Sacrifice physical attraction for someone with a tickle fetish?

[rhiannon]

And whenever anyone says anything like that, women always ask right away "and how good looking are you?" I don't know why. The question was about what I want, so that's what I'm talking about, what I want.

Maybe because being in a relationship means give and take. Of course, in this question it is not relevant, because it's just a theoretical question. But in real life, the question would be more like what you have to offer in return to get what you want.

 

[porcelaindoll2]

Nope, but then again I am a female in a sea of males. I feel us women are usually able to pick and choose who we want and don't want. I don't think it is just me.

 

[Mane'o]

Isn't physical attractiveness a fairly subjective call? We have some so-called measures of physical beauty laid on us through media and fashion but it is the few and the seldom seen who match Brad or Angelina. Then there is the level of the relationship. Is it just temporary and for fun - a surface thing in which case maybe the surface appearances come to the forefront (along with those of us on TMF, the ticklish factor). But in a sustained, longterm relationship isn't it more of a full meal deal - a match of personalities, attractions on many levels - mental, physical, emotional? In the realm of a deeper, long lasting, mutually fulfilling relationship I believe there is a match (and more than one) for every physical type imaginable and looks, while important, are probably not the first item on the list of qualities. Bodies and looks are ephemeral things that wear out, degrade over time, wrinkle, bulge and lose that youthful sheen of taut smoothness. All that being said, it makes sense that there usually has to be some degree of physical attraction in a healthy relationship.
And i suppose if there are two people for whom physical beauty is numero uno on their list of attributes for a relationship, go for it and more power to them. Seems kind of limiting to me but then I doubt they care one whit about what i think. I'm physically attracted to my mate as she is to me. But if she were terribly disfigured in some accident, I'd still be with her because there are a host of other reasons that we have a relationship. I suppose the question beneath the OP query is whether i would've been as attracted to her if she been in the horribly disfiguring accident before we met and would a relationship have taken the same course? probably less likely but not impossible.

 

[GQguy]

Isn't physical attractiveness a fairly subjective call? We have some so-called measures of physical beauty laid on us through media and fashion but it is the few and the seldom seen who match Brad or Angelina. Then there is the level of the relationship. Is it just temporary and for fun - a surface thing in which case maybe the surface appearances come to the forefront (along with those of us on TMF, the ticklish factor). But in a sustained, longterm relationship isn't it more of a full meal deal - a match of personalities, attractions on many levels - mental, physical, emotional? In the realm of a deeper, long lasting, mutually fulfilling relationship I believe there is a match (and more than one) for every physical type imaginable and looks, while important, are probably not the first item on the list of qualities. Bodies and looks are ephemeral things that wear out, degrade over time, wrinkle, bulge and lose that youthful sheen of taut smoothness. All that being said, it makes sense that there usually has to be some degree of physical attraction in a healthy relationship.
And i suppose if there are two people for whom physical beauty is numero uno on their list of attributes for a relationship, go for it and more power to them. Seems kind of limiting to me but then I doubt they care one whit about what i think. I'm physically attracted to my mate as she is to me. But if she were terribly disfigured in some accident, I'd still be with her because there are a host of other reasons that we have a relationship. I suppose the question beneath the OP query is whether i would've been as attracted to her if she been in the horribly disfiguring accident before we met and would a relationship have taken the same course? probably less likely but not impossible.

I was careful in the OP to ask the question based on one's own personal standards for looks, that way the discussion is objective. One persons minimum standard might be Brad Pitt while anothers could be Glibert Gottfried...the focus of the conversation is not on what the standard is, but rather how one is effected by that standard.

I think this scenario plays out for every tickle lover out there. Fellow tickle lovers are scarce so we tend to date vanilla types. Sure we might be able to find another tickle lover in our area but can their love of tickling match the attraction one has for the vanilla people they normally date? Hence the conundrum. It's less so one person you're attracted to vs tickle lover but rather all of the vanilla persons you could/have dated vs the tickle lover. I chose looks because that would be the first impression given to you to decide(subconsciously) whether you're attracted or not.



GQ

 

[Avenger314]

Fair question. I would consider dating a not-particularly-attractive girl more willingly than I'd consider dating a girl who isn't very ticklish. But I'd likely hold out for a decent level of both.

 

[Mane'o]

Perhaps i am just very lucky or maybe I'm doing something I am not aware of that produces the results I've experienced but I've never had to choose between between attractive (in my eyes) and tickling attributes in my relationships. I've lived in large and small places. Never had to say "you aren't my cup of tea physically but the tickling is great" or "youza! what a looker you are; just too bad you aren't into tickling." Of course I'm not one of those, a different girl in every port or a different gf every month sort of guys. I've had 7 satisfying relationships over multiple decades, including my current marriage, with women I found quite attractive and all included tickling and that's not counting high school stuff or the random one off tickle here and there. I have no formula except patience. and I am a guy with pretty standard issue looks, nothing special in any way.

