Anyone ever thought about becoming a pedicurist, specifically for tickling?

[Skipadeedoodah]

And, unfortunately, I predicted this type of behavior in advance. Some people like to take things entirely out of their original context just to enforce some self-righteous judgment on individuals.

For example,


I'd just like to say, I called it ahead of time! lol.



Exactly. As long as he doesn't act on his desire its okay for him to continue with his profession. And, yes, it is okay for people to have minds of their own. Referring back to the original example, I don't think someone who's entirely healthy would want to pursue a career as a pedicurist JUST to tickle women, but these things happen and its not your place to deny people the right to find out for themselves what is right or wrong. People learn by mistakes and if you're not making them you're not learning anything. There's no need to enforce these petty forms of ethics when we assume people naturally learn from their own experience.

Also, if you're that interested in child molesters, I recommend you read something many counselors refer too. Quickes: The Brief HandBook of Sex Therapy, pg. 250.

You know, if you're really the ethicist you claim to be, then you'd be rightly ashamed of everything you've said and you're overall attitude after reading a copy of Howard Becker's book Outsiders: Studies in The Sociology Of Deviance. Even though you're intention is to deter people from doing things which are harmful, you fail to realize you're actually enforcing the exact behavior you wish to avoid.

You may be comfortable comparing foot fetishists and pedophiles, but I'm not, regardless of the context.

 

[solescratcher99]

You may be comfortable comparing foot fetishists and pedophiles, but I'm not, regardless of the context.

Read the chapter I referenced. It basically shows there is no such thing as a pedophile. Its just an unfortunate conditioning factor.

EDIT: Of course, this doesn't excuse the behavior. It just explains how some people have unfortunately found such sexual aberrations as sexually exciting. Its more about conditioning than the person.

 

[Phineas]

Exactly. As long as he doesn't act on his desire its okay for him to continue with his profession. And, yes, it is okay for people to have minds of their own.

Okay... just so we're clear, then... you're cool with the pedophile who becomes a pediatrician, as long as he doesn't act on his desires?

Even though you're intention is to deter people from doing things which are harmful, you fail to realize you're actually enforcing the exact behavior you wish to avoid.

If you'll forgive me, I'll stick to my own moral compass - you know, the one that causes me to not sneak around and actually respect other people's boundaries. You'll also forgive me if I don't take lessons in morality from someone who uses "petty" and "ethics" in the same sentence.

And while we're on the subject, you're just as self-righteously judgemental as I am, my friend. Only difference is, I'm not trying to bludgeon people with my education.

And now that this conversation has gotten silly and circular, I'm done with it. Try not to wind up on the evening news in your trial-and-error experimentation into what's appropriate touching, kiddies.

 

[solescratcher99]

You're studying to be a therapist? I fear for anyone who takes you as a client.

How do you know that? Because I don't remember telling you that specifically. Unless you've been snooping around my posts I don't see how you could have come up with that information.

And now that this conversation has gotten silly and circular, I'm done with it. Try not to wind up on the evening news in your trial-and-error experimentation into what's appropriate touching, kiddies.

So, just because I see a difference between thoughts and behaviors I'm supporting child molesters? Obviously, you're being irrational.

And while we're on the subject, you're just as self-righteously judgemental as I am, my friend.

Ah ha! You admit you're a self righteous prick. lol.

No, seriously. I can be judgmental but I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. That is something you fail to do. I'm guessing that's just because you have a hard time trusting people. I've met a lot of people who've had a series of abuse and neglect who see anything sexually related as a cruel path fraught with uncertainties which need to be strictly ascertained. The need to control everything is usually just an attempt to control things which happened in the past for most people. Even though I feel you're absolutely wrong on this issue, I can see where you're coming from.

 

[Redmage]

The tickling is not what people are pissed off about. The sexual gratification is what makes it an issue. If someone without a tickling fetish tickled women during pedicures just because he thought the reaction was funny, no one would call him skeevy or cowardly. The action isn't the problem. The thoughts are. So again, we're talking about thoughts.

We're talking about motivations - which is perhaps the second cousin of a thought, but not quite the same thing.

Motivations make a difference, because they determine how a person is looking at a situation and the people involved.

I'll try to lay this out as starkly as I can. An ordinary professional - in any profession - goes into it for several reasons. Some of these include making a living, doing a type of work they find interesting, doing something they're good at, and the satisfaction of doing a good job for a customer.

But the pervy pedicurist - as we see from the thread title - isn't doing it for any of those reasons. He's doing it specifically to get his hands on women's feet. It's not about what he can do for his customers. It's about the sexual satisfaction that they gives him.

