Is There Such Thing As Consensual Non-Consensual Tickling?

JimmyBoy · Oct 17, 2008

I will try to explain this as best I can...

Consensual tickling is when two or more people agree to tickle and be tickled; engaging in tickle play.

Non-consensual is when tickling is done when one physically controls another against their will and decides to tickle them. It could happen between strangers and those who know each other.

Now for consensual non-consensual; this could be two friends hanging out when one of them decides to have fun and tickle attack the other. They could either grab hold of their ankle and tickle their feet; or something like that. Now the friend might not really like it and sometimes not be able to get away from the tickler; but it is regarded as play among friends. This type of tickling is usually spur of the moment and not pre-planned among the players.

So essentially what I am asking is does tickling have to be pre-planned in order for it to be consensual?

giggle-maker · Oct 17, 2008

I'm willing to bet that this is the kind of tickling that predominates the vanilla world. Thus it probably happens all the time.

jj82277 · Oct 17, 2008

funny you should ask...

I think so. That is actually the topic of my latest story. I think that it shines an interesting light on the concept...

JJ.

3xPIN · Oct 17, 2008

There is a simpler name for what you are describing: tickling. If it is just for shits and giggles, that is just what it is: tickling. Consent doesn't always have to be a part of it.

BrightEyes1082 · Oct 18, 2008

Consensual non-consensual is exactly how I describe any tickling
that happens to me.

JimmyBoy said:
I will try to explain this as best I can...

Consensual tickling is when two or more people agree to tickle and be tickled; engaging in tickle play.

Non-consensual is when tickling is done when one physically controls another against their will and decides to tickle them. It could happen between strangers and those who know each other.

Now for consensual non-consensual; this could be two friends hanging out when one of them decides to have fun and tickle attack the other. They could either grab hold of their ankle and tickle their feet; or something like that. Now the friend might not really like it and sometimes not be able to get away from the tickler; but it is regarded as play among friends. This type of tickling is usually spur of the moment and not pre-planned among the players.

So essentially what I am asking is does tickling have to be pre-planned in order for it to be consensual?

Deleted member 66627 · Oct 18, 2008

Going with what Amanda is saying;

I prefer Consensual, Non-Consensual.

^^

ittakes10totkl · Oct 18, 2008

consensual, non-consensual is like being able to differentiate what a woman says what she says and how she says what she says.

A lot of time no means yes, but many people don't look at how the no is said or see why there's a no being said... it's taken at face value.

Women get off on spontaneity and prefer being surprised and in the moment... it seems as if the thought of knowing what comes next and being able to predict what's going to happen is as much a turn off to them as perceived physical ugliness is to guys.

There's a such thing as consensual, non-consensual tickling. It requires tact and courage to achieve, as well as no witnesses or proof :devil:

drew70 · Oct 18, 2008

There's no such thing as consentual non-consentual. It's an oxymoron. That's like saying somebody's drunk sober. It's either one or the other.

Now for consensual non-consensual; this could be two friends hanging out when one of them decides to have fun and tickle attack the other. They could either grab hold of their ankle and tickle their feet; or something like that. Now the friend might not really like it and sometimes not be able to get away from the tickler; but it is regarded as play among friends. This type of tickling is usually spur of the moment and not pre-planned among the players.

The tickling described here is clearly non-consentual. It was inflicted on the victim without consent. That doesn't mean it won't easily be forgiven, but forgiveness is not the same as consent.

If you consent to the tickling, it's consentual. If you don't, it's non-consentual. Pretty easy math, there.
__________________

WorkInProgress · Oct 18, 2008

Yes, there is very much such a thing as consensual non-consensual. Outside of the fetish world, it is indeed what goes on all the time. In order to comprehend the concept, it's useful to step away from the subject of tickling alone, and look at the broader picture of stuff that goes on in college dorms and similar settings: short-sheeting each other's beds, throwing water balloons at each other, hiding the clothes of the person in the shower, even guys belting each other in the nuts. The key is, there's the context of a community whose members share a cultural consensus that certain boundary crossings are all right, and it's understood that if A throws a water balloon at B, the chances are pretty good that B will get ahold of an extra-strength super soaker and have at it on A. But, if A pulls one of these shenanigans on B, and B doesn't happen to share in that cultural consensus, you do have a police incident, and in fact I remember hearing at one college where I was a grad student that someone was in trouble for hiding someone's clothes during a shower, where the recipient of the prank was a foreigner who wasn't quite assimilated to the culture that made such a deed all right, making for some bad news for the one who did it.

