Why Are We Fixated On Authenticity of Ticklishness?

[BarbaricTickler88]

You don't get out much, do you? Oh I know, "I have tickled lots of women, so...." is what you will respond with. But if that is your take, then you really haven't done much. Yeah, Yeah, you will reply with "You don't know me! I have tickled so many....." You really haven't experienced a diverse set of people. There are people who if they don't like you, if you try to tickle them, they will not respond in the way you want them too.

Does everyone react to pain the same? Some folks when hit very hard will react very demonstratively, while some others will just take it. You won't even know if they were hurt. Does it mean the people who just take it don't feel pain?

So what you are saying is, even if the person tells you that what you are doing tickles them, you will automatically dismiss it because YOU don't like the way they react? Seems kind of....ignorant, don't you think?

Wow, you had a two-sided argument all by yourself in the first part of your comment. Schizophrenic much?

And no, I don't think it sounds ignorant. I don't base my opinion on things people prefer or how they feel like at any given the moment. Just cold facts. You can "feel" like a liquor cabinet, but you are what you're born as. Science doesn't care how people feel.
Ticklishness is a specific reaction to being tickled. No reaction, no ticklishness. Things are very simple when people are reasonable.

Comparing a pain to tickling doesn't make much sense and it's kind of dumb, but if you insist...no matter how much someone's immune to pain, there is always an injury that will get a reaction out of them. They will always show a reaction to pain they suffer if you press on. Same with tickling.
Like I said, if a person is ticklish there will be reaction eventually if you press on.
No reaction, no ticklishness.Simple as that.

I'm reminded of the parable of The Blind men and the Elephant; Your perception is clearly limited by your lack of experience, your geography, and by your own unwillingness to accept information that does not fit into your viewpoint. People react differently to tickling, based on any number of factors. Someone can be wildly ticklish when the tickler is someone they're comfortable with, or attracted to, and freeze up or even be repulsed if that tickler reminds them of a predatory relative who abused them when they were young. Thinking that you've just got to do it harder to get a reaction shows that you're not really looking at them as human beings, more like sacks of meat you want to inflict something on. Someone can be unbearably ticklish when they're in the right situation (no matter who the tickler is), and traumatized when it's a bad situation, and just freeze up. You think they're just not ticklish, when they could be terrified. Thanks to bad actors, people with fetishes are often unfairly branded as weird or creepy, and that kind of attitude doesn't help.

Despite your subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of oatmeal allusions to the contrary, when it comes to responses to stimuli, as with many other things, people aren't binary.

Your comment is unnecessarily preachy and though relatively short, its very exhausting to go through. It's probably because not only do you not know, but you're unaware of your ignorance, and you're convinced in truthfulness of your words regardless of how dumb they may be in reality.

You think you're smarter than you are, basically, and that's as obvious as a fake reaction in a tickling video.

 

[Wolf]

Your comment is unnecessarily preachy and though relatively short, its very exhausting to go through. It's probably because not only do you not know, but you're unaware of your ignorance, and you're convinced in truthfulness of your words regardless of how dumb they may be in reality.
You think you're smarter than you are, basically, and that's as obvious as a fake reaction in a tickling video.

Stick with your strengths, pal; seeing nothing but your own narrow, myopic viewpoint is obviously one of them.
I don't feel the need to start comparing actual, real life experiences with you; that would be rather mean.

 

[primetime]

Wow, you had a two-sided argument all by yourself in the first part of your comment. Schizophrenic much?

And no, I don't think it sounds ignorant. I don't base my opinion on things people prefer or how they feel like at any given the moment. Just cold facts. You can "feel" like a liquor cabinet, but you are what you're born as. Science doesn't care how people feel.
Ticklishness is a specific reaction to being tickled. No reaction, no ticklishness. Things are very simple when people are reasonable.

Comparing a pain to tickling doesn't make much sense and it's kind of dumb, but if you insist...no matter how much someone's immune to pain, there is always an injury that will get a reaction out of them. They will always show a reaction to pain they suffer if you press on. Same with tickling.
Like I said, if a person is ticklish there will be reaction eventually if you press on.
No reaction, no ticklishness.Simple as that.



Your comment is unnecessarily preachy and though relatively short, its very exhausting to go through. It's probably because not only do you not know, but you're unaware of your ignorance, and you're convinced in truthfulness of your words regardless of how dumb they may be in reality.

You think you're smarter than you are, basically, and that's as obvious as a fake reaction in a tickling video.

Awww.....look who came crawling back out of his cave to respond. How cute. Now, this is where you start to realize just how narrow minded and ignorant of the written word you are. Let me help you. When I created that "conversation", you see, that was me imitating your typical, predicted responses. I used the word "you" in my comment which would kind of indicate I am not talking to myself. I know the English language and comprehension skills are lacking, but come on, I figured even someone like you could understand that. But I like how you tried to call me schizophrenic. Aww....little boy is trying to insult me. What ever should I do?

Yes, it is ignorant. Listen to yourself. I mean seriously, read what you just wrote. You don't go off how people feel or what they prefer. So what you are saying is that someone's ticklishness is not based on what they feel, it is solely on how YOU view it? So if someone you tickle tells you they are not ticklish, you will just ignore it and keep trying to touch them? If someone tells you that it tickles, but it feels nice, but doesn't move around much, you're going to stop and say "You're not ticklish! You're not reacting the way I want you to react!". I know we have seen some really ignorant people before on this forum, but I think you may be the new king. Wow. A person's OWN self determination on their ticklishness is not accurate unless YOU agree to it. Yeah, makes sense.

You don't get out much, do you? I am being serious with you. You really have not had many play partners, or any at all except maybe your own self as you wack off watching videos from your cave. Because ANYONE who has tickled multiple real life breathing human beings know people react different to stimuli. Ticklishness is not defined by a single type of reaction. There is no absolutism with it. I brought up pain because it is a stimulus. There is something happening to the physical body and wait.....why am I even trying to explain this to someone who probably eats glue for dinner? You seriously need to stop doing that.

