Tickling strangers WITHOUT permission....WTF?

[primetime]

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.

But would the person who enjoyed it, in their own eyes see it as "wrong"?

 

[primetime]

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.

So if the person enjoyed it, you would tell them, "that was wrong what happened to you!"

 

[LargerWorld2577]

So if the person enjoyed it, you would tell them, "that was wrong what happened to you!"

Yes, honestly I would. But in the end, if they're okay with it, that's all that matters. But I would still maintain that doing that was wrong because you never know if you will upset someone.

 

[Hemmen]

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.

My take is that you don't do it either way. You don't touch a total stranger in the first place, but literally asking that stranger's permission really wouldn't make it less invasive.

Or, what helplessandhappy said; asking permission would be "creepy and lacking social boundaries." It's not that much better than tickling them against their will.

 

[helplessandhappy]

It's wrong no matter if they enjoyed it or not. Like I said before, the reaction doesn't take place until after the action. The action and the reaction are two separate things. I'm sure there is someone out there with the fantasy of being tickled by a complete stranger, and this doesn't make it okay. There are women with rape fantasies too. Doesn't mean you should just go around raping and then say it's all good because one out of a 1000 tries you might come across someone who got off on it.

Either way, I've never really believed the stuff DAJT says on here. The number of regular people out there who would be at all okay with a stranger tickling them, let alone THANK the stranger for "brightening their day," has to be extremely small. I've never in my life witnessed someone tickle a stranger and most people don't like being tickled period, even by people they like. It's just ridiculous.

 

[EnchantedTKLR]

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?

I've never had that happen to me, but that person obviously didn't have any sort of impulse control at that moment; I am sorry you experienced that. Some people just don't know what the boundaries are when it comes to public interaction. It's considered socially unacceptable to touch or perform actions on others (sexual or not) that you don't know when they are alive (conscious or not). There are exceptions to every rule, of course (CPR, for instance when the person is dead and you are trying to save their life). The action you may take on that stranger may not be wrong in itself, but doing so to a total stranger is just not a bright idea (the tickling thing). 🙂 I have no problem with people bumping and sliding up against me in a crowded bar. I have no problem with someone touching my back, shoulder, or arm to say "hello" and get my attention because it is a very loud environment and they can't get in front of me to wave or say something. I'm not going to make a big deal out of something like that. I'm pretty open and friendly. Some people will make a big deal out of it; Everyone is different. I do have an issue with someone touching me and running away and I have no idea who they were and what their motive was. At the end of the day, I am going to laugh it off with my friends. When people touch others, they do so at their own risk. There could be zero consequences up to legal ramifications depending upon what you do. Some people may get that upset about it. Touching someone in any manner and running off is ... silly. I like to play it safe and NOT do those things. If I don't know you, I am NOT touching you. Bad idea. Danger Will Robinson. What that guy did was creepy. The end. 🙂

 

[FootballGuy]

This thread has really descended into madness. How can anyone think it's ok to randomly tickle somebody? If some sort of contact/flirting is established then maybe but c'mon... randomly tickling some girl and running away is creepy as fuck.

 

[Hemmen]

Are you surprised, though? It's always the same handful of posters who argue it's not creepy as fuck, and then bully anyone who disagrees. Why they're allowed to do this is beyond me.

 

[primetime]

Here's the issue I have with all of this. You can't make it a blanket "wrong" on all circumstances. What happened to the OP, yeah, it was a bit odd to say the least. But to make ALL instances wrong is just plain stupid. For example, I see a woman that is attractive to me. I have no idea who this woman is, so that makes her a "random stranger". I approach up behind her and give a small, quick tickle to get her attention. Not a "jump on her and tickle the living bejeebus out of her" tickle, but an "attention" tickle. She may or may not be ticklish, but I stroke my fingers to get her attention.

She turns around, I meet her. She talks to me and we go from there. Now, I just gave a random "tickle" to this "stranger". It is the same as me tapping her on the shoulder to get her attention. Did I just do "wrong" by her?

 

[helplessandhappy]

Yes, you did wrong. I will always have the opinion that this is 100 percent wrong in all circumstances.

We're never going to agree, but it's your life and your choices to make. None of us can stop anyone from doing this, obviously.

 

[primetime]

Yes, you did wrong. I will always have the opinion that this is 100 percent wrong in all circumstances.

