That's patently absurd. A husband planning a surprise party for his wife has to be discreet. That doesn't make him a cheater.
And what happened to the Rhiannon Dogma? I'm talking about your repeated insistence that only the SO can decide what behaviors qualify as cheating? Now you're saying that being discreet about an activity makes it cheating??
Let me know when you make up your mind.
No, not rocket science at all. Just your opinion, and about as far from rocket science as it gets.
Because we're not talking about a sexual activity or a sexual fetish. We're talking about tickling.
Or you can forgo delusion altogether and simply refuse to wring your hands over a lot of needless guilt.
Sorry, Hari. That's an argument that would easily suffer defeat at the hands of even a novice debater.
Tickling is not a fetish. It's an activity. The word fetish only describes a particular level of interest in the activity by a particular person or persons. That level of interest doesn't change the activity into something new that it wasn't before.
When somebody develops a fetish for tickling, the only thing that has changed is their thoughts and attitudes toward the tickling. It most certainly does not transform tickling into a sexual activity.
I think I've demonstrated pretty conclusively that it is not.
One place I definitely draw that line is right at the notion that sex is one thing for this person, but something else for another person. That is bullshit on steroids, my friend.
Those are both clearly sexual activities that involve direct stimulation of the genitals that's very likely to result in an orgasm. It would be hopeless to try and defend either of them as not sexual, as Bill Clinton found out.
Kind of vague here. Foot fetish activies can range from scoping feet at the beach all the way to sucking the toes of a 45 year old cougar. The scoping can't be interpreted as sex in any way shape or form. The toe sucking? While not sex, it's a little too close to kissing to be considered a platonic act.
That depends on what is being groped. If it's a crotch or a breast, we're talking about deliberate stimulation of the errogenous zones. In other words, sexual behavior. If it's a shoulder or elbow, probably not so much.
LOL. Here in our side of the pond, we call that a "Cleveland Steamer."
Except tickling is never a fetish. It's an activity, The term fetish only applies to someone's interest in that activity. I'll assume that what you mean is "Tickling, when somebody has a fetish for it, falls into the same category."
Same category as what? I mean, oral sex and handjobs fall into the category of sex. But surely a Cleveland Steamer doesn't.
Whatever lines are drawn with tickling have to apply to everybody, Hari. We're all human beings here. We're all part of the same species. Whatever qualifies as sex to one qualifies as sex to everybody.
The key phrase here is "for me." It sounds like you're talking about a guilty conscience. I can understand you not wanting to feed it, but it doesn't give you the right to say, "Well, since tickling outside of my relationship makes me feel guilty and/or uncomfortable, that means it's cheating." Some of us tickle outside of our significant relationships with no such compunctions at all. We are AOK with it. We don't ask if it's cheating because we know it isn't. We don't have to be discreet, but rather freely choose to be discreet.
Hey man, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to just shake hands.
😛
Interesting choice of words there. More on this, later.
I think it would be more accurate to say, "Some people, most tickle fetishists I imagine, regard tickling with a considerably greater interest than the mainstream does - an interest that often eclipses their interest in sex."
I say it that way because your way suggests that tickling is one thing to most people and another thing altogether with tickle fetishists. It's not. It's the same thing. The only difference is our reaction to it.
Who on Earth told you that? No, the rules were already established long before either one of us were born. They only change if you willingly change them, and even then, you can only change them for yourself. None of us have the authority to change them for anybody else.
Why?
SEXUAL desires yes. Tickling desires are something else altogether, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
LOL. Are we getting religious here? Tickling means the same thing to me that it does to everybody else. Touching a ticklish spot to induce laughter.
Alas, I suppose it was too much to ask of a tickle fetishist, to seperate sex from tickling. Regardless of whatever thrill you get from it, tickling is not sex. It can be mixed with sex, just like whipped cream can, but it's not sex any more than whipped cream is. So if you engage with tickling outside of your relationship, you are not "taking your sex life to another person."
I really feel bad for you, Hari. You spoke of a "get out of jail free" card. That's a more apt analogy than you realize. You're incarcerated in a prison of guilt and self-imposed restrictions. Your friends have the freedom and luxury to indulge in tickling as much as they like, conscience free. But if you do it, you are penalized, criminalized and ostracized, all for simply
liking it more than they do. And all this condemnation is brought on not by society. But by your own guilty conscience.
It's time break away from such balderdash. Free your mind, Neo.
Tickle fetishists have a wonderful advantage that the rest of the world will never know. They have sex. We have tickling. They have to do their thing behind closed doors and sans clothes. We can do our thing in public settings, fully clothed.
The societal rules that apply to sex don't apply to tickling, unless we make a conscious decision to apply them, which in my book is pointless and silly.
I don't mention to her about what a turn-on it was when Dr. Chan goosed me, or that I imagined Dr. Chan wearing a black leather teddy as she was deep inside me. 
I thought you only shared that kind of thing with close friends?!
