Tickling strangers WITHOUT permission....WTF?

[LargerWorld2577]

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?

Hi primetime. I'd just like to say that I think the action itself is wrong because of the risk involved of making someone feel violated and upset and because it's just common sense. There are things that, if one has a conscience, you just don't do. They're not always things that can be explained in a law or list of rules. "I don't know this stranger, I don't know how they'll react, I don't want to upset them". Sure, there are people who wouldn't mind at all, but is that a justification for doing it?

If someone went around public laughing at people in wheelchairs, I would say that is wrong and you shouldn't do that because it might hurt their feelings. Maybe a few would laugh back and be a good sport, and I would still say it was wrong even though the outcome was positive. So, yes, I would say that the act is universally wrong and of bad taste. If one should do it and end up with a positive outcome, great, but you still shouldn’t do it.

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.

Ultimately, only you can decide what's right or wrong. And it seems you have. You don't participate in the action being discussed because you don't want to risk offending someone. That's your own sense of right and wrong telling you that you have a problem with this action.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

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 would work. But who says she IS supposed to make it clear that she doesn't want to be touched?

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.

That's true. Yet for nearly every rule there are exceptions, and the more "unwritten" a rule is, the greater the frequency of the exceptions. There are times and instances in which it is reasonable to step out of the box of "social norm" and take a chance. Male/female interaction involves a lot of that.

If you do it to someone who doesn't like it and you stop, that's great, but you have already wronged them.

I must compliment you on your subtle misrepresentation of how I operate. Nicely done. But to reiterate yet again, when I do this, I don't tickle a stranger continuously until they object and then cease. What I do lasts less than a second. By the time they react at all, I've already stopped. By that fact, it's not wrong because she's not established that even a quick harmless touch is unwelcome.

That's why asking permission - another social norm and courtesy - would solve potentially upsetting someone.

In no culture that I've encountered outside of the TMF chat room is it socially normal to ask permission to tickle someone. Seriously, in my real life circles of people, I've known many ticklers and not once have I seen any of them ask permission.

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.

There's a reason ticklers don't ask permission. It's inherently an aggressive act. Aggressive acts as a rule aren't preceded by a submissive request for permission. Much of the fun and enjoyment in tickling is the surprise. The "gotcha!" Asking for permission would completely spoil the moment, even if the answer is yes.

Besides, women are known to say one thing and think/feel another. I would imagine, based on my experience interacting with people for lo these many years, that most women would decline to give permission, even those who would actually welcome the tickle had it been done spontaneously.

For these reasons, I would say that asking for permission to tickle a stranger is quite likely the dumbest idea ever proposed on this forum.

Don't ask. Just tickle.

And how does your screening process work to decrease the chance of a negative reaction?

It works very well, that's how.

Again, the most effective screening process would be to simply ask permission.

Sure, if you're goal is to screen out every and all chance to tickle a stranger.

But how does yours work?

With a surprising degree of success. That's the best way I can describe it.

You don't need to know all the nuts and bolts behind my screening process. What you need to take from this is that I DO have one, and that it works very well, and that the fact that I've gone to so much trouble to perfect it over the years is a testimony that I do consider the feelings of those who might not welcome the touch.

Sure I could take the easy way out and just implement a blanket policy of never ever tickling a stranger. But unlike you, I also consider the feelings of those women who would welcome a tickle by a stranger, perhaps even fantasize about it. So my way considers the needs of both, instead of just deciding that this one group is the only one deserving of consideration.

 

[Myriads]

You know, every time this topic comes around it always boils down to one basic question:

When is is appropriate and not appropriate to instigate physical contact with another person?

And because it falls back on that question, there are a handful of conditions that influence the answer:

1) What is the context the two people are embedded in?
2) What is the level of connection between the people (Strangers? Friends, In between?)
3) What is the current cultural normative rules involving contact and personal space.

Aspects 1 and 2 can vary a lot. Is it a venue where flirting is on the table? Are they friends who have familiarity? Etc. These make a big impact.

But #3 is the real decider. Cultural norms shift. In the last 40 years there has been a substantial one in the US regarding personal space and contact. Where once reaching out and tickling, slapping an ass, and so forth was considered to be somewhat crass horseplay, but culturally acceptable one set of unspoken public rules held. But as the 70's flipped into the 80's and beyond, things shifted to a Don't touch without permission outlook. In fact it mirrored the rape education that was instituted into colleges in the 80's which really accelerated the change.

