Tickling strangers WITHOUT permission....WTF?

[primetime]

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.

And this is why we have these debates anytime a topic like this comes up. It is how you view tickling which drives your opinion. Because tickling can be extremely sexual to some, of course tickling a random stranger is seen as a "sexual assault". But there is the other side of tickling, the non-sexual kind. Which is why "tickling" a random stranger is not necessarily "wrong".

Yes, we are splicing hairs. But you have to remember that tickling isn't all sexual. A blow job? Yeah, sexual. Grabbing a breast? Probable sexual. (How can it be not sexual? Well let's say you slip next to someone, you reach out for anything to catch your balance and your hand grabs their breast...You didn't intend to, but you did, therefore not sexual.) But tickling? It can go either way. So, "tickling a random stranger" is NOT 100% wrong. It all depends on circumstances. So yes it can be, but it can also not be. What happened to the OP? Yeah, I completely see why we have this tirade about it being wrong. She did not like, she felt violated, so I can see why people say it is wrong. But, we also have people saying ANY kind of tickle to a random stranger is wrong. My point is that not ALL of that is true,....

 

[duderino84]

And this is why we have these debates anytime a topic like this comes up. It is how you view tickling which drives your opinion. Because tickling can be extremely sexual to some, of course tickling a random stranger is seen as a "sexual assault". But there is the other side of tickling, the non-sexual kind. Which is why "tickling" a random stranger is not necessarily "wrong".

Yes, we are splicing hairs. But you have to remember that tickling isn't all sexual. A blow job? Yeah, sexual. Grabbing a breast? Probable sexual. (How can it be not sexual? Well let's say you slip next to someone, you reach out for anything to catch your balance and your hand grabs their breast...You didn't intend to, but you did, therefore not sexual.) But tickling? It can go either way. So, "tickling a random stranger" is NOT 100% wrong. It all depends on circumstances. So yes it can be, but it can also not be. What happened to the OP? Yeah, I completely see why we have this tirade about it being wrong. She did not like, she felt violated, so I can see why people say it is wrong. But, we also have people saying ANY kind of tickle to a random stranger is wrong. My point is that not ALL of that is true,....

Recalling back to my history of hearing people talk about tickling, you're right, it's not directly sexual. But I've heard descriptive words/phrases like childish, painful, "for children", "as punishment" (a mother describing how often she liked to tickle her daughter), stupid, and so on. And a lot of those are gut reactions to a guy who talks about tickling! Without knowing its a fetish, that is. Coming from an adult, it's inappropriate, but from children it's expected. The news articles that randomly come up about tickling are NOT a good thing. OP's post about how disturbing she found it even draws more proof that even if she does like it, it was first viewed as an invasion of privacy. The only place where it's acceptable is in MTJPUB fiction.

To the blow-job example: nobody just walks up and expects a blow-job. Maybe after talking in a park there's a private place to do it, sure. But otherwise, it's totally harassment. Tickling is the same way. Both are unwelcome unless preparation and prose go down to welcome them.

 

[Hemmen]

Before I get into this, primetime, let me say I respect your arguments. It's good to see someone reasonably debate the issue instead of coming off like a troll or worse.

Still:
First of all, the examples you've described aren't what DAJT and coldneck are talking about. They're not discussing a quick stroke to get someone's attention; they're discussing the same sort of tickle most of us are against, whether or not it's strictly sexual to them (though I see no signs it isn't).

And this is why we have these debates anytime a topic like this comes up. It is how you view tickling which drives your opinion. Because tickling can be extremely sexual to some, of course tickling a random stranger is seen as a "sexual assault". But there is the other side of tickling, the non-sexual kind. Which is why "tickling" a random stranger is not necessarily "wrong".

That's quite a leap in logic there. Obviously there's non-sexual tickling - it's something that family members and friends do all the time. But how does that fact lead you to your second statement?

