I tickled my aunts feet - Now I want more

[coldneck]

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.

I really like this post.
It speaks to the heart of the the NoN-CoN issue.
I mean , who ever really *asked* to be tickled?
It just happens.

Trying to legislate "Rules of Tickling" just seems ... well, unlikely, and insane.

Especially at a place that claims to promote tickling of all kinds, all orientiations, and all preferences.

 

[Phineas]

Especially at a place that claims to promote tickling of all kinds, all orientiations, and all preferences.

At the risk of sounding pedantic and nit-picky, the fact that we're not allowed to discuss or post media involving minors is a pretty large point against this place being for "all orientations and preferences".

 

[TicklesXXX]

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?

I think it is okay, as long as he does not rape the child.

 

[rhiannon]

I think it is okay, as long as he does not rape the child.

Fair enough. At least you stick up to your own logic, that is a first! I only hope you don't have nor ever will have any children. Because in front of the law, the described is child abuse.

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”.

Very well said!

And, as usually, I agree with everything Phineas said. Perfectly put!

 

[TicklesXXX]

Fair enough. At least you stick up to your own logic, that is a first! I only hope you don't have nor ever will have any children. Because in front of the law, the described is child abuse.

I don't know your local law, but I it is hard to believe that they actually condemn -as if they were churches-, the thoughts. And, certainly, it is the hardest thing (and most of the time impossible thing) to prove. If the uncle never tells anyone, no one can know that he felt sexual arousal from playing with the nephew.

I can think how to kill someone, I can imagine myself killing someone. I can imagine myself throwing nuclear bombs all over the world. Those that makes me a criminal? Is that assassination? Or assassination attempt? Should I be convicted for mass destruction of humanity?

There are plenty of books that feature very detailed crimes, including assassination, raping, stealing, etcetera. And those things are not forbidden, neither should be forbidden. They are not real crimes, whatever I do in my mind is not happening in the world.

I think you are exaggerating the things.

This makes me remember a funny video where a guy tells a woman "I will masturbate tonight thinking about you, and there is nothing you can do about it!". Certainly, that would not count as rape.

Watch it, it is fun, and it could calm the tensions in this thread:
[video]http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a3ae5ca04c/ellen-fapper-video-your-welcome[/video]

 

[rhiannon]

I don't know your local law, but I it is hard to believe that they actually condemn -as if they were churches-, the thoughts.

Jesus Christ! Don't you get it, really, don't you get it!? I was talking about someone having sexual feelings, i.e. a boner, from touching someone! There is ACTION involved, not just thoughts!

Can't you or don't you want to understand the difference!?

If the uncle never tells anyone, no one can know that he felt sexual arousal from playing with the nephew.

So...if nobody finds out, it's ok? Is that what you're saying? What if the child later on when it grows older realizes what happened? And even if not, you think something stays ok if just nobody knows about it? Like going into a store and stealing, that's fine if nobody catches the person?

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

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.

Sooo...even though you quoted me word for word, I'm somehow a center-of-the-universe "narcissist" for assuming that I was included in the group of people targeted in your rant? Oookayyyy.

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.

No, man. You're not even close to being on my side. You'll be on my side when you stop trolling threads like this looking to set up your podium and preach your morality.

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.

Yeah, why would we do that? Gee, let's see...

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

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.

With permission it's fine, but I think most lers won't get what they really look for out of an arrangement like that.

He and anyone would be wise not to touch ANYONE without permission.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person on these forums who actually asks his female friends for play sessions.

That's just a brief search on keyword "permission." Change that keyword to "consent" (which essentially means the same thing) and you'll really open the floodgates. Then maybe you'll start to get an idea of how often the need for permission (consent) is wailed ad nauseum.

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.

Way to dis the entire forum there, Don Rickles. Of course, this is not the first time you've done this.

How frustrating it must be for you. Preaching to a congregation that refuses to follow your moral decrees.

Context. It's all about CONTEXT.

