Saying "No" to tickling?

[luv2bt&tickled]

Re: Awwww

Thanks Tracy! Usually I'm the kiss of death on threads and once I post it seems all posting ceases! lol 🙂

Kiss of Death! Don't be silly! No you're not! 🙂

 

[TickledToDeath]

Unless she is holding a firearm or bow and arrow, she will get tickled at least ONCE.

Her reaction after I stop will determine if it will happen again.


TTD😉 😀

 

[njjen3953]

Re: ok

What is it I always heard about women??.... "No really means yes!"


...Ha ha, lighten up some, starfire.

What a guy REALLY means when he says, "I am only interested in "non-con" tickling."

1. No woman that likes tickling would ever let me tickle them.
2. She could never like me.
3. What if I am not good enough?

 

[Novus]

Re: What a guy REALLY means

What a guy REALLY means when he says, "I am only interested in "non-con" tickling."

1. No woman that likes tickling would ever let me tickle them.
2. She could never like me.
3. What if I am not good enough?

What a guy <FONT COLOR=RED>REALLY</FONT> means when he says, "I am only interested in non-con tickling."

1. Not that many women really like tickling or least they don't really know for sure because no one ever tickles them.
2. If I ask then they will ask me why I like to tickle. No need to answer questions in the spontaneousness of non-con tickling.
3. It totally kills the mood.

 

[BellaRisa]

Unless she is holding a firearm or bow and arrow, she will get tickled at least ONCE.

Her reaction after I stop will determine if it will happen again.


TTD😉 😀

TTD, let me get this straight so I understand you: you're saying that even if a lady makes it clear that she doesn't want to be tickled, you'll disregard that and do it anyway? If you're not kidding and that's what you meant, may I ask why you feel that would be an ok thing to do, why 'just once' would be acceptable even though she already told you not to? Thanks! 🙂

Bella

 

[DallasFootTickler]

It's a matter of respect

First of all, we can only speak in the hypothetical sense here because in order to make the appropriate judgement call, you have to actually be in the situation so you can read the other person's mood and tone of voice. Having said that, if someone makes it clear that they object to being tickled and you can tell they are being serious then I would hope that most people would respect that person's wishes. Don't let your strong desire to tickle someone cause you to violate their personal space.

-DFT

 

[BellaRisa]

Back atcha Novus

That is not what I ment and you know it. We can tell the difference in the context of the word. People who are uncomfortable with tickling should not be bringing up the topic. I was once on the other side of the fence and trying to suppress every thought of tickling and I did not want tickling in my life. It was very easy to keep the ticklers away by keeping the subject taboo and giving people evil stares if they got too close. And there is always the dreaded line that tickle haters are all prepared to use: "Your a sick freak, get way from me." If that does not work you are dealling with rapist. ... Most men will try to get a kiss out her on the first date anyway because they see it as a challenge... Now as for people who bring up the subject of tickling in their first introduction are either clueless as how to keep ticklers away or are making a challenge. The girl who said she will hurt anyone who tries to tickle her probably means it. Not because she hates being tickled and <B>wants</B> to hurt people who tickle her but because she just goes absolutely wild and nuts when someone tickles her and she can't control herself. I know what you are saying I just wish more people understood where I was coming from.

Hi again Novus,

I took the lines from your post that I wanted to address. First let me say that I do see many of your points, and I'm not trying to be funny or facetious-I respect you and I'm honestly going by what you wrote.

When you say that people uncomfortable with tickling shouldn't bring it up, I have to respectfully disagree. How else are regular people who hate tickling supposed to let people know? I totally agree with you on the habit 'keeping it taboo', but I have the kink-Hell, I used to think just saying the word would cause people to tickle me and that thought was so overwhelming that I NEVER uttered it out loud . But folks without the kink don't think the way we do, and if a vanilla girl seriously hates being tickled she's likely to tell anyone she might be getting physical with-especially in an ad or personal where she's supposed to tell her likes and dislikes. And remember, since most girls don't even know we ticklers exist, they don't *know* that they're fueling your fire by mentioning tickling, in their minds it's highly annoying but innocuous-I believe it's usually honesty, not a challenge.

Speaking of challenges, I found your comment on the 'no kissing' thing being seen as a challenge very interesting. It seems as though many guys feel that females like to play games, but a girl stating her feelings and limits is seen as throwing down a gauntlet of sorts. Are there no girls out there who say what they mean and mean what they say? Dating must be a bit of a tragicomedy these days: if you don't mention what you hate and he does it, it's your fault for not telling him. But if you state it very clearly and he does it anyway, it's your fault for bringing it to his attention and therefore making it a challenge. I suspect that 'damned if ya do damned if ya don't' deal has caused a lot of misunderstandings and elbow-induced toothlessness amongst young suitors 😱 .

I agree with your last comment, and let me add that many, many people hate the out-of-control feeling that comes with being tickled. If that's the case and they truly hate it, I think that should be respected, no matter how very cool it is in our fantasies 😎

Bella

 

[Novus]

Re: back at you

Hi again Novus,

When you say that people uncomfortable with tickling shouldn't bring it up, I have to respectfully disagree. How else are regular people who hate tickling supposed to let people know? But folks without the kink don't think the way we do, and if a vanilla girl seriously hates being tickled she's likely to tell anyone she might be getting physical with-especially in an ad or personal where she's supposed to tell her likes and dislikes. And remember, since most girls don't even know we ticklers exist, they don't *know* that they're fueling your fire by mentioning tickling, in their minds it's highly annoying but innocuous-I believe it's usually honesty, not a challenge.

I see your point but there is really no need to mention tickling if you don't want to be tickled. Ticklers by all account are still a rarity, so rare that most don't even know we exist. She will likely never be tickled in the normal dating world. If a girl truely really hates to be tickled and some tickling does come her way then she should talk about it to her boyfriend in one of those dreaded <I>lets talk</I> moments. If the boyfriend is a ticklephile then that would be the end of the relationship. This is the way most relationships seem to work.

