Tickling strangers WITHOUT permission....WTF?

[LargerWorld2577]

And exactly what is this big difference? In both cases, a stranger touches you and then leaves you alone.

The difference is intent. People jostle and bump in lines and crowds, and that is expected. It's not expected that some random person you don't know will touch you for a thrill and then run away while you're minding your own business at your workplace. If I bump into someone and knock their things out of their hand, and it was purely an accident, I say I'm sorry and pick them up. If I set out to purposely do that, then it's wrong.

Who says I don't? Just so you know, I wasn't the one who tickled Blue Soda, and now that I know her distaste for it, I won't waste my time tickling her. You happy?

So, then you agree that what that guy did was wrong - yes or no? It's a simple question.

A bigger problem than say people losing their healthcare provider? Or crime on the street? Is it a more widespread problem than identity theft? Is it a bigger problem than the failing education system?

I never said bigger problem. I said real problem. And we're talking about this problem - at least I think it's a problem - of violating total strangers' personal space. The severity of other problems in the world has nothing to do with the one we're discussing.

And that is one key indicator of an opportunity. How receptive does she appear? Is she wearing clothing that exposes ticklish areas such as the undarms or the midriff? Do her movements and her proximity indicate anything that suggests invitation? These are very subtle and at times tough to read.

So besides the clothes she's wearing, what kinds of movements are we talking about here that would suggest invitation? Please explain so I understand.

There are also other things to consider. The venue. The general reason people come to whatever place you're in. They all have different sets of parameters that must be weighed accordingly. The grocery store. A shopping mall. The beach. A nightclub. A crowded subway. All have their own benefits and pitfalls that must be assessed along with the specific people that are present.

Please explain what the benefits and pitfalls of each venue are. The grocery store, shopping mall, beach, nightclub, subway. And what specific people do you usually look for and what are you assessing about them exactly?

 

[Hemmen]

Blimey this old chestnut again ay?

Yeah, and the same couple of.....people chiming in with their "contributions". I don't guess Blue Soda will make the mistake of posting here again.

 

[helplessandhappy]

Ah, I see H² once again showing support for violence as an appropriate response to violating somebody's personal space. The irony never ceases.

I will always support any action necessary to keep disgusting freaks like you from causing harm to innocent people.

 

[Hemmen]

I haven't seen this question posed yet.

DontAsk seems pretty up front about and unashamed of his tickling philosophy. So why is he so strenuously defending the cowardly "tickle and run" approach described by Blue Soda? (Don't strain yourself answering, DAJT; it's really a rhetorical question.)

 

[Blue Soda]

Yeah, and the same couple of.....people chiming in with their "contributions". I don't guess Blue Soda will make the mistake of posting here again.

Posting this wasn't a mistake. I've seen similar threads and when it actually happened to me I thought sharing my story would provide concrete evidence that it can be an upsetting experience for someone.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

The difference is intent. People jostle and bump in lines and crowds, and that is expected. It's not expected that some random person you don't know will touch you for a thrill and then run away while you're minding your own business at your workplace. If I bump into someone and knock their things out of their hand, and it was purely an accident, I say I'm sorry and pick them up. If I set out to purposely do that, then it's wrong.

Well, except you don't get to decide what's wrong, do you?

So, then you agree that what that guy did was wrong - yes or no? It's a simple question.

Again, I wasn't there to see it go down, so I'm understandably reluctant render a verdict based on a single testimony. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I think.

I never said bigger problem. I said real problem. And we're talking about this problem - at least I think it's a problem - of violating total strangers' personal space. The severity of other problems in the world has nothing to do with the one we're discussing.

Doesn't it?

So besides the clothes she's wearing, what kinds of movements are we talking about here that would suggest invitation? Please explain so I understand.

Please explain what the benefits and pitfalls of each venue are. The grocery store, shopping mall, beach, nightclub, subway. And what specific people do you usually look for and what are you assessing about them exactly?

Yeah, I'm really sorry, but what you're asking for would take more time and effort to write than I'm willing to invest, especially for somebody who'll just continue to...you know...piss and moan about how wrong it is. You know?

