Is tickling cheating?

[jasonforde]

If your partner trusts you and you go behind their back to meet someone for tickling then that is cheating.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

I think that is a bit dishonest.

Obviously, I disagree. But then again, I don't define honesty as "spilling your guts to your lady about everything in the world that has the potential to excite you."

If tickling alone brings sexual gratification, then YOU know what the fetish does for you.

I don't know anybody who fits that description, on or off the forum. Sexual gratification only comes with sexual release. Tickling does not provide that. It requires sexual activity. Stimulation of the genetalia, you get the idea.

So there is tickling, which may or may not excite you sexually, but doesn't provide sexual release.
And there is sexual gratification which does.

Two entirely different things.

The fact that you have not disclosed that to your significant other does not absolve you of the fact that you are seeking sexual gratification elsewhere.

If you're seeking sexual release outside the relationship, I agree that's cheating. But most don't achieve orgasm through tickling alone. It may get them excited, but they need actual sexual activity to be gratified. So, tickling outside of the relationship does not equal sexual gratification outside of the relationship. If a guy gets tickled by his secretary at work, and comes home and releases that sexual excitement into her, that is not cheating.

It's kinda like telling your partner that you don't look at porn, but you don't mention having a bra fetish and so she thinks nothing of your collection of Sears Catalogs. Technically, it's not porn, but to a bra or lingerie fetish person, it certainly can be used as porn.

And because it isn't porn, the guy is being entirely honest and truthful to his partner.

I think that trying to skirt around the truth so you can indulge in your fantasies is no better than outright lying. The ethical gymnastics some people can achieve is often astounding.

"Skirting around the truth." What does that even mean? Are you saying that you have an obligation to disclose every interest you have to your significant other? I personally find that to be an absurd notion.

People have to resign to the fact that it is normal and healthy to sometimes derive excitement outside of the relationship. People don't own each other. We have no obligation to disclose all of our interests to anybody. We choose what we share, and so do they.

 

[laughinggaszone]

Obviously, I disagree. But then again, I don't define honesty as "spilling your guts to your lady about everything in the world that has the potential to excite you."

I don't know anybody who fits that description, on or off the forum. Sexual gratification only comes with sexual release. Tickling does not provide that. It requires sexual activity. Stimulation of the genetalia, you get the idea.

So there is tickling, which may or may not excite you sexually, but doesn't provide sexual release.
And there is sexual gratification which does.

Two entirely different things.

If you're seeking sexual release outside the relationship, I agree that's cheating. But most don't achieve orgasm through tickling alone. It may get them excited, but they need actual sexual activity to be gratified. So, tickling outside of the relationship does not equal sexual gratification outside of the relationship. If a guy gets tickled by his secretary at work, and comes home and releases that sexual excitement into her, that is not cheating.


And because it isn't porn, the guy is being entirely honest and truthful to his partner.

"Skirting around the truth." What does that even mean? Are you saying that you have an obligation to disclose every interest you have to your significant other? I personally find that to be an absurd notion.

People have to resign to the fact that it is normal and healthy to sometimes derive excitement outside of the relationship. People don't own each other. We have no obligation to disclose all of our interests to anybody. We choose what we share, and so do they.

Like I said...ethical gymnastics. Whatever gets you through the day.

 

[TicklishBlackGuy]

Honestly its like this. Lets say you have a foot fetish, your spouse doesn't like it or want you doing anything with people with that fetish, yet you do it anyway. It could hurt a relationship. Sure tickling can be harmless in some faction, but if your getting a sexual release from it just so you can get your fix, I think it can be a form of cheating in a way. Just because its "tickling" doesn't mean that it is necessarily not cheating either. I see too many times people have left there girlfriends or boyfriends cuz they either don't indulge in there fetish, they don't look what they want them too, its always something. So I believe it can absolutely be a form of cheating

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Like I said...ethical gymnastics.

A silly, meaningless phrase. What you said that prompted my response was that is was "dishonest," which is not at all true.