When it comes to tickling, especially for those in the fetish scene, I would just say this: you have to make absolutely sure the person you playfully tickle agrees that you have a relationship of familiarity and trust where this is okay. The person will resist tickling, but you won't be under arrest or out of a job for attempting it.

huskys · Oct 19, 2008

Chrisums said:
In a similar sense, I also believe that there is another level of Consensual Non-Consensual tickling.

Example: a bdsm site They are consenting to being tied up and having random things done to them. As for as I am aware, they are not specified what, but chances are it will involved pain, orgasms, whatever else. But, somewhere in there, they are all tied up in some really tickle "omg cant move an inch" sort of position, ready to be beat or something... bam out comes the tickles. Now if this person is REALLY ticklish, they may never have taken into account "I'm going to get tickled". But there it is, they are being tickled. Maybe even don't want ot be tickled, but they consented to having SOMETHING done to them.

Thus they consented to being tickled despite not consenting to it.

This discribes it best for me.

If someone agrees to be tied up, it is consensual up to that point.
If after that, the ler has free reign for an agreed amount of time, to tickle, give forced orgasms etc, then that part cannot be discribed as consensual, because the lee has no control.
Hence consensual in that the whole thing was planned, and non-consensual, in that the lee does not have control once it all starts.

drew70 · Oct 19, 2008

WorkInProgress said:
Yes, there is very much such a thing as consensual non-consensual. Outside of the fetish world, it is indeed what goes on all the time. In order to comprehend the concept, it's useful to step away from the subject of tickling alone, and look at the broader picture of stuff that goes on in college dorms and similar settings: short-sheeting each other's beds, throwing water balloons at each other, hiding the clothes of the person in the shower, even guys belting each other in the nuts. The key is, there's the context of a community whose members share a cultural consensus that certain boundary crossings are all right, and it's understood that if A throws a water balloon at B, the chances are pretty good that B will get ahold of an extra-strength super soaker and have at it on A. But, if A pulls one of these shenanigans on B, and B doesn't happen to share in that cultural consensus, you do have a police incident, and in fact I remember hearing at one college where I was a grad student that someone was in trouble for hiding someone's clothes during a shower, where the recipient of the prank was a foreigner who wasn't quite assimilated to the culture that made such a deed all right, making for some bad news for the one who did it.

When it comes to tickling, especially for those in the fetish scene, I would just say this: you have to make absolutely sure the person you playfully tickle agrees that you have a relationship of familiarity and trust where this is okay. The person will resist tickling, but you won't be under arrest or out of a job for attempting it.

The college pranks described are non-consentual. Period. There's no cultural consensus that such things are invited, welcome, or even tolerated. The very fact that retaliation is the most frequent reaction would strongly indicate otherwise. I'm frankly amazed this was even suggested.

That aside, there's really no need to take a step back and derail the topic to college dorm pranks as those things do not apply here. To suggest that there is a "cultural concensus" in the tickling community that tickling is okay to do without consent is rather appalling. If you go to a gathering under this misconception it may very likely be the last gathering you'll ever attend, as this kind of mindset is strongly discouraged and rightly frowned upon.
<blockquote>Dungeon Monitor: "What happened here?"

Ticklish Girl: "Tickler Guy just walked up and started tickling me! He didn't even ask, the creep!"

Dungeon Monitor: "Tickler Guy? Is this true?"

Tickler Guy: "Well....Yeah, but.....this is NEST! Ya gotta expect to be tickled if you come to something like this."

