non consentual tickling

[chicago]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Thanks so much for your well thought out and most carefully crafted response. That is what I was seeking in the first place. Your initial response of simply putting in 2 highlights from previous post and simply no response of your own just sends me the wrong message. It tells me I was wasting my time and your post came clearly after two others said this was an old subject. My initial impression is that you were in general agreement with the prior two posters. But to me this is clearly a hot button topic and bears bringing up again and again as there are always new people here. If your intension was to simply point people in the right direction without malice or disrepect to me, I have no problem with that and thank you for it. Peace out.

Flames are not new here read the politics and religion section. I too would like to see this work. My intention was not to start a flame war but for intelligent discourse amoung adults. But we need to push the envelope a little somtimes.

Yeah but people clearly want to talk of this Venray. Or should we go back to the lame "How ticklish is your girlfriend" or "Are you Barefoot or not" threads. I see so much lame childish dreck here somtimes I want to puke. Lets just hope people can comport themselves this time around. 😛

There are only so many hours in the day!!😱

Man who remembers what you said 6 months or a year ago? This is now, I dont remember what I said an hour ago somtimes.

You started a thread with potential to create good discussion although all the responses and clarifications are appreciated, let's get back on topic. 🙂

 

[Strider]

If you mean non-consensual in the sense that you simply assault some random individual and tickle them against their will, then no, that's not okay.

On the other hand, there's a difference between the above situation and one in which it's understood beforehand that the normal limits may be pushed further than usual. However (and this is a huge fucking caveat), in my experience, that sort of play should not be engaged in lightly, it's generally something I'd only advocate if you and your play (or romantic) partner know each other pretty intimately.

By way of example, my ex and I played without safewords. Now, we had at least a semi-serious D/s commitment to each other, and we were also together for 6 years, so we didn't rush into things blind. But nonetheless, somebody who didn't know us, and just randomly watched us, might have been relatively disturbed by what they saw. It wasn't unusual for her to cry during and after scenes, sometimes just for reasons of release, other times because the sensations I was inflicting on her were intense enough to elicit that sort of reaction. The first time I ever made her cry during a scene, we talked about it pretty extensively after she came down, and her sentiment was that while the place I took her wasn't exactly somewhere she wanted to stay for any length of time, it wasn't a bad place to be pushed to in the first place.

 

[brianspencer66]

You started a thread with potential to create good discussion although all the responses and clarifications are appreciated, let's get back on topic. 🙂

Im in line with you there as long as I dont have to defend my reasoning for doing so, lets rock.

 

[brianspencer66]

If you mean non-consensual in the sense that you simply assault some random individual and tickle them against their will, then no, that's not okay.

On the other hand, there's a difference between the above situation and one in which it's understood beforehand that the normal limits may be pushed further than usual. However (and this is a huge fucking caveat), in my experience, that sort of play should not be engaged in lightly, it's generally something I'd only advocate if you and your play (or romantic) partner know each other pretty intimately.

By way of example, my ex and I played without safewords. Now, we had at least a semi-serious D/s commitment to each other, and we were also together for 6 years, so we didn't rush into things blind. But nonetheless, somebody who didn't know us, and just randomly watched us, might have been relatively disturbed by what they saw. It wasn't unusual for her to cry during and after scenes, sometimes just for reasons of release, other times because the sensations I was inflicting on her were intense enough to elicit that sort of reaction. The first time I ever made her cry during a scene, we talked about it pretty extensively after she came down, and her sentiment was that while the place I took her wasn't exactly somewhere she wanted to stay for any length of time, it wasn't a bad place to be pushed to in the first place.

I fully understand what your saying Strider. But it was still within the context of consent. Im sort of getting at thought. Im talking of the deep dark underbelly. Not so much wanton abandon and breaking the law but a sort of subcoscious denial of the will and the spirit, of a longing or wondering of what if. This is a very tender subject to approach and one must tread gently so people dont get the wrong idea. What if your the last to people on earth a ler and a lee and no rules apply? Or the ler makes up the rules? Would your conscious get the best of you or would you go for it? What if there are not consequenses to deal with? See none of this would never happen. But its sort of like the wild west where no rules apply when its comes to ones imagination and Im sure many people imagine this stuff. Im just trying to strip off all the pretension and pretending of being polite. But of course we as sane adults indulge in certain daily rituals that we all follow in order to survive and be accepted. I just think there is a lack of honesty somtimes. But I really like what you had to say and thanks so much.

