud, you would understand how a lot of things are related to sex. And it is not because we are degenerated, but generated as humans, as humans are like that. It is not something surprising, but very common, although it is repressed; a lot of exaggerated repression of human's passions, that basically makes the human more stupid and obedient.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Taking the moral high ground of “pedophilia and rape is wrong” so everything else “below” it isn’t really a big deal?

Not at all. The moral high ground I'm taking is that categorizing the action of tickling one's aunt with rape and pedophilia is intellectually dishonest, pathetic, and an act of utter desperation.

And by the way, you could have been a little more respectful and sympathetic to Rhiannon’s personal story.

My respect and sympathy are commensurate with the credibility I ascribe to the story in question. I believe it to be nothing more than an attempt at emotional manipulation. Forgive me if I decline to participate.

If you want to rank things, fine. But you could argue that stealing candy from a store is not comparable to murdering someone. Guess what, good people still don’t steal candy from a store because it’s wrong, and they don’t just go ahead and do it because it’s not in the same category as murder.

Another thing that good people don't do is to suggest to a judge or jury that what the shoplifter did was comparable to murder.

Tickling someone without their permission is wrong, and you just don’t do that, and it has nothing to do with the fact that rape and pedophilia are also wrong. IT is wrong.

That's your OPINION, and one with which I strongly disagree. It's MY opinion that ticklish people need to be tickled. In my experience the vast majority (97+%) of tickling that I've witnessed over the last five decades was done without permission. That is A-O-K in my book. You think that's wrong? Fine. But you don't have the legal or moral authority to push your OPINION on the rest of us. There are plenty of good and decent people in the world who tickle daily without permission.

So I respectfully recommend that this pious, holier-than-thou attitude be inserted where the sun doesn't shine.

Respectfully speaking, that is.

 

[TicklesXXX]

That's your OPINION, and one with which I strongly disagree. It's MY opinion that ticklish people need to be tickled. In my experience the vast majority (97+%) of tickling that I've witnessed over the last five decades was done without permission. That is A-O-K in my book. You think that's wrong? Fine. But you don't have the legal or moral authority to push your OPINION on the rest of us. There are plenty of good and decent people in the world who tickle daily without permission.

That perception is probably true, as tickling is usually unexpected, and actually it needs to be unexpected or uncontrollable to actually produce tickles. I once tickled someone that were not ticklish unless tickling were unexpected, or at some point hidden of the sight, in example, making impossible to watch the feet, so it is impossible to know what is going on.

So I too believe it is stupid to think that tickling should be "expected".

Okay, I will share a little story here that I haven't told to very many people before, because up to this day I still feel uncomfortable about it. I hear so often, that it doesn't matter if the person tickling others gets aroused from it or not, but believe me, it does!

When I was younger, my grandma used to have neighbors that I sometimes used to visit and bring them leftovers from what my grandma cooked. They were about my grandma's age, and the guy always wanted a hug. I never quite liked it, but hey....I was a kid, so I did it. When I grew older, about 14, 15, one day when the guy hugged me I realized that he had a boner pressing against me. I never ever went there again, I felt confused, dirty, used and abused. And that was just a hug!

It does something in people when you use them to get your rocks off, and even though it took me a long time to realize that it happened, in the end I realized what was going on, and it made me feel bad. Eventually, stuff like this comes out, and there most likely will be hard feelings involved.

I will not dare to say that you did not feel that way, I do not have access to your feelings, so I have to trust your words. So, you really felt bad because that man was getting excited when he hugged you.
The real question is, is that a valid counter argument against the idea that nothing bad happens from getting fun without the other people knowing?

It happens all the time, from the person that has a fantasy with a movie star, to a boy that masturbates thinking in his classmate. Should he go and tell her, hey! "I masturbated last night thinking of you". Or should he stop masturbating? It is the same as your case, you would not have suffered if you never had known that he was getting excited.

But, let's go deeper. Imagine how it was when that man hugged you for the first time. It could have been the first time ever that he felt aroused by hugging a person like you. At that moment, he was already getting some enjoyment without letting you know. What should he have done? Stop hugging you and tell you? You may say, that he should have gone apart forever and never contact you again.

But, seriously, does a man deserve to be death socially just because he has likings that are not morally accepted? In all the cases exposed here, no one ever did attack someone. The man did not raped you, the hypothetical boy of my story never raped her classmate, and the "OP" never raped her aunt. He is not even planning to have sex with her.

The reason why incest is "bad", is because the product of those relations is usually a human with very poor health, and a lot of diseases; in other words, the sons are born bad. But this is not incest, this can not even finish producing a baby. Tickling is not a sexual intercourse, he is not penetrating her. He is just touching her feet, which are not sexual organs, but very sensitive parts of the body that produce tickle.