Look, I get it. You really haven't had many experiences or you saw a video that locked into your brain and from that day forward, you can only see that type of reaction. See, if you get out more and interact with more and more people, you will start to see that people have different feelings and reactions. There is a concept of light tickling, there is a concept of hard tickling. Ever give a massage to someone? Ever try really light tickling to someone? Where they are not laughing hysterically or even flinching? They tell you it tickles, but feels really good? Ever have at least that experience? Please tell me you have. Because if you haven't then exit stage left and go back to the cave from which you dwell in.

Seriously dude, you do know there are different reactions to being tickled, right? Come on, please tell me you're not some basement dweller trying to make points when you never touched another person...

 

[brotherted]

My entire point, if you even remotely read my words, is that you cannot tell if someone is faking IF YOU ARE WATCHING A VIDEO. Does that make sense now?

I've resigned from the whole "add heat rather than light" aspects of this forum, but comment did compel me to at least as a clarifying question.

Are you really saying there's no level, no level of acting so horrible, fakery so blatant, responses so robotic, that "Ha. Ha. Ha. Oh no. I'm. So. Ticklish." delivered in the most imaginably wooden, blank-stare way, that could ever give you the even slightest insight as to the authenticity of a video? Because in your way of seeing the world, no one can ever have any insight whatsoever into the reality of the situation unless they're physically there? Do you really believe that?

If so, I just may have to make a video with a friend who I know isn't ticklish at all, ask her to be the worst actress on earth on purpose, and see if you'll still say maintain that about my video -- that you can't tell if she's faking since you weren't there. The truth is, I don't think you'd say that. I think you'd have to pivot to a different argument about where to draw the line on fakery, rather than the "only people who were there can know" standard.

 

[primetime]

I've resigned from the whole "add heat rather than light" aspects of this forum, but comment did compel me to at least as a clarifying question.

Are you really saying there's no level, no level of acting so horrible, fakery so blatant, responses so robotic, that "Ha. Ha. Ha. Oh no. I'm. So. Ticklish." delivered in the most imaginably wooden, blank-stare way, that could ever give you the even slightest insight as to the authenticity of a video? Because in your way of seeing the world, no one can ever have any insight whatsoever into the reality of the situation unless they're physically there? Do you really believe that?

If so, I just may have to make a video with a friend who I know isn't ticklish at all, ask her to be the worst actress on earth on purpose, and see if you'll still say maintain that about my video -- that you can't tell if she's faking since you weren't there. The truth is, I don't think you'd say that. I think you'd have to pivot to a different argument about where to draw the line on fakery, rather than the "only people who were there can know" standard.

Sigh.... In response to this post, I guess you missed the part where i said models may indeed be faking, but you can't be 100% sure. We have people who swear that they can tell WHENEVER someone is faking. We see these posts so many times. Over and over again by folks who say they are "experts". They state this as fact.

Now, you come with some scenario where you would have someone pretend to be over the top ticklish, just to make some silly point. Just like I can get a friend of mine to act like they are not ticklish, but really are. What point does that prove? You have seen models laugh hysterically when their feet are tickled, but do not laugh when their feet are worshipped. This leads people to thinking the model might be faking ticklishness. If you have any semblance of sense, you know people react differently depending on situations. There are also very ticklish people who will not react in a ticklish manner if they are not comfortable, upset, depressed, etc. Because of this broad range of situations, there is no way to definitely claim someone is faking. Your scenario that you presented can be interpreted as "real" even though you know it is fake. But that goes to show you, watching a video is subject to YOUR interpretation, not any real facts. You will do that, I will say it is real, then you come back trying to laugh saying she was faking and it was obvious. But again, if I interpreted her as being real, how could I really tell. There is no sure fire way of knowing. You can have all the theories and interpretations you want, but unless you were there, do you really know?

 

[SoleMates]

Coupla random thoughts from someone who has, actually, tickled a lot of people. (I think I've featured close to, or over, fifty models at this point, plus all of the tickling I've done in my personal life. Damn, I'm old.)

Firstly, as both a producer and a consumer I do agree that I've seen some really, really bad faking. If I dropped a couple bones on a clip and the girl was filing her nails and very obviously reading "no, stop. ha ha ha. Not my poor defenseless size seven bare feet. I am sooooo ticklish." off of a cue-card off-camera while some goober waved a feather an inch from her soles and never actually touching her, I'm definitely going to feel ripped off.

On the other hand, yes; I've worked with some models who I got far better reactions out of than some of the other producers they've worked with previously. I've had at least two models tell me, "I worked with so-and-so, he doesn't know how to tickle so it just hurt". Or the dude was creepy or otherwise didn't foster a particularly positive environment on-set and the model, who was most definitely ticklish, still didn't react beyond an awkward grimace because even though tickling is an involuntary reaction, how one's body reacts to a ticklish situation can often be affected by their feelings towards the tickler. One of my most recent models actually said to me, "You're the first person who's tickled me where I've actually enjoyed it." So, her clips turned out pretty good. At least one model admitted to me that she's faked it with other producers because it was so unpleasant to work with them that she just wanted them to get the reactions they wanted so that she could go home and wait for the bruises to fade. I'm sure there's some doctor of tickle-ology out there who is absolutely convinced, therefore, that because she laughed for me and not for the other guy that she was faking it, but hey. What're ya gonna do? Maybe if less producers were creepy or horrible ticklers we wouldn't have this problem.