My best advice for you and anybody else who's this curious is to get out there yourself and start tickling. You'll learn the ropes better in practical application than by anything I can tell you.

Good luck!

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Again, I wasn't there to see it go down, so I'm understandably reluctant render a verdict based on a single testimony. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I think.

Well, except you don't get to decide what's wrong, do you?

Yeah, I'm really sorry, but what you're asking for would take more time and effort to write than I'm will to invest, especially for somebody who'll just continue to...you know...piss and moan about how wrong it is. You know?

I'm not deciding anything. Again, everything I say is my opinion. I just don't see the need to put "I think" before everything I say. But at least I stand by what I think and provide an argument. You criticize those who "piss and moan" how an action is "wrong wrong wrong", but when given the opportunity to provide reasons why you think something is not wrong, you dodge questions, twist words, hurl insults, etc.. You can't seem to own your position on this issue like I have.

 

[knicks255]

It's cute when not wanting to be randomly tickled by a stranger because "Well, you looked like you would be receptive." makes you a "feminazi".

 

[TheTickleMonster]

Posting this wasn't a mistake. I've seen similar threads and when it actually happened to me I thought sharing my story would provide concrete evidence that it can be an upsetting experience for someone.

And to any rational or logical person, it would seem like good evidence... but then there's people like Don't Ask Just Tickle... who obviously lives true to his name, no matter what.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

I will always support any action necessary to keep disgusting freaks like you from causing harm to innocent people.

You know, even advanced psychosis doesn't excuse GR violations. Clean it up, H².

I haven't seen this question posed yet.

DontAsk seems pretty up front about and unashamed of his tickling philosophy. So why is he so strenuously defending the cowardly "tickle and run" approach described by Blue Soda? (Don't strain yourself answering, DAJT; it's really a rhetorical question.)

Substitute "rhetorical" with "nonsensical" and I'll agree with that last sentence.

"Cowardly tickle and run?" I dare say the guy has bigger 'nads than many here. At least he's tickling a woman in the real world instead of white knighting on an Internet forum.


And speaking of questions nobody has asked, here's one for you. Which is more cowardly? Tickling a woman who is free to move about and/or walk away? Or tickling a woman who's restrained and unable to defend herself?

But hey, don't strain yourself answering, okay?

Posting this wasn't a mistake. I've seen similar threads and when it actually happened to me I thought sharing my story would provide concrete evidence that it can be an upsetting experience for someone.

I don't believe I've seen anybody deny that it can be upsetting. What I also haven't seen is anybody acknowledging that for others it can be pleasant, gratifying, and welcome. I'm glad you shared your story and I'm sorry the experience wasn't as pleasant for you as I've seen it be for others.

I'm not deciding anything. Again, everything I say is my opinion. I just don't see the need to put "I think" before everything I say. But at least I stand by what I think and provide an argument.

LOL, you're kidding, right? You're sole argument is that it's wrong because some people can be upset by it. Repeating that phrase ad nauseum does not build your argument, but rather underscores how small and insufficient it is. You've overstated that some women find it upsetting, but you've failed to establish how that fact justifies your blanket condemnation of any and all tickling of strangers, when in fact there are many who are receptive to it.

You criticize those who "piss and moan" how an action is "wrong wrong wrong", but when given the opportunity to provide reasons why you think something is not wrong, you dodge questions, twist words, hurl insults, etc.. You can't seem to own your position on this issue like I have.

No, that's bullshit. The only thing I've dodged are your lame attempts to get me to either support or condemn an action by somebody not myself without having sufficient information. As for what I personally do and my own policies with regards to tickling strangers, I've never wavered from my position that what I do is okay. In short, I'm not going to "own" what somebody else does. But I'll own my actions any day of the week.

It's cute when not wanting to be randomly tickled by a stranger because "Well, you looked like you would be receptive." makes you a "feminazi".

