Which part of tickling do you prefer..?

[Latin_Boy]

I'm wondering the following:

When watching a video or checking out a picture, do you get more turned on (or whatever phrase you want to use) by the tickling part of the scene or the reactions. I've found that I much much prefer the reaction, but many of the videos and pictures out there are just, for example, a picture of a bare sole with a feather by it. Does this do much for you? I think the reaction is truly the greatest part of a scene, but I'm sure many of you disagree. what are your thoughts?..

Latin_Boy

 

[TickledToDeath]

Pictures do little for me unless they capture the ticklees reaction.
Videos are better. Real tickling in person is of course the best.

For me, the whole scenario from the actual tickling to the reaction of the ticklee is the "turn on".

TTD

 

[TicklingDuo]

I much prefer the reaction (along with the mannerisms of the ticklers) to the setting. Stills sometimes capture this a bit. But, there's nothing like live action. This is also why I HATE companies whose models mug for the camera and aren't ticklish.

Ann

 

[CitY of MicA]

an interesting question

The example you used, Latin, a bare sole with a feather by it, does nothing for me. However, a pure reaction shot, without showing the actual tickling, only does a tad more for me than the other. I have posted mainstream pics on this forum, but I didn't bother to post the following pic (actually, I stuck it in someone else's post, kinda like this 😀 ) because it was just a reaction shot.

http://web.mit.edu/mpalmer/www/photos/tickle mep1.jpg

It's okay, but I have no idea where the tickling took place. Moreover, you have to take somebody's word that she was even tickled. In videos, you do get the laughter as a reaction, even if you can't see the ticklee's face. I find I become annoyed, though, if the camera isolates the laughing face, and I have no idea where the ticklee is being tickled. I guess I would have to say it's a combination of the two that works for me.

 

[Myriads]

For me being able to see/hear the reaction is key. Nothing happens unless I can see/hear that part of things.

Myriads

 

[Maria_Rose]

I have to agree...just plain reactions for me are no good without seeing where she's being tickled. And without the reactions, I have no interest at all. Very delicate balance actually lol.

 

[Cheburashka]

I think what you're suggesting Latin_Boy is quite interesting. There was a time when the mere suggestion of something was close to the act itself. One only needs to refer to old Hollywood films to clarify that concept.

Video seems to be the media of choice for people of our disposition. A clever photo can play with our thoughts, but video of the action/reaction is quite a bit more stimulating.

 

[Latin_Boy]

Well I agree with what's been posted so far. I still prefer a face reaction, though, not just hearing someone laugh. I think this information is important for video companies -- a way to see what customers want, no?

Latin_Boy

 

[CitY of MicA]

absolutely

When they don't give reaction shots or don't show the actual tickling it's just one more thing that can ruin a video (under the heading of bad camera work, shall we say?). I can think of a number of examples of videos with a lack of reaction shots (paradise vision is often guilty of this) and can even remember some times when companies resorted to recycling laughter when the camera was not on the face of the ticklee .