You can not blame the people because they feel naturally attracted to other people and other actions. So, I personally think it is senseless to criminalize the relations between older people and younger people (let's think 30 years old person with 15 years old person), as the attraction is natural. And even if you think it is better not to be in such a relation, you can not criminalize the taste. A teenager is a human already developed for sexuality, and it is natural to generate attraction to other people. And, the tastes do not change with time. There is no reason to think that because you get older you like older people. That is why any person of 50 or 60 years old with a chance, prefer to be with a person of 20 or 30 years old, or even less. And I do not blame it, it is natural, and understandable.

And this even goes to tickling, which I think, it is something that everyone could enjoy if each one had the appropriate treatment. I do not think anyone would enjoy to be tickled while tied, but everyone can enjoy light nice tickles. And why is tickling fun and enjoyable? Because it produces pleasure at certain levels. Yes, pleasure, the same reason why people have sex, but also, the same reason why people play games, imagine stories, eat candies, stroke each other, etcetera.

So, why is it to hard for you to accept that you are exaggerating the things with this guy?

There is nothing really wrong here. He will not brake the marriage of his aunt, just because he tickle his aunt. His aunt and everyone else probably will never think he felt excitation from that tickling. And this is not incest, they can not have children from tickling each other. And, more important, his aunt did not complain about it. If she agrees to do it, then nothing should be wrong.

Perhaps there is the difference with your story, you were 14 years old, and immature, without being able to take the responsibility of your actions... Although you did LET him hug you. His aunt is an adult, his aunt should be responsible of her actions, and if she let him go ahead and tickle her, he is not raping her nor abusing her. Yes, there is chance that he feel sexual arousal with that, as there is chance that someone feel sexual arousal while I inflate a balloon, or I chew gum, or I walk on street, or I use certain clothes, or I make certain actions, or watching at the furniture of the house, or watching at my shoes. But not for that I stop inflating balloons, chewing gums, walking on street, using certain clothes, making certain actions, letting someone watch my home's furniture, or letting someone watch my shoes.

Fetishism is so big that anyone could be feeling excitation while watching anything you do. And probably that is out of their control. But is that enough reason to apart them and end a friendship? Would you stop inviting someone to your house just because he feel excitation with your furniture?

It is almost the same question you did here... But the answer implies not what you think. The answer implies that all those feelings are in his mind, and in his mind he can and should do whatever he wants. There is not any real material difference between him, and a cousin that does not feel arousal from tickling but only is bored and wants to pass the time, tickling his aunt's feet. What is the difference? Only what each one feel inside, but outside it is the same. And feeling is not enough to modify the materiality. And, certainly, it is unfairly discriminative or restrictive for the people that enjoy tickling like us. Simply because we feel something different to others, they will forbid us to do some activities? That is an insult, and we should not accept that. If others can tickle certain people, we should be able too, they should not restrict us, just because what we think inside us, as the material actions will be the same as others. And, as you said, love relations are more important than whatever we feel, so they should not hate us just because we feel different about an action that everyone can do.

Fuck morality.

 

[rhiannon]

And if you make some analogy of this situation with another, this is not uncommon. If an uncle has a nephew that wear tiny clothes and is 18 years old, with a very attractive body, he will, unless he close his eyes, feel aroused by her. It would not be because he is a pervert, but because he is a man, that is naturally attracted to beautiful women. But according to your logic, he is creepy, and we should warn the girl that she will be victim of the sight of her uncle... Which sounds pretty stupid, as she already know that she is being watched, and she likes it, as she is choosing to dress like that.

As I have tried to explain to you before, it is one thing to be turned on by seeing a beautiful woman! If that uncle started to tickle his niece to feel her up though, that is very, very wrong and in my eyes sexual harrassment if not sexual assault! Especially if the girl was all trusting and not suspecting anything less than harmless because it is her uncle!

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Let's make this clear: the above statement is an opinion, not a fact.
It's another example of people passing off their moral POV as the gospel truth.

When people discuss anything to do with their moral points of view, they’re always opinions. Your personal feelings that you may have about this issue that you have stated as “statements” are opinions too, and I know that. I’m not passing my opinions off as truth. I’m just stating them as statements like a lot of people do instead of saying “I think…” before every single opinion.

There are no laws being broken here.
Tickling is not assault.
No one goes to jail.

So, what you’re saying is that as long as no laws are being broken and it doesn’t get you put in jail, then it is okay?

To say "tickling w/o permission is wrong" is wrong.

Why is stating my opinion wrong? I’m sorry…”I THINK tickling someone without permission is wrong”. But that statement you just made is also an opinion, so I think you should also begin it with “I think”.

But you don't have the legal or moral authority to push your OPINION on the rest of us. There are plenty of good and decent people in the world who tickle daily without permission.

Again, as explained above, I’m not pushing my opinions on anyone and I’m sorry if it came across that way. You, however, are supporting the pushing of unwanted touching onto other people:

“In my experience the vast majority (97+%) of tickling that I've witnessed over the last five decades was done without permission. That is A-O-K in my book.”

And you’re telling me I have no authority, legal or moral, to “push my opinion” on “the rest of you”? Non-consensual ticklers have no authority to touch people without their permission.

Another thing that good people don't do is to suggest to a judge or jury that what the shoplifter did was comparable to murder.