That may be, however there's nothing cute about your lame attempt to misrepresent my position. I never said nor suggested that any woman not receptive qualifies as a feminazi. I'm saying that some feminazis will use wardrobe and body language in lieu of a verbal invitation to entice a guy to touch her in some way. She does this for the express purpose of creating an incident by which she can play the victim and bolster her misandrous battle cry that "men are pigs!" I brought that up not to suggest that any woman who finds it unpalatable to be tickled by a stranger falls into that category, but rather to emphasize the need for caution when confronted with what looks like a golden opportunity.

And to any rational or logical person, it would seem like good evidence... but then there's people like Don't Ask Just Tickle... who obviously lives true to his name, no matter what.

You were correct up until you got to the phrase "no matter what." As I've outlined previously in this thread, I'm very selective about the strangers I tickle.

 

[knicks255]

You know, even advanced psychosis doesn't excuse GR violations. Clean it up, H².

Alright, we get your show, we know how it works. Whenever someone brings this up, you come out of the woodwork to state your position while hurling insults and using pseudo intellectual "Diagnosis" of other posters to try and make yourself look smarter. As an English major, I am very, very familiar with the old tactic of "Use big words to sound smarter". But nearly every post you make contains a jab of some sort at one of your favorite victims (rihannon, TMP, LargerWorld, helpless, etc.) and then some sort of mention of how your position is superior and they're crazy/white knights/over PC/whatever. Your one word biography in your profile is "opinionated", and you just happen to show up any time there's a disagreement about this sort of thing. You aren't interested in discussion, debate, or getting more information to reevaluate your opinions, you show up to pick fights and harass other posters by questioning their sanity or whatever. This isn't even about political differences, you could show up in every topic clenching an OBAMA 2012 flagpole between your butt cheeks and agreeing with everything I do, but you still just show up to stir the pot. It's been made clear what the forum's opinion on this matter is, if not in this topic than in the last 20. Don't play the "I do it for their sake!" card, because that's the flimsiest excuse for touching a stranger that has ever been made. I would respect you more if you just said "Yeah, I like to do it because I have a tickle fetish" because at least that's honest, and you aren't just using it to make LargerWorld look the fool. If he had a SHRED of the compassion you did by tickling strangers? There is not a single person on this forum who can't see through that, because we are all adults. Sooner or later, people will catch on to your dog and pony show, and the responses will just dry up like they have with just about everyone else who visits the forum just to cause a fight. The only difference is that you're smart about it and have a firm grasp on the English language.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

And speaking of questions nobody has asked, here's one for you. Which is more cowardly? Tickling a woman who is free to move about and/or walk away? Or tickling a woman who's restrained and unable to defend herself?

If you're talking about consensual bondage tickling, then the former is more "cowardly" if you want to call it that. One is consensual, the other is not. One is respecting boundaries with safewords and limits while having fun, the other is forcing an activity onto an unsuspecting stranger who may not want it.

LOL, you're kidding, right? You're sole argument is that it's wrong because some people can be upset by it. Repeating that phrase ad nauseum does not build your argument, but rather underscores how small and insufficient it is. You've overstated that some women find it upsetting, but you've failed to establish how that fact justifies your blanket condemnation of any and all tickling of strangers, when in fact there are many who are receptive to it.

And what's your argument as to why it IS okay? You've never made that clear to me. Is it that "there are many who are receptive to it"? Well that's just as much a blanket saying as mine, except mine is out of simple respect for people's personal space, and the acknowledgment that, yes, it can be upsetting to people like we've seen in the first post. Having consideration for the feelings of other people and realizing that your actions may affect people in a negative way is never small or insufficient. That's a big deal for anyone with empathy and a conscience.

No, that's bullshit. The only thing I've dodged are your lame attempts to get me to either support or condemn an action by somebody not myself without having sufficient information. As for what I personally do and my own policies with regards to tickling strangers, I've never wavered from my position that what I do is okay. In short, I'm not going to "own" what somebody else does. But I'll own my actions any day of the week.