DontAsk is a champion of the older perspective, and I wager that he's at least 40 if not older. He grew up in a different cultural frame work, and when he did his outlook and actions fit it. And he had success with it. But the frame has shifted in the passing years, and now his outlook, much like the folks that want to smoke in restraunt and so forth, is at odds with the new norm his society has adapted.

His experience tells him that this behavior pattern worked for him, and got him the goods. But the culture is now saying that his behavior has moved to the 'oaf' category shared by those that light up in restraints and public spaces, or slap passing waitresses asses. So he sees friction and the thread replies we have here.

Leaving Connection and Context out of things, Things Have Changed and new rules are active. Does it suck if you loved the old cultural rules? Yup. But the tides are strong, and eventually those that disagree get marginalized and sometimes hammered down by the changed culture.

Most folks outrage here in the thread is one of reflexive defense of the group that they identify with (ticklers). "This guy makes us all look bad. He doesn't follow the cultural rules that are now here, and that makes everyone think the worst of all of us." and thus the venom and force of reply.

Just remember, you never could get Grandpa to stop calling your African-American friends those other words, or Mom to get why those tight clothes you loved to wear were perfectly fine. Same deal here. A position has been picked based on when it was formed, and it will stick until something actively teaches that it's an un-good one to hold. Which might be never, or might be the woman who is a black belt something, who instinctively removes a few teeth or an eye when she is touched by surprise, and without consent.

Myriads

 

[LargerWorld2577]

That would work. But who says she IS supposed to make it clear that she doesn't want to be touched?

It has nothing to do with anyone saying the person is supposed to do this or that. My point is that there are people out there who would get upset by it. And there's no way to know who will and who won't until you either ask or go ahead and do it. Asking would be the conscientious thing to do so you make sure the person is okay with it.

I must compliment you on your subtle misrepresentation of how I operate. Nicely done. But to reiterate yet again, when I do this, I don't tickle a stranger continuously until they object and then cease. What I do lasts less than a second. By the time they react at all, I've already stopped. By that fact, it's not wrong because she's not established that even a quick harmless touch is unwelcome.

You said "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." Whether you do it continuously or just for a second, the person has not had a chance to establish that it is unwelcome until after it happens. And it's not just a harmless touch if it ends up making the person feel violated or uncomfortable.

"But until that happens, a quick tickle is fair game." - And when wouldn't it be fair game? When the person lets you know that it is unwelcome? Well, that would only be able to happen after you do it and get a reaction. Or, you could find out beforehand if they'd be okay with it or not. It's fair game for you no matter what, if you're talking about doing it without asking.

There's a reason ticklers don't ask permission. It's inherently an aggressive act. Aggressive acts as a rule aren't preceded by a submissive request for permission. Much of the fun and enjoyment in tickling is the surprise. The "gotcha!" Asking for permission would completely spoil the moment, even if the answer is yes.

Besides, women are known to say one thing and think/feel another. I would imagine, based on my experience interacting with people for lo these many years, that most women would decline to give permission, even those who would actually welcome the tickle had it been done spontaneously.

For these reasons, I would say that asking for permission to tickle a stranger is quite likely the dumbest idea ever proposed on this forum.

Don't ask. Just tickle.

And if the person happens to not like it, like the person who started this thread, then it's only fun and enjoyable for the person doing the tickling. It's selfish to put your desire to enjoy "the moment" above the personal space and body of a complete stranger because "the moment" is more important to you than doing everything you can, like asking permission, to avoid an outcome like the one Blue Soda described.

In no culture that I've encountered outside of the TMF chat room is it socially normal to ask permission to tickle someone. Seriously, in my real life circles of people, I've known many ticklers and not once have I seen any of them ask permission.

I'm saying that asking permission in general is a courteous, considerate, and conscientious thing to do. Asking if you can sit in a chair and if it's not taken. Asking if you can use someone's belongings. But when it comes to a complete stranger's own body, asking to touch is a dumb idea?

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Just remember, you never could get Grandpa to stop calling your African-American friends those other words, or Mom to get why those tight clothes you loved to wear were perfectly fine. Same deal here. A position has been picked based on when it was formed, and it will stick until something actively teaches that it's an un-good one to hold. Which might be never, or might be the woman who is a black belt something, who instinctively removes a few teeth or an eye when she is touched by surprise, and without consent.

I'm in my mid 50s, as a matter of fact, and while your psychological profile is impressive, I don't find it all that accurate. You see I have modified my behavior to keep up with the times. Granted, a lot of the motivation behind that is pure CYA, but regardless of the reason, I have adapted my behavior rather than to shake an angry fist and insist on living in the past.