Another thing good people don’t do is go ahead and do something just because it’s not as bad as something else, to reiterate the point (and opinion) I was making. Yours is also an opinion.

So I respectfully recommend that this pious, holier-than-thou attitude be inserted where the sun doesn't shine.

I have the right to express my opinion just like you do. You’re telling me to take it elsewhere as if you have some authority to tell me what to do. And you’re calling me holier-than-thou?

That perception is probably true, as tickling is usually unexpected, and actually it needs to be unexpected or uncontrollable to actually produce tickles. I once tickled someone that were not ticklish unless tickling were unexpected, or at some point hidden of the sight, in example, making impossible to watch the feet, so it is impossible to know what is going on.

So I too believe it is stupid to think that tickling should be "expected".

There’s a difference between unexpected tickling and unwanted tickling. People can consent to being tickled, and the tickling is still unexpected.

 

[rhiannon]

In my experience the vast majority (97+%) of tickling that I've witnessed over the last five decades was done without permission.

True. And it is totally okay to give someone a quick tickle without asking permission first (which I agree would be weird), as long as the tickling stops when the person demands it in earnest.

It happens all the time, from the person that has a fantasy with a movie star, to a boy that masturbates thinking in his classmate. Should he go and tell her, hey! "I masturbated last night thinking of you". Or should he stop masturbating? It is the same as your case, you would not have suffered if you never had known that he was getting excited.

It is NOT the same in my case! That guy cropped a feel of me. I wouldn't have given two shits if he masturbated thinking of me. But he touched me, he invaded my personal space, and that's where right becomes wrong! You think I give a crap if guys online masturbate looking at photos of me that are in my profile? Nope!

But, let's go deeper. Imagine how it was when that man hugged you for the first time. It could have been the first time ever that he felt aroused by hugging a person like you. At that moment, he was already getting some enjoyment without letting you know. What should he have done? Stop hugging you and tell you? You may say, that he should have gone apart forever and never contact you again.

I know it wasn't the first time he felt aroused, because he had touched me before while hugging me in different ways that were clear to me at that very moment what they meant. It had always made me uncomfortable, but I just couldn't figure it out at that time. Plus - he was pressing his groins against me! If it was just a normal Old-Man-Girl-I-like-you-hug, don't you think I would have been able to figure that out? IF it was the first time he felt that way, he should have let go of me immediately, and yes, not hug me again. But he didn't let go of me.

The reason why incest is "bad", is because the product of those relations is usually a human with very poor health, and a lot of diseases; in other words, the sons are born bad. But this is not incest, this can not even finish producing a baby. Tickling is not a sexual intercourse, he is not penetrating her. He is just touching her feet, which are not sexual organs, but very sensitive parts of the body that produce tickle.

He is still using her for his sexual excitement.

You can not blame the people because they feel naturally attracted to other people and other actions. So, I personally think it is senseless to criminalize the relations between older people and younger people (let's think 30 years old person with 15 years old person), as the attraction is natural. And even if you think it is better not to be in such a relation, you can not criminalize the taste. A teenager is a human already developed for sexuality, and it is natural to generate attraction to other people. And, the tastes do not change with time. There is no reason to think that because you get older you like older people. That is why any person of 50 or 60 years old with a chance, prefer to be with a person of 20 or 30 years old, or even less. And I do not blame it, it is natural, and understandable.

You know what? I don't blame people for that. You are right, it is natural. I don't even blame people if they jack off thinking about 15-year-olds. I blame them when they TOUCH 15-year-olds to get sexual excitement! Don't you get the difference?

So, why is it to hard for you to accept that you are exaggerating the things with this guy?

Because I am not exaggerating it. You weren't there, so you have absolutely no clue how it was.

There is nothing really wrong here. He will not brake the marriage of his aunt, just because he tickle his aunt. His aunt and everyone else probably will never think he felt excitation from that tickling. And this is not incest, they can not have children from tickling each other. And, more important, his aunt did not complain about it. If she agrees to do it, then nothing should be wrong.

If her or his uncle realize he sports a boner while tickling her, you really don't thing they wouldn't mind? If everything was okay that doesn't produce children, I guess you could go ahead and screw every opening there is except the pussy, or you could screw anybody who is sterilized! 🙂 But I doubt a whole lot of people would agree!

Perhaps there is the difference with your story, you were 14 years old, and immature, without being able to take the responsibility of your actions... Although you did LET him hug you. His aunt is an adult, his aunt should be responsible of her actions, and if she let him go ahead and tickle her, he is not raping her nor abusing her. Yes, there is chance that he feel sexual arousal with that, as there is chance that someone feel sexual arousal while I inflate a balloon, or I chew gum, or I walk on street, or I use certain clothes, or I make certain actions, or watching at the furniture of the house, or watching at my shoes. But not for that I stop inflating balloons, chewing gums, walking on street, using certain clothes, making certain actions, letting someone watch my home's furniture, or letting someone watch my shoes.