We're never going to agree, but it's your life and your choices to make. None of us can stop anyone from doing this, obviously.

But HOW did I do wrong? Just because it was a tickle? Why is tapping the shoulder ok, but not the very small, very light "tickle"? We are not going to agree, but I would like to see how it is wrong in 100% of situations. It is not. This is a "tickle" not a "breast grab". Big difference.

The difference? Only to us "tickle folks" is tickling considered sexual. But to "vanillas", tickling is a form of play. But breast grabbing is pretty much sexual contact, but tickling is not necessarily sexual. That is why you can't say it is 100% wrong.

 

[duderino84]

It should be really easy. If you don't know the person, hands off.

I'm not saying a big official friendship, I mean strangers don't tickle strangers. Not without introduction.

 

[helplessandhappy]

Because tickling causes an intense and uncontrollable response in the human body and being tapped on the shoulder does not. That response can feel very degrading/confusing/stimulating/upsetting/embarrassing/annoying and so on depending on the person it's being done to. it's completely unpredictable, but it almost always causes an intense reaction. It may not be sexual to everyone, but that is not the only issue that dictates whether or not it causes harm.

I've had multiple friends who are not aroused by tickling, instead they get panic attacks from it. They hate it, and being tickled by a stranger would upset them very much. Something doesn't have to turn you on for it to be upsetting and make you feel a loss of control.

 

[TheTicklist]

I'm going to try a different tack on this..

To those who think it might be okay, let me pose a hypothetical. Suppose your mom, sister, girlfriend, or wife comes home from the mall and says "Some guy snuck up and tickled me. For no reason. And I didn't know him. "

Now, knowing what you know about yourself, and if you are honest, you tickle because it gives you a boner. So this stranger tickled your loved one because he was one of us and wanted to be, or was, turned on. He was acting on his fetish and walked away from her turned on.

Now how do you feel? Do you feel like your loved one was groped? Because she was. By a guy like you. He took advantage of her weakness and preyed on her. He picked her out, sized up his situation, waited for the right moment, and then struck. Like a stalker. Like a predator.

Still feel its okay? Because its not. Its no different than a vanilla guy walking up to her and squeezing her boob or butt, or slipping her the tongue. Its a sexually motivated grope. You can kid yourself and a few others that its a prank, or some kind of feel good ice breaker or zany joke, but its a grope. An invasive grope.

And you know better. And we know better.

And because WE know whats REALLY behind it (sexual auto-gratification) that some people would still try to argue that this is some kind of playful fun, makes this, and I hate to use the word, but I think it applies: despicable.

Just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not wrong. And just because a person won't get that demonstrably upset, doesn't mean its not wrong. I can walk out the door right now and punch my dog in the gob with all my might, and he won't be that mad at me, but that doesn't mean its not wrong. For no reason, I can call my 8 year old son, a f-ing idiot, and he might roll his eyes and laugh.

It's still wrong.

I'll take it a step further. There may be times in life, when you do something to someone that they might actually enjoy at the time, and its still wrong. You can drug someone, and they will have the time of their lives, but its still, wrong. Slip a drink to a minor? They will thank you for it. They will have a ball from the high. Its still wrong.

My advice: keep it on the bench, Kahuna.

 

[primetime]

Because tickling causes an intense and uncontrollable response in the human body and being tapped on the shoulder does not. That response can feel very degrading/confusing/stimulating/upsetting/embarrassing/annoying and so on depending on the person it's being done to. it's completely unpredictable, but it almost always causes an intense reaction. It may not be sexual to everyone, but that is not the only issue that dictates whether or not it causes harm.

I've had multiple friends who are not aroused by tickling, instead they get panic attacks from it. They hate it, and being tickled by a stranger would upset them very much. Something doesn't have to turn you on for it to be upsetting and make you feel a loss of control.

I think this is where the issue is. The definition of "tickle". I think that this is really the crux on why so many people think it is "wrong" for all situations. I have given examples of a "tickle" but it is not the usual "tickle" you think. If I lighty stroke your skin for a second, a literal second, the sensation is a tickle, but it is not a prolonged tickle. I hope someone can see this...

I think those who say it is wrong are thinking of a prolonged encounter where laughter will be the reaction and a certain of amount of time with contact is taking place. But a tickle can be as simple as a touch. A poke.