I do get surprised sometimes at how vehement people are about it, though. Like, they don't get angry that Chris Evans isn't really Captain America but if Milf Nikki isn't actually ticklish there's gonna be hell to pay? I guess it's the cost of doing business when you're fostering parasocial relationships with your fans in a lot of cases. There are a lot of people in this community who have never touched a woman but for whatever reason still fancy themselves the "final word" on authentic ticklishness. Or the only women they've ever been allowed near were charging by the hour and they've fooled themselves into thinking the stripper really likes them, as it were.

The only time it bothers me is when people accuse me and the people I work with of faking it, or imply/outright state that "the vast majority of models fake it", because that's just so obviously bullshit that it defies all forms of common sense. I honestly think it stems from self-hatred, in a way, because they often reason that "if she was really ticklish she wouldn't have taken the job", in spite of, well, this very forum being populated by actually ticklish women who actually enjoy being tickled, but since they've never experienced that or otherwise haven't come to grips with their fetish, they tell themselves that it's some horrible thing that nobody in their right mind would endure for all the money in the world. I mean, I've worked with models who initially refused me on the grounds of being "way too ticklish" and yet a week later I had them crying for mercy with a paintbrush. It's not super rare, nor is it super common, but you literally can't generalize with shit like this.

And honestly? I really think being on the spectrum has something to do with it for a lot of people. One of the models/dommes who used to post here (I forget who, sorry) once commented that the bulk of her tickle-fetish clients were on the spectrum in some fashion. I'm close friends with a model who very much is on the spectrum and the vast majority of her most infuriating quirks can be found in this forum on a daily basis... including the hyper-fixation on seemingly-irrelevant details over certain things that no one can talk them out of. I mean, I'm not about to armchair diagnose anyone but I see it all over the place, especially in the people who will just not let it go.

I would argue such closed-mindedness produces more fakes, not less, because think about it; if only certain reactions are considered "authentic" and a model's natural reactions don't match those, then any producer who wants to avoid accusations of fakery is therefore going to coach his models into the "authentic" ones.

So yeah, it's a complicated topic. Unfortunately just telling these people to watch different videos is absolutely futile, because it seems like the bulk of them want to be pissed off all the time. There's always some reason why they won't use the Clips4Sale search bar or whatever, and after a while you just have to shrug your shoulders and let them yell at clouds.

 

[TheBKtickler]

Because real reaction makes it more fun, IMO. I can’t stand if somebody fakes it. That’s the only way I can explain it.

Clips4sale:
https://www.clips4sale.com/studio/130009/the-bk-tickler

Onlyfans
https://onlyfans.com/thebktickler

Allmylinks:
https://allmylinks.com/thebktickler

 

[brotherted]

Now, you come with some scenario where you would have someone pretend to be over the top ticklish, just to make some silly point.

You can call it "some silly point," but I call it an analogy that perfectly sheds light on and directly contradicts your repeated assertion that, to quote, "you cannot tell if someone is faking IF YOU ARE WATCHING A VIDEO." Well, most of us disagree. Most of us believe that yes, we can imagine a video with such clearly horrendous, ridiculously bad acting that we could absolutely tell that the girl was faking. Phraseology like "you can't be 100% sure," or "not any real facts," " or no sure fire way of knowing" doesn't change that, or make us question ourselves. What's the distinction supposed to be -- as opposed to 99.9%? We're supposed to think, "Damn. He's got us, with that '100 vs. 99.9%' distinction"?

This line of debate is related to what's known as the Socratic paradox, (which supposedly started with Socrates, the Greek philosopher), phrased as "I know that I know nothing." And so, do any of us really ever know anything, including really ever know tickling is fake? Like we think we know that sun rises in the east, then Copernicus says otherwise? We think we know Newtonian physics is proven, then Einstein shows up? Like we may all learn we're in the matrix? You're here to keep telling us that 99.9% sure isn't 100. Okay, whatever. This distinction isn't material, it seems, to... 99.9% of the readers here.

I was in a discussion group once where a guy made the somewhat self-contradictory argument that "None of us really knows anything for sure," (i.e. self-contradictory in the sense of "Oh really, then how do you know that?"). Eventually, we were like, "So we should we listen to you?"

On the other hand, is it possible for someone to be wrong about a tickling reaction being faked? Of course. If you'd simply said that, I don't think anyone would've disagreed with you. But I could also easily make a video where people who weren't there would be absolutely sure it was faked -- including you -- which makes your comment about having to be there to know, wrong. And I think you're aware of it.

Authenticity matters in every aspect our lives. It's hardwired into human ROM of how we assess other people, even when it doesn't materially affect our lives. If the guy on the next bar stool tells an obvious lie, we'll absolutely think about it, note it, and view his future comments differently.

If you have any semblance of sense

Have you felt these ad hominem-esque lines serve you well in persuading third parties that you're winning an argument? It seems a vestigial carryover from schoolyard days. You should drop this stuff in your conversations. They're not helping you, and you don't need them.

 

[primetime]

You can call it "some silly point," but I call it an analogy that perfectly sheds light on and directly contradicts your repeated assertion that, to quote, "you cannot tell if someone is faking IF YOU ARE WATCHING A VIDEO." Well, most of us disagree. Most of us believe that yes, we can imagine a video with such clearly horrendous, ridiculously bad acting that we could absolutely tell that the girl was faking. Phraseology like "you can't be 100% sure," or "not any real facts," " or no sure fire way of knowing" doesn't change that, or make us question ourselves. What's the distinction supposed to be -- as opposed to 99.9%? We're supposed to think, "Damn. He's got us, with that '100 vs. 99.9%' distinction"?

This line of debate is related to what's known as the Socratic paradox, (which supposedly started with Socrates, the Greek philosopher), phrased as "I know that I know nothing." And so, do any of us really ever know anything, including really ever know tickling is fake? Like we think we know that sun rises in the east, then Copernicus says otherwise? We think we know Newtonian physics is proven, then Einstein shows up? Like we may all learn we're in the matrix? You're here to keep telling us that 99.9% sure isn't 100. Okay, whatever. This distinction isn't material, it seems, to... 99.9% of the readers here.