The first post should be sufficient information. But the difference is that you think the way the man went about it has something to do with whether it's cool or not, and I think it's all about how the person on the receiving end reacted. Again, someone who cares about the feelings of others before their own selfish desires would probably put a lot more emphasis on how the person reacted. She, Blue Soda, was going to be upset by it no matter how the man went about it. And as far as your actions vs. that man's actions, they are the same thing. If they aren't, then explain what your policies are on tickling strangers.

She felt violated

Yeah, so?

I'm glad you shared your story and I'm sorry the experience wasn't as pleasant for you as I've seen it be for others.

"Yeah, so what she felt violated?" You're not really sorry the experience wasn't pleasant for her, are you?

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Alright, we get your show, we know how it works.

We know how YOUR show works too. Your contributions to a discussion often amount to some snarky comment with no substance to it, meant only to put down those with whom you disagree - until somebody comes along who's better at it than you, and then you cry foul.

Whenever someone brings this up, you come out of the woodwork to state your position while hurling insults and using pseudo intellectual "Diagnosis" of other posters to try and make yourself look smarter.

"Out of the woodwork" would imply somebody only participates in these types of discussions, so we know that's bullshit, unless there's been 3000+ discussions of this nature.

As for insults, are you talking about something like this?...

Maybe if you're a meatheaded piece of shit...

Uh oh...what's that sound? I think it's the....HYPOCRISY METER!

As an English major, I am very, very familiar with the old tactic of "Use big words to sound smarter".

Yet as an English major, you seem appallingly unfamiliar with the concept of the paragraph, if this wall of text you call a post is any indication.

But nearly every post you make contains a jab of some sort at one of your favorite victims

Says the guy who calls another TMF member a "meatheaded piece of shit."

<marquee>WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP                                                                                                                             WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP</marquee>

You aren't interested in discussion, debate, or getting more information to reevaluate your opinions

Ahh...now we get to the TRUE nature of your objections. The fact that I stay true to my convictions and can't be talked out of them by the likes of people like you just infuriates you, and so drum up all these whining complaints and cram them into a concrete wall of text which any other "English major" wouldn't be caught dead with.

you show up to pick fights and harass other posters by questioning their sanity or whatever.

I may have questioned the sanity of some, but I certainly never called somebody a "meatheaded piece of shit."

It's been made clear what the forum's opinion on this matter is, if not in this topic than in the last 20.

"The forum's opinion??" OMG, this just keeps getting better and better. The Forum Council has rendered it's decision!! YOU MUST AGREE WITH US!!

Don't play the "I do it for their sake!" card, because that's the flimsiest excuse for touching a stranger that has ever been made.

The fact is, I don't need to excuse or justify my behavior especially to the likes of you. I tickle strangers. If you don't like what I do, you can dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

I would respect you more if you just said "Yeah, I like to do it because I have a tickle fetish" because at least that's honest, and you aren't just using it to make LargerWorld look the fool.

A) I have zero use for any respect you might offer. B) Unlike you, I've been entirely honest about what I do and how I go about doing it. C) Don't blame me for whatever negative impressions you have of LargerWorld.

If he had a SHRED of the compassion you did by tickling strangers? There is not a single person on this forum who can't see through that, because we are all adults.

You know, you'd do a lot better at demonstrating a point if you'd use logic and reason instead of falling back on "everybody agrees with me!" If you think that what I say is bullshit, prove me wrong if you think you can.

If you're talking about consensual bondage tickling, then the former is more "cowardly" if you want to call it that. One is consensual, the other is not. One is respecting boundaries with safewords and limits while having fun, the other is forcing an activity onto an unsuspecting stranger who may not want it.

I made no mention of consent or lack thereof. Given only the criteria I mention, which is more indicative of cowardice? A) Tickling a woman who is free to resist or walk away, or B) tickling a woman who's restrained and unable to defend herself? It's a simple question. A or B?

And what's your argument as to why it IS okay? You've never made that clear to me. Is it that "there are many who are receptive to it"? Well that's just as much a blanket saying as mine

Except I don't have to declare it okay. Any activity is okay by default until it's clearly demonstrated to be not okay.

I'll elaborate.

