Non-Con Tickling: Don't Vanillas Do It All The Time?

[Mitchell]

I've read some posts here about Non-Con tickling. I never believe in forcing someone to do something against their will that they dont want to, but, if we really think about it, isn't most tickling that takes place in the vanilla world really non-con?

With us as ticklephiles, we have our gatherings, or our partners who we know share our interest, and we have specific scenarios, where the lees get tied up, and tickled. The lee and ler agree on the terms.

In the vanilla world, say, where a husband tickles his wife, or a bf tickles his gf, I dont see situations where the gf or wife is asked if she can be tickled. The guy comes up behind her, and pins her down, or gets her ribs, or her feet, and she gets tickled. Before I joined this site, and I realized I was into tickling, I dont recall ever asking a girl if I could tickle her, or a girl asking me if she could tickle me. It just happened. Most vanilla girls who are even somewhat ticklish, would probably say no to their partners if the partners asked to tickle them, because, in my experience, most vanilla girls hate to be tickled.

So, that's the topic. I'm not a fan of non-con tickling, but, in reality, isn't most or all tickling in the vanilla world non con?

Thoughts?

Mitch

 

[primetime]

Yes, you are right Mitchell. "Vanillas" do it all the time, and a lot of people view tickling as "non-consentual" per se. Even when a BF or GF playfully "jumps" their significant other and tickles them, that is technically non-consentual. Sometimes the "lee" gets upset, but generally, vanillas view tickling as "non-consentual".

But if you listen to people here, unless there is full disclosure, and you sign a waiver with your friend, family member, lover, etc, you are condemned as an evil person and should be jailed, sued, etc...

 

[Comfort Eagle]

They're not getting off on it. Or chaining someone up to a bed. Or doing it for 20 or 30 minutes at a time.

So I imagine there's a slight difference.

 

[Avenger314]

Good thoughts. The logic is that because it turns many of us on, we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than if we were just goofing around.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

There are two major differences.

1.) Vanilla tickling usually doesn't last more than a few seconds to a few minutes. We're tying eachother down and having sessions that can last hours. That's something you're gonna wanna get an okay for.

2.) Vanillas don't tickle strangers. They develop some kind of relationship first. The same thing needs to happen in our little corner of the universe. Most people want a friendship and some kind of connection with someone before they'll play. Some people think that just because we share an interest, it means you can not know a thing about somebody, and just because you say pretty please you'll get to play with them - often not the case.

 

[TangerineTicklee]

Ooh. Good one.

I'd say yes. At least, it sure seems that way...

 

[rhiannon]

That kind of tickling usually doesn't last long, most people will end it with violence if the person doing the tickling doesn't stop when they are told so. So there is a little difference between non-con in our case and vanilla non-con.

 

[dad1]

How is it any different?

 

[Master Baiter]

Mitchell, first off I want to say that I'm shocked and appalled that you would tickle someone w/o asking for permission and having a signed and notarized release form.

I think you've answered your own question, but you might find yourself behind bars if you don't change your ways pronto, young man.

If I can learn my lesson, than anyone can.

For example: This weekend I'm having a pool party at my house. About 30 people and some kids. I'm posting a sign at the pool entrance that will read "Caution Ticle Zone. Swim At Your Own Risk".

This way I'm legally covering my bases in two ways:
1. If someone decides to press charges for being tickled.
2. If someone drowns.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

How is it any different?

One kind generally involves someone with a hard on.

 

[Master Baiter]

That kind of tickling usually doesn't last long, most people will end it with violence if the person doing the tickling doesn't stop when they are told so. So there is a little difference between non-con in our case and vanilla non-con.

Why should it matter how long it lasts?

Non-Con = Non-Con.

To say there are a different set of rules for "vanillas" and "us" is flat-out ridiculous.

Talk about bending your morals to suit your needs!

 

[dad2]

One kind generally involves someone with a hard on.

Even if that were true (it isn't), how does that change anything?

Do the rules change because some of us get more of a thrill at tickling than others?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

 

[Deadsea7777]

So, that's the topic. I'm not a fan of non-con tickling, but, in reality, isn't most or all tickling in the vanilla world non con?

Thoughts?

Mitch

You are correct, most tickling happens in the "Vanilla" space and is nonconsensual. However is truly different to the tickling in the TMF space, like many people have pointed out.
Is in my opinion very similar to think about alcoholic drinking, the most of it happens in the "Vanilla" space, and is truly different to what happens in the "alcoholic addicted" space. One more thing, Skipadeedoodah said it the better than me, right to the point. Have to recognize that.

 

[RosieCreek]

Every once in awhile there's a letter to whoever the current advice columnist is with complaints, (always from women)complaining about excessive tickling in the family. It's usually a husband over tickling the wife, but sometimes it's grandparents who tickle the kids until they're hysterical and claim the kids like it, etc. I even remember a note that Dear Abby wrote:"To Barbara, who's husband tickles her feet until she's in tears, wear your combat boots to bed" or something like that.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

Even if that were true (it isn't), how does that change anything?

