I tickled my aunts feet - Now I want more

[Jagermeistered]

total anarchy.

I agree with you... However, this is my only objection. Could you say, "total chaos" and not "total anarchy"? This is just a small request coming from an anarchist. 😛

 

[rhiannon]

I also discriminate against pedophiles, purse snatchers, liars, racists, lovers of brussel sprouts, and a list too boring and long to enumerate here.

Hey! I love brussel sprouts. Other than that, well said.

 

[Wade]

I've been tickled half to death by an aunt who got her hands on my feet once, and by a pair of cousins who made my frantic suffering their shared hobby for about a week. In both cases it was intolerable, embarrassing, and giddy loopy fun for all involved; it was also devoid of any sexual overtones for any of us. It surely would have been profoundly uncomfortable for everyone had it inched even a little bit in a sexualized direction.

 

[ArchNemesis]

Watching reruns of Law & Order SVU last night, they played an episode where Carol Burnett plays a dying woman who has killed off several husbands. We find out at the end that who really had killed the husbands was her nephew who she had wrapped round her little finger because, well, she has sex with him. It reminded me of this thread LOL

 

[Dandy Jack]

Rhinnon: I did not write that only commented on it..

The quote was not mine...

Dandy Jack!

 

[Mane'o]

Jagermeistered, friendly amendment accepted and anarchy replaced with chaos. Aren't we all of us on TMF to some extent anarchists?

rhiannon, I will defend to the end your right to sing high the praises of the small green orbs and even stand to protect your right to do as you wish with the consenting little spheres but draw the line if and when you advocate that it's OK to force the stinking sprouts on those like myself who find them distasteful in the extreme. I'd rather be tickled than face a plate full of those!

 

[Mane'o]

I've been tickled half to death by an aunt who got her hands on my feet once, and by a pair of cousins who made my frantic suffering their shared hobby for about a week. In both cases it was intolerable, embarrassing, and giddy loopy fun for all involved; it was also devoid of any sexual overtones for any of us. It surely would have been profoundly uncomfortable for everyone had it inched even a little bit in a sexualized direction.

It is often with family members, both nuclear and extended, that we discover and explore the wide world of tickling. For me it was wrestling until I got her in an unbreakable hold and tickling the stuffing out of my older flirting female cousin. It was all consensual but she made me work hard for it, fighting back with every ounce of her strength and if I wasn't quick enough she'd escape and race for the sanctuary of her room. Then she'd come back out and tease and flirt until I attacked again, eventually overpowering her. And of course the longer it took me to pin her and the more audacious her teasing, the longer was my retaliatory tickling of her. And she was ticklish in the extreme.

Now appropriate to this discussion the wrestling and tickling was playful and mutual in both flirting and tickling. It was not overtly sexual. Sometimes it was in front of other family members; sometimes just the two of us facing off. Also, to an outside observer who might have happened upon one of our wrestle/pin/tickle episodes, it had all the appearances of nonconsensual tickling but, in fact, the understanding had been worked out by both of us beforehand and to the victor went the pleasure of tickling the vanquished. If she had truly hated being held down and tickled we would have found other ways to occupy our time. It just so happened I was always the wrestling match winner over her. Whether my victories were because of my own abilities or because she was letting me win and tickle we'll never know.

 

[TicklesXXX]

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.

Why do you insist in believing in contractualism? It is obsolete, and senseless.

 

[Mane'o]

Why do you insist in believing in contractualism? It is obsolete, and senseless.

First, contractualism, while it may be the most prevalent basis of the social contract, is not the only social contract theory.

Second, the assertion that it is obsolete and senseless may be worthy of a cogent thread of its own over in the religious and political general discussion section and then there can be a deeper dive to include Kant, Hobbes and others with a stop-off at libertarianism for fun.

While all that juicy stuff may philosophically underlie this thread, I think it may hijack the main thrust of this discussion about nephews and ticklish aunts which already ran off down a wandering fork in the discussion about nonconsensual. Nonetheless, just based on the number of articles, popular and scholarly, and of recent imprint, where contractualism is a core element of discussion, I'd have to say the opinion that it is obsolete and senseless is not universally shared.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

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.

I told you already, I treat people according to their behavior. If you want to be treated the way you describe, you're going to have to be way more unreasonable.

For example, you actually listen and consider my arguments. If you want to be treated with only the bare minimum of respect required to meet forum protocol, you can't be doing that. You would have to instead completely abandon any thought of reasonable conversation and focus solely on finding ways to subtly or not-so-subtly associate the people and behavior I'm defending with people and behaviors that are indefensible. So far, we've seen noncon ticklers equated with rapists and pedophiles. Perhaps you could also associate it with people like serial murderers, embezzlers, or southern plantation owners of the 1950s.

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.

I agree they must be drawn, but nobody can draw those lines for another.

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.