I'm sorry. but if you don't see the ridiculousness of your own argumentation here, could I actually make you see it if I tried? You can fucking get horny from whatever you want, as long as you don't drag an unsuspecting person into it that maybe doesn't want to be part of it! And I repeat: THOUGHTS are okay! ACTIONS are not!

It is almost the same question you did here... But the answer implies not what you think. The answer implies that all those feelings are in his mind, and in his mind he can and should do whatever he wants.

They would only be in his mind if he fantasized about tickling her. That would be perfectly alright. Actually DOING it is not alright. But I feel like I repeat myself here.

Only what each one feel inside, but outside it is the same.

Outside he might pop a tent!

Fuck morality.

I should have read this first. Then I could have spared me a lot of typing! All I can say is, fuck ignorance and lack of respect towards others!

 

[TicklesXXX]

There’s a difference between unexpected tickling and unwanted tickling. People can consent to being tickled, and the tickling is still unexpected.

That can be the case, but everyone that has experienced tickling should have at least once experienced unwanted tickling, as you can't want what you don't know what it is. Before someone tickled you, how could you have known that that sensation was the referent of the word tickling?

You could have seen someone being tickled, but you could not know what it is without having experienced it. And you can't want what you don't know what is. You needed to experience it, as tickling is something quale, that you can only know through experience. And, again, you can't want what you don't know what is.

 

[TicklesXXX]

True. And it is totally okay to give someone a quick tickle without asking permission first (which I agree would be weird), as long as the tickling stops when the person demands it in earnest.



It is NOT the same in my case! That guy cropped a feel of me. I wouldn't have given two shits if he masturbated thinking of me. But he touched me, he invaded my personal space, and that's where right becomes wrong! You think I give a crap if guys online masturbate looking at photos of me that are in my profile? Nope!



I know it wasn't the first time he felt aroused, because he had touched me before while hugging me in different ways that were clear to me at that very moment what they meant. It had always made me uncomfortable, but I just couldn't figure it out at that time. Plus - he was pressing his groins against me! If it was just a normal Old-Man-Girl-I-like-you-hug, don't you think I would have been able to figure that out? IF it was the first time he felt that way, he should have let go of me immediately, and yes, not hug me again. But he didn't let go of me.



He is still using her for his sexual excitement.



You know what? I don't blame people for that. You are right, it is natural. I don't even blame people if they jack off thinking about 15-year-olds. I blame them when they TOUCH 15-year-olds to get sexual excitement! Don't you get the difference?



Because I am not exaggerating it. You weren't there, so you have absolutely no clue how it was.




If her or his uncle realize he sports a boner while tickling her, you really don't thing they wouldn't mind? If everything was okay that doesn't produce children, I guess you could go ahead and screw every opening there is except the pussy, or you could screw anybody who is sterilized! 🙂 But I doubt a whole lot of people would agree!




I'm sorry. but if you don't see the ridiculousness of your own argumentation here, could I actually make you see it if I tried? You can fucking get horny from whatever you want, as long as you don't drag an unsuspecting person into it that maybe doesn't want to be part of it! And I repeat: THOUGHTS are okay! ACTIONS are not!



They would only be in his mind if he fantasized about tickling her. That would be perfectly alright. Actually DOING it is not alright. But I feel like I repeat myself here.



Outside he might pop a tent!



I should have read this first. Then I could have spared me a lot of typing! All I can say is, fuck ignorance and lack of respect towards others!

Rhiannon, I am not intending to disrespect you. WHen I said "that guy" I was refering to the Original Poster, not the man that hugged you. My argument was not to disqualify what you felt, because as I said before, you are the only one that knows what you really feel.

What I was trying to say is that, thinking in the multiple possibilities, you either should have asked him to don't do it, or not think it was so bad.

I understand that you think that the difference between thinking whatever they want and this is the action of tickling -or hugging-. But my point is that that is not true. People hug and tickle all the time. And maybe many of them never think something sexual. But some do, as the OP with his aunt. The detail here is that there actually is not difference, between the people that think "I am doing a prank" and the people that think "I am feeling very excited" when they tickle; as they are doing the same action in the material world, and the thoughts or feelings does not affect by themselves the material world.

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.

 

[rhiannon]

What I was trying to say is that, thinking in the multiple possibilities, you either should have asked him to don't do it, or not think it was so bad.

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!

Dear friend, there are situations in this life when you just feel helpless, humiliated and insecure. And you don't just say "stop" or think "hey, that's not so bad". Welcome to reality! It could be the same thing with his aunt - she feels uncomfortable about it, but doesn't say anything because she doesn't want to make a scene...or be told "Well, you should have said something, I guess you didn't think it was that bad!"

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.

So let me ask you this (and I know people will not like me for it, but o well - I'm not here to be liked!):

Do you think it is okay if an uncle had a little child sitting on his lap playing horseriding games if he got excited from it? Would it be just as perfectly allright as if he was an uncle who had no sexual feelings for this child?

