Tickling strangers WITHOUT permission....WTF?

[rhiannon]

That is why it is NOT wrong in EVERY SINGLE SITUATION.

You still seem to get that it is wrong to touch strangers period because you don't know how they will react! You don't know if they will be upset. So just don't touch them. That's all.

 

[primetime]

You still seem to get that it is wrong to touch strangers period because you don't know how they will react! You don't know if they will be upset. So just don't touch them. That's all.

Rhiannon?? Where have you been? I was wondering what happened to you. A thread like this that went 14 pages and you are now just here? I hope you enjoyed your time away. Welcome back. I actually missed you. Got to love the back and forth battles.

Back to the subject. Not all touch is wrong. So if you are in a crowd and touching someone to help gesture them out the way would be considered wrong? And before you yammer that it is different, it is not. Read your words. "......it is wrong to TOUCH strangers...."

 

[LargerWorld2577]

Back to the subject. Not all touch is wrong. So if you are in a crowd and touching someone to help gesture them out the way would be considered wrong? And before you yammer that it is different, it is not. Read your words. "......it is wrong to TOUCH strangers...."

I think primetime's only point here is that you can't make blanket statements. I personally have come to agree on that after some thought and admit that I was wrong if I had previously contradicted myself. There are definitely certain cases where it's okay to touch strangers, like in the example above, or like I've said, before, accidental touching. Walking into a bakery and deliberately tickling the manager and running away? Of course I think that's wrong, and even primetime has said he would never do something like that. We all have things we think are wrong, and the statement "that is wrong" is a blanket statement, but it's just easier and faster to say that instead of saying every time "that is wrong except for a few instances". Primetime really took it literally, though, and made a good point, and I agree.

 

[The pear]

Just gonna chuck my two cents in, to a few things I've seen in this.

The thing about "Women wear provocative clothing for X reason" is absurd. That's like me saying "MEN WEAR SKINNY JEANS BECAUSE THEY WANT WOMEN TO GRAB THEIR PENISES." Hell, I wear "Provocative" clothing from time to time, because I like the look of some of it, and because I feel it makes me more attractive. Sure, on the occasion I will use it to get a bit of a tumble, but hell, that's not most women and not most occasions of wearing said clothing and anyways, I'm a slutty bitch and proud.

However, if a guy did that to me, I'm relatively sure I'd chase after him, and punch him in the face. That shit is just weird, and creepy, and just not okay, Mkay?

 

[rhiannon]

Rhiannon?? Where have you been? I was wondering what happened to you. A thread like this that went 14 pages and you are now just here? I hope you enjoyed your time away. Welcome back. I actually missed you. Got to love the back and forth battles.

Aaawww....I'm actually getting teary-eyed.
Just had a lot to do lately.

Back to the subject. Not all touch is wrong. So if you are in a crowd and touching someone to help gesture them out the way would be considered wrong? And before you yammer that it is different, it is not. Read your words. "......it is wrong to TOUCH strangers...."

Okay, let me reword this - if it can be avoided, don't touch strangers. If you see a grandma stagger and fall, yes, you can catch her. But personally I try to refrain even from tapping someone on the shoulder or something like that because I know too much people with PTSD to risk that kind of sudden, unexpected touch.

And it is especially wrong to touch strangers in order to float your boat, and it doesn't matter if the other person enjoyed it or not, because unless you've got a working crystal ball, there is just no way for you to determine they will enjoy it before you do it.

 

[coldneck]

Here is what you don't get:

"When the wind blows, it's certain to ruffle a few feathers." - Proverbs

In the immortal words of one of our Founding Fathers,
Benjamin Franklin: "Go with the flow. There are no guarantees or insurances in life, other than Death and Taxes ."



Or as James Bond sez: "Live and Let Die"

 

[Bator]

Can't say I've tried it and don't plan to start. I've been on the receiving end though, tickled and my butt being pinched. It usually happens in bars by girls who have had a bit too much to drink and lose their inhibitions. I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

[GodlessTickler]

I think this thread has some good points, I always find it sad that people get upset over some lovely discussion.