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

Sure, by pointing a gun at her head. The only reliable kind of permission that would hold up in a court of law would be explicit permission. Your idea of "implicit permission" seems to be to tickle somebody you know and hope they don't object. If they don't, well there's your "implicit permission."

I say it's bullshit. Unless you she tells you it's okay, or invites you to do it, there's no permission, tacit, implicit, or otherwise. You've completely entered the wonderful world of noncon.

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?".

Once again, you are describing noncon tickling here. You've tickled without any permission whatsoever. And by doing so, you've committed the unpardonable crime of violating the anti-nonconner's prime directive: Tickling without permission.

So in one breath, you are pounding the pulpit in righteous indignation over the noncon philosophy, and in the next breath you embrace it. And this is basically the corner into which you and Rhiannon (priest and high priestess of the anti noncon-inquisition) have painted yourselves.

You've made such a fuss over tickling without permission, how wrong wrong wrong it is. But then it occurred to you that outside of a fetish gathering, nobody asks permission to tickle. This is true of friends, acquaintences, strangers, co-workers, family, whatever. Nobody. Asks. Permission. They just do it. Sans permission.

So you two had to give your sermon an extreme makeover. Boy, I can just imagine the bad taste that left in your mouths. Now you're stuck trying to peddle this hybrid philosophy in which, "well, duh, sometimes noncon is okay under, uh, you know, soytain soycumstances, uh yeah...but most of the time, it's uh, yanno, a really bad thing to do.

Sorry, Sparky. You can't just sit there and cherry pick which instances are okay to noncon and which aren't. Especially when you equate noncon with rape.

...I'm not a creep.

Well, that's YOUR opinion.

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.

This happens all the time. People lie like crazy on a first date. And even if it WAS a problem, it's not YOUR 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.

Easy, fella. Stay calm. You're working yourself all up in a lather.

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.

Holy shit, he's going to pop!

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.

Perhaps with you, it does. With me, it doesn't. And if that pisses you off, well I'll just have to find some way to live with that.

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.

Sorry to bust your bubble there, Sparky. But we noncon guys like it when they say no - over and over and over again. 😀

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.

First off, we're talking about tickling an Aunt, not a sister. But feel free to spice it up for more dramatic effect.

Secondly, I've seen more tickling among family members than anywhere else. If you find that full of squick, that's your problem.

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.

No, you're throwing a temper tantrum because some people don't happen to think like you do, or share your specific set of values. And that's what makes you holier-than-thou. The idea that because you embrace certain values, that somehow makes you better than those who don't. Well I've got news for you. It doesn't.

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?

Don't flatter yourself, Sparky. I don't give a shit what you think, and I doubt anybody else does either. I just got tired of seeing thread after thread that starts with somebody asking a question about tickling tricks, or tickling their Aunt, and then gets dogpiled by the likes of you, Rhiannon, and the rest of the lynch mob. Threads that start out calm and benign, and end up a shambles, all because you and your inflated ego have the unmitigated gaul to think you can tell people how to behave. Oh looky there! Some dude's asking how to coerce his female friend into tickling him! I certainly can't let that thread go un-shit-on!

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.

Aaaand there it is, though it certainly comes as no surprise. After all, what pompous, self-important diatribe on the "evils" of noncon would be complete without playing the rape card?

 

[Speedbump]

Holy shit, this thread is going on forever. Hi everyone. I am not sure if I like any of you, but I'll let you know this: You're all something.

 

[TicklesXXX]

Holy shit, this thread is going on forever. Hi everyone. I am not sure if I like any of you, but I'll let you know this: You're all something.

Yes. Although I want to believe that they all already knew that they were something, so it was not needed to say that.

 

[Dandy Jack]

Could this be an original thought...Akin to original sin maybe...

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.

Who was that masked Man?


Seize this man and try him on the charge of Treason of the mind...

He dares to challenge the majority view...

He has set sail to the land of understanding and logic

He will pass stupidity and set in their ways...

He will land on the beach of I think for myself...