Then there's the question of intent. If the tickler's motive isn't the least bit sexual, why would they do it? What's the point of tickling a random person unless you find them somewhat attractive? And no personal offense meant, but I'm not buying your example of "tickling" someone to get their attention. It's a neat hypothetical, but nothing more. It's something that just isn't done in real life - not necessarily because of any "moral" qualms, but because the shoulder tap (or the words "Excuse me") is the cultural norm. But if it were to happen, what would be the context; would you "tickle" a strange woman standing in line at the supermarket or bank this way?

Yes, we are splicing hairs. But you have to remember that tickling isn't all sexual. A blow job? Yeah, sexual. Grabbing a breast? Probable sexual. (How can it be not sexual? Well let's say you slip next to someone, you reach out for anything to catch your balance and your hand grabs their breast...You didn't intend to, but you did, therefore not sexual.) But tickling? It can go either way. So, "tickling a random stranger" is NOT 100% wrong. It all depends on circumstances. So yes it can be, but it can also not be. What happened to the OP? Yeah, I completely see why we have this tirade about it being wrong. She did not like, she felt violated, so I can see why people say it is wrong. But, we also have people saying ANY kind of tickle to a random stranger is wrong. My point is that not ALL of that is true,....

That's all fine, but you're really stretching to make the point. What non-sexual motive would a person have for tickling a perfect stranger - someone they've never seen or interacted with, not someone they met five minutes ago? Again, for reasons stated above, I'm not crediting the "attention-getter" scenario - which, besides being a real stretch, isn't what's being debated. Almost everyone here, including DAJT, agrees on the type of tickling in question.

 

[helplessandhappy]

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....

If you're doing something you don't think counts as a tickle, why not just call it something else? I would think on this website, we could all agree on the definition of that word considering there are images of it being done all over the left and top of the page. However, I don't think "lightly stroking the skin" of a stranger--even for a second--is appropriate either. There are no clear lines on these issues and everyone has different boundaries, but a good general rule is to not put your hands on someone you don't know, period. The only exception I could think of would be if someone's life is at stake. (pulling someone from a burning car, performing CPR, etc)

Tapping someone on the shoulder? Sure...you could probably get away with that one in 99 percent of cases. But why not just respect someone's personal space until you know for sure how they feel about it? There are plenty of ways of getting someone's attention without touching them if starting a conversation is what you're after.

And this is why we have these debates anytime a topic like this comes up. It is how you view tickling which drives your opinion. Because tickling can be extremely sexual to some, of course tickling a random stranger is seen as a "sexual assault". But there is the other side of tickling, the non-sexual kind. Which is why "tickling" a random stranger is not necessarily "wrong".

It has nothing to do with whether it's sexual or not. I already gave examples of how tickling can cause extreme emotional distress in people without a tickle fetish. Whether or not people here want to believe it, most people HATE being tickled, and in a vast majority of cases, being tickled by a stranger would be annoying at best and disturbing at worst for most random people.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

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.

Is it any more flimsy than falling forward on whatever pop psychology happens to be popular this year, only to be replaced in two years? We're talking about a word that's been around for centuries, has meant the same thing for centuries.

Furthermore, without being candid, I'd say that there has been a lot of pig primping in this thread and not by me.

The law, and more importantly real people in the ground don't give two figs on Websters latest definition of a word.

I don't know if that's true or not. It certainly doesn't reflect the attitudes of people in my circles. But one thing of which I am certain, is that on an Internet forum, clarifying definitions and their source is common practice, and any debater worth his salt will respect Webster.

The "But officer Webster's said it's not assault defense isn't going to work well."

I agree. In my case, it would be more like, "I don't know what happened officer, I just touched her gently to let her know I needed to get by. Next thing I know she's screaming about rape and assault. I'm thinking she's...not rowing with both oars in the water, if you catch my drift."

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.

Rarely have I seen a more extreme posture. So I'm supposed to alter my behavior, simply to accommodate the less than one percent of people who are so emotionally disturbed that a simple touch is enough to bring down the house of cards that is their psyche?

