Is full disclosure a requirement in tickling?

[drew70]

Consider the male ticklee. He has a sexual fetish for being tickled. To recieve tickling even in non-sexual situations is a thrill. Now let's say this guy has a female friend or acquaintance who tickles him with some kind of regularity completely outside of any sexual context. Say, his best friend's sister or mother. He absolutely loves it because being tickled by females is what he lives for. To his ticklers, it's just fun and amusing, but to him it's arousing.

Do you consider this guy in such a situation to be ethically bound to either stop the tickling altogether or at least disclose his excitement over it? What if instead he says nothing and continues to thrive in it. What if he deliberately provokes it? Would that be deception in your mind?

Now reverse the genders and ask the same questions.

 

[ImNotDave]

I dont think that'd be wrong. It would be if he expected sex afterwards, or started to touch the tickler when she might not want that.
I suppose the innocence of it being playful from the outside is ok.

 

[maniactickler]

You owe noone an explanation. have a blast!

 

[spareme]

I don't think it's wrong to enjoy the sensation. Lots of non-sexual things excite people. If a woman works in an office with a man who wears a cologne that turns her on, should she ask him not to wear it? Should she confess that it excites her? I think not. Lots of common place things arouse people. Do you mean is it a form of cheating if you have a partner? I think, as a non-jealous woman, that I don't care where you get your appetite, as long as you eat at home. I think that if you receive a couple of innocent tickles and you come home aroused, that I may even benefit.

 

[mkeemer]

Enjoy yourself Drew my friend, And I hope to see you two soon 😎
And Spareme, My only regret at NEST was that I didn't get to tickle you. But being a D.M. had to make sure everyone had a safe and good time. But next time we meet
And please tell Ticklesaurus " Mike from Philly says hi, And hurry back" and that goes for you too

 

[evilwomanhehe]

hi drewster 🙂

There is nothing wrong with it when it is treated in a non-sexual "tone." You only live once, my friend.

More power to the 'ler who tickles the living HELL outta you...I hope.

Vicki

 

[ViperGTS]

Let's face it, having the living hell tickled out of oneself is not something that happens often. Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth, eh?

 

[Fire_Sprite]

I say no. Mainly because saying yes would ruin my life.

 

[drew70]

I appreciate all the replies. I pretty much agree with all of them so far. My feeling is that in situations of non-sexual platonic tickling, the degree to which the ticklee is aroused is nobody else's business. I believe that while tickling can be and often is arousing, that alone doesn't qualify it a sexual activity.

I know of at least a few others who disagree. There is a school of thought in which it is believed that communication of such feelings is paramount. That any occurrance of tickling ought be treated the same as a sexual activity since it can and does trigger arousal.

 

[Myriads]

When it happens without prompting and is a natural result of the persons who is doing the ticklings personality then there is no issue.

The pleasure the lee derives, while not the intent of the ler is personal, and no different then if the 'ler' happened to wear a type of outfit that pushed the 'lees' buttons just right. It's an unintentional arrousal.

There was no intent in the situation from either party regarding any sexual element.

However,

If the 'ler' starts to seek out and arrange situations where the 'ler' will tickle them to produce the arousal result without knowledge, then they are starting to treat the 'ler' as a object to use for their personal gratification. Basically making the person an unknowing sex tool.

Once you are inviting the action you have crossed a line.

You have added intent to your interaction. Thus you are now seeking a sexual goal from the other person. That's a very different thing then the one above with no intent.

One can find all sorts of issues with that action under many different morality sets, though not all. You'll need to do a check against the moral structures you hold to see if it's an issue.

Myriads

 

[He-Man]

Well if some lady wants to dis-clothes while tickling me who am I to stop her...oh wait, you said "disclosure" not....aw hell, nevermind.

 

[kis123]

When it happens without prompting and is a natural result of the persons who is doing the ticklings personality then there is no issue.

The pleasure the lee derives, while not the intent of the ler is personal, and no different then if the 'ler' happened to wear a type of outfit that pushed the 'lees' buttons just right. It's an unintentional arrousal.

There was no intent in the situation from either party regarding any sexual element.

However,

If the 'ler' starts to seek out and arrange situations where the 'ler' will tickle them to produce the arousal result without knowledge, then they are starting to treat the 'ler' as a object to use for their personal gratification. Basically making the person an unknowing sex tool.

Once you are inviting the action you have crossed a line.

You have added intent to your interaction. Thus you are now seeking a sexual goal from the other person. That's a very different thing then the one above with no intent.

One can find all sorts of issues with that action under many different morality sets, though not all. You'll need to do a check against the moral structures you hold to see if it's an issue.

Myriads

Yeah......what he said!

 

[jaba]

can't "hide" the evidence.....

I know of at least a few others who disagree. There is a school of thought in which it is believed that communication of such feelings is paramount. That any occurrance of tickling ought be treated the same as a sexual activity since it can and does trigger arousal.

I'm not a lee, but with respect to male lees, I would think that communication of sexual feelings, and "evidence" of sexual arousal would be....um....."evident"?...

Male lers often have to explain the "tent" in the trousers.....I would expect the same would be true for male lees? Wouldn't your natural human arousal to such activity make an inevitable "disclosure" for you, whether you choose to or not?