Guards find this man

Bring him to the King of the non tolerant people, the brother of Duke Asshole

And Lord ignorant...

When you capture him I will mount my horse and see this man with original thought for myself...

If he be real Report to the TMF what you have found...

Then write on a secret scroll, climb to the highest mountain and shout this tale across the land.

Tell every Hamlet and City, every *****house, every township...

Tell the Mayans and seek their counsel...

They have arrived again at day 1 and are trying to chart a course...

Batman is on vacation, the Pope going to join him...

The Grammy's are being reviewed too many mistakes...

Fly me to the Moon and let my bags travel free

Let my ramblings continue on

If only just for me

In other words...

To be continued...

Dandy Jack!

 

[rhiannon]

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.

Dandy Jack, haven't we already cleared when tickling without permission was okay and when it isn't? It's fine to give a friend or relative a quick surprise tickle. It's not fine to carry on tickling when the tickled person clearly shows anger or distress and demands the tickling to stop. That's the whole trick. Nobody here says people should go around asking "May I tickle you?" before they give someone a poke in the ribs! I think everybody understood that except DAJT!

 

[LargerWorld2577]

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. -Phineas

This happens all the time. People lie like crazy on a first date. And even if it WAS a problem, it's not YOUR problem. - DontAskJusTckle

Secretly filming people to put them on fetish websites. That's a problem. Selling video of them without their consent. That's a problem. -Phineas

Easy, fella. Stay calm. You're working yourself all up in a lather. - DontAskJusTckle

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. -Phineas

Holy shit, he's going to pop! - DontAskJusTckle

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. -Phineas

Perhaps with you, it does. With me, it doesn't. And if that pisses you off, well I'll just have to find some way to live with that. -DontAskJusTckle

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. -Phineas

Sorry to bust your bubble there, Sparky. But we noncon guys like it when they say no - over and over and over again. - DontAskJusTckle



Phineas is just advocating the respect of people’s personal space and dignity, and you respond with these comments? You obviously hit a wall when can’t come up with anything but throwing insults and being childish. How come you weren’t this rude to me? I thought I was more priestly than Phineas! Feel free to express your opinions, everyone else, and don’t think much of it when DontAskJusTckle calls you holier-than-thou or accuses you of “preaching to a congregation that refuses to follow your moral decrees”. It’s just a tactic to make you feel bad for standing up for what you believe in.



Context. It's all about CONTEXT.

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

Sure, by pointing a gun at her head. The only reliable kind of permission that would hold up in a court of law would be explicit permission. Your idea of "implicit permission" seems to be to tickle somebody you know and hope they don't object. If they don't, well there's your "implicit permission."

I say it's bullshit. Unless you she tells you it's okay, or invites you to do it, there's no permission, tacit, implicit, or otherwise. You've completely entered the wonderful world of noncon. -DontAskJusTckle

“…haven't we already cleared when tickling without permission was okay and when it isn't? It's fine to give a friend or relative a quick surprise tickle. It's not fine to carry on tickling when the tickled person clearly shows anger or distress and demands the tickling to stop. That's the whole trick. Nobody here says people should go around asking ‘May I tickle you?’” -Rhiannon



You’re technically right, DontAskJusTckle, no permission equals nonconsensual. I admit that those of us against nonconsensual, myself included, need a better definition or another word to describe it. But regardless, Rhiannon made a good point. We’re not talking about a quick tickle with a friend or relative. We’re talking about strangers, kids (because they can’t consent), and not stopping when someone asks you to. And might I add, this entitlement issue of feeling like you have the right to touch someone’s body because YOU want to.