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

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.

That's okay. I'm down on them for their intolerance and their narrow-minded judgmentalism.

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.

Very nice sermon there, Myriads. But I'll respectfully decline to have morality dictated to me on an Internet forum. I'm perfectly confident in my morale middle ground.

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.

Not at all, That level of aversion to touch is not normal and nowhere near commonplace. You go out in public, you'd better expect to be touched from time to time. If you don't like being touched, and somebody touches you, simply ask then not to do so. Chances are, whoever touched you won't continue to do so, and you're touch free.

But if you're one of those crazies who can't tolerate even one simple touch, then yes, the burden has shifted to you to stay away from the general public, and live in a bubble for the rest of your life, or until you decide to get over it, whichever comes first.

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

Sure...let's just see how "different" your "tack" is.

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."

I'd likely respond with, "Well how did he tickle you? Did he throw you to the ground, straddle you, and start going to town on your ribs and underarms?...No?...Just a quick poke to your side?...Eh, I wouldn't worry about it. Either it was somebody you know and didn't recognize for whatever reason, or it was somebody just trying to get your attention. So, how was the mall? Did you find the shoes you were looking for?"

Now, knowing what you know about yourself, and if you are honest, you tickle because it gives you a boner.

Actually, me saying that would be dishonest since it's not true. And this is coming from knowing what I know about myself, which oddly seems to be considerably more than you know about me. How strange.

So this stranger tickled your loved one because he was one of us and wanted to be, or was, turned on.

I'm afraid that's wrong as well. You see, we don't know WHO he was, nor did he announce his purpose or his state of arousal.

He was acting on his fetish and walked away from her turned on.

Objection, your honor. The prosecution is drawing unwarranted conclusions that aren't supported in the testimony so far.

Now how do you feel?

Pretty good.

Do you feel like your loved one was groped?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. She would have told me if she was groped.

Because she was.

No, I think you're confusing her with somebody else. She was tickled briefly, not groped.

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.

Like a salesman. Like a panhandler. Like a doctor. They all wait for the right moment and approach.

Still feel its okay?

Sure I do. Why would it not be?

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.

Over-sexualize, much? it was a tickle, dude. Nothing more.

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.

I'm not kidding anybody when I declare that to be utterly bullshit. A grope is a grope. A tickle is a tickle. They are different things no matter who is doing them, and you inability to distinguish between the two will never change that.

And you know better.

I do know better, and yet curiously you seem reluctant to take my word for anything.

And we know better.

Hold on, you just said I was the one who knew 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.

You're thinking is based on presumption and misinformation, and therefore flawed. Hence, so is your descriptor.

Just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not wrong.

Yay. Another sermon.

And just because a person won't get that demonstrably upset, doesn't mean its not wrong.

Neither does it mean it IS wrong. It has no bearing on the wrength of the act.

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.

Cruelty to animals. As if I needed yet another reason to dislike you.

For no reason, I can call my 8 year old son, a f-ing idiot, and he might roll his eyes and laugh.

Particularly if he's read this post of yours.

So, to summarize: We have the usual over-sexualization of a non-sexual act. We have presumtions that everybody on the TMF feels the same way about tickling. And we have holier-then-thou attitudes of moral superiority.

So much for your "different tack."

 

[duderino84]

Is it any more flimsy than falling forward on whatever pop psychology happens to be popular this year, only to be replaced in two years? We're talking about a word that's been around for centuries, has meant the same thing for centuries.

Furthermore, without being candid, I'd say that there has been a lot of pig primping in this thread and not by me.

I don't know if that's true or not. It certainly doesn't reflect the attitudes of people in my circles. But one thing of which I am certain, is that on an Internet forum, clarifying definitions and their source is common practice, and any debater worth his salt will respect Webster.