 

[TinyTickler]

i think that what ever it is that you like you should do it but unconcented tickling is a bit to far but as long as you talk to the person about what it is that you like they might listen a lot more and try to compensate

 

[vsa7a]

the problem with nonconsensual tickling is...

1) if its especially regarded as a fetish (not to mention treated as a sexual act)

2) the sign that most of you wack off perverts who cant control your bad habit

 

[Deleted member 66627]

2) the sign that most of you wack off perverts who cant control your bad habit

Please elaborate.

 

[xSamanthax]

I'm not 100% sure of the question.

Do I think about REAL non-con situations? No, I do not. I have experienced a real non-consensual situation and the real thing is nothing like the fantasy version. Thinking about real non-con situations tends to make me ill

Do I fantasize about really dark, non-con situations? Oh YES.
Do I like to act out these fantasies with someone I trust? YES!
Do I have some fantasies that are so dark, they can't safely be realized? YES

 

[red devil]

OK if anyone is iterested here's where i am.

1) I love the thought of non-con.

2) My sister in law has off the scale ticklish feet and over the last 18 years i have tickled them a lot, in playful situations, but it's fair to say she hates anyone touching her feet. I get turned on by doing this. Does this make me a a wach off pervert vsa7a???

3) By what i read in the story section and real life story section there are a lot of people who fantasise about non-con as most of the stories posted either fact or fiction contain non-con.

4) We all see a lot of mainstream tickling in the video section from youtube, and a recent video showing a young woman having her sock covered feet tickled was clearly non-con but everyone who left a post seemed happy to see it and wanted more.

5) Finally It seems to me that you tickle someone to force them to laugh and in most cases people don't want to or like to laugh in an such an uncontrolable way so to me that's non-con.

Well I hope no one has fallen asleep yet by reading this and that this has helped in the debate about non-con.

 

[Leostar]

There is nothing better than real tickle torture, seeing a girl tied to the bed posts knowing she is about to be tickled, beging not to be is real great.saying the words we all love to here, please i cant hadle it, you will drive me out of my mind.

 

[ShadowTklr]

I believe there is a distinct relationship between generation and the perspective of tickling, be it consensual or nonconsensual. Many of the people who were at the TMF from the beginning were still exclusive members of the previous generation. The young members who grace our community now, were too young.

As a result, we are experiencing a transition in generation right now that is bringing the contrasting perspectives to stark comparison.

I grew up in the 70’s. Every instance of tickling I have perpetrated or caused to be perpetrated on ticklish girls in my growing years has been nonconsensual. Every cartoon and TV show which depicted tickling did so as a nonconsensual activity – mock torture. Bluto did not ASK Olive Oyl if it was okay to peel the sole of her shoe back and tickle her foot as she hung perilously from the construction girder by her toes; Wilma didn’t ask Fred; The Professor didn’t ask Felix The Cat; The evil queen didn’t consult with the Ogre; and the Martian women didn’t seek agreement from the Three Stooges. In fact, without exception, not a single instance of tickling was characterized as consensual.

Back then, “consensual” tickling didn’t even exist – at least not to the degree in which it is perhaps defined today. If you were ticklish, and found yourself in a room with several friends who liked to tickle, you were going to be overpowered, held down, stripped of your shoes and socks and tickled shitless. Screaming for mercy was more than welcome, because it fueled the determination of all involved to quench their sadistic desires. In fact, consent wasn’t even a recognized concept then. And the visceral sexuality that exuded from such interactions was almost a visible fog of excitement - the stuff of which fetishes are made.

Tickling wasn’t like a ride back then. People didn’t “get into” tickling just for fun. It was something that happened - mostly with sexual overture, and an excuse for touching a member of the opposite sex for an extended period of time. Listening to the musical giggles of that cute girl you wanted to kiss, and feeling her energetic struggles beneath you with her eyes tearfully glistening with tickle laughter was often the surrogate to overtly sexual stimulation.

Fast forward to present and I find my sexual psyche inextricably intertwined with fantasies and games which characterize nonconsensual tickling. However, because tickling possesses such sexual duality for me, the tickling is also synonymous with sexual teasing which is borne of it’s use as a sexual surrogate.