Whatever gets you through the day.

What gets me through the day has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[laughinggaszone]

A silly, meaningless phrase. What you said that prompted my response was that is was "dishonest," which is not at all true.

What gets me through the day has nothing to do with any of this.

Actually, it is dishonest. I would wager that a majority of people would find your point of view dishonest. But it's yours and you can live as you please. Just remember, a relationship doesn't just depend on your point of view. If your partner doesn't share your very elastic ethical view then you can't be surprised if they leave you because they felt you were being dishonest...no matter how much you insist that you weren't. That's really all I have to say on the matter.

 

[fightinggirl666]

Tickling (or anything fetish related) is cheating if your partner doesn't know about it and your sneaking around.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Actually, it is dishonest. I would wager that a majority of people would find your point of view dishonest. But it's yours and you can live as you please. Just remember, a relationship doesn't just depend on your point of view. If your partner doesn't share your very elastic ethical view then you can't be surprised if they leave you because they felt you were being dishonest...no matter how much you insist that you weren't. That's really all I have to say on the matter.

So, it's dishonest not because you can demonstrate any actual dishonesty. It's dishonest because that's your opinion and you think that if others agree with your opinion that somehow makes you right.

But the bottom line is that it isn't a matter of opinion, so it doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Definition is not a matter of opinion, so you can't just arbitrarily choose to redefine dishonesty to include holding back very personal information about yourself that you may not feel comfortable sharing with your significant other.

Sharing is a big part of a long term relationship. As that relationship progresses over time, you share deeply personal issues over that duration. You don't just spill your guts from day one. Many people aren't comfortable sharing deeply personal feelings and desires. Is it reasonable to tell them, "hey, you'd better fess up or be labeled a liar?"

On any other forum, the idea of tickling being cheating would be laughed away. But many TMF'ers can't differentiate between tickling and sex. They are not the same thing even for fetishists and so consequently it is unreasonable to place the same societal constraints on tickling that are placed on sex.

 

[ticklemepls]

So, it's dishonest not because you can demonstrate any actual dishonesty. It's dishonest because that's your opinion and you think that if others agree with your opinion that somehow makes you right.

But the bottom line is that it isn't a matter of opinion, so it doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Definition is not a matter of opinion, so you can't just arbitrarily choose to redefine dishonesty to include holding back very personal information about yourself that you may not feel comfortable sharing with your significant other.

Sharing is a big part of a long term relationship. As that relationship progresses over time, you share deeply personal issues over that duration. You don't just spill your guts from day one. Many people aren't comfortable sharing deeply personal feelings and desires. Is it reasonable to tell them, "hey, you'd better fess up or be labeled a liar?"

On any other forum, the idea of tickling being cheating would be laughed away. But many TMF'ers can't differentiate between tickling and sex. They are not the same thing even for fetishists and so consequently it is unreasonable to place the same societal constraints on tickling that are placed on sex.

Dishonesty:
NOUN
deceitfulness shown in someone's character or behavior:

Cheating:
VERB
act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination:

Sexual Gratification:
noun
Pleasure, especially when gained from the satisfaction of a desire

 

[laughinggaszone]

...it isn't a matter of opinion, so it doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Definition is not a matter of opinion, so you can't just arbitrarily choose to redefine dishonesty...

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are redefining what dishonesty is to suit your own philosophy. The rest of us (in western society) know what dishonesty is because we subscribe to an agreed upon moral code within society. Definitions, like morals, are agreed upon by the majority of society's citizens. While there are people who vary in their opinion of what is moral or dishonest, there is a consensus. This consensus can certainly change over time, but the current view of dishonesty does not line up with your view. You can have your own definition or morality, but you will be in a minority and will have to deal with the majority that does not side with your view. In this case, if you have had or will have a relationship with another person, you may find that they don't accept your moral view and will reject you for actions you feel are entirely appropriate, but they do not. No one says you can't write your own rules...just own that you're doing that and accept that it can and often will cause friction with the majority of people who subscribe to society's definition and not your own.