In times past, if I liked a girl, I'd tickle her one way or another with little concern for her wishes. When buzz phrases like "sexual harassment" started gaining momentum, I knew I had to either stop tickling strangers altogether, or work on a method that helps preclude negative reactions. I chose the latter, and altered my behavior to fit with today's culture.

It has nothing to do with anyone saying the person is supposed to do this or that.

Yes, I'm afraid it does. You asked "How is the person supposed to make it clear that it is unwelcome before it actually happens?"

Your question comes with the assumption that she's "supposed to make it clear that the touch is unwelcome," and you want to know how she's supposed to accomplish this requirement. I'm asking you, on what do you base this assumption? From where comes the requirement that she must do this?

My point is that there are people out there who would get upset by it.

Gee, is that your point? You've only said it like a hundred times.

And it's not just a harmless touch if it ends up making the person feel violated or uncomfortable.

A feeling of discomfort does not equal harm. A feeling of being violated does not equal harm. So yes, even though Blue Soda felt uncomfortable and/or violated, she suffered no harm.

"But until that happens, a quick tickle is fair game." - And when wouldn't it be fair game? When the person lets you know that it is unwelcome? Well, that would only be able to happen after you do it and get a reaction.

Yes, and assuming for the moment she's not okay with it, it's no big deal because she'll never have to "suffer" that mild annoyance again, at least from me.

And if the person happens to not like it, like the person who started this thread, then it's only fun and enjoyable for the person doing the tickling.

Not really. It's not very enjoyable to see that I've not achieved my goal of giving her a pleasant surprise. I would not consider that a success, but rather a failure.

It's selfish to put your desire to enjoy "the moment" above the personal space and body of a complete stranger because "the moment" is more important to you than doing everything you can, like asking permission, to avoid an outcome like the one Blue Soda described.

It's not my mission in life nor my responsibility to "do everything I can" to insure somebody else's comfort zone.

My priorities are my own and not subject to your approval.

I'm saying that asking permission in general is a courteous, considerate, and conscientious thing to do. Asking if you can sit in a chair and if it's not taken. Asking if you can use someone's belongings. But when it comes to a complete stranger's own body, asking to touch is a dumb idea?

Yes. Dumb. And I've already explained why.

 

[helplessandhappy]

A feeling of discomfort does not equal harm. A feeling of being violated does not equal harm. So yes, even though Blue Soda felt uncomfortable and/or violated, she suffered no harm.

Haha...wow. Just...wow.

 

[magic fingers]

I can't believe this thread hasn't been put out of it's misery. We could drag this out for the next year, but the fact remains, Blue Soda was tickled by a stranger, and it freaked her out and pissed her off. I can't see why some people don't understand why she would be angry and yes "violated". I know that might sound a little melodramatic, but if you touch a female stranger, inappropriately(whether it's tickling her ribs/feet, grabbing her butt, touching her knee, etc), especially while she's working, she will feel violated, and you better get ready for at the very least a slap in the face. It's not Political Correctness, it's simply acting like an adult. And yes, as I said previously, it's generally different w/guys being touched by female strangers for obvious reasons.

Also consider, you don't know the girls mindset, or issues. She may have has a history of sexual abuse, may have been molested as a kid, etc. I don't mean to bring up such ugly subjects, but the bottom line is this - if you don't know a young lady, don't touch her inappropriately. Case closed! I know some people have said they've done it in the past and it was cool, but in today's world, believe me, it's not cool, and if seven pages of arguments haven't changed anyone's mind, then this thread is going nowhere

 

[coldneck]

English Major ??? Riiiight.

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.

Looking at the sentence structure, grammar and punctuation of this post, I would suggest you seek a refund from whatever institute of higher learning granted you a ... oh wait ... you said "English Major" not College Graduate, but that doesn't really make much of a difference.

Your English Comp 101 teacher would FAIL you. Or *FacePalm*

So it (kind of) automatically disqualifies your self-proclaimed credentials.
Real English majors know how to create something called "paragraphs".

Kind of like when someone calls you a "stupid moran" online.

 

[knicks255]

Looking at the sentence structure, grammar and punctuation of this post, I would suggest you seek a refund from whatever institute of higher learning granted you a ... oh wait ... you said "English Major" not College Graduate, but that doesn't really make much of a difference.

Your English Comp 101 teacher would FAIL you. Or *FacePalm*

So it (kind of) automatically disqualifies your self-proclaimed credentials.
Real English majors know how to create something called "paragraphs".

Kind of like when someone calls you a "stupid moran" online.