As a result, I cannot even fathom the idea of tickling as pure innocent fun. And the idea of consensual tickling, the way it is explained by some in this forum, is just too antiseptic and sanitary a substitute for raw tickle torture.

Girls who truly didn’t want to be tickled, knew to be wary of their surroundings and company. But, even when they found themselves trapped and tickled to tears, there was no whining and crying about being gang tickled. They simply lay nearly motionless after their ordeal and panted exhaustedly about how we all “sucked.” What great sports girls were then.

 

[brianspencer66]

I believe there is a distinct relationship between generation and the perspective of tickling, be it consensual or nonconsensual. Many of the people who were at the TMF from the beginning were still exclusive members of the previous generation. The young members who grace our community now, were too young.

As a result, we are experiencing a transition in generation right now that is bringing the contrasting perspectives to stark comparison.

I grew up in the 70’s. Every instance of tickling I have perpetrated or caused to be perpetrated on ticklish girls in my growing years has been nonconsensual. Every cartoon and TV show which depicted tickling did so as a nonconsensual activity – mock torture. Bluto did not ASK Olive Oyl if it was okay to peel the sole of her shoe back and tickle her foot as she hung perilously from the construction girder by her toes; Wilma didn’t ask Fred; The Professor didn’t ask Felix The Cat; The evil queen didn’t consult with the Ogre; and the Martian women didn’t seek agreement from the Three Stooges. In fact, without exception, not a single instance of tickling was characterized as consensual.

Back then, “consensual” tickling didn’t even exist – at least not to the degree in which it is perhaps defined today. If you were ticklish, and found yourself in a room with several friends who liked to tickle, you were going to be overpowered, held down, stripped of your shoes and socks and tickled shitless. Screaming for mercy was more than welcome, because it fueled the determination of all involved to quench their sadistic desires. In fact, consent wasn’t even a recognized concept then. And the visceral sexuality that exuded from such interactions was almost a visible fog of excitement - the stuff of which fetishes are made.

Tickling wasn’t like a ride back then. People didn’t “get into” tickling just for fun. It was something that happened - mostly with sexual overture, and an excuse for touching a member of the opposite sex for an extended period of time. Listening to the musical giggles of that cute girl you wanted to kiss, and feeling her energetic struggles beneath you with her eyes tearfully glistening with tickle laughter was often the surrogate to overtly sexual stimulation.

Fast forward to present and I find my sexual psyche inextricably intertwined with fantasies and games which characterize nonconsensual tickling. However, because tickling possesses such sexual duality for me, the tickling is also synonymous with sexual teasing which is borne of it’s use as a sexual surrogate.

As a result, I cannot even fathom the idea of tickling as pure innocent fun. And the idea of consensual tickling, the way it is explained by some in this forum, is just too antiseptic and sanitary a substitute for raw tickle torture.

Girls who truly didn’t want to be tickled, knew to be wary of their surroundings and company. But, even when they found themselves trapped and tickled to tears, there was no whining and crying about being gang tickled. They simply lay nearly motionless after their ordeal and panted exhaustedly about how we all “sucked.” What great sports girls were then.

Shadow your making a very good point here. I too am from your generation and unlike today when you have a "Tickling Forum" or "Nest" or several tickling vendors. All we had were our neglected urges that we were unable to articulate. It was a raw frontier that some of the younger members may not be able to grasp, though most younger members here appear to be highly sophisticated.

I just wanted to add one thing. I want to thank all of you for not making this a thread regarding that infamous Paradise Vision tape. We all know about it and shit I even owned it at one time! The real thrust of this conversation is really to challenge your perception as to why you are REALLY here.

 

[Tomskee]

Shadow your making a very good point here. I too am from your generation and unlike today when you have a "Tickling Forum" or "Nest" or several tickling vendors. All we had were our neglected urges that we were unable to articulate. It was a raw frontier that some of the younger members may not be able to grasp, though most younger members here appear to be highly sophisticated.

I just wanted to add one thing. I want to thank all of you for not making this a thread regarding that infamous Paradise Vision tape. We all know about it and shit I even owned it at one time! The real thrust of this conversation is really to challenge your perception as to why you are REALLY here.