 

[Wolf]

It is if you're honest with yourself about what's sexual to you and what's not, and if you respect your partner enough to acknowledge what would hurt them if they knew what you were doing, and knew your feelings about it.
But as long as you can keep those truths from your partner, and yourself, I guess you're off the hook.
We can rationalize and justify anything if we want to do it badly enough.

 

[ElFewja]

*Edit* IT IS MY OPINION THAT,

Don't Ask, you form very articulated arguments and make valid points so I have to give you that.

Dishonesty is about the act of deceiving, intentional or not. Definitions are objective, sure. What is subjective about the matter is what the theoretical/hypothetical you in the situation considers deceiving. What might be deceiving for one person may not be for another, it depends a lot on context.

The context is that a lot of people here consider tickling a sexual act. You're right that they don't divide sex and tickling, but that is their choice too, no? Therefore it would be deceitful for them while it may not be for you.

I do agree with you now that you've said you don't tell a person all about yourself on day one, though I had been against your point prior to because I believe it lacked the inclusion of 'day one'. I don't tell people I'm merely interested in or on the first date about my paraphilia. There isn't a need to, but I'm also not committed to that person in any real regard. Later down the line, when I am committed, I would consider it cheating -- and therefore probably wouldnt do it -- but that doesn't mean the other person would, and I think that's the most important part, what defines cheating for an individual: their personal take multiplied by the other person's interpretation.

No act by itself objectively constitutes cheating. It's a subjective thing that a group should define for themselves. If you feel weird about it, maybe just don't bother and if it bothers your significant .other I suggest the same advice.

*I think a lot of arguments, such as this one, could be avoided if everyone prefaced their opinions with a phrase like "It is my opinion that,"

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

You are redefining what dishonesty is to suit your own philosophy. The rest of us (in western society) know what dishonesty is because we subscribe to an agreed upon moral code within society.

I am part of that same society and have been for over fifty years. My circle of interaction is rather extensive. So I'm as knowledgeable of societal norms as the next guy, and likely more so than most. But I've never once heard anybody suggest that if you don't tell your significant other everything that excites you sexually, you're being "dishonest," or "disrespectful." So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate where or on what authority this is mandated.

I get that some TMF members are uncomfortable with the idea of a partner who doesn't tell them everything that excites them sexually. They want to know that stuff, and they feel entitled to that knowledge. Hence, they erroneously categorize anything less than full disclosure as "dishonesty."

But we are not entitled to it. That's something that must be shared voluntarily, or not at all. If you mandate such disclosure, it is no longer voluntary. I'm amazed that this even needs to be explained. I've been in a long term relationship for a while now. I can tell you that it was years that went by before my lady opened up about some of the more personal aspects to her sexuality. I didn't push. My love for her wasn't contingent on knowing all of her information. It still isn't. There are likely things she still hasn't mentioned. She'll either tell me in time or she won't. But if she does, it'll be because she wants to, not out of fear of being labeled "dishonest."

 

[laughinggaszone]

I am part of that same society and have been for over fifty years. My circle of interaction is rather extensive. So I'm as knowledgeable of societal norms as the next guy, and likely more so than most. But I've never once heard anybody suggest that if you don't tell your significant other everything that excites you sexually, you're being "dishonest," or "disrespectful." So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate where or on what authority this is mandated.

I get that some TMF members are uncomfortable with the idea of a partner who doesn't tell them everything that excites them sexually. They want to know that stuff, and they feel entitled to that knowledge. Hence, they erroneously categorize anything less than full disclosure as "dishonesty."

But we are not entitled to it. That's something that must be shared voluntarily, or not at all. If you mandate such disclosure, it is no longer voluntary. I'm amazed that this even needs to be explained. I've been in a long term relationship for a while now. I can tell you that it was years that went by before my lady opened up about some of the more personal aspects to her sexuality. I didn't push. My love for her wasn't contingent on knowing all of her information. It still isn't. There are likely things she still hasn't mentioned. She'll either tell me in time or she won't. But if she does, it'll be because she wants to, not out of fear of being labeled "dishonest."