I was in a discussion group once where a guy made the somewhat self-contradictory argument that "None of us really knows anything for sure," (i.e. self-contradictory in the sense of "Oh really, then how do you know that?"). Eventually, we were like, "So we should we listen to you?"

On the other hand, is it possible for someone to be wrong about a tickling reaction being faked? Of course. If you'd simply said that, I don't think anyone would've disagreed with you. But I could also easily make a video where people who weren't there would be absolutely sure it was faked -- including you -- which makes your comment about having to be there to know, wrong. And I think you're aware of it.

Authenticity matters in every aspect our lives. It's hardwired into human ROM of how we assess other people, even when it doesn't materially affect our lives. If the guy on the next bar stool tells an obvious lie, we'll absolutely think about it, note it, and view his future comments differently.



Have you felt these ad hominem-esque lines serve you well in persuading third parties that you're winning an argument? It seems a vestigial carryover from schoolyard days. You should drop this stuff in your conversations. They're not helping you, and you don't need them.

Oh, you are still around? Dude..... let's use common sense. I know that is difficult at times, but let me see if I can explain it is you were 5 years old.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, can 100% definitely tell if someone is faking in every single case. Let me be very clear. You have folks on this forum saying that they can tell if someone is faking in every, single, case. EVERY SINGLE CASE. Read that to yourself again. Say it out loud. Go to a mirror and repeat this line. "There are people who think they can tell if a model is faking in every single case." Is that clear now? To add to it, they say they are faking AS FACT. You do know there is a difference between speculation and fact, right? You can always have your opinion if someone is faking or not, but to state it as fact is where I have the issue. Is this clear enough?

I have no idea why this is difficult for you to grasp. I have even said models can fake their reactions in videos. I bet there were some that were completely faking and you thought they were REAL reactions. Just like the insane concept you brought up about making a video where someone demonstratively goes over the top in their reactions, with the intent of trying to look fake. You sure made a pretty silly assumption about me. I am not one of these folks that will say it is fake. That is not my style to do so, and so how does that make me wrong? You know what the other problem with that is? Let's say you show it to me to prove that it is easy to spot fake reactions. But, I say those look like real reactions. Then what? You come out and say "she was faking! How can you not tell??" Well simple, I wasn't there to touch her or hear her tell me it is fake. They looked real to me. Which only proves my point. When you watch videos, you are interpreting what you are seeing. Knowing full well that people react differently to be tickled, how can you 100% tell someone is faking or not? This is not hard....

As for "Authenticity matters in every aspect our lives", I want you to mull over that for a minute. Sure, in our real lives yes, authenticity is very important. But we are watching a video of someone being tickled. Do you watch TV shows or movies? How real is that? Most of those are produced shows with scripts, etc. You don't see people whining "But Iron Man couldn't possibly fly with jets in his boots! Come on, that ain't real!!!" No, they sit back and watch the damn video and be highly entertained. So why people are so fixated on "fake or real" tickling is very fascinating. Just watch the video. You know what is better? Actually physically touching the person and tickling them. That way, if they are faking, you can be upset because you are directly involved. A video is done for entertainment and again, unless you are there, there is no definitive method for determining fake reactions or not. You CAN SPECULATE, but it is not definitive fact.

This line you wrote, "On the other hand, is it possible for someone to be wrong about a tickling reaction being faked? Of course. If you'd simply said that, I don't think anyone would've disagreed with you".... dude, that is my entire point. Seriously, that is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. But you have people swear that they are experts and can tell. They don't realize they can be wrong.

Understand? No go have a Merry Christmas dammit!

 

[brotherted]

You have folks on this forum saying that they can tell if someone is faking in every, single, case. EVERY SINGLE CASE. Read that to yourself again. Say it out loud. Go to a mirror and repeat this line. "There are people who think they can tell if a model is faking in every single case." Is that clear now?

You are not wrong about whether it's always true that a viewer can tell faking.
You are wrong about whether it's never true that a viewer can tell faking.

Do you watch TV shows or movies? How real is that? Most of those are produced shows with scripts, etc. You don't see people whining "But Iron Man couldn't possibly fly with jets in his boots! Come on, that ain't real!!!" No, they sit back and watch the damn video and be highly entertained. So why people are so fixated on "fake or real" tickling is very fascinating.

Because it's inherently different when something is presented as fiction, verses presented as real. The correct film analogy isn't Iron Man. The correct film analogy s a documentary film, presented to us as real, that we begin to suspect, after renting it, that it was a complete set-up, phony, lie from the beginning.

Apparently, you're telling us that your feeling about renting a doc that you later learned was a lie would be, "Who cares? What difference does it make?" If that would be your reaction, you need to understand what a statistical outlier reaction that is.

This line you wrote, "On the other hand, is it possible for someone to be wrong about a tickling reaction being faked? Of course. If you'd simply said that, I don't think anyone would've disagreed with you".... dude, that is my entire point. Seriously, that is exactly what I have been trying to tell you.

No. These are different things.
1.) It's possible to be wrong about a particular video being faked.
2.) It's impossible to ever know for sure about a video being faked.

You wrote that #1 is "exactly" what you've been trying to tell me, when in fact, you've actually been saying both #1 & #2.
Whether you accept this or not, everyone else reading my words understands the difference about a borderline case where you might suspect a video was faked, vs. a horribly, badly acted video where you're absolutely sure a reaction was faked. The reason this is not a "silly example," is that there exist such horribly, badly acted videos in this space -- for sale right now. Have you never seen one?

5 years old

Ad hominem, "if I insult you, it'll make me seem smarter" insults are not serving your life. You should stop using them.