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. -Phineas

Aaaand there it is, though it certainly comes as no surprise. After all, what pompous, self-important diatribe on the "evils" of noncon would be complete without playing the rape card? -DontAskJusTckle



You played the rape and pedophilia card, as well, when you disgraced Rhiannon telling her personal story with what I would call more of a diatribe than anything anyone else has written in this thread – that post about old people, erections, Viagra, and merely speculating that the person who hugged Rhiannon when she was little could have been thinking about something else, further discrediting her. Phineas’ comment about rapists makes more sense than your comment suggesting that some poor woman who was touched inappropriately when she was young was using that incident to compare nonconsensual tickling to rape and pedophilia to create opposition in favor of her point of view. You know what, you ARE taking the moral high ground of “I’m against rape and pedophilia” to justify yourself and your beliefs. Most people (I hope) are against rape, sexual abuse of children, sexual assault, etc. It doesn’t make you special. I’m against those things as well, but I don’t throw those issues around just to make myself appear to be a moral person. Just because you’re against those things doesn’t necessarily make the things you are in favor of okay. So, I guess you could say people like Rhiannon and Phineas are morally superior to you because they’re against child abuse and sexual assault, as are you and many others, but they’re also against feeling entitled to invading people’s bodies and personal space. Being holier-than-thou isn’t so bad, after all!



Holy shit, this thread is going on forever. Hi everyone. I am not sure if I like any of you, but I'll let you know this: You're all something.



Feel free to join in the discussion if you want. I’d much rather you disagree with me than just post something quick like that.

*Buys popcorn and soda for you and others to enjoy while you view this thread*

 

[Bothersome]

Well, I briefly skimmed over this thread, and since my usual posting buddies seem to be here, I guess I'll toss in my two cents as well, despite how often I'm sure it's been said.

Dude, I'm gonna level with ya. This is your life. Ultimately, any decisions you make are yours to make, and yours alone. If you want to continue forcing the situation, that's not going to affect most of us anymore than if you didn't. Nobody is here to try and get some demented control over your life.

However, most of us will try and give you advice to try and get you to think about the situation a little before you dive head-first down a one-way path. This is one of those things that cannot be reversed. Ever. For better or worse, you'll have to live with it until the day you die, so I can respect why people are pushing their opinions on this.

Just think about what you're doing, and where your priorities lie before you make any decisions. Beyond that, it's up to you.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Phineas is just advocating the respect of people’s personal space and dignity, and you respond with these comments?

And I'd have no trouble with him or Rhiannon doing so in a thread designed with that topic. But that's seldom if ever how it happens. More often than not, it starts with somebody talking about a situation or opportunity or potential for a tickling scenario. The thread is ultimately derailed with accusations of impropriety by those who've made it their business to troll the forum for such threads.

Almost always, the accusations are levied with denegrading derision to the OP and anybody who dares to defend him. The overall goal is to create an atmosphere in which people are afraid to share their experiences or ask for such advice because doing so will earn them a public lynching. And those who participate in the lynching are often doing so to white knight the women of the forum. Hey ladies, stay away from this guy. You're much better off with me, because I'm...sensative!

You obviously hit a wall when can’t come up with anything but throwing insults and being childish. How come you weren’t this rude to me? I thought I was more priestly than Phineas!

The only wall I've hit was the wall of pride and ego from certain people who've exalted themselves to the level in which they feel justified in drawing the lines of when and where tickling is acceptable - lines that if not adhered to result in being labeled rapist, pedophile, whatever.

You ask why I'm not all that rude to you. That's because you're not all that rude to me. You tend to discuss the issue rationally whereas Phineas lashes out in anger and wounded pride. Plus he's been doing this for a long time and so we're mostly past the pleasantries.

Feel free to express your opinions, everyone else, and don’t think much of it when DontAskJusTckle calls you holier-than-thou or accuses you of “preaching to a congregation that refuses to follow your moral decrees”. It’s just a tactic to make you feel bad for standing up for what you believe in.

As I've said before, I've no trouble with anybody expressing opinions. I've got my own and so I may offer a counter opinion. But wouldn't it be better to start a thread that raises this question instead of continuing to hijack this thread and others like it?

Just sayin.