 

[ArchNemesis]

Maybe because being in a relationship means give and take. Of course, in this question it is not relevant, because it's just a theoretical question. But in real life, the question would be more like what you have to offer in return to get what you want.

Well as I said, as men are more visually stimulated it's harder for us to overlook physical unattractiveness than it is for women. Lyle Lovett is butt ugly, but I guarantee you there are thousands (if not more) women who he makes wet. I think it was Henry Kissinger who said "power is the ultimate aphrodesiac". He didn't mention, probably because it should be obvious to everyone, that it only works on women. Carnie Wilson (pre-stomach stapling) didn't give any more men hard-ons because she's rich and famous than she would've if no one had ever heard of her. There's probably lots of men who would've used her for her money if given the opportunity, but they wouldn't have found her attractive physically. Again, I guarantee you that after her surgery Carnie started getting as much fan mail from men per day as she used to get per year.

Years ago I read a magazine article saying that science has found that beauty is nowhere near as subjective as some want to believe. Not to pick on poor Lyle Lovett again but they used him as an example in the article. The more that both sides of a person's face are identical, the better looking they are. The 2 sides of Lyle's face are very different. The face they compared Lyle to was Denzel Washington's. You guessed it, the 2 sides of Denzel's face are nearly identical. Everyone recognizes physical attractive features. I don't think anyone sees Denzel as facially ugly and Lyle as handsome. I guess it comes down to how important those physical features are to you.

Most women I want are way out of my league because those features in women are very important to me. Oh well, there's always the lottery LOL

 

[TeNNis_MAn]

I would!

/\ I would for sure, if she was what i was looking for in the personality department. Counts right? lol.
For me, sharing a tickling fetish would carry a relationship much further than looks would.

 

[rhiannon]

Lyle Lovett is butt ugly, but I guarantee you there are thousands (if not more) women who he makes wet.

The thing is, does he really make anybody wet or is being wet just not so important once a woman sees bank accounts. 😉

There's probably lots of men who would've used her for her money if given the opportunity, but they wouldn't have found her attractive physically.

I do not believe it is any different with women!

The only thing that can make a person physically attractive that you haven't found to be physically attractive at first, is if the person is a nice and decent and treats you well - and you eventually fall in love with them.

 

[No_Style]

Nope. The tickling aspect is important...but I also tie tickling and sex together at times...so I definatly have to find the person attractive...Obviously if we were talking about just playful tickling amongst friends it doesn't matter how they look.

 

[NonConTickler]

The thing is, does he really make anybody wet or is being wet just not so important once a woman sees bank accounts. 😉



I do not believe it is any different with women!

The only thing that can make a person physically attractive that you haven't found to be physically attractive at first, is if the person is a nice and decent and treats you well - and you eventually fall in love with them.

I think there are more ways for a guy to make up for being physically unattractive than there are for women. I've experienced this, 10-12 years ago I was still the fat slob that I am now, but I was the top telemarketer where I worked, broke all kinds of sales records. So I had cute girls I worked with try to flirt with me. I think seeing a guy do something he's really good at makes the guy more attractive to women. Thing was, I would walk by them when they were sitting with their foot sticking out underneath them with flip-flops on and tickle give their foot a quick tickle sometimes. I was the top person there, so I pretty much did whatever I wanted. So these girls who were trying to flirt with me and I assume waiting for me to ask them out, I had already tickled them and found out they were ticklish. So I could go home and masturbate knowing that I had tickled them. I already got what I wanted, so why date them? Besides even that long ago I was too lazy to go out on a date. Rather just show up, get what I want and leave.

 

[alex]

It's easier to get an attractive vanilla date into tickling, than to make an ugly ticklephile attractive.

 

[ticklehound]

If I met someone in my usual way of life who also happened to have a tickle fetish, she would be hugely more attractive irrespective of anything else. And if we get along well, I'd be willing to overlook it if she wasn't absolutely stunning.

I'd take a 6 with a "erotic interest" in tickling than a 10 who absolutely won't indulge my obsession - if that's what you're asking.

WHen it comes to physical appearance, clearly it's the billboard that gets me into the store. And I've walked away from a few sexy stunners cuz they were shallow, boring or downright bitchy.

In the end, I agree with alex above, I would try to convert a 'vanilla' into tickling, than save myself for a fellow ticklephile.

 

[wolfman40]

Does it really matter that much what a person looks like?

For me it's whats on the inside that counts..

 

[ticklishdanny]

Does it really matter that much what a person looks like?

For me it's whats on the inside that counts..

I agree, I don't think that someone not having the same fetish should be a deal breaker, I'd much rather have a happy relationship with a vanilla than have a relationship built on just tickling

 

[Raytheon]

Physical attraction is irrelevant. The sexiest slutty bikini babe could be the bitchiest worst vanilla person in bed and you'd have missed out on the kinkiest walking fetish-wiki 21st (300lb) vixen bombshell who'd happily cover you, herself and half her friends in babyoil and tickle you to death until shes had her 10th orgasm.