Basically, someone like our pervy pedicurist doesn't have customers. He has sex objects - emphasis on the objects. Of course that's all in his head. That's the only place that an attitude can live. But that doesn't make it right at all.

Of course we've wandered far afield of cosmetology now. Might be time to shut this one down.

 

[Redmage]

Exactly. As long as he doesn't act on his desire its okay for him to continue with his profession. And, yes, it is okay for people to have minds of their own. Referring back to the original example, I don't think someone who's entirely healthy would want to pursue a career as a pedicurist JUST to tickle women, but these things happen and its not your place to deny people the right to find out for themselves what is right or wrong.

Hmm. So someone who posts a question asking for peoples' thoughts should get only one kind of answer? That seems kind of pointless.

By the way - just because I'm curious - are you saying that someone who "[denies] people the right to find out for themselves what is right or wrong" is...wrong? If he is, then shouldn't you let him find that out for himself?

 

[Phineas]

So, just because I see a difference between thoughts and behaviors I'm supporting child molesters? Obviously, you're being irrational.

No, my point was just too subtle. In fact, if you look carefully, I didn't say anything about whether or not I agreed with the child molestation analogy. However, Skip's position all along is that it doesn't matter what the person is thinking as long as they don't act on it, because then we're into Thought Police territory. Yes?

But, apparently that doesn't apply when the thoughts involve children. So I guess it doesn't matter what the person is thinking, as long as what the person is thinking is deemed okay by the Thought Police. Clear?

Ah ha! You admit you're a self righteous prick. lol.

Absolutely. You're so clever, you found me out. But here's the thing... there are some things I'm fine with being self-righteous about. Touching people in ways that sexually excite you without their permission is something I'm okay with looking down on. I have this crazy thing called "respect for women" goin' on, 'cause I was raised to keep my hands to myself and not lie to people.

That is something you fail to do. I'm guessing that's just because you have a hard time trusting people. I've met a lot of people who've had a series of abuse and neglect who see anything sexually related as a cruel path fraught with uncertainties which need to be strictly ascertained.

Yadda yadda yadda. You know, I took psychology 101 too. What you're doing is "labelling" - you've got just enough knowledge to be dangerous so now you think you know it all. I know how it is, I was there, too - I thought I was the world's greatest engineer by my junior year. But please, keep trying to psychoanalyze me from a handful of posts on teh intarwebs. You'll make an awesome psychiatrist if you can already figure out what's wrong with a person you haven't even met in 30 seconds.

In all seriousness, I don't quite get which side you're on. It really doesn't help that you keep flip-flopping back and forth. You say you can tell the difference between thought and action? If you've been paying attention, all along it's the action I've been condemning. Once again, as Matt keeps helpfully pointing out, tickling is not part of a pedicure. If a tickle fetishist takes the job of a pedicurist in order to tickle people, then tickling them to get his jollies is, in fact, morally wrong. He's foisting his fetish on other people without their knowledge or consent through his actions, not his thoughts.

It seems to me you'd rather we express support for this behavior and let the person find out in their own time, and own way, that it's wrong. The only way that's going to happen is if they get in some kind of trouble, like being fired, or arrested (depending on what the transgression is - I don't suggest that someone be arrested for tickling).

Are you saying you'd rather the person find out their actions are not approved of by society by way of the legal system, after they've already 'hurt' (figuratively speaking) someone, rather than some folks who share similar fetishes and can relate, going, "dude, not cool?"

 

[rhiannon]

You may be comfortable comparing foot fetishists and pedophiles, but I'm not, regardless of the context.

Not too long ago I've been in a conversation where pedophiles were compared to homosexuals. And really, you can! It is not the same, of course, but in general, it is just a sexual preferrence. Pedophiles did not chose to be pedophiles, they just are that way, and scientists have not figured out yet why.

People like what they like, for some it's feet, for others asses, and then there's people who like the innocence and pureness of a child! The latter have one serious problem though: they are the only ones in the huge field of preferrences (except people who like unconscious people or corpses of course!) who can never live their urges with the consent of the partner they desire!

So I don't know why you wouldn't compare the pediatrist with the pedicurist in that case! Following your logic, no harm, no foul, right? Explain what is the difference please! But I think it won't be possible because it's just a moral feeling that is not based on any specific reasons!

 

[solescratcher99]

Blah, blah blah. Bunch of insults and..


It really doesn't help that you keep flip-flopping back and forth.

I know a political party that uses this exact same slogan. lol.

You say you can tell the difference between thought and action? If you've been paying attention, all along it's the action I've been condemning. Once again, as Matt keeps helpfully pointing out, tickling is not part of a pedicure. If a tickle fetishist takes the job of a pedicurist in order to tickle people, then tickling them to get his jollies is, in fact, morally wrong. He's foisting his fetish on other people without their knowledge or consent through his actions, not his thoughts.