I just got insulted by the #notips guy! I feel like a million bucks. None of it tipped, of course. MASS GAINS.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Yes, I'm afraid it does. You asked "How is the person supposed to make it clear that it is unwelcome before it actually happens?"

Your question comes with the assumption that she's "supposed to make it clear that the touch is unwelcome," and you want to know how she's supposed to accomplish this requirement. I'm asking you, on what do you base this assumption? From where comes the requirement that she must do this?

I should rephrase the question, then. You're right, it does come with the assumption of requirement. It's just one of those sayings (ex. "How am I supposed to do this?" "How do you suppose we do that?")

How does one make it clear that they do not welcome being touched by a total stranger until after it happens? But it's more of a rhetorical question. Again, you said, "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." My point is that there really is no practical or sensible way to make this clear until after it happens. But on the part of the person doing the action, the considerate thing to do would be to ask permission. But instead, you would rather risk upsetting the person, maintain that it was wrong should the person become upset AFTER you touch them, while still maintaining that YOU did nothing wrong because they never had a chance to establish that it was unwelcome since you did not ask if they'd be okay with it. You don't seem to want to take responsibility for your actions.

A feeling of discomfort does not equal harm. A feeling of being violated does not equal harm. So yes, even though Blue Soda felt uncomfortable and/or violated, she suffered no harm.

Also consider, you don't know the girls mindset, or issues. She may have has a history of sexual abuse, may have been molested as a kid, etc.

There are other kinds of harm besides physical harm. Magic fingers brings up a great point that I've brought up before. What about psychological harm? Do you ever think of the fact that your "recipient" may have been sexually abused? You don't know if Blue Soda, or anyone who has been touched by a total stranger, has felt harm from those experiences in other ways beyond physical harm.

Not really. It's not very enjoyable to see that I've not achieved my goal of giving her a pleasant surprise. I would not consider that a success, but rather a failure.

So touching people without their permission to you is only about whether you succeed or fail? You don't care about how they feel about having their personal space violated, correct? If it's unpleasant for them, that's a failure only because it was YOUR goal to make it pleasant?

It's not my mission in life nor my responsibility to "do everything I can" to insure somebody else's comfort zone.

My priorities are my own and not subject to your approval.

I never said it was your mission or responsibility. What I have said is that it's inconsiderate and selfish to put your priorities and goals above respecting people's personal space and considering that some may not wish to be touched like that. Truly considerate and empathetic people go out of their way to make sure their actions will not negatively affect other people.

If you had a shred of compassion, you'd support what I do.

How would supporting you tickling strangers without permission for the purpose of giving them a pleasant surprise mean that I have compassion?

 

[Myriads]

A feeling of discomfort does not equal harm. A feeling of being violated does not equal harm. So yes, even though Blue Soda felt uncomfortable and/or violated, she suffered no harm.

A small note. The definition of harm has shifted in the past few decades also. Where it didn't include emotional and psychological aspects in the heyday of your outlooks formation, it has very much picked up those aspects in the past twenty years. There is a fair body of law based around the concept of mental harm through actions and behavior now.

Starting in the 90's the courts started recognizing the idea of inflicted mental harm. It happens to people who are bullied. It is symptomatic of people who have been raped or suffer ptsd. The base concept is that by subjecting a person to emotionally reacting to an action you take toward them, you have inflicted mental anguish and harm on them.

This is the legal reaction to the changed atmosphere of social personal space, and touching rules in our culture. A recognition that a violation of it can indeed be harmful.

You say changed your behavior to CYA with relation to servicing your fetish desires, so it would be easy to miss this compassionate aspect of how things changed. Your viewpoint was about what bad could happen to you because of your actions, an inward looking perspective, while understanding what your action can do to others, an outward looking perspective never seems to have crossed your mind.

Whom we think of first in our actions, ourselves or others is telling.

Myriads

 

[TheTickleMonster]

I should rephrase the question, then. You're right, it does come with the assumption of requirement. It's just one of those sayings (ex. "How am I supposed to do this?" "How do you suppose we do that?")

How does one make it clear that they do not welcome being touched by a total stranger until after it happens? But it's more of a rhetorical question. Again, you said, "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." My point is that there really is no practical or sensible way to make this clear until after it happens. But on the part of the person doing the action, the considerate thing to do would be to ask permission. But instead, you would rather risk upsetting the person, maintain that it was wrong should the person become upset AFTER you touch them, while still maintaining that YOU did nothing wrong because they never had a chance to establish that it was unwelcome since you did not ask if they'd be okay with it. You don't seem to want to take responsibility for your actions.

I like this... maybe this is the only way for him to understand it's wrong to just tickle random strangers...