Speaking of challenges, I found your comment on the 'no kissing' thing being seen as a challenge very interesting. It seems as though many guys feel that females like to play games, but a girl stating her feelings and limits is seen as throwing down a gauntlet of sorts. Are there no girls out there who say what they mean and mean what they say? Dating must be a bit of a tragicomedy these days: if you don't mention what you hate and he does it, it's your fault for not telling him. But if you state it very clearly and he does it anyway, it's your fault for bringing it to his attention and therefore making it a challenge. I suspect that 'damned if ya do damned if ya don't' deal has caused a lot of misunderstandings and elbow-induced toothlessness amongst young suitors 😱 .

Bella

It is a known fact that females do play games. Being a gentleman does not get anyone a girlsfriend but girls that are just friends. If you don't try to steal that kiss then you going to be just friends. Did your boyfriends ever ask to kiss you first, or did they just do it? Of course dating is tragicomedy and people have been writing about it since the dawn of time. Misunderstandings usually don't lead to such violence. There are much subtler ways to get the message across. Getting a little touchy feelly with her before you tickle her is a good way to anticipate her reactions. If she says "hands off" or pulls away then tickling her would be out of line. If she really does not want to be touched she won't even let you get that far. As I said before non-con tickling is not about violating anyone's dignity. Relationships in general are about trust and compromise and these things cannot be asked for but just happen and if it does not then that is the risk we all take.

 

[BellaRisa]

Back atcha 2

I see your point but there is really no need to mention tickling if you don't want to be tickled. Ticklers by all account are still a rarity, so rare that most don't even know we exist. She will likely never be tickled in the normal dating world. If a girl truely really hates to be tickled and some tickling does come her way then she should talk about it to her boyfriend in one of those dreaded <I>lets talk</I> moments. If the boyfriend is a ticklephile then that would be the end of the relationship. This is the way most relationships seem to work.



It is a known fact that females do play games. Being a gentleman does not get anyone a girlsfriend but girls that are just friends. If you don't try to steal that kiss then you going to be just friends. Did your boyfriends ever ask to kiss you first, or did they just do it? Of course dating is tragicomedy and people have been writing about it since the dawn of time. Misunderstandings usually don't lead to such violence. There are much subtler ways to get the message across. Getting a little touchy feelly with her before you tickle her is a good way to anticipate her reactions. If she says "hands off" or pulls away then tickling her would be out of line. If she really does not want to be touched she won't even let you get that far. As I said before non-con tickling is not about violating anyone's dignity. Relationships in general are about trust and compromise and these things cannot be asked for but just happen and if it does not then that is the risk we all take.

Novus,

First-I/m really enjoying this, I'm seeing a different point of view that I appreciate-thanks! 🙂

Now then: I'm weirded out a trifle when you say that a girl will likely never be tickled in the normal dating world. Maybe my experience has been different, but virtually *every* boyfriend I've ever had liked to tickle, and NONE of them were 'into it' until very recently. Same goes for nearly every girl I know! It's a common thing that often just happens, as I believe you yourself said in an earlier post on this very thread. They certainly didn't tickle to the extent that guys here love to, but they definitely loved to do it-especially in high school and college. Seems like there was always somebody getiing the crap tickled out of them in the dorms (ah, memories.) Quite frankly, it's a damn good and 'innocent' way to get your hands on a girl and be a joker at the same time-lots of non-ticklephile guys like to make a girl laugh and swear and scream. And most every girl I know has had someone-a daddy, a big brother or uncle-who tickled the bejeezus out of them when they were little. Grampas are famous for this too. Childhood and early adolescence was where most females I know came to dislike it, and many of them keep that sense of loathing into adulthood. I love to be tickled, but I can completely understand why a person would add that they hate it to an ad where they were trying to find the right person for them-since it would be a person who didn't tickle them, shouldn't they mention that? Don't get me wrong, I actually see why you feel that they shouldn't even bring it up if they don't like it, but part of not being a girl who plays games is being upfront and honest, and I would think that listing your dislikes would be part of that. 😎

Your second paragraph really got me thinking. I'll tell you straight up that I ONLY dated gentlemen, and all of them asked before they kissed me on that first or second date-including the one I married. They were sexy because of how they asked me, rather than trying to get away with it. Often it wasn't verbal, but the way they leaned in with that questioning look that every girl knows. The look that clearly asks but still leaves it up to you. (I cannot tell you how sexy that is.) Once that initial contact is established then hands and fingers can certainly wander a bit, but trying to 'steal' it got negative reactions, especially once I was past high school and became a woman.

I really like and appreciate you're saying that "Getting a little touchy feelly with her before you tickle her is a good way to anticipate her reactions". You're absolutely right-unless you're talking about a girl that already told you not to tickle her. Trying it after you've started making her feel good in other ways can be like a bucket of cold water, from what other girls have told me. I can vouch for that actually; if a guy keeps trying something you know that he knows you're opposed to, you're going to feel like he's all about himself and can't control himself and won't respect your wishes-or like he feels that once he's 'got your motor running' he can do whatever he pleases, and that's a major turnoff.

Your comment about trust and compromise just happening disturbed me a little-that might be why the divorce rate is up to 60 percent. I've been in an alternative marriage for going on ten years, and let me tell you that trust and compromise need to be not only asked for, but discussed and negotiated and re-negotiated constantly as people grow and change. The risk you mention is there in every relationship, but it's far less of a factor if those involved communicate and ask for what they want and need. I'm going to be a little blunt here and say that the differences between boy and girls dating and men and women in relationships seems to revolve around lack of communication, game playing, not saying what you mean, and doing what you think the opposite sex expects rather than being who you are. I don't think you can have a real relationship until you get tired of all that 😎 .