There is no sacrifice to be had. Only the realisation you only find orange county bimbos tickling each others boobies ... on the internet 😛

 

[torturoustickle]

To me it is the whole package.
I'll admit of course that having a love for tickling as I do is important. But to sacrifice all else and hope to have a meaningful relationship is ridiculous.
You can't tickle, or be tickled 24 hours a day. What would you do for the rest of your time???
😕

 

[JoePTickle]

I get what you're saying but can't measure it like that. My best answer is probably that the presence or absence of a tickling fetish has not played heavily into my choice of serious personal relationships, though physical appearance has. Thanks for the thought-provoking question GQ.

 

[ticklehound]

I think a lot of people are taking the question to extremes. Correct me if I'm wrong GQ but what I understood the question as: if you met someone with a tickling fetish, would that person be more attractive to you compared to someone who may be 'hotter' but didn't enjoy tickling.

As I said above, my answer would be Yes.

Like everyone else, I look at prospective mates with a variety of characteristics in mind and value each differently - Without belaboring my tribulations with dating, lemme just say: First off, I wouldn't even talk to a woman if I didn't find her physically attractive. Then, if she's smart enough to put together sentences and hold a conversation - that'll keep me there a lil while. If we share similar interests, we'll get along pretty well. Finally, and most importantly to me, if she's open to explore interests we don't share (including but not limited to tickling), then we have winner-winner chicken dinner!

 

[ChicagoDavid]

Good post, OP. I think some of the responses have gotten side-tracked, but I agree with what seems to be the majority. I’d put it a little differently when talking about long-term relationships. All the various things that make another person right for you are a continuum, not an either/or. There is attractive, and REALLY attractive. We’d all rather have the latter. But hopefully, we’d accept the former, if all the other attributes are right. If you made a list (though only for theory, not for evaluating a particular person), and you included looks, skill in bed, receptivity to our fetish, intelligence, altruism, positive energy/vibe, shared interests, how interesting the person is, etc. etc., none of these is a “yes” or “no.”

For a single encounter, yes, I’d take an attractive woman into tickling over a really attractive one who is not.

 

[TKL_M28_LI_NY]

I want it ALL... but yes, I'd made that sacrifice.

 

[proud2tickle]

good news girls, i am sexy and have the fetish.......

 

[GQguy]

I think a lot of people are taking the question to extremes. Correct me if I'm wrong GQ but what I understood the question as: if you met someone with a tickling fetish, would that person be more attractive to you compared to someone who may be 'hotter' but didn't enjoy tickling.

As I said above, my answer would be Yes.

Like everyone else, I look at prospective mates with a variety of characteristics in mind and value each differently - Without belaboring my tribulations with dating, lemme just say: First off, I wouldn't even talk to a woman if I didn't find her physically attractive. Then, if she's smart enough to put together sentences and hold a conversation - that'll keep me there a lil while. If we share similar interests, we'll get along pretty well. Finally, and most importantly to me, if she's open to explore interests we don't share (including but not limited to tickling), then we have winner-winner chicken dinner!

Actually the post was inspired by what many might find on the net. In real life your partners are of a certain attractiveness that meet your standards. Online your potential tickle partner(s) are below that standard. If you had seen the online potential tickle partner in real life you would never notice them. If the asked you out you'd likely decline. But she/he has a tickle fetish....would you reconsider? Could you go from dating a person you find attractive to dating a person you do not because they have a tickle fetish. All other things being equal. Attractivenss level being purely subjective and unique to your personal taste. I'm not comparing cute vs hot...i'm comparing (cute or hot) vs not attractive.

GQ

 

[ticklehound]

In that care, I would say No. - Like I said, finding a woman attractive (physically - by my standards) is the advert that gets me intrigued in the 1st place. Just as there are HOT women who turn me off because they're boring or unintelligent; I imagine there are 'tickle' women that I would not find "attractive."

Interesting topic BTW...

 

[SX10]

This is a mixed bag and of course it would be cause honestly there are a lot of factors. I've only dated two girls and one of them being my current gf always gets down on herself and always says I could do better and honestly it's crap because I feel lucky I've found any girl who wants to spend time with me for the right (and wrong 😉 ) reasons. But I don't think I could ever date anyone who wasn't ticklish at all, because it's such a massive turn off and it would hinder the relationship (I think I sound horrible when I say that). My ex didn't like my fetish but tried and I think she was pretty damn nice looking. But it did become this big factor that put a dampener on the relationship. My current gf is awesome and very understanding.

Thing is, you can't go making a relationship based on a fetish alone, or looks alone. But would I sacrifice some physical attraction for it - maybe. Because it absolutely helps. Depends on the person.