I agree. In my case, it would be more like, "I don't know what happened officer, I just touched her gently to let her know I needed to get by. Next thing I know she's screaming about rape and assault. I'm thinking she's...not rowing with both oars in the water, if you catch my drift."

Rarely have I seen a more extreme posture. So I'm supposed to alter my behavior, simply to accommodate the less than one percent of people who are so emotionally disturbed that a simple touch is enough to bring down the house of cards that is their psyche?

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

That's okay. I'm down on them for their intolerance and their narrow-minded judgmentalism.

Very nice sermon there, Myriads. But I'll respectfully decline to have morality dictated to me on an Internet forum. I'm perfectly confident in my morale middle ground.

Not at all, That level of aversion to touch is not normal and nowhere near commonplace. You go out in public, you'd better expect to be touched from time to time. If you don't like being touched, and somebody touches you, simply ask then not to do so. Chances are, whoever touched you won't continue to do so, and you're touch free.

But if you're one of those crazies who can't tolerate even one simple touch, then yes, the burden has shifted to you to stay away from the general public, and live in a bubble for the rest of your life, or until you decide to get over it, whichever comes first.

Sure...let's just see how "different" your "tack" is.

I'd likely respond with, "Well how did he tickle you? Did he throw you to the ground, straddle you, and start going to town on your ribs and underarms?...No?...Just a quick poke to your side?...Eh, I wouldn't worry about it. Either it was somebody you know and didn't recognize for whatever reason, or it was somebody just trying to get your attention. So, how was the mall? Did you find the shoes you were looking for?"

Actually, me saying that would be dishonest since it's not true. And this is coming from knowing what I know about myself, which oddly seems to be considerably more than you know about me. How strange.

I'm afraid that's wrong as well. You see, we don't know WHO he was, nor did he announce his purpose or his state of arousal.

Objection, your honor. The prosecution is drawing unwarranted conclusions that aren't supported in the testimony so far.

Pretty good.

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. She would have told me if she was groped.

No, I think you're confusing her with somebody else. She was tickled briefly, not groped.

Like a salesman. Like a panhandler. Like a doctor. They all wait for the right moment and approach.

Sure I do. Why would it not be?

Over-sexualize, much? it was a tickle, dude. Nothing more.

I'm not kidding anybody when I declare that to be utterly bullshit. A grope is a grope. A tickle is a tickle. They are different things no matter who is doing them, and you inability to distinguish between the two will never change that.

I do know better, and yet curiously you seem reluctant to take my word for anything.

Hold on, you just said I was the one who knew better.

You're thinking is based on presumption and misinformation, and therefore flawed. Hence, so is your descriptor.

Yay. Another sermon.

Neither does it mean it IS wrong. It has no bearing on the wrength of the act.

Cruelty to animals. As if I needed yet another reason to dislike you.

Particularly if he's read this post of yours.

So, to summarize: We have the usual over-sexualization of a non-sexual act. We have presumtions that everybody on the TMF feels the same way about tickling. And we have holier-then-thou attitudes of moral superiority.

So much for your "different tack."

As over-sexualized a person makes things, we have to take into a account that we live in a hypersensitive world, optimized for comfort. That being said, most people feel manipulated by tickling, and if there's one thing I've learned through trial and error, it's never discount someone's discomfort. If said tickler had been caught, it still would've been awkward.

The goal. Is. To. Avoid. Awkwardness.

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Not at all, That level of aversion to touch is not normal and nowhere near commonplace. You go out in public, you'd better expect to be touched from time to time. If you don't like being touched, and somebody touches you, simply ask then not to do so. Chances are, whoever touched you won't continue to do so, and you're touch free.

But if you're one of those crazies who can't tolerate even one simple touch, then yes, the burden has shifted to you to stay away from the general public, and live in a bubble for the rest of your life, or until you decide to get over it, whichever comes first.

