Well that escalated quickly

[GodlessTickler]

So this is not ment to be a "what I'd really do" thread, but more just a general observation.

I always try to read stuff from the vanilla world about tickling because I like the perspective. That being said, one trend I've noticed and seem to notice more and more lately, is the preferred counter to tickling for many women (sometimes without even comunication) is to kick someone in the nuts. I've read a surprising amount of comments that say things like "if someone even tries to tickle me, I'll kick them in the nuts"
I get that the point is, kick them in the nuts and they behave themselves. I get that this could and should be solved by communication and concent. That's not my point...

My point is that I'm a fighter, and if someone deliberately tries to kick me in the nuts my first response is going to be to check that kick, and follow up with a lead hook. Then you've escelated to some serious physical violence.

I rarely see guys say, "If my girlfriend starts tickling me, I'm just gonna start throwing knees to the liver" and if they did people would be like "dear god, calm down dude".

I won't lie, I'm up late and this was just one of thise random things that I noticed reading some websites and thought I'd share, without really having a point.

 

[milagros317]

You should put this observation in the thread "Tickling strangers WITHOUT permission ... WTF?"

 

[GodlessTickler]

Lol I allready posted what I hope is a much more logical post there, this was a rambling.

 

[mellon_collie]

Haha, when you have a little innocent search on Twitter just to see what's being discussed and you're scanning the results; "ffs ok, my face, not responsible, I get it!"

 

[mellon_collie]

Also, slightly on-topic off-topic, but I've always found it distressing how in pretty much all of mainstream media a swift knee in the bollocks is presented as a justified response to almost any perceived slight against a woman, to the point that it had literally become a comedic trope.

 

[GodlessTickler]

My point isn't even that it's "justified" in a strict sense... I mean if it were not for the double standard because of it being a woman, if I poked a guy in the sides and he span around and said "hey man keep your f--- hands off me" that would likely be more than enough... If he tried to throw a kick or a punch at me, right or wrong I would beat him senseless.
If one of my female coworkers gave me a jab in the ribs and I slapped her in a choke hold (FAR less painful than a nut shot I've had both) people would freak out, and very few people would come to my aid with some concept of "it's my body and she didn't have any right to touch me".
Sure it's my body, and sure, she didn't have a right to touch me... But my reaction was WILDLY disperportinatre. That's my only issue.

Even if it's stictly "understandable" to resort to violence I don't see it as being appropriate, and what offends me most is that it's based on the supposition that the man will just take his "punishment" and "learn his lesson". Most of these women would be shocked, even horrified if there was a tickling exchange, a nut shot, and then a left cross leaving them with a broken nose. There are women that can decimate the huge majority of men in a fight, but most of these women are not the ones making these statements.

As a man I would never throw a punch outside of training or competition if I was not prepared to get in a fight, these women are depending on the protection of societies double standard.

 

[The pear]

Imagine the whole "Women belong in the kitchen" thing, as a comedic trope for Men. Now, kicking a man in the balls, is a comedic trope for us. It's all said in joking taste, not to be taken seriously.

 

[porcelaindoll2]

I am pretty sure I have told my boyfriend if I ever we're to flat out hit he should and has my full permission to hit me back. This whole women can beat up men and men are suppose to just stand there and take it is bull shit in my personal opinion. There are some women out there that are pretty strong and some I feel are in desperate need of an attitude adjustment.

 

[GodlessTickler]

I also feel strongly about this because I know a small handful of women that can flat out VIOLATE the men in their lives. They are wonderful ladies and not bullies, and it's not something I worry about (weight class issue) but they exist.

As for the comedic aspect I get that, much like the women belong in the kitchen joke it's in poor taste, but a couple of the posts I read were things like "my husband tickled me once, a swift kick in the balls... He dosent do that anymore".
If I said in any context but a consential bdsm context, "my wife used to jump out of closets and scae people, she tried that with me, I gave her a nice backhand across the face... Now she behaves"
Ohh the firestorm lol

 

[rhiannon]

My question would be where do you read this and who do these people talk about?

 

[The pear]

Well, the issue with that, is moreso the historic aspect of it. Women used to be oppressed, whereas men didn't. Hitting women used to be socially acceptable as a way of "Keeping us in line". It all comes down to the errors of history. Same way in which racial oppression is sincerely frowned upon towards coloured people, whereas if a coloured person is racist to a white person, it's not seen as anything, because we were never oppressed. It all comes down to the historic weight of it.