Do the rules change because some of us get more of a thrill at tickling than others?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

But guys seriously I just had an epiphany right ok I grab my girlfriends ass right and she's surprised but obviously not horrified or violated feel me so yeah then I realize she'd be just as surprised if i didn't know her so technically me going to the mall and grabbing strangers asses for thrills really isn't that far of a stretch, ya feel me cuz it's like same principal, ass grabbing is all transitive, amirite?

 

[rhiannon]

Why should it matter how long it lasts?

Non-Con = Non-Con.

To say there are a different set of rules for "vanillas" and "us" is flat-out ridiculous.

Talk about bending your morals to suit your needs!

Because nobody minds if it lasts a few seconds and is usually just fun and games. As soon as the person getting tickled gets pissed off though, it should end. In vanilla world, that usually happens because the lee can fight back. There is no bondage involved. So no, non-con isn't non-con.

Apard from that, Skip said it perfectly.

 

[nenezinho]

ooohhhh well.....

this is the kind of discussion that can so easily go the wrong way. And in the end it´s really quite simple....at least in my view:

1st: there´s the notion of non-con.....this really depends on everyone. What someone thinks as non-con other may think its consentual. You can deem this to be a pure white or black topic but it is not. Often its not cristal clear weather you have consent, weather the other person is in the mood or is just doing it for you.....this can get complicated!

But to make it simple, lets say that when a guy goes around and tickles his friends with no warning but clearly stops when they show distress....then this ok
When someone shows that the behaviour is more important in itself then the other person wellbeing....then this is not ok

And i dont even care who calls con or non con or whatever! if we respect others limits and boundaries we are fine, if we do not respect we are past the limit.

Even this can get tricky because sometimes that lady screams stop stop but you know her well and you know it´s still a green light.....i think no one can really judge others here. You have to hope we are adult, we respect others, and we really care if they are also having a good time. Either that or we are a problem in and outside the tickling world.

Problem with the con and non con we see being discussed here is just that often people are just speaking about casual tickle atacks......but others are assuming that all tickling has to be full blown tickling sessions because......because.......well......because i guess 🙂

Maybe some people think those other dailly situations should not be talked about here, maybe they simply dont understand when we are talking about what. Maybe, maybe.....

But hopefully i know my friends around here are all grown up and care and respect others. So when i see them speaking about something non con, im quite sure they do not mean to kidnap a perfect stranger and tickle him/her untill he goes crazy in a wrong way. There may be some who really mean that....probably....those are out there for sure.

Then....we have the sex thing being thrown into discussion so often it sometimes puzzles me. Yes i know what a fetish is by deffinition. Yes, i know that i can get turned on when im tickled. But heyyyyyy.....lots of people get turned on in lots of different ways. For instance, i remember often listening female friends say that if we would wisper in their neck they would go wild.....they were never saying dont do that again!!!!! they were clearly stating that stuff gave them chills all over.....and we did, on and on and on 🙂 🙂 🙂 because we are evil, we are playfull, and if its with friends, there´s some ground where you can go safe. Of course you need to be careful not to play with fire either you will get burned....but there´s a whole different issue 🙂

So please stop saying that its wrong to be tickled because it turns you on. Because then you have to tear your eyes off as i assume most of you sometimes get turned on also when you see some hot chick/guy.

In the end:
- are you caring about the other persons fun???
- is it something just to please you or to interact and please both??

Anyone who answers "no" and "just to please me" has issues and should look for help. The rest can relax and enjoy life.....there´s already enough trouble out there without us creating some more 😀

 

[Master Baiter]

Because nobody minds if it lasts a few seconds and is usually just fun and games. As soon as the person getting tickled gets pissed off though, it should end.

That's complete bullshit.
People can get pissed off, even if it's just one poke.

In vanilla world, that usually happens because the lee can fight back. There is no bondage involved. So no, non-con isn't non-con.

Bondage?! Who said anything about bondage?

Non-Consensual means "without permission".

There are no parameters placed on time limits or sexual kinks.

Saying there are different rules for people with a kink or comparing tickling to alcoholism is preposterous.

I like to think most of us can draw a line. For example, the way you would tickle your nephew/niece/child as opposed to your gf/bf or husband/wife.

This is not a "one-size-fits-all" activity regardless of who executes it.

 

[KoocheeKoo]

They're not getting off on it. Or chaining someone up to a bed. Or doing it for 20 or 30 minutes at a time.

So I imagine there's a slight difference.

Agree 100% percent.

 

[rhiannon]

People can get pissed off, even if it's just one poke.

Exactly. And that is when you show that person the respect he/she deserves and don't do it again!

Non-Consensual means "without permission".