You’re technically right, DontAskJusTckle, no permission equals nonconsensual. I admit that those of us against nonconsensual, myself included, need a better definition or another word to describe it. But regardless, Rhiannon made a good point. We’re not talking about a quick tickle with a friend or relative. We’re talking about strangers, kids (because they can’t consent), and not stopping when someone asks you to. And might I add, this entitlement issue of feeling like you have the right to touch someone’s body because YOU want to.

Yes, notice how Rhiannon likes to bring up kids. She likes to associate noncon with pedophilia, whereas Phineas prefers the rape card. This is all part of the tactic to emotionally stimulate people to their way of thinking. If their position were sound, they wouldn't have to do that.

Secondly, in the above paragraph, you've stumbled into the same conflict of doctrine that Phineas and Rhiannon have. "We're not talking about a quick tickle with a friend or relative." Well doesn't even a "quick tickle" demonstrate "feeling like you have the right to touch someone's body because YOU want to?" If you tickle somebody even briefly, aren't you still violating their right to decide who touches them and when? You can't sit there and say that "tickling somebody without permission is wrong because you don't have the right to touch another person without their consent; and then suggest that doing that very same thing for a briefer duration is okay.

At what point does it become not okay? Who gets to set that standard?

You played the rape and pedophilia card, as well, when you disgraced Rhiannon telling her personal story with what I would call more of a diatribe than anything anyone else has written in this thread – that post about old people, erections, Viagra, and merely speculating that the person who hugged Rhiannon when she was little could have been thinking about something else, further discrediting her.

I played no such cards. Why would I? I don't in any way equate noncon with rape or pedophilia. Pointing out somebody else playing those cards, either overtly (Phineas) or subtely (Rhiannon) is not the same as playing the cards myself. Surely you can see the distinction.

Phineas’ comment about rapists makes more sense than your comment suggesting that some poor woman who was touched inappropriately when she was young was using that incident to compare nonconsensual tickling to rape and pedophilia to create opposition in favor of her point of view.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. Yeah.

You know what, you ARE taking the moral high ground of “I’m against rape and pedophilia” to justify yourself and your beliefs.

We've been through this already. I think I'm in a better position than you to know what moral high ground (if any) I'm taking. Let it go, man.

Most people (I hope) are against rape, sexual abuse of children, sexual assault, etc. It doesn’t make you special. I’m against those things as well, but I don’t throw those issues around just to make myself appear to be a moral person.

Nor would I.

Just because you’re against those things doesn’t necessarily make the things you are in favor of okay.

Agreed.

So, I guess you could say people like Rhiannon and Phineas are morally superior to you because they’re against child abuse and sexual assault, as are you and many others, but they’re also against feeling entitled to invading people’s bodies and personal space.

You could say a lot of things. Moral superiority is notoritously difficult to quantify. However, both Rhiannon and Phineas have gone on record as supporting uninvited touch and the "invading of peoples bodies and personal spaces" - with the so-called "quick tickle of a friend or relative," which they are both okay with.

Oops. So much for moral superiority.

 

[carol8961]

Even at tickle-related gatherings, there are strict rules as to asking permission to tickle someone. If they say no, you need to back off. If you ignore their nos, you will be told to leave. Nobody has a right to touch someone without their permission.

 

[rhiannon]

Secondly, in the above paragraph, you've stumbled into the same conflict of doctrine that Phineas and Rhiannon have. "We're not talking about a quick tickle with a friend or relative." Well doesn't even a "quick tickle" demonstrate "feeling like you have the right to touch someone's body because YOU want to?" If you tickle somebody even briefly, aren't you still violating their right to decide who touches them and when? You can't sit there and say that "tickling somebody without permission is wrong because you don't have the right to touch another person without their consent; and then suggest that doing that very same thing for a briefer duration is okay.

At what point does it become not okay? Who gets to set that standard?

Usually people have a pretty good feeling who would tolerate their touch and who wouldn't. Good example: workplace. I don't think my boss would ever even consider giving me the slightest little tickle. But there are several colleagues who do it every now and then, because we have a joking, friendly relationship. There are other colleagues who wouldn't dare tickling me because of the general behavior of reservation I show towards them. Meaning - if you are capable of using a little empathy, you KNOW who you can tickle and who you can't.