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Haha...wow. Just...wow.

Interesting. That's almost exactly how I react to virtually every post I see from you. However I generally don't post that reaction unless I actually have something substantive to go along with it.

I can't believe this thread hasn't been put out of it's misery.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying it should be closed? That the overseers should decide that this topic will not be discussed? That doesn't sound like you, man.

We could drag this out for the next year, but the fact remains, Blue Soda was tickled by a stranger, and it freaked her out and pissed her off. I can't see why some people don't understand why she would be angry and yes "violated".

I don't see anybody in the thread criticizing her reaction or her feelings, although I do believe "violated" is a tad extreme. What I can't accept is the notion that her reaction is the default normal reaction to expect, especially when my experience tells me quite the opposite.

Also consider, you don't know the girls mindset, or issues. She may have has a history of sexual abuse, may have been molested as a kid, etc.

I don't see how that applies here. I mean, that would be a fine point if we were discussing grabbing the breasts or ass of a complete stranger. I don't see a quick tickle to her side as any more sexually invasive than a tap on the shoulder, which probably has about as much chance of traumatizing an unrecovered rape victim as the quick tickle.

Case closed! I know some people have said they've done it in the past and it was cool, but in today's world, believe me, it's not cool, and if seven pages of arguments haven't changed anyone's mind, then this thread is going nowhere

I respectfully disagree. A conversation should resolve itself of it's own volition. If you object to the discussion, simply decline to participate.

How does one make it clear that they do not welcome being touched by a total stranger until after it happens?

By simply saying, "Hey, I don't like to be touched. Please don't do that again."

My point is that there really is no practical or sensible way to make this clear until after it happens.

That's true. I mean, sure, it would be nice to go through life knowing that people will automatically know what your pet peave is. The reality is, people aren't mind readers. You have to tell them, if it's THAT important to you.

There are other kinds of harm besides physical harm. Magic fingers brings up a great point that I've brought up before. What about psychological harm? Do you ever think of the fact that your "recipient" may have been sexually abused? You don't know if Blue Soda, or anyone who has been touched by a total stranger, has felt harm from those experiences in other ways beyond physical harm.

I don't assume sexual abuse for anybody. And even if I did, a history of abuse does not automatically translate to a revulsion to human touch, so it's a pointless argument.

So touching people without their permission to you is only about whether you succeed or fail?

No.

You don't care about how they feel about having their personal space violated, correct?

Incorrect. If I know how somebody feels about her personal space, I will usually try to honor it if it's reasonable.

As for "violating" personal space, I'm not even sure that's a valid term. It depends on the person and the situation. For example, if someone were drowning, I would "violate" her personal space in order to rescue her. If a woman were sitting in the park reading, I would sit a respectable distance from her.

If it's unpleasant for them, that's a failure only because it was YOUR goal to make it pleasant?

Yes. I set that goal because that's how much I care about them. I want the experience to be enjoyable for them as well as for me.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that!

I never said it was your mission or responsibility.

You criticized me for not doing "everything you can" to avoid an instance similar to what Blue Soda experienced. In order to do "everything I can" I would have to make that my mission in life. To do less wouldn't be "everything I can," since I can certainly do that.

What I have said is that it's inconsiderate and selfish to put your priorities and goals above respecting people's personal space and considering that some may not wish to be touched like that.

You look at it as an all or nothing kind of deal. According to the principles of compassion you've set forth in this thread, one must live an entirely selfless life putting everybody else's needs before one's own. If he considers his own needs or desires at all, well then he's a selfish, insensitive, center of the universe narcissist, without a shred of compassion for anybody else in the world.

Like everything else in the world, there's a balance between these two extremes that you seem reluctant to acknowledge. At some point, we must give priority to self. For every meal that we eat, there is somebody not that far away who needs it far more. Anything of value that we own could be sold or donated to help out the poor. But we eat and we keep our nice things, because everybody to some degree or other puts their own wants and needs above those of others.

But we also do have compassion and consideration, some more than others. I've given to charities, I've done volunteer work, I've rescued numerous animals. And for the record, I do tip at least 20% always. But I enjoy my big screen TV, my Paul Reed Smith guitar, and other nice things. I'm comfortable with the balance I've maintained between total selflessness and total selfishness.

Truly considerate and empathetic people go out of their way to make sure their actions will not negatively affect other people.

None of us are entirely altruistic, and for this reason, nobody among us except Jesus Christ has the moral high ground from which to dictate who is "truly considerate."

Plus, your brand of "true consideration" only benefits those who would object to being tickled by a stranger. Mine benefits them as was as those who would welcome it.