 

[Phineas]

Is it wrong of me to want to see one of these vocal non-con proponents, who are almost always extremely heteronormative men, non-consensually pinned down and tickled by a gay male? I mean, I'm sure they would have no problem with it at all, right? After all, "ticklish people need to be tickled". I'm sure at least some of them would be singing a different tune if it were their ass on the block.

Funny how it's always the women saying they don't want these creepy assholes touching them and being told they don't have a right to say who gets access to their own bodies. It's also funny how people keep asking why there aren't more women around. Can't imagine why.

 

[rhiannon]

Is it wrong of me to want to see one of these vocal non-con proponents, who are almost always extremely heteronormative men, non-consensually pinned down and tickled by a gay male? I mean, I'm sure they would have no problem with it at all, right? After all, "ticklish people need to be tickled". I'm sure at least some of them would be singing a different tune if it were their ass on the block.

Can't even begin to tell you how often I thought that already!

 

[Sodahead]

Is it wrong of me to want to see one of these vocal non-con proponents, who are almost always extremely heteronormative men, non-consensually pinned down and tickled by a gay male? I mean, I'm sure they would have no problem with it at all, right? After all, "ticklish people need to be tickled". I'm sure at least some of them would be singing a different tune if it were their ass on the block.

Funny how it's always the women saying they don't want these creepy assholes touching them and being told they don't have a right to say who gets access to their own bodies. It's also funny how people keep asking why there aren't more women around. Can't imagine why.

This is perfect!

 

[ChicagoDavid]

First of all, there's no "flame war" here, unless you're trying to start one. I did not tell anybody they were "full of BS." I stated that I personally didn't believe one particular story, and I explained why. What I flagged as "BS" was the subtle notion that tickling the foot of a 36-year old Aunt was tantamount to rape and pedophilia.

David, read my words very carefully, because I don't want there to be any mistake. Without any hesitation whatsoever, I would say to the poster of that story face to face the same thing I did in my response, word for word. In fact, should such an opportunity somehow arise, I would be sure to bring along a print-out of my comments, to make sure I don't miss a single syllable.

Except we both know that the bulk of readers of this forum are from the USA. In our minds, a 14-year old girl is still a child, and the legal technicalities overseas aren't going to have the slightest impact on that perception.

But lest I be accused of "dismissive thinking," let's assume for the sake of argument that 14 is a legitimate age for sexual activity. You said the old man was a neighbor of your grandparents. Well how does that make him "family?" Was there some blood relationship you neglected to mention? If not, then all we have is a man who got aroused by an unrelated young girl of legal sexual age. Yet the story is packaged in such a way as to suggest some sort of childhood family trauma, specifically tailored to fire up emotional opposition to the OP's behavior.

I stand by my earlier comments.

WOW!! SO YOU ARE IN A ROOM, AND SOMEONE SAYS THIS:

"Okay, I will share a little story here that I haven't told to very many people before, because up to this day I still feel uncomfortable about it. I hear so often, that it doesn't matter if the person tickling others gets aroused from it or not, but believe me, it does!

When I was younger, my grandma used to have neighbors that I sometimes used to visit and bring them leftovers from what my grandma cooked. They were about my grandma's age, and the guy always wanted a hug. I never quite liked it, but hey....I was a kid, so I did it. When I grew older, about 14, 15, one day when the guy hugged me I realized that he had a boner pressing against me. I never ever went there again, I felt confused, dirty, used and abused. And that was just a hug!

It does something in people when you use them to get your rocks off, and even though it took me a long time to realize that it happened, in the end I realized what was going on, and it made me feel bad. Eventually, stuff like this comes out, and there most likely will be hard feelings involved."

AND YOU RESPOND, SAYING THIS:

"I'm just wondering who besides myself has difficulty taking this story seriously, especially with the old man in question conveniently absent and hence, unable to present his side of the story. Quite frankly, I don't believe a word of it, and here's why.

You said you were 14-15 years old? And this guy you said was your grandparents age? That would put him at about 55-65 years old. Men of that age don't achieve erections that easily. We're talking the marketing demographic for Viagra, here. Unless you "examined" him, for all you know he may have had something in his pocket, a scenario I find a lot more plausible than an old man sporting a hard-on like that of man in his 20s. Unless you're going to tell us that at 14, you'd had enough familiarity with male genitalia that you could identify an erection beyond the shadow of a doubt." [and more]

THEN I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE ANY MORE TIME COMMUNICATING WITH YOU.

 

[BellybTickler]

*eats popcorn, sips soda*

 

[ChicagoDavid]

*eats popcorn, sips soda*

Touche

 

[coldneck]

My advice would be to put the coldnecks of this forum on ignore so they can dwell in their fantasies and the rest of us can enjoy adult discussion of our favorite passion.

Thanks for your advice, but no the truth is, no one asked for it.

For someone that has me on "ignore" you sure pay a lot of attention to me.

My advice to you is try to stay focused and on topic.
It makes is so much more interesting to those reading your posts.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Is it wrong of me to want to see one of these vocal non-con proponents, who are almost always extremely heteronormative men, non-consensually pinned down and tickled by a gay male?