I support the tickling of strangers. As for holding people down, I'm not a big fan of the whole bondage scene. Taking advantage of somebody who's stuck in a compromising position? Oh yeah. Been there, done that. Had it done to me, and I don't cry harm or foul. After all, ticklish people need to be tickled, and I am ticklish.

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.

The thing is, it's not a misunderstanding. I can't speak for the other noncon folks, but I myself fully understand that you guys aren't condemning the quick tickle. I get that. What I'm trying to get you guys to see is that whether or not you approve of the quick tickle, by definition it falls into the same nonconsentual category as the "bad noncon" because as I've already demonstrated, it meets the same criteria by which the other noncon is condemned.

That criteria being:

<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>

Hence my whole point is that the criteria itself is faulty. Why? Because the quick tickle meets every bullet point above, and that's okay. Ergo, the above criteria is insufficient to disqualify a behavior. And if the quick noncon tickle is okay (which everybody seems to agree it is), than the other noncon is also okay until somebody can demonstrate why it's not okay using some criteria other than the above.

So the basic argument is this...

"Noncon is bad, evil, rape, etc. Don't do it!"

"What about the quick noncon tickle?"

"That's okay."

"So if noncon = rape, than a quick noncon = quick rape?"

"Well...uh...um...er...."

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 whh I would be totally against and I hope you’re not supporting that.

I anticipated this line of argument, which is why I specified the plot of the video rather than it's production. Yes, we all know that the actors and actresses consent (in most cases) to the tickling before hand. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the plot. The story line. Granted, not all vids have them, but most of them do, even if it's rudimentary. Girl catches her boyfriend tomcatting around, she tickle tortures him nonconsentually as payback. Girl tired of overbearing boss, she tickles her boss nonconsentually. I even saw one where a girl is pissed at her room mate for eating her cheesecake, and so she tickles her nonconsentually.

I brought that up to demonstrate that the tickling kink is heavily wrapped up in performing something to somebody against their will.

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.

Well of course if falls into normal social interaction. But guess what! That supports my argument more than it does yours! Guess what! That throws the whole "noncon is bad" sermon into the toilet. Guess what! Regardless of context, if avoiding hypocrisy is important to you, you can't say that noncon is bad for these reasons and then in the next breath say that the quick tickle is okay.

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 even took out of the closet except you - have fun.

Yes, I do know how you mean it. Trust me when I say that it's not all that difficult to grasp. As much of a shock as this might come to you, it's actually possible to understand your position and still disagree with it.

I will not discuss this with you any longer.

Is that a promise, or are you just getting my hopes up?

 

[LargerWorld2577]

As for holding people down, I'm not a big fan of the whole bondage scene. -DontAskJusTckle

I anticipated this line of argument, which is why I specified the plot of the video rather than it's production. Yes, we all know that the actors and actresses consent (in most cases) to the tickling before hand. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the plot. The story line. Granted, not all vids have them, but most of them do, even if it's rudimentary. Girl catches her boyfriend tomcatting around, she tickle tortures him nonconsentually as payback. Girl tired of overbearing boss, she tickles her boss nonconsentually. I even saw one where a girl is pissed at her room mate for eating her cheesecake, and so she tickles her nonconsentually.

I brought that up to demonstrate that the tickling kink is heavily wrapped up in performing something to somebody against their will. -DontAskJusTckle



I didn’t exactly say “holding people down”. Like I said, if you’re just fooling with your friends or family members, then that’s your business, as long as you stop if they ask you to. What I meant by “holding someone against their will” was just that – holding someone against their will and tickling them. The bondage scene you mentioned is heavily concerned with safety and consent and “hard limits”. Other than that, it would probably involve tricking someone into a situation they weren’t comfortable with, or abducting or physically forcing someone into it and holding them hostage. Yes, the tickling kink is heavily wrapped up in performing something to somebody against their will in FANTASY. We all know the production is consensual, and plots with “nonconsensual” activity are artificial for the purpose of meeting that fantasy. Otherwise, again, it would involve actually performing that scenario not to mention committing crimes along the way to do so. Bringing up the bondage scene and the fake “nonconsensual” plots of tickling videos is irrelevant because there is a difference between actual nonconsensual and “nonconsensual” in fantasy.



What I'm trying to get you guys to see is that whether or not you approve of the quick tickle, by definition it falls into the same nonconsentual category as the "bad noncon" because as I've already demonstrated, it meets the same criteria by which the other noncon is condemned.