Yes, but you keep sidestepping the fact that you thinks it's ok for you to get sexual gratification from something and not tell your partner. It's not. Many relationships get sabotaged this way. People don't disclose their porn collections and it ends relationships. I used the example of telling your partner that you don't have a porn collection, but neglect to tell her that you have a bra fetish and that those dozens of sears catalogs you have are used as jerk off material. Are you technically telling the truth since those catalogs are not legitimate pornography? Probably. But we both know you're using a technicality to avoid being honest since you are using those Sears catalogs just like pornography. This is what you are defending. Now, someone raised the point that if tickling is just tickling and not a means of sexual gratification, then it's probably ok. I don't pretend to understand how tickling is divested from sexual gratification, but I will not dispute that people can be into tickling with zero sex attached. In that regard, it's obviously not cheating. I think anytime sexual gratification or simply being sexually turned on enters the picture as a component, you owe your partner an honest disclosure. Maybe not on the first date, but at some point. Especially if you intend to pursue tickling with someone besides your partner.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Yes, but you keep sidestepping the fact that you thinks it's ok for you to get sexual gratification from something and not tell your partner.

I don't quite know what you mean by "sexual gratification." and I'm pretty sure I've not used that phrase to describe what I think is okay outside of the relationship. In my mind, sexual gratification requires sexual activity, and sexual release. Suppose a girl gets a guy all hot and bothered but then walks away? Would you consider that sexual gratification? Most guys I've known would certainly not.

Many relationships get sabotaged this way. People don't disclose their porn collections and it ends relationships.

Perhaps that's true, but it certainly begs the question, which of them is sabotaging/ending the relationship? They guy who's happy to continue the relationship in spite of his porn collection? Or the girlfriend who threw a tantrum over his collection and angrily stomped off?

We all take risks in relationships. Sometimes these unreasonable expectations are discovered later rather than sooner.

I used the example of telling your partner that you don't have a porn collection, but neglect to tell her that you have a bra fetish and that those dozens of sears catalogs you have are used as jerk off material. Are you technically telling the truth since those catalogs are not legitimate pornography? Probably. But we both know you're using a technicality to avoid being honest since you are using those Sears catalogs just like pornography. This is what you are defending.

No, I'm afraid we both know no such thing. What I'm defending is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure, but rather on the truth of what IS disclosed. I'm defending the right of every man and woman to decide for themselves what they choose to disclose rather than to have that decision made for them by you or anybody else.

 

[laughinggaszone]

No, I'm afraid we both know no such thing. What I'm defending is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure, but rather on the truth of what IS disclosed. I'm defending the right of every man and woman to decide for themselves what they choose to disclose rather than to have that decision made for them by you or anybody else.

Again, you're sidestepping. You think that if it's honest in your mind, then it's honest. The example I gave is one where a person is being honest in only the most technical sense while knowing full well that they are doing just what they are claiming not to do. In your own words...tickle fetishists can have their cake and eat it too.
This is where I take issue with the ethical gymnastics and elastic honesty that people can stretch to ridiculous lengths and still call it honesty. If that's how you wish to comport yourself, that's fine. I'm not telling you that you can't. I'm simply saying that most people don't share your view of honesty. You seem to feel the need to defend it. You don't. The only time you have to defend it is when you find a partner is in conflict with how honest you were verses how honest you believe you were.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Again, you're sidestepping. You think that if it's honest in your mind, then it's honest.

No. I never said any such thing. As many times as I've explained it, you still haven't gotten it. What I think is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure. It's dependent on the truth of what IS disclosed. Dishonesty is wrapped up in deception. Holding back personal information about yourself is not deception. In most cases it's self preservation.

