Tickling a vanilla who doesn't 'know'

[rhiannon]

It's wrong in the same way that staring at someone's ass would be wrong. <_<

No, it's not. If I realize someone is staring at my ass, I know why the person is doing that. It's different with tickling.

 

[Lord Doctor]

I'll have to give this some thought.

Seriously. It depends how, how long, their opinions on it and, of course, who.

 

[rhiannon]

To find out if it's wrong or right just ask yourself this before you start a tickle fight with your friend: Would the friend join in if he/she knew it sexually arouses you? If yes - cool! Tell him/her then! 🙂 If no: it's WRONG!

 

[Excess]

No, it's not. If I realize someone is staring at my ass, I know why the person is doing that. It's different with tickling.

In regards to someone who gets off on it it's the same. I mean you could just as well say that you don't know if someone is looking at your ass just because they're looking in your direction.

 

[dvnc]

I agree with several concerning context of the tickle, and offer the same analogy I've offered since back in USENET days - Tickling is like kissing.

How you kiss will determine whether it's appropriate. Mom doesn't get the girlfriend/boyfriend's kiss, nor does your niece or nephew, etc.

I've tickled vanilla folks. I've even tickled vanilla folks who KNEW my kink. It's not done with the same sentiment or intent, so it's not received as anything more than a goofy tickle. *shrug*

YMMV.

 

[loveofmystery]

Yeah, I'm wondering about intent here. Kind of like kissing (thanks for the analogy, DMVC)--when I kiss someone it can be "meaningful" or not meaningful, depending on the way its done.

I think there's a distinction between tickling someone for fun or to get aroused. It can, I think, have multiple meanings, whereas other things (grabbing someones breasts, staring, or having sex, for instance) probably don't.

To put it another way, dads tickle their kids, then tickle their wives (two different meanings possibly), but Dads don't grab their daughters' breasts.

 

[Avenger314]

I think it's ok. Many would disagree with me.

 

[Imlatino]

What its not wrong! As long as you don't make them the star of your newest tickle film then its allright.

 

[Cif]

Yeah, I'm wondering about intent here. Kind of like kissing (thanks for the analogy, DMVC)--when I kiss someone it can be "meaningful" or not meaningful, depending on the way its done.

I think there's a distinction between tickling someone for fun or to get aroused. It can, I think, have multiple meanings, whereas other things (grabbing someones breasts, staring, or having sex, for instance) probably don't.

To put it another way, dads tickle their kids, then tickle their wives (two different meanings possibly), but Dads don't grab their daughters' breasts.

We're talking here, I believe, about people who have a tickling fetish. The intent is a whole lot different. We've all said, yeah its a flirtatious act, the same as kissing, however, the motive to tickle somebody is still wrong.

 

[Canadian_Eh]

Is engaging in a tickle fight with someone who doesn't know about your fetish inherently wrong? Discuss.

I really think it depends on what the motives are. If it's just a playful thing and it's no big deal, then I would say no. However, If you were going after them with the intent of it being purely sexual for you and the other person is completely unaware, then yes I would say that's wrong. IMO.

 

[rhiannon]

I really think it depends on what the motives are. If it's just a playful thing and it's no big deal, then I would say no. However, If you were going after them with the intent of it being purely sexual for you and the other person is completely unaware, then yes I would say that's wrong. IMO.

Totally agree - once again!

I also think the kissing-example is a good one!

So, to everybody who thinks it's right - why do you think it's right??