Bella

PS. THANK YOU for saying that "non-con tickling is not about violating anyone's dignity." Some guys don't feel that way, I'm very glad that you do .

 

[Novus]

Additional comments to bella

I'm weirded out a trifle when you say that a girl will likely never be tickled in the normal dating world. Maybe my experience has been different, but virtually *every* boyfriend I've ever had liked to tickle...

Tickling is not unheard of in the vanilla dating world but it is not really that common either. I am in college now and I don't see any tickling going and don't think I am not looking either. Back to the subject of putting that you don't like tickling in a personal ad. When they put that there it will attract my attention and as a result warrants at least some more investigation into this girl over girls who say nothing about tickling.

Your second paragraph really got me thinking. I'll tell you straight up that I ONLY dated gentlemen, and all of them asked before they kissed me on that first or second date-including the one I married. They were sexy because of how they asked me, rather than trying to get away with it. Often it wasn't verbal, but the way they leaned in with that questioning look that every girl knows. The look that clearly asks but still leaves it up to you. (I cannot tell you how sexy that is.) Once that initial contact is established then hands and fingers can certainly wander a bit, but trying to 'steal' it got negative reactions, especially once I was past high school and became a woman.

There are not many gentlemen out there these days. The gentleman routine just does not seem to work in my experience. If it is true that they did not ask you with words then mybe they weren't such gentlemen after all. Gentlemen don't have wandering fingers either. From the what you have said it is almost as if the kiss was stolen and the tickling non-consensual. In another thread you talked about implied permission. Is that not a game? A game that you claim never to play with men.

I really like and appreciate you're saying that "Getting a little touchy feelly with her before you tickle her is a good way to anticipate her reactions". You're absolutely right-unless you're talking about a girl that already told you not to tickle her. Trying it after you've started making her feel good in other ways can be like a bucket of cold water, from what other girls have told me.

It is very important that the girl is atleast comfortable with touching before any non-consensual tickling is done otherwise she may feel violated. This even goes for girls who said "no" before because they may only have said "no" because they were uncomfortable with you at that point in the relationship. Going physical changes the relationship and her feelings and there is no way to know for sure until she is tested. I have always said there is difference between tickling a girl and violating her. By touching her first and building trust I can tickle her without her feeling violated even if she still hates to be tickled. Of course this could backfire but atleast then I would know we are incompatible.

Your comment about trust and compromise just happening disturbed me a little-that might be why the divorce rate is up to 60 percent. I've been in an alternative marriage for going on ten years, and let me tell you that trust and compromise need to be not only asked for, but discussed and negotiated and re-negotiated constantly as people grow and change. The risk you mention is there in every relationship, but it's far less of a factor if those involved communicate and ask for what they want and need.

You cannot ask someone to trust you or love you and expect it to be sincere. It really just has to happen and then you know. Negotiation and re-negotiation only prolongs the enevitable if they are incompatible with eachother. The reason why the divorce rate is up to 60% these days is because people have realized you don't have to live with a mistake you made when you were 20 for the rest of your life. To me it is best to find out in reasonable time if things will work otherwise move on.

BTW I have had a great time discussing this topic with you. Thank you for your opinion it is highly valued. Thanks.

 

[BellaRisa]

Re: Additional comments to bella

Tickling is not unheard of in the vanilla dating world but it is not really that common either. I am in college now and I don't see any tickling going and don't think I am not looking either. Back to the subject of putting that you don't like tickling in a personal ad. When they put that there it will attract my attention and as a result warrants at least some more investigation into this girl over girls who say nothing about tickling.

There are not many gentlemen out there these days. The gentleman routine just does not seem to work in my experience. If it is true that they did not ask you with words then mybe they weren't such gentlemen after all. Gentlemen don't have wandering fingers either. From the what you have said it is almost as if the kiss was stolen and the tickling non-consensual. In another thread you talked about implied permission. Is that not a game? A game that you claim never to play with men.

It is very important that the girl is atleast comfortable with touching before any non-consensual tickling is done otherwise she may feel violated. This even goes for girls who said "no" before because they may only have said "no" because they were uncomfortable with you at that point in the relationship. Going physical changes the relationship and her feelings and there is no way to know for sure until she is tested. I have always said there is difference between tickling a girl and violating her. By touching her first and building trust I can tickle her without her feeling violated even if she still hates to be tickled. Of course this could backfire but atleast then I would know we are incompatible.

You cannot ask someone to trust you or love you and expect it to be sincere. It really just has to happen and then you know. Negotiation and re-negotiation only prolongs the enevitable if they are incompatible with eachother. The reason why the divorce rate is up to 60% these days is because people have realized you don't have to live with a mistake you made when you were 20 for the rest of your life. To me it is best to find out in reasonable time if things will work otherwise move on.

BTW I have had a great time discussing this topic with you. Thank you for your opinion it is highly valued. Thanks.

Novus,

First, I'm sorry to add your entire message but I haven't learned how to do the individual quotes thing yet (how do you DO that?)🙄

As I said, when I was dating and in college just 10 yrs ago, tickling was seriously all over the place-I lived in a coed dorm and was a theatre major, tickling was everywhere;it was a groovy thing indeed! I'm sorry you're having a different experience 🙁.

And again, I see what you mean about the ads, but keep in mind that non-ticklers wouldn't think of it the way you and I would. If a girl mentioned in a personal that she really, truly hated black olives I doubt you'd be compelled to investigate and wonder about it (and if you would, um, don't tell me ) whereas an olive fetishist (you just KNOW they're out there with their own forum and chatroom) might think "hot damn, she said the 'O' word, that's gotta be a challenge or she wouldn't even bring it up!" (insert lip licking and self touching). If you placed an ad and said that you despised '80's hair bands, and a girl hooked up with you determined to get you deeply into RATT or Poison, wouldn't you be annoyed and wonder if she could read?