That criteria being:
• Invasion of personal space

• Disrespecting boundaries

• Exploitation of another purely for self-gratification

• People (especially women) have the sole right to decide who touches them and when

-DontAskJusTckle



Then, I think we need to add to that list. I think there are more criteria than are on that list, but I don’t think that the “quick tickle” would exceed this list of criteria in the same way as, say, tickling a stranger. Let’s look at tickling a stranger. I’ll add a few that I can think of:

-Causes fear of going out in public and being touched again
-Causes concern for personal safety or safety of others at that time or in the future
-Causes shame, embarrassment in front of, or unwanted attention from, other strangers

Just because the “quick tickle” is technically in the same category as tickling a stranger, are we not allowed to set separate and/or extra criteria for something like tickling a stranger? Well I’ve set some, and I’d like to hear other people’s ideas. Now can we condemn something like tickling a stranger but approve of a quick tickle to a friend or family member, DontAskJusTckle?



I agree they must be drawn, but nobody can draw those lines for another. -DontAskJusTckle

I support the tickling of strangers. -DontAskJusTckle



The line, in this case, would be drawn by the STRANGER being touched. I don’t know how many times that has been said. You want your “quick tickle” with friends, acquaintances, and family members? You got it. But strangers are a whole other story.

However, I wouldn’t jump all over you quite yet, as you said “support”, not “engage” in the tickling of strangers. Support it all you want, but do you engage in it? If you do, and you don’t think it’s such a bad thing, why not just admit to doing it? Anybody, for that matter, who goes around touching/tickling strangers – admit it, defend it, and justify it for everyone else and be proud of it. Because if you can’t, then there’s clearly something wrong with it.

 

[WorkInProgress]

This thread has become a hoot!

About tickling strangers, quick note: I've tried it a few times. It's usually not a good idea.

 

[rhiannon]

The line, in this case, would be drawn by the STRANGER being touched. I don’t know how many times that has been said. You want your “quick tickle” with friends, acquaintances, and family members? You got it. But strangers are a whole other story.

However, I wouldn’t jump all over you quite yet, as you said “support”, not “engage” in the tickling of strangers. Support it all you want, but do you engage in it? If you do, and you don’t think it’s such a bad thing, why not just admit to doing it? Anybody, for that matter, who goes around touching/tickling strangers – admit it, defend it, and justify it for everyone else and be proud of it. Because if you can’t, then there’s clearly something wrong with it.

Well said. Totally agree. People who touch strangers without being invited risk losing healthy teeth, and rightfully so.

 

[rhiannon]

In reality, I wonder how many women would actually feel victimized by male arousal (or men by the behavior of other men) were it not for people telling them that they SHOULD feel that way, regardless of the woman's actual feelings.

Nobody told me how I should feel about male arousal. But if a man touches me with the goal to sexually arouse himself and I do not wish to have any sexual interaction with that person, I am repulsed and creeped out. Society has nothing to do with that, it is the most natural feeling in the world.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Yes, the tickling kink is heavily wrapped up in performing something to somebody against their will in FANTASY. We all know the production is consensual, and plots with “nonconsensual” activity are artificial for the purpose of meeting that fantasy.

Exactly what do you mean by the stipulation "in FANTASY?" Are you saying that the thrill of viewing a noncon scene would vanish as soon as that scene entered the realm of reality? Because if you are, I'd disagree fairly strongly.

After all, what is fantasy but a way for us to experience things that are either too difficult or too inconvenient to bring about in the real world. We know a video is a fantasy, but we pretend it's real in order to experience the thrill of it. In fact, on this forum, one of the biggest complaints about videos is that they are faked. The model isn't ticklish enough. The laughter isn't real.

Don't kid yourself, man. There are few here who wouldn't get excited over a real life noncon scene. Of course, for many that thrill clashes with their ethics, and so they settle for fantasy.

Let’s look at tickling a stranger. I’ll add a few that I can think of:

Tickling a stranger is tricky business. I do support it, but it can be a dangerous business. I wouldn't just do it to anybody. I'll elaborate on this more in a moment or so.

-Causes fear of going out in public and being touched again

While in others, increases the motivation to get out in public in hopes of being touched again. After all, we're talking about a tickle, not a

-Causes concern for personal safety or safety of others at that time or in the future

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

-Causes shame, embarrassment in front of, or unwanted attention from, other strangers

eh...builds character, I say.

Just because the “quick tickle” is technically in the same category as tickling a stranger, are we not allowed to set separate and/or extra criteria for something like tickling a stranger? Well I’ve set some, and I’d like to hear other people’s ideas. Now can we condemn something like tickling a stranger but approve of a quick tickle to a friend or family member, DontAskJusTckle?

Well, you must examine the reasons you disapprove of the one, and see if they apply to the other. If they do, there must either be other reasons you haven't considered.

As an analogy, let's imagine this hypothetical conversation in which I confide in you that I hate brussel sprouts.

"Why do you hate them?" you ask.

"Because they are vegetables, and they are green," I explain.

"What about green beens?" you ask.

"Oh I like them," I respond enthusiastically.

"But they are vegetables, are they not?"

"Well, yeah, but..."

"Green vegetables, if I'm not mistaken."