At what point does it not become okay: At the point where the person who is touched tells you to stop or reacts in a way that clearly shows they want you to stop and you don't.

Who gets to set the standard: the person who is touched.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Imlatino]

143 pages wow thats crazy

 

[rhiannon]

It's 10 pages. 143 posts.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Even at tickle-related gatherings, there are strict rules as to asking permission to tickle someone. If they say no, you need to back off. If you ignore their nos, you will be told to leave. Nobody has a right to touch someone without their permission.

Fetish gatherings operate under an entirely different protocol than regular societal interaction. To even go to a gathering you must agree to abide by the protocol.

What we're talking about is real world interaction with everyday people, where nothing is agreed to.

Usually people have a pretty good feeling who would tolerate their touch and who wouldn't. Good example: workplace. I don't think my boss would ever even consider giving me the slightest little tickle. But there are several colleagues who do it every now and then, because we have a joking, friendly relationship. There are other colleagues who wouldn't dare tickling me because of the general behavior of reservation I show towards them. Meaning - if you are capable of using a little empathy, you KNOW who you can tickle and who you can't.

Are you serious? THAT's the metric for calculating the difference between an acceptable "quick tickle between friends or family" and a rape-comparable noncon? A "good feeling??" Really??? I can see it now...

"Hey Sarah. Cootchy cootchy!"

*SMACK!* "You BASTARD!! I HATE being tickled! Don't EVER do that EVER again!!"

"But...but...I don't understand! I used 'a little empathy!' I had a 'good feeling' you would tolerate my touch!"​

Good feelings and empathy aren't going to cut it. The bottom line is that if you're considering tickling somebody for the first time, you CAN'T know for certain whether or not that tickle will be welcome unless you ask or are given a clear invitation. Empathy and good feelings amount to little more than guess work. If you want to absolutely and without exception avoid noncon situations, you MUST get verbal or written permission.

Why am I driving this point so hard? Because the most outspoken opponents of noncon (Phineas and Rhiannon) have both stipulated that you don't have to ask before giving a quick harmless tickle. That it's okay to tickle somebody for the first time without explicit permission.

But is it really okay, according to the principles that they have put forth? That's the question this post will attempt to answer.

First, in these never-ending debates, what are the biggest and most widely stated objections to noncon?

<ul><li>Invasion of personal space</li>
<li>Disrespecting boundaries</li>
<li>Exploitation of another purely for self-gratification</li>
<li>People (especially women) have the sole right to decide who touches them and when</li></ul>
That sound about right? Isn't that essentially what we're told over and over ad nauseum with self-righteous fervor? But what about the quick tickle with a friend or date? You know, the one for which we allegedly don't need permission? Brief or not, doesn't it also violate every bullet point listed above?

Let's say I have a friend at work, Susan. We've had lunch together a few times and we basically enjoy each other's company. One day as she's reaching up for a high shelf, I decide to give her sides a quick tickle, without first asking for permission. Cause I've got that "good feeling."

At the moment of the tickle, am I...

...invading her personal space? - Yes.

...disrespecting boundaries? - Yes.

...exploiting her for self gratification? - Mosssst definitely!

...honoring her right to decide who can touch her and when? - Not even a little bit.

So even though the quick tickle meets all the criteria by which noncon is condemned, we're told it's okay by noncon's most vocal opponents. Phineas even went as far as to differentiate between so-called "good noncon" and "bad noncon." But if "good noncon" also meets the same criteria that disqualisfies "bad noncon," then it begs the question. What's good about it?

Another question it raises is this. Why have the anti-noncon folks put their stamp of approval on the quick tickle? Though I can only speculate, I strongly suspect it's simply to win more people over to their side.

