jasonforde
TMF Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 121
- Points
- 0
If your partner trusts you and you go behind their back to meet someone for tickling then that is cheating.
Obviously, I disagree. But then again, I don't define honesty as "spilling your guts to your lady about everything in the world that has the potential to excite you."I think that is a bit dishonest.
I don't know anybody who fits that description, on or off the forum. Sexual gratification only comes with sexual release. Tickling does not provide that. It requires sexual activity. Stimulation of the genetalia, you get the idea.If tickling alone brings sexual gratification, then YOU know what the fetish does for you.
If you're seeking sexual release outside the relationship, I agree that's cheating. But most don't achieve orgasm through tickling alone. It may get them excited, but they need actual sexual activity to be gratified. So, tickling outside of the relationship does not equal sexual gratification outside of the relationship. If a guy gets tickled by his secretary at work, and comes home and releases that sexual excitement into her, that is not cheating.The fact that you have not disclosed that to your significant other does not absolve you of the fact that you are seeking sexual gratification elsewhere.
And because it isn't porn, the guy is being entirely honest and truthful to his partner.It's kinda like telling your partner that you don't look at porn, but you don't mention having a bra fetish and so she thinks nothing of your collection of Sears Catalogs. Technically, it's not porn, but to a bra or lingerie fetish person, it certainly can be used as porn.
"Skirting around the truth." What does that even mean? Are you saying that you have an obligation to disclose every interest you have to your significant other? I personally find that to be an absurd notion.I think that trying to skirt around the truth so you can indulge in your fantasies is no better than outright lying. The ethical gymnastics some people can achieve is often astounding.
Obviously, I disagree. But then again, I don't define honesty as "spilling your guts to your lady about everything in the world that has the potential to excite you."
I don't know anybody who fits that description, on or off the forum. Sexual gratification only comes with sexual release. Tickling does not provide that. It requires sexual activity. Stimulation of the genetalia, you get the idea.
So there is tickling, which may or may not excite you sexually, but doesn't provide sexual release.
And there is sexual gratification which does.
Two entirely different things.
If you're seeking sexual release outside the relationship, I agree that's cheating. But most don't achieve orgasm through tickling alone. It may get them excited, but they need actual sexual activity to be gratified. So, tickling outside of the relationship does not equal sexual gratification outside of the relationship. If a guy gets tickled by his secretary at work, and comes home and releases that sexual excitement into her, that is not cheating.
And because it isn't porn, the guy is being entirely honest and truthful to his partner.
"Skirting around the truth." What does that even mean? Are you saying that you have an obligation to disclose every interest you have to your significant other? I personally find that to be an absurd notion.
People have to resign to the fact that it is normal and healthy to sometimes derive excitement outside of the relationship. People don't own each other. We have no obligation to disclose all of our interests to anybody. We choose what we share, and so do they.
A silly, meaningless phrase. What you said that prompted my response was that is was "dishonest," which is not at all true.Like I said...ethical gymnastics.
What gets me through the day has nothing to do with any of this.Whatever gets you through the day.
A silly, meaningless phrase. What you said that prompted my response was that is was "dishonest," which is not at all true.
What gets me through the day has nothing to do with any of this.
So, it's dishonest not because you can demonstrate any actual dishonesty. It's dishonest because that's your opinion and you think that if others agree with your opinion that somehow makes you right.Actually, it is dishonest. I would wager that a majority of people would find your point of view dishonest. But it's yours and you can live as you please. Just remember, a relationship doesn't just depend on your point of view. If your partner doesn't share your very elastic ethical view then you can't be surprised if they leave you because they felt you were being dishonest...no matter how much you insist that you weren't. That's really all I have to say on the matter.
So, it's dishonest not because you can demonstrate any actual dishonesty. It's dishonest because that's your opinion and you think that if others agree with your opinion that somehow makes you right.
But the bottom line is that it isn't a matter of opinion, so it doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Definition is not a matter of opinion, so you can't just arbitrarily choose to redefine dishonesty to include holding back very personal information about yourself that you may not feel comfortable sharing with your significant other.
Sharing is a big part of a long term relationship. As that relationship progresses over time, you share deeply personal issues over that duration. You don't just spill your guts from day one. Many people aren't comfortable sharing deeply personal feelings and desires. Is it reasonable to tell them, "hey, you'd better fess up or be labeled a liar?"
On any other forum, the idea of tickling being cheating would be laughed away. But many TMF'ers can't differentiate between tickling and sex. They are not the same thing even for fetishists and so consequently it is unreasonable to place the same societal constraints on tickling that are placed on sex.
...it isn't a matter of opinion, so it doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Definition is not a matter of opinion, so you can't just arbitrarily choose to redefine dishonesty...
I am part of that same society and have been for over fifty years. My circle of interaction is rather extensive. So I'm as knowledgeable of societal norms as the next guy, and likely more so than most. But I've never once heard anybody suggest that if you don't tell your significant other everything that excites you sexually, you're being "dishonest," or "disrespectful." So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate where or on what authority this is mandated.You are redefining what dishonesty is to suit your own philosophy. The rest of us (in western society) know what dishonesty is because we subscribe to an agreed upon moral code within society.