Dungeon Monitor: "Were you not listening when we went over the rules? Did you not read the emails? You must first establish CONSENT before tickling."

Tickler Guy: "But...But...WorkInProgress said that there's a 'Cultural Consensus!'"

Dungeon Monitor: "Then I suggest you tickle him. You're out of here. Come on."

Tickler Guy: "Hey, getcher hands off me!"</blockquote>Make no mistake. There's no such thing as "consensual non-consentual." It's either one or the other.
__________________

WorkInProgress · Oct 19, 2008

drew70 said:
To suggest that there is a "cultural concensus" in the tickling community that tickling is okay to do without consent is rather appalling. If you go to a gathering under this misconception it may very likely be the last gathering you'll ever attend, as this kind of mindset is strongly discouraged and rightly frowned upon.

If you think I said this, then you did not make a serious effort to read what I wrote. I know the rules of tickle gatherings every bit as well as you do.

I won't bother to defend my logic on the other points; I will only request that persons who read Drew's post will be sure to look back at mine to see what my actual points were.

drew70 · Oct 19, 2008

WorkInProgress said:
If you think I said this, then you did not make a serious effort to read what I wrote. I know the rules of tickle gatherings every bit as well as you do.

I won't bother to defend my logic on the other points; I will only request that persons who read Drew's post will be sure to look back at mine to see what my actual points were.

I'm counting on them doing that very thing. That's why I quoted your post in its entirety, in case you were thinking of going back and editing, which I would have been thinking had I posted what you did.

You illustrated the concept of concensual non-consentual by the speaking of a "cultural concensus" among college dorms that pranks such as short sheeting, water balloons, etc. are common place activities, and therefore to be expected.

If we're to draw that parallel into the Tickling Community (which I assume is your reason for going there in the first place) wouldn't those college pranks tranlate to tickling pranks? If not, then perhaps you'd like to explain the parallel more clearly.
__________________

WorkInProgress · Oct 19, 2008

I am indeed drawing that parallel. However, by saying that there exist contexts in which such a culture of consensus exists, I'm by no means saying that being at a tickle gathering automatically makes Person A and Person B part of that culture of consensus. It's more a matter of what particular relationship Person A and Person B have with each other. Similarly, I made clear that, while fellow residents of a college dorm frequently have such a connection with each other, the mere fact of being there doesn't automatically guarantee it. When A pulls a prank on B, it's the difference between B pulling a counterprank on A versus B going to police and getting A arrested.

drew70 · Oct 19, 2008

WorkInProgress said:
I am indeed drawing that parallel. However, by saying that there exist contexts in which such a culture of consensus exists, I'm by no means saying that being at a tickle gathering automatically makes Person A and Person B part of that culture of consensus. It's more a matter of what particular relationship Person A and Person B have with each other. Similarly, I made clear that, while fellow residents of a college dorm frequently have such a connection with each other, the mere fact of being there doesn't automatically guarantee it. When A pulls a prank on B, it's the difference between B pulling a counterprank on A versus B going to police and getting A arrested.

Sorry, but it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the concensus is indeed cultural, then any member of that culture would fall under the umbrella of that consensus. Otherwise it's not a consensus of culture, but of something else.

If on the other hand the consensus is a matter of a personal connection, then it's not culturally derived since a consensus of this nature can occur between people of different cultures.

But you can't have it both ways. It's either one ... or the other.
__________________

Skipadeedoodah · Oct 19, 2008

Although I agree that consensual non-consensual tickling can occur in the example that huskys and others gave, I haven't ever experienced the non-con aspect of tickling. Although I've been held down, tied up, etc, I've never felt like I was truly out of control of the situation. I always know that I can make it stop if I really want it to.

I'm not into non-con as a rule - meaning people being tickled who truly hate it and aren't having a good time. I'm not really into the stories where the lee is truly afraid or not enjoying themselves whatsoever, but this cross between the two is a pretty sexy concept I think. So the consensual non-con tickling would definitely be an interesting step for me to take... :devil:

WorkInProgress · Oct 19, 2008

drew70 said:
Sorry, but it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the concensus is indeed cultural, then any member of that culture would fall under the umbrella of that consensus. Otherwise it's not a consensus of culture, but of something else.