A small note. The definition of harm has shifted in the past few decades also. Where it didn't include emotional and psychological aspects in the heyday of your outlooks formation, it has very much picked up those aspects in the past twenty years. There is a fair body of law based around the concept of mental harm through actions and behavior now.

Starting in the 90's the courts started recognizing the idea of inflicted mental harm. It happens to people who are bullied. It is symptomatic of people who have been raped or suffer ptsd. The base concept is that by subjecting a person to emotionally reacting to an action you take toward them, you have inflicted mental anguish and harm on them.

This is the legal reaction to the changed atmosphere of social personal space, and touching rules in our culture. A recognition that a violation of it can indeed be harmful.

You say changed your behavior to CYA with relation to servicing your fetish desires, so it would be easy to miss this compassionate aspect of how things changed. Your viewpoint was about what bad could happen to you because of your actions, an inward looking perspective, while understanding what your action can do to others, an outward looking perspective never seems to have crossed your mind.

Whom we think of first in our actions, ourselves or others is telling.

Myriads

Yes, there have been many disturbing trends in today's legal world, and a lot of frivolity. This whole "bullying on Facebook" fiasco is a prime example of how ridiculous things are getting.

But even in this topsy turvy world of changing and shifting definitions, Webster still defines "harm" as physical or mental DAMAGE. Something has to be damaged, and to me this suggests something a little more significant than somebody's wish to be touch free.

Lastly, I have first hand experience in seeing how much some people enjoyed the surprise tickle. I have been rewarded with far more smiles of joy than frowns of "ewww." You can look down your nose at what I do all you like, and you'll get lots of nods of approval from others who share your particular world view, but I'm speaking from personal experience while the rest of you are simply parroting each other.

 

[Myriads]

Yes, there have been many disturbing trends in today's legal world, and a lot of frivolity. This whole "bullying on Facebook" fiasco is a prime example of how ridiculous things are getting.

But even in this topsy turvy world of changing and shifting definitions, Webster still defines "harm" as physical or mental DAMAGE. Something has to be damaged, and to me this suggests something a little more significant than somebody's wish to be touch free.

Lastly, I have first hand experience in seeing how much some people enjoyed the surprise tickle. I have been rewarded with far more smiles of joy than frowns of "ewww." You can look down your nose at what I do all you like, and you'll get lots of nods of approval from others who share your particular world view, but I'm speaking from personal experience while the rest of you are simply parroting each other.

Falling back on a dictionary definition of a term, when you are dealing with a social and cultural context is a pretty flimsy way to put lipstick on the pig of your actions. The law, and more importantly real people in the ground don't give two figs on Websters latest definition of a word. What they do care about is what real actions happened and how people respond to them. The "But officer Webster's said it's not assault defense isn't going to work well."

I have no doubt that you got some good responses. In fact the huge majority of people that you pull the surprise tickle behavior on will probably not be troubled by your actions. But a measurable percentage of the population WILL, and there is no way to sift that group out of the greater population that does't care, or will be positive in response. And thus you can't know the response you'll pull out of the hat until you act. And if you get the negative response then you have 'done harm' and violated a persons space and body.

In your psychological math, the fact that a small percent of people with be troubled by your actions is a 'cost' you are willing to accept for the positive strokes of the good responses you get, and the personal pleasure you get in engaging in your specific branch of tickling paraphilia (surprise response). That is what people are responding to. They see your reasoning and actions as selfish, and unmindful of how you might make your targets feel. That you KNOW some will be troubled, yet still act is what people are down on you for.

It reads as callous and selfish. About you. It objectifies your targets completely. And that probably twigs some folks responses.

As for speaking from personal experience, as a temp grief/suicide counselor, I'm speaking from close to 30 years of direct experience of talking to folks who have often been upset by things that have come at them totally by surprise. I KNOW there is a percent of the population that is very very very touch adverse, and the very idea of someone touching their person without permission makes them ill. And they all have their own reasons for it. I'm parroting no one here.

The fact that you get even a majority of positive responses, doesn't absolve the 'harm' you do if you pull a bad one. You are employing morality math. If I do 'x' good things, then I'm covered when I do a bad thing, or my actions are justified as I've done 'a greater good for the whole'. But morality is not a exchange. It's all or nothing each time you deploy it.

Myriads

 

[helplessandhappy]

As for speaking from personal experience, as a temp grief/suicide counselor, I'm speaking from close to 30 years of direct experience of talking to folks who have often been upset by things that have come at them totally by surprise. I KNOW there is a percent of the population that is very very very touch adverse, and the very idea of someone touching their person without permission makes them ill. And they all have their own reasons for it. I'm parroting no one here.