So, I ask those who keep saying it is "wrong" in 100% of situations, exactly how long do you think the tickle is to consider it wrong? Any length of time? a few seconds, a minute? I honestly think that's where it all lies. I think (an assumption of course) that when someone says "I was tickled.." a certain length of time has to transpire, a certain way to tickle is occuring which is making it "wrong" in your eyes.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

I think this is where the issue is. The definition of "tickle". I think that this is really the crux on why so many people think it is "wrong" for all situations. I have given examples of a "tickle" but it is not the usual "tickle" you think. If I lighty stroke your skin for a second, a literal second, the sensation is a tickle, but it is not a prolonged tickle. I hope someone can see this...

I think those who say it is wrong are thinking of a prolonged encounter where laughter will be the reaction and a certain of amount of time with contact is taking place. But a tickle can be as simple as a touch. A poke.

So, I ask those who keep saying it is "wrong" in 100% of situations, exactly how long do you think the tickle is to consider it wrong? Any length of time? a few seconds, a minute? I honestly think that's where it all lies. I think (an assumption of course) that when someone says "I was tickled.." a certain length of time has to transpire, a certain way to tickle is occuring which is making it "wrong" in your eyes.

I personally think the definition of "tickle" has been made pretty clear in relation to this thread. We're talking about walking into someone's work place and tickling them without their permission. That to me is wrong in all instances.

 

[primetime]

I personally think the definition of "tickle" has been made pretty clear in relation to this thread. We're talking about walking into someone's work place and tickling them without their permission. That to me is wrong in all instances.

But I think that because of the certain definition, this argument keeps going and going because one side is failing to see the other point. For example, i gave the example of approaching someone I don't know, and instead of tapping their shoulder, I poke their side. This can give a ticklish response, but it is to get their attention. That "stranger" may think absolutely nothing of it. They start to engage in conversation with me. Now, I technically tickled a random stranger. How is that wrong?

I think it is a matter of definition to make this whole "it is wrong" argument. That is why I have been bringing up points to show it is NOT ALL situations that it is wrong. Not once did I say "go for it! Tickle strangers at will". I have a problem with all situations being made wrong when it is not.

What happened to the OP can be considered "wrong" because 1) there was a length to the tickle and 2) the dude ran out like a bat out of hell. I completely understand why people say it is wrong. But "tickling a random stranger" is NOT wrong in every single instance.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

But I think that because of the certain definition, this argument keeps going and going because one side is failing to see the other point. For example, i gave the example of approaching someone I don't know, and instead of tapping their shoulder, I poke their side. This can give a ticklish response, but it is to get their attention. That "stranger" may think absolutely nothing of it. They start to engage in conversation with me. Now, I technically tickled a random stranger. How is that wrong?

I think it is a matter of definition to make this whole "it is wrong" argument. That is why I have been bringing up points to show it is NOT ALL situations that it is wrong. Not once did I say "go for it! Tickle strangers at will". I have a problem with all situations being made wrong when it is not.

What happened to the OP can be considered "wrong" because 1) there was a length to the tickle and 2) the dude ran out like a bat out of hell. I completely understand why people say it is wrong. But "tickling a random stranger" is NOT wrong in every single instance.

Just speaking for myself, when I say "it is wrong" to tickle strangers, I mean deliberately setting out to do that for your own thrill without regard for the way the other person may feel about it. Nothing is 100% - you're looking WAY to into blanket statements. You have things you believe are wrong, and when you state those, do you add at the end "except for a few instances"? The example you gave of poking someone to get their attention also deals with intent - doing that purely to get their attention vs. doing it for some cheap thrill at the potential expense of another. And even that I wouldn't say is a good thing to do, unless the room is really loud. Context is key.

 

[primetime]

Just speaking for myself, when I say "it is wrong" to tickle strangers, I mean deliberately setting out to do that for your own thrill without regard for the way the other person may feel about it. Nothing is 100% - you're looking WAY to into blanket statements. You have things you believe are wrong, and when you state those, do you add at the end "except for a few instances"? The example you gave of poking someone to get their attention also deals with intent - doing that purely to get their attention vs. doing it for some cheap thrill at the potential expense of another. And even that I wouldn't say is a good thing to do, unless the room is really loud. Context is key.

That's been my whole point. You can't make a blanket statement. I even told you that before, but you are the one who says it applies to ALL situations. Thanks for realizing my point.