I am part of that same society and have been for over fifty years. My circle of interaction is rather extensive. So I'm as knowledgeable of societal norms as the next guy, and likely more so than most. But I've never once heard anybody suggest that if you don't tell your significant other everything that excites you sexually, you're being "dishonest," or "disrespectful." So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate where or on what authority this is mandated.
I get that some TMF members are uncomfortable with the idea of a partner who doesn't tell them everything that excites them sexually. They want to know that stuff, and they feel entitled to that knowledge. Hence, they erroneously categorize anything less than full disclosure as "dishonesty."
But we are not entitled to it. That's something that must be shared voluntarily, or not at all. If you mandate such disclosure, it is no longer voluntary. I'm amazed that this even needs to be explained. I've been in a long term relationship for a while now. I can tell you that it was years that went by before my lady opened up about some of the more personal aspects to her sexuality. I didn't push. My love for her wasn't contingent on knowing all of her information. It still isn't. There are likely things she still hasn't mentioned. She'll either tell me in time or she won't. But if she does, it'll be because she wants to, not out of fear of being labeled "dishonest."
I don't quite know what you mean by "sexual gratification." and I'm pretty sure I've not used that phrase to describe what I think is okay outside of the relationship. In my mind, sexual gratification requires sexual activity, and sexual release. Suppose a girl gets a guy all hot and bothered but then walks away? Would you consider that sexual gratification? Most guys I've known would certainly not.Yes, but you keep sidestepping the fact that you thinks it's ok for you to get sexual gratification from something and not tell your partner.
Perhaps that's true, but it certainly begs the question, which of them is sabotaging/ending the relationship? They guy who's happy to continue the relationship in spite of his porn collection? Or the girlfriend who threw a tantrum over his collection and angrily stomped off?Many relationships get sabotaged this way. People don't disclose their porn collections and it ends relationships.
No, I'm afraid we both know no such thing. What I'm defending is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure, but rather on the truth of what IS disclosed. I'm defending the right of every man and woman to decide for themselves what they choose to disclose rather than to have that decision made for them by you or anybody else.I used the example of telling your partner that you don't have a porn collection, but neglect to tell her that you have a bra fetish and that those dozens of sears catalogs you have are used as jerk off material. Are you technically telling the truth since those catalogs are not legitimate pornography? Probably. But we both know you're using a technicality to avoid being honest since you are using those Sears catalogs just like pornography. This is what you are defending.
No, I'm afraid we both know no such thing. What I'm defending is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure, but rather on the truth of what IS disclosed. I'm defending the right of every man and woman to decide for themselves what they choose to disclose rather than to have that decision made for them by you or anybody else.
No. I never said any such thing. As many times as I've explained it, you still haven't gotten it. What I think is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure. It's dependent on the truth of what IS disclosed. Dishonesty is wrapped up in deception. Holding back personal information about yourself is not deception. In most cases it's self preservation.Again, you're sidestepping. You think that if it's honest in your mind, then it's honest.
There is no "technical sense" of honesty. You are either being honest, or you're being deceitful. Now in your example you claim that that the guy beating off to a Sears catalogue "knows he is doing just what he is claiming not to do." Since you are the author of this scenario, you get to decide what he thinks. Personally I think it's a bad example. If I were in his place, I would know that I wasn't doing what I said I wasn't doing. My honesty would have been intact as well as my fidelity.The example I gave is one where a person is being honest in only the most technical sense while knowing full well that they are doing just what they are claiming not to do.
Absolutely they can, but only under certain conditions. First, the tickle fetishist must never tell his significant other about his fetish. Now remember, just because you disapprove of such stoicism doesn't make it dishonest. Just because you think the significant other has the right to know does not make it dishonest. To be dishonest, he must be deceiving her. For example, if she asks where he was and he lies to her, the line was crossed. He was dishonest. But if he goes and gets tickled half to death by a couple of the girls in the steno pool but has absolutely no sexual contact with them or any exchange of affection, he hasn't violated anything, and therefore can't be said to be cheating.In your own words...tickle fetishists can have their cake and eat it too.
On this forum, perhaps. I know plenty of people, both men and women who agree with it. They don't believe in the full disclosure mandate that you champion as an integral component of "honesty.".I'm simply saying that most people don't share your view of honesty.
If you'll take a look back, you'll see I posted my opinion and basically left the thread alone while people posted their opinions that ran in direct opposition of my own. I'm fine with that, because I don't expect everybody to agree with me. It wasn't until fifteen posts later you quoted me, and said what I was proposing was dishonest behavior. So yeah, when my views are directly challenged, chances are good I'm going to defend them, especially when the attacks are rooted in misinformation, such as the erroneous notion that a lack of full disclosure qualifies as "dishonesty."You seem to feel the need to defend it.