I'm obviously one of them, so thank you for acknowledging that.

The fact that you get even a majority of positive responses, doesn't absolve the 'harm' you do if you pull a bad one. You are employing morality math. If I do 'x' good things, then I'm covered when I do a bad thing, or my actions are justified as I've done 'a greater good for the whole'. But morality is not a exchange. It's all or nothing each time you deploy it.

Myriads

Exactly. It would be like saying it's okay to murder one hooker a year because you donate $100,000 to a charity that helps support women. It's total insanity. Life doesn't work that way.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

By simply saying, "Hey, I don't like to be touched. Please don't do that again."

That's true. I mean, sure, it would be nice to go through life knowing that people will automatically know what your pet peave is. The reality is, people aren't mind readers. You have to tell them, if it's THAT important to you.

I said how does one make it clear that it’s not welcome until AFTER it happens? “Don’t do that AGAIN” implies that you have already touched the person. Unless they wear a sign or shirt that says “Don’t touch me” or they turn around every two seconds announcing it, then there is no way to avoid being touched by people such as yourself who go right ahead without asking which eliminates their chance to establish that it’s unwelcome. It’s an unfair shift of responsibility.

I don't assume sexual abuse for anybody. And even if I did, a history of abuse does not automatically translate to a revulsion to human touch, so it's a pointless argument.

As for speaking from personal experience, as a temp grief/suicide counselor, I'm speaking from close to 30 years of direct experience of talking to folks who have often been upset by things that have come at them totally by surprise. I KNOW there is a percent of the population that is very very very touch adverse, and the very idea of someone touching their person without permission makes them ill. And they all have their own reasons for it. I'm parroting no one here.

Myriads is right. And again, “revulsion to human touch” is completely vague and a generalization that misses the point altogether that, like I’ve said before, there are different situations where being touched by strangers is acceptable and expected vs. unacceptable and unexpected. A sexual abuse victim would expect to be jostled on a crowded train but should not expect nor be okay with being deliberately touched by a stranger while they’re working at a bakery, taking a walk, etc.

Incorrect. If I know how somebody feels about her personal space, I will usually try to honor it if it's reasonable.

As for "violating" personal space, I'm not even sure that's a valid term. It depends on the person and the situation. For example, if someone were drowning, I would "violate" her personal space in order to rescue her. If a woman were sitting in the park reading, I would sit a respectable distance from her.

How do you KNOW how people feel about their personal space unless you know the person or you ask? The strangers you tickle don’t get a chance to establish how they feel until after you touch them. But you said you have a screening process to eliminate the chance of negative reactions, so I ask again, what is your screening process and in what way is it more effective than just asking permission?

You criticized me for not doing "everything you can" to avoid an instance similar to what Blue Soda experienced. In order to do "everything I can" I would have to make that my mission in life. To do less wouldn't be "everything I can," since I can certainly do that.

Doing everything you can to avoid upsetting people in this case really isn’t all that much and wouldn’t be comparable to making it a “life mission”. Simply asking permission before you touch someone’s body is not only easy but it’s the considerate and respectful thing to do.

Yes. I set that goal because that's how much I care about them. I want the experience to be enjoyable for them as well as for me.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that!

You look at it as an all or nothing kind of deal. According to the principles of compassion you've set forth in this thread, one must live an entirely selfless life putting everybody else's needs before one's own. If he considers his own needs or desires at all, well then he's a selfish, insensitive, center of the universe narcissist, without a shred of compassion for anybody else in the world.

Like everything else in the world, there's a balance between these two extremes that you seem reluctant to acknowledge. At some point, we must give priority to self. For every meal that we eat, there is somebody not that far away who needs it far more. Anything of value that we own could be sold or donated to help out the poor. But we eat and we keep our nice things, because everybody to some degree or other puts their own wants and needs above those of others.

Yes, we must take care of ourselves before we help others. We must feed ourselves so we have the energy to help feed others. In an airplane emergency, you secure your own oxygen mask first before you help others. But those needs vs. your need to tickle random strangers because you “care about them” and “want the experience to be enjoyable for them” are not even comparable.

Plus, your brand of "true consideration" only benefits those who would object to being tickled by a stranger. Mine benefits them as was as those who would welcome it.

How are you being considerate of those who do NOT welcome it?

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Exactly. It would be like saying it's okay to murder one hooker a year because you donate $100,000 to a charity that helps support women. It's total insanity. Life doesn't work that way.