 

[Deleted member 2452]

hell no

why should he? does anyone else go around telling women what turns them on? wouldn't that be a form off color suggestion/harrassment?
keep the sexual comments to your self.

 

[drew70]

I'm not a lee, but with respect to male lees, I would think that communication of sexual feelings, and "evidence" of sexual arousal would be....um....."evident"?...

I suppose that would be especially true if the lee were wearing bicycle shorts.

Actually you raise a good point (no pun intended), although I can't remember that ever being a problem with me even as a young man. Mostly because I require intimacy and privacy in order to...uh...rise to any occasion. I can often feel stimulated without engaging the mechanics normally associated with full arousal. As the years have passed, my body has learned not to rush into things. 😉

When it happens without prompting and is a natural result of the persons who is doing the ticklings personality then there is no issue.

The pleasure the lee derives, while not the intent of the ler is personal, and no different then if the 'ler' happened to wear a type of outfit that pushed the 'lees' buttons just right. It's an unintentional arrousal.

There was no intent in the situation from either party regarding any sexual element.

However,

If the 'ler' starts to seek out and arrange situations where the 'ler' will tickle them to produce the arousal result without knowledge, then they are starting to treat the 'ler' as a object to use for their personal gratification. Basically making the person an unknowing sex tool.

Once you are inviting the action you have crossed a line.

You have added intent to your interaction. Thus you are now seeking a sexual goal from the other person. That's a very different thing then the one above with no intent.

One can find all sorts of issues with that action under many different morality sets, though not all. You'll need to do a check against the moral structures you hold to see if it's an issue.

Myriads

I have indeed checked and while I'm completely comfortable with this aspect of my lifestyle, it's rarely a bad idea to reexamine one's code of ethics.

I would agree that a ticklee who purposely arranges to place himself in such situations is seeking sexual stimulation, but to me the term "goal" connotes resolution and finality. Unless the ticklee is looking to achieve an orgasm as a direct result of the tickling, I wouldn't call it a "sexual goal."

As for "starting to treat the 'ler' as a object to use for their personal gratification" well that's pretty much a fact of life all around, isn't it? Vendors treat potential customers as "objects" for financial gain. When we go to a concert aren't we treating the singer or comedian as an object for gratification by entertainment? Even amongst those with whom we're closest don't we sometimes fish for compliments, reassurance, or validation?

I have literally spent my life in the pursuit of placing myself in ticklish situations, doing exactly what Myriads describes above. I've gotten quite good at instigating tickling responses from females who have no sexual interest whatsoever. Most of the women who have tickled me had no reason to believe it was sexually stimulating, although some did seem to derive the fact intuitively. Still, I never pointed a gun at anybody, nor have I blackmailed anybody. Most of the women who tickled me enjoyed doing so, just not for sexual reasons. They either thought it was funny, amusing, or both. In other words they got something out of the situation as well.

I remember at one point, I began to feel guilty that I was getting so much enjoyment out of life. I was getting tickled on a daily basis, by numerous women, with no end to it in sight. I began to feel that anything this wonderful HAD to be wrong in some way. So I stopped pursuing it altogether, and distanced myself from the ladies who were tickling me. After about three days of this, one of my co-workers, Clarice, sought me out and approached me in my solitude. She asked me what was wrong, and why I didn't want her to tickle me any more. I was taken off guard, completely unprepared for this, and my response was something like, "Er...well I...uh...that is....ahem...you see..." She then plunged into me and that was the end of my haitus from tickling. It was also the end of any doubts I had about the ethics of it.

 

[Coda]

I don't think he or she has any ethical obligation to reveal that. Of course, they could if they <I>wanted</I> to...

 

[P[a]pi]

I don't believe the lee (male or female) has an obligation to reveal their tickling fetish, but I do think they are obligated to not provoke tickling from others at all, unless you are provoking someone you want to date, your girlfriend or your wife. Basically only a possible future partner or a current partner.

And if a non-partner person keeps on tickling you then I think you should avoid it or stop it somehow.

This is how Meka and I operate. We only tickle and get tickled by each other. This is what is right for us. We know that not everybody thinks this way.

 

[BorisandNatasha]

When it happens without prompting and is a natural result of the persons who is doing the ticklings personality then there is no issue.

The pleasure the lee derives, while not the intent of the ler is personal, and no different then if the 'ler' happened to wear a type of outfit that pushed the 'lees' buttons just right. It's an unintentional arrousal.

There was no intent in the situation from either party regarding any sexual element.

However,

If the 'ler' starts to seek out and arrange situations where the 'ler' will tickle them to produce the arousal result without knowledge, then they are starting to treat the 'ler' as a object to use for their personal gratification. Basically making the person an unknowing sex tool.

Once you are inviting the action you have crossed a line.

You have added intent to your interaction. Thus you are now seeking a sexual goal from the other person. That's a very different thing then the one above with no intent.

One can find all sorts of issues with that action under many different morality sets, though not all. You'll need to do a check against the moral structures you hold to see if it's an issue.

Myriads

That about says it!


Boris

 

[tickmankyle1]

just enjoy and never worrie later

 

[drew70]

just enjoy and never worrie later

That about says it!

Drew.