We may have to agree to disagree on this aspect, because from what I know vanillas just don't focus on the stuff we do, and to me a non-ticklephile girl saying she hates it in her ad means she wants to meet a nonticklephile guy who won't tickle her. Really, I see it as stating a fact, not calling attention 🙂.

From what I can tell, there's lots of gentlemen out there-they're just not as loud as the rude and the ass-like. I hang with several single guys, and they're gentlemen every one-and not just in front of me, their girlfriends vouch for this. Granted, I may have a different definition of gentleman than you do. Bottom line: someone who treats a girl with the utmost respect and doesn't try to take what I will give freely if I want to and WHEN I want to. And a gentleman can most definitely have 'wandering fingers' once he knows me and knows I'm comfortable with it. Finding that out has nothing to do with stealing or playing games, but listening to me and doing what's appropriate. Really, there's a difference between just kissing a girl quickly like a teenager scared she wouldn't do it otherwise, and waiting for the right moment, leaning in slowly with his hand on her chin, making his desire obvious but giving her the option of saying no or not yet, or leaning toward him for that kiss-implied permission. That to me is sexy yet respectful (and usually works!) and perhaps the epitome of 'gentleman'. The same goes for touching. If a man puts his hands on me, I can easily let him know if he may explore further or not-place his hands where I want them versus gently removing them, snuggle closer to him as opposed to sitting a bit farther away...sending proper signals and game-playing are two very different things. Signaling is moving his hands from my waist or shoulders to a more intimate (and/or ticklish) place. Game-playing is saying no when you mean yes, and other nonsense that apparently many young girls are out there doing. (You have my sympathy if that's the case).

"By touching her first and building trust I can tickle her without her feeling violated even if she still hates to be tickled."

I agreed with this whole paragraph, you're more of a gentleman than you think!

Um, in my experience (and yours may be very different) you can most definitely ask for love and ask for trust and have it be sincere! My husband and I asked those things of each other a long time ago, and we still have them through all *kinds* of weirdness and bond-testing issues, from BDSM to babies. I think I know what you mean though: you don't just walk up to someone and say "Hey YOU, LOVE ME FOREVER DAMMIT" and expect it to work. I don't know how long your relationships have been, if you've been married or lived with someone or had to share raising children (and it's none of my beeswax) but a solid union demands negotiation, and re-negotiation as you and your situation evolve. I understand what you mean on negotiation prolonging the inevitable if they're incompatible, and you've hit on a key factor: negotiating doesn't work if they don't belong together in the first place, nothing does. BUT, it works beautifully if they are indeed compatible and everyone gets what they want and need.

You yourself said that relationships in general are about trust and compromise. Those things don't really just happen in lasting relationships, in my experience and observation. The beginnings of them do, like falling in love in the first place, based on attraction and personality-but to maintain them you have to constantly communicate with your partner. I totally agree with you that many marriages end because people aren't foolishly staying in bad ones, but trust me as someone with several divorced friends of all ages: a huge reason is non-communication and assumptions, and expecting things to 'just happen' rather than working on them. When I say that we asked for love and trust, I must include that we agreed to talk things out and do our best to compromise-it works, at least it has for a decade with no signs of failure up ahead 🙂.

Bella

 

[Phineas]

Novus,

what I'm getting from your posts is that you see tickling and other forms of interaction as different from one another (re: hot pokers). Fundamentally though, I wonder how you can justify completely ignoring someone's request not to have something done to them, regardless of what it is, because *you* have decided it's okay. Who are you to judge their preferences?

Let's look at it regardless of context, dating prejudice, mixed messages, apples, oranges, or small green monkeys from the planet Bazingi.

Other person says: "I don't want you to do ____________ to me".

You say: "Because I have decided ___________ is okay, I will do it to you anyway."

That, fundamentally, is what it comes down to. It doesn't matter if ________ is tickling, golden showers, violet wands, hair-brushing, making lunch, or jogging. The person has gone out of their way to say "no". You brushed it off because in your mind, it's "just hair-brushing. People brush their hair all the time. She's just being silly."

You don't see something wrong with this line of thinking? I don't think non-con ticklers are getting stereotyped because the rest of us are all mean. It's happening because of attitudes like the above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here.

 

[starfires]

Novus: Now as for people who bring up the subject of tickling in their first introduction are either clueless as how to keep ticklers away or are making a challenge.
People who bring up the subject of tickling in their first introduction are either clueless as to how to keep you, Novus, away or are making a challenge. How do you know it's not you who is clueles as to how to keep ticklers away? The way to keep me away is to bring up tickling in their introduction in a "don't do it" context.

Novus, while arguing that hot pokers are different from tickling in that tickling occurs normally in relationships while hot pokers do not: Tickling is still rather normal and happens all the time we just see it in a sexual way.
Then:
Novus, while arguing that silence on the subject is usually sufficient to prevent tickling in relationships: She will likely never be tickled in the normal dating world.
Notice any disparity here?

Novus: If a girl truely really hates to be tickled and some tickling does come her way then she should talk about it to her boyfriend in one of those dreaded lets talk moments.
Do I understand correctly, that in your worldview "those dreaded let's talk moments" are different from regular interactions in that during those times people say what they mean and mean what they say, and at other times they do not?
If so, then I claim that a personal ad is also one of those times. Specifically, regardless of anything else, the things listed under the "Turn Offs" heading really are turn offs.