I fall under the category of able to put up a fight anyways, as a 5'11 girl, and quite.. "Well filled out", if you catch my drift. So, a fight with a man doesn't bother me, however, I would not like to come to a punching fight with one, either way. It's also that Men have been depicted in history as "The strong breadwinners" whereas Women are the "Childbearing housewives" once again it comes down to the nature aspect of it, and the historical aspect when it comes to the whole gender equality thing.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

Well, the issue with that, is moreso the historic aspect of it. Women used to be oppressed, whereas men didn't. Hitting women used to be socially acceptable as a way of "Keeping us in line". It all comes down to the errors of history. Same way in which racial oppression is sincerely frowned upon towards coloured people, whereas if a coloured person is racist to a white person, it's not seen as anything, because we were never oppressed. It all comes down to the historic weight of it.

Personally, I find such history to be irrelevant. It's still a double standard and in my opinion, it's an unacceptable one, regardless of history. If it's all about equality, then it ought to apply to everybody, don't you think?

 

[GodlessTickler]

Obviously I used loaded language to make the point, and it comes down to the academic argument of "only white people can be racist" argument which has some interesting social theory but would compleatly hijack this thread lol

 

[The pear]

History is always relevant. It leaves a stain. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Regardless of equality standards now, history leaves a mark, hence why the whole "Physical harm" gender standard exists.

 

[GodlessTickler]

"Physical harm gendar standard" I will admit that I'm. Not truly farmiliar with this concept. While I agree history is relevant I don't know that history defines moral truth.
Are you saying for historical reasons it is acceptable morally for women to perpetrate violence against men but it is unacceptable for men to perpetrate violence against women??
I will admit that while I try to be open minded that sounds morally reprehensible.

 

[The pear]

"Physical harm gendar standard" I will admit that I'm. Not truly farmiliar with this concept. While I agree history is relevant I don't know that history defines moral truth.
Are you saying for historical reasons it is acceptable morally for women to perpetrate violence against men but it is unacceptable for men to perpetrate violence against women??
I will admit that while I try to be open minded that sounds morally reprehensible.

No, I'm saying, because of former oppression in history, it is considered socially unacceptable to repeat the past. I'm not saying it isn't "Morally stupid". I'm giving you the reason as to why society views it this way.
Historically, men beat women. They considered themselves the strong race. Therefore it is socially unacceptable in two ways, 1) to not repeat the past and 2) Because people still think that men are stronger, and therefore will laugh at a man who gets beaten by a woman. Hence why this is considered to not be an issue, as it's usually just seen as jokingly.

 

[Bator]

This thread reminds me of a notice dA sent all members more than 6 weeks ago. It's certainly a polarizing topic to say the least and the majority of us opted out as these never end well. Many are still arguing about it as you can see for yourself if you follow the link below. It's not for the faint of heart. lol

http://techgnotic.deviantart.com/journal/I-Need-Feminism-438884327

 

[GodlessTickler]

Let me be clear, I am a feminist. I support equality for all people and at it's core I believe that is the truth of what feminism is about, despite what many haters would say.

I however very rarely find that history has much impact on moral right or wrong.

 

[C.A.B.]

Let me be clear, I am a feminist.

What is the male equate of a 'feminist'?

 

[GodlessTickler]

A man who believes in equality for women at least should be considered a feminist.

 

[C.A.B.]

A man who believes in equality for women at least should be considered a feminist.

No, no. I meant the male equivalent advocate for males. Is there such a thing? A 'Masculinist'?

 

[GodlessTickler]

It's a kind of new field I have seen some interesting writing on ideas that mirror feminism for males but I honestly don't know the name. I would prefer a catch all like "equalist" but there is no such thing unless you just go with my preferred phrase of "non shitty person"

 

[C.A.B.]

It's a kind of new field I have seen some interesting writing on ideas that mirror feminism for males but I honestly don't know the name. I would prefer a catch all like "equalist" but there is no such thing unless you just go with my preferred phrase of "non shitty person"

So someone that does not subscribe to the tenets of feminism is a 'shitty person'? I don't that's very nice, either.

 

[GodlessTickler]

That depends on how you define feminism, a lot of definitions really have little to do with equality... But for the most part I do think that people who think that other people are "inherently inferior" to them based on sex, race religion or sexual orientation are pretty crapy people yeah.
It may not be nice, and it's certinally one mans opinion... But I'm good with it.

 

[C.A.B.]

That depends on how you define feminism, a lot of definitions really have little to do with equality...

No. It doesn't depend on my definition of feminism; it depends on the definition as defined by the one judging who is being shitty based on their definition. So... a universal definition of 'feminism' would help everyone.