 

[primetime]

You are not wrong about whether it's always true that a viewer can tell faking.
You are wrong about whether it's never true that a viewer can tell faking.



Because it's inherently different when something is presented as fiction, verses presented as real. The correct film analogy isn't Iron Man. The correct film analogy s a documentary film, presented to us as real, that we begin to suspect, after renting it, that it was a complete set-up, phony, lie from the beginning.

Apparently, you're telling us that your feeling about renting a doc that you later learned was a lie would be, "Who cares? What difference does it make?" If that would be your reaction, you need to understand what a statistical outlier reaction that is.




No. These are different things.
1.) It's possible to be wrong about a particular video being faked.
2.) It's impossible to ever know for sure about a video being faked.

You wrote that #1 is "exactly" what you've been trying to tell me, when in fact, you've actually been saying both #1 & #2.
Whether you accept this or not, everyone else reading my words understands the difference about a borderline case where you might suspect a video was faked, vs. a horribly, badly acted video where you're absolutely sure a reaction was faked. The reason this is not a "silly example," is that there exist such horribly, badly acted videos in this space -- for sale right now. Have you never seen one?



Ad hominem, "if I insult you, it'll make me seem smarter" insults are not serving your life. You should stop using them.

Just when I thought that maybe, just maybe you would understand what I am trying to tell you, you fail epically again. First, about your final comment. If there was no golden rule, I would make you cry. If I really wanted to insult you, and I could, believe me, you would know. Trust me on that....

Now, back to the point. Do you even know what I am trying to convey? You don't. You keep proving me correct, but yet you try to present it as though I am wrong. I am not. When someone is looking at a video and saying that person is faking, that is speculating. In your own biased view and opinion, you think that person is faking. You see how they react and you think they are faking. Here is the key word. "Think". You see it, and think it is fake. Got it so far? You are "absolutely sure" (as you put it) that the video is fake.

Now, someone else watches the exact same video and they think the model is actually ticklish. They see it and they are absolutely convinced the model is actually ticklish. Who's right? Can you honestly tell that person who thinks that it is real, that they are wrong? Can you? How can you prove it?

I will let that marinate in your mind for a moment. Maybe I write too many words for you and you have trouble comprehending the point I am making. I hope this short version helps you out.

Oh, about the movie example, have you seen FTKL's videos? Those are designed to be entertainment, not a "documentary", so poor example. A lot of tickle videos are presented as entertainment. That's why we are here. We're not watching documentaries....

 

[mch5]

Ok, maybe it needs to be said out loud: I DON'T CARE!

No, really, if the laughter sounds good and the body reaction looks good, That's what I am looking for!
Yes, maybe my desires are quite unique (we already established that) and maybe what I really have is a Laughter fetish, I don't know.
But it is what it is and if I enjoy it, I don't really need to analyze it.
After all, it's kind of a service that the lee model is giving me, and just like I am not expecting an actor in a film to really get shot, why should I expect a model to "SUFFER" from ticklishness?

And yes, I want to see her suffer, I want to see her laugh in desperation with tears, I want to hear her "choking" out of breath, losing control, losing her mind...
But do I really want anyone to experience this hell??! Definitely NO!

So if she is a good actress, BRAVO!

[obviously, these kinds of responses of laughter in videos are (quite) impossible to find but that is another story]

 

[brotherted]

Just when I thought that maybe, just maybe you would understand what I am trying to tell you, you fail epically again. First, about your final comment. If there was no golden rule, I would make you cry. If I really wanted to insult you, and I could, believe me, you would know. Trust me on that....

Now, back to the point. Do you even know what I am trying to convey? You don't. You keep proving me correct, but yet you try to present it as though I am wrong. I am not. When someone is looking at a video and saying that person is faking, that is speculating. In your own biased view and opinion, you think that person is faking. You see how they react and you think they are faking. Here is the key word. "Think". You see it, and think it is fake. Got it so far? You are "absolutely sure" (as you put it) that the video is fake.

Now, someone else watches the exact same video and they think the model is actually ticklish. They see it and they are absolutely convinced the model is actually ticklish. Who's right? Can you honestly tell that person who thinks that it is real, that they are wrong? Can you? How can you prove it?

I will let that marinate in your mind for a moment. Maybe I write too many words for you and you have trouble comprehending the point I am making. I hope this short version helps you out.

Oh, about the movie example, have you seen FTKL's videos? Those are designed to be entertainment, not a "documentary", so poor example. A lot of tickle videos are presented as entertainment. That's why we are here. We're not watching documentaries....

Put this in the debate handbook under, "The argumentation tactic of saying that someone who proves you wrong -- actually doesn't understand -- to try to imply that if they understood, they'd would have to agree you're right."

Good one. ����
For sure, bad acting doesn't affect everyone's enjoyment of videos the same. But yes, there all some videos we all know are fake, versus other videos where different percentages of us suspect might be fake.
I'll rely on the other readers to use their own judgement at this point.

 

[CapturedDoll]

I've been thinking about this lately and I think this may be the reason. A lot of us saw tickling in cartoons when we were young. So in these cartoons were over the top laughter. Just hyper ticklish. So now when we see these human videos it feels like a let down. Very rarely is a person hyper ticklish. Thats my theory.

 

[primetime]

Put this in the debate handbook under, "The argumentation tactic of saying that someone who proves you wrong -- actually doesn't understand -- to try to imply that if they understood, they'd would have to agree you're right."

Good one. ����
For sure, bad acting doesn't affect everyone's enjoyment of videos the same. But yes, there all some videos we all know are fake, versus other videos where different percentages of us suspect might be fake.
I'll rely on the other readers to use their own judgement at this point.

Ok, I honestly think you are actually realizing the flaws in your logic and you are treading water, praying I stop replying to you.