I understand and acknowledge the point you're making and know you are in no way saying tickling is the same as murder. You're just using an extreme case to make a point - a lot of people do. Before DontAsk jumps on you for comparing murder to tickling, I'd just like to let everyone know that in a private message from last year, he compared tickling to terrorist attacks, car explosions and manslaughter car accidents to make HIS point.

 

[enabler]

This is equal to goosing someone and way out of line. On a side note, it's interesting how a simple request for affirmation that something is unacceptable somehow turned into a massive pseudo-philosophical debate ranging from literacy to abstract psychology to murder.

It's simple: don't touch strangers in way that has a significant chance of making them feel uncomfortable

Solved

 

[primetime]

Once again, would this thread be this long and debated this much IF the OP LIKED the experience? Would it be "wrong" if the person enjoyed the interaction?

That's where the whole debate comes down to. What is really "right" or "wrong" in this situation? To me, it is "wrong" if the target didn't enjoy it (which the OP didn't), but had she enjoyed it, I highly doubt we would have had people tell the OP that what happened to her was "wrong"...

So, is it really wrong? If so, it must be wrong in ALL instances. That is why you can't make a blanket, "it is wrong to tickle random strangers"...

 

[helplessandhappy]

I think it's 100 percent wrong in all circumstances no matter how the person reacts. The reaction takes place after the action and is separate from the action itself.

 

[Hemmen]

This is equal to goosing someone and way out of line. On a side note, it's interesting how a simple request for affirmation that something is unacceptable somehow turned into a massive pseudo-philosophical debate ranging from literacy to abstract psychology to murder.

It's simple: don't touch strangers in way that has a significant chance of making them feel uncomfortable

Solved

This, exactly. Not touching strangers - and I mean total strangers, not people with whom you've struck up a conversation, as in the examples DontAsk gave - should be a no-brainer. It's almost unfathomable why anyone would advocate it; especially in this case. It's one thing to do it flirtatiously with someone who seems receptive, but another to tickle a completely unknown woman and then dash off without further interaction. The fact that anyone would defend the latter action is hardly testimony to their character.

Having said that, I admit I don't really understand the "asking permission" angle, either. Do any of you actually say, when talking to a girl (or guy), say "May I tickle you?" You'll excuse me if I don't find that too credible.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Having said that, I admit I don't really understand the "asking permission" angle, either. Do any of you actually say, when talking to a girl (or guy), say "May I tickle you?" You'll excuse me if I don't find that too credible.

I've only advocated asking permission when dealing with total strangers. I'm talking about asking permission vs. just walking into a bakery and touching someone. Of course it's silly to ask permission if you know the person or have established a connection. But by then, they're not strangers anymore. My point in asking permission in a situation like the one described in the bakery is that it gives the person a chance to say no if they don't want it.

 

[helplessandhappy]

I understand and acknowledge the point you're making and know you are in no way saying tickling is the same as murder. You're just using an extreme case to make a point - a lot of people do. Before DontAsk jumps on you for comparing murder to tickling, I'd just like to let everyone know that in a private message from last year, he compared tickling to terrorist attacks, car explosions and manslaughter car accidents to make HIS point.

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

Having said that, I admit I don't really understand the "asking permission" angle, either. Do any of you actually say, when talking to a girl (or guy), say "May I tickle you?" You'll excuse me if I don't find that too credible.

Of course you don't ask permission! That would be creepy as hell. Not violating, but still creepy and completely lacking social boundaries.

There are certain things you just don't do if you're a normal human being and tickling complete strangers is one of them.

 

[GirlWhoLikes2Laugh]

Yeah, I think that guy tickling you was inappropriate. That's probably why he ran away so fast.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Once again, would this thread be this long and debated this much IF the OP LIKED the experience? Would it be "wrong" if the person enjoyed the interaction?

That's where the whole debate comes down to. What is really "right" or "wrong" in this situation? To me, it is "wrong" if the target didn't enjoy it (which the OP didn't), but had she enjoyed it, I highly doubt we would have had people tell the OP that what happened to her was "wrong"...

So, is it really wrong? If so, it must be wrong in ALL instances. That is why you can't make a blanket, "it is wrong to tickle random strangers"...

My whole point of declaring an action universally wrong in all instances is out of consideration for those who would NOT want it, simple as that. It's taking the risk of negatively affecting someone that makes it always wrong, in my opinion. Again, there certainly are people who WOULD be okay with it but is that a justification? Again, taking my example of laughing at handicapped people, I don't care if a few laughed it off and took it well. If some even came on a forum and said they enjoyed being made fun of, I would still say it was wrong.