Novus: It is a known fact that females do play games. Being a gentleman does not get anyone a girlsfriend but girls that are just friends.
Those females shoot themselves in the foot: they rob themselves (and others) of the essential ability to speak and be understood. Correction: Some females sometimes play games. Being a gentleman does not get anyone a girlfriend that often plays games. By "playing games" here I mean teasing by saying the opposite (or otherwise deliberately sending signals to the opposite effect) of what one means, and expecting to be ignored. By "being a gentleman" I mean interpreting all signals (verbal and nonverbal) as genuine, and asking verbally when in doubt. If you mean different things by those terms, I apologize for misunderstanding. If you treat your dates in a certain way, you will have relationships with those who expect to be treated in that way. For that reason, if a woman says No to me while her body language clearly indicates a Yes, I back off. If she doesn't get the hint, I don't want to date her. Exception: explicit negotiation in advance, such as when I am told in plain text: "If while you are tickling me I yell 'Stop!', you may ignore that and continue to tickle me.".

bella: I'll tell you straight up that I ONLY dated gentlemen, and all of them asked before they kissed me on that first or second date-including the one I married. They were sexy because of how they asked me, rather than trying to get away with it.
Gee, I wonder what it is about people that are into alternative relationships that makes us find unambiguous use of language so useful and sexy? 🙂

Novus: Back to the subject of putting that you don't like tickling in a personal ad. When they put that there it will attract my attention and as a result warrants at least some more investigation into this girl over girls who say nothing about tickling.
Back to the original question of this thread. If there was a phrase she could put in her ad that would clearly indicate that she is not interested in any tickling, wouldn't she want to put it there? Wouldn't you want her to put it there, so that you wouldn't waste your time and hers by responding to her ad?

Phineas: You brushed it off because in your mind, it's "just hair-brushing. People brush their hair all the time. She's just being silly."
Or the opposite: "Hair-brushing is rather uncommon by default, so if she mentioned it, she wants it!"

 

[Novus]

More of my replies

Novus,

First, I'm sorry to add your entire message but I haven't learned how to do the individual quotes thing yet (how do you DO that?)🙄

It is very easy. Just type what you want in these brackets [*QUOTE][*B] -put quote here- [*/B][*/QUOTE] and then remove the asterics to make a quote.

And again, I see what you mean about the ads, but keep in mind that non-ticklers wouldn't think of it the way you and I would. If you placed an ad and said that you despised '80's hair bands, and a girl hooked up with you determined to get you deeply into RATT or Poison, wouldn't you be annoyed and wonder if she could read?

We may have to agree to disagree on this aspect, because from what I know vanillas just don't focus on the stuff we do, and to me a non-ticklephile girl saying she hates it in her ad means she wants to meet a nonticklephile guy who won't tickle her. Really, I see it as stating a fact, not calling attention 🙂.

I absolutely see what you are saying that in some of the ads girls simply are stating facts. I think the ads that I did not list in the origional thread are as important ones I did list. I passed over several ads by girls who simple wrote tickling as a turn off. Another I remember was one who wrote she likes laughing and then in parentheses wrote "not tickling" and I also passed her ad by. But I really see putting "don't even think about tickling me" as a chalenge. If I dated her and tickled her then I would not even have went against what she said. She only told me not to think about tickling her. Angain the same thing with the girl who says "don't you dare tickle me." By using the word <I>dare</I> they are daring me to do it. It is subtle things that make a world of difference.

Granted, I may have a different definition of gentleman than you do. Bottom line: someone who treats a girl with the utmost respect and doesn't try to take what I will give freely if I want to and WHEN I want to. And a gentleman can most definitely have 'wandering fingers' once he knows me and knows I'm comfortable with it.

It seems as if I do have different definition of a gentleman then you do. To me a true gentlemen does not kiss without asking and they don't touch without being touched first. The essance of non-consensual tickling is to get comfortable with her and then tickle her without asking.

Finding that out has nothing to do with stealing or playing games, but listening to me and doing what's appropriate. Really, there's a difference between just kissing a girl quickly like a teenager scared she wouldn't do it otherwise, and waiting for the right moment, leaning in slowly with his hand on her chin, making his desire obvious but giving her the option of saying no or not yet, or leaning toward him for that kiss-implied permission. That to me is sexy yet respectful (and usually works!) and perhaps the epitome of 'gentleman'. The same goes for touching. If a man puts his hands on me, I can easily let him know if he may explore further or not-place his hands where I want them versus gently removing them, snuggle closer to him as opposed to sitting a bit farther away...sending proper signals and game-playing are two very different things. Signaling is moving his hands from my waist or shoulders to a more intimate (and/or ticklish) place.

I agree with most of what you said here. The last sentence in particular is very intesting. It is the last move made before the tickling but most (all) girls are not expecting it. This why I say tickling is always non-consensual with me. If she didn't mind being tickled too much I will tickle her again longer and harder next time with less warning.

Game-playing is saying no when you mean yes, and other nonsense that apparently many young girls are out there doing. (You have my sympathy if that's the case).

"By touching her first and building trust I can tickle her without her feeling violated even if she still hates to be tickled."

I agreed with this whole paragraph, you're more of a gentleman than you think!

That is because I used to be a gentleman and know how to treat a lady with the utmost respect. Only things are changing now because relationships are not built on respect alone.

You yourself said that relationships in general are about trust and compromise. Those things don't really just happen in lasting relationships, in my experience and observation. The beginnings of them do, like falling in love in the first place, based on attraction and personality-but to maintain them you have to constantly communicate with your partner.

My point of view is about starting relationships and finding out compatibility in the beginning. You are probably right about talking things out to maintain the relationship but all that will be in vain if I make mistakes now and compromise on campatibility. I will not settle for a mismatch that will ultimatly end in disaster.

Other person says: "I don't want you to do ____________ to me".

You say: "Because I have decided ___________ is okay, I will do it to you anyway."

That, fundamentally, is what it comes down to. It doesn't matter if ________ is tickling, golden showers, violet wands, hair-brushing, making lunch, or jogging. The person has gone out of their way to say "no". You brushed it off because in your mind, it's "just hair-brushing. People brush their hair all the time. She's just being silly."

You don't see something wrong with this line of thinking? I don't think non-con ticklers are getting stereotyped because the rest of us are all mean. It's happening because of attitudes like the above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, here.