Imagine a society in which nothing is okay unless the government says it's okay. For example, say you're the first person to ever want to mix coffee with hot chocolate. By default it's not okay to do so because the government has never approved it. You'd have to go to the government and demonstrate that it's okay to mix coffee with hot chocolate in order for them to deem this activity as okay. Once that happens, then and only then are you free to do it.

Thankfully, we don't live in such a society. In our society, everything is okay by default, and if you think a particular activity is not okay, you demonstrate why it isn't, and if you're successful, then society deems that activity is not okay and enacts laws, etc.

Let's take the activity of tickling strangers. By default, it's okay, because that's the default for any activity, as the result of the way our society works. So you make a case that tickling strangers is not okay because some people don't want it. I counter that objection by pointing out that there are many people who welcome it. We're both right, so what happens?

These two opposing arguments cancel each other out, and we're left with the original default status of it being okay.

You're not really sorry the experience wasn't pleasant for her, are you?

I was sincere in my consolation, not that it's any of your business.

 

[primetime]

Funny thing about this thread, we all saw this coming...

Here is where I always find fault with these threads. Majority of the posters in this thread have stated "It is WRONG to tickle random strangers." The rationale is, the "stranger" would object to their personal space being violated so it is wrong to tickle them.

Problem is, DAJT also brought up examples of tickling random strangers and the strangers ENJOYED the tickle. So, was it wrong to tickle them?

That is the heart of the matter. You can't make a blanket statement of "it is WRONG if you do....". People react differently. The reason why I do not tickle random strangers out of the blue is because I don't know how they will react. I do not want to offend someone, which MIGHT happen. Not WILL happen, but MIGHT.

So to those who state it is wrong to tickle random strangers, is the act itself wrong? After all, there are people out there would NOT be offended by the tickling. If they are not offended, why would it be wrong to tickle them? The OP was, but that doesn't mean it is wrong in every single instance. I believe that is the point DAJT is trying to make.

 

[TheTickleMonster]

Funny thing about this thread, we all saw this coming...

Here is where I always find fault with these threads. Majority of the posters in this thread have stated "It is WRONG to tickle random strangers." The rationale is, the "stranger" would object to their personal space being violated so it is wrong to tickle them.

Problem is, DAJT also brought up examples of tickling random strangers and the strangers ENJOYED the tickle. So, was it wrong to tickle them?

That is the heart of the matter. You can't make a blanket statement of "it is WRONG if you do....". People react differently. The reason why I do not tickle random strangers out of the blue is because I don't know how they will react. I do not want to offend someone, which MIGHT happen. Not WILL happen, but MIGHT.

So to those who state it is wrong to tickle random strangers, is the act itself wrong? After all, there are people out there would NOT be offended by the tickling. If they are not offended, why would it be wrong to tickle them? The OP was, but that doesn't mean it is wrong in every single instance. I believe that is the point DAJT is trying to make.

You do have a valid point.. but I can say that probably most people, especially women, would not like someone coming up from behind and sneaking a tickle and then running off. I don't think you can say that we can't make a blanket statement because I think it is more right to say in some situations it's inappropriate to tickle a stranger. And running up and tickling some random person from behind is not a good way to go about it...

Now if you were in a situation such as someone doing something you don't like, and talking to that person and having that person say "watcha gonna do about it?" And you decide to tickle that person, even though they're a stranger... might be okay (or not okay but might not come off to the person as bad)

But I am sure that most people (and if you say you don't mind it, you don't count because this is a fetish site and you're probably not getting any anywhere else. 😛 )... but as I was saying, most people would object to someone coming up from behind them and tickling them when they don't know the person. So I think it's more so the situation that might get a better reaction from doing it. Some situations you just shouldn't do it, such as the one that happened to blue soda.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

I was sincere in my consolation, not that it's any of your business.

Then why did you say "Yeah so?" when I reminded you that she said she felt violated by the incident, almost like it wasn't a big deal. Then posts and posts later, you say you're sorry that it was a negative experience.

I made no mention of consent or lack thereof. Given only the criteria I mention, which is more indicative of cowardice? A) Tickling a woman who is free to resist or walk away, or B) tickling a woman who's restrained and unable to defend herself? It's a simple question. A or B?