The example I gave is one where a person is being honest in only the most technical sense while knowing full well that they are doing just what they are claiming not to do.

There is no "technical sense" of honesty. You are either being honest, or you're being deceitful. Now in your example you claim that that the guy beating off to a Sears catalogue "knows he is doing just what he is claiming not to do." Since you are the author of this scenario, you get to decide what he thinks. Personally I think it's a bad example. If I were in his place, I would know that I wasn't doing what I said I wasn't doing. My honesty would have been intact as well as my fidelity.

In your own words...tickle fetishists can have their cake and eat it too.

Absolutely they can, but only under certain conditions. First, the tickle fetishist must never tell his significant other about his fetish. Now remember, just because you disapprove of such stoicism doesn't make it dishonest. Just because you think the significant other has the right to know does not make it dishonest. To be dishonest, he must be deceiving her. For example, if she asks where he was and he lies to her, the line was crossed. He was dishonest. But if he goes and gets tickled half to death by a couple of the girls in the steno pool but has absolutely no sexual contact with them or any exchange of affection, he hasn't violated anything, and therefore can't be said to be cheating.

Alternatively, he can confess his fetish to her and hope for the best. If she decides she's okay with him doing that from time to time, great. But chances are she's going to insist that all tickling remain in the relationship. Then it becomes his decision as to whether or not to tolerate the ultimatum. In my opinion, it's simply best to keep mum, and not give her any inkling of your interest in tickling.

I'm simply saying that most people don't share your view of honesty.

On this forum, perhaps. I know plenty of people, both men and women who agree with it. They don't believe in the full disclosure mandate that you champion as an integral component of "honesty.".

You seem to feel the need to defend it.

If you'll take a look back, you'll see I posted my opinion and basically left the thread alone while people posted their opinions that ran in direct opposition of my own. I'm fine with that, because I don't expect everybody to agree with me. It wasn't until fifteen posts later you quoted me, and said what I was proposing was dishonest behavior. So yeah, when my views are directly challenged, chances are good I'm going to defend them, especially when the attacks are rooted in misinformation, such as the erroneous notion that a lack of full disclosure qualifies as "dishonesty."

 

[Myriads]

Absolutely they can, but only under certain conditions. First, the tickle fetishist must never tell his significant other about his fetish. Now remember, just because you disapprove of such stoicism doesn't make it dishonest. Just because you think the significant other has the right to know does not make it dishonest. To be dishonest, he must be deceiving her. For example, if she asks where he was and he lies to her, the line was crossed. He was dishonest. But if he goes and gets tickled half to death by a couple of the girls in the steno pool but has absolutely no sexual contact with them or any exchange of affection, he hasn't violated anything, and therefore can't be said to be cheating.

Bold added by me.

Here is the core piece of things that everyone is arguing against DAJT on.

He's not violated anything in DAJT's moral view structure, but he may have violated something in his partners (or the cultural norms) moral view structure.

It's this refusal/inability to see that aspect of the situation that has always defined his point of argument, that there may be a different morality active in his partners that would be in conflict with his own chosen moral path.

These threads always swing around that point when the debate starts. Mostly they wander off into semantic arguments.

Myriads

 

[-Hari-]

Depends on the relationship and it's agreed parameters. If you step outside what you've agreed is ok then it's cheating, if you haven't discussed it with your partner in order to have an agreement on the scenario in mind then going ahead with it is dishonest and out of order, whether or not it's cheating is always going to be up for debate but I think we can all agree that if we do stuff that makes us wonder if we're cheating and we're doing those things without the partners agreement or knowledge then it's not ok no matter what you specifically class it as.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Bold added by me.

Here is the core piece of things that everyone is arguing against DAJT on.

He's not violated anything in DAJT's moral view structure, but he may have violated something in his partners (or the cultural norms) moral view structure.

It's this refusal/inability to see that aspect of the situation that has always defined his point of argument, that there may be a different morality active in his partners that would be in conflict with his own chosen moral path.