"Yes, that's true."

"So if you hate brussel sprouts because they are green vegetables, why don't you also hate green beans, which meet the same criteria by which you hate brussel sprouts?"

I get agitated. "It's all about CONTEXT! You know damn well what I mean but if you want to keep banging that drum, go right ahead! I'm not going to discuss this with you any more!"

As I stomp off in a huff, you stand there and wonder, WTF??

...

Okay, that got weird. But hopefully the point was made.

The line, in this case, would be drawn by the STRANGER being touched.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about what I meant by tickling a stranger. I'm talking about tickling somebody with whom you've never spoken. Somebody riding next to you on a train, perhaps. Or somebody in the same aisle with you at the supermarket. Random people you know nothing about. There's been no opportunity to establish any lines. The very first interaction between you and her is you tickle her. So the only line that comes into play here is the line the tickler draws based on his own personal code of ethics.

However, I wouldn’t jump all over you quite yet, as you said “support”, not “engage” in the tickling of strangers. Support it all you want, but do you engage in it?

I'd rather not say at the moment.

If you do, and you don’t think it’s such a bad thing, why not just admit to doing it?

Any number of reasons. Some people are private about what they do, and don't feel compelled or obliged to shout it from the roof tops.

Anybody, for that matter, who goes around touching/tickling strangers – admit it, defend it, and justify it for everyone else and be proud of it. Because if you can’t, then there’s clearly something wrong with it.

Perhaps we can, and simply choose not to.

This thread has become a hoot!

How so?

About tickling strangers, quick note: I've tried it a few times. It's usually not a good idea.

Were they guys or females? I agree it's usually not a good idea. Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there.

That's why it's a good idea to hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst. Pick your targets carefully, and your location as well. Make sure you have every advantage, to include an alibi and a quick egress if necessary.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Exactly what do you mean by the stipulation "in FANTASY?" Are you saying that the thrill of viewing a noncon scene would vanish as soon as that scene entered the realm of reality? Because if you are, I'd disagree fairly strongly.

After all, what is fantasy but a way for us to experience things that are either too difficult or too inconvenient to bring about in the real world. We know a video is a fantasy, but we pretend it's real in order to experience the thrill of it. In fact, on this forum, one of the biggest complaints about videos is that they are faked. The model isn't ticklish enough. The laughter isn't real.

Don't kid yourself, man. There are few here who wouldn't get excited over a real life noncon scene. Of course, for many that thrill clashes with their ethics, and so they settle for fantasy.--DontAskJusTckle



I meant exactly what I wrote: the videos you see are “nonconsensual” in fantasy because the plots are artificial. Fictional stories and drawings are also fantasy. Playing out thoughts in your head is fantasy. I meant that there is a difference between “nonconsensual” in fantasy and nonconsensual in reality. About the videos with fake plots, you said, “I brought that up to demonstrate that the tickling kink is heavily wrapped up in performing something to somebody against their will”, and I said that’s irrelevant to the issues I’m talking about, specifically tickling strangers or actually bringing those scenarios in “nonconsensual” videos to life, like abducting someone or actual “tickle torture”, because those are REAL and the videos are FAKE. You answered your own question.



-Causes fear of going out in public and being touched again --Me

While in others, increases the motivation to get out in public in hopes of being touched again. After all, we're talking about a tickle, not a
--DontAskJusTckle



I think it’s fair to say that most people, especially women, are not expecting to be touched by strangers. They just want to go out and live their lives. And that reason is plausible enough to list as a criteria for condemning tickling strangers. Who goes out in public and expects to be tickled by a stranger? Some may, but the majority doesn’t, and it’s not fair to those people to say that “others would have an increased motivation to go out in public in hopes of being touched again”.



-Causes concern for personal safety or safety of others at that time or in the future --Me

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



I think if some woman were randomly tickled by a stranger out in public, she would feel threatened because she was just touched by a stranger, and these days, women are definitely concerned about strangers touching them. Raping women also causes concern for safety, causes women to take up self-defense classes, build a fighting spirit, learn how to take down an attacker, avoid risky situations, etc. Those are all good things, right? My point is that the good things that come out of doing something wrong are not justifications for doing something that is wrong.



-Causes shame, embarrassment in front of, or unwanted attention from, other strangers --Me

eh...builds character, I say. --DontAskJusTckle



Some woman on a subway is all of a sudden tickled by a stranger in front of everyone else, which would definitely be an embarrassing situation that she was probably not looking for in the first place. How does this build character? Couldn’t think of anything reasonable to say to this, could you?