Obviously taking advantage of someone who is restrained is more cowardly than doing it to someone who is free to move. But what is the purpose of this comparison question? One scenario has nothing to do with the other. We're talking about people walking into bakeries tickling the manager without her permission while she's trying to work.

Except I don't have to declare it okay. Any activity is okay by default until it's clearly demonstrated to be not okay.

I'll elaborate.

Imagine a society in which nothing is okay unless the government says it's okay. For example, say you're the first person to ever want to mix coffee with hot chocolate. By default it's not okay to do so because the government has never approved it. You'd have to go to the government and demonstrate that it's okay to mix coffee with hot chocolate in order for them to deem this activity as okay. Once that happens, then and only then are you free to do it.

Thankfully, we don't live in such a society. In our society, everything is okay by default, and if you think a particular activity is not okay, you demonstrate why it isn't, and if you're successful, then society deems that activity is not okay and enacts laws, etc.

Let's take the activity of tickling strangers. By default, it's okay, because that's the default for any activity, as the result of the way our society works. So you make a case that tickling strangers is not okay because some people don't want it. I counter that objection by pointing out that there are many people who welcome it. We're both right, so what happens?

These two opposing arguments cancel each other out, and we're left with the original default status of it being okay.

I think society already recognizes that something like tickling or touching total strangers without permission is not okay because we have established social norms like CONSENT and PERSONAL SPACE. For the most part, at least, they are social norms, although consent deals with legal matters, too. Social norms are not necessarily written in stone but they are something that I would assume most people adopt and live by, that is if their parents taught them these basic norms, though of course no one is obligated to follow these norms. We can have these convoluted debates forever, but I think the simplest answers are the best reasoning as to why something is right or wrong. I mean, these are simple concepts that most children understand - ask permission (CONSENT), keep your hands to yourself (PERSONAL SPACE). Do the concepts of personal space and asking permission not mean anything to you?

 

[KoocheeKooII]

I manage a coffee shop/bakery that often gets really crowded. Last night, I was erasing a chalk board on the wall, you know the kind many restaurants and coffee shops use to display their menu specials? Right, so I'm erasing the chalk board with my back to the rest of the store, and I'm having to reach up kind of high. I guess I was in a vulnerable position because some creep thought it would be appropriate to come tickle my sides. I'm not joking. I felt, what was clearly two fingers tickling each of my sides, it wasn't incidental contact. When I turned around to see who it was, I saw a man quickly making his way to the door and out onto the street, his action clearly unnoticed by other customers in the shop.

Seriously, how does someone think this is acceptable? Some people might not consider this to be a big deal but I feel a bit violated. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

It wasn't acceptable....no way!

 

[KoocheeKooII]

There shouldn't be any debate. Tickling a stranger is weird, creepy and a violation of that individual. That guy's going to get arrested, beaten up or pepper sprayed at some point, and he deserves all three.

Agree 100% percent.

 

[knicks255]

Alright, I'm done being insulted and being tried to make feel guilty for having a visceral reaction to someone claiming women are "first and foremost, sexual objects." (Also, he's this guy: http://www.ticklingforum.com/showth...he-ass-clowns-aunt-died&p=3760187#post3760187)

This topic isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much evidence and just general moral sense is backing it up. There's really no reason for me to stick around except to raise my own anxiety levels or whatever, and I'd rather not start shouting and freaking out, because I'm not that kind of person. I shouldn't have bothered with those last couple posts.

BS, sorry you got touched in a way you didn't want to be by someone looking for a cheap thrill.

 

[primetime]

You do have a valid point.. but I can say that probably most people, especially women, would not like someone coming up from behind and sneaking a tickle and then running off. I don't think you can say that we can't make a blanket statement because I think it is more right to say in some situations it's inappropriate to tickle a stranger. And running up and tickling some random person from behind is not a good way to go about it...