These threads always swing around that point when the debate starts. Mostly they wander off into semantic arguments.

Myriads

Nobody understands better than me that there are different "moral view structures" in the world, and particularly on the TMF. However, it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me to label Partner A as "dishonest" because (s)he's violating Partner B's moral codes. That is the thing to which I am objecting.

Of course there are codes of morality that are generally accepted by society. Sexual and/or romantic encounters outside of the committed relationship are widely considered to be cheating offenses, and I'm on board with the mainstream there.

So the big question that arises is, what happens when we get an erotic thrill out of a non-sexual activity? Some immediately place that activity in the category of sexual activity, and apply all those rules accordingly. If that's what they want to do for themselves, I'm fine with that. I might shake my head ruefully and roll my eyes but it's their call to make.

I would maintain that tickling is not a sexual activity. If tickling were a sexual activity, it couldn't be a fetish (or paraplegia, or whatever pop science happens to be calling it this week). It would simply be a case of deriving erotic thrill from sexual activity, which is as vanilla as it gets. But the fact is that tickling is not a sexual activity, which is what makes many of the folks here fetishists. Unique, and a significant distance outside of the mainstream. Vive la différence!

So, if tickling is not a sexual activity, I see no reason to apply the social stigmas that come with sex to tickling. You guys have been handed a get out of jail free card. If you want to tear it up and throw it away, that's your call, but don't demonize those who legitimately and HONESTLY use it.

 

[zanadu]

I would say dependent on the individual - providing it is TICKLING but not sexual then not cheating but indulging in something that would not for whatever reason be indulged in with the partner!

 

[laughinggaszone]

No. I never said any such thing. As many times as I've explained it, you still haven't gotten it. What I think is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure. It's dependent on the truth of what IS disclosed. Dishonesty is wrapped up in deception. Holding back personal information about yourself is not deception. In most cases it's self preservation.

There is no "technical sense" of honesty. You are either being honest, or you're being deceitful. Now in your example you claim that that the guy beating off to a Sears catalogue "knows he is doing just what he is claiming not to do." Since you are the author of this scenario, you get to decide what he thinks. Personally I think it's a bad example. If I were in his place, I would know that I wasn't doing what I said I wasn't doing. My honesty would have been intact as well as my fidelity.

Absolutely they can, but only under certain conditions. First, the tickle fetishist must never tell his significant other about his fetish. Now remember, just because you disapprove of such stoicism doesn't make it dishonest. Just because you think the significant other has the right to know does not make it dishonest. To be dishonest, he must be deceiving her. For example, if she asks where he was and he lies to her, the line was crossed. He was dishonest. But if he goes and gets tickled half to death by a couple of the girls in the steno pool but has absolutely no sexual contact with them or any exchange of affection, he hasn't violated anything, and therefore can't be said to be cheating.

Alternatively, he can confess his fetish to her and hope for the best. If she decides she's okay with him doing that from time to time, great. But chances are she's going to insist that all tickling remain in the relationship. Then it becomes his decision as to whether or not to tolerate the ultimatum. In my opinion, it's simply best to keep mum, and not give her any inkling of your interest in tickling.

On this forum, perhaps. I know plenty of people, both men and women who agree with it. They don't believe in the full disclosure mandate that you champion as an integral component of "honesty.".

If you'll take a look back, you'll see I posted my opinion and basically left the thread alone while people posted their opinions that ran in direct opposition of my own. I'm fine with that, because I don't expect everybody to agree with me. It wasn't until fifteen posts later you quoted me, and said what I was proposing was dishonest behavior. So yeah, when my views are directly challenged, chances are good I'm going to defend them, especially when the attacks are rooted in misinformation, such as the erroneous notion that a lack of full disclosure qualifies as "dishonesty."

