Should tickling be classed as a fetish?

[Redmage]

What if it does not replace sex, but ADDS to it in terms of arousal? And if we tickle as foreplay or during sex, because it arouses the LEE and LER, then is it not just great sex? I also like my boobs touched, and i like to touch guys all over... and this adds to arousal, but certainly is not described as a boob fetish or penis fetish?

Generally speaking something is classified as a fetish or paraphilia if it involves something distinctly unusual. Being aroused by breasts, for example, isn't at all unusual. Being aroused by tickling is probably more so.

 

[dvnc]

Generally speaking something is classified as a fetish or paraphilia if it involves something distinctly unusual. Being aroused by breasts, for example, isn't at all unusual. Being aroused by tickling is probably more so.

Agreed.

Like TG says, a fetish involves objects or objectification. Feet, hats, etc. Things. Tickling is an action.

There's also the dominance aspect. Some people LOVE being tickled, but hate being dominated.

Some dig the dominance, so long as they're not restrained.

A deviancy, in this context, is a variation from the norm, if you're using the terms as defined in the DSM-IV. Colloquially, people online misuse fetish 'cause the term is known.

As there are a LOT of foot fetishists, and some armpit fetishists, etc., there's crossover. Heck, we, online, used to hang out in the foot fetishist area of USENET (alt.sex.fetish.feet) back when the net was young.

As for the sexual thing, there ARE some of us that have a fascination, or even an obsession, with tickling who DON'T have a sexual interest. It's known to exist. It's less common than those of us who can't deal with tickling as anything EXCEPT sexual (there are parents who can't tickle their kids due to this).

My $0.02,

dvnc

 

[Iggy pop]

Laugher,

I feel for you, bro. You and I go back a long way, and I know your interest in tickling is not sexual. It's both amazing and sad that some people will religiously refuse to accept the notion of a nonsexual interest in tickling.

I hope you and your wife are able to work it out, and you can become active once again.

Actually, I think most of the tickling that goes in the world is non-sexual. Most of it is between parents and their children, and siblings.

I think for 99.99% of the people here, it is sexual to some degree.

 

[BellaRisa]

mini-rant 🙂

So, have you shown your videos to your mother?

And that's the only reason that you wouldn't do it?

If you say so.

Redmage, you know I agree with you on most of your posts, your experience and insight are invaluable around here . Having said that, I understand where the Laugher is coming from. I certainly can't know if he's being honest with himself, but if he is, he's definitely not the only one for whom tickling is a deep fascination but *not* a sexual proclivity. Or at least it isn't all the time, it depends on the context. And it's mighty annoying to have other people tell you what you do and don't find sexually arousing I'm not accusing you of that, but I'm saying it happens and it's frustrating every time. The fact that he might not want to show his vids to his mother or use children is irrelevant in my opinion, because not wanting to do those things is more about other people's perception and response. Hell, you can't even explain to other tickling-enthusiasts that your interest isn't sexual, a vanilla...just skip it 🙄

Many people have an interest that can be sexual, but very often fullfills a deep but different, non-sexual need. I've known many spanking enthusiasts, myself included, for whom spanking often satiates something within that has nothing to do with sex. It's equally important but very different from sexual arousal, and when someone who isn't you tells you that you don't know yourself and you're denying the sexuality, someone like you or myself who is very, very in tune with their own sexuality is just going to tune that person out because they don't know what they're talking about; and they don't have to, since they're not us 😉

 

[scorpionldr]

If it isn't an specific body part or object, it's a "philia" meaning love of. Fetish is just used as a catch-all term to describe arousal by something that is not "normal" or normally involved in the sex act. As in:

Necrophilia- no need to describe THAT one.

Klismophilia = love of/sexual association with enemas

Algamatophilia= love of/sexual association with statues.

Harpaxophilia- sexual arousal from being robbed/burglarized.

Compared the the above, I'd say we are pretty normal.

Tickling fetish is referred to as knismolagnia.
http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/knismolagnia

I'm not sure why it's a lagnia instead of a philia- lust instead of love. I'm not a linguist by profession.

So yes, arousal from being tickled/tickling and/or an obsession with tickling would be classified as a fetish in layman's terms. I wouldn't worry too much about its classification, though. You enjoy it, it's harmless enough, and as you can see from my examples above, it's comparatively quite "normal". So have fun.

it's probably considered lagnia in that with no further stimulation (and i don't mean being vibrated or having sex, JUST TICKLING) would not be able to produce a complete orgasm on it's own. I know for me it hasn't, but I'm revved up plenty to go onto the next step

 

[Redmage]

The fact that he might not want to show his vids to his mother or use children is irrelevant in my opinion, because not wanting to do those things is more about other people's perception and response.