Now if you were in a situation such as someone doing something you don't like, and talking to that person and having that person say "watcha gonna do about it?" And you decide to tickle that person, even though they're a stranger... might be okay (or not okay but might not come off to the person as bad)

But I am sure that most people (and if you say you don't mind it, you don't count because this is a fetish site and you're probably not getting any anywhere else. 😛 )... but as I was saying, most people would object to someone coming up from behind them and tickling them when they don't know the person. So I think it's more so the situation that might get a better reaction from doing it. Some situations you just shouldn't do it, such as the one that happened to blue soda.

That is the tricky part of all this, which keeps leading to page after page of debate. That is why I ask, "is the act itself wrong?", or does it really depend on the circumstance? Like I said, I don't tickle random strangers because it is a possibility they may not like it and I don't want to offend someone. However, there are cases where they wouldn't mind. So, is the act itself wrong? Because if it is, that means it is wrong even if the stranger enjoyed it. See how tricky it is?

 

[Blue Soda]

Alright, I'm done being insulted and being tried to make feel guilty for having a visceral reaction to someone claiming women are "first and foremost, sexual objects." (Also, he's this guy: http://www.ticklingforum.com/showth...he-ass-clowns-aunt-died&p=3760187#post3760187)

This topic isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much evidence and just general moral sense is backing it up. There's really no reason for me to stick around except to raise my own anxiety levels or whatever, and I'd rather not start shouting and freaking out, because I'm not that kind of person. I shouldn't have bothered with those last couple posts.

BS, sorry you got touched in a way you didn't want to be by someone looking for a cheap thrill.

Thank you for your support Knicks. I'm sorry certain users have be trolling you. You meant well with your support and I'm sure most people on the board recognize and appreciate this.

Please, don't raise your anxiety levels on my behalf. I'll be just fine. My boyfriend suffers from frequent anxiety attacks, so I know how rough that can be. Hang in there!

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Then why did you say "So what?" when I reminded you that she said she felt violated by the incident, almost like it wasn't a big deal. Then posts and posts later, you say you're sorry that it was a negative experience.

Oh good grief. I feel like I'm explaining this to a child. It's all about context.

Yes, I said, "So, what?"

As in, "Yeah, okay, what of it? How does that fact bolster the argument you're making? Connect the dots for me, here."

It has no bearing on how I feel about Soda personally.

Alright, I'm done being insulted and being tried to feel guilty for having a visceral reaction to someone claiming women are "first and foremost, sexual objects."

You know what? If you wanted a reasonable discussion with me, you could have had it. Plenty of people have. But you didn't want that. You saw a guy hopelessly outnumbered, easy pickins, and so like a vulture you swooped in for the kill. Problem is, your attack back-fired on you, and now you're soliciting sympathy.

This topic isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much evidence and just general moral sense is backing it up.

"just general moral sense." Are we at the TMF or the Westboro Baptist Church?

That is the tricky part of all this, which keeps leading to page after page of debate. That is why I ask, "is the act itself wrong?", or does it really depend on the circumstance? Like I said, I don't tickle random strangers because it is a possibility they may not like it and I don't want to offend someone. However, there are cases where they wouldn't mind. So, is the act itself wrong? Because if it is, that means it is wrong even if the stranger enjoyed it. See how tricky it is?

Nail on the head, Prime.

I say the act itself isn't universally wrong. If the intended recipient has made it clear that any touch is unwelcome, then it's wrong. If you tickle a stranger and get a negative reaction, it's game over. But until that happens, a quick tickle is fair game.

I seriously doubt anybody has thought this through more than me. Contrary to what some insist on believing, I don't go around tickling strangers randomly. I have a screening process that in my experience dramatically decreaces the chance of a negative reaction. And in fact, I've never had a significantly negative reaction. The worst I've gotten is a "who are you" kind of look, and that was only a couple of times.

If a female stranger is tickled and enjoys it, there's been no wrong. The touch was welcome. The same goes for a lot of flirting behavior, It's a gamble. Will she respond favorably or negatively? Such is life. At the end of the day, we either take our chances or we don't.