Well, clearly we're just circling a wagon. You have your view and I have mine. I'll wager the majority don't agree with your view of honesty and I think that if it hasn't already happened, that view is going to one day bite you in the ass. I'm not wishing you ill will, just stating that what you have posted leads me to believe that at some point, your moral compass is going to come in conflict with a partner who views honesty the way a majority of people do. As it's been pointed out, this discussion is going nowhere in particular, so I'm going excuse myself from it.

 

[Wolf]

Bold added by me.
Here is the core piece of things that everyone is arguing against DAJT on.
He's not violated anything in DAJT's moral view structure, but he may have violated something in his partners (or the cultural norms) moral view structure.
It's this refusal/inability to see that aspect of the situation that has always defined his point of argument, that there may be a different morality active in his partners that would be in conflict with his own chosen moral path.
These threads always swing around that point when the debate starts. Mostly they wander off into semantic arguments.
Myriads

That's the thing about having such a flexible moral compass that it allows you to do precisely what you want, and conveniently ignore anyone else's feelings under the "what they don't know won't hurt them" policy; it really only exists for the benefit of one person.

 

[Myriads]

Nobody understands better than me that there are different "moral view structures" in the world, and particularly on the TMF. However, it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me to label Partner A as "dishonest" because (s)he's violating Partner B's moral codes. That is the thing to which I am objecting.

Of course there are codes of morality that are generally accepted by society. Sexual and/or romantic encounters outside of the committed relationship are widely considered to be cheating offenses, and I'm on board with the mainstream there.

So the big question that arises is, what happens when we get an erotic thrill out of a non-sexual activity? Some immediately place that activity in the category of sexual activity, and apply all those rules accordingly. If that's what they want to do for themselves, I'm fine with that. I might shake my head ruefully and roll my eyes but it’s their call to make.

All this is fine, you show awareness of moralities that are outside your own, and that people can come to them honestly. You also own your own point of view and show that you clearly understand that others don’t choose it, by what you feel is an erroneous process, but are still willing to accept that they can make that choice.

So far we are on the same page.

I would maintain that tickling is not a sexual activity.

A valid viewpoint to hold if one chooses.

If tickling were a sexual activity, it couldn’t be a fetish (or paraplegia, or whatever pop science happens to be calling it this week). It would simply be a case of deriving erotic thrill from sexual activity, which is as vanilla as it gets. But the fact is that tickling is not a sexual activity, which is what makes many of the folks here fetishists. Unique, and a significant distance outside of the mainstream. Vive la différence!

Here however your supporting reasoning for you choice has problems.

Using the bastardized definition of fetish as you do above, there is no reason that something sexual can’t be fetishized. Sexual positions are a very good example of this. Some folks become fixated on always having one position present for their encounters. Seeking it out every time as an arousal cue. Others become fixated on watching others engaged in sex acts for their own arousal, and so forth. A sexual activity can become a fetish as easily as a non sexual one. Breasts are sexualized in our culture, but over time other body parts (feet in China, Ears in several pre columbian cultures) have been too. Boobs are just an arbitrary one for our current culture (western derived culture) and you can see a separation from them as a fixation in other ones.
Further, by definition, once an activity becomes fetishized, it BECOMES sexual to the holder of the fetish. It’s part of their sexual psychology. And as part, is sexual to them.

To step it back a level.

Motivation—>Action—->Result.

For sexuality this translates to Cues—->Arosual—>Sexual engagement

It’s a process. And as a process it’s a whole. The Cues become sexual to the individual by inclusion in the process.

Now one does not need to accept this. You don’t. And that is cool. But when we step it back to the cultures viewpoint you tend to get this view. The cues are seen as sexual by the person outside the structure when they are observing a person operating in the structure.

Simply put, if Jumping on rubber duckies makes you hard, your partner situationally understands that rubber ducky jumping is a sexual activity in your frame. And if they they hold to a strict moral position on the fact that as your partner you should only be jumping on rubber ducks with THEM, then you are running into an outside morality that is actively judging you behavior. And you’ll need to answer to it in so far as your relationship goes.