If on the other hand the consensus is a matter of a personal connection, then it's not culturally derived since a consensus of this nature can occur between people of different cultures.

But you can't have it both ways. It's either one ... or the other.

I have no response to the "cake and eat it" opinion, since I continue to regard my original post as a fairly high-quality piece of work that will make sense to at least some, but I will clarify my use of the term "culture of consensus." I'm using the word "culture" in the more micro sense, as in, an office has a culture, a local chapter of a club has a culture, etc. It is not at all connected with the way the word is usually employed, the latter being to talk about the difference between say being a Chinese immigrant and being a Navajo Indian. And realize, I'm talking theoretically anyway; my post doesn't even involve an opinion on what one should or shouldn't do. I have more in common with an anthropologist reporting on field observation than with an ethical philosopher here.

(Note: If it's a while before I'm back in this thread to respond to further posts, it will only be because I'm at work and wouldn't dream of pulling up this site on a network computer; you know how that goes. But till I return, do have fun, all.)

Francie_Pants · Oct 20, 2008

Literally - it is an oxymoron

Otherwise, I see no reason why it hurts for anyone to describe such situations, as those that have been described, as that form of tickling. It's like that first kiss. You might have the person's unspoken consent to do it, but it's not usually discussed beforehand, you just feel it and go for it. You don't find out if it's consented or not, until you try. Asking consent would kinda spoil the moment. :tickle:

WorkInProgress · Oct 20, 2008

Just so nobody mistakes my original post, let me amplify: For those who experience tickling as a fetish, being sure of the receiving party's consent is vital. Consent can come from the word "yes," or it can come from having a relationship of such intense familiarity and trust that you know there'll be no harm done, but when it comes to the latter, extreme caution is advisable. My comparison of tickling with college dorm pranks applies mainly to non-fetish tickling, a luxury "we" don't really have.

Bringing it now to personal terms, let me note that I've tickled women without asking their permission, but (a.) I only do it when I'm sure I have that kind of familiar relationship with them, and (b.) I don't keep doing it if I'm asked to stop.

knight · Oct 21, 2008

I think I can see the bridge between Drew and WIP. Consent is consent, and no consent is no consent. That being said, and Works correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, it seems to me that the "consensual non-consensual" situation is one where the 'lee agrees ahead of time to give up any control in the situation for a certain period of time. Maybe some boundaries are agreed upon, maybe not, but for that space of time, let's arbitrarily pick 30 minutes, the 'lee has agreed to allow the 'ler to have their way with them. "Lay on, MacDuff!" Maybe this means tickling, or forced orgasms. Maybe it's a situation where the 'lee is begging, pleading to stop, but it continues because this was agreed upon beforehand. Since it's planned, I'd say it's consensual. I think Works definition on non-consent in this situation is the fact that the 'lee is giving up any and all control for the duration of the experience. The 'lee is asking to be taken past certain limits, to be pushed beyond certain boundaries. But it was agred upon before hand. Thus, "no" does equal "yes" in this instance. I would hope in such a situation that the 'ler is paying attention to know when the 'lee is getting what they want out of the experience, and when they are getting too much and really do need to stop.

Would you guys agree? Disagree?

WorkInProgress · Oct 21, 2008

My own original post was more applicable to non-fetish than fetish contexts, but with regard to fetish contexts, I would agree with your assessment, Knight.

knight · Oct 22, 2008

I went back over you original post, just to clarify my thinking. Again, I think I can see the bridge. I'll still agree with Drew that consent is consent, and non consent is non consent. But if we go along with the college prank metaphor, or the hundreds of mainstream videos of friends tickling each other on Youtube, which I would kind of put in the same category, then I think what were seeing in these situations is basically play. The college pranks, the friendly tickling on Youtube, it's non-consensual in the respect that no one in these situations said "please short sheet my bed", or "please hold me down and tickle my feet for a few seconds", but it's all done in the name of fun. Therefore no one really minds all that much. I'd say it's not so much consensual non-consensual, but rather non-consequential non-consensual. The thing is, non-con has gained a certain connotation in this community. You start slinging that term around, and people start thinking someone who is kidnapped, bound, and mercilessly tickled with no regard to the 'lee's feelings. It implies a somewhat more sinister scenario than a bunch of friends horsing around.