 

[TheTickleMonster]

That is the tricky part of all this, which keeps leading to page after page of debate. That is why I ask, "is the act itself wrong?", or does it really depend on the circumstance? Like I said, I don't tickle random strangers because it is a possibility they may not like it and I don't want to offend someone. However, there are cases where they wouldn't mind. So, is the act itself wrong? Because if it is, that means it is wrong even if the stranger enjoyed it. See how tricky it is?

I don't think it's that tricky. There are times when you clearly shouldn't do it. Such as when a person is working and she is trying to hang up something so she's stretched out and vulnerable. That's what happened in this case. In my opinion you should never run up to someone you don't know, sneak up behind them and then tickle them, quick or not, run off or stay there. I think that's wrong. Now I'd be lying if I said I never tickled a stranger (or maybe the better word would be someone I just met) But I don't run up to people and start tickling them out of no where, which is what happened here. Now if you're "strangers" but you actually interacted with the person and you see an excuse to tickle them or a way in, sure.. go for it... but don't just run up to some random person you see on the street and start tickling them. That's just weird and people don't know your intentions and it can come off as creepy and make the person you're tickling uncomfortable.

And you definitely shouldn't attack people that have a problem with people randomly tickling them and just want to vent on here and then come on here to post why you think it's okay to tickle random strangers to justify your own actions.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

I say the act itself isn't universally wrong. If the intended recipient has made it clear that any touch is unwelcome, then it's wrong. If you tickle a stranger and get a negative reaction, it's game over. But until that happens, a quick tickle is fair game.

How is the person supposed to make it clear that it is unwelcome before it actually happens - wear a sign that says "don't touch me"? That's why I discussed social norms above. They're like the unwritten laws people just intuitively follow because we all have our comfort zones and personal space. So it's common sense that we should respect others' personal space.

If you do it to someone who doesn't like it and you stop, that's great, but you have already wronged them. That's why asking permission - another social norm and courtesy - would solve potentially upsetting someone. Why not just ask permission? If the person says yes, great, go ahead. You still get to tickle them, and at the same time, have 100% eliminated the chance of upsetting someone.

I seriously doubt anybody has thought this through more than me. Contrary to what some insist on believing, I don't go around tickling strangers randomly. I have a screening process that in my experience dramatically decreaces the chance of a negative reaction. And in fact, I've never had a significantly negative reaction. The worst I've gotten is a "who are you" kind of look, and that was only a couple of times.

And how does your screening process work to decrease the chance of a negative reaction? Again, the most effective screening process would be to simply ask permission. But how does yours work?

 

[primetime]

I don't think it's that tricky. There are times when you clearly shouldn't do it. Such as when a person is working and she is trying to hang up something so she's stretched out and vulnerable. That's what happened in this case. In my opinion you should never run up to someone you don't know, sneak up behind them and then tickle them, quick or not, run off or stay there. I think that's wrong. Now I'd be lying if I said I never tickled a stranger (or maybe the better word would be someone I just met) But I don't run up to people and start tickling them out of no where, which is what happened here. Now if you're "strangers" but you actually interacted with the person and you see an excuse to tickle them or a way in, sure.. go for it... but don't just run up to some random person you see on the street and start tickling them. That's just weird and people don't know your intentions and it can come off as creepy and make the person you're tickling uncomfortable.

And you definitely shouldn't attack people that have a problem with people randomly tickling them and just want to vent on here and then come on here to post why you think it's okay to tickle random strangers to justify your own actions.

But it is tricky. In that particular instance with the OP, it is "wrong" BECAUSE she didn't like it. What if the OP put up a post stating that while she was at work, some random guy tickled her while she was trying to lift something and he ran out. However, she wished he continued because it felt nice, surprising but nice. She talks about the experience in a POSITIVE matter, not a NEGATIVE one.

Now, if she did that, would it still be "wrong" that the guy tickled a random stranger? Would everyone on here tell her she was violated and she should press charges or injure the guy? Some probably would, but others would probably tell her they are happy she enjoyed that kind of contact. Let's be real. We KNOW this would happen. But because it was a NEGATIVE experience, the act itself is considered wrong in ALL cases by some people. But is it really?