Saying “But honey, I don’t think of jumping on rubber ducks as sexual. It’s just something that turns me on” won’t cut it. You are being judged by the a standard outside your world view. So no soap there.

So the default under your position is to not tell them that Jumping on Rubber ducks turns you on at all. After all if they don’t know that, then they cannot object, because as far as they know. Jumping on Rubber Ducks is just a normal thing that everyone does on occasion. Nothing sexual there.

And this is where people call you deceitful.

You are lying by omission for your own benefit. You know that the world thinks that if you get hard when jumping upon rubber ducks, that it’s sexual. and want to bypass that judgment so you can keep getting thrills by casual duck jumping, without facing a relationship cost from your partner.

You have withheld information about yourself that your partner would use to honestly understand your behaviors. And for your own benefit. It’s that action, the omission for benefit which indicates that you are aware that your actions would normally bear a cost. One that you feel is not justified, yet still annoyingly exists. And in seeking to avoid that annoying cost, you allow your partner to continue in ignorance for your own benefit.

By most standards that is not a moral act. And it’s why people jump up to slap your words and viewpoints down when you make them. You are choosing to champion a minority moral view point for this point and moment in our culture.

So, if tickling is not a sexual activity, I see no reason to apply the social stigmas that come with sex to tickling. You guys have been handed a get out of jail free card. If you want to tear it up and throw it away, that’s your call, but don’t demonize those who legitimately and HONESTLY use it.

This translates to: I believe the world works way ‘X’. Because I do, I can justify lying or deception in my behavior because my view is right and others are wrong. Even if I’m in an intimate relationship WITH someone I know who holds the ‘wrong’ opinion.

And as the majority of viewers are on your partners page morally and culturally, you get flack for that.

No one says you cannot do this. Or champion it, but it’s going to see push back wherever it shows up. And from the opposition viewpoint it reads as massively selfish and self serving, with the entire cost being offloaded to the unaware partner.

Own being selfish if you choose it. That we can all respect.

Myriads

 

[primetime]

Very interesting topic. I think it is really depending on "eye of the beholder". DAJT did make a great point of you are being dishonest if you went out and tickled someone outside of your relationship, and LIED about where you were for example. That is actually what dishonest means. Not giving full disclosure is NOT being deceitful. How many times have we seen threads where someone says "I just told my significant other about my tickling fetish and...."?

Now, does that mean they just met and he/she is giving full disclosure of their "interests"? No. They got involved in a relationship and did not divulge that particular part of them for whatever reason. Does that mean that person is dishonest? No. It is a comfort level. So at what point does it become "dishonest"?

Another thing to consider is, it is actually possible to separate sexual tickling from non-sexual tickling. Not everyone can do it (obviously by some of the posts I see in this forum), but it IS possible. For example, I can tickle a woman and be completely aroused from it. Then I can tickle my 1 year old grand niece to get her to laugh and that action is NOT and NOWHERE NEAR sexual for me. Never even crosses my mind. So, because I have the ability to do this, I might be inclined to not speak of my tickle fetish with a significant other because if I do, then I run the risk of that person thinking EVERY single tickle action I do is getting me off, when in fact it is not. Would I be "dishonest" then? The way I explain the "tickle fetish" is more like, "I like to tickle you because of your reaction, the laughing, the squirming, is turning me on, not necessarily the act itself." That way, I am telling them what turns me on, but leaving it vague to prevent them from misinterpreting what my "tickling fetish" is. Which is the actual truth.

However, I do believe that if I were in a relationship and I purposefully went out to seek a tickle session, it is cheating in a way, because I am looking for sexual gratification outside the relationship and I actually DID the act. But let's be real, you can always fantasize about tickling others, that wouldn't be considered "cheating" right? Thoughts can't be considered cheating right?

For example, the jacking off to Sears catalogs is not a good example. That's the same as saying whenever you masturbate without your significant other watching is "dishonest and cheating".... Looking at the Sears catalog is all mental..