I think the transition from non con from the previous generation to the more fantasy based of today, is directly linked to the more widespread acceptance of tickling as a legitimate fetish. I agree with Shadow most tickling we have experienced, outside of a pre-arranged session, is essentially non con. Just peruse the true stories section. Most of the stories begin as non con.

As far as non con today goes, it all depends on the relationship between the lee and ler. i can go and tickle the feet of a close female friend and she wouldn't like it but would accept it because of our friendship. It's like a prank. As long as it doesn't turn into real torture, non con can be easily experienced. Now if you want true tickle torture, you can pursue it if you want to. I suggest getting used to police, lawyers and bright orange coveralls.

 

[P[a]pi]

The fact that it was published and sold, legally?

Also, she didn't even look like a "call girl" or whatever they said she was. It just didn't look real to me either.

If you mean non-consensual in the sense that you simply assault some random individual and tickle them against their will, then no, that's not okay.

On the other hand, there's a difference between the above situation and one in which it's understood beforehand that the normal limits may be pushed further than usual.

I agree


What I find funny is that non-con anything is wrong, including tickling. You can't non-con kiss a girl, you can't non-con screw a girl, and guess what, you can't non-con tie up and tickle a girl either.

Non-con (insert whatever) usually gets a guy put in prison.

 

[kis123]

I've lurked and watched this thread develop and here are my thoughts which are coming from a different perspective.

First of all, Shadow has given many good examples of what the older set (myself included) were raised on. But these were all fictional characters and it's not a true non-con interpretation IMO. Eventually children become adults and the boundaries and limits in society are set. What was considered fun and abandon as children becomes taboo to an adult.

My ex used to use tickling as a way to dominate and control me since he isn't ticklish. I could not stand the helplessness or the inability to control laughing. I'm one of those people that if you tickle me no matter consentual or not, I will respond by laughing. There are many women in previous posts who have stated that they can control their laughter if they don't want to be tickled, but I'm not one of them.

If you can imagine being forced to do something you don't want to and have no control of any aspect of the situation, that's what it felt like to me. It was mean, abusive, and cruel; I rather would've been beaten than tickled against my will. It took another man to come into my life to love me back into tickling; I don't consider it a fetish for me but it's sure a lot of fun to give and receive pleasure.

Please understand that this is kis' opinion only and I don't represent anti-non con. That is between the conscience of the ler because he/she has the power and control once the lee is tied down. They can violate that trust and never play again, or the ler can exercise care and caution for the lee/sub and be honored that someone would trust them in that situation.

 

[50greg]

I've lurked and watched this thread develop and here are my thoughts which are coming from a different perspective.

First of all, Shadow has given many good examples of what the older set (myself included) were raised on. But these were all fictional characters and it's not a true non-con interpretation IMO. Eventually children become adults and the boundaries and limits in society are set. What was considered fun and abandon as children becomes taboo to an adult.

My ex used to use tickling as a way to dominate and control me since he isn't ticklish. I could not stand the helplessness or the inability to control laughing. I'm one of those people that if you tickle me no matter consentual or not, I will respond by laughing. There are many women in previous posts who have stated that they can control their laughter if they don't want to be tickled, but I'm not one of them.

If you can imagine being forced to do something you don't want to and have no control of any aspect of the situation, that's what it felt like to me. It was mean, abusive, and cruel; I rather would've been beaten than tickled against my will. It took another man to come into my life to love me back into tickling; I don't consider it a fetish for me but it's sure a lot of fun to give and receive pleasure.

Please understand that this is kis' opinion only and I don't represent anti-non con. That is between the conscience of the ler because he/she has the power and control once the lee is tied down. They can violate that trust and never play again, or the ler can exercise care and caution for the lee/sub and be honored that someone would trust them in that situation.

The lady can't help but laugh, eh? I'll have to remember that. 🙂

 

[kis123]

The lady can't help but laugh, eh? I'll have to remember that. 🙂

Greg, I know you meant no harm, but please re-read my post. This was a description of a very serious issue in my past that I chose to share with forum members. I don't mind tickling in a consensual environment, but have no appreciation at all for non-con. I just pulled the emotional hype and drama out of it and chose to address the topic in what I thought was an intelligent approach.

But if we weren't in this thread.....................