As for getting their attention, I didn't have to tickle, I could have patted them on the shoulder. So now, it is not only "tickle" but "intent" as well to determine if it is wrong or not?

 

[LargerWorld2577]

That's been my whole point. You can't make a blanket statement. I even told you that before, but you are the one who says it applies to ALL situations. Thanks for realizing my point.

As for getting their attention, I didn't have to tickle, I could have patted them on the shoulder. So now, it is not only "tickle" but "intent" as well to determine if it is wrong or not?

I know you can't make blanket statements. Even I've said there are instances where it's okay to touch a stranger without permission, like jostling on a crowded train.

Also, I just said "tickle" because that's the topic of the thread and you mentioned in your scenario that it would "tickle". It's any sort of touch without permission where I think intent matters. Tickling implies a certain intent. Like you said, you could have just patted their shoulder.

 

[firegod86]

I think this thread has simply gotten out of hand from long old tired debates on a subject that by all rights can't be discussed because differing opinions will always clash.
I personally feel this thread should be closed because this debate is going no where but leading to a point where mindless name calling may ensue.

 

[duderino84]

I think this is where the issue is. The definition of "tickle". I think that this is really the crux on why so many people think it is "wrong" for all situations. I have given examples of a "tickle" but it is not the usual "tickle" you think. If I lighty stroke your skin for a second, a literal second, the sensation is a tickle, but it is not a prolonged tickle. I hope someone can see this...

I think those who say it is wrong are thinking of a prolonged encounter where laughter will be the reaction and a certain of amount of time with contact is taking place. But a tickle can be as simple as a touch. A poke.

So, I ask those who keep saying it is "wrong" in 100% of situations, exactly how long do you think the tickle is to consider it wrong? Any length of time? a few seconds, a minute? I honestly think that's where it all lies. I think (an assumption of course) that when someone says "I was tickled.." a certain length of time has to transpire, a certain way to tickle is occuring which is making it "wrong" in your eyes.

A poke can be gentle and playful to some, or extreme and violating to others.

If none of us thought that even on a rudimentary level that tickling was an invading form of touch I doubt tickling would be a fetish or that cartoons or videos or forums or anything of the like would exist.

Imagine if everyone in a room suddenly started poking you. Would it be pleasant?

There IS a difference between fantasy and reality. People don't like some of the porn videos put out where models are "tickled too long", but the reality is it's the only way to see after a while just how truly out of the norm tickling or any other form of fetish is. We focus on the bright side of it because it legitimizes our pleasant feeling of euphoria in a way that doesn't tell us we're wrong.

 

[Mitchell]

I'm seriously surprised that this has turned into such a long debate. It made me think of my other fetish, feet, in relation to this.

How many times have those of us with foot fetishes, seen a desirable barefoot girl, in a park, sitting on a bench, etc etc. In New York, you see them all the time in the summer. I don't know if any here with foot fetishes have done it, but think of how it would feel to that girl, if we just walked up to them, and started rubbing and massaging the girl's feet out of the clear blue.. without asking if we could do so?

Tickling someone as has been mentioned in this thread doesn't make sense to me, and it isn't worth the risk. Sorry.. nothing anyone can say to me, can change my mind, or justify it.

 

[Blue Soda]

I'm seriously surprised that this has turned into such a long debate. It made me think of my other fetish, feet, in relation to this.

How many times have those of us with foot fetishes, seen a desirable barefoot girl, in a park, sitting on a bench, etc etc. In New York, you see them all the time in the summer. I don't know if any here with foot fetishes have done it, but think of how it would feel to that girl, if we just walked up to them, and started rubbing and massaging the girl's feet out of the clear blue.. without asking if we could do so?

Tickling someone as has been mentioned in this thread doesn't make sense to me, and it isn't worth the risk. Sorry.. nothing anyone can say to me, can change my mind, or justify it.

I agree Mitch. I have a foot fetish too and I see guys and girls with amazing feet all the time, but I never touch, sniff lick, tickle, etc. Self control prevails!

 

[duderino84]

I agree Mitch. I have a foot fetish too and I see guys and girls with amazing feet all the time, but I never touch, sniff lick, tickle, etc. Self control prevails!

Lol you would hope....I face palm every time I see this thread updated......I just don't see what's so hard to deal with. I almost put tickling on a pedestal not far from a blow job. You won't ask for someone to give you a blow job out of the blue? Then that's what tickling is like to someone from the outside of this fetish almost.