I know. But to a lot of us, bondage comes into play when we think about tickling. And there is a difference if a person who gets tickled can fight back or is unable to do so.

Saying there are different rules for people with a kink or comparing tickling to alcoholism is preposterous.

I never said there are different rules for people with a kink. What I am saying though is that vanilla people approach tickling in a different way than people with a kink. If we are talking about the same thing, like a poke from behind, it doesn't make a difference if the ler is into tickling or not.

Let's just say there is a difference in 'vanilla' tickling and kinky tickling. Sounds better?

 

[LD_Tickler]

There are two arguments to be made:

"You shouldn't playfully poke or tickle anyone without permission, because any unsolicited touching, regardless of brevity or context, is wrong."
This is unrealistic, and problematic in that "permission" could plausibly be assumed in the case of friends or flirtation.

"You shouldn't tickle somebody long enough to cause serious distress, and certainly shouldn't trick somebody into bondage to torture them for your pleasure."
This is really the spirit of the "non-con is wrong" argument.


Anyone who thinks argument 1 is indistinct from argument 2 clearly has no comprehension of the subtleties of human interaction.

 

[Deadsea7777]

....comparing tickling to alcoholism is preposterous.
.

The way you state that is misleading to the meaning of the analogy (not saying that you did it on purpose) I used in my former post:

“Is in my opinion very similar to think about alcoholic drinking, the most of it happens in the "Vanilla" space, and is truly different to what happens in the "alcoholic addicted" space”.

What this analogy points out is that the same activity can be very different. Having a beer with friends every Friday is very different to being an alcoholic, but the act of drinking an alcoholic beverage in itself is the same. The occasional tickling between friends is very different to the fetish tickling we engage in, but the act of tickling is the same. That was the sense of the analogy not suggesting that tickling and alcoholism is the same.

However, I accept it may not be the best of analogies since it needed to be explained, so as I pointed out in my original post, I go then with what Skipadeedoodah wrote on his post, is crystal clear.

 

[milagros317]

Yes, vanilla people do non-con tickling quite often, but the time that they keep tickling their 'lee is measured in seconds, not hours.

 

[Gentler]

This is not a new topic. It's an old argument between two schools of thought.

You have the pro noncon group who enjoy tickling people against their will, or at least enjoy stories or videos depicting it. They aren't interested in the right or wrong of it because it's just tickling. It's not rape nor is it any way violent.

Then you have the moral minority who stand on their pulpits and soap boxes and decree that we who enjoy tickling more than most are morally bound to follow these strict rules of engagement.

1. Never tickle without first asking permission.

2. Never tickle without first making it clear that it's a sexual fetish for you.

3. Never tickle without first knowing the victim for X number of years.​

Mitchell, who admittedly is not a fan of non con tickling noticed a disparity in the way the Moral Minority applies their moral values to vanilla tickling versus TMF tickling. He's too polite to call it hypocrisy, but that's the word we're all dancing around here. Vanilla people are not bound by any of the above rules of engagement. Only us.

That's what's being objected to. This double standard that because we actually enjoy tickling, it's wrong for us to indulge in it with the general public. We're supposed to isolate ourselves and only tickle other tickling aficionados. It's ludicrous.

Look, I don't condemn morality. Each and every one of us has a moral code whether we want one or not. In many cases our individual moral values will overlap. For example most (though not all) will certainly agree that rape, murder, and child abuse are wrong.

But when it comes to grayer areas like non con tickling, we're not all going to be in sync with each other's moral imperatives. That's where the problems come. Trying to enforce one's morality on others. I understand the overpowering sense of self righteousness indignation that fires your shrill condemnations, but you still can't expect people to take you seriously.

Bottom line, if you don't feel right about non con tickling, just don't do it.

It's that simple.

 

[LD_Tickler]

This is not a new topic. It's an old argument between two schools of thought.

You have the pro noncon group who enjoy tickling people against their will, or at least enjoy stories or videos depicting it. They aren't interested in the right or wrong of it because it's just tickling. It's not rape nor is it any way violent.

Going to stop you right there. Those of us who are into the depiction and fantasy of non-con tickling are a distinct group from people who think "it's just tickling." There may be some overlap between those groups, but no other relationship. I, for example, am exclusively a fan of sadistic tickling fantasies but wouldn't argue that "mere tickling" never needs further consideration.

It's not a matter of groups, it's a matter of the two possible arguments. I'll quote myself here:

"You shouldn't playfully poke or tickle anyone without permission, because any unsolicited touching, regardless of brevity or context, is wrong."
This is unrealistic, and problematic in that "permission" could plausibly be assumed in the case of friends or flirtation.

"You shouldn't tickle somebody long enough to cause serious distress, and certainly shouldn't trick somebody into bondage to torture them for your pleasure."
This is really the spirit of the "non-con is wrong" argument.

I don't think we're actually arguing wildly different things, I'm just finding a bit of confusion in your phrasing.