 

[brianspencer66]

I've lurked and watched this thread develop and here are my thoughts which are coming from a different perspective.

First of all, Shadow has given many good examples of what the older set (myself included) were raised on. But these were all fictional characters and it's not a true non-con interpretation IMO. Eventually children become adults and the boundaries and limits in society are set. What was considered fun and abandon as children becomes taboo to an adult.

My ex used to use tickling as a way to dominate and control me since he isn't ticklish. I could not stand the helplessness or the inability to control laughing. I'm one of those people that if you tickle me no matter consentual or not, I will respond by laughing. There are many women in previous posts who have stated that they can control their laughter if they don't want to be tickled, but I'm not one of them.

If you can imagine being forced to do something you don't want to and have no control of any aspect of the situation, that's what it felt like to me. It was mean, abusive, and cruel; I rather would've been beaten than tickled against my will. It took another man to come into my life to love me back into tickling; I don't consider it a fetish for me but it's sure a lot of fun to give and receive pleasure.

Please understand that this is kis' opinion only and I don't represent anti-non con. That is between the conscience of the ler because he/she has the power and control once the lee is tied down. They can violate that trust and never play again, or the ler can exercise care and caution for the lee/sub and be honored that someone would trust them in that situation.

Thanks Kis for responding and I always hold what you say in very high regard.
Im really sorry you at one time had to endure somthing of which you may now hold so dearly between 2 people. I in no way would think anyone should have to go through what you did if it is the cause of any kind of suffering.

The reason I started this is I wanted to engage in conversation of somthing that for many is not easy to talk about. The Human pychic is an odd one. We are a race of people that are repulsed yet facinated with the suffering of others. Just look Utube or even the news where we see such tragic horrors shown over and over again. Things that one can only imagine years ago are right there for the taking if someone has a camcorder or even a cell phone now. We are voyers who somtimes pretend to be repulsed yet we look. Why is that? There is a much deeper question here. And as much as I hate so admit it well, the very thing you have endured will only serve to titillate some. It even may serve as a source of humour to others. Thats just the way life is. I wanted to bring a broader understanding to this issue of concentual and non concentual. By opening up this subject and unlocking the key to all our inner demons I think it brings us to a broader understanding of self realization. Thanks again.😉

 

[Artoo]

Gotta say, I don't get off on non-con stuff, whether it's tickling or otherwise.

The trust and the power exchange is what turns me on mostly (though the sensations do as well 😀). Which is why I wouldn't play with people I didn't know. And it's also why getting tickled by someone you don't know or like can creep you out.

 

[50greg]

Greg, I know you meant no harm, but please re-read my post. This was a description of a very serious issue in my past that I chose to share with forum members. I don't mind tickling in a consensual environment, but have no appreciation at all for non-con. I just pulled the emotional hype and drama out of it and chose to address the topic in what I thought was an intelligent approach.

But if we weren't in this thread.....................

Sorry if anyone took my reply to kis in the wrong way. We have become good friends, and I know she did not. Perhaps I should have PM'ed her instead of putting it in public.

This thread, and her post, leads to an interesting point, however. Some people argue that real tickle torture doesn't exist-- or exists only in rare circumstances-- because terrified people cease being ticklish. The experience kis described argues against that. Non-con tickle turture likely is rare because people use other techniques when they're serious about doing damage to another person, but perhaps domestic abuse investigators should keep it in mind.

 

[Babbles]

70's here, big difference in perspective. The other side?

With all due respect, since that is how (or with what) I normally regard the gent who first posted this comment,

I'm a child of the 70's as well, and I must totally disagree with the "generational" argument.

Because I knew I didn't want that treatment, I was the girl standing on the side at gang ticklings, telling the majority to get the living hell off the victim
since there was NO WAY TO KNOW if she was enjoying it or suffering badly.

And if the "good sports" were just barely able to breathe "you suck" after an unwilling session

that was never a good thing.

How many women have you met, or dated, who have been turned off for life by just this sort of ---- yes, assault???

I still have homicidal fantasies about the bastard who didn't know I shared the fetish, and certainly didn't bother to ask, who sat on me for what might have been "only" 5 minutes? I lost track, seemed infinitely longer
---or the ex --- and I do mean EX --- boyfriend I'd never go back to, though he's asked numerous times, believe it or not, who made it hellish.

