The simple fact that we're all on this board to begin with may imply that we all had some kind of tickling-related abuse in childhood, even if we don't remember it. (For the record, I did, and I remember it.) It's also clear that the severity and nature of the abuse and our different personalities mean we all handled and processed it in different ways, and so we don't respond the same way now.
No. Just No. This is like saying that pickles cause communism. Why? Because at some point in their life all communists ate a pickle.
The formation of a tickling paraphilia can, and most often is 100% isolated from any traumatic childhood tickling experience. Just as the formation of almost all paraphilia are isolated from a direct 'trauma' (All these feet paraphiliacs were kicked and stomped on? All these restriction paraphiliacs were bound and gagged as children?)
No, they were not. Sexual paraphilia develop rather randomly.
Most people here were not traumatized by tickling as children. Unless you are taking the tack that any non-consesual tickling that a small child suffered is a trauma, which launches us on the path that most of us should have humiliation paraphilia, (because who among us was not traumatized by some horridly embarrassing event in our youth) or any child that received a spanking will gather a yearning for some good OTK entertainment as an adult due to the trauma of that experience.
Our sexualities are not as simple as A ---> B
What most of the 'react violently' people in this thread are speaking about is not that they are disturbed by being tickled, its that they are disturbed by having their personal space violated at a time when they have no reasonable expectation that it might. That is what bugs them, and that they feel so offended about. They feel their bodies are not things that are out there for anyone walking by to reach out and touch in any way shape or form, given that the environment is not one of confined space (an elevator, packed subway car, full dance floor) without consent. The argument they make is one based on their personal right to control access to their bodies. The reasons why are their own, and might have nothing to do with tickling. It's about having their personal space violated.
I personally despise random contact. And that is when I KNOW the person. Want to put me off? Be one of those touchy folks that just has to put your hand on my arm when you are talking to me, or randomly try to hug me when you walk up. I dislike it. And I can tell the difference between a person tapping my arm or shoulder to get my attention, and touches that are other intended. It's not hard.
Are these random tickles that the 'go for it' crowd support harmful? In and of themselves they are not. But in the context of each individual they can be. The fact that "A touch" by definition contains a giver and receiver makes it an act that is defined by not one, but two people, each with their own base motivations and histories that will inform how each interprets it. And in all these "Tickle a Stranger" posts there is a single constant. The outlook, history, and opinion of the receiver are 100% unknown. The giver cannot know what the act will 'mean' to them. And to expect that it will be non traumatic to the receiver (which it will be in upwards of 90% of the cases) is to discount the small percentage of times when it will not be a positive experience for the receiver. And in those cases the act
Does harm.
Now that harm is not physical trauma, nor is it even needfully lasting mental trauma, but it is an act that alters the receivers mental state to the negative for a period, and thus has an effect on them that can be deemed 'harmful'. Most simply put, you made someone's day worse through your mindfully chosen action.
Not a huge moral crime, but still one that is not on the positive side of the moral ledger, for it's a case where you've 'done harm' in the pursuit of a personal pleasure. A small thing. But one that some folks see as important when judging a persons character and viewpoint.