Let me ask a question. How many tickling videos have you seen in which the plot involves a lee who has graciously consented to be tickled? Of the hundred or so videos I've seen, not one plot involved consentual tickling. Why? Because for most, a noncon tickling scene is way more interesting and exciting than a consentual one. We like the begging, the pleading, the futule struggling to escape. In a group of people such as the TMF, the concept of noncon is powerfully attractive.

So if certain people want to make the noncon concept socially unpalatable, they have to make some concessions. If they objected to the non-consentual quick tickle the way their ideology demands them to, fewer people will jump on their bandwagon.

And so they throw us a bone. Sure, go ahead and violate/exploit for a few seconds, until it's met with a negative reaction. That's when it becomes "bad noncon." Oookeyyy.

At what point does it not become okay: At the point where the person who is touched tells you to stop or reacts in a way that clearly shows they want you to stop and you don't.

Wrong answer. If they are reacting negatively, you've already passed the point, and according to Phineas, have entered the realm of rape.

Who gets to set the standard: the person who is touched.

LOL. Do you even know what a standard is? Here's a clue. It's not something that changes from person to person. Trying to be clever is a risky business sometimes.

There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

What, deconstructing your fluff and nonsense? No. Not so hard at all.

 

[Mane'o]

Hope everyone had a happy consensual Valentine's Day. My valentine was tickled pink.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

You ask why I'm not all that rude to you. That's because you're not all that rude to me. You tend to discuss the issue rationally whereas Phineas lashes out in anger and wounded pride. Plus he's been doing this for a long time and so we're mostly past the pleasantries. -DontAskJusTckle



First of all, I recall that you recommended that I shove my “pious holier-than-thou attitude” where the sun doesn’t shine, so don’t pretend to be a nice guy with me, now. You may as well go all out on me with the same kind of treatment and purple B.S. flags that you have with other people.



The only wall I've hit was the wall of pride and ego from certain people who've exalted themselves to the level in which they feel justified in drawing the lines of when and where tickling is acceptable - lines that if not adhered to result in being labeled rapist, pedophile, whatever. -DontAskJusTckle

As I've said before, I've no trouble with anybody expressing opinions. I've got my own and so I may offer a counter opinion. But wouldn't it be better to start a thread that raises this question instead of continuing to hijack this thread and others like it

Just sayin. -DontAskJusTckle



Yes, I agree that maybe there should be a new thread at this point. To sum up the rest of my previous post, address the two points above, and most of your most recent post, I agreed and admitted that there is an inconsistency in being against “nonconsensual” tickling but then saying it’s okay in some instances to do it without permission and that it depends on the situation and the person. Your most recent post makes a really good point. And, I see why you would be frustrated with people deciding where to draw the lines. I still think a lot of them that have been drawn are pretty reasonable lines, and they have to be drawn somewhere. But, I’ll speak for myself and say what I personally would be against: touching strangers, touching kids, not stopping after the person asked you to stop (quick no-permission touching among friends and family members is fine, that’s your business, but you stop if they ask you to stop), holding someone against their will and tickling them, tricking someone into tickling or any fetish for that matter and not being truthful about it being sexual to you. The example you gave with “Susan” would fall into the friends category. You said that hypothetical Susan and you enjoyed each other’s company, so it sounds like a flirty male-female date, and somewhere down the road, you may end up touching each other anyway. I have said this before – I think in a romantic relationship, touching without permission is to be expected. If this is the kind of “nonconsensual tickling you are trying to defend, then I don’t think that’s a problem and it’s all just been a misunderstanding. I would NOT, however, do this to “Susan” on the very first encounter.



Let me ask a question. How many tickling videos have you seen in which the plot involves a lee who has graciously consented to be tickled? Of the hundred or so videos I've seen, not one plot involved consentual tickling. Why? Because for most, a noncon tickling scene is way more interesting and exciting than a consentual one. We like the begging, the pleading, the futule struggling to escape. In a group of people such as the TMF, the concept of noncon is powerfully attractive. -DontAskJusTckle



Most of the videos that are acceptable here are consensual (definitely ones by major producers who hire their models), where the person knows what’s going to happen to them and they are given a safe word to use if they want it to stop. Otherwise, they’d either be videos of friends fooling around with each other, which again, would be like that “Susan” story you mentioned, or they’d involve holding someone against their will which I would be totally against and I hope you’re not supporting that.