I do apologize for not making myself much clearer in your personal view. I owe you an explanation of my position.

I do think there is something unhealthy occurring if someone actually decides to take his/her thoughts seriously and act on them. However, I don't refer to them as morally wrong like you're doing.

Are you saying you'd rather the person find out their actions are not approved of by society by way of the legal system, after they've already 'hurt' (figuratively speaking) someone, rather than some folks who share similar fetishes and can relate, going, "dude, not cool?"

Just to appeal to your black and white logic... nope. However, there is a HUGE difference between what you're saying and what I'm trying to say. Let me quote what I edited earlier. Hopefully, that emphasizes my point a little more clearly.

There's no need to enforce these petty forms of ethics when we assume people naturally learn from their own experience. The reason for this is, by logical necessity, you'd have to assume that people are naturally immoral to enforce any kind of ethics. Basically, you'd be saying that people don't learn from experience and people do not naturally incline towards what is good. In other words, ethics is a tool of pessimists.

Are you saying you'd rather the person find out their actions are not approved of by society by way of the legal system, after they've already 'hurt' (figuratively speaking) someone, rather than some folks who share similar fetishes and can relate, going, "dude, not cool?"

Well, I'm tired of quoting but you were definitely NOT saying "dude, not cool". You were saying its morally repugnant and using all these other words which were completely pejorative.

Anyway, its bed time. I'd like to say that I don't think you're entirely wrong about this, but I do think you're attitude is WAY off base. On an individual level, I say let them get their jollies off but that doesn't mean I'm taking a moral position. Its just something people do when they're in an unhealthy state of mind and honestly I pity people who feel they need to go through that. However, its just simply ignorance. It doesn't say anything about their personal character or whatever. Its just misinformation.

 

[StevenStryke34]

Look, I don't mean to rile up trouble.but that was the only real analogy I could think of. And I can't see a difference with the logic of, If he acts professional, in the bounds of the law, theres no problem. I personally feel everyone whose a parent (not me im in college....nooooooom kids thank you much) would have a serious problem with that, even if he was one of the best docs around.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Not too long ago I've been in a conversation where pedophiles were compared to homosexuals. And really, you can! It is not the same, of course, but in general, it is just a sexual preferrence. Pedophiles did not chose to be pedophiles, they just are that way, and scientists have not figured out yet why.

Pedophilia is NOT "just a sexual preference"!!! Are you kidding me?? Pedophiles are not helpless creatures who God just "made that way." They're not "just another fetishist." They're a sick, disgusting brand of filth all their own.

People like what they like, for some it's feet, for others asses, and then there's people who like the innocence and pureness of a child!

This is sentence sickens me.

The latter have one serious problem though: they are the only ones in the huge field of preferrences (except people who like unconscious people or corpses of course!) who can never live their urges with the consent of the partner they desire!

Oh my. The poor poor pedophiles!!



This discussion has taken a sharp turn into ridiculous, comparing pedophiles to homosexuals and fetishists. I'm done here.

 

[rhiannon]

Pedophilia is NOT "just a sexual preference"!!! Are you kidding me?? Pedophiles are not helpless creatures who God just "made that way." They're not "just another fetishist." They're a sick, disgusting brand of filth all their own.



This is sentence sickens me.



Oh my. The poor poor pedophiles!!



This discussion has taken a sharp turn into ridiculous, comparing pedophiles to homosexuals and fetishists. I'm done here.

Skip, I used to think just like you do. But I read myself into the problem a little deeper, and I started to think that this kind of condemnation is the reason why there actually are child rapists out there.

Not every pedophile actually acts on his urges! I would even say most don't! They know they have a problem, and some go to psychiatrists to get help. But just look how embarrassed a lot of people are about their foot or tickle fetishism! When people realize they have a thing for kids, what do you think how they feel? They are afraid to go to a psychiatrist about it.

And what do you mean, it's not a sexual preference? Do you think a pedophile wakes up one morning and thinks "Hm, I think I'll try raping a child today"? You can't be serious!

Anyways....this should not be a discussion about pedophilia, I just wanted to point out why the pediatrist is NOT different from a pedicurist.

 

[huskys]

OMFG!!!
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!
A guy makes an "off the cuff' post about a fantasy he has about being a pedicurist, because he obviously has a fetish for pretty feet.
Enter stage left, the usual moralistic multitude, who declare it to be an obscene thought, and start to compare it to the horrendous crimes of date rape and pedophilia.
And all of this so as you can argue your pathetic over-opinionated points.
Honestly, the moral compass of some of you is that fucked up, you must struggle to find your way home!!!