You don't have a complete understanding of where I am comming from. There are many other factors that go into making the final decision of whether to tickle or not to tickle. There has to be a high level of emotional and physical comfort with the girl before I would tickle her. Trust is also very important. If there is no trust she will end up feeling violated. No one wants to feel violated and non-consensual tickling is not about violating the girl.

When a girl says "I don't want you to do tickle to me." the question of why she said it must be answered. Did she say it because she is not comfortable with me and does not trust me? If this is the case then what she is really saying is "don't violate me." in which case I won't. If I were to get her to become more comfortable with me and knew that she trusted me only then would I consider tickling her.

Another case is the girl who says "If you tickle me, I will hurt you." What exactly does that mean. She is not directly saying that she does not want to be tickled. Of course the whole issue of trust and comfort applies here as well but there is more. Even if she consented to be tickled she still might hurt you because she is just a really wild ticklee. She may even really like to be tickled but she is just warning us that she is a handful.

Yes, we non-consensual ticklers are being stereotyped. Not that it is anyone's fault though. The stereo type is that non-consensual ticklers are a bunch of tickle rapers and this repeated constantly in tickling <B>fiction</B>. This is far from the truth of who we really are. We still think tickling and laughing is good yet very sexy fun. If the girl does not enjoy it on atleast some level then something is wrong and that is not what non-consensual tickling is about.

Once again thank you for your time.

Novus...

 

[Phineas]

When a girl says "I don't want you to do tickle to me." the question of why she said it must be answered.

Why is not an issue. The girl has told you not to do something. It's your perogative to respect her wishes regardless of why. Because it's tickling you feel the need to get inside her head and discover her "true" motivations, or what she's "really" saying. Why not just take her declaration at face value? Because you look for every loophole you can in order to get around her prohibition? When someone asks you to not poke them in the eye with a sharp stick, do you feel the need to find out WHY they won't let you blind them, or do you just listen?

I don't need to see where you're "coming from". All I see is someone who refuses to listen when people say "don't do that". That's self-serving and inconsiderate.

 

[Novus]

Additional replies to starfires

People who bring up the subject of tickling in their first introduction are either clueless as to how to keep you, Novus, away or are making a challenge. How do you know it's not you who is clueles as to how to keep ticklers away? The way to keep me away is to bring up tickling in their introduction in a "don't do it" context.[/B]

As I said to bella, I passed over several ads by girls who simply wrote tickling as a turn off. I am never said there is only one way to to keep ticklers away.

Novus, while arguing that hot pokers are different from tickling in that tickling occurs normally in relationships while hot pokers do not: Tickling is still rather normal and happens all the time we just see it in a sexual way.
Then:
Novus, while arguing that silence on the subject is usually sufficient to prevent tickling in relationships: She will likely never be tickled in the normal dating world.
Notice any disparity here?

I often come back to an old saying: that half of what people say is not what they mean and the other half of what is said is often misunderstood. This is just that case and illistrates my point.

In the first quote I am refering to tickling as being <B>normal</B> in the sense that tickling does happen to people and not something insane like hot pokers which by all accounts is unheard of and should be common sence.

In the second quote I am refering to tickling in the dating world which is different from the larger world. Most people are not tickled atleaste where I come from on dates.

Do I understand correctly, that in your worldview "those dreaded let's talk moments" are different from regular interactions in that during those times people say what they mean and mean what they say, and at other times they do not?
If so, then I claim that a personal ad is also one of those times. Specifically, regardless of anything else, the things listed under the "Turn Offs" heading really are turn offs.

I argue that a personal ad can be both. Listing tickling as a turn off is a serious moment but daring me not to tickle them is not.

 

[Phineas]

I often come back to an old saying: that half of what people say is not what they mean and the other half of what is said is often misunderstood. This is just that case and illistrates my point.

..it's not your place to decide who "really means" what they say or not, you know. When someone says "don't tickle me" it's pretty clear cut. To decide they don't really mean it is just rationalizing because you want to tickle them.

It doesn't get much simpler.

 

[Novus]

Re: Phineas

Why is not an issue. The girl has told you not to do something. It's your perogative to respect her wishes regardless of why. Because it's tickling you feel the need to get inside her head and discover her "true" motivations, or what she's "really" saying. Why not just take her declaration at face value? Because you look for every loophole you can in order to get around her prohibition? When someone asks you to not poke them in the eye with a sharp stick, do you feel the need to find out WHY they won't let you blind them, or do you just listen?

I respectfully disagree with you. Everything happens for reason. Everything said is done so for a reason. What do you mean by face value anyway? Are you refering to the literal words she says and then ignore all context and frame of reference? What you call loopholes I call the truth. I don't poke people in eyes with sticks because I <i>realize</i> it would blind them. It has nothing to do with listening and everything to do with empathy. I would never do anything to anyone that I would not wish to have done to me. This is why the cause and effect of tickling has to be broken down. The question of would tickling her make her feel violated in a way that I would not want to feel violated myself has to be answered.

I don't need to see where you're "coming from". All I see is someone who refuses to listen when people say "don't do that". That's self-serving and inconsiderate.

Please keep an open mind. I do more then just listen to what people are saying. I read their body language and am in tune with their feelings. Often my inquires do not even lead to tickling. I am never inconsiderate and have been called too nice on more then one ocasion.

..it's not your place to decide who "really means" what they say or not, you know. When someone says "don't tickle me" it's pretty clear cut. To decide they don't really mean it is just rationalizing because you want to tickle them.

It doesn't get much simpler.

It is not as clear cut as you think it is. If a girl says "don't kiss me." on the first date <B>you</B> have to decide if she still means it by the third date or that might be the end of the relationship. The same thing goes for when a girl says "I don't want to be tickled." at your first meeting. Do she still mean it after you have been kissing and touching eachother and have established a new level of trust? The only way these questions can be answered is if you understand what she really means when she said it and why she said it.