Well, unlike you, Phineas, I wouldn't presume to tell people what's right or wrong. If I ever change my mind, I may ask to borrow your priestly robes.

I mean, I'm sure they would have no problem with it at all, right?

What exactly are you asking here? For clarification of what you're sure of? Sounds to me like you're not all that sure of yourself.

Just sayin.

After all, "ticklish people need to be tickled". I'm sure at least some of them would be singing a different tune if it were their ass on the block.

That would be me you're quoting, and as usual, your assertions are dead wrong. I've been nonconned by guys both straight and gay, and I've given as good as I got. Sorry to bust your bubble, but look at the bright side. Now you've got some new fantasy spank material. 😉

Funny how it's always the women saying they don't want these creepy assholes touching them and being told they don't have a right to say who gets access to their own bodies. It's also funny how people keep asking why there aren't more women around. Can't imagine why.

If that's what you find funny, then I don't imagine anybody ever accused you of a sense of humor.

NEXT!

Again, as explained above, I’m not pushing my opinions on anyone and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

It came across that way because that's the way you put it across. Intentionally or not you stated your opinions as declarative fact...

Tickling someone without their permission is wrong, and it doesn’t matter how trivial you might think it is; it matters how the other person feels.

In this instance you are not only stating your opinion as though it were fact, you even went as far as to say that the opinions of those who disagree with you don't "matter." To back-pedal away from that and suddenly claim "Hey, I'm just giving my opinion, same as you!" - that's going to be a pretty tough sell there, pal. Good luck with that.

You, however, are supporting the pushing of unwanted touching onto other people:

More specifically, I'm supporting the pushing of uninvited tickling onto other people, based on numerous cultures in which 97+% of the time tickling occurs, it's uninvited. Like it or not, it's the norm. What's abnormal and rare to the extreme (outside of fetish gatherings) is people asking for permission before tickling.

“In my experience the vast majority (97+%) of tickling that I've witnessed over the last five decades was done without permission. That is A-O-K in my book.”

And you’re telling me I have no authority, legal or moral, to “push my opinion” on “the rest of you”?

Yes, that's what I'm telling you, and you would do well to believe it. There's nothing wrong with sharing an opinion, but when you pass your opinions off as set-in-stone moral decrees the way you have, you can expect to be called on it.

Non-consensual ticklers have no authority to touch people without their permission.

Thankfully it requires no authority to tickle somebody with or without permission.

Another thing good people don’t do is go ahead and do something just because it’s not as bad as something else, to reiterate the point (and opinion) I was making.

A point which makes as little sense in it's reiteration as it did in its initial iteration. I never justified nonconsensual tickling on the grounds it wasn't rape or pedophilia, and therefore had to be okay. I was simply objecting to the suggestion that tickling somebody without permission or not disclosing the secret sexual thrill derived from such tickling is tantamount to rape or pedophilia. An objection you evidently don't share, it seems.

Yours is also an opinion.

Yes it is. The difference is that I presented my opinion as opinion from the start, whereas you initially declared yours in more absolute terms but you're now frantically back-pedaling.

I have the right to express my opinion just like you do. You’re telling me to take it elsewhere as if you have some authority to tell me what to do.

LOL. Dude, that's not even close to accurate. I never authoritatively told you to take your opinion anywhere. I respectfully recommended you take the ATTITUDE to a place where the sun doesn't shine.

And you’re calling me holier-than-thou?

Of course not. That would be a textbook GR violation. What I described as holier-than-thou was the attitude expressed in your ranting diatribe. I was criticizing your post, not you personally.

 

[ArchNemesis]

I'm actually hoping the guy really tried it and wasn't just trolling. No matter how it turned out it would make for an entertaining story.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

“Well, unlike you, Phineas, I wouldn't presume to tell people what's right or wrong. If I ever change my mind, I may ask to borrow your priestly robes.” -DontAskJusTckle to Phineas

“It came across that way because that's the way you put it across. Intentionally or not you stated your opinions as declarative fact...” -DontAskJusTckle to me

“In this instance you are not only stating your opinion as though it were fact, you even went as far as to say that the opinions of those who disagree with you don't "matter." To back-pedal away from that and suddenly claim "Hey, I'm just giving my opinion, same as you!" - that's going to be a pretty tough sell there, pal. Good luck with that.” -DontAskJusTckle to me

“Yes it is. The difference is that I presented my opinion as opinion from the start, whereas you initially declared yours in more absolute terms but you're now frantically back-pedaling.” -DontAskJusTckle to me

I don’t know why this is an issue to you, people stating their opinions as fact or telling people what’s right or wrong. People state what they feel as absolute fact all the time. “This is wrong” or “that’s wrong”. Some things you’ve said to me have been opinions stated as facts. This seems like some cheap attempt to attack and discredit me every time I express an opinion. I don’t care if people state what they think as fact. I take that opportunity to present my own opinions (with facts, if possible) as a response to their “stating opinion as fact” and then I get to do it, too. It’s called a discussion. I’m not back-pedaling at all. I know I’ve always been expressing purely my own opinions. But if you have a problem with how I am doing that, then please tell me what the proper way is to express an opinion and I’ll honestly work on that!

