Is Tickling a Ler justifiable non consensual torture

[toneus79]

Of course we all know that many Lers cannot stand to be Tickled themselves, and do not like it (that must go for quite a few people on this forum).

However if the opportunity arose to turn the tables on them, would in that case a merciless non consensual tickling be justified ?

 

[Bagelfather]

justification

Anyone having something done to them that they do not consent to is not justifiable.

I am primarily a ler, fyi, but I do switch with select people.

 

[BikerBadBoy]

Of course we all know that many Lers cannot stand to be Tickled themselves, and do not like it (that must go for quite a few people on this forum).

However if the opportunity arose to turn the tables on them, would in that case a merciless non consensual tickling be justified ?

Since I am not ticklish anywhere the point is moot to me. However, first of all, how would a "lee" turn the tables? Wouldn't the "ler" have to agree? Then, why would a "ler" agree? Seems like this question is rather silly.

 

[NYvice]

Hmmm.

Seems like this question is rather silly.

I'm in agreement with biker yet again lol (hey Biker--gives the infamous nod). Toneus, "non-consensual" inherently means no consent...which in the eyes of the law is never justifiable.

I think what you were really asking was since the ler typically doesn't enjoy being the lee, if the lee was able to overpower the ler and have his or her revenge, would that be considered okay even though technically the person will not be "enjoying" it. The question really comes down to if the act is done in a joking or playful way. If the ler who became the lee is seriously saying stop or freaking out, that's not cool. If the person is hating it but at the same time okay with it as a revenge thing....it should be pretty clear. If you find yourself in a situation where you can't tell the difference between playful actions violating someone...always be on the safe side and err on the side of caution (meaning either get their consent or don't move forward).

 

[BikerBadBoy]

I'm in agreement with biker yet again lol (hey Biker--gives the infamous nod). Toneus, "non-consensual" inherently means no consent...which in the eyes of the law is never justifiable.

I think what you were really asking was since the ler typically doesn't enjoy being the lee, if the lee was able to overpower the ler and have his or her revenge, would that be considered okay even though technically the person will not be "enjoying" it. The question really comes down to if the act is done in a joking or playful way. If the ler who became the lee is seriously saying stop or freaking out, that's not cool. If the person is hating it but at the same time okay with it as a revenge thing....it should be pretty clear. If you find yourself in a situation where you can't tell the difference between playful actions violating someone...always be on the safe side and err on the side of caution (meaning either get their consent or don't move forward).

(nods back) What's up NYvice?

 

[BikerBadBoy]

Not much brother....same old. But hey, sometimes that's a good thing. 😎 How bout you?

At the risk of being cautioned for getting off topic.....Very busy working Halloween Horror Nights at Univeral Studios Orlando. When not much is happening I usually look to get into something. Anyway, nice chatting. Stay cool man.

 

[Tamia78]

Of course we all know that many Lers cannot stand to be Tickled themselves, and do not like it (that must go for quite a few people on this forum).

However if the opportunity arose to turn the tables on them, would in that case a merciless non consensual tickling be justified ?

That's a big HELL YES for me. Every once in awhile I get in those little moods where I try (I said TRY) and tickle him, unfortunately he didn't let me get very far, and I was the one who ended up being tickled. What's wrong with Lers letting us lees win every once in awhile? So, I'd say, yeah, if the oppurtunity arose.......I'd tickle...................and then run like hell.

--T

 

[Angel_2]

I think of it like this, being both a lee and ler I don't mind if my lee tickles the hell out of me, its all about having fun for the both of us. As long as we both have fun thats all that matters to me. I just want to have a good time and I want my lee to have fun too so if that mean she tickles me its cool with me.

 

[toneus79]

I probably need to clarify my incoherent train of thought, which is probably more to do with fantasy type scenarios, than actual consensual essential real life.

It's just that one reads so many comments on this forum along the lines of "yea non consensual torture stuff, sniff, that's the kind of tickling I like". Yet no one ever seems to move that on to the point where the Ler gets non consensually tortured back.

Does that make sense ?

Do I need to get out more ?

 

[LindyHopper]

Well, the revenge theme is fairly common in stories, and it's not always consensual. Sometimes the 'lee gets a bunch of her burly male friends together to grab and tie up the 'ler, and then gets even with him for all that tickling he did to her earlier.

But I'm guessing that in real life, at least the real life of most 'lers into non-con, getting non-consensually tickled back just isn't part of the fantasy.