 

[Phineas]

so again, it comes back to what YOU think the person is saying, rather than what you have been asked to do or not do. That's why sexual harassment issues got so overblown, you know; people who thought they knew a person better than that person knew themselves and decided that no meant yes.

What do you mean by face value anyway? Are you refering to the literal words she says and then ignore all context and frame of reference? What you call loopholes I call the truth.

Considering this discussion stems from wanting to tickle women who've stated in their personal ads that they don't want to be tickled, yes, I am inclined to take their literal words at face value. you keep putting these scenarios into contexts that they are not supposed to be in; that being, people whom you already know.

once again; I am not talking about first dates, third dates, the Loch Ness Monster, sharp sticks, or anything else. I am talking about a simple disregard for what someone has asked you to do (or not do).

Do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you feel you can read people (empathy) perfectly every time? You must be a mind-reader! Why did we as a species invent language if empathy was all that was needed? And who are YOU to decide what someone really means? If I decide that every time you tell me "I respectfully disagree", I think you're just in denial (like arenaactor accuses everyone of being in the cop-out thread), wouldn't that be a little ridiculous? I've decided that, through empathizing with what you "really" mean, that you're actually agreeing with me. How silly is that? Very, right? But it's what you're doing here. The girl is telling you "no", you decide she means "yes" because it's what you want it to be.

You're still dancing around the question I am posing. That being, someone is asking you not to do something. It doesn't matter WHAT that something is. You decide to do it anyway because you feel they don't really mean it. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't have wasted the breath.

You keep putting these situations in the context of someone you've been dating. This thread was started about strangers; people we're "feeling out" in order to maybe begin dating, or girls who request you not do something in their personal ads. It's not a dare; you think maybe past dates have tickled them and they didn't like it so they request future dates not make the same attempt?

If my wife asks me not to put my feet up on the coffee table, I don't. I don't decide for myself that she doesn't really mean it and leave my feet up.

Once again; someone asks you not to do something. I don't care what that something is. Could be walking their dog. You decide they don't really mean it because the activity they ask you not to do is one YOU feel is okay to indulge in, regardless of their wishes. so you do. Selfish.

Yes, there is a big difference between "don't kiss me (ever)" and "don't kiss me on the first date". If a girl asked you not to kiss her, at all, yes, I would wonder why she was dating you. But the girls who are asking you not to tickle them are being pretty clear; no tickling, period. But you still do. It doesn't matter that it's tickling, or whatever; there's something they don't want you to do, but you do it anyway. This is the crux of the issue, here; and if you can't see it there's no use in me spelling it out for you over and over again.

here's another example; I am recruiting female models for TS. All over the website it is clearly plastered that I am not looking for men, that male applications will not be considered, and that the game is solely featuring women. and yet I still keep getting E-mails from gay men who want me to tickle them. people superimpose their own meanings onto things because they WANT them to be, and they figure there's no hurt in trying even if they've already been denied.

...I believe Bill Cosby had a term for that. it was "brain damage".😀

 

[Novus]

Re: Phineas

so again, it comes back to what YOU think the person is saying, rather than what you have been asked to do or not do. That's why sexual harassment issues got so overblown, you know; people who thought they knew a person better than that person knew themselves and decided that no meant yes.

Considering this discussion stems from wanting to tickle women who've stated in their personal ads that they don't want to be tickled, yes, I am inclined to take their literal words at face value. you keep putting these scenarios into contexts that they are not supposed to be in; that being, people whom you already know.

once again; I am not talking about first dates, third dates, the Loch Ness Monster, sharp sticks, or anything else. I am talking about a simple disregard for what someone has asked you to do (or not do).

So again, it comes back to you believing that I am simply disregarding what someone has asked me to do. But that is not true, I do not disregard what has been said to me. If the scenarios and contexts that I have talked about are not undeniable facts then I will not be tickling her. I am NOT creating imaginary contexts to justify tickling women against their will if that is what you are thinking. When a girl simply says "Novus, don't tickle me" and there is no other context beleive me I won't be tickling her.

If I decide that every time you tell me "I respectfully disagree", I think you're just in denial, wouldn't that be a little ridiculous? I've decided that, through empathizing with what you "really" mean, that you're actually agreeing with me. How silly is that? Very, right?

Not very silly at all becuase you would be right to think in such a way. I see where you are coming from and why you think you disagree with me. You see me as someone who disregards what people are saying and then in my own mind I make things up to justify my actions and you see this as wrong. Well I would agree with you that it is wrong to do such things.

But it's what you're doing here. The girl is telling you "no", you decide she means "yes" because it's what you want it to be.

No, that is not what I am doing. I do not just decide that she means "yes" when she says "no." When I girl says "no" she means "no" alteast in the context of that time. But she cannot see into the future and all its' ends and neither can I. Times change, references change, people change and that is when her first reply of "no" loses its' meaning and can depending on the new context be seen as a "yes."

You're still dancing around the question I am posing. That being, someone is asking you not to do something. It doesn't matter WHAT that something is. You decide to do it anyway because you feel they don't really mean it. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't have wasted the breath.

You keep putting these situations in the context of someone you've been dating. This thread was started about strangers; people we're "feeling out" in order to maybe begin dating, or girls who request you not do something in their personal ads. It's not a dare; you think maybe past dates have tickled them and they didn't like it so they request future dates not make the same attempt?

I keep putting these situations in the context of someone I've been dating because that is the only context that is relevant. I don't tickle strangers to feel them out in order to begin dating I only tickle in the context of when there is strong emotional and physical comfort. As for the requests not being dares you are probably right except in the case where the girl actually uses the word "dare." But even then I wouldn't just go and tickle her outside of the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.

If my wife asks me not to put my feet up on the coffee table, I don't. I don't decide for myself that she doesn't really mean it and leave my feet up.

Maybe I just think differently then you do but If someone told me to take my feet off the table I would do it. If I was wearing muddy boots at the time I would likely put my feet on the table again only without the boots. If it was just my feet it would be different. Context and situation is everything and so is empathy.