“A point which makes as little sense in it's reiteration as it did in its initial iteration. I never justified nonconsensual tickling on the grounds it wasn't rape or pedophilia, and therefore had to be okay. I was simply objecting to the suggestion that tickling somebody without permission or not disclosing the secret sexual thrill derived from such tickling is tantamount to rape or pedophilia. An objection you evidently don't share, it seems.” -DontAskJusTckle to me

To be fair to you, I should have said what I said in more general terms. I accused you of justifying your stance by saying that it’s not in the same category as the acts mentioned above so it must be okay. If that wasn’t your intention, then you made yourself clear and I was wrong. I meant to just generally throw it out there that saying that something is worse than another is never a justification for the thing “below” what is being said is “the worst”. I personally don’t like to rank things, but that’s just me, so yes, it’s not an objection I share. I just see certain things as wrong, and it’s irrelevant to me how wrong something else is. They’re all wrong to me.

You, however, misunderstood Rhiannon’s point in telling her personal story. She was not comparing rape and pedophilia to nonconsensual tickling and trying to use her story to generate emotional opposition in favor of her point of view. Her point was that what happened to her was a very negative experience, so one should (if one cares about other people’s feelings) be thoughtful about how one interacts with other people, especially physically and especially if there is a sexual aspect to it, like tickling someone and secretly becoming aroused by it with the possibility of the person finding out and being disgusted by it, or like we’ve been discussing, nonconsensual tickling. That’s what I meant when I said, “…it doesn’t matter how trivial you might think it is; it matters how the other person feels”. I don’t know why saying this is “holier-than-thou” or pushing my opinion onto others. I’m just stating that the person being affected is going to feel a certain way about what happened regardless of how you felt about it, and going ahead and doing it in the first place is saying, “I don’t care how this person will feel. It’s all about me and my feelings”. As if your feelings are a priority and the feelings of the person you are touching aren’t as important. That seems pretty holier-than-thou to me. “I’ll push my sexual feelings on you whenever I want, and if you disagree, tough”.

 

[Phineas]

That would be me you're quoting, and as usual, your assertions are dead wrong. I've been nonconned by guys both straight and gay, and I've given as good as I got. Sorry to bust your bubble, but look at the bright side. Now you've got some new fantasy spank material. 😉

Bully for you. I was speaking in general terms using your quote as an example of the kind of attitude I'm referring to, but it doesn't surprise me that you're such a narcissist you think it's all about you.

Look, as much as you like to piss and whine about how sanctimonious I appear to you, I'm actually mostly on your side, here. I keep saying that the big disconnect in this argument is that the anti-non-conners are NOT telling anyone they need to go around asking permission before they touch anyone, but you keep banging that drum like it's the case.

I'm going to say this one last time, then I'm going to stay out of this bullshit for good, because it's obvious that most of you are too thick to comprehend it, given that it just keeps coming up.

Context. It's all about CONTEXT.

It's possible to get someone's permission implicity, without directly asking them for it.

There's generally two kinds of context. For starters, there's "people you know" versus "people you don't know".

Generally speaking, most people don't like being touched by complete strangers. Women, especially, because it's par for the course that they get groped randomly on public transit and the like, or get subjected to physical threats by assholes with entitlement issues. (This is why other countries have women-only subway cars). So idiots who like to sneak around tickling random people in the park, say, need to keep their hands to themselves, and there is no room for argument about this. End of story.

However, if you actually, say, strike up a conversation with them and talk to them like a friggin' human being for five minutes before smearing your fingerprints all over her, to suss out whether or not she might be open to being touched by you, then go ahead. If she seems open to it, knock yourself out. You don't have to outright inquire "Excuse me miss, may I tickle you?".

Friends, family members, people you actually KNOW, that's a different story. (Again, context.) In general, there's no real reason to seek direct permission before tickling someone you have an existing relationship with, as long as she's comfortable with the idea of you touching her. Most of my female friends don't mind me touching/tickling them, because I'm not a creep. And if she tells you hands off after you do, then you have to respect that.

The thing I personally have a problem with, is when people know their behavior would be unwelcome, so they trick people. Like, the stranger stuff above; some folks inherently know that women don't like being touched by strangers, so they lie about who they are. That's a problem. Secretly filming people to put them on fetish websites. That's a problem. Selling video of them without their consent. That's a problem.

What's also a problem is when women state outright that they don't like your behavior, and you tell them to fuck off. That's a HUGE problem. And that's why non-con is such a touchy subject for people; because ultimately, people like you get pissy when women tell you not to touch them, and you invent little schemes and ruses to circumvent their ability to consent. It's really troubling behavior when you do such gymnastics to set things up such that she's not capable of saying no. Just own your damn behavior and let her decide if she's okay with it.