I will chin check you right now, so you can go look in the mirror and rethink your approach. I have two very simple words that absolutely crushes your argument and proves mine.

Prove it

That's it. Prove it. Prove the model is faking in the video. Because if it is FACT, you can prove it. The question is, how do you prove it? Just watching a video is not proof. Because that is completely your OPINION. That is not a fact. So, how do you prove it? The only way to do so is actually physically touching the model yourself, or he/she admits it, or the producer does. Which is exactly my entire point....

"But how can I actually prove it???" you might be thinking. Right, exactly....

So, go back and look in the mirror and try to wrap your mind around the fact that you know my point is valid and you can't prove yours unless you use my method. Oh I know, you will say "you can just tell!". Um, no. Knowing that people react differently to stimuli proves that just looking at someone's reaction is not actual "proof". You have your own judgments and biases when it comes to ticklish reactions. Watching a video and you saying it fake is based on your opinion. Period. End of story.

Get it now? your quote of "But yes, there all some videos we all know are fake" is not valid because again, how do we know? Your judgment is not fact. Prove it....

 

[Crefl1n]

Guys, I think that it's important to let cooler heads prevail before you say something that you later regret. That's largely why I chose to step away from this conversation weeks ago. When you, or the person you're talking to, become(s) focused on defending yourself/themself, or even somebody else, then there is no longer a focus on defending your point or truth. So rather than abandon the topic at hand, I think it's better to step away for a while.

I don't know if there is pre-existing grudge here between brotherted and barbarictickler88 and you primetime, but you're answering every person that directly talks to you, and I think that you're getting overloaded with emotions. The nature of online discussions isn't always comforting. Even getting a reply makes you feel like someone is coming to attack you and an otherwise civil conversation triggers some people. I can't say that I'm immune to this.

I'm no moderator, but some of the things you've said recently were primarily to defend yourself, at somebody else's expense. People are saying things that are off the cuff here, and I know that can be irritating, but unless something is going on that can't be seen in this section of the forum, it's not cool talking to people like that here just for having a different opinion. I mean, it doesn't justify your worth as a person to hurt people, and I don't see how that's anything to be proud of. Truly great people lift people up, not bring them down. You're kind of dangerous if you think that hurting people justifies you as a person.

Now, regarding the topic of this forum, I don't know if it helps at this point to go any deeper into what I already said, but I have this to ask, primetime, because once I came to understand your exact standpoint, this is the first thing that came to my mind. When there is a controversial video circulating, either online or on the news, like a hate crime, or something that is a matter of life or death, or even something less serious, like a professional athlete cheating, or an altercation, do you believe that we can't accurately draw conclusions based on what we see just because we only saw it on the tv and weren't there?

I don't want to get too contrived, as it's 4:00a.m. and I'm a bit tired, but here's a couple of things to think about for consideration.

Not even getting into "deflategate" or some basketball players, like Lebron James' controversial game tactics, but here's a simple one. During a hockey game, if a player fouls a player on the opposing team on purpose to injure them out of the game, this warrants immediate judgement because the player's actions harm somebody else's wellbeing. And it can debatably be seen that what happened was or wasn't an accident based on certain factors. Would you say that just because we or even the ref wasn't on the ice, we couldn't see through the replay that they didn't do it on purpose based on how they positioned themself?

Or here's another one. If a video is circulating of an alleged case of police brutality, we couldn't judge and assume certain things based on what we saw in a video? Like if certain acts of violence on the part of an officer or a suspect were necessary for self-defense or not? We couldn't say if a "suspect" posed a credible threat or not, whether they were actually resisting or complying? We couldn't come to the conclusion that the officer used excessive force and is to blame for putting a suspect in critical condition in the hospital? Or that the victim of the beating was in pain? Just because we're not there, we can't see certain things like whether or not someone was making an attempt to submit and comply as opposed to trying to resist arrest? Or that an officer was acting out of fear and self-defense as opposed to out of anger and corruption?

These are things that are not experienced, but seen, and everyone feels compelled to answer whether they were there or not because they absolutely DEMAND some form of investigation and closure, and I don't think that these are things anybody including you would not admit you've come to conclusions about even though you weren't there.

Emotions and feelings run deep in our actions, and they make up reality, it's our RESPONSIBILITY as human beings to acknowledge this. There's no standard for it being unacceptable to use that sense or not, as long as your sense is reliable.

For some reason, you seem to prefer believing that during the circumstance of tickling or sex in a video that you can't know anything. In my opinion, you have a self-serving and partial opinion on this matter to discredit people for disagreeing with you, when disagreeing can inconvenience you by not allowing you to enjoy the things you enjoy.

That's essentially what I'm saying. You're against people acknowledging the capacity of their senses, but I'm for it, because it means more to me than just my right to judge videos, but life in general. It's giving up too much to not exercise that belief in my ability to come to a conclusion and say that I'm certain about somethings when I truly feel that's what's happening.

 

[primetime]

Guys, I think that it's important to let cooler heads prevail before you say something that you later regret. That's largely why I chose to step away from this conversation weeks ago. When you, or the person you're talking to, become(s) focused on defending yourself/themself, or even somebody else, then there is no longer a focus on defending your point or truth. So rather than abandon the topic at hand, I think it's better to step away for a while.

I don't know if there is pre-existing grudge here between brotherted and barbarictickler88 and you primetime, but you're answering every person that directly talks to you, and I think that you're getting overloaded with emotions. The nature of online discussions isn't always comforting. Even getting a reply makes you feel like someone is coming to attack you and an otherwise civil conversation triggers some people. I can't say that I'm immune to this.

I'm no moderator, but some of the things you've said recently were primarily to defend yourself, at somebody else's expense. People are saying things that are off the cuff here, and I know that can be irritating, but unless something is going on that can't be seen in this section of the forum, it's not cool talking to people like that here just for having a different opinion. I mean, it doesn't justify your worth as a person to hurt people, and I don't see how that's anything to be proud of. Truly great people lift people up, not bring them down. You're kind of dangerous if you think that hurting people justifies you as a person.

