Goofytickle said:But...for instance. The post right above this one...the person in that movie theater will always have that memory implanted in her mind, and all of us will be branded that way to her. Likewise, with the post I alluded to earlier, that girl will also think of all of us as...well...being freaks. =/
Goofy, your logic is a little bit flawed. First, you're assuming that this girl is aware of a tickling 'community'. Secondly, you're assuming that this girl will automatically link anyone involved in said 'community' to her experience. Third, you're assuming that this girl will automatically link anyone who ever tickles her, regardless of their intent, to the tickling 'community' and thus to her experience.
I agree with your other points, however, you're using some sweeping generalizations in your arguments. It is certainly wrong to tickle someone who does not want to be tickled, and, in Canada anyway, any unwanted physical touch or threat of touch, with a sexual connotation, is sexual assault. However, labelling anyone who does so as 'sick', which, as you stated earlier, is a derogatory term, is a little much. There's a big difference between taking a girl's shoe and tickling her and giving an acquaintance, even a stranger, a poke her and there.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however, and you've made your feelings clear. Good on you for sticking by them.
Ninj