In general, I don't have a problem with guys like you or coldneck doing your thing. Coldneck has yet to post a single anecdote that implies that he doesn't tickle people who he hasn't correctly guessed would be down with it, and that's perfectly okay

What I do have a problem with is the angry, and dare I say it sanctimonious attitude that you(generically speaking) and only you get to decide what shall happen and to hell with everyone else. 'cause that 'tude stops where another person's body begins, pal. I'm sorry if that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.

And honestly, that is what pissed me off about this whole debate; that some people really get their knickers in a twist because the idea that someone may tell them "No" is such an unacceptable concept that they have to force people to not be able to say it. Family members, for example. Rhiannon's story, at its core, is about someone who she would in no way shape or form ever want sexual contact with rubbin' his boner all over her and thinking she wouldn't notice. The moral of the story is that eventually she did notice, and was disgusted.

Family members, generally, would be disgusted by sexual contact from other family members. So in such a case, hiding your boner, so to speak, is a problem. Women are not stupid. They're gonna find out, and then you've got a problem. This is what we're warning against in threads like this; you're not as clever as you think you are, and there are no circumstances under which getting off on tickling your sister is not full of squick for anyone not into incest.

But of course, you KNOW that, so of course, it's all about how sneaky you can be, because her feelings on the matter don't even register. It's all about you you you and what you can get for yourself at others' expense.

And if giving a shit about other people makes me holier-than-thou, then guilty as fucking charged. At least I'm not throwing a temper tantrum because someone wouldn't give me the toy I wanted.

As an aside, I think it's pretty funny that people like you get so huffy at people like me trying to "force" our opinions on you, and in the very same breath you unilaterally state that you'll force your tickling on people who probably don't want it. That's irony, that is. And why is it that you care so much about what I think? 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. You have a problem with my feeling that way? Gotta wonder why that is. Hit a little too close to home, maybe? Maybe you should just put me on ignore and get it over with.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Agree with everything you said, Phineas, just for the record! Context is key. I have no problem with initially tickling someone you KNOW without their permission, provided you stop if they don’t like it. Strangers are another story. And it’s the entitlement issue of these kinds of people that really bothers me. Couldn’t have said these two paragraphs any better:

The thing I personally have a problem with, is when people know their behavior would be unwelcome, so they trick people. Like, the stranger stuff above; some folks inherently know that women don't like being touched by strangers, so they lie about who they are. That's a problem. Secretly filming people to put them on fetish websites. That's a problem. Selling video of them without their consent. That's a problem.

What's also a problem is when women state outright that they don't like your behavior, and you tell them to fuck off. That's a HUGE problem. And that's why non-con is such a touchy subject for people; because ultimately, people like you get pissy when women tell you not to touch them, and you invent little schemes and ruses to circumvent their ability to consent. It's really troubling behavior when you do such gymnastics to set things up such that she's not capable of saying no. Just own your damn behavior and let her decide if she's okay with it.

 

[coldneck]

There’s a difference between unexpected tickling and unwanted tickling. People can consent to being tickled, and the tickling is still unexpected.

Umm, how can you consent to unexpected tickling?

It really boils down to the what percentage of non-con goes on every day in the world vs. 'CONTRACT' or Consensual' tickling (feels wrong just typing it).

I believe it's way more than the conservative 97% + offered, but there are no hard numbers available.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Umm, how can you consent to unexpected tickling?

It really boils down to the what percentage of non-con goes on every day in the world vs. 'CONTRACT' or Consensual' tickling (feels wrong just typing it).

I believe it's way more than the conservative 97% + offered, but there are no hard numbers available.

You can consent to unexpected tickling if let’s say you agreed to be tied up and blindfolded, of course using safewords. Then it would be consensual but unexpected. That’s all I meant.

 

[Phineas]

Umm, how can you consent to unexpected tickling?

It's really not that complicated.

If you know for a fact that the person in question doesn't want you touching them at all, then it's pretty safe to say they've not consented to tickling. Conversely, if they're a friend of yours and have demonstrated in the past that they're comfortable with you putting your hands in places other people might not be allowed to, then you probably won't get your fingers broken by tickling them, even if they don't expect it.

You don't have to ask because you know ahead of time it's okay.

*shrug* maybe it's a regional thing. The women out here in California are really, really diligent about defining their boundaries.

Let's say you're at a party. You see a cute girl across the room.

If you sneak up behind her and tickle her, it's going to freak her out. She doesn't know you from Adam. She doesn't know if you're a creep, she hasn't decided if she likes you (because she didn't see you coming), and again, women generally have a problem with strangers helping themselves to their bodies. That's Bad Non-con.

If you walk up to her and say "Hi, I'm Phineas (hint: use your own name, not mine)", then talk to her for a bit, and get the vibe that she's cool with you, go ahead and tickle her. You don't have to ask first. That's Good Non-Con.

Very few people are going to argue against the latter case. That is NOT the case that the anti-non-con people are speaking out against. This thread is not the latter case. It's pretty damn close to the former case. Unfortunately, some people can't seem to tell the difference.