Just because the “quick tickle” is technically in the same category as tickling a stranger, are we not allowed to set separate and/or extra criteria for something like tickling a stranger? Well I’ve set some, and I’d like to hear other people’s ideas. Now can we condemn something like tickling a stranger but approve of a quick tickle to a friend or family member, DontAskJusTckle? --Me

Well, you must examine the reasons you disapprove of the one, and see if they apply to the other. If they do, there must either be other reasons you haven't considered.--DontAskJusTckle



Yes, that was the whole point – to determine criteria for condemning the other “noncon” such as tickling a stranger – criteria unique and practically exclusive to that particular thing being condemned, so as to justify separately condemning it. Let’s take a look at the original four, as you put them:

-Invasion of personal space
-Disrespecting boundaries
-Exploitation of another purely for self-gratification
-People (especially women) have the sole right to decide who touches them and when

It shouldn’t be unreasonable to approve of one thing and condemn another thing just because they have some things in common. That’s ridiculous. Rape and child molestation also meet (as well as exceed, and quite significantly) the above criteria, but you certainly wouldn’t say that since we approve of the “quick tickle” we must also approve of rape and child molestation because they have things in common. Rape and child molestation also have their own unique criteria – causes trauma, depression, social issues, distorted views of sexuality, thoughts of suicide, self-harm, drug use, desire to abuse other children when grown up (in the case of being abused as a child), etc. – that are certainly more than significant enough to condemn those actions.

I listed some criteria that I think are reasonable for condemning touching/tickling strangers. I’m not comparing that criteria with the criteria for condemning rape/child molestation. My point is that each of those issues is an individual issue with its own potential problems, and should be judged separately. Whether or not you think the criteria I listed for condemning the touching/tickling of strangers is purely hypothetical, my point is that they ARE significant and plausible enough to condemn such an action. People should be able to go out in the world without worrying about being touched by a stranger. I’m sure that would cause a lot of people, especially women, concern for their safety, a feeling of embarrassment and shame, and concern for going out in public in the future and being touched by a stranger again, and how to avoid it.



Perhaps I wasn't clear about what I meant by tickling a stranger. I'm talking about tickling somebody with whom you've never spoken. Somebody riding next to you on a train, perhaps. Or somebody in the same aisle with you at the supermarket. Random people you know nothing about. There's been no opportunity to establish any lines. The very first interaction between you and her is you tickle her. So the only line that comes into play here is the line the tickler draws based on his own personal code of ethics.--DontAskJusTckle

Support it all you want, but do you engage in it? --Me

I'd rather not say at the moment.--DontAskJusTckle



That’s exactly what I meant when I said STRANGER, as well. And forget about some hypothetical tickler’s code of ethics. I’m talking about you. Again, why not just say if you do it or not? I can admit to everything I do because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them. When you say that you “support” something, either you do just that –support it, but not necessarily engage in it – or it’s a way to sugarcoat the truth, the truth that you actually do engage in it but don’t have the stones to admit to doing it.



If you do, and you don’t think it’s such a bad thing, why not just admit to doing it? --Me

Any number of reasons. Some people are private about what they do, and don't feel compelled or obliged to shout it from the roof tops.--DontAskJusTckle



You had no problem telling everyone here that you support it. If you support something, that probably means you’re proud of it and you think there’s nothing wrong with it. So admit to it if you don’t think there’s anything wrong. Or maybe you’re ashamed of it and don’t want to say.



Anybody, for that matter, who goes around touching/tickling strangers – admit it, defend it, and justify it for everyone else and be proud of it. Because if you can’t, then there’s clearly something wrong with it.--Me

Perhaps we can, and simply choose not to.--DontAskJusTckle



So, perhaps you can be proud of it, but simply choose not to? Then you wouldn’t be proud of it. If you’re proud of it, you should have no problem admitting that you do it and owning it. If you’re not proud of it, then even you know something’s wrong with it.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

I think it’s fair to say that most people, especially women, are not expecting to be touched by strangers. They just want to go out and live their lives. And that reason is plausible enough to list as a criteria for condemning tickling strangers. Who goes out in public and expects to be tickled by a stranger? Some may, but the majority doesn’t, and it’s not fair to those people to say that “others would have an increased motivation to go out in public in hopes of being touched again”.

I think the perception that people hate to be touched/tickled by a stranger is an exaggerated one. Especially on this forum.

Some woman on a subway is all of a sudden tickled by a stranger in front of everyone else, which would definitely be an embarrassing situation that she was probably not looking for in the first place. How does this build character? Couldn’t think of anything reasonable to say to this, could you?

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

That reasonable enough for you?

It shouldn’t be unreasonable to approve of one thing and condemn another thing just because they have some things in common. That’s ridiculous.

I never said that. The list I provided wasn't simply a list of "things in common." They were the chief reasons given by the anti-nonconners as to why noncon was bad, evil, rape, etc. The inference being that anything that meets this criteria is bad. Noncon is bad because it meets that criteria. My point was that the quick tickle also meets that criteria. Why isn't it considered bad, evil, rape, etc.?