I only brought up visually indicating or turning around every few seconds to announce that one doesn't want to be touched by strangers to make a point that there's really no practical way to avoid being touched by people like you who just go right ahead, therefore eliminating the chance to establish that it's unwanted. Of course people should expect to be touched when out in public, like on crowded trains, jostling in a small area where there are a lot of people, etc. But again, they should not tolerate nor expect being deliberately touched like in the situation in the bakery. You ARE unfairly shifting the responsibility - you're saying either "stay away from the general public, and live in a bubble for the rest of your life" or tolerate having your personal space deliberately violated at any time by anyone. You're saying "I get to touch your body if I want" and if you can't tolerate that, you're a "crazy" and should not be out in public. It's on YOU because you're the one doing the touching, not on people who are just going about their everyday lives and have every right to be out in public without having some stranger touch them.

 

[helplessandhappy]

These types like to label others as "crazy" because it makes their own perversions seem more acceptable. It's called gaslighting, and it's a common manipulation tactic used by abusers.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/power-in-relationships/200905/are-you-being-gaslighted

 

[TheTickleMonster]

You know this thread is going no where, if no one noticed.

 

[C.A.B.]

You know this thread is going no where, if no one noticed.

These kinds of threads are consistent that way.

 

[Libertine]

OK, how about this interpretation:

You are actually performing what you know to be a sexual act on someone and hiding behind the fact that she does not know it's a sexual act.

Simply because she is unaware doesn't mean you aren't aware, or that you have carte blanche to do it.

As a grotesque example, let's compare it to fondling a woman who's in a coma.

Ethical?

 

[helplessandhappy]

We will never convince DAJT that he's wrong, but at least new people who come here can see that most of us are normal and not into violating others.

 

[duderino84]

OK, how about this interpretation:

You are actually performing what you know to be a sexual act on someone and hiding behind the fact that she does not know it's a sexual act.

Simply because she is unaware doesn't mean you aren't aware, or that you have carte blanche to do it.

As a grotesque example, let's compare it to fondling a woman who's in a coma.

Ethical?

We will never convince DAJT that he's wrong, but at least new people who come here can see that most of us are normal and not into violating others.

I'm not looking to defend the guy, but from one other angle it's looking like he's trying to desexualize the act of tickling because if the person he's tickling (even only slightly/as in "a poke" add he insists) doesn't know it arouses him, there's hope with rapport being built (in his mind) that eventually tickling will become a regular routine.

Not saying it's right, but just trying to understand his perspective/motive behind what he's doing.

 

[coldneck]

It's wrong no matter if they enjoyed it or not.

Another morals expert layeth down the law!

No laws were broken.

Tickling is not against the law.
(show me a real law, not a flimsy interpretation)

The phrases "Right and wrong" are subjective.

The End.

 

[milagros317]

A simple battery occurs when a person:

Makes intentional contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or
Causes intentional harm to another.

The above is from USLegal.com, which gives definitions for laymen of common legal terms.

Note that tickling a stranger satisfies the first but not the second alternative for simple battery.

It should be noted that simple battery is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, in most states. So you can commit it without much fear of prosecution, but that does not make it an ethical thing to do.

 

[carol8961]

Another morals expert layeth down the law!

No laws were broken.

Tickling is not against the law.
(show me a real law, not a flimsy interpretation)

The phrases "Right and wrong" are subjective.

The End.

Touching someone without permission is called simple assault and it is against the law. If you touch someone and they don't like it, you could get in big trouble, even if you think it is nothing more than a simple tickle. By the way, I asked the criminal attorney who works at my firm and he told me this. So, by all means, keep tickling people without permission...eventually, it will catch up with you and the next person you do that to could decide to call the cops and when you are telling the judge "oh, come on, it was just a tickle," the judge is going to give you a nice big fine. So, there is the legal standpoint.

 

[duderino84]

The above is from USLegal.com, which gives definitions for laymen of common legal terms.

Note that tickling a stranger satisfies the first but not the second alternative for simple battery.