For me (particuarly as a logician) is that everyone seems to want this in absolutly axiomatic terms, with no sense of degree.
I don't think I've ever tickled a complete stranger, nor outside of a bdsm context have I ever got written consent. The thing is to me a lot of people seem to function in these extremely sweeping moral absolutes.

Rape is wrong, touching strangers is wrong, just admit your WRONG!!!!!!!

Rape is wrong. Touching strangers is a morally grey area, and is much less wrong.
That's my opinion but I stand behind it.

Some people like Dajt are going to feel one very specific way, there is no back and forth communication. He is here to defend his point, not to communicate. That's ok, not a judgement just an observation.
Yet, I imagine communication breaks down for a lot of others because people make a blanket statement like "whoever tickled bs is just as bad as a serial child rapist, because wrong is wrong, and he should be beat to death with a big BIG rock". And there are a lot of people who read that and say... "I think I did sneek in a quick tickle on a girl I went to high school with while she was putting books in her locker. But I don't wanna associate myself with child rapists and I don't think it's fair if you beat me to death with a rock"

One thing I do a good bit is when I'm dealing with a woman I find very attractive, when I am handing her something I will let my hand touch hers. Yes, I'm touching her without consent. Yes I'm deriving pleasure from it. Is it wrong? Maybe a tiny bit. Is it as wrong as raping her at knife point in the back alley. No.

I tend to touch casually and if someone takes offense, I appogize and don't do it any more.
If I feel for some reason the person may be uncomfortable, I tend to try to get consent, usually in a playful way... But I don't avoid all physical contact with people for fear someone might have a phobia of being touched.

Now to take the other side of that argument, tickling IS different. The reason I LOVE tickling, is that it "hijacks the persons body" for a moment. It makes her react. Very few other forms of touch (except pain) do that. I can't see how anyone who enjoys tickling, and I assume the reactions it causes, can act like it's the same as any casual form of touch. It's simply not. That's why of all form of touch I like it best, but while i dont keep a sworn testimony and a voice recorder in my briefcase to document tickling consent, I do try to be very careful... And unless I feel I can be pretty darn sure, I'll find a playful way to bring it up.

 

[rhiannon]

One thing I do a good bit is when I'm dealing with a woman I find very attractive, when I am handing her something I will let my hand touch hers. Yes, I'm touching her without consent. Yes I'm deriving pleasure from it. Is it wrong? Maybe a tiny bit.

This is a total different scenario though. A touch that happens out of interaction. Totally different from sneaking up behind someone unsuspecting and tickling them.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

This is a total different scenario though. A touch that happens out of interaction. Totally different from sneaking up behind someone unsuspecting and tickling them.

Sure it's "different from sneaking up behind someone unsuspecting and tickling them." But not so different that it doesn't fall under the category of touching strangers to float one's boat, which you described not only as wrong, but especially wrong.

So even though it's different, according to you, touching a female stranger's hand in a manner described by GT is "especially wrong."

See Rhiannon, you fall into this same trap, time and time again. You make a blanket statement, x is wrong!! Then somebody comes along and gives you an example of x that seems socially acceptable. Then you backpedal like crazy, insisting, "THAT'S DIFFERENT!!" Or sometimes, it's "let me rephrase." But what you refuse to acknowledge is that your original blanket statement has been proven to be flawed, as is your whole concept of morality.

 

[C.A.B.]

Sisyphus thread.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Of course it's a different scenario, that's my whole point, all these scenarios are different, purposefully touching a waitress hand while she hands me a bill is different that a rib poke, and a rib poke is different than an ass grab... So on. That's really the crux of my argument. People keep saying "it's no different" of course it's different, just because you can find points of similarity dosent make situations equal.

 

[TTT for joy]

Did I miss something? If you touch a stranger in any kind of way, unless non intentionally without his permission it's bad. What's more to say on the topic?

 

[ArchNemesis]

Did I miss something? If you touch a stranger in any kind of way, unless non intentionally without his permission it's bad. What's more to say on the topic?

"Uhhh, no it's not that bad, I mean it's not as bad as (fill in the blank)". 15 pages later...