People should be able to go out in the world without worrying about being touched by a stranger.

So who's advocating worry? Just resign to the fact that sometimes you get elbowed on a crowded train, and on rare occasion you might get a quick, friendly poke in the ribs from a stranger.

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

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

You had no problem telling everyone here that you support [tickling strangers]. If you support something, that probably means you’re proud of it and you think there’s nothing wrong with it. So admit to it if you don’t think there’s anything wrong. Or maybe you’re ashamed of it and don’t want to say.

I guess you'll just have to live with the mystery.

So, perhaps you can be proud of it, but simply choose not to? Then you wouldn’t be proud of it. If you’re proud of it, you should have no problem admitting that you do it and owning it. If you’re not proud of it, then even you know something’s wrong with it.

I'll say this much. If or when I tickled a stranger, I'd be neither proud nor ashamed of it. I'd do it because I wanted to and because I deemed the situation called for it.

 

[BellybTickler]

Ok so heres the deal, we went to my uncle and aunts house new years eve and all got drunk, we were playing the classic game jenga and my aunt kept poking me trying to put me off so I warned her that if she did that again I was gonna tickle her. She didnt listen so I tickled her sides and she rolled on the floor laughing like a little girl. Then I grabbed her ankles in my arm and started tickling her socked feet and she went into hysterics. The rest of my family including my uncle and my parents were finding this amusing so I took her socks off and started tickling her feet which sent her into a frenzy and she was begging me to stop but everyone was egging me on to keep tickling her so I did. I began mocking her with words like kootchie kootchie koo as her feet wriggled like crazy trying to escape my tickling fingers but there was no escape from the ticklish humiliation I was giving her. I also made sure I let everyone else know just how smelly her cheesy feet were and by this point she was red in the face with humiliation much to my watching familys pleasure. Finally after about 3 mins of tickling her feet I let her go as she tried to catch her breath and she playfully hit me and called me an asshole. We got back to playing jenga and later that night as the drinks had flowed and we were all winding down sitting down on the couch watching tv I grabbed her feet again and she shouted oh no not again but I didnt want to come across as a creep or make anyone think I had a foot and tickling fetish so I just placed her feet on my lap to rest and she kept them there for the rest of the night as I sat there with a throbbing erection. My uncle didnt seem to care at all. Now I cant stop thinking of my aunts feet and want to tickle and worship them but im unsure how to tell her this, what do you think I should do?

 

[LargerWorld2577]

About tickling strangers, quick note: I've tried it a few times. It's usually not a good idea. --WorkInProgress

Were they guys or females? I agree it's usually not a good idea. Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there.

That's why it's a good idea to hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst. Pick your targets carefully, and your location as well. Make sure you have every advantage, to include an alibi and a quick egress if necessary. --DontAskJusTckle



I can’t believe I missed this one. I think it speaks for itself, though. Either you’re just trying to get a rise out of people, or you’re serious when you say something like this…or both. Regardless, I think you’ve shown your true colors, now, referring to other human beings as “targets”. I thought you “treat people according to their behavior”. I don’t think simply saying something isn’t a good idea warranted that kind of nonsense and attitude.

I don’t think it’s worth responding to each of the points you recently made. All you keep saying is that everything I’m saying is exaggerated, speculation, etc. You can’t defend your position, and you’re clearly not trying to have a reasonable debate about this. You just keeping coming up with ridiculous things like “it builds character” as some reason that it’s okay to touch/tickle strangers and that people should expect being deliberately touched like that like they would expect being elbowed accidentally on the train. This is just the kind of person you are – someone who would do whatever they want regardless of other people’s feelings. You said it yourself:

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

Tickling is supposed to be something fun. When you start forcing it onto other people, you give everyone else who engages in tickling in a safe, respectful manner a bad name, and it starts to become sociopathic.

 

[rhiannon]

Were they guys or females? I agree it's usually not a good idea. Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there.

Now that's all the trolling proof I needed.

 

[Bothersome]

There was a kid in my high school who was notorious for touching women 'just a little' too familiarly. Never anywhere inappropriate, but he would CONSTANTLY have his hand on the small of their back, hips, side, et cetera.

He was not a very popular person, and he was suspended more than a few times because of it.

Needless to say, some people are not comfortable with being touched intimately by someone they barely know. A stranger would be a creepier experience entirely.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

About tickling strangers, quick note: I've tried it a few times. It's usually not a good idea. --WorkInProgress​

Were they guys or females? I agree it's usually not a good idea. Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there.

That's why it's a good idea to hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst. Pick your targets carefully, and your location as well. Make sure you have every advantage, to include an alibi and a quick egress if necessary. --DontAskJusTckle​

I can’t believe I missed this one. I think it speaks for itself, though.

Thank you. I like to think it does. 🙂

Either you’re just trying to get a rise out of people, or you’re serious when you say something like this…or both.