It should be noted that simple battery is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, in most states. So you can commit it without much fear of prosecution, but that does not make it an ethical thing to do.

So technically any tickling of any person is simple battery... Wow.

 

[Oddjob0226]

No laws were broken.

Tickling is not against the law.
(show me a real law, not a flimsy interpretation)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Simple assault in Texas consists of:
•intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to another person
•intentionally or knowingly threatening another person with imminent bodily injury, or
•intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with another that the offender knows or reasonably should know the victim will find provocative or offensive. (Tex. Penal Code Ann. §22.01.)


(That legally means the toucher doesn't decide what is offensive or provocative. The victim and the court does.)

 

[Oddjob0226]

So technically any tickling of any person is simple battery... Wow.

Yes. It's how the police can arrest people with very little cause. The charges are usually dropped, but the time, money and embarrassment are intended to keep people in line. It happens in Texas.

On the other hand, if you need to investigate someone for something truly serious but don't have probable cause, this can also be a way to get that individual on a light charge, then in that investigation find out something more serious. it's like when the police legitimately stop someone for a broken tail light and catch a nervous person in enough lies that they have probable cause to search the vehicle to find drugs, guns, other evidence, etc. .... it CAN come in handy.

 

[duderino84]

Yes. It's how the police can arrest people with very little cause. The charges are usually dropped, but the time, money and embarrassment are intended to keep people in line. It happens in Texas.

On the other hand, if you need to investigate someone for something truly serious but don't have probable cause, this can also be a way to get that individual on a light charge, then in that investigation find out something more serious. it's like when the police legitimately stop someone for a broken tail light and catch a nervous person in enough lies that they have probable cause to search the vehicle to find drugs, guns, other evidence, etc. .... it CAN come in handy.

I guess it's good I decided to pull out of dating lately. Lol.

 

[helplessandhappy]

Another morals expert layeth down the law!

No laws were broken.

Tickling is not against the law.
(show me a real law, not a flimsy interpretation)

The phrases "Right and wrong" are subjective.

The End.

A lot of things are not against the law yet still cause harm. Being rude to the cashier at the grocery store. Visibly leering at a woman until you make her uncomfortable. Being that jerk who refuses to let another car merge in...and so on. Of course right and wrong are subjective. The entire point most of us are trying to make in this discussion is that the vast majority of normal people would feel uncomfortable at this behavior. When someone chooses to engage in a behavior that they know has a chance of making someone uncomfortable, and then tries to use weird loopholes (like it not being technically illegal) to get away with it, most people would view that as wrong.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

In my experience, the "vast majority of normal people" would laugh out loud at the suggestion that harm can be inflicted by being rude to a cashier - or leering at a woman - or a quick tickle. Normal people aren't harmed by such things.

 

[duderino84]

In my experience, the "vast majority of normal people" would laugh out loud at the suggestion that harm can be inflicted by being rude to a cashier - or leering at a woman - or a quick tickle. Normal people aren't harmed by such things.

But this is a new era for sensitivity and morals.

That said, I have to consider a things logically.

Physically? Not much damage. You are working someone's lungs, so that could be threatening, you're digging into skin, that could scratch/irritate it. But someone could be offended nonetheless

Mentally I would say is up in the air. I've had girlfriends that were ok with tickling, and met all sorts of girls that were variations of normal from regular to off the wall.

Legality becomes a coloring book when harm and emotion and privacy and personal space get mixed together.

It's something for all of us to consider, not just guys that want to experiment.

 

[Oddjob0226]

In my experience, the "vast majority of normal people" would laugh out loud at the suggestion that harm can be inflicted by being rude to a cashier - or leering at a woman - or a quick tickle. Normal people aren't harmed by such things.

Go be a cashier. Come back in about two years time and post about it.

 

[helplessandhappy]

DAJT is living in an alternative universe where no rules apply to him and everyone functions completely differently than they actually do in real life. Seriously, scientists should study him because he's clearly the gateway to another reality!