Those had to be *real assholes to spoil a fantasy I've harbored since early childhood. And my fantasies were non-con --- Key word *fantasy.
Having a selfish creep have his drooling way with you is no freakin fun, and I only regret not marking both for life.

Their attitudes sucked.

There is no excuse, at the first sign of potential distress, regardless of chronological age --- I knew better at age 4, most people do, no means no ----regardless of the decade

you stop at the first sign of distress if there's no safeword. Period.

Had I known what one was, and had it been offered to the victims I occasionally witnessed being gang-tickled (by girls usually, maybe that's another reason I've always been disgusted with f/f)
that would've been an entirely different story, and I would not have felt totally turned off, disgusted and angry at their utter insensitivity.

----And yes, as far as the videos ----
I have never been happy with that totally irresponsible Paradise Vision marketing, if that's what it is, to understate grossly.

My thread regarding the suggestion to find a way to try to make sure real assault isn't being marketed, or promoted, however very difficult, was annihilated by flame wars,

so I was glad to see this discussion come up again -- for newbies especially. As someone said, it does need to re-emerge every so often.

Thank you BrianSpencer for another safe, sane and consensual thread

 

[drew70]

Here's my take on Consentuality vs otherwise. It's too blurry an ideal to draw clear lines between okay and not okay. By definition, any tickling that isn't first agreed upon by the victim is nonconsentual. I think most will agree that a guy tackling a stranger in a mall and tickling her sadistically has very likely crossed over the line into unacceptable social behavior.

What about situations between friends? What if two or three girls tackle their long time guy friend and classmate for the first time and tickle him furiously? This happens all the time in the real world. It's definitely non-consentual. Is it only assault if one or more of them get sexually excited by it?

In the real world, it's very unlikely I'll tickle anybody nonconsentually unless I know her really well. Even then it's something I'm not likely to do unless I've been drinking heavily. However, in tickle videos, I much prefer noncon scenarios whether it's real noncon or just acting. It's much more exciting if the lee is unwilling and hates being tickled. Interrogations, revenge, punishment out of anger, or just plain ornery mischief.

I'll take it one step further and say that if I were to see a blatant non-consentual public tickle attack, I'd likely do nothing to stop it, but rather stand by and just watch.

 

[brianspencer66]

the simple answer is yes.

everyone on this forum is on a spectrum. on the extremem left is complete utter sociopathic play. on the right is what i call pleasure giver, doms only interested in providing a safe play enviornment for the mutual fulfillment of fantasies for both them and primarily the SUB.

where you fall on that spectrum in this simplified model would indicate the type of noncon fantasies that you like.

the interesting thing is lees. the ones who sign contracts to be kidnapped and read about the scenarios and become sexually excited.

now for me the difference in moral connotation comes from whether or not you choose one of these wonderful lees who enjoy stringent non-con roleplay or you actually want to nab a vanilla and force tickle them against their will and in no way for their gratification. that level of sociopathic behavior is wrong and in my oppinion constitutes sexual assault-(even though there are very popular stories about it on this forum).

the scary thing that i am finding is that among lees the actual manifestations of sociopathic behavior is far far more intense than that of lers.

Like always you make some most intresting points J. Its not only lers that are capable of blurring the lines between mere roleplay and reality. It can come from a lees perspective too.

 

[stacey]

Ive been on this forum for quite some time and admittedly i don't post often and am not on here every day but it's the first time I've ever seen anything like this post. So I'm glad you brought it up.

I've always felt that part of the essence of tickling is sadism- i.e.. "the darker side". Ultimately what you get out of tickling someone is pleasure from exploiting their weakness.

I find contrived tickling so unappealing. Even to the point where the lee allowing themselves to be tied is a complete turn off. I will only ever fantasize about non con tickling because there's nothing attractive to me about asking to be exploited then pretending you want it to stop.

I feel this irony is the root of all my complexes about telling people about my fetish- being a lee to me is desiring the vulnerability and exploitation that comes with being tickled. But many would be disturbed by the idea of desiring this. It's similar to the Biastophillia fetish in some ways I think. I'm not asking to be taken advantage of, but it never seems legitimate to me when tickling is consensual.

Being a lee is perpetually frustrating!