I'll take door number two, Monty.

Regardless, I think you’ve shown your true colors, now, referring to other human beings as “targets”.

Uh oh. Did I break some new bylaw of political correctness? I really need to do a better job of keeping up with that shit.

I thought you “treat people according to their behavior”.

I do, and as of this post, yours took a sharp turn to the south. Hence, my more flippant replies.

I don’t think simply saying something isn’t a good idea warranted that kind of nonsense and attitude.

And I don't think my response warranted your comments of "true colors" and "nonsense." I guess we'll both just have to find some way to move on.

I don’t think it’s worth responding to each of the points you recently made.

I wouldn't expect you to. Each response gets split up a little more each round. If we responded to each one every time, it would multiply exponentially. Usually, I try to pick the most significant points as targets for a response. Oh damn. I used that word "targets," again. Sorry to offend you.

All you keep saying is that everything I’m saying is exaggerated, speculation, etc.

Well excuse me for having a different opinion than you. Besides I didn't say everything you said was exaggerated. I pointed out one or two specific things that I thought were exaggerated.

You can’t defend your position, and you’re clearly not trying to have a reasonable debate about this.

I'm not here to defend anything. Nothing I've said or done requires any defense. I'm just discussing the issue and being totally honest about how I see these issues we're discussing. Seriously, I don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape about it.

You just keeping coming up with ridiculous things like “it builds character” as some reason that it’s okay to touch/tickle strangers and that people should expect being deliberately touched like that like they would expect being elbowed accidentally on the train.

Okay, so you find that ridiculous. I don't. I stand by that comment. And just for the record, you've said things I've found ridiculous as well. Things like, "I think it's safe to say that most women would feel blah blah blah..." That is known as a sweeping generality, and it's seldom safe to say such things. Or how about "If you support something, that probably means you’re proud of it?" That certainly falls deep in the WTF category. I could go on, but I trust you get my point. Instead of reacting to those statements with petulent accusations of "true colors" I simply chose to either ignore the comments I found to be ridiculous or respond to them civilly.

This is just the kind of person you are – someone who would do whatever they want regardless of other people’s feelings.

Just fyi, this statement also falls into the above category. You don't know what I would or wouldn't do, nor the kind of person I am. If you're at all interested in maintaining forum protocol, you'd do well to refrain from making personal judgements of other TMF members.

You said it yourself:

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

Yes, I said that myself. You caught me red-handed. 🙄

Tickling is supposed to be something fun. When you start forcing it onto other people, you give everyone else who engages in tickling in a safe, respectful manner a bad name, and it starts to become sociopathic.

I agree tickling is supposed to be fun. Which is why I refuse to let other people define for me how I'm going to have my fun.

A "bad name?" Really?? Most of the talk here about tickling equates it with sex, and is done on a forum with tits and ass plastered on every page. And you're worried about a "bad name?" That ship sailed long ago, pal.

Now that's all the trolling proof I needed.

Uh oh, look out! Judge Judy's on the case!

 

[LargerWorld2577]

I thought you “treat people according to their behavior”. –Me

I do, and as of this post, yours took a sharp turn to the south. Hence, my more flippant replies. --DontAskJusTckle



How have I taken a sharp turn south by calling you out on THIS:

“Were they guys or females? I agree it's usually not a good idea. Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there.”

Are you serious when you say this, or are you just messing around? You can’t possibly think this was a sensible thing to say.



Regardless, I think you’ve shown your true colors, now, referring to other human beings as “targets”. --Me

Uh oh. Did I break some new bylaw of political correctness? I really need to do a better job of keeping up with that shit. --DontAskJusTckle



You’ve shown what a sociopath you are by referring to potential victims of being touched by a stranger as “targets”. That’s very disturbing, and yet you dared to call people who would get creeped out from being touched by a stranger “disturbed whackos”. I would say they’re just not expecting that and are wondering why someone feels it’s okay to invade their personal space.



I don’t think simply saying something isn’t a good idea warranted that kind of nonsense and attitude. --Me

And I don't think my response warranted your comments of "true colors" and "nonsense." I guess we'll both just have to find some way to move on. --DontAskJusTckle



Your response about calling people who might be tickled by a stranger mentally disturbed and weirdos qualifies as complete nonsense because the person doing the tickling of strangers is the one who is disturbed. I don’t know if DontAskJusTckle is just some persona and the person behind the screen isn’t really like this, but regardless, I feel like DontAskJusTckle has completely shown how he really feels about other people. You were reasonable when I first started discussing with you, but you’ve taken quite a sharp turn to the south yourself by calling people “targets” and all the rest of that about weirdos and the mentally disturbed.