The parent/child test isn't primarily about other peoples' reactions; it's about one's own. I suggest it as a test for sexual interest because most people, considering sexual play with a child or in view of their parents, experience an immediate visceral reaction that's hard to mistake for anything else. The "test" is about how the idea makes them feel, not how it makes anyone else feel.

Many people have an interest that can be sexual, but very often fullfills a deep but different, non-sexual need. I've known many spanking enthusiasts, myself included, for whom spanking often satiates something within that has nothing to do with sex. It's equally important but very different from sexual arousal

Yeeeesss...but I have to say I've never seen that reaction in a ticklephile. Were it there, then I have to say that it would still place that person's response to tickling well above the "friendly fun and exercise" category that most "non-sexual tickling" fans insist theirs fall into.

Here's my point in all of this: Laugher's description of his situation sounds like there's more going on than meets the eye. His interest is strong enough that it apparently has stressed his wife - to the degree that he can no longer participate because of the way she perceives it. Given that, it seems unlikely that it has come up purely by chance in sessions with three different couples counselors, or that all three of them describe it as a sexual interest based on those conversations.

I don't know his mind. But I know from what he has told us that at least four people who are a lot closer to his situation than I am (three of them professionals) have perceived something sexual here. My suggestion to him is simply that this bears consideration for his own happiness.

 

[BellaRisa]

The parent/child test isn't primarily about other peoples' reactions; it's about one's own. I suggest it as a test for sexual interest because most people, considering sexual play with a child or in view of their parents, experience an immediate visceral reaction that's hard to mistake for anything else. The "test" is about how the idea makes them feel, not how it makes anyone else feel.

I totally see what you're saying, and I agree that it does apply pretty often. Just not all the time. There are plenty of occasions in which it's not about your internal reaction, but about not wanting to deal with that of the person with whom you're sharing. I'd show my mother BellaRisa material in a heartbeat (or, say, a video of a non-sexual spanking scenario); sexual or not she'd just be happy I was having fun and making good money 😀. But not my grandmother, who would *not* handle it well. That wouldn't be about my visceral reaction or any embarrassment, but about the affect on an 87 yr old conservative who already thinks I'm off-kilter 😉 Some people don't need to know even if it's just different from the norm, it's not worth dealing with their overreaction.

Furthermore, though I agree it's rare, I have indeed seen that reaction in ticklephiles, though much more often in spankos and bondage enthusiasts. I totally agree that the "friendly fun and exercise" category may not seem quite right because it's so intense, I'm just saying that doesn't make it sexual either. As for the 'professionals', I absolutely agree that it sounds like there's more than what we're being told; having said that, from what I've been told by countless friends it's just not that easy to find a kink-friendly (or poly friendly for that matter) therapist who won't say what was said to Laugher and his wife . Even vanillas who are learned in the human mind will still tend to assume that such interests will lead to disaster . I had long conversations with my own therapist about this just last year; I began seeing him about personal issues concerning which career of mine I wanted to do full-time, and he was *fascinated* with my interests, and asked me many questions, on his time post-session (!) about what I thought the origins where, was it always sexual and a direct result of childhood situations as his colleagues often thought (and that's a direct quote!), etc. I've referred several friends to him because of his truly open mind, and it's sad he's retiring this summer...

And before some fool jumps down my neck, I mean "vanilla" purely as someone who is kink-free, not as a derogatory term.

 

[LindyHopper]

I think one big reason that sexual ticklers, and therapists, might be suspicious of a claim that one's fixation with tickling is non-sexual is simply that there exists a strong motive for making such a claim. It's like how when a person has an obvious motive for committing a murder - if a body is found, suspicion falls on the individual with a motive, even in the absence of any other evidence.

A person whose interest in tickling "isn't sexual" can engage in it with people other than his wife without counting it as cheating. He can spend hours on the TMF as "a hobby." He can pay for tickling without feeling dirty. He can disassociate himself from those "perverts" and their "fetishes." Basically, he can think himself virtuous, because his interest isn't sexual.

I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of making these claims for these reasons. I don't live in their heads, so how could I know? I'm merely pointing out that no one would do it, nor expect anyone else to, if there weren't such obvious self-serving reasons to pretend.

 

[BellaRisa]

I think one big reason that sexual ticklers, and therapists, might be suspicious of a claim that one's fixation with tickling is non-sexual is simply that there exists a strong motive for making such a claim. It's like how when a person has an obvious motive for committing a murder - if a body is found, suspicion falls on the individual with a motive, even in the absence of any other evidence.

A person whose interest in tickling "isn't sexual" can engage in it with people other than his wife. He can spend hours on the TMF as "a hobby." He can pay for tickling without feeling dirty. He can disassociate himself from those "perverts" and their "fetishes." Basically, he can think himself virtuous, because his interest isn't sexual.