 

[rhiannon]

A guy makes an "off the cuff' post about a fantasy he has about being a pedicurist, because he obviously has a fetish for pretty feet.

The whole discussion could have been avoided if he told from the get-go that it is just supposed to be a fantasy! 🙂

 

[pgt1400]

I agree...this is fantasy and now this discussion has grown into something stupid. If I sold ladies shoes 30 years ago because I have a female foot fetish and never did anything inappropriate does that mean I should be locked up? This is idiotic! Do you think a dr.might in his mind admire a woman's body but still behaves in a professional manner should lose his license? Don;t be naive as I am sure this happens because we are human!

 

[huskys]

The whole discussion could have been avoided if he told from the get-go that it is just supposed to be a fantasy! 🙂

Granted. But was he ever given a chance to explain that before all the bull shit started!!!

 

[rhiannon]

I agree...this is fantasy and now this discussion has grown into something stupid. If I sold ladies shoes 30 years ago because I have a female foot fetish and never did anything inappropriate does that mean I should be locked up? This is idiotic! Do you think a dr.might in his mind admire a woman's body but still behaves in a professional manner should lose his license? Don;t be naive as I am sure this happens because we are human!

If he became a doctor because he wants to help people and only admires a woman every now and then when a beautiful one comes in - that's human!
If the doctor just became a doctor to look at and touch naked women, that's a no-go.

@huskys: It's not like this discussion happens to make the person who opened the thread feel bad! But this is a discussion forum, and discussions sometimes do develop a life of their own. Personally, that's what I like about them.

 

[Wolf]

Yes, Yes...

OMFG!!!
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!
A guy makes an "off the cuff' post about a fantasy he has about being a pedicurist, because he obviously has a fetish for pretty feet.
Enter stage left, the usual moralistic multitude, who declare it to be an obscene thought, and start to compare it to the horrendous crimes of date rape and pedophilia.
And all of this so as you can argue your pathetic over-opinionated points.
Honestly, the moral compass of some of you is that fucked up, you must struggle to find your way home!!!

And that's followed up by the
"How DARE you criticize ANYTHING that makes my widdle pee-pee happy!!" crowd...

 

[huskys]

If he became a doctor because he wants to help people and only admires a woman every now and then when a beautiful one comes in - that's human!
If the doctor just became a doctor to look at and touch naked women, that's a no-go.

@huskys: It's not like this discussion happens to make the person who opened the thread feel bad! But this is a discussion forum, and discussions sometimes do develop a life of their own. Personally, that's what I like about them.

Yes, but when "developing a life of their own" means condoning sexual crimes against children, rape, and other obsceneties, I still think there is a massive problem there somewhere!!!

 

[rhiannon]

Wow wow wow....wait a minute here!! Nobody is condoning sexual crimes against children and rape!! Nobody!

Some of us just think that there are certain parallels - and those who do think it's perfectly alright to get a job for sexual gratification decide to just ignore them because if fits into their view of things!

 

[huskys]

The way some people here talk makes me think something wrong is only wrong when it's noticed....

Let's just imagine someone puts sleeping pills in a girl's drink at a party. She falls asleep, the guy has sex with her while she's sleeping. She wakes up, never knows it happened, just thinks she had a real bad blackout from drinking.

So it's not wrong what he did because she never knew about it?

Hmmmmmmmm!!!!!

 

[rhiannon]

And.....you did get my point, right??? It's WRONG what he did! ALTHOUGH she didn't know about it....just like it's wrong if a pedicurist gets his gratification from his clients......even though they don't know about it.

 

[huskys]

I struggle to compare the physical act of rape, which some people never recover from, with the thoughts of a foot fetishest!!!
That is what I was saying in my OP.
Drawing a bow that long, in order to make your point of disagreement, is just plain wrong!!!

 

[rhiannon]

I struggle to compare the physical act of rape, which some people never recover from, with the thoughts of a foot fetishest!!!

We are not talking about THOUGHTS, we are talking about someone tickling people on purpose because it sexually gratifies him without their knowledge and consent! There is a physical act, there is touch included! If they found out about it, don't you think they would feel at least a little bit raped?

I think I would feel that way!

 

[StevenStryke34]

hey wow, ok sorry I used the pedophilia thing--seemed like a good point. who condoned it!? sure as hell not this guy. and I honestly don't know what pedophilia is(choice, non-choice), because well, IM NOT ONE. But there a loads of people too who think homosexuality is "chosen" and plenty of people call bull on that.

I personally get weirded out by topics like this, because I have two younger sisters, and the thought of a stranger in a certain profession ONLY BECAUSE he gets to touch and get off- like i said. theres alot of people who do certain things because they can't obtain it in a healthy relationship. Everyone has different moral stances on this.