You can’t defend your position, and you’re clearly not trying to have a reasonable debate about this.--Me

I'm not here to defend anything. Nothing I've said or done requires any defense. I'm just discussing the issue and being totally honest about how I see these issues we're discussing. Seriously, I don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape about it. --DontAskJusTckle



That’s fine if you don’t want to defend it. And I’m being totally honest in my replies to the things you say because I don’t think the “discussions” you’ve been having deserve to stand unchallenged. Not getting bent out of shape at all – just standing up for what I believe in and calling you out each time you say something that I feel needs to be addressed.



Okay, so you find that ridiculous. I don't. I stand by that comment. And just for the record, you've said things I've found ridiculous as well. Things like, "I think it's safe to say that most women would feel blah blah blah..." That is known as a sweeping generality, and it's seldom safe to say such things. Or how about "If you support something, that probably means you’re proud of it?" That certainly falls deep in the WTF category. I could go on, but I trust you get my point. Instead of reacting to those statements with petulent accusations of "true colors" I simply chose to either ignore the comments I found to be ridiculous or respond to them civilly. --DontAskJusTckle



If you support something, you’re probably proud of it, unless of course someone is forcing you to support it. You clearly said you wouldn’t be ashamed of tickling a stranger but that you would do it because you wanted to. That attitude doesn’t fly in this society; you don’t just do certain things because you want to. I definitely think it’s safe to say most people would find being tickled by a stranger offensive and upsetting.



This is just the kind of person you are – someone who would do whatever they want regardless of other people’s feelings. –Me

Just fyi, this statement also falls into the above category. You don't know what I would or wouldn't do, nor the kind of person I am. If you're at all interested in maintaining forum protocol, you'd do well to refrain from making personal judgements of other TMF members. --DontAskJusTckle



“I'd do it because I wanted to and because I deemed the situation called for it”. --DontAskJusTckle

You said yourself exactly what you would do and why. I’m not making a personal judgment about you; I’m just telling you the truth.



Tickling is supposed to be something fun. When you start forcing it onto other people, you give everyone else who engages in tickling in a safe, respectful manner a bad name, and it starts to become sociopathic.--Me

I agree tickling is supposed to be fun. Which is why I refuse to let other people define for me how I'm going to have my fun.

A "bad name?" Really?? Most of the talk here about tickling equates it with sex, and is done on a forum with tits and ass plastered on every page. And you're worried about a "bad name?" That ship sailed long ago, pal. -DontAskJusTckle



Yes, it’s supposed to be fun for both people involved. I know that I’m clearly not the only one who is against forcing your fetish onto other people and who agrees that people who would tickle strangers would give those of us who tickled consensually a bad name.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

How have I taken a sharp turn south by calling you out on THIS:

“Were they guys or females? I agree it's usually not a good idea. Tickling strangers is tricky business. You never know when you might come across some mentally disturbed whacko who gets all "creeped out" by a simple tickle from a stranger; or some violent psychopath, ready to knock somebody's teeth out. Let's face it, there are some real weirdos out there.”

By copping an attitude against me personally simply because you don't share my particular code of ethics. By assuming that because I would tickle a stranger, I have no respect or consideration for my fellow man, or for women. By suggesting my true colors are those of sociopathology.

Are you serious when you say this, or are you just messing around? You can’t possibly think this was a sensible thing to say.

I'd like to know what gives you the slightest inkling that I wasn't serious. It was entirely honest, frank, and reasonable. Do you really believe that anybody who disagrees with you can't be serious? I have a hard time believing you are that arrogant.

You’ve shown what a sociopath you are by referring to potential victims of being touched by a stranger as “targets”. That’s very disturbing, and yet you dared to call people who would get creeped out from being touched by a stranger “disturbed whackos”. I would say they’re just not expecting that and are wondering why someone feels it’s okay to invade their personal space.

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

Your reactions to this are bordering on comical. They are tantamount to reactions of somebody going around kidnapping people, strapping them down, and tickle-torturing them. I suspect the reason why you and some others are so appalled at the thought of tickling a stranger is that you sexualize tickling. In your mind it's no different than walking up to a stranger and grabbing a tit or crotch. I don't look at it that way. To me that is utterly ludicrous, because people tickle their children all the time. To suggest that somebody tickling a child is performing a sexual act on them is nothing short of absurd, in my opinion.

I don't care how much of a sexual thrill one gets from the act of tickling somebody, that act is NOT A SEXUAL ONE! Now, tickling the boobs or crotch of a person is another story. Any kind of touching there is a sexual act. But tickling somebody's feet, ribs, armpits? Definately not sexual. Of course some will say, "But DAJT, for some of us it IS a sexual act!" No, it isn't. That's simply an association on your part. And it's fine to have such an association. Sexual fetishes make life more interesting and far less "vanilla." But you can't expect tickling a stranger to be considered tantamount to a sexual assault simply because you get turned on by tickling. If you do, then you have a lot of growing up to do, in my opinion.

 

[Mane'o]

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