I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of making these claims for these reasons. I don't live in their heads, so how could I know? I'm merely pointing out that no one would do it, nor expect anyone else to, if there weren't such obvious self-serving reasons to pretend.

All true. And such folks give a bad name to those who are telling the truth

 

[Redmage]

I'd show my mother BellaRisa material in a heartbeat (or, say, a video of a non-sexual spanking scenario); sexual or not she'd just be happy I was having fun and making good money 😀. But not my grandmother, who would *not* handle it well. That wouldn't be about my visceral reaction or any embarrassment, but about the affect on an 87 yr old conservative who already thinks I'm off-kilter 😉 Some people don't need to know even if it's just different from the norm, it's not worth dealing with their overreaction.

I understand that, and agree. That's why when Laugher replied to my question by saying that he had told his family about his interest, I asked again whether he had actually shown his parents the videos he makes. He hadn't actually replied to my question (something that also rang a bell in my head), and I think that there's a difference between talking with one's parents about sexuality and actually showing them your sexuality.

As for the 'professionals', I absolutely agree that it sounds like there's more than what we're being told; having said that, from what I've been told by countless friends it's just not that easy to find a kink-friendly (or poly friendly for that matter) therapist who won't say what was said to Laugher and his wife . Even vanillas who are learned in the human mind will still tend to assume that such interests will lead to disaster .

Yep, I know. But 3 for 3 gets my attention. And it seemed to me that there was a certain amount of willful blindness going on when I read that this subject wasn't all that important, but "just came up in conversation" with all three therapists. I felt that something, somewhere, wasn't really being looked at closely, so I suggested that maybe it should be.

Anyway, I don't feel quite right referring to Laugher in the third person here, and he's understandably decided not to air it any more for the time being. I feel as though I've made my point as well as it can be made: that feelings in this area need to be examined with all the self-honesty one can muster. So I'm going to drop it for now.

 

[P[a]pi]

Yep, it's a fetish, unless you don't give a shit about it.

But, if the majority of the earth's population starts to care about it, then it's not a fetish anymore.

 

[vsa7a]

with so much definitions, explainations and 'so called' why not it remain undefined? just consider tickling IS tickling and no something else.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i'm joining this thread late, so my reply may have been given

tickling is a fetish for some, and not for others.
i learned many years ago that a fetish is something needed to achive an orgasm. if someone needs to have tickling while love making to climax, then yes they have a tickle fetish.
if it's not needed then no it's not a fetish.
personally, it's icing on the cake for me, not needed ,but a hell of a lot better with it!

steve

 

[DimpleToes]

what happen to just having fun with it

 

[drew70]

what happen to just having fun with it

"Just having fun with it"? Good Lord, that would mean tickling could happen between good friends without any sexual overtones to make one feel guilty or uncomfortable. We can't have that! 😱

 

[Tickler15]

If you get aroused from feet, you have a foot fetish. If you get aroused from tickling, you have a tickle fetish. Technically, though, tickling can't be classified as a fetish because the word "fetish" only applies to objects or specific body parts, not actions. However, I can't think of what else to describe being aroused by tickling, so whatevs.

Well some people think that foot fetish should not be considered a fetish casue a majority of the people have it. Its been researched more than 85 percent of the population enjoy tickling.

 

[Redmage]

Well some people think that foot fetish should not be considered a fetish casue a majority of the people have it.

Most people get turned on by feet? When did this come to light?

Its been researched more than 85 percent of the population enjoy tickling.

I'd be interested to see those studies. In particular, I'd like to know whether they defined "enjoy" as "like" or as "become sexually aroused by." A lot of people enjoy coffee, too, but very few fetishize it.

 

[vsa7a]

i dont get this. whats up with this fetish thing? who cares what tickling is. as far as it is first concerned - its tickling.

aside from that, 85 percent would be a little exaggerated but the study research of many or most people enjoy tickling would be a general analysis and conclusion. as for liking it or being sexually aroused of it, it would also be generally liking and nothing to do with sexually aroused or the mind going somewhere else...

 

[P[a]pi]

If the question was "do you enjoy being tied up and tickled for 30 minutes to an hour?" I bet 85% of the population would not answer yes. Maybe 1 to 5 percent would answer yes.

Sure, 85% of the population enjoys being poked once or twice. I'll give ya that.

 

[on_storm]

acarophilia vs acarophobia

I would imagine "acarophobia" would mean fear of tickling or being tickled if acarophilia means love of tickling or being tickled. But actually, based on m-w.com, "acarophobia" is "an abnormal dread of skin infestation with small crawling organisms". I am puzzled by the inconsistency.