The nature of evolutionary behavior that we can't observe is, obviously, highly speculative, and I found myself wondering as well how exactly I felt about the hypothesis. I don't believe there was any mention of specifically male-on-female tickling, however, and I'm certainly not studied on the particulars of human evolution, but I could see it having developed out of a physically violent activity that became tamer.
In any case, it was more of an impression left on me that I found valuable. Even if there is no history of physical violence involved with the development of tickling as a human behavior/physical reaction, I found this to be a very valuable perspective:
Because I can understand the sense of violence that he's talking about. There's a sense of malicious intent that hovers around tickling, and I see in myself where I'm hopelessly attracted to the idea of being tickled because of the intense vulnerability and "violence" to my sensitivities, like the feeling of neck-biting.
Glad you liked the read, and thanks for giving me someone to talk to about it. Cheers!
I think that it would be helpful in this discussion to understand there are differences in how tickling affects people:
Knismolagnia - sexual arousal caused by light tickling - often includes bondage
Titillagnia - sexual arousal caused by intense tickling - often includes bondage
Pteronphilia - sexual arousal caused by being tickled by feathers - often includes bondage
Acarophilia - love of tickling and being tickled without sexual component
While Knismolagnia, Titillagnia, and Pteronphilia have a sexual component, Acarophilia does not.
Different types of psychological incentives for enjoying tickling suggests different reasons for developing it as a social interaction, don't you think?
When we look at other animals, we can see where tickling is used to intentionally distract (Octopi) others, competitive play (chimpanzees) and playful sexual interaction (bonobos). This would suggest that there are many reasons for the development of our species taking advantage of the sensitivity of human epidermis and nerves.
I think in seeing this, it makes sense that while some degree of tickling might have come from competitive play, there is just as much anthropological information suggesting it might have evolved as a flirtation and enjoyment as well. For example, look at the "Slow Loris" film that was going around and you see a cute animal that lifts its arms wanting to be tickled and pouts when the tickling ends. You can observe the same with mice, and scientists have.
All this to say, that we are a complex species who often exhibits like behavior for different reasons. So whose to say our ancestors were one dimensional in their own ticklish diversions?
I've read many articles that suggest ticklishness is derived from our skin needing to detect insets to theories suggesting mothers needed to bond with young, and I've noticed the ticklish spot above the knees causes women to throw our legs open when squeezed....all this "stuff" could be argued to have been part of evolution for defensive , bonding or procreative reasons.
Soooo...all this to say I still think it is jumping the gun to assume tickling evolved from violent interaction. (Check out the ancient city of Caral to see where peace reigned in the Americas for thousands of years - a highly developed society with no weaponry found or defensive structures, and yet multiple cultures coexisted --- so our species can live without violence in situations where there is "plenty").
And there's my nerdy mindwalk for the day! LOL! :lol