Yes, there is a big difference between "don't kiss me (ever)" and "don't kiss me on the first date". If a girl asked you not to kiss her, at all, yes, I would wonder why she was dating you. But the girls who are asking you not to tickle them are being pretty clear; no tickling, period. But you still do. It doesn't matter that it's tickling, or whatever; there's something they don't want you to do, but you do it anyway. This is the crux of the issue, here; and if you can't see it there's no use in me spelling it out for you over and over again.

If a girl says "don't kiss me" sure it is clear cut at the time but as time goes on things change and the clarity of it disappears. The same thing goes for tickling or whatever. If there is something they don't want me to do then I won't do it. But when the context changes the meaning of what she says has to be reevaluated. The crux of what I am saying here is that her words cannot be taken at face value if the context of why she said it changes. There is no need to spell out your position over and over again if you do not argue against what I am really saying here.

Novus...

 

[Phineas]

Novus;

it appears we've finally gotten somewhere. I see your point now, and don't disagree with it at all. 😀 I only have one other thing to say;

I keep putting these situations in the context of someone I've been dating because that is the only context that is relevant.

That's not the context the thread was started about, though. You're basically arguing that contexts change over the course of a relationship, and while this is indeed true, it's not why this discussion was started. It was started in order to get people to explain why they feel the need to impinge on others who've clearly stated a dislike of something, vis-a-vis in personal ads especially. So I again pose the question in its original form; why do some ticklers feel the need to completely disregard a person's wishes when they're pretty clearly stated, up front, as in a personal ad? (and using the word "dare" is splitting hairs, imo.)

 

[Novus]

We are getting somewhere

Novus; it appears we've finally gotten somewhere. I see your point now, and don't disagree with it at all. 😀 I only have one other thing to say;

That's not the context the thread was started about, though. You're basically arguing that contexts change over the course of a relationship, and while this is indeed true, it's not why this discussion was started. It was started in order to get people to explain why they feel the need to impinge on others who've clearly stated a dislike of something, vis-a-vis in personal ads especially. So I again pose the question in its original form; why do some ticklers feel the need to completely disregard a person's wishes when they're pretty clearly stated, up front, as in a personal ad? (and using the word "dare" is splitting hairs, imo.)

First a little history. This thread started out in responce to another theard in which I posted my comments on some personal ads I had found on internet dating services. A few girls put things like "don't tickle me, or I'll hurt you" and "don't you dare tickle me" in their personal ads. I posted under the link to the ad "sounds like chalenge." I was taken out of context and stereotyped as one these tickle rapers. The question here is targeted at something that does not exist and is untrue. I started posting in this thread to set the record straight.

I can only speak for myself but I never disregard a person's wishes when they're pretty clearly stated, up front, as in a personal ad. To fully understand this it is important to look at the ads I did not post in the origional thread. Many girls simply wrote tickling as a turn off. When a girl lists tickling as a turn off there is likely no other context in which her feelings would be different. As for the others different contexts can be built by dating them and getting to know them. When I use the word "chalenge" I am refering to it is going a "chalenge" as in difficult to get them into the different context where I could tickle them. I would never tickle them until the context had changed and I was sure she would not react badly.

I hope things are mostly cleared up now. Thank you for your time and understanding.

 

[starfires]

Re: We are getting somewhere

Originally posted by Novus First a little history. This thread started out in responce to another theard in which I posted my comments on some personal ads I had found on internet dating services. A few girls put things like "don't tickle me, or I'll hurt you" and "don't you dare tickle me" in their personal ads. I posted under the link to the ad "sounds like chalenge." I was taken out of context and stereotyped as one these tickle rapers. The question here is targeted at something that does not exist and is untrue. I started posting in this thread to set the record straight.

As long as you actually take the time to find out what they mean, I have no problem with your interpretation. However, be prepared for a disappointment.

When I use the word "chalenge" I am refering to it is going a "chalenge" as in difficult to get them into the different context where I could tickle them. I would never tickle them until the context had changed and I was sure she would not react badly.

I stand corrected. One would think that I'd learn to read for content with all the talk of unambiguous communication that I've been spewing. I was reading that as "I think the girl is challenging me to tickle her." Thank you for clearing that up.
Minor point: in my social circles (since I can only speak for those) it is considered a bad taste to enter a relationship expecting the other person to change. If you are going to date somebody, it would be wise to mention early that you will try to get them to accept tickling later on. That way they can make a rational decision whether to proceed before they get too attached to you.

 

[Novus]

Re: Re: We are getting somewhere

Minor point: in my social circles (since I can only speak for those) it is considered a bad taste to enter a relationship expecting the other person to change. If you are going to date somebody, it would be wise to mention early that you will try to get them to accept tickling later on. That way they can make a rational decision whether to proceed before they get too attached to you.

Possibly another issue involving ambiguous communication. To me when I think of change I am not refering to changing them as a person. I am refering to changing the relationship with them. At first all relations start off as strangers. Then there is introduction and dating. Then you get into the attachment of the whole boyfriend-girlfriend thing. The girl saying "no tickling" in the personal ad is saying it in the context of we as strangers. There is the posibility that her feelings about me tickling her would be different by the time we reach the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. I think you would agree that it is naive to think that her feelings toward me would not change after we have been dating.

Originally posted by Amnesiac_m(pc)I admit, but if adopted, it could be the foundation of a sort of Handbook of Universally Accurate Interpretations for exclusive use here on the TMF.

Only this debate is not about the TMF. There are millions of people outside the TMF who don't even know this place exists. These are people who most of us will be dating and building relationships with.

On a side note thank you for delurking and posting here with us. We always welcome new people and new ideas.

 

[Novus]

Oh no you don't

There is no such thing as relurking. I tried to relurk after making just one post and it did not work. I ended up posting again after just two days and then I was hooked. That thread about lurking is still around here someplace.