Now, regarding the topic of this forum, I don't know if it helps at this point to go any deeper into what I already said, but I have this to ask, primetime, because once I came to understand your exact standpoint, this is the first thing that came to my mind. When there is a controversial video circulating, either online or on the news, like a hate crime, or something that is a matter of life or death, or even something less serious, like a professional athlete cheating, or an altercation, do you believe that we can't accurately draw conclusions based on what we see just because we only saw it on the tv and weren't there?

I don't want to get too contrived, as it's 4:00a.m. and I'm a bit tired, but here's a couple of things to think about for consideration.

Not even getting into "deflategate" or some basketball players, like Lebron James' controversial game tactics, but here's a simple one. During a hockey game, if a player fouls a player on the opposing team on purpose to injure them out of the game, this warrants immediate judgement because the player's actions harm somebody else's wellbeing. And it can debatably be seen that what happened was or wasn't an accident based on certain factors. Would you say that just because we or even the ref wasn't on the ice, we couldn't see through the replay that they didn't do it on purpose based on how they positioned themself?

Or here's another one. If a video is circulating of an alleged case of police brutality, we couldn't judge and assume certain things based on what we saw in a video? Like if certain acts of violence on the part of an officer or a suspect were necessary for self-defense or not? We couldn't say if a "suspect" posed a credible threat or not, whether they were actually resisting or complying? We couldn't come to the conclusion that the officer used excessive force and is to blame for putting a suspect in critical condition in the hospital? Or that the victim of the beating was in pain? Just because we're not there, we can't see certain things like whether or not someone was making an attempt to submit and comply as opposed to trying to resist arrest? Or that an officer was acting out of fear and self-defense as opposed to out of anger and corruption?

These are things that are not experienced, but seen, and everyone feels compelled to answer whether they were there or not because they absolutely DEMAND some form of investigation and closure, and I don't think that these are things anybody including you would not admit you've come to conclusions about even though you weren't there.

Emotions and feelings run deep in our actions, and they make up reality, it's our RESPONSIBILITY as human beings to acknowledge this. There's no standard for it being unacceptable to use that sense or not, as long as your sense is reliable.

For some reason, you seem to prefer believing that during the circumstance of tickling or sex in a video that you can't know anything. In my opinion, you have a self-serving and partial opinion on this matter to discredit people for disagreeing with you, when disagreeing can inconvenience you by not allowing you to enjoy the things you enjoy.

That's essentially what I'm saying. You're against people acknowledging the capacity of their senses, but I'm for it, because it means more to me than just my right to judge videos, but life in general. It's giving up too much to not exercise that belief in my ability to come to a conclusion and say that I'm certain about somethings when I truly feel that's what's happening.

Really? Are you seriously comparing real life tragedy and controversies to a tickling video? I think you need to step back and realize exactly what this discussion is about. No one is watching a bunch of tragic videos to satisfy a fetish they have. Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges. I mean, you need to really reevaluate your choice of comparisons.

Now, back to the actual topic. Let's just say I encounter someone who swears up and down that the woman in the tickle video faking. They claim they can tell by her/his reactions, and tell me until they are blue in the face that they are faking. Then, we both meet the model, get an opportunity to tickle her and find out she is actually ticklish. The person screaming "fake!" is absolutely stunned. They just KNEW they were faking because they watched the video. Again, that is your OPINION. You do know opinion is not fact, right? If ticklish reactions were monolithic and there was only one specific response to that stimulus, sure, then you can absolutely tell if someone IS faking and take it as fact. My entire point, if you bothered to read it, is that your OPINION is not fact and stop treating it as such. Prove it. Knowing full well there are many different reactions to being tickled, can you honestly say for a FACT that they are faking or not?

It really is that simple..... If you want to speculate and feel confident in your judgment, fine. But it is speculation, not fact, so when someone challenges your speculation, you are supposed to acknowledge it back as "well, that's what I THINK." not, "She/He IS FAKING! Can't you tell?!!! It's obvious!".

Is this sinking in?

 

[brotherted]

Ok, I honestly think you are actually realizing the flaws in your logic and you are treading water, praying I stop replying to you.

I will chin check you right now, so you can go look in the mirror and rethink your approach. I have two very simple words that absolutely crushes your argument and proves mine.

Prove it

That's it. Prove it. Prove the model is faking in the video. Because if it is FACT, you can prove it. The question is, how do you prove it? Just watching a video is not proof. Because that is completely your OPINION. That is not a fact. So, how do you prove it? The only way to do so is actually physically touching the model yourself, or he/she admits it, or the producer does. Which is exactly my entire point....

"But how can I actually prove it???" you might be thinking. Right, exactly....

So, go back and look in the mirror and try to wrap your mind around the fact that you know my point is valid and you can't prove yours unless you use my method. Oh I know, you will say "you can just tell!". Um, no. Knowing that people react differently to stimuli proves that just looking at someone's reaction is not actual "proof". You have your own judgments and biases when it comes to ticklish reactions. Watching a video and you saying it fake is based on your opinion. Period. End of story.

Get it now? your quote of "But yes, there all some videos we all know are fake" is not valid because again, how do we know? Your judgment is not fact. Prove it....

People who aren't autistic don't need proof that horrendous bad acting or blatantly insincere reactions are horrendous or blatant. But trust me, though, autism is real. Perhaps you'll ask for proof of that statement too. And perhaps for you, no human signals can ever be trusted as valid information, because human signals are, by definition, interpreted by other humans.

Perhaps you're autistic and can't make such a distinction -- which is fine, I wouldn't make fun of someone with that disability. But if so, you should at least understand that autism, the inability to interpret extremely basic human reactions, is a disability. It'll help you in life to know that, rather than continue to insist no one really ever knows anything for sure.

