Non Consensual Tickling. I think I need Help...??

[Myriads]

mister g opinions: "Tickling is not assault!!"

Alas. The US legal definition has some other thoughts:

"An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability."

Note that pesky "unwanted physical contact." part. Gee think tickling might fall under that? It does. Cases have been made and won on it.

So, regardless of what you think, society at large has other opinions, and ones that can have some direct effects on your life.

Just wanted to point out your error in perspective.

Myriads

 

[Myriads]

Bonus points!

"Tickling is also not punishable by prison time either unless its preceded by kidnapping so stop being ridiculous and paranoid."

But as we can see from above Tickling CAN be assault, and assault may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Criminal liability includes a visit to the clink sometimes.

So you are now 0/2.

This is how folks end up in circumstances they are not pleased with.

Faulty logic builds on itself in a lovely way once you make that first poor premise. Which you did with "Tickling is not assault!!!!"

Myriads

 

[mister g]

Assault- make a physical attack on.
"he pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer"
synonyms: hit, strike, physically attack, aim blows at, slap, smack, beat, thrash, spank, thump, thwack, punch, cuff, swat, knock, rap; pummel, pound, batter, pelt, welt; cane, lash, whip, club, cudgel, box someone's ears; informalclout, wallop, belt, whack, bash, clobber, bop, biff, sock, deck, slug, plug, knock about/around, knock into the middle of next week, lay into, do over, rough up; informalquilt; literarysmite

Tickling anywhere in there...

 

[mister g]

This is so retarded.

 

[robmic]

Give him a BJ after you tickle him and he'll probably be asking you to tickle him from now on!

 

[Danny4Life]

Go and tickle a complete stranger over and over despite their demands that you stop. Then explain to the officer and judge that "I didn't assault them I just tickled them"
Spitting on someone is assault and you don't have to touch them. Didn't see that on your list or even a synonym. Just trying to give you the help you clearly need, I'm not gonna argue facts anymore.

 

[RevyBL]

I'm guessing you're gay since your name is mister g and you're interested in tickling a man. Men typically don't play around with each other like that so that may be the main reason he wouldn't want you to touch him in that manner.

Funny thing is, tickling is rarely consensual. It's rare someone just walks up to a friend or significant other and asks if they can tickle them. Most of the time when friends(mostly male/female or female/female) or girlfriends/boyfriends tickle it's an attack, a form of teaseing, done it a playful matter, or done as a surprise. Of course, these are situations where people know each other and, it seems to me you want to tickle a complete stranger.

 

[qbtkler]

My two cents

Didn’t get to read the OPs original but feel like I have pretty good context. As a former criminal defense attorney, I feel like I can give a fairly informative opinion on this topic. Different states have different laws for different crimes so the answer to whether or not tickling is a crime may depend on where the tickling takes places.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines assault as “the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension or imminent or offensive contact.” Additionally, it defines battery as “the use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.” Some states, like Florida, donaway with the “use of force” element simply define a battery as a an “actual and intentional TOUCH or strike” of another person against that persons will. Under these statutes, any unwanted contact could result in an arrest.

In stereotypical, lawyerly fashion, my conclusion is “it depends.” That being said, I feel like esteemed jurist Billy Madison said it best when he said:

]

 

[Myriads]

We see a thread like this every few months. They are as regular as the seasons.

In most cases they fall into one big category. A poster is looking for support to do something they badly desire, but have that gut feeling they shouldn't. Because surly if others who like what they do say "Go for it!" and "I'd be down for that!" then those cultural lesson whispers they are hearing can't be right, and Mr Id can be unleashed to have fun.

What they get here, and to the credit of our membership, is "That is a pretty bad idea." or "Don't do that!" and so forth. That of course is quite disappointing to them. Mr Id was ready to party! He just needed the green light from a board of peers!

So the first reply they make sounds something like:

"Whatever... ill ask elsewhere... It would be fun and He would laugh and we would go about our day like nothing ever happened. it won't kill him and I won't push him too far. it would be fun and that's why I want to do it. He will laugh and that's all.."

These second posts are always the ones that tend to show the true story. Let's look at the one above. Note that it is 100% inward looking. "I want to do it" is the prominent aspect. The rest is justifications built around that desire. "It would be fun", "He would laugh", "Like nothing ever happened" "He'd laugh and that's all." Every one of these is the way the poster HOPES things would go, so they can have a green light to do things. This is basically a projected desire. They want, create a outcome that supports that want in their head, and honestly believe that is how the object of their attention would react. Since it's all cool then why not?

They are often surprised they found no support from their peers. Angry frequently. Mostly sullen.

The threads then proceed based on how invested they are in defending themselves. Sometimes it becomes about image rehabilitation, sometimes it becomes about railing on how things should be not how they are, and usually they just vanish.

And soon another thread comes along and we dance again.

The root of the debate is a complicated topic.

"When is it allowable to touch others?"

It's further complicated as the answer is a moving target, that changes over time, and recently has been shifting almost weekly. Cultures constantly adjust the rules that govern them, and that creates a lot of friction as those that benefited by the old rules loose power and privilege and others gain it. No one likes to be on the loss side of that equation.

Most people who argue the case say "Tickling is no big deal. All kids do it. No one is ever hurt." and there is truth to all these statements.

Tickling is a bonding behavior between parent-child relations. It's a connective behavior there, and plays a roll in transmitting familial affection and understanding with developing children (infant to 5 years)

Tickling is a flirting behavior between young couples, acting as a boundary breach tool in learning to navigate romantic interaction development. (Early teens)

It is something that almost everyone experiences and is not harmed by. It's an aspect of normal human development. So those that argue are correct in that aspect.

But where they fail is that they are always arguing that its something they should be able to do as developed adults under those same rules. No. It doesn't work that way. You cannot change the context, and preserve the cultural protections the activity has in those learning areas.

The new context is that they want to tickle people to service their Id. And that of course is a whole new area.

At the most basic it is crass objectification of others. Others become simply objects to manipulate for ones own Id. They are not really people or individuals, they are just psychological snacks to consume. Their desires, thoughts, and feelings are not of concern. This is why touching them is not an issue to those of that mindset. The object of attention is not a person so much as an end. And ends have no thoughts or feelings, they are just a needful prop in the story we are enjoying. To be forgotten once the tale we told ourself is done.

That's the base statement that unasked touching is telling. It's about the toucher. They do it because they don't see those they touch as anything more then a character in a story they are telling themselves. They will ascribe all sorts of feeling to the object like "He'll think it's fun!" and "People always like what I do!" They are writing lines for characters in the story they want to have.

That is what objectification is.

Being made into a prop in someone else's narrative.

But people have rights, feelings and selves that not only demand respect, but are intrinsics that must be respected if one is to qualify as a thoughtful, mindful human adult. The right to not be touched is in that mix. One learns to respect it.

Anyone on this forum is an adult. And as an adult they are out of those learning phases of touch and boundaries and bonding. Now they are in the adult world, where what one wants is always suborned to the right of others to say no to it. And more importantly, not just say no to, but need to say YES to, before one can. One cannot assume anything is a green light until ones partner says it is.

And that is the crux of all this.

There is no adult cultural context where touching others via tickling is a correct blind assumption of 'okay'. You need permission.

Just as you would for any other sort of touch. Because that is where we are today. The power is vested in those that face the touching, not those that want to touch. That 'privilege' has been revoked by the culture.

Myriads