Absolutely they can, but only under certain conditions. First, the tickle fetishist must never tell his significant other about his fetish. Now remember, just because you disapprove of such stoicism doesn't make it dishonest. Just because you think the significant other has the right to know does not make it dishonest. To be dishonest, he must be deceiving her. For example, if she asks where he was and he lies to her, the line was crossed. He was dishonest. But if he goes and gets tickled half to death by a couple of the girls in the steno pool but has absolutely no sexual contact with them or any exchange of affection, he hasn't violated anything, and therefore can't be said to be cheating.
Nobody understands better than me that there are different "moral view structures" in the world, and particularly on the TMF. However, it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me to label Partner A as "dishonest" because (s)he's violating Partner B's moral codes. That is the thing to which I am objecting.Bold added by me.
Here is the core piece of things that everyone is arguing against DAJT on.
He's not violated anything in DAJT's moral view structure, but he may have violated something in his partners (or the cultural norms) moral view structure.
It's this refusal/inability to see that aspect of the situation that has always defined his point of argument, that there may be a different morality active in his partners that would be in conflict with his own chosen moral path.
These threads always swing around that point when the debate starts. Mostly they wander off into semantic arguments.
Myriads
No. I never said any such thing. As many times as I've explained it, you still haven't gotten it. What I think is that honesty is not dependent on full disclosure. It's dependent on the truth of what IS disclosed. Dishonesty is wrapped up in deception. Holding back personal information about yourself is not deception. In most cases it's self preservation.
There is no "technical sense" of honesty. You are either being honest, or you're being deceitful. Now in your example you claim that that the guy beating off to a Sears catalogue "knows he is doing just what he is claiming not to do." Since you are the author of this scenario, you get to decide what he thinks. Personally I think it's a bad example. If I were in his place, I would know that I wasn't doing what I said I wasn't doing. My honesty would have been intact as well as my fidelity.
Absolutely they can, but only under certain conditions. First, the tickle fetishist must never tell his significant other about his fetish. Now remember, just because you disapprove of such stoicism doesn't make it dishonest. Just because you think the significant other has the right to know does not make it dishonest. To be dishonest, he must be deceiving her. For example, if she asks where he was and he lies to her, the line was crossed. He was dishonest. But if he goes and gets tickled half to death by a couple of the girls in the steno pool but has absolutely no sexual contact with them or any exchange of affection, he hasn't violated anything, and therefore can't be said to be cheating.
Alternatively, he can confess his fetish to her and hope for the best. If she decides she's okay with him doing that from time to time, great. But chances are she's going to insist that all tickling remain in the relationship. Then it becomes his decision as to whether or not to tolerate the ultimatum. In my opinion, it's simply best to keep mum, and not give her any inkling of your interest in tickling.
On this forum, perhaps. I know plenty of people, both men and women who agree with it. They don't believe in the full disclosure mandate that you champion as an integral component of "honesty.".
If you'll take a look back, you'll see I posted my opinion and basically left the thread alone while people posted their opinions that ran in direct opposition of my own. I'm fine with that, because I don't expect everybody to agree with me. It wasn't until fifteen posts later you quoted me, and said what I was proposing was dishonest behavior. So yeah, when my views are directly challenged, chances are good I'm going to defend them, especially when the attacks are rooted in misinformation, such as the erroneous notion that a lack of full disclosure qualifies as "dishonesty."
Bold added by me.
Here is the core piece of things that everyone is arguing against DAJT on.
He's not violated anything in DAJT's moral view structure, but he may have violated something in his partners (or the cultural norms) moral view structure.
It's this refusal/inability to see that aspect of the situation that has always defined his point of argument, that there may be a different morality active in his partners that would be in conflict with his own chosen moral path.
These threads always swing around that point when the debate starts. Mostly they wander off into semantic arguments.
Myriads
Nobody understands better than me that there are different "moral view structures" in the world, and particularly on the TMF. However, it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me to label Partner A as "dishonest" because (s)he's violating Partner B's moral codes. That is the thing to which I am objecting.
Of course there are codes of morality that are generally accepted by society. Sexual and/or romantic encounters outside of the committed relationship are widely considered to be cheating offenses, and I'm on board with the mainstream there.
So the big question that arises is, what happens when we get an erotic thrill out of a non-sexual activity? Some immediately place that activity in the category of sexual activity, and apply all those rules accordingly. If that's what they want to do for themselves, I'm fine with that. I might shake my head ruefully and roll my eyes but it’s their call to make.
I would maintain that tickling is not a sexual activity.
If tickling were a sexual activity, it couldn’t be a fetish (or paraplegia, or whatever pop science happens to be calling it this week). It would simply be a case of deriving erotic thrill from sexual activity, which is as vanilla as it gets. But the fact is that tickling is not a sexual activity, which is what makes many of the folks here fetishists. Unique, and a significant distance outside of the mainstream. Vive la différence!
So, if tickling is not a sexual activity, I see no reason to apply the social stigmas that come with sex to tickling. You guys have been handed a get out of jail free card. If you want to tear it up and throw it away, that’s your call, but don’t demonize those who legitimately and HONESTLY use it.