 

[rhiannon]

The bottom line is that if you're considering tickling somebody for the first time, you CAN'T know for certain whether or not that tickle will be welcome unless you ask or are given a clear invitation. Empathy and good feelings amount to little more than guess work. If you want to absolutely and without exception avoid noncon situations, you MUST get verbal or written permission.

Well, of course you can't KNOW! But guess what, if you back off after you realize that the person doesn't want you to do it, it falls into normal social interaction. And you know very well how we mean it and that it is all about context! But o well, if you still want to beat a drum that nobody ever even took out of the closet except you - have fun. I will not discuss this with you any longer.

 

[Mane'o]

You are rational and honest and open minded and patient in these threads but for even the most level headed there is an end to patience with the illogical, immature, selfish, irrational passion of the non-con advocates.
I admire your willingness to stay engaged and present cogent thinking for so long Rhiannon.
I long ago relegated these unrepentant defenders of selfish narrow mindedness to the ignore bin. Those who act like petulant children should be treated accordingly.
All opinions can be freely expressed and people can act however they want but that does not mean such opinions need be accepted nor such actions tolerated.

 

[Jagermeistered]

You are rational and honest and open minded and patient in these threads but for even the most level headed there is an end to patience with the illogical, immature, selfish, irrational passion of the non-con advocates.
I admire your willingness to stay engaged and present cogent thinking for so long Rhiannon.
I long ago relegated these unrepentant defenders of selfish narrow mindedness to the ignore bin. Those who act like petulant children should be treated accordingly.
All opinions can be freely expressed and people can act however they want but that does not mean such opinions need be accepted nor such actions tolerated.

Everybody offers a stimulant though. It maybe right or wrong in the "eye of the beholder." But, we should not fear venturing over the fence of alternative theories though. Elevation comes from deductive reasoning, and not dismissive binary thinking(that is for you WIP, if you read this thread. 🙂 ).

 

[Mane'o]

"Eye of the beholder" taken to logical conclusions can lead to absolute relativism and total anarchy. It can also be used to allow equal time to all views and all actions at which point society breaks down. The same inanity repeated over and over and with ever increasing volume does not reduce its inanity.

And so, socially, culturally and eventually legally we all come to some shared agreement on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. This becomes something of a bell curve of what falls within the social compact of what is acceptable.

This changes over time and between cultures and political frameworks.

People remain free to hold whatever views and take actions based on those views regardless of where they may fall on that bell curve of acceptability. Depending how far one's beliefs and actions veer on the edges of that bell curve there may be ever increasing reaction and repercussions exercised.

Case in point is the recent choices made by the ex cop in California who ended up dead. And before the sides in this little TMF thread cry foul, this is not to equate non-con behavior to murder but to illustrate the point that while anyone can take any action on any belief, there are consequences.

While many views and activities once held as "fringe" have come under the center of the bell curve of acceptability - the right of women to vote for example - there is more than a millennium of social, cultural and legal standing that places acting on someone against their will standing well outside the norms of acceptable behavior. Where non-con tickling in its many forms falls on that continuum is an interesting discussion but one that calls for rational discourse not sophomoric rants.

All opinions can be expressed as well as actions taken that are aligned with those opinions but discernment and common sense, not to mention even a modicum of rigor in logic allows rejection of bad ideologies once they've had their moment of expression. That doesn't preclude the advocates from standing fast to their convictions. But it doesn't enslave the rest of us to be exposed to it without end.

To wit: life is too short to suffer fools gladly.

I've heard the non-con rationale. I've rejected it. I've moved on. I enthusiastically encourage others to do the same. Is that discrimination ? Yes indeed. I also discriminate against pedophiles, purse snatchers, liars, racists, lovers of brussel sprouts, and a list too boring and long to enumerate here.