 

[primetime]

People who aren't autistic don't need proof that horrendous bad acting or blatantly insincere reactions are horrendous or blatant. But trust me, though, autism is real. Perhaps you'll ask for proof of that statement too. And perhaps for you, no human signals can ever be trusted as valid information, because human signals are, by definition, interpreted by other humans.

Perhaps you're autistic and can't make such a distinction -- which is fine, I wouldn't make fun of someone with that disability. But if so, you should at least understand that autism, the inability to interpret extremely basic human reactions, is a disability. It'll help you in life to know that, rather than continue to insist no one really ever knows anything for sure.

What? You're saying something? Were you trying to insult me? Funny, nothing in your response makes sense. Do you need some assistance with language? I could have sworn you were going to come back with something, anything, of value, but then again, why am I surprised? You got chin checked. You got no response. You got no argument, so you try these futile responses, hoping, praying and grasping for straws.

It's ok. I have chin checked people WAY smarter than you. You can ow go back to your home, sit back, drink a beer and say you gave it the old college try. At the end of the day, you know I am right. If you want to try to respond, I gladly welcome it because I get entertained making you look silly.

Again, PROVE IT. Prove the models are faking. Should be easy right? Knowing that people react different to being tickled, can you honestly say they are faking without proving it? Nope. It is your judgment, not fact. I look forward to the day you think someone is faking, you find out they weren't and that completely obliterates your entire way of thinking. Because if you are wrong, and you will be at times, it only proves what I have been trying to say. You don't really know just by watching video, it is just your opinion. Not fact.

Sit down. You're done son.....Good try though.

 

[tiedup]

Mr. Primetime, please prove that the model is being authentic.

 

[primetime]

Mr. Primetime, please prove that the model is being authentic.

I can't. You know why? Because NONE of us can prove it unless you physically touch them yourself, or the producer/model admits it. You do realize you made my point, right? You really should have thought about that first considering I never said all models are being authentic..... Want to try again?

 

[tiedup]

So. It's impossible to prove that the model is faking. And it's impossible to prove that the model is being authentic.

Schrödinger's tickle model.

In any case, in instances like these, it's up to each individual to make the decision of their own about what they choose to believe. It's impossible to prove either way, so neither person is more right than the other. You should stop getting so angry about people who believe differently than you about things that can't be proven.

 

[primetime]

So. It's impossible to prove that the model is faking. And it's impossible to prove that the model is being authentic.

Schrödinger's tickle model.

In any case, in instances like these, it's up to each individual to make the decision of their own about what they choose to believe. It's impossible to prove either way, so neither person is more right than the other. You should stop getting so angry about people who believe differently than you about things that can't be proven.

Perhaps you should understand what my point is. You literally just made it again. What you wrote in that last paragraph is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. The issue I have is folks do not believe they are wrong. They say a model is faking based on FACT, not opinion. They watch a video and say without a doubt she is faking. I told them you don't really know if they are or not. You can't prove it.

Want to try again? This where you might think, "Oh....never mind."

 

[tiedup]

I never said I disagreed with your point. It's true, obviously. Opinions are not facts. I just wanted to point out to you that it is unproductive to get butthurt about people's opinions. Show me the man that believes his opinion is wrong. Do you go to church to tell everyone there is no proof God exists? Why are you so surprised that people believe things? Like I said, you should stop getting angry that people have their own opinions. You can't prove that their opinion is wrong, so it's completely unproductive.

 

[primetime]

I never said I disagreed with your point. It's true, obviously. Opinions are not facts. I just wanted to point out to you that it is unproductive to get butthurt about people's opinions. Show me the man that believes his opinion is wrong. Do you go to church to tell everyone there is no proof God exists? Why are you so surprised that people believe things? Like I said, you should stop getting angry that people have their own opinions. You can't prove that their opinion is wrong, so it's completely unproductive.

Hahahaha I got another one....

Good try trying to cover yourself. Is this your thought process? "Oh crap, he IS making the point I am telling him. How do I get out of this? I know! I will say I never disagreed with his point and that it is true! Then, I will talk about how his posts were mean! I probably should be telling that to the folks he is pissing off, but I can't give him that much credit."

If you agreed with my point and my point was true, why on this planet did you interject yourself with a comment to me? You called me out. You asked me to prove a model was being authentic. That IS what you came with, right? Hmmm......that is your way of agreeing with me and my point is true? Your initial post alone shows you were thinking I had a different angle. It's ok, you just got in over your head and now backtracking furiously.

"Why are you butthurt?! Do you have to come at people like this?" Yes. I do. I am not even "butthurt". Go back and re-read the entire thread. I made my point early, and some folks decided to come back with snide remarks. So, I can bring it to people and make them wish they never tried to come at me. Here is my secret. I know I am giving away the strategy, but here it is anyway, and perhaps people won't be dumb enough to approach me the wrong way. I purposely use certain language to get people riled up. I am a former athlete that dealt with trash talkers my whole life. The people I deal with here have no idea how to handle my approach. They even forget what they are trying to point out. You just fell into it. Look at you now. You are starting to get testy. If you are thinking, "No I am not, I am just pointing out your emotion", you are covering up. The paragraph before this one, is designed to provoke your emotion. I bet it did. Because you could have easily said, "Ah, yeah you are right. My bad" and we would be done. Nope, you keep coming back and trust me, if you don't come correct to me, I will provoke you.

What does actually annoy me is people are so over the top in their determination of a model's ticklishness. Like it ruins their entire day if they perceive them to be fake. Look at the title of this thread. There's a reason it was created.

I do thank you for finally agreeing that my point is in fact, true. Now, tell some of the other folks that. They don't seem to comprehend that....