 

[GodlessTickler]

For some people it may be that simple, to a logician I think it's more about the complexity of morals that tend to be infinatly deeper than "uh it's bad cause I said so.. Isn't that all that matters". What amazes me is that people keep referencing the thread length as if intelectual discourse should be limited to a few scant points. Sure some is silly and repetitive, but tens of thousands of pages have been written on some very obscure moral concepts. To think that we have exhausted human understanding of ... Well ANYTHING because we have reached page fifteen seems a bit odd to me.

 

[C.A.B.]

...What amazes me is that people keep referencing the thread length as if intelectual discourse should be limited to a few scant points...

"Scant"

You nailed it.

 

[BBGuy5240]

I manage a coffee shop/bakery that often gets really crowded. Last night, I was erasing a chalk board on the wall, you know the kind many restaurants and coffee shops use to display their menu specials? Right, so I'm erasing the chalk board with my back to the rest of the store, and I'm having to reach up kind of high. I guess I was in a vulnerable position because some creep thought it would be appropriate to come tickle my sides. I'm not joking. I felt, what was clearly two fingers tickling each of my sides, it wasn't incidental contact. When I turned around to see who it was, I saw a man quickly making his way to the door and out onto the street, his action clearly unnoticed by other customers in the shop.

Seriously, how does someone think this is acceptable? Some people might not consider this to be a big deal but I feel a bit violated. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

Very Weird and Unacceptable.

An Individual doing that to a Complete Stranger, that could fall into the Category of Sexual Assault

 

[TTT for joy]

For some people it may be that simple, to a logician I think it's more about the complexity of morals that tend to be infinatly deeper than "uh it's bad cause I said so.. Isn't that all that matters". What amazes me is that people keep referencing the thread length as if intelectual discourse should be limited to a few scant points. Sure some is silly and repetitive, but tens of thousands of pages have been written on some very obscure moral concepts. To think that we have exhausted human understanding of ... Well ANYTHING because we have reached page fifteen seems a bit odd to me.

Well... if you really want to debate this in a 'serious' way, it's fine by me. I am not a logician but being a mathematician, should be enough shouldn't it?

There are tons of concepts of morality, but I view it primarily as a set of rules to make as few miserable people as possible. We are social species, which means we have some duties towards each other and if we want a society functioning in some gentle way, well then we need to obey those moral imperatives. One of the most fundamental aspects of morality to me is not treating human beings as an object or as a simple mean. Consequently for instance slavery is immoral, because it does exactly that kind of thing.

If you touch a stranger without permission: in that case tickling him for your own pleasure, you do not care about how that person feels about being tickled, what it does to that person and so on... Remember it's supposed to be a stranger so you can't possibly have access to all that kind of information. You simply go and tickle him regardless of anything, treating him simply as your own mean of gaining pleasure/amusement or whatever reason you do this for.

 

[GodlessTickler]

First of all of course I respect mathematics, mathematicians are a special kind of applied logician. Math logic and algorithm theory are my field anyway. To start with the problem as you well know, is that your post simply defines axioms and endeavors to prove something from them, which of course you can because you chose them.
If I say I am a hedonist (I'm not) and that the highest moral law is to gain pleasure, then the tickling would probably be right wouldent it.
As the case is however I MOSTLY agree with your secular humanist view of morality, except I tend to put greater emphasis on harm, which seems universal, rather than using human beings because that is a slippery slope. We use each other in many ways I don't know that we wish to define all of them as amoral.

However to accurately describe my point you shouldent offer to discuss with me as if my point is that the action is not wrong. I believe the action was wrong. My only argument was that there are degrees of wrong, and as such I would roughly imply that tickling a stranger is "more wrong" than accidentally on purpose touching her hand, and less wrong than raping her in a stairwell. My only real complaint was that it seemed as if many in this thread were usinna fully binary definition of morality, I think that mostly useless.

 

[SlaverTickler]

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.

Actually any unwanted touching is considered sexual assault. However if she/he said stop and you did, then legally you would have an argument. Even the Female Unich claimed there was nothing wrong with what Bill Clinton did to the women who worked under him because when they said no he stopped.