A concrete example would be: I used to tickle my high school girlfriend. She was very ticklish, and very playful. She never consented to being tickled - and this was long before I started exploring the depths of this interest, so I never thought about tying her up and employing safewords or something more fetishist. But she knew I was playing around, and at no time did she ever say to me, "Please don't tickle me again, I really don't like it." If she had, I would of course not have done it again. But she knew I was playing, so she didn't mind. She may even have been enjoying it just for the adrenalin rush. Non-consensual? In the strictest definition, yes. Non-consequential? You betcha.

njdondude · Oct 22, 2008

I'll agree with you knight on playful tickling and even tickling with role playing scenarios where the lee is a willing person pushed to there limits as they passionately fantasized. The non consensual is a unsuspected assault with the person unwilling to go along with tourture, even more it crosses the line to a more sinister offence.

ViperGTS · Oct 23, 2008

Consentual Non-Consentual....here's the way I see it happening.

Lee: I want you to tickle me for 30 minutes, non stop, unless you need a break, no matter what I say or how I say it.

Ler: Seriously? WHat if you're begging and cursing?

Lee: I don't care. Non-stop...I want to be tickle tortured. In fact *hands Ler duct tape or a ball gag* here - so there's no confusion.

Ler: Okay...but I'm not gonna take it easy on you...

Lee: *grins* I'm counting on it.

Ler: *gags lee, ties them down, and has at it*

So, yes, despite unpopular opinion, "consentual non-consentual" can exist, it's just incredibly rare, I assume.

As for a situation where the Ler tickle-attacks the Lee without prior warning, I also believe that it can be consentually non-consentual. I've been in the situation myself when I was younger, even now with my current girlfriend. Pinning someone to a bed or the floor and tickling them silly while they beg and plead for you to stop, though titters and giggles and squeals. All the while, they don't really want you to stop, but they'll never admit that, so they put of a front of non-consentuality.

dvnc · Oct 23, 2008

Uh, y'all are arguing semantics, here. Dry. Dry like old toast. 'Bout as useful, too.

A consenting person who enjoys the sensations of a torturous tickling is NOT a non-consentual ticklee. That's a 'lee that won't get you arrested, locked-up, and ultimately sodomized by your new roomie in the pen.

It's just a misnomer.

There IS such a thing, obviously, as folks who WANT to be tortured. They're part of our community. There, thankfully, is such a thing as those who want to torment then, then care for them afterward. 'Lees and 'lers, folks.

This also ain't incredibly rare if you attend events regularly. MOST people getting tickled who WANT to be tickled and LIKE being tickled will resist MADLY while the tickling goes on. I've met only a handful who can just take it.

Try being the one who wants one of them. 😉 They're the rare breed of 'lee.

If you wish to try arguing nomenclature, go for it. Waste of time, though, as the words are defined. Consensually tortured is still tortured. Someone who willing goes in, like Amanda, gets tickled, can stand only a limited time frame (instead of all day), and still appreciates you afterward (after aftercare, while teary and spun) is the person you describe as "Consensual Non-Consensual."

Just don't fling off the restraints on one until you've calmed 'em afterward. Autonomic reflex response means they really will try to harm you 'til they've relaxed, in some cases. Some just bask in the afterglow...

Is There Such Thing As Consensual Non-Consensual Tickling?

TMF Expert

2nd Level Orange Feather

Guest

4th Level Orange Feather

Verified

Deleted member 66627

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

3rd Level Blue Feather

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Verified

Guest

TMF Poster

Guest

1st Level Red Feather

Guest

1st Level Red Feather

TMF Poster

Guest

MODERATOR